People Power

[chuck34]

You seem, as a lot of right-wing Americans do, to confuse people whose opinions are vaguely left-wing with socialists and communists. It is tiresomely simplistic.

Great argument. :rolleyes:

Arrows was clearly refering to the closer to free-market solutions that the US employed 10-30 years ago. The logical juxtiposition is socialism/communism. Soft socialism, or "European style" socialism, is still socialism.

You have a sterotype that has slowly played out over this and other converstions of all conservative Americans having exaclty the same viewpoints, and that there is apparently no possible way for those viewpoints to have any merit. From what I have seen the "right-wing Americans" mostly try to debate the points. Whereas the "left-wing Europeans" resort to ad-homonym personal attacks. It is tiresomely simplistic.

[BDunnell]

Great argument. :rolleyes:

Arrows was clearly refering to the closer to free-market solutions that the US employed 10-30 years ago. The logical juxtiposition is socialism/communism. Soft socialism, or "European style" socialism, is still socialism.

I do not think of myself as a socialist. I presume you beg to differ?

[chuck34]

I do not think of myself as a socialist. I presume you beg to differ?

Nope. Not at all. However you do advocate for some socialistic programs.

Here's a secret for you, so do I. ;) That's where you are failing to see the nuance in my arguments. I have clearly stated that there is an argument to be made for some government programs. I would just like to see a reasoned well thought out discussion of said programs before we just accept them as "good for society". Yet you just like to lump me into some sort of ignorant, red-neck, right-winger American group and dismiss my arguments out of hand. Presumably because it is easier to do than research, and think about the basis of your philosophy. I notice that I have put up evidence to support my arguments, and I have not heard one peep out of you about said evidence.

[Lousada]

http://www.motorsportforums.com/chitchat/www.dartmouth.edu/~jskinner/.../EngenSkinnerTaxEconGrowth.pdf

Page 11 of 26, figure 3A Capital Income Tax Rate vs Per Capital Real GDP Growth (Percent). The slope of the line is negative.

Page 18 of 26, figure 5 Capital Income Tax Rate vs Private Investment/GDP (Percent). The slip of the line is negative.

That you can plot two aspects in one scatter plot doesn't mean they are causically related. According to my information the dot on the top left that dramatically skews your graph is Korea. The United States should be one of the dots in the lower left. In the upper right are countries like Finland, Norway and Luxembourg. Even though the US has one of the lowest tax-burdens of the OECD, it still has a below average growth rate. I don't think you can conclude from this that tax rates and economic growth are obviously related.

The quotes you provided are predictions and not actual facts. The facts show that the average GDP growth in 00-05 (that means after Bush tax-cuts) was 1.5%. While the average GDP growth in 90-99 (that means during the Clinton tax-increases) was 2.0%. Again, there does not appear to be a clear causal relationship between economic growth and tax rates.

[ArrowsFA1]

So socialism/communisim/collectivism have been tried in the past as well, and for the most part failed. Why go back to them. History is a great teacher. Ignore history at your own peril.
Indeed, which points to the need for something new. What that is... :confused:

Coincidentally I just came across the following:

What has happened over the past 30 years is the capture of the world's common treasury by a handful of people, assisted by neoliberal policies which were first imposed on rich nations by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I am now going to bombard you with figures. I'm sorry about that, but these numbers need to be tattooed on our minds. Between 1947 and 1979, productivity in the US rose by 119%, while the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. But from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%.

In the UK, the money earned by the poorest tenth fell by 12% between 1999 and 2009, while the money made by the richest 10th rose by 37%. The Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, climbed in this country from 26 in 1979 to 40 in 2009.
The 1% are the very best destroyers of*wealth the world has ever seen | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers)

Something to think about.

[Rollo]

Could you please point to a source where it shows the historic relation between tax-burden and economic growth in the US??

No-one can do that because there is no direct correlation either way.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TUZfZAffFWI/AAAAAAAAAhQ/URLzcbTOfsg/s400/marginal1.bmp

Higher taxation rates don't hinder growth; lower taxation rates don't encourage it. Likewise Higher taxation rates don't encourage growth; lower taxation rates don't hinder it.

Capital is incredibly efficient at moving itself around an economy according to whatever taxation rules are in place. As a result the bottom line is that high or low taxation rates do nothing either way to affect growth all that much.

[chuck34]

Indeed, which points to the need for something new. What that is... :confused:

I wouldn't necessarily suggest something completely new. I would say let's go with what worked reasonable well, like the US system between 1947 and 1979. As you just pointed out in your article, the productivity in the US rose by 119%. Do you think the tax burden during that time was more or less than it is now? Do you think there were more or less regulations during that time? Sure there were issues in that time, but perhaps the "solutions" didn't really fix anything.


Coincidentally I just came across the following:

The 1% are the very best destroyers of*wealth the world has ever seen | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers)

Something to think about.

Ohhhh, those rich guys are so damn evil. Let's get them. I fail to see any analysis as to how someone being rich is stealing from me, or even preventing me from gaining wealth on my own.

Mr. Monbiot convieniently leaves out the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964 (right in the middle of his "good era"), which dramatically cut taxes on "the rich", and boosted revenues to the government (not necessarily something I would advocate for).

So yeah tax cuts alone may not be the cure all, but I don't really see how they hurt, especially if your stated goal is to boost revenue.

[ArrowsFA1]

Ohhhh, those rich guys are so damn evil. Let's get them. I fail to see any analysis as to how someone being rich is stealing from me, or even preventing me from gaining wealth on my own.
So the ever increasing rate of inequality is of no concern to you as long as you can gain wealth yourself?

[chuck34]

So the ever increasing rate of inequality is of no concern to you as long as you can gain wealth yourself?

Why should it be some sort of goal to have equality of results?

If I gain wealth, I haven't stolen anything, and there is nothing stopping someone else from doing a similar thing, what is wrong with that?

Put another way ... If I have the motivation, the skills, the know-how, and yes the luck to get ahead, why should I be forced to give away what I have worked for to someone else simply because they have less than I do? How does that benefit anyone in the long run? Taken to it's logical extension, what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances. How does that benefit society in the long run?

[Bob Riebe]

So the ever increasing rate of inequality is of no concern to you as long as you can gain wealth yourself?It has nothing to do with inequality, or at least that word that the liberals are trying to float to divide and separage the the country into class warfare.

The concern would be the same as existed when monopolies were broken up, sadly Washington does not seem to give a damn about monopolies. That would probalby becausse the Obama administration owes its existence to Wall Street which fundded its existance.

So all the sky-is-falling rhetoric one hears has noting to do with breaking up concerns of too weathy owners as was done early last century but to make the minorities, especially those who floated or waded over in the last ten years loyal Democrats.

[ArrowsFA1]

Why should it be some sort of goal to have equality of results?...what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances. How does that benefit society in the long run?
I have not proposed "equality of results". I'm raising a personal concern that inequality is increasing as evidenced by this:
...from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%
I do not believe that is justifiable, healthy or sustainable for society as a whole in the long run.

[BDunnell]

Taken to it's logical extension, what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances.

What a sad world we would live in if the only motivation anyone had for innovating, improving and making advances was making money, which is what you're suggesting.

I, certainly, have never done any job purely for the money. Do you think my lack of interest in this aspect makes me a less productive employee? That, after all, is the natural conclusion of your viewpoint.

[Eki]

Why should it be some sort of goal to have equality of results?

If I gain wealth, I haven't stolen anything, and there is nothing stopping someone else from doing a similar thing, what is wrong with that?

Put another way ... If I have the motivation, the skills, the know-how, and yes the luck to get ahead, why should I be forced to give away what I have worked for to someone else simply because they have less than I do? How does that benefit anyone in the long run? Taken to it's logical extension, what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances. How does that benefit society in the long run?
You have to remember that there isn't any bottomless resource of wealth or unlimited growth. The more you get, the less there is for others.

[chuck34]

I have not proposed "equality of results". I'm raising a personal concern that inequality is increasing as evidenced by this:
I do not believe that is justifiable, healthy or sustainable for society as a whole in the long run.

But you have proposed equality of results. I assume by your quote that you assume that if the top 1%'s wealth grows by a certain percentage, that you would want the bottom fifth's to grow by an equal amount. If that is not the case, please explain your point better. What do you want to see in your perfect society in percentage growth terms, or income distribution, or whatever else?

[chuck34]

What a sad world we would live in if the only motivation anyone had for innovating, improving and making advances was making money, which is what you're suggesting.

I, certainly, have never done any job purely for the money. Do you think my lack of interest in this aspect makes me a less productive employee? That, after all, is the natural conclusion of your viewpoint.

I wouldn't say that money is (or should be) anyone's only motivation. But to deny that it is a motivation is foolish at best. Sure some people set out to invent a product to "benefit society", but most want to see a profit in it as well.

Again let's look at a bit of an extreme example. Tommorow aliens land on earth, take over all governments, and busineses. They decree that everyone gets paid equally, no matter how productive they are. Do you expect that most people would continue to show up to their current job and continue to be just as productive as they were yesterday?

[chuck34]

You have to remember that there isn't any bottomless resource of wealth or unlimited growth. The more you get, the less there is for others.

I completely reject this statement. Economics is not a zero sum game.

[BDunnell]

I wouldn't say that money is (or should be) anyone's only motivation. But to deny that it is a motivation is foolish at best. Sure some people set out to invent a product to "benefit society", but most want to see a profit in it as well.

Again let's look at a bit of an extreme example. Tommorow aliens land on earth, take over all governments, and busineses. They decree that everyone gets paid equally, no matter how productive they are. Do you expect that most people would continue to show up to their current job and continue to be just as productive as they were yesterday?

You haven't answered my perfectly genuine question. Do you feel that my lack of interest in the money makes me a worse employee than would be the case if it were a tremendous motivation?

[chuck34]

You haven't answered my perfectly genuine question. Do you feel that my lack of interest in the money makes me a worse employee than would be the case if it were a tremendous motivation?

In your specific case, I'm sure you would say that you would work just as hard for more money or less money. That does not hold true for society as a whole. And it does not hold true for me in particular. If you tell me that no matter how hard I work this year I will get the exact same raise as the most worthless employee in my company, I know that my motivation will lessen.

[Rollo]

Put another way ... If I have the motivation, the skills, the know-how, and yes the luck to get ahead, why should I be forced to give away what I have worked for to someone else simply because they have less than I do? How does that benefit anyone in the long run? Taken to it's logical extension, what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances. How does that benefit society in the long run?

Think of it as an insurable risk question. People who are richer in society have a greater quantifiable interest in making sure that the society which enabled their wealth in the first place remains cohesive.

[Eki]

I completely reject this statement. Economics is not a zero sum game.
It may not be completely a zero sum game, but it's almost a zero sum game. There's a limit to growth and the rate of growth. Ultimately it will be a zero sum game or a negative sum game when all the resources of the world have been exploited and exhausted and the population of the world keeps on growing. I completely reject unlimited greed.

[Rollo]

In your specific case, I'm sure you would say that you would work just as hard for more money or less money. That does not hold true for society as a whole. And it does not hold true for me in particular.

How hard someone works is almost irrelevant unless they are on a piecework arrangement.

Labour like any other commodity is subject to market forces with respect to price. It has different statutory requirements and different cost drivers but it's still a commodity largely determined by the price mechanism.

I'm sure for instance that a worker in a furniture factory probably works far harder than an investment banker but because of the price mechanism a higher price is paid for the labour of investment bankers than workers in a furniture factory.


If you tell me that no matter how hard I work this year I will get the exact same raise as the most worthless employee in my company, I know that my motivation will lessen.

And?

If I was the employer and I told everyone in the firm that I was giving everyone a pay increase in line with CPI, then that's my business. If you don't happen to like it then you are free to take your labour elsewhere.

[BDunnell]

In your specific case, I'm sure you would say that you would work just as hard for more money or less money. That does not hold true for society as a whole. And it does not hold true for me in particular. If you tell me that no matter how hard I work this year I will get the exact same raise as the most worthless employee in my company, I know that my motivation will lessen.

In that case, you must see some of the 'golden handshakes' for members of senior management who leave their employer under a cloud and be disgusted, surely?

[airshifter]

You haven't answered my perfectly genuine question. Do you feel that my lack of interest in the money makes me a worse employee than would be the case if it were a tremendous motivation?


Every person is different, but without doubt financial motivation is a factor in the vast majority of working people that have bills to pay. How many people do you think would show up every day and work just as hard if their income was to remain stable and the actual work were optional?

[BDunnell]

Every person is different, but without doubt financial motivation is a factor in the vast majority of working people that have bills to pay. How many people do you think would show up every day and work just as hard if their income was to remain stable and the actual work were optional?

Does this not indicate, then, that for far too many people work is not a sufficiently pleasurable experience to want to do it for reasons other than the money?

[ArrowsFA1]

But you have proposed equality of results. I assume by your quote that you assume that if the top 1%'s wealth grows by a certain percentage, that you would want the bottom fifth's to grow by an equal amount. If that is not the case, please explain your point better. What do you want to see in your perfect society in percentage growth terms, or income distribution, or whatever else?
As I've already said, I'm raising a concern, not making a proposal. As income falls for 20% of the population it somehow rises by a massive amount for just 1% at the top. Why is that?

Would you argue that it's just those with the drive and determination reaping the rewards of their hard work, and there's nothing to prevent those among the 20% from doing the same?

What do I want to see in society? A less selfish "I'm alright Jack (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm%20all%20right%20Jack!)" mentality would be a good start.

[555-04Q2]

Every person is different, but without doubt financial motivation is a factor in the vast majority of working people that have bills to pay. How many people do you think would show up every day and work just as hard if their income was to remain stable and the actual work were optional?

Very good statement :up:

[555-04Q2]

You have to remember that there isn't any bottomless resource of wealth or unlimited growth. The more you get, the less there is for others.

Then the "others" must get off their ar$e$ and work smarter/harder to get more.

[Rollo]

But you have proposed equality of results. I assume by your quote that you assume that if the top 1%'s wealth grows by a certain percentage, that you would want the bottom fifth's to grow by an equal amount. If that is not the case, please explain your point better.

I'll explain the point better:

Alan Kohler who is the ABC's economics journalist quoted this from the New York Times:

Alan Kohler. | alankohler.com.au (http://www.alankohler.com.au/)
http://www.alankohler.com.au/sites/alankohler/files/graphs/111109%20why%20the%2099%20per%20cent%20are%20unhap py.png

Assuming an index of 100 for both cases in 1979, in 2011 the average family wage is now indexed at 137.49 whilst the top 1% has now reached an index level of 350.80.
Although indexes do not tell you the whole story, they do tell you that an average family wage is now only 37% higher than it was in 1979, whilst the for the top 1% it's 250% higher.
I ask you, is that fair?


And why is it that something as American as "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet" is now produced in Vietnam, Thailand, Kazakhstan and India?
America has already proven that given the opportunity people and forms would pay workers nothing if they could get away with it.

This video is fun if you've got 10 minutes:
Despotism : Encyclopaedia Britannica Films : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/Despotis1946)
Now ask yourself, how does America rate in 2011?

[airshifter]

Does this not indicate, then, that for far too many people work is not a sufficiently pleasurable experience to want to do it for reasons other than the money?

I don't question that at all, that is why it is called work and not called play. But reality states that there are a great number of jobs that very few people would find pleasurable. Those jobs require other incentives to get people interested and for many the primary incentive is wages.

[chuck34]

Think of it as an insurable risk question. People who are richer in society have a greater quantifiable interest in making sure that the society which enabled their wealth in the first place remains cohesive.

I would agree with that. But I leave it up to the businessmen to spend their money as they see fit. If they asked my advice, I would advise them to give to charities, work programs, training, etc. But there should not be any governmental mechanism that would FORCE them to do so.

I'll make a distinction a bit clearer. My arguments are not about what is right or wrong morally. On the moral front, I'm probably more "progressive" than many here would think. However I do not think that governments should FORCE my views of morality upon anyone. Now here comes Ben arguing that by being against abortion, I am forcing my morality upon someone. But I am not, I am protecting someone's right to life.

