Greed

[MaggieMae]

spot on...the bastards should have given everyone a raise and watched the company tank and everyone go on the dole.....assholes....

Sorry, but I seriously doubt some of the conglomerates mentioned were even close to tanking. Get real.

It's pretty obvious the Randian capitalists missed the point entirely. In an ideal world, of course maximizing profits is the name of the game, but not when the economy is in such desperate need of repair. There's only so much "the government" can do. It would be nice if the private sector pitched in too.

The reality is that corporations exist to make profits, and capitalism with a minimally-regulated market in the 1900's pretty much made the US the most financially sound country in the world- until 2008, when deregulation of financial institutions, coupled with government social policies encouraging high-risk lending brought us to our knees. If not for the great corporate success of the US in general, we would not have the money for all the social programs that we have gotten into deep debt for. Like it or not, big profits = big government tax receipts, and this is what funds all the programs that so many see as essential in our society. When corporations can't maximize profits in this country, and they can in other countries, they will take their business elsewhere. If our government penalizes success, and other governments reward it, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

related tidbit:

China offers fresh tax break to encourage outsourcing businesses
By Chandan Das on August 12th, 2010
Eager to end India’s supremacy in the outsourcing industry, neighboring China has announced that it will not impose operating taxes on offshore outsourcing services business in 21 of its major cities until 2013 with a view to encourage the growth of this industry. A statement issued by the Communist government in China on Wednesday said that the exemption of five per cent operating taxes will be effective from July 1, 2010 and will remain in effect till December 31, 2013.
A business website reports that the 21 major cities exempted from the operation taxes on offshore outsourcing services, include Beijing, Dalian, Tianjin, Harbin, Shanghai, Daqing, Nanjing, Suzhou, Nanchang, Wuxi, Ji’nan, Hangzhou, Chengdu, Hefei, Xiamen, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Changsha, Shenzhen, Chongqing and Xi’an.
A joint statement issued by the Chinese Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Commerce and the State Administration of Taxation said that revenue from offshore service outsourcing denotes service revenue generated from deals signed with offshore businesses for providing IT outsourcing, BPO and KPO services. Quoting the release, China’s official news agency Xinhua said that Chinese outsourcing firms in these 21 cities that have already paid the operating taxes on their offshore outsourcing services revenues since July 1, 2010 would be entitled to refunds by the end of the current year

Eager to end India’s supremacy in
China offers fresh tax break to encourage outsourcing businesses

Frankly, I don't care how successful companies become successful, as long as they don't step all over the very employees who make it possible for them to be successful in the first place.

 

[Annie]

Certainly not just CEO's that are getting richer at the expense of others:

Wealthy lawmakers increased their riches as U.S. economy sputtered in '09 - TheHill.com

The wealthiest members of Congress grew richer in 2009 even as the economy struggled to recover from a deep recession.

The 50 wealthiest lawmakers were worth almost $1.4 billion in 2009, about $85.1 million more than 12 months earlier, according to The Hill’s annual review of lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) tops the list for the second year in a row. His minimum net worth was $188.6 million at the end of 2009, up by more than $20 million from 2008, according to his financial disclosure form.
...

 

[MaggieMae]

When have we had "Randian capitalism"?( I assume you mean Ayn Rand type capitalism)

Yes. The flaw in the application of Ayn Rand's philosophy today is that it doesn't take into consideration that markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources, or that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention can constitute a recipe for disaster. Which is precisely what happened with the crash of the housing market which led to the crash of the big investment houses which [almost] led to a crash of the financial structure on a global scale.

Housing market crash was due to government, not free markets, it went like this.....

1. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates to as low as 1% so that after inflation we had negative interest rates.

2. As a result, mortgage rates fell to an all time low.

3. Low rates caused borrowing and lending to explode, particularly in real estate. For example, commercial banks more than doubled the amount of real-estate loans they made.

4. All these low interest loans had to be extended to people with worse credit ratings and this increased the demand for homes and other real-estate assets. It should not be surprising that home prices skyrocketed.

Real Estate Roller Coaster


Blaming it on free markets is akin to a kindergarten teacher bringing boxes of chocolate and cokes to class and then blaming the five year olds for getting a sugar rush.

So, then, to make my point (and yours), "somebody" should have known at the market level that these investments were indeed irrational based on misjudgment by the feds that keeping interest rates low would continue to spur the economy. There have been a couple of books written by Wall Street financial types who DID predict it, but where were their voices? Why didn't Hank Paulsen see this coming? Tim Geithner before he became a Washington type too? Were they just sitting at their desks crossing their fingers?

 

[MaggieMae]

Certainly not just CEO's that are getting richer at the expense of others:

Wealthy lawmakers increased their riches as U.S. economy sputtered in '09 - TheHill.com

The wealthiest members of Congress grew richer in 2009 even as the economy struggled to recover from a deep recession.

The 50 wealthiest lawmakers were worth almost $1.4 billion in 2009, about $85.1 million more than 12 months earlier, according to The Hill’s annual review of lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) tops the list for the second year in a row. His minimum net worth was $188.6 million at the end of 2009, up by more than $20 million from 2008, according to his financial disclosure form.
...

Of all the millionnaires on The Hill, I wouldn't have chosen Kerry as your example, whose wife is worth billions anyway.

 

[Flopper]

spot on...the bastards should have given everyone a raise and watched the company tank and everyone go on the dole.....assholes....

Sorry, but I seriously doubt some of the conglomerates mentioned were even close to tanking. Get real.

