How’s this for a business plan:

I’m a credit card company. Market research shows me that a sizable number of people use credit cards as a convenience and pay off their balances monthly. I make money that way – I charge merchants a fee for each purchase. Merchants are OK with it, as people tend to spend more money when they use credit cards versus cash.

But it’s not enough. I want more. There’s a market niche out there that I need to exploit -kids. I will have my marketing department get hold of the names of all kids graduating from high school each year, and I bombard them with offers. Parents might object, but the kids are 18, legal adults, so screw the parents.

Enough of these kids sign up for cards (I’m bombarding college campuses too), and few of these kids know anything about compound interest. They are on tight budgets … they are young, and I know they are going to do some impulsive spending. I’m going to make it easy for them. Then I’m going to make their minimum monthly payments so low that it’s like a siren song – don’t pay me off… don’t pay me off… Kids will run up balances.

Here’s the hook. My interest rates are so high that most of the minimum payment I charge is interest, so the balances aren’t paid down. Pretty soon these kids will lave large balances, and will be making interest payments to me in the area of 22-29% per annum (usury laws are a thing of the past – I had something to do with that.)

It’s beautiful. I have staked a claim to a portion of these kids’ income now and for years to come. They’ll be working their low-pay jobs, and I’ll be siphoning off a good cut for myself. I’ll spend my idle time thinking up new ways to charge them more – excessive late payment fees, jacking up interest rates if they are late on a phone bill – any way to squeeze an extra buck out of them.

The flow of wealth is upward. I’ve staked a claim to the wealth produced by the lowest wage earners among us.

Congress is timid – I’ve bought most of them. But a few of the more recalcitrant ones might suggest laws that prohibit me from marketing to kids (and the elderly – my other lucrative market). They might even suggest usury laws. I’ll put a stop to that. Thanks be that there are only a few people in congress that I don’t intimidate.

Ah, human weaknesses to exploit. It’s what I do. I love it. Greed is good. It’s a wonderful life.

Education Note: Kids should not leave high school without having learned something about the dangers of credit cards and compound interest. It’s the least they can do for the kids.

Fox News reports that Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been in touch with Governor Rod Blagojevich, and had presented him with a list of acceptable candidates to fill Obama’s senate seat.

Emanuel is widely credited with engineering the Democratic takeover of the House in the 2006 election. But closer examination tells a different story. John Walsh, writing in Counterpunch, tells of Emanuel’s efforts that year to infuse the House with new pro-war Democrats.

Long ago Rahm chose 22 key races, open or Republican seats, where Dems might win. By any reasonable criteria, all the candidates chosen by Rahm, save perhaps for one, were pro-war as is Emanuel himself. In two cases Rahm had to put in considerable dollars and effort in the primaries to drive out antiwar candidates. He drove out Cegelis in Illinois’s 6th CD, at the cost of one million dollars, in favor of Tammy (“Stay the course”) Duckworth who lost in the general election. In California’s 11th CD primary, Emanuel backed the prowar Steven Filson who lost to the antiwar candidate, Jerry McNerney, who went on to win in the general election.

It’s a sure bet that Emanuel’s list of acceptable senate candidates will be pro-war, and that Duckworth will be on it. (She is an Iraq vet who lost her legs over there, but still supports Bush’s war effort.) Hopefully she will be tarnished by being on the list, and will have to move on.

Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find that 13 were defeated, and only 8 won! (One is still undecided.) [9 eventually won.]And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm’s favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy Duckworth, for example, was infused with $3 million ­ and was backed in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm’s choices accounted for 8!

Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm’s efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm’s choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost.

Emanuel will be the gatekeeper for Obama, and the arbiter of many positions of power over policy. Two things about him are evident: – he is rabidly pro-Israel (a dual citizen), and pro-Iraq war.

Progressives are in for many more unpleasant surprises as this caterpillar administration becomes a full butterfly.

From the Guardian: Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez of Chile had some strong words for Madonna at a mass he said recently. Madonna was in Chile for a concert on December 10. Said the card,

“This woman comes here and in an incredibly shameless manner she provokes a crazy enthusiasm, an enthusiasm of lust, lustful thoughts, impure thoughts.”

Medina began his homily with lofty praise for General Augusto Pinochet.

Dick Cheney attempted to persuade Senate Republicans to support the auto bailout last night, to no avail. He said it would be “Herbert Hoover” time if the bill was not passed.

Word this morning from Huffington Post is that the White House will consider using Wall Street bailout money for the deal.

According to a Gallup poll released on December 1, labor unions continue to be very popular among the American public. 59% of those surveyed continue to hold a favorable view of unions. About 16 million Americans belong to unions, but 60 million (out of a work force of 153 million) say they would belong if they could.

That says something about the effectiveness of anti-organizing efforts in this country. 44 million people want a choice that is not offered them.

There’s been a steady stream of anti-union propaganda from 1936 forward, when the National Association of Manufacturers first decided to go on the attack. Yet union favorability ratings during that time have only fallen from 72% to 59%. That says something for the basic democratic instincts of the public.