[chuck34]

How hard someone works is almost irrelevant unless they are on a piecework arrangement.

Why? If I get paid hourly, and I slack, there is less production, therefore less profit, therefore less money availible for raises, therefore less motivation for work, it's all a big downward spiral.

However, if there is a reward for me (as an hourly worker) to work harder, I'll get more production out, the company will be more profitable, there will be more money availible for raises, I'll get payed more, maybe in a year or so my hard work will be noticed, I'll get a promotion, make even more money, it's all a big upward spiral.


Labour like any other commodity is subject to market forces with respect to price. It has different statutory requirements and different cost drivers but it's still a commodity largely determined by the price mechanism.

Somewhat. But if you want something of good quality, wether it's a commodity or labor, you need to pay more. You get what you pay for.


I'm sure for instance that a worker in a furniture factory probably works far harder than an investment banker but because of the price mechanism a higher price is paid for the labour of investment bankers than workers in a furniture factory.

Harder actual work, you're probably right. However, who has more at risk (at least in a world without bailouts)?, who has invested more to get where he/she is?


And?

If I was the employer and I told everyone in the firm that I was giving everyone a pay increase in line with CPI, then that's my business. If you don't happen to like it then you are free to take your labour elsewhere.

Yes that is your business as an employer. However, you shouldn't be surprised when the quality of work your labor force puts out starts to slide. And yes I am free to take my labor elsewhere if I don't like my pay structure at my current company. That was the point I was making with Eki a while ago.

[chuck34]

In that case, you must see some of the 'golden handshakes' for members of senior management who leave their employer under a cloud and be disgusted, surely?

Sure, I don't think those "golden handshakes" are a good idea. That is really one of the big issues I had with the bailouts. If a company declares bankruptcy, contracts become null-and-void. Those guys would not have been "rewarded" for destroying companies. However, since the government stepped in and bailed them out, the company is not bankrupt, contracts have force of law, the jerks that drove the companies into the ground were able to word their contracts well enough that they still got bonuses etc., so they still got paid their millions.

It's unfortunate, but it is what it is. That is unless you suggest that governments should be allowed to step in and re-negotiate private contracts whenever they fell like it? Boy-howdy, that would be a horrible idea.

[chuck34]

Does this not indicate, then, that for far too many people work is not a sufficiently pleasurable experience to want to do it for reasons other than the money?

How many people do you think would find it pleasurable to pump out septic tanks (for one example)? Yet that needs to be done. What motivation other than profit do you suggest to incentivise people to take on that rather sh!tty job? :D

[chuck34]

As I've already said, I'm raising a concern, not making a proposal. As income falls for 20% of the population it somehow rises by a massive amount for just 1% at the top. Why is that?

There are a myriad of reasons that could possibly be happening. Why is it a concern to you? Shouldn't there be some personal responsiblity taken on by those 20% of people to improve their situation? Or perhaps those 20% have made a concious decision to allow their income to fall? I don't know. And honestly I don't see how it's any of my business.


Would you argue that it's just those with the drive and determination reaping the rewards of their hard work, and there's nothing to prevent those among the 20% from doing the same?

Pretty much, yes. Now I'm sure there are specific cases of actual discrimination and such, and those should be addressed, but I don't honestly think those are the majority.


What do I want to see in society? A less selfish "I'm alright Jack (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm%20all%20right%20Jack!)" mentality would be a good start.

Sure I think that would be great, if people consiously make that choice for themselves. But to get back to the Occupy Wall Street original point. That is not what those people seem to be advocating. They seem to be advocating for governmental FORCED redistribution of wealth. I am totally against that.

[chuck34]

I ask you, is that fair?

Let's assume for a second that my answer is "no", it's not fair? What do you propose to do about it?

[ArrowsFA1]

However, if there is a reward for me (as an hourly worker) to work harder, I'll get more production out, the company will be more profitable, there will be more money availible for raises, I'll get payed more, maybe in a year or so my hard work will be noticed, I'll get a promotion, make even more money, it's all a big upward spiral.
Except the evidence suggests it has not been "big upward spiral" unless you happen to be in the top 1%. Based on that evidence what is the incentive for a worker to work harder and help create profit for the company they work for?

The assumption seems to be that business should be free to create profit and use that profit in a way they deem appropriate, including rewarding employees disproportionaltely. I see that argument, but it assumes that businesses will act in the interests of employees and the wider community.

[ArrowsFA1]

Why is it a concern to you? Shouldn't there be some personal responsiblity taken on by those 20% of people to improve their situation? Or perhaps those 20% have made a concious decision to allow their income to fall? I don't know. And honestly I don't see how it's any of my business.
It's a concern to me simply because I don't live on an island...Well, the UK is an island :p ...but in the sense of "no man is an island". One way or another inequality, such as has been illustrated in this thread, affects us all.

[chuck34]

It's a concern to me simply because I don't live on an island...Well, the UK is an island :p ...but in the sense of "no man is an island". One way or another inequality, such as has been illustrated in this thread, affects us all.

Surely you do not deny that there are slackers out there that just don't care about working etc.? The income gap between those people and highly motivated people tends to be huge. What do you propose to do to close the income gap between the slackers and the motivated?

[race aficionado]

I'm seeing on the "telly" today (November 9, 2011) how "people power" is expressing itself in London with the students protesting in the streets close to the financial sector. I see a lot of young people in the streets. Good for them! - and in my opinion, good for us. Hopefully violence will be minimal - I say this because there is the chance of the radical fringe waiting for their chance to express themselves in their particular style . . . .

[Malbec]

Except the evidence suggests it has not been "big upward spiral" unless you happen to be in the top 1%. Based on that evidence what is the incentive for a worker to work harder and help create profit for the company they work for?

A large part of the reason behind there not being a big upward spiral is that pay and benefits have been pushed downwards in most Western countries in the hunt for productivity across entire industrial sectors. There is not a lot a bit of hard work can do to counteract forces of that magnitude.

[Eki]

Why? If I get paid hourly, and I slack, there is less production, therefore less profit, therefore less money availible for raises, therefore less motivation for work, it's all a big downward spiral.

However, if there is a reward for me (as an hourly worker) to work harder, I'll get more production out, the company will be more profitable, there will be more money availible for raises, I'll get payed more, maybe in a year or so my hard work will be noticed, I'll get a promotion, make even more money, it's all a big upward spiral.



Somewhat. But if you want something of good quality, wether it's a commodity or labor, you need to pay more. You get what you pay for.



Harder actual work, you're probably right. However, who has more at risk (at least in a world without bailouts)?, who has invested more to get where he/she is?



Yes that is your business as an employer. However, you shouldn't be surprised when the quality of work your labor force puts out starts to slide. And yes I am free to take my labor elsewhere if I don't like my pay structure at my current company. That was the point I was making with Eki a while ago.
You believe that if you work harder, you'll automatically get a raise instead of the extra profit going to the owners' pockets or to the raise of your weaselly coworker who's brown-nosing the boss ?

[chuck34]

You believe that if you work harder, you'll automatically get a raise instead of the extra profit going to the owners' pockets or to the raise of your weaselly coworker who's brown-nosing the boss ?

So your boss is a greedy jerk that won't reward you for helping him make a profit. Yet he rewards a good-for-nothing brown noser. Exactly why do you still work for this company?

[Garry Walker]

So your boss is a greedy jerk that won't reward you for helping him make a profit. Yet he rewards a good-for-nothing brown noser. Exactly why do you still work for this company?Eki is on welfare, he won't understand.


You believe that if you work harder, you'll automatically get a raise instead of the extra profit going to the owners' pockets or to the raise of your weaselly coworker who's brown-nosing the boss ?
If you are a valueable worker, you have shown that you care about your work, you do your work properly and the boss does not have to solve problems caused by you all the time, then you will be rewarded. Because no owner wants to get rid of a worker that is valueable. Believe me, such staff is hard to find and for an owner, those people are extremely valueable. Being a company owner and a boss I know that probably a bit better than someone like you.

After last year finished and we showed pretty good numbers, I gave a nice bonus to those of my employees who fitted that criteria as a token of my gratitude for the fact that they had done a good job. I didn't have to do it, I didn't have any contractual committments to them to give them bonuses, but I did anyway, because I wanted to keep them and I wanted to show them that they had done a good job.

Brown-nosing? I have experience with such people and I can tell you that such a thing almost never works with any normal boss.

[race aficionado]

Eki is on welfare, he won't understand.

Hey Garry, this thread has maintained it's essence without the use of intended putdowns as this. Welcome to the discussion if you want to contribute with your take on this subject.
race

[Eki]

So your boss is a greedy jerk that won't reward you for helping him make a profit. Yet he rewards a good-for-nothing brown noser. Exactly why do you still work for this company?
Maybe because I don't know any other company that's any better and it's still better than being on welfare?

[donKey jote]

Sure... we all know it's because you secretly fancy the boss's daughter :p

[Rollo]

It's a concern to me simply because I don't live on an island...Well, the UK is an island :p ...but in the sense of "no man is an island". One way or another inequality, such as has been illustrated in this thread, affects us all.

The problem with widening income disparity means, actually, smart and crafty people who start out poor will make less money than those who have done nothing much to advance themselves, but are rich to begin with. That is the problem. The wider the gap, the greater the odds that your financial and social status do not change in respect to your craftiness or smarts or any merit that you actually have.

[BDunnell]

How many people do you think would find it pleasurable to pump out septic tanks (for one example)? Yet that needs to be done. What motivation other than profit do you suggest to incentivise people to take on that rather sh!tty job? :D

What I suppose I meant was that lots of jobs which aren't that ****ty are miserable affairs when they need not be. Why are they? Because of the way employers are so often.

[Rollo]

However, if there is a reward for me (as an hourly worker) to work harder, I'll get more production out, the company will be more profitable, there will be more money availible for raises, I'll get payed more, maybe in a year or so my hard work will be noticed, I'll get a promotion, make even more money, it's all a big upward spiral.


Except for the problem that real world data shows that the compounded annual increases for the average worker are 1% whilst for the very top its 4%.
If the company is more profitable, there will be more money available for raises but history has shown that since 1979 the distribution of those raises isn't equal. Money which is available for raises is more likely to go to people in upper management.

[BDunnell]

So your boss is a greedy jerk that won't reward you for helping him make a profit. Yet he rewards a good-for-nothing brown noser. Exactly why do you still work for this company?

Because he chooses to?

[anthonyvop]

Except for the problem that real world data shows that the compounded annual increases for the average worker are 1% whilst for the very top its 4%.
If the company is more profitable, there will be more money available for raises but history has shown that since 1979 the distribution of those raises isn't equal. Money which is available for raises is more likely to go to people in upper management.

So? Is that a problem?

[BDunnell]

So? Is that a problem?

Explain why you don't think it is.

[Eki]

Sure... we all know it's because you secretly fancy the boss's daughter :p
Well, at least she's not Markabilly's missus.

[Rollo]

So? Is that a problem?

Probably not of itself but if sufficiently enough people get sufficiently angry and annoyed, then results might not be so friendly.
Think of the Great Fire of Rome in 64, or of the results of the financial crisis in Paris in 1789 or of the recent Arab Spring. Maybe think of something else which was a perceived "response to injustice" and for which the US is still fighting a war as the result of 10 years later.
Is it a problem? You be the judge of that.

If mankind is disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, then they will right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So? Is that a problem?

Yes it is. It proves the point that was made earlier- that someone on a hourly wage isn't likely to be as motivated to do their bit to make the business they work for more profitable.

If, like yourself, work for your own business then you might find this point hard to appreciate.

I work in a sales position in retail. I can say without any doubt that if I recieved commision for every sale I made, or if my annual bonus accounted for my personal performance instead of the company performance, I would be much better at my job. But as I don't, most of the time I will just fulfill the requirements that my job description states.

[anthonyvop]

Explain why you don't think it is.

The free market should decide salaries. Nothing or no one else.

If you are in the group who see their salary only increasing by 1% then perhaps you should look in the mirror to see who is culpable. To demand more by claiming fairness is just petty jealousy and despicable

[555-04Q2]

Except the evidence suggests it has not been "big upward spiral" unless you happen to be in the top 1%. Based on that evidence what is the incentive for a worker to work harder and help create profit for the company they work for?

That is exactly the sort of attitude that leaves people stuck in the same situation. Unless you are lucky enough to win the lottery, your life will not improve unless you put in the hard yards. Sometimes if you are lucky it only takes a few months and the rewards come and continue to come. Sometimes it takes years and years for the rewards to be seen. If you are really unlucky, you get no reward. But if you don't plug away at it, you deserve no rewards.

Too many people today have a feeling of entitlement to everything, which is bull$hit! No one wants to get their hands dirty anymore. These world wide protests we are seeing are proof that the majority of the worlds population are idiots and the vast majority of these idiots are also lazy and unwilling to make an improvement in their own lives, so they protest about it being someone else's fault.

[555-04Q2]

The free market should decide salaries. Nothing or no one else.

If you are in the group who see their salary only increasing by 1% then perhaps you should look in the mirror to see who is culpable. To demand more by claiming fairness is just petty jealousy and despicable

It's not often that you and I agree on something...but this is one of those times :p :

[555-04Q2]

Yes it is. It proves the point that was made earlier- that someone on a hourly wage isn't likely to be as motivated to do their bit to make the business they work for more profitable.

If, like yourself, work for your own business then you might find this point hard to appreciate.

I work in a sales position in retail. I can say without any doubt that if I recieved commision for every sale I made, or if my annual bonus accounted for my personal performance instead of the company performance, I would be much better at my job. But as I don't, most of the time I will just fulfill the requirements that my job description states.

Now that is sad to hear, especially as you are so young. What the hell are you going to achieve in life with that attitude Jon :(

When you are doing the funky monkey with your lady, do you do just enough to get the job done, or do you go at it with everything you got? Think about it :)

[anthonyvop]

Yes it is. It proves the point that was made earlier- that someone on a hourly wage isn't likely to be as motivated to do their bit to make the business they work for more profitable.

If, like yourself, work for your own business then you might find this point hard to appreciate.

I work in a sales position in retail. I can say without any doubt that if I recieved commision for every sale I made, or if my annual bonus accounted for my personal performance instead of the company performance, I would be much better at my job. But as I don't, most of the time I will just fulfill the requirements that my job description states.

Then the Free market would dictate that the retailer you are working for in all probability is loosing out on sales and market share because of this policy.

It reminds me of the Saturn Car company. Launched with great fanfare that there would be no Buyer/Seller price haggling just one sticker price and that it's salesmen would just work for a Salary and not commission. They built some of the finest cars in the entire GM line. We all know where Saturn is now.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Think of the Great Fire of Rome in 64

This comparison to the Roman Empire is very relevant for the modern day world. An internationalized economy, which is only doing well when it's expanding, countless bureaucracy, filthy rich and simply filthy elites, millions of people living on welfare, outlandish lifestyles, decline of moral values and nobody's happy with each other. Doesn't it look like the world we live in now?

[Rollo]

The free market should decide salaries. Nothing or no one else.


The free market does to a great degree. It explains why average real wages have been falling for 30 years.

People should accept that someone in other countries can do the jobs that they used to do for a tenth of the cost. It's why manufacturing jobs are being exported from the United States and the UK etc to Asian countries, and why as we head further into the 21st Century why Africa will pick up more manufacturing jobs.

[ArrowsFA1]

That is exactly the sort of attitude that leaves people stuck in the same situation...if you don't plug away at it, you deserve no rewards.
True, but despite plugging away at it (as evidenced by the increase in productivity) for the last 30yrs people have seen their "rewards" fall a long way behind those they're making money for.

These world wide protests we are seeing are proof that the majority of the worlds population are idiots and the vast majority of these idiots are also lazy and unwilling to make an improvement in their own lives, so they protest about it being someone else's fault.
Or are they protesting exactly because they want to make an improvement to their, and others, lives? You say "if you don't plug away at it, you deserve no rewards" so should people do nothing when they see an injustice affecting them?