It's pretty obvious the Randian capitalists missed the point entirely. In an ideal world, of course maximizing profits is the name of the game, but not when the economy is in such desperate need of repair. There's only so much "the government" can do. It would be nice if the private sector pitched in too.

The reality is that corporations exist to make profits, and capitalism with a minimally-regulated market in the 1900's pretty much made the US the most financially sound country in the world- until 2008, when deregulation of financial institutions, coupled with government social policies encouraging high-risk lending brought us to our knees. If not for the great corporate success of the US in general, we would not have the money for all the social programs that we have gotten into deep debt for. Like it or not, big profits = big government tax receipts, and this is what funds all the programs that so many see as essential in our society. When corporations can't maximize profits in this country, and they can in other countries, they will take their business elsewhere. If our government penalizes success, and other governments reward it, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

related tidbit:

China offers fresh tax break to encourage outsourcing businesses
By Chandan Das on August 12th, 2010
Eager to end India’s supremacy in the outsourcing industry, neighboring China has announced that it will not impose operating taxes on offshore outsourcing services business in 21 of its major cities until 2013 with a view to encourage the growth of this industry. A statement issued by the Communist government in China on Wednesday said that the exemption of five per cent operating taxes will be effective from July 1, 2010 and will remain in effect till December 31, 2013.
A business website reports that the 21 major cities exempted from the operation taxes on offshore outsourcing services, include Beijing, Dalian, Tianjin, Harbin, Shanghai, Daqing, Nanjing, Suzhou, Nanchang, Wuxi, Ji’nan, Hangzhou, Chengdu, Hefei, Xiamen, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Changsha, Shenzhen, Chongqing and Xi’an.
A joint statement issued by the Chinese Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Commerce and the State Administration of Taxation said that revenue from offshore service outsourcing denotes service revenue generated from deals signed with offshore businesses for providing IT outsourcing, BPO and KPO services. Quoting the release, China’s official news agency Xinhua said that Chinese outsourcing firms in these 21 cities that have already paid the operating taxes on their offshore outsourcing services revenues since July 1, 2010 would be entitled to refunds by the end of the current year

Eager to end India’s supremacy in
China offers fresh tax break to encourage outsourcing businesses

I think you are missing the point that capitalism can be self destructive. We treasury the idea that competition produces the best products at the lowest price, however the goal of the competitor is to capture the market by destroying it's competition thus destroying the free market. The job of a number of regulatory agencies such as the Security Exchange Commission and the FTC is to maintain free and competitive markets.

Who said the 1900's when we had little or no regulation were that great? Remember the crash of 1929 and the great depression that followed. Most economist believe that a primary cause was the lack of regulation.

 

[johnrocks]

Yes. The flaw in the application of Ayn Rand's philosophy today is that it doesn't take into consideration that markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources, or that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention can constitute a recipe for disaster. Which is precisely what happened with the crash of the housing market which led to the crash of the big investment houses which [almost] led to a crash of the financial structure on a global scale.

Housing market crash was due to government, not free markets, it went like this.....

1. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates to as low as 1% so that after inflation we had negative interest rates.

2. As a result, mortgage rates fell to an all time low.

3. Low rates caused borrowing and lending to explode, particularly in real estate. For example, commercial banks more than doubled the amount of real-estate loans they made.

4. All these low interest loans had to be extended to people with worse credit ratings and this increased the demand for homes and other real-estate assets. It should not be surprising that home prices skyrocketed.

Real Estate Roller Coaster


Blaming it on free markets is akin to a kindergarten teacher bringing boxes of chocolate and cokes to class and then blaming the five year olds for getting a sugar rush.

So, then, to make my point (and yours), "somebody" should have known at the market level that these investments were indeed irrational based on misjudgment by the feds that keeping interest rates low would continue to spur the economy. There have been a couple of books written by Wall Street financial types who DID predict it, but where were their voices? Why didn't Hank Paulsen see this coming? Tim Geithner before he became a Washington type too? Were they just sitting at their desks crossing their fingers?

They were too busy feasting to give a crap and by feasting I mean, enjoying the economic expansion brought about ;not by free markets; but by government, markets only react to what is presented to them, give them 10% rates instead of 1% rates and a lot of this could have been prevented but that would not have been politically expedient, the wars could not have been waged, both Parties are to be blamed and advocating LESS government just isn't as politically profitable as giving out the public treasure, it's dull where all this political posturing is exciting and keeps them in power. My two worthless cents anyway,lol.

 

[lizzie]

I think you are missing the point that capitalism can be self destructive. We treasury the idea that competition produces the best products at the lowest price, however the goal of the competitor is to capture the market by destroying it's competition thus destroying the free market. The job of a number of regulatory agencies such as the Security Exchange Commission and the FTC is to maintain free and competitive markets.


[/quote]

Any economic or political system can be self-destructive, and often is. If a society as a whole is corrupt, as ours is, the decadence and corruption leads to self-destruction. Our society, from the bottom to the top, is corrupt. The social welfare recipient is demanding a living from those who produce, as are the corporations who benefit from corporate welfare. It's the entitlement mentality that is fused into the fabric of society that is ruining it.

 

[Flopper]

There is nothing wrong with capitalism. But there is a lot wrong with unregulated capitalism, something Republicans just don't seem to understand.

Where is it unregulated? People seem to get true free market capitalism and State capitalism confused with one another.

To answer the question of what is unregulated, you have to define what is meant by a regulation. There is some form of regulation that effects every business and individual in civilized society. I would consider a business unregulated if the revenues and expenses were not materially effected by regulations which are specific to the line of business. This is case with most main street businesses.