68% of the middle class support the Employee Free Choice Act, or “card check”. The proposed law would make it easier to form a union, and is strongly opposed by business and Republicans, and probably a whole lot of Democrats as well (not openly).

According to Jewish tradition, in every generation there are 36 righteous people (the “Lamed Vav Tzadikim”) in whose merit the world continues to exist.

That would be me, my wife, four of the five kids (I’ll let them figure it out), Bob Garner, John Bohlinger (a Republican – had to have one of them), but I’ll be damned if I can figure out who the other 28 are. Any ideas?

News circulates on the right wing quickly, and when something is said that is not true or oversimplified, it appears here, there, and everywhere, repeated uncritically. I’m talking about the $70 per hour figure that is routinely reported as wages paid UAW auto workers by Ford, GM, and Chrysler.

First, the number does not represent actual wages paid these employees – rather, it is a number arrived at by combining current wages, pension and health benefits for all of the auto companies’ employees, past (legacy) and present. Fair enough. But a more honest way of saying that would be that auto workers have to produce $70 per hour to maintain the current load of wages, benefits, and legacy costs.

But the number isn’t used that way. The right wing is far more dishonest – they are making it seem as though fat and lazy auto workers are taking home that much in pay. They don’t often delve into detail. The result is a deliberate propagation of a myth designed to hurt the UAW, and unions in general. That’s how the right wing functions.

But there’s more to it than that. They also make it seem like the Big Three have been unrealistic in its past dealings with UAW, and made commitments it could not possibly sustain. That is part of a general dislike of labor organizations in general. It is the culture on the right wing. But there are a couple of things to consider here.

First, the $70 figure for GM is a compendium of all labor costs, current, and 432,000 retirees. (I have not been able to determine whether those retirees are UAW legacy or all of GM’s legacy. Anyone know?) (Effective January 1, 2009, 100,000 GM white collar retirees will no longer receive health benefits.) Those who are batting this figure about are leaving the impression that it is current UAW workers to blame, and no one else.

Secondly, what exactly is the blame? In 1962, for example, General Motors had 605,000 employees. In 2008, they have 266,000. Twenty years ago, they had about 107,000 American line workers – today, after a buyout of 19,000, they are down to about 54,000.

That’s the key to the $70 figure – GM’s current shrunken work force is carrying the load for past employees who existed in far greater numbers. Far from being responsible, far from the moaning and whining about irresponsible labor contracts, we’re dealing with a simple contraction. Current average UAW workers costs about $26 $40 per hour, $55 with benefits (according to NY Times – I read $28 baseline elsewhere) per hour, and new hires are coming in at $14 plus reduced benefits.

The American auto companies are faced with stiff, non-union competition, including cheap labor in other parts of the world – globalization, aka, the race to the bottom, economic efficiency – whatever you want to call it. The idea that a worker can support a family, have health care coverage and a pension is passé. The “free market” won’t allow it.

That’s the right wing – sacrifice all for those supposed “free” markets – even as those markets destroy the very things we believe in. Don’t interfere with markets, accept market outcomes as the only viable outcome, don’t protect jobs or cities or towns ….

Don’t protect industries. The economy doesn’t exist for our benefit. We exist for the economy. It appears at this time that the Republicans in the United States Senate are going to filibuster a bill that would allow a temporary fix to General Motors and Chrysler. The bill would divert $15 billion of already-appropriated money to stop the bleeding while a longer-term survival package is designed. The longer term package would hopefully address the legacy problem. It would save jobs, communities, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who depend on the auto industry. It would be a bailout. A much-needed bailout of an industry in trouble. One that has served us well for a century.

They don’t care. They are pissed about the UAW, they want it gone. They don’t like it when workers organize – it runs contrary to their strongly-held beliefs. When markets dictate that a company suffers from inefficiency or failure to anticipate market trends or simple management stupidity, that company must pay the market price. General Motors doesn’t need to exist, the jobs will reappear in other forms (for less pay).

Unless, of course, you are Citibank, AIG, Merrill Lynch or the host of other financial institutions what screwed up and are being bailed out, no questions asked, bonuses and new acquisitions ignored, no questions about wage levels.

It is utterly contemptible hypocrisy.

Addendum It bears repeating here that the major competitor to the Big Three, Toyota, would not exist were it not for government subsidy and protection.

Glenn Greenwald repeats a rumor that Gen. Michael Hayden — Bush’s former NSA Director — will remain on as CIA Director.

This would be the ultimate betrayal – to have the guy that oversaw illegal wiretapping get an appointment as head spook. But liberals, such as those at Daily Kos, would likely take it in, internalize it, and defend it.

In another post, Greenwald talks about media reaction to former National Counterterrorism Center chief John Brennan’s withdrawal as head of the CIA.