[555-04Q2]

True, but despite plugging away at it (as evidenced by the increase in productivity) for the last 30yrs people have seen their "rewards" fall a long way behind those they're making money for.

Or are they protesting exactly because they want to make an improvement to their, and others, lives? You say "if you don't plug away at it, you deserve no rewards" so should people do nothing when they see an injustice affecting them?

The protests we are seeing are from the "have nots" complaining about how much the "haves" have. I don't understand why? If you want what they have, go out and get it for yourself, don't protest and complain. There have to be poor people and rich people in our society. It's sad but true. You either make yourself one of the rich, or you remain poor.

I came from a very poor family where some days I went without lunch and dinner. We had very few niceties growing up. I worked hard and got to where I am today because I said "well this situation sucks". Protesting doesn't get you anything, actually doing something about your own situation does.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Now that is sad to hear, especially as you are so young. What the hell are you going to achieve in life with that attitude Jon :(

When you are doing the funky monkey with your lady, do you do just enough to get the job done, or do you go at it with everything you got? Think about it :)

They aren't comparable. A lady is much more likely to sack you off than an employer! :p

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Then the Free market would dictate that the retailer you are working for in all probability is loosing out on sales and market share because of this policy.

It reminds me of the Saturn Car company. Launched with great fanfare that there would be no Buyer/Seller price haggling just one sticker price and that it's salesmen would just work for a Salary and not commission. They built some of the finest cars in the entire GM line. We all know where Saturn is now.

Do all firms in a free-market achieve profit-maximisation, sales maximisation, market share maximisation? I think not. Diseconomy of scale are probably causing the firm I work for to miss out on sales, but not to a degree high enough to force them out of the market.

Price haggling seems to be a dying art. When was the last time someone here bought something other than a car or house after negotiating the price down? I can only think of when I've bought musical instruments and perhaps a shirt that had a button missing.

[Rollo]

It reminds me of the Saturn Car company. Launched with great fanfare that there would be no Buyer/Seller price haggling just one sticker price and that it's salesmen would just work for a Salary and not commission. They built some of the finest cars in the entire GM line. We all know where Saturn is now.

What was the logic by GM in having 8 brands at once? Surely that's just bonkers in the first place. I wonder how many sales Saturn would have vampired from other GM brands. For most countries in the world there's usually only ONE GM brand per market, occasionally two when they want to foist Korean cars on the public.

[555-04Q2]

They aren't comparable. A lady is much more likely to sack you off than an employer! :p

:laugh:

[chuck34]

What I suppose I meant was that lots of jobs which aren't that ****ty are miserable affairs when they need not be. Why are they? Because of the way employers are so often.

So you are saying that if my boss is the best boss in the world, I won't mind pumping other people's sh!t? Seriously. Come on, there are clearly jobs out there no one wants to do (Do you guys get the show "Dirty Jobs" in Europe?), pay is pretty much the only motivation in those cases.

[chuck34]

For all of you that are proposing that an income gap is some sort of tragedy, I have one simple question ... How do you propose we "fix" this problem?

[Dave B]

The protests we are seeing are from the "have nots" complaining about how much the "haves" have. I don't understand why? If you want what they have, go out and get it for yourself, don't protest and complain. There have to be poor people and rich people in our society. It's sad but true. You either make yourself one of the rich, or you remain poor.

Not at all. If somebody provides goods or services they have every right to expect to make a profit on them. What I deplore is when people or corporations amass so much power that they can influence politicians and judiciary to sculpt or interpret laws in such a way as to stifle competition.

[ArrowsFA1]

For all of you that are proposing that an income gap is some sort of tragedy, I have one simple question ... How do you propose we "fix" this problem?
Given the level of self interest committed to maintaining what we have it's hard to envision a fix.

Meanwhile:
The wealth gap between younger and older Americans has stretched to the widest on record News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WEALTH_GAP_YOUNG_AND_OLD)

[555-04Q2]

What I deplore is when people or corporations amass so much power that they can influence politicians and judiciary to sculpt or interpret laws in such a way as to stifle competition.

That is called success!

[ArrowsFA1]

That is called success!
So in order to influence political change people need to work hard, become wealthy, buy political influence and so stifle competition which in turn helps them gain more money and more influence...?

Until then there's always democracy I suppose :p

[chuck34]

Given the level of self interest committed to maintaining what we have it's hard to envision a fix.

Meanwhile: News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WEALTH_GAP_YOUNG_AND_OLD)

So you have absolutely no ideas, proposals, solutions. Just more b!tching and moaning. Great, just what we needed, thanks for the input. :rolleyes:

[ArrowsFA1]

So you have absolutely no ideas, proposals, solutions. Just more b!tching and moaning. Great, just what we needed, thanks for the input.
The idea appears to be get rich and buy influence then you can change things, until then quit moaning.

[chuck34]

The idea appears to be get rich and buy influence then you can change things, until then quit moaning.

Where does moaning get you?

Why do you seem to be against hard work, educating yourself, doing everything you can personally do to get ahead in life?

Honestly, since you refuse to answer my simple question (What would you do to "fix" the problem of income gaps?), I am left to speculate. My speculation turns to something along the lines that you want someone (government?) to do something (confiscate wealth?) about it. If it is that, how is that fair. If you have other ideas, please correct my misconception.

[race aficionado]

My speculation turns to something along the lines that you want someone (government?) to do something (confiscate wealth?) about it. If it is that, how is that fair. If you have other ideas, please correct my misconception.

No confiscation of wealth but for example: how about start by paying their fair share of taxes and deny their special loopholes that permit them to cut curves that precisely protect them from again, contributing their fair share of taxes:

Thirty Of America's Most Profitable Companies Paid 'Less Than Zero' In Income Taxes In Last 3 Years


Thirty Of America's Most Profitable Companies Paid 'Less Than Zero' In Income Taxes In Last 3 Years: Report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/major-corporations-tax-subsidies_n_1073548.html)

[BDunnell]

That is called success!

So you too have no objection to the endless march of the big chains on the high street, even if it brings about bland corporate uniformity everywhere one goes?

What a depressing world some people seem to want to live in.

[BDunnell]

Why do you seem to be against hard work, educating yourself, doing everything you can personally do to get ahead in life?

I have worked hard and educated myself, and haven't done badly. I still side with the protesters. What exactly is your point?

You seem to have one definition of 'getting ahead in life' only — it has to be within the corporate system as it stands. At no time have you ever considered that some people might find the modern corporate world a depressing, not to say sometimes worrying, entity?

[BDunnell]

So you have absolutely no ideas, proposals, solutions. Just more b!tching and moaning. Great, just what we needed, thanks for the input. :rolleyes:

You are hardly bursting with them yourself, let's be honest.

[ArrowsFA1]

Why do you seem to be against hard work, educating yourself, doing everything you can personally do to get ahead in life?
Hard work should be appropriately rewarded. An education should translate into better opportunity. But increasingly it does not, while those who have been promised that it will are becoming increasingly frustrated and angry.

You want an answer to what you call a "simple" question, but there are no "simple" answers. There are steps that could be taken, addressing corporate greed & abuse of position might be one, but we're told that will cripple economic recovery. Giving private enterprise the freedom to create wealth is the way out of this "mess" apparently but excuse me if that doesn't fill me with confidence.

[ArrowsFA1]

Where does moaning get you?
Why do you think we have seen an increasing number of "occupy" protests?

[Malbec]

Why do you seem to be against hard work, educating yourself, doing everything you can personally do to get ahead in life?

You're too old-fashioned.

Ever met a trader? The guy on the floor who actually buys and sells shares and makes a handsome commission? These guys are hardly educated. The banks specifically go for guys who haven't been to university as they are cheaper and don't need to think, they just need to have a knack for good timing.

Most are highly unpleasant yobs high on cocaine looking for the next rush.

These guys get bonuses of hundreds of thousands for essentially clicking at a screen and calling up all day.

Meanwhile people in 'normal' trades and businesses slave away for pay packages that are gradually declining in value.

Yet its the latter that are perceived to be bailing out the former, keeping them in a job. See where there might be some resentment building up?

It doesn't surprise me that the main protests are in NY and London, the two cities where the financial sector have completely skewed the property market to make it unaffordable for those with normal jobs.

These protests aren't just about layabouts wanting more for nothing, its a legitimate protest against a financial sector that is causing damage to the livelihoods of the rest of the society and economy, yet behaves as if it didn't have any constraints at all, buying politicians at whim.

I am by no means badly off but my sympathy lies with those on the streets.

[Bob Riebe]

Why do you think we have seen an increasing number of "occupy" protests?Because most are, or are as wealthy as trust fund babies who have the money and time to kill.

[chuck34]

No confiscation of wealth but for example: how about start by paying their fair share of taxes and deny their special loopholes that permit them to cut curves that precisely protect them from again, contributing their fair share of taxes:

Thirty Of America's Most Profitable Companies Paid 'Less Than Zero' In Income Taxes In Last 3 Years
Thirty Of America's Most Profitable Companies Paid 'Less Than Zero' In Income Taxes In Last 3 Years: Report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/major-corporations-tax-subsidies_n_1073548.html)

So you don't call it confiscation of wealth you call it "paying their fair share". Ok I'll play along. How much more would you like "the rich" to pay. Earlier I linked to an article that spelled out how even if you tax "the rich" at over 100%, you will still not come anywhere close to balancing the budget. So what exactly is "their fair share"?

I'm fine with elimiating loop holes, if needed to "get" those evil companies. But you do realize that corporations don't actually pay taxes, they pass them on to consumers.

[chuck34]

So you too have no objection to the endless march of the big chains on the high street, even if it brings about bland corporate uniformity everywhere one goes?

What a depressing world some people seem to want to live in.

If I do not want what the big chain stores offer, I simply do not buy it. It seems that many people do want what the chain stores offer, otherwise they wouldn't exist.


I do not want to have to make commercial choices relating to every aspect of my life. Shopping around for anything is no fun, and I prefer to use my time for other things.

Hmmmmm. So you don't want choice, but you also don't want bland depressing chain stores. What exactly are you advocating? Taking many people's choices away, so that we are left with the one that you would like instead?

[chuck34]

I have worked hard and educated myself, and haven't done badly. I still side with the protesters. What exactly is your point?

You seem to have one definition of 'getting ahead in life' only — it has to be within the corporate system as it stands. At no time have you ever considered that some people might find the modern corporate world a depressing, not to say sometimes worrying, entity?

I do not think that the only definition of "getting ahead in life" is to be in the corporate system. I have never said that. I know many people who live "off the grid". They're quite happy. I know many lower middle class to poor folks who are quite happy in their lives. Heck I would consider myself smack dab in the middle of middle class, and I'm pretty happy.

The difference is that I and most people I know don't go around protesting how "unfair" the system is, or how we should "get the rich", or even tax them more. The people I know are not jealous of what others have.

[chuck34]

You are hardly bursting with them yourself, let's be honest.

But I am not the one claiming that there is a problem that needs solving.

[chuck34]

There are steps that could be taken, addressing corporate greed & abuse of position might be one, but we're told that will cripple economic recovery. Giving private enterprise the freedom to create wealth is the way out of this "mess" apparently but excuse me if that doesn't fill me with confidence.

Ok how do you address corporate greed and abuse? A government program that will be full of greed and abuse so fast that it'll make your head spin?

Why does freedom scare you?

[BDunnell]

If I do not want what the big chain stores offer, I simply do not buy it. It seems that many people do want what the chain stores offer, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

The triumph of the bland, lowest-common-denominator majority. What a splendid thing to aim for.

You may deny it, but this is what you are advocating — the natural conclusion of your arguments.

[chuck34]

You're too old-fashioned.

Ever met a trader? The guy on the floor who actually buys and sells shares and makes a handsome commission? These guys are hardly educated. The banks specifically go for guys who haven't been to university as they are cheaper and don't need to think, they just need to have a knack for good timing.

Most are highly unpleasant yobs high on cocaine looking for the next rush.

These guys get bonuses of hundreds of thousands for essentially clicking at a screen and calling up all day.

Meanwhile people in 'normal' trades and businesses slave away for pay packages that are gradually declining in value.

Yet its the latter that are perceived to be bailing out the former, keeping them in a job. See where there might be some resentment building up?

It doesn't surprise me that the main protests are in NY and London, the two cities where the financial sector have completely skewed the property market to make it unaffordable for those with normal jobs.

These protests aren't just about layabouts wanting more for nothing, its a legitimate protest against a financial sector that is causing damage to the livelihoods of the rest of the society and economy, yet behaves as if it didn't have any constraints at all, buying politicians at whim.

I am by no means badly off but my sympathy lies with those on the streets.

Oh boo hoo some jerk "just clicks a screen all day, and makes more than me". It's just not fair, sombody give me what he's got. What is stopping you from doing exactly what that guy is doing? And yes I do know a couple of traders, one in Chicago and two in Toronto.

Sorry to be harsh. But I just happen to believe in personal responsibilty, not jealous wailings of "fairness".

[Bob Riebe]

So you don't call it confiscation of wealth you call it "paying their fair share". Ok I'll play along. How much more would you like "the rich" to pay. Earlier I linked to an article that spelled out how even if you tax "the rich" at over 100%, you will still not come anywhere close to balancing the budget. So what exactly is "their fair share"?

I'm fine with elimiating loop holes, if needed to "get" those evil companies. But you do realize that corporations don't actually pay taxes, they pass them on to consumers.
Chuck- you are arguing with people who responses are the equivalent of little kids going-- Yeah but what if-- well what it-- OK but what if-- Yeah but what if-if-if-if- if-if-if....

-------------------------------------------
They want to cry about the wealthy but ignore facts about the wealthy who supposedly support greater taxes.
Tax the rich! Buffett beclowns himself again | Washington Times Communities (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/prudent-man/2011/aug/21/tax-rich-buffett-beclowns-himself-again)

[chuck34]

The triumph of the bland, lowest-common-denominator majority. What a splendid thing to aim for.

You may deny it, but this is what you are advocating — the natural conclusion of your arguments.

Wow we're stuck in a time warp here. Didn't we already discuss this?

How am I arguing for the "bland, lowest-common-denominatior". Sure you may not be able to find exactly what you want on the high street, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist off the high street, in the back alleys, on the internet, etc.

Why are you dead set on imposing you ideas of non-blandness on people. Obviously many people have made a consious decision to shop at those stores. What gives you the right to tell those people they are wrong?

[BDunnell]

Ok how do you address corporate greed and abuse? A government program that will be full of greed and abuse so fast that it'll make your head spin?

Why does freedom scare you?

A quick note, Chuck. No right-wing American will ever convince a liberal-minded European — or indeed many intelligent Europeans who lean somewhat to the right — by deploying as an argument the trite sense of the word 'freedom' so beloved of you and your ilk. We recognise it for what it is — a vacuous slogan parroted by those arrogant enough to believe that the conservative American way is the only true definition of freedom, and who believe that those who are even mildly critical of the free market are in some way dangerous saboteurs hell-bent on introducing revolutionary socialism.

[chuck34]

Chuck- you are arguing with people who responses are the equivalent of little kids going-- Yeah but what if-- well what it-- OK but what if-- Yeah but what if-if-if-if- if-if-if....

I understand that. Call me crazy but I actually like debating especially since for the most part this has been kept fairly civil. I find it fun, and it helps to re-inforce and strenthen my ideas/standards/philosophy. If we only talk about things with people of like mind, our arguments get weak. And I get bored. ;)

[BDunnell]

Wow we're stuck in a time warp here. Didn't we already discuss this?

Yes, but we seem to have come round to it again.



Why are you dead set on imposing you ideas of non-blandness on people. Obviously many people have made a consious decision to shop at those stores. What gives you the right to tell those people they are wrong?

Who said anything about imposing? I believe that not following the herd is a positive trait and should be encouraged, but if you wish for everything to be subsumed into a soulless corporate morass, so be it. Don't be surprised if not everyone is over-enthusiastic, and if it results in some protest.

