The Federal Reserve System is predominantly private. All of the twelve regional reserve banks are private corporations, owned and operated by their stockholders: the nation's banks.

Similarly, the Federal Reserve is a stockholder in the Bank of International Settlements, which includes as its stockholders the reserve banks of the leading industrial countries. Each has powers similar to that of the US Federal Reserve, particularly control over each nation's currency and monetary policy.

That control in turn gives each of these reserve banks inordinate control over the economies of their respective countries. In turn, that power gives these banks inordinate control over the politicians of their respective countries.

These reserve banks are owned by their own stockholders, again, other corporations, themselves mostly owned by still other corporations. Wheels within wheels.

None, it seems, ever gets audited. They're black holes.

Your take on all this might be appreciated, at least by some of us.

Doesn't it scare you just a bit that China and Russia are ages ahead of us in computer programming?

Not even possible. Try telling that to Microsoft, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard.

Software Magazine's 500 list in 2005 shows the total amount of revenue brought in by software companies per locale, with the highest being California due to Silicon Valley and the number of Fortune 500 software companies residing in that area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_company

I think you missed my point. I want better paid scientists.

I think you missed my point. You can't have "better paid scientists" until you can at least get them employed.

We sure as heck aren't going to get back the manufacturing jobs we've lost. We'd better work on intellectual jobs.

You're sure as heck are losing the "intellectual" jobs too, and for precisely the same reason you're sure as heck losing the manufacturing jobs: US economic policies have been to sell out the country for the benefit of cheap-labor conservatives and transnational corporations who have zero attachment to the US and mean only to bleed it dry. And they're succeeding even as you watch.

Obama has done absolutely nothing to change those policies, not even lame proposals.

But until you do, and unless you do, no economic recovery will even be possible. The US no longer has enough of a real economy overall to compensate for the losses in vulnerable industries because those losses have gone too far for too long. Everything that isn't nailed down is going to be gone.

That's my point.

We could use some encouragement to study science more.

I've posted article summaries several times to the effect that scientists in the US are a dime a dozen, and cheaper ones can always be imported anyway.

The Planned Oversupply of Scientists and Engineers

http://schoolsmatter.blogspot.com/2006/04/planned-oversupply-of-scientists-and.html

“Best And Brightest” Scientist Found Driving A Shuttle Bus

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/10/22/

And you want more scientists? Pray tell, what would be the point?

I can only conclude that Obama is at best a huge disappointment and at worst a complete phony.

Call it the Audacity of Hype.

In electing Obama America seems to have done little more than replace a brutally ugly and incompetent neocon with an attractive and well-spoken neocon. Bush Dark, as it were.

The really important positions are either the same as Bush's or end up self-sabotaged by actions (or inaction) which ensure no real change.

I'm persuaded that Obama is an outright fraud.

During the campaign, numerous persons posted specific, valid objections to several of Obama's conservative-leaning policy statements. I preferred to rationalize some of those statements as campaign rhetoric that he needed to in order to appear centrist and to get elected, and would prove to be more rational after taking office. Now it appears that Obama is very substantially more conservative than even those statements and played his campaign supporters for fools.

It could be time to concede that Hilary might have been a better choice. It might be a little early yet to concede that even McCain might have been a better choice.

Nobody really knows.

I do.

If you can find any error in the numerous analyses I've posted, be sure to point it out to me.

The person I trust most right now is Krugman

Who has already been deconstructed, and rather easily. Krugman has been unable to describe any economic process, possible under present political circumstances, which would lead to a restoration of US economic expansion.

Similar situations obtain for other issues about which Krugman is mysteriously "optimistic".

he has not been overly optimistic or pessimistic

Krugman has said he believes this and that, but hasn't said why. He has not really stated any compelling case for any of the larger economic issues for months, a situation I find passing strange.

Sorry, but stating a belief does not constitute a valid argument, and neither does wishful thinking.

Here's the deal: distortions built into the structure of the US economy caused the present economic downturn. Therefore structural economic changes are required to end it and are not optional, and no such structural changes are being made or even proposed.

If you can show otherwise, please do so and I'll reconsider my position. So far nobody has done so.

this is so wrong

The premise of the quote is that high debt makes unemployment a leading indicator.

Only indirectly, and only insofar as consumer debt is so high that it's caused available consumer credit to be reduced, and therefore makes consumer spending that much more dependent on employment.

Try looking at my explanation, posted earlier.

The pundits quoted are finance guys, and finance guys have little interest in making themselves understood to non-finance guys. They're not going to connect the dots for you. Hopefully I've done a better job of it here.