It’s fairly typical condescension – that the liberal bloggers who raised a stink were uninformed. I’ve been watching television news all my life. I witnessed how the media handled Vietnam, Gulf War I and the Iraq invasion. I know all about uninformed pundits. Now, as I watch newspapers going down, victims of both the economy and the Internet, I can only hope that the net lives up to its true potential, and replaces the sycophant media with real watchdogs. Brennan’s withdrawal is a good sign.

I have stated in posts before now that I believe that the nature of wealth is that it flows upward from labor to capital accumulation, and downward from there in the form of reinvestment in plant and equipment that employs yet more labor – a nice system. But the great game is to grab the wealth produced by labor for one’s self. When investors do it, it is called interest, rent, capital gain and dividend. When workers do it, it is called wages, benefits, and secure retirement.

It’s always a fight between the two. In the period 1940-1980, labor had the upper hand. Right now it is capital, and labor is suffering. The best times for all of us are when there is balance.

I know of a small company whose owner is in the habit of employing ne’er do-wells and paying them $10 per hour with no benefits, quickly laying them off when work slows. The owner himself is not particularly talented – he has no mechanical skills of any note, but he does own plant and equipment due to inheritance. In the past two years alone, he has accumulated more than $60,000 in savings, mostly on the back of that $10 labor. He’s fiercely anti-union, doesn’t see why he should have to pay for unemployment, thinks Workers’ Comp is too expensive. When I first began to do accounting work for him, his employees were treated as independent contractors so as to avoid employment taxes. He’s now concerned about finding a way to extract that $60,000 from the business without having to pay taxes on the transfer. He’s anti-tax too.

I have told him time and again that his best bet for prosperity is to invest in skilled employees and pay them well. The result will be shared prosperity, the owner benefiting from ownership of capital, the workers by application of skills. No-go. He basically holds workers in contempt – I have told him of companies that pay mechanical workers $15-20 per hour plus benefits. He rolls his eyes.

Let’s be fair – it’s a combination of plant and equipment and labor that allows this owner to be able to bill out his help at $35 to $50 per hour while paying $10. The debate is, as always, about a fair split between labor and capital. (I like 50-50 as a general rule – obviously that would vary depending on capital concentration within an industry, but that’s just me.) Labor is always at a disadvantage, as there are always people willing to work for less in a high unemployment environment. The lower the skill, the less the security, the more likely one is to be replaced by someone earning less, an “independent contractor” who doesn’t qualify for benefits, or a Chinese man or woman.

Labor has very little leverage – even highly skilled engineers and computer scientists are now facing competition from Asia – unless something absolutely has to be built here, or a service rendered, there’s no reason not to outsource. Some 40% of what we call “trade” is really companies like HP and Ford manufacturing products in plants they own overseas, and bringing them here to sell. It’s nothing more than a game of arbitrage – that’s the “creativity” that justifies high pay for CEO’s.

Some business people are smart enough to see that we need a strong middle class to sustain our economy, but they cannot compete when their competitors have outsourced. So this is not about good people and bad people – it’s about a system that rewards bad behavior and punishes good.

The flow of wealth is upward, the game is to capture it before it goes by. Labor has fought for laws and rights to protect workers – minimum wage, organization of labor unions, worker safety, overtime and child labor protections. Most of those laws and rights are under attack from the right wing – that collection of workers taught to blame other workers and immigrants for their problems, wealthy people and their intellectual servants, inherited wealth, and religious bigots manipulated by wedge issues. These are the enemies of worker prosperity.

The fight over rescuing the Big Three is about labor unions. Citibank and AIG got huge bailouts, and no one asked a question about their wage structure. It’s not hard to figure – those companies are depositories of wealth for the wealthy. The Big Three are a depository of jobs, good union jobs that pay benefits. They are groveling to redirect $15 billion already appropriated to survive until January. Those opposed to the bailout are showing nothing more than contempt for workers who had the gall to organize, to fight against the race to the bottom. Big Three workers have interfered with the amassing of wealth from their labor by the people up above.

We learn as we go. Back in the 1930’s, we learned about speculative bubbles and unregulated investment. But that generation has passed, and now we have to learn all over again. During the 1950’s and 60’s, we learned that high wages produce a healthy middle class, but since 1980 we’ve been involved in class warfare – the upper classes seeking to extinguish the middle. It’s worked – the spread of wealth is more extreme now than in the 1920’s. Intellectuals will act in service of whoever happens to be in power, and we now have a huge sub-economy of think tanks and lobbying organizations who are in service of wealth. There aren’t many ‘thinkers’ out there right now who are fighting for unions, protected markets, and retirement security.

We will learn the lessons again. The only question is how deep do we have to go? How bad does it have to get? Right now our wealth is being used to bail out the wealthy – there’s been no move to help distressed homeowners . If the stock market recovers, will that be enough? Will all of the upside-down homeowners have to become renters again? Will wages go up? Will benefits return?

In other words, is there anyone in power right now who cares about the fate or ordinary main street Americans? This is Obama’s test. So far, judging by the people he has hired, C-.