[chuck34]

A quick note, Chuck. No right-wing American will ever convince a liberal-minded European — or indeed many intelligent Europeans who lean somewhat to the right — by deploying as an argument the trite sense of the word 'freedom' so beloved of you and your ilk. We recognise it for what it is — a vacuous slogan parroted by those arrogant enough to believe that the conservative American way is the only true definition of freedom, and who believe that those who are even mildly critical of the free market are in some way dangerous saboteurs hell-bent on introducing revolutionary socialism.

Forgive me for addressing Arrows, and asking him why giving corporations freedom scares him. I didn't realise that was "off limits".

[BDunnell]

Chuck- you are arguing with people who responses are the equivalent of little kids going-- Yeah but what if-- well what it-- OK but what if-- Yeah but what if-if-if-if- if-if-if....

Says the man who once memorably posted the contribution: 'Go bunky-troll on! Drink chug-a-lug-drink-chug-a-lug...'

[Bob Riebe]

I understand that. Call me crazy but I actually like debating especially since for the most part this has been kept fairly civil. I find it fun, and it helps to re-inforce and strenthen my ideas/standards/philosophy. If we only talk about things with people of like mind, our arguments get weak. And I get bored. ;) OH YEAH, well the IRS always like you best!

[chuck34]

Who said anything about imposing? I believe that not following the herd is a positive trait and should be encouraged, but if you wish for everything to be subsumed into a soulless corporate morass, so be it. Don't be surprised if not everyone is over-enthusiastic, and if it results in some protest.

You still seem to have trouble with what I am saying. I've said it at least 3 times now. Here it is again for you.

If you personally do not like what the chain stores on the high street have to offer, you do not have to buy what they are selling. There are plenty of other places you can obtain what you are seeking. Obviously there are many many people who do want to buy from those chain stores. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?

Ah, so corporate blandness will lead to protests? That must be why there are so many Apple products down at OWS. :D

[BDunnell]

Forgive me for addressing Arrows, and asking him why giving corporations freedom scares him. I didn't realise that was "off limits".

I didn't realise I was in any way suggesting it was.

[chuck34]

OH YEAH, well the IRS always like you best!

????? What does that mean?

[chuck34]

I didn't realise I was in any way suggesting it was.

Sigh.

[BDunnell]

You still seem to have trouble with what I am saying. I've said it at least 3 times now. Here it is again for you.

If you personally do not like what the chain stores on the high street have to offer, you do not have to buy what they are selling. There are plenty of other places you can obtain what you are seeking. Obviously there are many many people who do want to buy from those chain stores. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?

Ah, so corporate blandness will lead to protests? That must be why there are so many Apple products down at OWS. :D

Of course I have trouble with it, because you seem unwilling to understand that, increasingly, there are not so many other places where one can obtain what one seeks — a natural consequence of the march of 'corporatisation'.

As for your last point, maybe one should ask why Apple is a company not viewed with the same venom as much of the corporate world.

[Rollo]

Forgive me for addressing Arrows, and asking him why giving corporations freedom scares him. I didn't realise that was "off limits".

Why does giving government freedom scare you then?
Somewhere in this discussion is the question of governance and power.

I find it a little strange that you object to government having a degree of governance and power when government can and should be held accountable because the executives of government are elected officials.
Whereas you have no problem at all when governance and power sits with largely unelected officials (in the context of broad society) making decisions in the corporate world.

The decisions of Wall St have far more of a degree of actual influence on people's livelihoods. How much responsibility should be laid at Wall St for the global financial crisis, and/or when the decision is taken to shift production plants to different cities or countries, the corporate world takes no responsibility whatsoever for the people's lives that its just ruined.
All praise the corporate world, give them freedom. Yet at the same time restrain governments?

[Malbec]

Oh boo hoo some jerk "just clicks a screen all day, and makes more than me". It's just not fair, sombody give me what he's got. What is stopping you from doing exactly what that guy is doing? And yes I do know a couple of traders, one in Chicago and two in Toronto.

Oh I could do the same job, I'm perfectly aware of that thanks.

You missed my point though or I suspect you did get it but refused to answer.

The fact is that the financial sector is disproportionately well paid to the extent that it skews local and national economies. In your country and mine it is now state subsidised and partially state owned at great cost to the entire population. Yet it still carries on behaving the way it did with impunity in the way that got it into great trouble in the first place.

Do you not think that major reform of the financial sector is necessary to make it more accountable, and to reduce the impact it has on the economy when it goes wrong due to mismanagement?

Your debate with others on whether the free market is a good thing is missing the point IMO.

[BDunnell]

I find it a little strange that you object to government having a degree of governance and power when government can and should be held accountable because the executives of government are elected officials.
Whereas you have no problem at all when governance and power sits with largely unelected officials (in the context of broad society) making decisions in the corporate world.

A degree of governance and power that, no matter what those with a benevolent view of the free market may claim, is not vested in the hands of consumers. The behaviour of News International, to name but one example, proves that.

[BDunnell]

Oh boo hoo some jerk "just clicks a screen all day, and makes more than me". It's just not fair, sombody give me what he's got. What is stopping you from doing exactly what that guy is doing?

Not being a money-obsessed ****?

[ArrowsFA1]

Why does freedom scare you?
I'll repeat the context in which I used the word freedom. Giving private enterprise the freedom to create wealth is the way out of this "mess" apparently but excuse me if that doesn't fill me with confidence.

Why doesn't that fill me with confidence? Because private enterprise, as represented by the financial services sector, has illustrated a level of incompetence that we are paying for, some more than others.

[Bob Riebe]

????? What does that mean?Like their rhetoric, not one damn thing.

[555-04Q2]

So you too have no objection to the endless march of the big chains on the high street, even if it brings about bland corporate uniformity everywhere one goes?

What a depressing world some people seem to want to live in.

Who says it would be bland?

[555-04Q2]

Until then there's always democracy I suppose :p

Or communism :p : Share everything, that should shut the have not's up...oh wait that don't work either :p :

[BDunnell]

Who says it would be bland?

Of course it would be bland, because the big high street chains are necessarily dull corporate entities.

[555-04Q2]

Of course it would be bland, because the big high street chains are necessarily dull corporate entities.

You are generalising! It's just like people who say all blonds are stupid! I diasgree with your view!

[BDunnell]

You are generalising! It's just like people who say all blonds are stupid! I diasgree with your view!

Give me an example, then, of how the increasing dominance of large chains on the high street promotes individuality and variety from one place to the next.

[555-04Q2]

You should know Virgin Money to name one. I don't know about the sh!thole you live in but in our sh!thole we have "large chains" that are dynamic, fresh, forward thinking and anything but "bland". Instead of generalising, maybe look around and you will be amazed at what you will see :)

[BDunnell]

You should know Virgin Money to name one. I don't know about the sh!thole you live in but in our sh!thole we have "large chains" that are dynamic, fresh, forward thinking and anything but "bland". Instead of generalising, maybe look around and you will be amazed at what you will see :)

The '****hole' in which I live is Berlin, and near me there is what I call a dynamic range of fresh, anything but bland shops — almost all independents rather than large chains. This is my idea of the description, not a high street made up of Starbucks, McDonalds and a load of big supermarkets. I would suggest you are too over-awed by the marketing hype, not least of Virgin.

[555-04Q2]

The '****hole' in which I live is Berlin, and near me there is what I call a dynamic range of fresh, anything but bland shops — almost all independents rather than large chains. This is my idea of the description, not a high street made up of Starbucks, McDonalds and a load of big supermarkets. I would suggest you are too over-awed by the marketing hype, not least of Virgin.

:erm: You asked and I provided. All "colourful" entities market themselves. If you think I am awed by the marketing of the likes of Virgin, I may think you are awed by the marketing of Sylvia's Corner Cookie Shop cause they offer you a free cookie with every 12 you order. Each to his own BD, each to his own.

Individuality is found within.

[BDunnell]

:erm: You asked and I provided. All "colourful" entities market themselves. If you think I am awed by the marketing of the likes of Virgin, I may think you are awed by the marketing of Sylvia's Corner Cookie Shop cause they offer you a free cookie with every 12 you order. Each to his own BD, each to his own.

Individuality is found within.

Quite so, but I find it difficult to conceive of how anyone could find individuality in something like a chain store that isn't individual. One may often find what one wants in them, but let's not bestow on them characteristics they don't have.

[555-04Q2]

Quite so, but I find it difficult to conceive of how anyone could find individuality in something like a chain store that isn't individual. One may often find what one wants in them, but let's not bestow on them characteristics they don't have.

It doesn't matter what the shops look like, its what you find inside. Even chain stores have colourful staff in one store and boring ones in another. The stores have the same signs, but are very different.

I also enjoy the small "individual" stores, but the "chains" are just as good if not better. I'm not worried about which shop I buy from, just as long as I get what I wanted
( preferably not made in China :p : ).

[BDunnell]

It doesn't matter what the shops look like, its what you find inside. Even chain stores have colourful staff in one store and boring ones in another. The stores have the same signs, but are very different.

I think one would have to spend an awful lot of time in a shop to discover the individual traits of those employed within. The fact that one member of staff somewhere may be dour and another friendly is not an example of individuality in my book. The homogenity is inherent in the fact of a shop being part of a chain. Homogenity in terms of products, prices, decor, etc is surely the very nature of the chain store?


I'm not worried about which shop I buy from, just as long as I get what I wanted

I am worried about both, and, now I live somewhere with a plethora of them on my doorstep, make a conscious effort to support smaller outlets. What I buy from them is better anyway.



( preferably not made in China :p : ).

Why?

[airshifter]

The '****hole' in which I live is Berlin, and near me there is what I call a dynamic range of fresh, anything but bland shops — almost all independents rather than large chains. This is my idea of the description, not a high street made up of Starbucks, McDonalds and a load of big supermarkets. I would suggest you are too over-awed by the marketing hype, not least of Virgin.

I agree that small independent shops are usually a great change from big corporate box stores. That's a great thing when you want a good deli lunch, or a different type of just about anything. But where can you go to a "Mom And Pop" local independent and find a great deal on a big flat screen or the newest laptop?

Every person has the right to speak with their money, yet many if not most will go to those large corporate places for major purposes. And most do so for the same reason the "occupy" crowd is angry at the corporations... pure greed. They want the same product for the best price. They don't want to pay the local store $100 more for the same flat screen TV or laptop.

None of these corporate entities would exist without consumer support. If the majority of consumers changed their spending habits some or many of them would cease to exist. But the majority seem to be just as concerned in the quest for money as the corporations. So really the greed of the individual has resulted in the individual accusing the corporations of being greedy.

Is anyone protesting their neighbors that shop at the big box stores?

[ArrowsFA1]

In the pursuit of wealth or profit how much is enough :confused:

[BDunnell]

I agree that small independent shops are usually a great change from big corporate box stores. That's a great thing when you want a good deli lunch, or a different type of just about anything.

Well, I now have a fine old market hall (Marheineke Markthalle, Berlin-Kreuzberg (http://www.meine-markthalle.de/marheineke.html)) up the road, so I use independent outlets for everything, not just the different stuff — I get my bread from the bakeries, my meat from the butchers, my vegetables and fruit from the greengrocers, and so forth. When I move away next year, this is one of the things I shall miss most. It is infinitely preferable to getting these goods from a supermarket, which I could easily do.


But where can you go to a "Mom And Pop" local independent and find a great deal on a big flat screen or the newest laptop?

Branded electrical goods I do make an exception for. I suppose I am referring in general to food and clothes. But I won't pretend that I wouldn't prefer never to have to go in a large chain store outlet for anything, so horrendous is the experience. Nor do I shop around particularly, in part because I just can't be bothered, and in part because ancillary deals they try to sell you always muddy the waters as to which is really cheapest. My time is better spent doing things other than making endless price comparisons. So I just go to the shop which has the best range and is nearest.


And most do so for the same reason the "occupy" crowd is angry at the corporations... pure greed.

Have you spoken to anyone involved in order to get an idea of their motivation beyond that portrayed in the media of your choice? A couple of friends of mine have taken part. Neither is a greedy individual in the slightest, and to say otherwise would be offensive.



None of these corporate entities would exist without consumer support. If the majority of consumers changed their spending habits some or many of them would cease to exist. But the majority seem to be just as concerned in the quest for money as the corporations. So really the greed of the individual has resulted in the individual accusing the corporations of being greedy.

I think it goes deeper than that — to the very nature of said corporations compared with smaller outlets, for example. I agree that there is a strong streak of greed in much of society today — why else is there so much personal debt? — but perhaps this is also born in part of the way the corporate world encourages it, and those who are unpleasant but successful are held in high regard?

[BDunnell]

In the pursuit of wealth or profit how much is enough :confused:

And is the person pursuing it a ****? This, to me, is far more important than how much money they have. Sadly, as I have said before, there are just too many *****.

[airshifter]

In the pursuit of wealth or profit how much is enough :confused:

I'd say as much as a person desires is enough. If they or their corporations are really greedy and offer no service or product that the rest of us want, their quest for wealth would be short lived. It's only by providing things that the consumers want that any of them get large and wealthy.

And I'm sure the people living in true poverty could look at us... the group of what we consider "normal" working people, and see us as greedy and having things we don't need. Most of us have places to live, vehicles, computers, big screen TVs, cell phones, etc. A person living in true poverty would see "us" as living in excess, and a bunch of material pricks.

[Bob Riebe]

I'd say as much as a person desires is enough. If they or their corporations are really greedy and offer no service or product that the rest of us want, their quest for wealth would be short lived. It's only by providing things that the consumers want that any of them get large and wealthy.

And I'm sure the people living in true poverty could look at us... the group of what we consider "normal" working people, and see us as greedy and having things we don't need. Most of us have places to live, vehicles, computers, big screen TVs, cell phones, etc. A person living in true poverty would see "us" as living in excess, and a bunch of material pricks.

If as much as one wants is enough, monopoly laws would never have been passed in this country.
There is a point where wealth aqusition turns into greed, and those who wish to say this country is founded on Christian priciples should never say greed is good.

There is a limit, but at the same time a government has no right to prevent parents from passing on their wealth to their loved ones, in total.

[BDunnell]

I'd say as much as a person desires is enough.

Really? Do you not recognise the concept of 'too much'?

[Rollo]

I'd say as much as a person desires is enough. If they or their corporations are really greedy and offer no service or product that the rest of us want, their quest for wealth would be short lived. It's only by providing things that the consumers want that any of them get large and wealthy.


Or more importantly need.

There are four major banks in Australia which control 92% of the banking sector. They control the electronic payments system. It is virtually impossible as a wage earner, or dividend earner, or rent collector not to operate a bank account.

If you don't want to eat out at a restaurant, you can choose to eat at home. Likewise if you still want to eat out at a restaurant, you can choose to find a cheaper one. However, on average the four major banks make roughly $1000 in profits from every single person in Australia and because their fees structures are similar, it's not like you can choose to find a cheaper one.

[Alexamateo]

In the pursuit of wealth or profit how much is enough :confused:

Well, I'm glad someone pursues it, otherwise instead of having internet discussions with people who live halfway around the world, we'd just be sitting around a campfire making plans to raid some other clans hunting grounds and/or how to steal their women :p

[chuck34]

Ah good stuff here Rollo. Sorry I haven't been online for a few days. So sorry to drag this back up.


Why does giving government freedom scare you then?
Somewhere in this discussion is the question of governance and power.

Government power scares me because there is little recourse if you find yourself on the wrong end of that power. The Founders of this nation knew that, all too well. That is why they set up a very limited government with enumerated powers they were not to exceed.


I find it a little strange that you object to government having a degree of governance and power when government can and should be held accountable because the executives of government are elected officials.

But once you get to the national level of government, the individual has VERY little power over those in the government. I have two Senators out of 100, and 1 Representative out of 435. I can vote for the best people ever, but if others do not, my voice will be over-rulled everytime.


Whereas you have no problem at all when governance and power sits with largely unelected officials (in the context of broad society) making decisions in the corporate world.

