So much for buy american! walmart to outsource even more!

[Shogun]

um, did you happen to miss each occasion where i've posted deficit numbers thus far? I can't say that I'm shocked given how far your head is up your own ass.

Why would I or anyone else wanna discuss such a thing with someone who's clearly an ill informed, rapid protectionist that offers up nothing but foul-mouthed invectives to anyone that even hints at disagreeing with him? Hell it's like talking to a 3rd grader with turrets syndrome from crying out loud ... so I do what I suspect most other rational people do, namely I ignore you until I feel like getting a laugh by pushing your buttons.. then I put you back in /dev/null when I'm done laughing, all-in-all you're rather like a wind up, foul mouthed jack-in-box in that regard.

Ciao

I guess the answer to your question is BECAUSE YOU ARE A GIANT PUSSY WHO KNOWS HOW BAD ILL BEAT YOU AROUND WITH THE NUMBERS!





myawwww.. whatsa matter, pussy? AFRAID of what billions of dollars in TRADE DEFICITS will say about your retarded fucking economic notions?

Poor guy.. I didn't mean to stomp a mudhole THAT DEEP into your ass and make you run and hide from little things like numeric FACTS! By all means, bitch, go ahead and laugh since thats really ALL you CAN do. Clearly, your rhetorical bullshit FAILS when it comes to facing more facts than you can fit on your GOP lapel pin.

 

[Shogun]

um, did you happen to miss each occasion where i've posted deficit numbers thus far? I can't say that I'm shocked given how far your head is up your own ass.

Why would I or anyone else wanna discuss such a thing with someone who's clearly an ill informed, rapid protectionist that offers up nothing but foul-mouthed invectives to anyone that even hints at disagreeing with him? Hell it's like talking to a 3rd grader with turrets syndrome from crying out loud ... so I do what I suspect most other rational people do, namely I ignore you until I feel like getting a laugh by pushing your buttons.. then I put you back in /dev/null when I'm done laughing, all-in-all you're rather like a wind up, foul mouthed jack-in-box in that regard.

Ciao

You too, you little snatch. Any time you want to face some figures beyond your silly fucking image posting I'd LOVE to remind you why all you can do is hide behind rhetorical bullshit the likes of which gave us the very economic fubar we are all enjoying these days. Until then, go ahead and keep your bleeding pussy ass under the porch were the OTHER scared, quaking fucking bitch is hiding.

 

[Oddball]

Figures lie and liars figure.

History shows your intellectually adolescent trade isolationist views to be grossly in error. Which goes a long way to explaining your adolescent emotional tirades.

At least Agnoplebe has an excuse....He is an adolescent.

 

[WillowTree]

HAHAHA! now THAT is rich.. yea.. it sure is the left who is looking for illegals as cheap labor in the US!

oh man.. you people crack me up!

yes,, the largest populations in the US of KKKA are in the states of California and New York... democwat strongholds both.. and the American Samoans?? why they work for little nan. fact is wasn't pop up recently caught on tape telling a room full of illegals how wonderful they were?? how much they were needed?? why yes by golly I think she was yes,, so you guys can stop with the dishonest fuckery of telling us how much American jobs matter..

hey, ****... the fact remains that ole Ron Reagan is the guy who gave us 8 million free illegals for the purpose of driving down labor cost... and, I can quote more wal street republicans than you can bleedingheart dems when it comes to the value of cheap labor..

You wanna try me? I bet you dont.

so,, asshole,, 8 million? that all ya got? and you forgot to add the part where Reagan later said "it's the biggest mistake I ever made" you dishonest fuck.. I never figured you for a dishonest fuck til now,, but there you are right on top of the list.. newp indisputable fact is the largest congregation of illegals are in the liberal states,, that's a fact jack,, and the sanctuary cities are in the liberal states and that's a fact jack,, and the aclu fights every attempt to control illegals and that's an anti american liberal fascist group and that's a fact jack.. so I'm gonna shop wal mart just cause I want to you dumbazz liberals don't get to tell us where to shop yet!

 

[WillowTree]

Why would I or anyone else wanna discuss such a thing with someone who's clearly an ill informed, rapid protectionist that offers up nothing but foul-mouthed invectives to anyone that even hints at disagreeing with him? Hell it's like talking to a 3rd grader with turrets syndrome from crying out loud ... so I do what I suspect most other rational people do, namely I ignore you until I feel like getting a laugh by pushing your buttons.. then I put you back in /dev/null when I'm done laughing, all-in-all you're rather like a wind up, foul mouthed jack-in-box in that regard.

Ciao

You too, you little snatch. Any time you want to face some figures beyond your silly fucking image posting I'd LOVE to remind you why all you can do is hide behind rhetorical bullshit the likes of which gave us the very economic fubar we are all enjoying these days. Until then, go ahead and keep your bleeding pussy ass under the porch were the OTHER scared, quaking fucking bitch is hiding.

doood you don't scare anybody..

