People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

There is an old saying about the word "assume" but in this case it only makes an ass out of you, and yourself.

Donks has been called an ass.

So what's new. :p :

:s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

[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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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:

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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


Vulture funds await Jersey decision on poor countries' debts | Global development | The Guardian

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

It is the free market. Not good or bad it just is.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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 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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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 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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

~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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.