Are you speaking of beaurocrats? If so I have a HUGE problem with the number of them, the scope of their influence over our society, and their lack of accountability.

Or are you talking about CEO's and such. If that is the case, then I have lot's of say over them. I do not buy their products, and they loose some profit. But it's not much you say. But it is to me.

A "bad" company is not forcing money out of my hands that I choose not to spend. However, "bad" government has the ability to force me to hand over money. See the difference?


The decisions of Wall St have far more of a degree of actual influence on people's livelihoods. How much responsibility should be laid at Wall St for the global financial crisis, and/or when the decision is taken to shift production plants to different cities or countries, the corporate world takes no responsibility whatsoever for the people's lives that its just ruined.
All praise the corporate world, give them freedom. Yet at the same time restrain governments?

Wall St might have too much influence over people's livelihood. But I would say that had they not been propped up that things would have been more painful at the time, yet recovery would have been much quicker.

Yes restrain government! That is the lesson to be learned from history.

[chuck34]

Oh I could do the same job, I'm perfectly aware of that thanks.

You missed my point though or I suspect you did get it but refused to answer.

The fact is that the financial sector is disproportionately well paid to the extent that it skews local and national economies.

Why is it any of your business what they get paid?


In your country and mine it is now state subsidised and partially state owned at great cost to the entire population. Yet it still carries on behaving the way it did with impunity in the way that got it into great trouble in the first place.

They continue to behave as they did before, becasue it was clearly demonstrated to them that there are no consequences for their behavior. The solution was not to bail them out, but to allow them to fail.


Do you not think that major reform of the financial sector is necessary to make it more accountable, and to reduce the impact it has on the economy when it goes wrong due to mismanagement?

Your debate with others on whether the free market is a good thing is missing the point IMO.

Allowing the free market to work (allowing bad business practices to be punished by failure) would make people fairly accountable. Your debate position that government must fix everything is dangerous and will lead to worse issues in the future, IMO.

[chuck34]

Not being a money-obsessed ****?

That is fine. You are completely within your rights not te be a money-obsessed ****. I am not either, I have turned down chances at being about one step below filthy rich myself because I made a consious decision to see my family.

But what business is it of yours if someone is a money-obsessed ****? Why should you allow that to bother you?

[chuck34]

Give me an example, then, of how the increasing dominance of large chains on the high street promotes individuality and variety from one place to the next.

Apple. Apparently they are the height of "individuality", according to some.

[chuck34]

The '****hole' in which I live is Berlin, and near me there is what I call a dynamic range of fresh, anything but bland shops — almost all independents rather than large chains. This is my idea of the description, not a high street made up of Starbucks, McDonalds and a load of big supermarkets. I would suggest you are too over-awed by the marketing hype, not least of Virgin.

Did the free market make this possible? Or did the government step in and decree it to be so?

[chuck34]

In the pursuit of wealth or profit how much is enough :confused:

In the name of "fairness", how much is too much? :confused:

[BDunnell]

Government power scares me because there is little recourse if you find yourself on the wrong end of that power.

And what recourse, precisely, does one have against a large company unless one is in possession of substantial legal resources?

[BDunnell]

Did the free market make this possible? Or did the government step in and decree it to be so?

I don't know — except to say that supermarkets do not have anywhere near the same dominance in Germany as in the UK and elsewhere. Whether this is to do with regulations of some form I have no idea.

[BDunnell]

Apple. Apparently they are the height of "individuality", according to some.

No-one has said that. I certainly haven't. All I have done is say their customer service, in my experience, is exemplary. A very different thing, unless one reads what one wants into any statement.

[BDunnell]

That is fine. You are completely within your rights not te be a money-obsessed ****. I am not either, I have turned down chances at being about one step below filthy rich myself because I made a consious decision to see my family.

But what business is it of yours if someone is a money-obsessed ****? Why should you allow that to bother you?

It is my business to have an opinion on someone. Saying that I should not allow the fact of someone being a **** to bother me is akin to suggesting that I should have no emotions, whether positive or negative, at all.

[BDunnell]

Why is it any of your business what they get paid?

Do you believe it wrong to criticise in any way anyone's remuneration in the private sector?

[Eki]

In the name of "fairness", how much is too much? :confused:
When you have more than you can spend in your own life time.

[BDunnell]

When you have more than you can spend in your own life time.

I'm not sure that the object of anyone can or should be to have just enough money to see them through their life with nothing left over in the end. Financial prudence and security are very sensible things.

[Eki]

I'm not sure that the object of anyone can or should be to have just enough money to see them through their life with nothing left over in the end. Financial prudence and security are very sensible things.
I didn't mean to have just enough money to see them through life, I meant enough to buy everything they can imagine of what they can use in their life time like, fancy houses they live in, fancy cars they drive, fancy yachts they sail on, fancy food they can eat, around the world trips they travel, etc.. When they have money to buy more houses they can live in, more cars they can drive, more yachts they can sail, more around the world trips they have time to travel and more fancy food they can eat, etc., then they have too much money. It's like if you have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth, it's enough. If you have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world multiple times, then it's too much.

[BDunnell]

I didn't mean to have just enough money to see them through life, I meant enough to buy everything they can imagine of what they can use in their life time like, fancy houses they live in, fancy cars they drive, fancy yachts they sail on, fancy food they can eat, around the world trips they travel, etc.. When they have money to buy more houses they can live in, more cars they can drive, more yachts they can sail, more around the world trips they have time to travel and more fancy food they can eat, etc., then they have too much money. It's like if you have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth, it's enough. If you have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world multiple times, then it's too much.

You see, despite my views on the private sector, I don't have a problem with people having that much money per se so long as they have earned it in a legal manner. Just don't expect me to automatically respect people on the grounds of their wealth. What I do object to is the growing gap between richest and poorest, and those situations in which such earnings are not deserved — if they have been at the helm of a failing business, left and been granted an enormous pay-off, for example.

[chuck34]

And what recourse, precisely, does one have against a large company unless one is in possession of substantial legal resources?

If they ripped me off, I can take them to court ("substantial" resources aren't really required). Or if I just don't like a company for whatever reason, I just won't buy from them. In the opposite (government) case, I can't sue the government, and they will take my money wether I like it or not.


I don't know — except to say that supermarkets do not have anywhere near the same dominance in Germany as in the UK and elsewhere. Whether this is to do with regulations of some form I have no idea.

Unless you can point to some regulation that supports the supermarket dominance then it (the dominance) is probably because of market forces. People have made a conscious choice to shop there instead of their local farmer's market. Where I live we have several farmer's markets and I shop there when I can because their stuff tastes better, and is usually cheaper. But sometimes things are out of season, or I get lazy, so I go to the supermarket. Personally I like that choice. I'm sorry you do not.


No-one has said that. I certainly haven't. All I have done is say their customer service, in my experience, is exemplary. A very different thing, unless one reads what one wants into any statement.

Just another one of my attempts at a bit of humor which failed I suppose. It was another dig at all those protesters at OWS that are so d@mn tired of corporate profits, yet talk on their iphones, twitter on their ipads, and listen to their ipods. I just find that too freaking funny for words. But maybe that's just me?


It is my business to have an opinion on someone. Saying that I should not allow the fact of someone being a **** to bother me is akin to suggesting that I should have no emotions, whether positive or negative, at all.

Don't get me wrong, if the guy is a ****, hate him all you want. But hate him for that reason. To hate him because he's got more than you is plain jealousy, and I find jealousy to be a waste of time.


Do you believe it wrong to criticise in any way anyone's remuneration in the private sector?

Not really. You can criticize what someone makes all you want. But if you continue to buy from the business they work for, then I reserve the right to call you a hypocrite. And if you call for some sort of government intervention to make sure he makes less, I'll fight you at every turn.

[chuck34]

When you have more than you can spend in your own life time.

What is wrong with wanting to provide for your children and grandchildren? Or, what if I earn more than I can spend in my lifetime, and donate the rest to charity? (see Bill Gates)

[chuck34]

You see, despite my views on the private sector, I don't have a problem with people having that much money per se so long as they have earned it in a legal manner. Just don't expect me to automatically respect people on the grounds of their wealth.

On this, I think we agree 100%


What I do object to is the growing gap between richest and poorest,

This contradicts your last statement. Do you think people should earn all they can or don't you? Do you believe in personal responsibility? Do you think there should be some mechanism that narrows the gap between the "rich" and "poor"?


and those situations in which such earnings are not deserved — if they have been at the helm of a failing business, left and been granted an enormous pay-off, for example.

Again, on this we agree (at least as you put it here, you'll probably parse it a bit differently in a minute). This is precisely the reason I am against bailouts. Let the f'ers go down with the ship. Make them learn a lesson.

[anthonyvop]

I didn't mean to have just enough money to see them through life, I meant enough to buy everything they can imagine of what they can use in their life time like, fancy houses they live in, fancy cars they drive, fancy yachts they sail on, fancy food they can eat, around the world trips they travel, etc.. When they have money to buy more houses they can live in, more cars they can drive, more yachts they can sail, more around the world trips they have time to travel and more fancy food they can eat, etc., then they have too much money. It's like if you have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth, it's enough. If you have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world multiple times, then it's too much.

Why am I not surprised that your entire view of wealth and economics is based totally on the disgusting emotion known as jealousy?

[Rollo]

Do you believe in personal responsibility? Do you think there should be some mechanism that narrows the gap between the "rich" and "poor"?

Again, on this we agree (at least as you put it here, you'll probably parse it a bit differently in a minute). This is precisely the reason I am against bailouts. Let the f'ers go down with the ship. Make them learn a lesson.

Z8EbLC6iC3Q

People actually start cheering at about the 1:00 mark. :eek:

https://twitter.com/#!/RonPaul/status/113423706247802881
The individual, private charity, families, and faith based orgs should take care of people, not the government.

If people can't afford healthcare, then they should take personal responsibility and hurry up and DIE. Perhaps we should allow involuntary euthanasia, and that way decrease the surplus population. It would be far more economical if the unproductive and unemployed members of society were destroyed.

If people's jobs have been relocated to Thailand where the labour force is cheaper and they can't afford to pick up stumps and move there, then too bad.
People should take personal responsibility for themselves and if life happens to deal them a dud set of cards or a corporation decides on the basis of a business decision that entire communities should suffer, then too bad.

[Eki]

What is wrong with wanting to provide for your children and grandchildren? Or, what if I earn more than I can spend in my lifetime, and donate the rest to charity? (see Bill Gates)
Providing for your children is optional. If you want to provide for your children, you save. Buy cheaper cars, cheaper houses, cheaper yachts, cheaper airplanes, eat cheaper food, make fewer around the world trips, etc. Some parents may prefer their children to have spine and make their own life instead of pampering.

Charity is good. Taxes are good too, they take care of the charity for you.

[Dave B]

If they ripped me off, I can take them to court ("substantial" resources aren't really required).
What's the process like over there? I hear all the time people saying they'll take a company to court but the reality isn't that simple. I've taken 3 court actions in my life and the quickest of these took 6 months from start to finish, and that was only because the company settled after the allocation questionnaire. I got ripped off by a gym membership and the case took the best part of 3 years to resolve, and involved the Information Commissioner's Offce and the Office of Fair Trading.

So when I hear "see you in court" I always take it with a pinch of salt. Is remedy really that easy elsewhere?

[Malbec]

Why is it any of your business what they get paid?

Because as a British taxpayer I have subsidised their industry and own large parts of it.


They continue to behave as they did before, becasue it was clearly demonstrated to them that there are no consequences for their behavior. The solution was not to bail them out, but to allow them to fail.

Allowing the free market to work (allowing bad business practices to be punished by failure) would make people fairly accountable. Your debate position that government must fix everything is dangerous and will lead to worse issues in the future, IMO.

Wrong, the solution was not to allow the situation to happen in the first place.

Allowing them to fail is all well and good on paper, and I agree with you that nothing else would have been as good in ensuring the same didn't happen again. However the effect on the national and global economies would have been dire. Tell me what the effect on America would have been if the top five US banks had gone bankrupt? Ditto for the rest of the world? What do you do if the companies involved are too big to be allowed to fail?

[Gregor-y]

People actually start cheering at about the 1:00 mark. :eek:
I couldn't stomach Republicans 20 years ago but now they're way over the edge in their fury and frustration. At least the mask has finally dropped away and you can see the naked greed and selfishness that permeates their world view. Under their rhetoric of moral hazards lie the ugly reality of indulgence in mortal sin.

And yet they present themselves as the religious ones.

[donKey jote]

you mean as the religious righteous ones... :p

[Roamy]

Z8EbLC6iC3Q

People actually start cheering at about the 1:00 mark. :eek:

https://twitter.com/#!/RonPaul/status/113423706247802881
The individual, private charity, families, and faith based orgs should take care of people, not the government.

If people can't afford healthcare, then they should take personal responsibility and hurry up and DIE. Perhaps we should allow involuntary euthanasia, and that way decrease the surplus population. It would be far more economical if the unproductive and unemployed members of society were destroyed.

If people's jobs have been relocated to Thailand where the labour force is cheaper and they can't afford to pick up stumps and move there, then too bad.
People should take personal responsibility for themselves and if life happens to deal them a dud set of cards or a corporation decides on the basis of a business decision that entire communities should suffer, then too bad.

Actually I like the idea of mandatory vasectomies managed by the UN so the entire world participates. Then I am for working welfare - You check in for work and we will figure out something. The state would provide daycare but those fat bitches would be showing up for a job. Next would be worker visas to control the border. But don't worry the crops will die on the vine, the fat bitches will continue to multiply and receive welfare checks. We will continue to destroy central and south America with our drug appetite - we are so dumb we have started gang welfare now which is paid for by the drug users. Actually quite better than the regular welfare so maybe fat bitches selling crack is the way forward. I like the new one. The fat bitches have 10 kids. Then they claim some reason that the kids need foster homes so they pick a relative and the gov pays them 1500 per mo per kid - due the math. There is a real meaning now to the phrase we are "fcking crazy"

[race aficionado]

There is a real meaning now to the phrase we are "fcking crazy"

The way we look at the "Dark Ages" in our history books - years from now, humanity will look at this era of human history as the latest version of "Dark Ages".

They will say: "Were these people nuts!!!!!! :confused:

Yes we are nuts but I don't lose hope. We as a race will prevail but there is a lot of work to be done for us to get there.

Occupy dammit!

:s mokin:

[Roamy]

The way we look at the "Dark Ages" in our history books - years from now, humanity will look at this era of human history as the latest version of "Dark Ages".

They will say: "Were these people nuts!!!!!! :confused:

Yes we are nuts but I don't lose hope. We as a race will prevail but there is a lot of work to be done for us to get there.

Occupy dammit!

:s mokin:

The way I see it the world has two choices. Vasectomy or Plague and I voted many many years ago!! :)

Probably don't expect much change until the true middle class decides to occupy and I don't see that as 90% or them are working. The solution is still a third party and prosecute corrupt gov workers i.e. all of congress

[BDunnell]

I couldn't stomach Republicans 20 years ago but now they're way over the edge in their fury and frustration. At least the mask has finally dropped away and you can see the naked greed and selfishness that permeates their world view.

To look at it another way, 30 years ago Reagan was a figure of some ridicule in Europe, but not the sort of hatred that one now reads and hears expressed for the US right today.

[BDunnell]

If they ripped me off, I can take them to court ("substantial" resources aren't really required). Or if I just don't like a company for whatever reason, I just won't buy from them. In the opposite (government) case, I can't sue the government, and they will take my money wether I like it or not.

You are conveniently ignoring the processes by which one can complain to public sector bodies, of which there are many.



Unless you can point to some regulation that supports the supermarket dominance then it (the dominance) is probably because of market forces. People have made a conscious choice to shop there instead of their local farmer's market. Where I live we have several farmer's markets and I shop there when I can because their stuff tastes better, and is usually cheaper. But sometimes things are out of season, or I get lazy, so I go to the supermarket. Personally I like that choice. I'm sorry you do not.