 

[Maple]

The U.S has the 2nd LARGEST TAX on CORPORATIONS in the WORLD. Those evil corporations, they ARE PUNISHED for doing business in the U.S. Any wonder why they go elsewhere??????? Hmmmmmmm

 

[RodISHI]

Uh... No Rodishi... I'm not; as such is impossible. CEO's bargain individually...

What I said was the amount of CEO compensation is miniscule... and that while people tend towards being OUTRAGED at what seem like very large sums... when compared to the Collectively bargained payrolls...

I am saying that as an issue, "CEO Pay" is an absurd Red Herring, which is used to advance the fallacious appeal to envy... that CEO Pay, in terms of the liabilities of these businesses, amount to roughly ZERO in the scope of the whole equation.

CEO's all work together in a boardroom.... To say they do not have bargaining power would be in error.

A good read you can locate one at the nearest library that had a copy.

A financial history of modern U.S. corporate scandals : from Enron to reform
Or buy a copy A financial history of modern U.S. corporate scandals : from Enron to reform - Google Search


GM has been poorly operated for years and years. It has now been gutted, the taxpayer was fair game for a quick stripping and the remains are now being divided up. Good source for abusing the taxpayers funds.

The first one that should take a pay cut in any business is leadership. Either that or pass and turn it over to someone who can get the job done. In any business if the leadership cannot cut the mustard the company will fail!

`Dumbest People' Industry Image May Cost Wagoner Job (Update1)
Wagoner has run the world's largest automaker for the past eight years, presiding over $73 billion in losses beginning in 2005. He already endured a fight with dissident shareholders and several failed turnarounds and may argue he knows the company better than most who could take his job.

Wagoner used the purchase of South Korea's Daewoo Motor Co. to expand GM's overseas sales 51 percent to 5.5 million cars and trucks by 2007. He wrung concessions from labor unions last year, including cutting wages in half for new hires and offloading retiree health care to a union-run trust by 2010.

This original essay at this link is now dead....I picked up the essay off of a google cached page...
Cato Unbound » Blog Archive » Adam Smith Was Right about Corporate CEOs’ Incentives absent Effective Regulation Smith Was Right about

Corporate CEOs’ Incentives absent Effective Regulation

by William K. Black
Lead Essay
December 4th, 2008

Our different views prove that hindsight is often myopic. Larry White’s take is that Clintonian regulations perverted private incentives.

The boom and bust happened in a system with … extensive legal restrictions on financial intermediation. Nor have we had banking and financial deregulation since … 1999.

(One can’t explain an unusual cluster of errors by citing greed, which is always around, just as one can’t explain a cluster of airplane crashes by citing gravity. Anyway, the greedy aim at profits, not losses.) [T]o explain industry-wide errors we need to identify policy distortions capable of having industry-wide effects. The actual causes of our financial troubles were unusual monetary policy moves and novel federal regulatory interventions. Regulatory distortions intensified in the 1990s.

Perverse Compensation Systems are the Key

I disagree with Larry’s theses, but have space to demonstrate only an alternative perverse incentive. What went wrong is that modern compensation systems did not “align” interests, but rather created perverse incentives to engage in accounting “control fraud,” where the CEO uses an apparently legitimate firm as a “weapon” to defraud creditors and shareholders. [1] No regulation forced any lender to make a bad loan. Larry misses the key dynamic: “The greedy” do not “aim at profits, not losses” when compensation schemes are perverse. They maximize short-term accounting “profits” in order to increase their wealth. Making bad loans, growing rapidly, and extreme leverage maximize “profits.” Bad borrowers agree to pay more and it is impossible to grow rapidly via high quality lending. Lending to the uncreditworthy requires the CEO to suborn controls, maximizing “adverse selection.” This produced an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud, particularly in the unregulated nonprime sector. The FBI began warning in September 2004 about the mortgage fraud “epidemic.” [2] Fraudulent loans cause huge direct losses, but the epidemic also hyper-inflated and extended the housing bubble, and eviscerated trust, causing catastrophic indirect losses. When we do not regulate or supervise financial markets we, de facto, decriminalize control fraud. The regulators are the cops on the beat against control fraud—and control fraud causes greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime combined.

The most relevant economic works for understanding these crises are by Akerlof and Romer, Galbraith, and Minsky. Akerlof and Romer explain why “looting” (control fraud) can occur and the fraudulent steps looters take to optimize short-term accounting profits (which destroy the firm). [3] Note that they are writing about a form of a “market for lemons” in which the CEO maximizes information asymmetry. The failure of economists discussing the ongoing crises to cite the work of a Nobel laureate writing in the core of his expertise demonstrates why we have failed to learn the proper lessons from prior financial crises. James Galbraith extends Akerlof and Romer’s analysis to show why the state aids fellow control frauds. [4] Minsky describes the “Ponzi” phase of a crisis and why financial instability reoccurs. [5]

Modern executive compensation systems suborn internal controls. (Control frauds do not “defeat” controls—they turn them into oxymoronic allies.) The Business Roundtable’s spokesman, Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former CEO, explained in a Business Week interview what caused the epidemic of accounting control fraud that became public in 2001 with Enron’s failure.