As I believe I've said before, I quite like having the choice of a (non-enormous) supermarket to go to for certain goods on certain occasions. I don't like the manner in which supermarkets take over in certain areas. You seem to have some difficulty accepting the fact of a middle ground existing, leading to statements like the one below.



Just another one of my attempts at a bit of humor which failed I suppose. It was another dig at all those protesters at OWS that are so d@mn tired of corporate profits, yet talk on their iphones, twitter on their ipads, and listen to their ipods. I just find that too freaking funny for words. But maybe that's just me?

Again, I ask: by which other means are people supposed nowadays to communicate?



Don't get me wrong, if the guy is a ****, hate him all you want. But hate him for that reason. To hate him because he's got more than you is plain jealousy, and I find jealousy to be a waste of time.

I wasn't aware that I was in any sense jealous of anyone. This is not the motivation behind my point of view, unless you, like anthonyvop, claim to know me better than I know myself.



Not really. You can criticize what someone makes all you want. But if you continue to buy from the business they work for, then I reserve the right to call you a hypocrite.

Just as I not only reserve, but take advantage of, the right to say that your respect for private enterprise is somewhat too fawning for my tastes — and that you fail to understand the basic fact that it is all but impossible to live one's life nowadays without recourse to buying things from corporations. Do you know differently?

[BDunnell]

This contradicts your last statement. Do you think people should earn all they can or don't you? Do you believe in personal responsibility? Do you think there should be some mechanism that narrows the gap between the "rich" and "poor"?

There is no contradiction in my being critical of the growing gap between rich and poor and my lack of any basic objection to an individual's earnings unless they have been criminal or incompetent. It is not inconceivable, unless you know better, for a situation to exist whereby a general rise in salaries was accompanied by said gap narrowing. Or do you believe that the gap between richest and poorest will carry on growing so long as salaries do likewise? For that seems to be the extension of your argument.



Again, on this we agree (at least as you put it here, you'll probably parse it a bit differently in a minute). This is precisely the reason I am against bailouts. Let the f'ers go down with the ship. Make them learn a lesson.

Where have I ever said anything favourable towards bail-outs?

[Malbec]

The way we look at the "Dark Ages" in our history books - years from now, humanity will look at this era of human history as the latest version of "Dark Ages".

They will say: "Were these people nuts!!!!!! :confused:

Yes we are nuts but I don't lose hope. We as a race will prevail but there is a lot of work to be done for us to get there.

Occupy dammit!

:s mokin:

No I think they'll view the past 50 years when there was a narrowing of income disparities and a considerable increase in living standards for even the poorest as an aberration. Unfortunately throughout human history the rich and powerful have always found new ways of accruing even more wealth and power while the poor have been left to fend for themselves. We're just returning to that model.

[BDunnell]

Why am I not surprised that your entire view of wealth and economics is based totally on the disgusting emotion known as jealousy?

No matter what one thinks of his opinions, I'm not sure there is anyone on these forums less jealous of corporate fat-cats than Eki, for I genuinely imagine that he has not the slightest desire to be anything like them. It's called holding an opinion with a passion, it being possible, you may be surprised to hear, for one to express a visceral hatred for someone that's not born of jealousy.

[BDunnell]

Z8EbLC6iC3Q

People actually start cheering at about the 1:00 mark. :eek:

https://twitter.com/#!/RonPaul/status/113423706247802881
The individual, private charity, families, and faith based orgs should take care of people, not the government.

If people can't afford healthcare, then they should take personal responsibility and hurry up and DIE. Perhaps we should allow involuntary euthanasia, and that way decrease the surplus population. It would be far more economical if the unproductive and unemployed members of society were destroyed.

If people's jobs have been relocated to Thailand where the labour force is cheaper and they can't afford to pick up stumps and move there, then too bad.
People should take personal responsibility for themselves and if life happens to deal them a dud set of cards or a corporation decides on the basis of a business decision that entire communities should suffer, then too bad.

The irony is, of course, that protectionism is a very popular thing in certain sections of US public opinion.

[Bob Riebe]

I couldn't stomach Republicans 20 years ago but now they're way over the edge in their fury and frustration. At least the mask has finally dropped away and you can see the naked greed and selfishness that permeates their world view. Under their rhetoric of moral hazards lie the ugly reality of indulgence in mortal sin.

And yet they present themselves as the religious ones.Please explain in detail how what you exactly mean in that statement.
As it stands it is the equivalent of oranges are round; therefore all round things are oranges.

[Bob Riebe]

The way we look at the "Dark Ages" in our history books - years from now, humanity will look at this era of human history as the latest version of "Dark Ages".

They will say: "Were these people nuts!!!!!! :confused: Based on what/which premise, as compared to what/which premise.
Be specific.

[BDunnell]

Based on what as compared to what.

Now put those words in an order that's readable by a sentient human being.

[Bob Riebe]

No matter what one thinks of his opinions, I'm not sure there is anyone on these forums less jealous of corporate fat-cats than Eki, for I genuinely imagine that he has not the slightest desire to be anything like them. It's called holding an opinion with a passion, it being possible, you may be surprised to hear, for one to express a visceral hatred for someone that's not born of jealousy.
I do not think you are correct.

My signinficant other loathes fat-cats (I do not challenge her as she has always been that way and always will.) If her taxes go up because her business did well enough to hit another tax category, she startes with "look how much they made why don't their taxes go up?"
Saying, to her, they will at x amount does not register as she says it should go up now because hers did.

Mr. Dunnell this is not for debate, just that, I think, from my experience that jealousy is the base of such hatred.

[BDunnell]

I do not think you are correct.

My signinficant other loathes fat-cats (I do not challenge her as she has always been that way and always will.) If her taxes go up because her business did well enough to hit another tax category, she startes with "look how much they made why don't their taxes go up?"
Saying, to her, they will at x amount does not register as she says it should go up now because hers did.

Mr. Dunnell this is not for debate, just that, I think, from my experience that hatred is the base of such jealousy.

I think you mean that 'jealousy is the base of such hatred', not vice versa.

And while you may say that 'this is not for debate', I disagree, for the jealousy argument is only ever made in relation to personal wealth. Were I to express my intense hatred for, to take one example, the Communist regime in East Germany, I presume you would not state that this hatred was born of jealousy. Yet were I to express my hatred of someone wealthy, you may well say, 'You're just jealous of their wealth'. My dislike of the corporate world does not have jealousy at its root, of that you can be sure.

[chuck34]

This is all getting a bit tiresome. I guess that I should just give in to all your arguments. Let's let government take care of us. We'll make it their responsibility to give us jobs, healthcare, food, clothing, homes, and everything else we may need or want. Personal responsibility be damned. Personal freedom be damned.

I hear the cries now "what about the middle ground"? Well we passed the middle ground long ago. It started with FDR taking care of our retirements for us at the point of his gun. It continued under LBJ with him taking care of our "poor" at the point of his gun. Obama is taking the next step, taking care of our healthcare at the point of his gun.

Where does it end?

When do we get to this magical "middle ground"?

When have you taken enough of my money? My liberties? My freedom? How much is enough for you who are so blinded by petty jealousy?

[Bob Riebe]

Logic and running the statment through my head, says your version is correct, and what I wrote near logically impssible; therefoe I changed it.

[Bob Riebe]

This is all getting a bit tiresome. I guess that I should just give in to all your arguments. Let's let government take care of us. We'll make it their responsibility to give us jobs, healthcare, food, clothing, homes, and everything else we may need or want. Personal responsibility be damned. Personal freedom be damned.

I hear the cries now "what about the middle ground"? Well we passed the middle ground long ago. It started with FDR taking care of our retirements for us at the point of his gun. It continued under LBJ with him taking care of our "poor" at the point of his gun. Obama is taking the next step, taking care of our healthcare at the point of his gun.

Where does it end?

When do we get to this magical "middle ground"?

When have you taken enough of my money? My liberties? My freedom? How much is enough for you who are so blinded by petty jealousy?

Remember a few posts back when I said their rhetoric is the equivalent of a child saying-" Yeah but what if-what if-what if-what if---?
The political base you are debating have the biased notion that Conservatives are of one narrow scope belief that fits only THEIR idea of what a conservative is.
If you do not fit in that biased idea they will just use the vacuous response of if you are a conservative how can you say x, or not believe Y, or not....

[race aficionado]

Based on what as compared to what.
Be specific.

Just look around you . . . .
oh wait! I know how you view the world, you continue to expressed yourself rather eloquently and as I said before, we both view the world situation in a total different way and as I also said before, to each his own.

But I will oblige and give you again my personal point of view:

Look around you again.

Some 21,000 children die every day around the world.
Today, around 21,000 children died around the world (http://www.globalissues.org/article/715/today-21000-children-died-around-the-world)

The silent killers are poverty, hunger, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage.
According to World Food Program (WFP) report, there are 925 million people who are starving in the world today, meaning that one in seven people do not eat enough food to be healthy and live a normal life (Hunger)
Hunger and Poverty Around the World | Global Social Problems (http://academic.stedwards.edu/globalsocialproblems/blog/hunger-and-poverty-around-world-0)

I could go on but I want to avoid a discussion on who's "web statistic link" is the correct one.

But I do know this:
I believe in a future of tranquillity and peaceful endeavor as the inevitable result of sharing and justice for all, the creation of a world where no man lacks, where the Joy of Brotherhood manifests through all men.

freaking you out? too "hippy" for you?
Let me continue:

This is the future hoped for by the majority of men, but not by all. Many do not recognize that sharing is divine, that justice and right relationship are divine, but who see Divinity as competition and conflict, and register a man’s worth by the weight of his gold.
Many are fearful and suffering; bereft of work and hope for the future, they struggle from day to day. But many others are making their future for themselves, and many, too, are dying in the process. Throughout the world men are awakening to the possibility of a better life with freedom and justice at its heart.

I'm one of those.

:s mokin:

[BDunnell]

This is all getting a bit tiresome. I guess that I should just give in to all your arguments. Let's let government take care of us. We'll make it their responsibility to give us jobs, healthcare, food, clothing, homes, and everything else we may need or want. Personal responsibility be damned. Personal freedom be damned.

I hear the cries now "what about the middle ground"? Well we passed the middle ground long ago. It started with FDR taking care of our retirements for us at the point of his gun. It continued under LBJ with him taking care of our "poor" at the point of his gun. Obama is taking the next step, taking care of our healthcare at the point of his gun.

Where does it end?

When do we get to this magical "middle ground"?

When have you taken enough of my money? My liberties? My freedom? How much is enough for you who are so blinded by petty jealousy?

Your most nonsensical post here thus far. You're more intelligent than this sort of, with respect, over-emotional claptrap. What is it that right-wing Americans find so frightening about finding a reasonable middle ground? Why must you always view things from an extreme?

[BDunnell]

Person the the political base you are debating have the biased notion that Conservatives are of one narrow scope belief that fits only THEIR idea of what a conservative is.
If you do not fit in that biased idea they will just use the vacuous response of if you are a conservative tghen how can you say x, or not believe Y, or not....

You, Bob, fit exactly one of the stereotypes many of us Europeans have about Americans of your political persuasion. I'm genuinely not saying that as a cheap insult.

[Malbec]

This is all getting a bit tiresome. I guess that I should just give in to all your arguments. Let's let government take care of us. We'll make it their responsibility to give us jobs, healthcare, food, clothing, homes, and everything else we may need or want. Personal responsibility be damned. Personal freedom be damned.

I hear the cries now "what about the middle ground"? Well we passed the middle ground long ago. It started with FDR taking care of our retirements for us at the point of his gun. It continued under LBJ with him taking care of our "poor" at the point of his gun. Obama is taking the next step, taking care of our healthcare at the point of his gun.

Where does it end?

When do we get to this magical "middle ground"?

When have you taken enough of my money? My liberties? My freedom? How much is enough for you who are so blinded by petty jealousy?

I can understand your adherence to free market principles but I do find it odd that you can't address its deficiencies.

Whilst you oppose bailouts by principle I ask you again what the alternative would have been in 2008.

Why don't you describe what you think would have happened if Wall Street banks were all allowed to collapse, as well as mass employers like GM cars? Where would we be now 3 years later?

All principles have weaknesses and deficiencies whether one agrees with them or not. Those who truly understand things are able to face up to that.

[chuck34]

Your most nonsensical post here thus far. You're more intelligent than this sort of, with respect, over-emotional claptrap. What is it that right-wing Americans find so frightening about finding a reasonable middle ground? Why must you always view things from an extreme?

So i ask again, where is the middle ground? How much of my money must you steal to make you feel better? Honestly, that is what this debate boils down to. Some feel that othere have more than them, so they want someone to take it and distribute it out more "fairly". So i'll ask again, how much of my money will make you feel better?

[BDunnell]

Whilst you oppose bailouts by principle I ask you again what the alternative would have been in 2008.

Why don't you describe what you think would have happened if Wall Street banks were all allowed to collapse, as well as mass employers like GM cars? Where would we be now 3 years later?

Again, in the counter-argument from the free-marketeers, one sees a degree of naivety coming across — the notion that a wave of entrepreneurship would have swept the nation and made good all the losses is charming but fanciful.

I should add, perhaps, that my attitude to bail-outs is that some might be justifiable in the wider interests of the economy. I don't believe that every failed business should be rescued by the state. (Nor do I think many of those protesting at present — if they haven't been chucked out by the authorities — would believe that either, not that nuanced opinions seem very popular nowadays.)



All principles have weaknesses and deficiencies whether one agrees with them or not. Those who truly understand things are able to face up to that.

Instead, what we see here over and over again is an almost slavish respect for the free market as it stands. Talk about putting one's head in the sand.

[BDunnell]

So i ask again, where is the middle ground? How much of my money must you steal to make you feel better? Honestly, that is what this debate boils down to. Some feel that othere have more than them, so they want someone to take it and distribute it out more "fairly". So i'll ask again, how much of my money will make you feel better?

Chuck, you too are becoming a caricature of a modern-day neo-con.

[chuck34]

I can understand your adherence to free market principles but I do find it odd that you can't address its deficiencies.

Whilst you oppose bailouts by principle I ask you again what the alternative would have been in 2008.

Why don't you describe what you think would have happened if Wall Street banks were all allowed to collapse, as well as mass employers like GM cars? Where would we be now 3 years later?

All principles have weaknesses and deficiencies whether one agrees with them or not. Those who truly understand things are able to face up to that.

Don't getme wrong it would have been painful. However I belive the recovery would have happened quickly as well. As it is we haven't really even started to recover yet.

See the depression of 1920

[chuck34]

Chuck, you too are becoming a caricature of a modern-day neo-con.

No I'm asking an honest question. How much do you want?

[BDunnell]

No I'm asking an honest question. How much do you want?

You seem to be of the view that there is nothing between an unfettered free market and unfettered communism.

How much of your own resources do I want? How can I answer that? I have no idea what you earn, for a start, or what your current tax burden is. Nor do I have any desire to know.

[race aficionado]

So i'll ask again, how much of my money will make you feel better?

This is again where the term "sharing" is misunderstood or misused.
Sharing does not mean giving away part of your bank account or emptying half of your refrigerator.

It means allowing others the opportunity to also have money in their bank and food in their fridge. - and of course add to that proper health care and a fair and responsible deal when it comes to credit opportunities.

It doesn't mean paranoia.

[Malbec]

Don't getme wrong it would have been painful. However I belive the recovery would have happened quickly as well. As it is we haven't really even started to recover yet.

Go on then, explain why the recovery would have happened quickly? Remember that the governments involved in the bailout have yet to pass the cost of that onto us, the taxpayers although depending on the country you live in they are just about to. Our economies have so far only received the benefits of the bailouts, yet our economies are still not recovering.

[Bob Riebe]

You, Bob, fit exactly one of the stereotypes many of us Europeans have about Americans of your political persuasion. I'm genuinely not saying that as a cheap insult.

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Person the the political base you are debating have the biased notion that Conservatives are of one narrow scope belief that fits only THEIR idea of what a conservative is.
If you do not fit in that biased idea they will just use the vacuous response of if you are a conservative tghen how can you say x, or not believe Y, or not....
You, Bob, fit exactly one of the stereotypes many of us Europeans have about Americans of your political persuasion. I'm genuinely not saying that as a cheap insult.



Pertaining to grammar: This computer which was the only one I had that had, had spell check,( it does not now, supposedly Best Buy reformatted it to origianal specs.) was less than a year old and just returned after getting a new hard drive.
Now what you see above was part of what was supposed to have been corrected in an edit I made. It was not corrected nor do I even have an idea how this construct was created.

Misspelling bizarre was my screw-up, but this is just plain bizarre. (This computer, outside of too many blue-screen warnings, that finally became terminal, was great before I sent it in, now it just ain't right anymore)
------------------------
Race Aff.:
That explains a lot.
Thank you.

[BDunnell]

This is again where the term "sharing" is misunderstood or misused.
Sharing does not mean giving away part of your bank account or emptying half of your refrigerator.

It means allowing others the opportunity to also have money in their bank and food in their fridge. - and of course add to that proper health care and a fair and responsible deal when it comes to credit opportunities.

It doesn't mean paranoia.

Nor does it give the free-marketeers any justifiable right to accuse those who don't agree with them of getting a kick out of taking away their money.

[chuck34]

You seem to be of the view that there is nothing between an unfettered free market and unfettered communism.

How much of your own resources do I want? How can I answer that? I have no idea what you earn, for a start, or what your current tax burden is. Nor do I have any desire to know.

I haven't seen anyone actually propose some sort of middle ground here. All I've heard about is "fairness", income gaps, the rich are too rich, and so on.

Let's say for the sake of argument that I make $350,000 a year (more than enough to fit Obama's definition of rich), I live just outside of New York City, and if you add up local, state, and federal taxes, I pay about 60% of my income in taxes. Is that enough? Note: these are not true of me, but they are representative

[chuck34]

This is again where the term "sharing" is misunderstood or misused.
Sharing does not mean giving away part of your bank account or emptying half of your refrigerator.

It means allowing others the opportunity to also have money in their bank and food in their fridge. - and of course add to that proper health care and a fair and responsible deal when it comes to credit opportunities.

It doesn't mean paranoia.

How do people in the US not have opportunity?

[Malbec]

I should add, perhaps, that my attitude to bail-outs is that some might be justifiable in the wider interests of the economy. I don't believe that every failed business should be rescued by the state.

If it were down to personal preference I feel the state should limit itself to helping find potential buyers for failing businesses using its connections but should allow those that can't find buyers to collapse.

Unfortunately in 2008 I can see that the result of letting all those financial institutions collapse would have been utter disaster hitting the private and public sectors alike extremely hard. I just don't see any other feasible option.

[chuck34]

Go on then, explain why the recovery would have happened quickly? Remember that the governments involved in the bailout have yet to pass the cost of that onto us, the taxpayers although depending on the country you live in they are just about to. Our economies have so far only received the benefits of the bailouts, yet our economies are still not recovering.

Because assets would have been sold, new ways of doing business would have been tried, etc.

[chuck34]

Nor does it give the free-marketeers any justifiable right to accuse those who don't agree with them of getting a kick out of taking away their money.

Then please explain to me how you achieve your goals of fairness and equality if it isn't through redistribution of wealth.

[BDunnell]

Because assets would have been sold, new ways of doing business would have been tried, etc.

Would you have been amongst those brave free-marketeers setting up new financial institutions and car manufacturers to replace those that had gone down the toilet?

[Malbec]

Because assets would have been sold, new ways of doing business would have been tried, etc.

What assets? The rapidly devaluing ones that caused the problem in the first place? You know, the ones where repossessed houses either couldn't be sold or couldn't fetch a price high enough to cover the home loan that needed to be repaid?

Who would have bought the assets? You realise the problem was that once financial institutions lost faith in each others liquidity and credit worthiness companies couldn't raise money to cover basic running costs let alone expand by buying up assets?

You sound rather vague about an issue which underpins the principles you speak in defence of and which would have had a devastating global impact.

[BDunnell]

Then please explain to me how you achieve your goals of fairness and equality if it isn't through redistribution of wealth.

Of course I am in favour of a fair, and thus probably to some extent redistributive, taxation system, but I hold that view not out of any sense of glee at the rich having to pay a bit more.

[Bob Riebe]

This is again where the term "sharing" is misunderstood or misused.
Sharing does not mean giving away part of your bank account or emptying half of your refrigerator.

It means allowing others the opportunity to also have money in their bank and food in their fridge. - and of course add to that proper health care and a fair and responsible deal when it comes to credit opportunities.

It doesn't mean paranoia.

Money obatained from where, whom, how?

Your rhetoric seems to say all persons out there are trying their hardest to become U.S. citizens striving for the common good as a united United States, whilst ignoring there is a goodly portion who are adamant to remain in a separate culture which is owed to by the white rich boys.
You need to consider more of the real world verses political dogma based on a fantasy.

In the conservative system near all who try to succeed have the opportunity to do so; in the liberal welfare state a portion are treated as a subserviant class who need not try to succeed or believe in a united United States because the government/s, federal and state, will address their wants and suport their chosen life-style.

[Bob Riebe]

Would you have been amongst those brave free-marketeers setting up new financial institutions and car manufacturers to replace those that had gone down the toilet?It was union pensions that bank-rupted General Motors, that would have ceased to exist and anything that rose from the ashes would have been constructed on the business of building cars, not paying outlandish pensions.

It is these type of pensions that are bank-rupting States, whilst self-centered recipients of said same are fighting to keep, regardless of what it does to the populace that pays them.

[Rollo]

It was union pensions that bank-rupted General Motors, that would have ceased to exist and anything that rose from the ashes would have been constructed on the business of building cars, not paying outlandish pensions.
It is these type of pensions that are bank-rupting States, whilst self-centered recipients of said same are fighting to keep, regardless of what it does to the populace that pays them.

I assume Mr Riebe that when you reach your golden years that you expect not to collect any retirement benefits? No?

It wasn't specifically union pensions that bankrupted General Motors or the United States, but a failure to set aside money or plan for the day when those entitlements fell due.
General Motors and indeed the United States, expected future receipts through sales and taxation respectively to cover payments for pensions.

The CEOs and Governments of the 1960s and 1970s were negligent, but most of those officers are now dead and completely oblivious of the mess they've left behind.

[donKey jote]

I assume from his posturing on these forums that Mr Riebe is already well in his golden years and
a) doesn't need to collect any retirement benefits - "he's all right, Jack" (sod the rest).
or
b) he is jealous ( ;) ) of those evil union folk who collect more retirement benefits than he does, so sod them all and the rest of them as well. :p

[Rollo]

Then please explain to me how you achieve your goals of fairness and equality if it isn't through redistribution of wealth.

Wealth is already being redistributed through the process of wealth condensation.

I agree though fairness and equality aren't worthwhile goals. History has more or less shown that in the long run it's pretty well much impossible to achieve, so why bother.

[BDunnell]

I agree though fairness and equality aren't worthwhile goals. History has more or less shown that in the long run it's pretty well much impossible to achieve, so why bother.

And why do we think this is?

[BDunnell]

Money obatained from where, whom, how?

Your rhetoric seems to say all persons out there are trying their hardest to become U.S. citizens striving for the common good as a united United States, whilst ignoring there is a goodly portion who are adamant to remain in a separate culture which is owed to by the white rich boys.
You need to consider more of the real world verses political dogma based on a fantasy.

In the conservative system near all who try to succeed have the opportunity to do so; in the liberal welfare state a portion are treated as a subserviant class who need not try to succeed or believe in a united United States because the government/s, federal and state, will address their wants and suport their chosen life-style.

On that basis, do you believe that the entire populations of those countries that have traditionally enjoyed high standards of living and performed well economically while also having extensive welfare systems and high rates of taxation, such as the Scandinavian countries, are 'subservient'?

[Bob Riebe]

On that basis, do you believe that the entire populations of those countries that have traditionally enjoyed high standards of living and performed well economically while also having extensive welfare systems and high rates of taxation, such as the Scandinavian countries, are 'subservient'?
To varying degrees.
From what I have gathered, from internet communications with persons living in Sweden, minorities there are treated in a similar manner that Democrats here tried to foist on the U.S. population.
Washington trying to foist Ebonics on the general U.S. population being one that comes to mind. I.e. let them be themselves, there is no need for them to try to integrate with standard society.

There was a show over here on PBS, recently, showing how being subservient to Federal Government requirements has destroyed any chance of Indian reservations from prospering unless those standard are drastically changed.

[Bob Riebe]

I agree though fairness and equality aren't worthwhile goals. History has more or less shown that in the long run it's pretty well much impossible to achieve, so why bother.I assume you mean by a process, that is not already legally outlined in , or simply ignores, the constitution of a country, or forcing onto the populace standards that exist legally no where but in the current government's mind.

Such as happened recently in Venezuela where the newly stacked, biased by Government appointment, Supreme Court ruled as legal a law that plainly illegal as written in their Constitution.

[Bob Riebe]

I assume from his posturing on these forums that Mr Riebe is already well in his golden years and
a) doesn't need to collect any retirement benefits - "he's all right, Jack" (sod the rest).
or
b) he is jealous ( ;) ) of those evil union folk who collect more retirement benefits than he does, so sod them all and the rest of them as well. :p
There is an old saying about the word "assume" but in this case it only makes an ass out of you, and yourself.

[race aficionado]

Donks has been called an ass.

So what's new. :p :

:s mokin:

[BDunnell]

To varying degrees.
From what I have gathered, from internet communications with persons living in Sweden, minorities there are treated in a similar manner that Democrats here tried to foist on the U.S. population.
Washington trying to foist Ebonics on the general U.S. population being one that comes to mind. I.e. let them be themselves, there is no need for them to try to integrate with standard society.

There was a show over here on PBS, recently, showing how being subservient to Federal Government requirements has destroyed any chance of Indian reservations from prospering unless those standard are drastically changed.

On the contrary, my experience of meeting people (as opposed to corresponding with them online, an environment that does not always bring out the most balanced views) from different countries, and living outside my homeland, is that everyone seems equally cynical about their political masters and not in the least bit subservient towards the state, no matter what the level of taxation and welfare may be.

[Bob Riebe]

I assume Mr Riebe that when you reach your golden years that you expect not to collect any retirement benefits? No?

It wasn't specifically union pensions that bankrupted General Motors or the United States, but a failure to set aside money or plan for the day when those entitlements fell due.
General Motors and indeed the United States, expected future receipts through sales and taxation respectively to cover payments for pensions.

The CEOs and Governments of the 1960s and 1970s were negligent, but most of those officers are now dead and completely oblivious of the mess they've left behind.
Let me see if I got this straight, about government pensions; they are considered employees of the populace that either voted them in, or pays their wages.
By your standards, it is fine for them to believe that as they have the power to raise taxes, and get paid said same pension if they quit their job, or are elected out, they may raise taxes, as they so desire, to be able to pay whatever standard they believe is proper, for their prosperity at any point in time.

BRILLIANT!

[anthonyvop]

Then please explain to me how you achieve your goals of fairness and equality if it isn't through redistribution of wealth.

Who says the wealth needs to be fair and equal?

What should be fair and equal is the opportunity to create wealth. Something that can only be achieved with the Free Market.

[Rollo]

Let me see if I got this straight, about government pensions; they are considered employees of the populace that either voted them in, or pays their wages.

No you aint got that straight.

Pensions paid by the Government are entitlements to the people to whom they are due.
Before 1984, federal workers had a "defined" benefit plan and no Social Security. That is, those entitlements were to be paid as they fell due. Today they have Social Security and a pension that is part defined benefit plan (lifetime monthly payments) and part defined contribution (a lump sum at retirement).

Nobody from 1935 when the system was introduced ever thought that it was prudent that anything should be set aside for future expenses.




By your standards, it is fine for them to believe that as they have the power to raise taxes, and get paid said same pension if they quit their job, or are elected out, they may raise taxes, as they so desire, to be able to pay whatever standard they believe is proper, for their prosperity at any point in time.


I didn't say that or infer that. This is your own invention.

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="Rollo"]No you aint got that straight.

Pensions paid by the Government are entitlements to the people to whom they are due.
Before 1984, federal workers had a "defined" benefit plan and no Social Security. That is, those entitlements were to be paid as they fell due. Today they have Social Security and a pension that is part defined benefit plan (lifetime monthly payments) and part defined contribution (a lump sum at retirement).

Nobody from 1935 when the system was introduced ever thought that it was prudent that anything should be set aside for future expenses.




I didn't say that or infer that. This is your own invention. Yes you did--
Pensions paid by the Government are entitlements to the people to whom they are due.--Entitlements? Whose amount is governed only by the people who recieve them. BRILLIANT SCAM-- Bernie Madoff would be proud.

--------expected future receipts through sales and TAXATION respectively to cover payments for pensions.

/QUOTE]
Private sector pensions can be (as would have happened had Washington not made sure it did not lose union voters by bailing out General Motors) and have been cancelled in the U.S.

What makes government workes special?
Are they some kind of royalty that gets special treatment the people who pay their wages do not?

It seems you think they are, but finally U.S. taxpayers are getting sick of this unbalanced system.

[Rollo]

Entitlements? Whose amount is governed only by the people who receive them.

What makes government workers special?
Are they some kind of royalty that gets special treatment the people who pay their wages do not?


Do you intend to get paid in your retirement? Presumably you have a retirement/pension plan/annuity system set up which ensures that you will.
I'm not suggesting at all that government workers are special. I am suggesting that they are legally entitled to be paid during their retirement like any other person, who has a retirement/pension plan/annuity system set up.

[ArrowsFA1]

Then please explain to me how you achieve your goals of fairness and equality if it isn't through redistribution of wealth.
One way could be to prevent such things as vulture funds:


Vulture funds operate by buying up a country's debt when it is in a state of chaos. When the country has stabilised, vulture funds return to demand millions of dollars in interest repayments and fees on the original debt.
Vulture funds await Jersey decision on poor countries' debts | Global development | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/nov/15/vulture-funds-jersey-decision-debts)

Is that the free market at its best, or worst?

[chuck34]

Would you have been amongst those brave free-marketeers setting up new financial institutions and car manufacturers to replace those that had gone down the toilet?

Possibly on the car manufacturing front. However I'm sure i would have been outbid.

[chuck34]

What assets? The rapidly devaluing ones that caused the problem in the first place? You know, the ones where repossessed houses either couldn't be sold or couldn't fetch a price high enough to cover the home loan that needed to be repaid?

Who would have bought the assets? You realise the problem was that once financial institutions lost faith in each others liquidity and credit worthiness companies couldn't raise money to cover basic running costs let alone expand by buying up assets?

You sound rather vague about an issue which underpins the principles you speak in defence of and which would have had a devastating global impact.

Again, it would have been very painful. Just shorter. Look up some stuff on the depression of 1920

[chuck34]

Of course I am in favour of a fair, and thus probably to some extent redistributive, taxation system, but I hold that view not out of any sense of glee at the rich having to pay a bit more.

Never said you were taking glee in it. I just want to know how much you want. Give me a number 60%? 70%? 90%?

[chuck34]

One way could be to prevent such things as vulture funds:


Vulture funds await Jersey decision on poor countries' debts | Global development | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/nov/15/vulture-funds-jersey-decision-debts)

Is that the free market at its best, or worst?

It is the free market. Not good or bad it just is. Perhaps States should not allow themselves to be saddled with millions of dollars in debt in the first place, that would solve much if this. But we wouldn't want anything like responsibility now would we?

[Malbec]

Again, it would have been very painful. Just shorter. Look up some stuff on the depression of 1920

Yes, the depression of 1920 which had entirely different causes.

Differences:

1920 was characterised by sharp deflation. We have high INflation. These are opposite in nature.
1920 was largely limited to the US. The current problem involves all major economies to some extent. Countries cannot just export themselves out of trouble because consumption is depressed everywhere.
1920 was caused by a cut in government spending following WW1. In the current crisis government spending is cut as a consequence of tax incomes dropping thanks to the drop in economic output.
In 1920 the private sector was largely intact but had to realign itself to a peacetime economy with reduced government spending. In 2008 the private sector was decimated due to a previous reliance on credit and an inability to raise fresh capital.

The differences far outweigh the similarities between the two crises.

So instead of asking me to refer to a non-relevant recession why don't you explain in greater detail HOW not intervening in 2008 would have made the current crisis shorter?

[ArrowsFA1]

It is the free market. Not good or bad it just is.
So we do nothing? We just accept it because "it just is"?


Perhaps States should not allow themselves to be saddled with millions of dollars in debt in the first place, that would solve much if this. But we wouldn't want anything like responsibility now would we?
No they shouldn't, but most do and many not out of economic or political policy choices. Many African nations appear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Public_debt_percent_gdp_world_map_(2010).svg) to be better than Europe and the US where % of debt is concerned yet the DRC seem particularly hard hit as a result of their recent history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo).

Just as Europe was on its knees and needed financial support after WW2 so too is DRC after its own "African World War". But now there are vulture funds to "help" them. Thank goodness for the free market :dozey:

[donKey jote]

Donks has been called an ass.

So what's new. :p :

:s mokin:

must be one of the very few times I agree with old grumpy pants too ! :andrea: :p

[donKey jote]

Never said you were taking glee in it. I just want to know how much you want. Give me a number 60%? 70%? 90%?

~35% of my salary goes to the Finanzamt (~22%) and Social Security (~13%). I'm quite happy with what I get in return, despite being FORCED to help bail out those poor greek buggers and being FORCED to help subsidise those lazy welfare git's new 50" LCD and being FORCED to yadda yadda ...

So, how would 35% sound to you?

[chuck34]

Yes, the depression of 1920 which had entirely different causes.

Differences:

1920 was characterised by sharp deflation. We have high INflation. These are opposite in nature.
1920 was largely limited to the US. The current problem involves all major economies to some extent. Countries cannot just export themselves out of trouble because consumption is depressed everywhere.
1920 was caused by a cut in government spending following WW1. In the current crisis government spending is cut as a consequence of tax incomes dropping thanks to the drop in economic output.
In 1920 the private sector was largely intact but had to realign itself to a peacetime economy with reduced government spending. In 2008 the private sector was decimated due to a previous reliance on credit and an inability to raise fresh capital.

The differences far outweigh the similarities between the two crises.

So instead of asking me to refer to a non-relevant recession why don't you explain in greater detail HOW not intervening in 2008 would have made the current crisis shorter?

I did explain it, you just don't seem to like it. Let bankrupt companies go throght the bankruptcy procees where they will either restructure and/or their viable assets will be bought by other investors, corporations, or startups. This is exactly what happened in 1920 (yes the causes were different, but I'm talking about the consequences), the government allowed everything to go through its normal process, it was painful, but the recovery was quick.

Just because you do not seem to want to accept any sort of painful process doesn't necessarily mean that that isn't what's needed.

[BDunnell]

I did explain it, you just don't seem to like it. Let bankrupt companies go throght the bankruptcy procees where they will either restructure and/or their viable assets will be bought by other investors, corporations, or startups. This is exactly what happened in 1920 (yes the causes were different, but I'm talking about the consequences), the government allowed everything to go through its normal process, it was painful, but the recovery was quick.

Just because you do not seem to want to accept any sort of painful process doesn't necessarily mean that that isn't what's needed.

Let me get this straight. Your theory is based on the fact that something that happened in 1920 would happen again in 2008 or 2011? I hate to tell you that I think the world has altered somewhat in the intervening years.

[chuck34]

So we do nothing? We just accept it because "it just is"?


No they shouldn't, but most do and many not out of economic or political policy choices. Many African nations appear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Public_debt_percent_gdp_world_map_(2010).svg) to be better than Europe and the US where % of debt is concerned yet the DRC seem particularly hard hit as a result of their recent history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo).

Just as Europe was on its knees and needed financial support after WW2 so too is DRC after its own "African World War". But now there are vulture funds to "help" them. Thank goodness for the free market :dozey:

Why must we always "do something"? Why can't we just allow the natural processes work?

Ok so since governments run massive debts that they can't pay back, someone just has to step in and bail them out? What happens when there is no one left with any money to bail out? When do the bail out dominoes stop falling?

[chuck34]

~35% of my salary goes to the Finanzamt (~22%) and Social Security (~13%). I'm quite happy with what I get in return, despite being FORCED to help bail out those poor greek buggers and being FORCED to help subsidise those lazy welfare git's new 50" LCD and being FORCED to yadda yadda ...

So, how would 35% sound to you?

35% total sales tax, property tax, local income, state income, federal income, exise tax on my vehicles, I'm probably forgetting some? If that's what you mean then 35% would end up being a bit of a cut for me, and I'm not rich by any means. For someone that meats Obama's definition of "rich", that would be a very significant cut.

So I'd probably be ok with that.

[chuck34]

Let me get this straight. Your theory is based on the fact that something that happened in 1920 would happen again in 2008 or 2011? I hate to tell you that I think the world has altered somewhat in the intervening years.

Sure it's different. But we haven't tried that approach since. Perhaps it's time for another go at it? You don't seem to think that approach would work, so why not enlighten us with how you would shorten the time to recovery?

[BDunnell]

Why must we always "do something"? Why can't we just allow the natural processes work?

Because the evidence shows that they don't seem to.

[BDunnell]

Sure it's different. But we haven't tried that approach since. Perhaps it's time for another go at it? You don't seem to think that approach would work, so why not enlighten us with how you would shorten the time to recovery?

I don't know, but unlike you I'm not so bold as to claim I do.

[chuck34]

I don't know, but unlike you I'm not so bold as to claim I do.

I don't know for sure it will work. I do know the last time it (nothing) was tried, it worked. And that all the "fixes" we've tried since '08 haven't done much. Isn't it time for something new?

[anthonyvop]

Let me get this straight. Your theory is based on the fact that something that happened in 1920 would happen again in 2008 or 2011? I hate to tell you that I think the world has altered somewhat in the intervening years.

The only thing that has altered are the things that are making things worse.

The Free Market is the Free Market. Whether it is 1920 or 2011 it works the same.

[anthonyvop]

Because the evidence shows that they don't seem to.

And what evidence is that?

The last time it was tried it worked so the ALL the Evidence points to let the free market correct itself is the right move.

[Malbec]

I did explain it, you just don't seem to like it. Let bankrupt companies go throght the bankruptcy procees where they will either restructure and/or their viable assets will be bought by other investors, corporations, or startups. This is exactly what happened in 1920 (yes the causes were different, but I'm talking about the consequences), the government allowed everything to go through its normal process, it was painful, but the recovery was quick.

You can't talk about the consequences without the causes.

I ask you again, where would the credit have been for all these acquisitions, startups and investors? I've asked you this several times now?

In 1920 the private sector was in good shape and adapted to the drop in government spending leading to a rapid recovery.

In 2008 the private sector was in awful state due to the drying up of credit thanks to the banking crisis. The state bailed parts of it out.

How can you possibly say that this wouldn't have made any difference to the consequences?

What you are saying doesn't make any sense, it sounds more as if you're reading from a propaganda book.

[555-04Q2]

I did explain it, you just don't seem to like it. Let bankrupt companies go throght the bankruptcy procees where they will either restructure and/or their viable assets will be bought by other investors, corporations, or startups. This is exactly what happened in 1920 (yes the causes were different, but I'm talking about the consequences), the government allowed everything to go through its normal process, it was painful, but the recovery was quick.

Just because you do not seem to want to accept any sort of painful process doesn't necessarily mean that that isn't what's needed.

Correct :up:

The likes of AIG, GM, banks etc were rewarded with bailouts for doing a poor job and running reckless businesses. It's like rewarding a criminal for breaking the law! The rest of the companies that had their houses in order were effectively penalised for their strong business models and disciplined trading.

What we have now is still weak bailed out organisations and false economies/markets. The current world problems will not go away until governments, companies and private citizens realise what the real problems are and stop trying to prop up weak structures. Until then, nothing is going to change.

And no, I am not interested in debating this post of mine, it's purely my opinion!

[chuck34]

You can't talk about the consequences without the causes.

I ask you again, where would the credit have been for all these acquisitions, startups and investors? I've asked you this several times now?

In 1920 the private sector was in good shape and adapted to the drop in government spending leading to a rapid recovery.

In 2008 the private sector was in awful state due to the drying up of credit thanks to the banking crisis. The state bailed parts of it out.

How can you possibly say that this wouldn't have made any difference to the consequences?

What you are saying doesn't make any sense, it sounds more as if you're reading from a propaganda book.

Sorry I'm not tuned into the financial markets as closely as I would like so i can't give you specific names. To know an unknowable past event that never happened, is a fairly hard task to accomplish. But to deny there would have been people stepping in is foolish.

The credit markets were freezing up because the government was wavering on what they were going to do. So no one wanted to do anything while the prospect of government intervention was hanging over everyone's heads. If they would have announced a policy of free markets, liquidity would have probably returned.

[BDunnell]

The only thing that has altered are the things that are making things worse.

The Free Market is the Free Market. Whether it is 1920 or 2011 it works the same.

Despite all the changes it has itself undergone?

[race aficionado]

Big day today with the Occupy movement here in the USA.

The intention is peaceful but of course we will have all kinds of scenes developing throughout the day.

Occupy America | Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/09-0)

[race aficionado]

An "Occupy" that hasn't been mentioned enough . . .

lest we not forget Japan:

Occupy Tokyo: Mass demonstrations go unreported by Japanese media -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/237704-Occupy-Tokyo-Mass-demonstrations-go-unreported-by-Japanese-media)

[Bob Riebe]

An "Occupy" that hasn't been mentioned enough . . .

lest we not forget Japan:

Occupy Tokyo: Mass demonstrations go unreported by Japanese media -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/237704-Occupy-Tokyo-Mass-demonstrations-go-unreported-by-Japanese-media)Damn, where is a good sized Tsunami when you need one.

[BDunnell]

Damn, where is a good sized Tsunami when you need one.

Bob, are you seriously of the view that people whose opinions don't tally with yours deserve to be killed? Or is this another example of your well-known 'sense of humour'?

Even those of us who disagree vehemently with your opinions would never stoop so low as to advocate the death of you and your ilk.

[Malbec]

The credit markets were freezing up because the government was wavering on what they were going to do. So no one wanted to do anything while the prospect of government intervention was hanging over everyone's heads. If they would have announced a policy of free markets, liquidity would have probably returned.

Sorry but that doesn't tally with my understanding of events.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole problem kicked off when BNP announced that it had very serious reservations about the credit rating of CDS's and the rest of the world took note. When it was realised that BNP were indeed correct and that investors who had thought they were buying AAA packages were in fact buying a whole pile of home loans of variable ratings the system collapsed.

One of the problems with the banking sector is that while trades are performed almost instantaneously money isn't transferred until months later after the back office boys get through the paperwork. Financial institutions had no real way of determining what the liability of other organisations were to the CDS collapse. Given the size of the sums involved it was clear that some organisations would not survive, hence banks stopped lending money as they were unsure who owed what to whom and whether they'd still be around in a few months time.

This is why credit stopped flowing almost instantaneously, and those institutions that had increased their investment/asset ratios to stupendous levels to increase leverage and hence profit came to a shuddering halt and collapsed.

The government had nothing to do with the stop in credit, all they could do was react belatedly using central banks to release money in an attempt to get flowing again. Your version of events may be accurate for a later stage but it is not a description of the first days of the crisis.

[Gregor-y]

Bob, are you seriously of the view that people whose opinions don't tally with yours deserve to be killed? Or is this another example of your well-known 'sense of humour'?
American conservatives don't have a sense of humor. It's all bitterness, anger, name calling and schadenfreude (handy word, by the way).

[Bob Riebe]

Bob, are you seriously of the view that people whose opinions don't tally with yours deserve to be killed? Or is this another example of your well-known 'sense of humour'?

Even those of us who disagree vehemently with your opinions would never stoop so low as to advocate the death of you and your ilk.

I guess I have been listening to too many "occupy" broadcasts snd have taken up their mode of thought.

[anthonyvop]

Despite all the changes it has itself undergone?


Every one of those changes moved it further and further from a true free market. Remove most of the impediments and Voila!!! Problem solved.
The only regulation in the financial markets should be protection against Fraud.

[Bob Riebe]

American conservatives don't have a sense of humor. It's all bitterness, anger, name calling and schadenfreude (handy word, by the way).OH Lordy, Lordy ROFLMAO!
All one has to do is listen to sound clips how persons speaking for the stance of the Democratic Party speak of the Republicans, or their legislature and one will think conservatives are gutless wimps whilst the Democratic talking heads sound like hate filled raving lunatics.
Oh Lordy that one made my day.

[BDunnell]

I guess I have been listening to too many "occupy" broadcasts snd have taken up their mode of thought.

So, no apology for what you wrote, then? You don't think it went a little far, when no-one on here has ever said anything of the sort about you and your fellow free-marketeers?

[BDunnell]

OH Lordy, Lordy ROFLMAO!
All one has to do is listen to sound clips how persons speaking for the stance of the Democratic Party speak of the Republicans, or their legislature and one will think conservatives are gutless wimps whilst the Democratic talking heads sound like hate filled raving lunatics.
Oh Lordy that one made my day.

In what sense was that a response to the point made?

[chuck34]

Sorry but that doesn't tally with my understanding of events.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole problem kicked off when BNP announced that it had very serious reservations about the credit rating of CDS's and the rest of the world took note. When it was realised that BNP were indeed correct and that investors who had thought they were buying AAA packages were in fact buying a whole pile of home loans of variable ratings the system collapsed.

One of the problems with the banking sector is that while trades are performed almost instantaneously money isn't transferred until months later after the back office boys get through the paperwork. Financial institutions had no real way of determining what the liability of other organisations were to the CDS collapse. Given the size of the sums involved it was clear that some organisations would not survive, hence banks stopped lending money as they were unsure who owed what to whom and whether they'd still be around in a few months time.

This is why credit stopped flowing almost instantaneously, and those institutions that had increased their investment/asset ratios to stupendous levels to increase leverage and hence profit came to a shuddering halt and collapsed.

The government had nothing to do with the stop in credit, all they could do was react belatedly using central banks to release money in an attempt to get flowing again. Your version of events may be accurate for a later stage but it is not a description of the first days of the crisis.

What you say here is correct. However, just as the banks were starting to sort everything out, the govenment got wind of things, said "something" must be done, give us a bit to figure it out. So the credit market remained frozen while the government sorted out what "must be done". Then they came back with the cockamamie scheme of forcing the top nine banks to take billions in federal loans even if they didn't need them want them and said no to them. Then things got really interesting because you had banks which were forced to add money to their books they didn't want or need, so they ended up buying up more banks, making them not just too big to fail but too enormous to fail now. That really seemed to work out just swell. And to top it all off, employment went in the tank and hasn't even made an attempt at recovery. Credit is extremely had to get even if you have well established credit. The housing market hasn't recovered, and is still sliding in many areas. And inflation is starting to kick in.

How exactly has government intervention made things better here?

[Bob Riebe]

In what sense was that a response to the point made?Even though his statement is absolute bs, IF-IF it were true, no matter how bad, conservative Rep. may be, liberal Dem. have proven themselves in recorded bytes to be far, far, far worse.

[Bob Riebe]

So, no apology for what you wrote, then? You don't think it went a little far, when no-one on here has ever said anything of the sort about you and your fellow free-marketeers?Nope, I did not even bat an eyelash.

[BDunnell]

Even though his statement is absolute bs, IF-IF it were true, no matter how bad, conservative Rep. may be, liberal Dem. have proven themselves in recorded bytes to be far, far, far worse.

No, they have been proven to be worse in your eyes and those of people like you. This is a very different thing to factual proof.