[Businessweek:] We’ve had a terrible scandal on Wall Street. What is your view?

[Raines:] Investment banking is a business that’s so denominated in dollars that the temptations are great, so you have to have very strong rules. My experience is where there is a one-to-one relation between if I do X, money will hit my pocket, you tend to see people doing X a lot. You’ve got to be very careful about that. Don’t just say: “If you hit this revenue number, your bonus is going to be this.” It sets up an incentive that’s overwhelming. You wave enough money in front of people, and good people will do bad things.

Unfortunately, Raines’ insights stemmed from his implementation of just such a system. Raines knew that the unit that should have been most resistant to this “overwhelming” financial incentive, Fannie Mae’s Internal Audit department, had succumbed to it. Mr. Rajappa, its head, instructed his internal auditors in a formal address in 2000 (and provided the text to Raines, who praised it):

By now every one of you must have 6.46 [the earnings per share target] branded in your brains. You must be able to say it in your sleep, you must be able to recite it forwards and backwards, you must have a raging fire in your belly that burns away all doubts, you must live, breath and dream 6.46, you must be obsessed on 6.46…. After all, thanks to Frank [Raines], we all have a lot of money riding on it…. We must do this with a fiery determination, not on some days, not on most days but day in and day out, give it your best, not 50%, not 75%, not 100%, but 150%. Remember, Frank has given us an opportunity to earn not just our salaries, benefits, raises, ESPP, but substantially over and above if we make 6.46. So it is our moral obligation to give well above our 100% and if we do this, we would have made tangible contributions to Frank’s goals [emphasis in original].

Internal audit is the “anti-canary” in the corporate “mines”; by the time it is suborned every other unit is corrupted. The CEO cannot send out a memo urging accounting fraud, but he can safely send the same message through his bonus plan. He does not have to order, or be aware of, the specific frauds—the employees will do whatever is needed to “earn” their top bonus. The CEO simply communicates—by inaction—that he does not care how they meet the target.

Fannie and Freddie were accounting control frauds that became insolvent because of their private nature. It is naïve to believe that either purchased loans or mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to help poor people. Their senior officers caused Fannie and Freddie to make purchases for the same reason their private peers did: to maximize accounting income. None of these peers had government guarantees, yet “private market discipline” increased their incentive to engage in accounting fraud.

Consider a CFO in 2006 who knows all of this: that there is a housing bubble, that non-prime loans maximize “adverse selection,” that there is an epidemic of mortgage fraud, and that the (declining!) spread on non-prime loans is inadequate. If he does not purchase nonprime paper and lever up, his bank will report far lower earnings than its peers. Firm bonuses and stock appreciation will be lower — sometimes by billions of dollars. The average tenure of a CFO is less than three years. He faces intense pressures to emulate his peers—even if it dooms the firm. This environment creates a “Gresham’s Law” dynamic in which perverse incentives drive good underwriting out of circulation.

The claim that Fannie and Frieddie took excessive risk because of an implicit governmental guarantee stands refuted. They lost market share because they took relatively less exposure to non-prime loans than their peers. Moreover, Fannie and Frieddie’s regulator had power to bar them from purchasing non-prime MBS. The Bush administration did not do so because it favored the expansion of non-prime lending throughout the developing bubble. It expanded FHA’s nonprime loans and opposed regulating nonprime lenders.

The Incidence and Nature of Mortgage Fraud

The defining element of fraud that distinguishes it from other forms of larceny is deceit. Fraud frequently goes undiscovered. Fraud reports understate incidence and are biased. The most competent frauds are least likely to be discovered. Insured depository institutions must file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) when they discover credible information of a crime. Many commercial banks and S&Ls, therefore, often filed SARs about mortgage fraud. Mortgage banking firms were essentially unregulated by the federal government and generally did not file SARs when they found fraud. Investment bankers, in the four years during the peak of the epidemic, filed only36 SARs. [7]

Given the fact that mortgage and investment banks were (allegedly) the principal victims of mortgage fraud, why weren’t they the principal SARs filers? One only spots mortgage fraud if one conducts underwriting (and accounting control frauds abhor it), and the last thing a control fraud wants is to invite the FBI’s attention.

In FY 2007, there were 52,868 Suspicious Activity Reports of mortgage fraud—a 40 percent increase over fiscal year 2006. [8] Mortgage fraud has grown rapidly this decade and has overwhelmed the FBI’s resources. [9] Weak regulation and perverse strategic behavior by control frauds led to pervasive underreporting of fraudulent subprime mortgages:

In 2005, 52% of subprime mortgages were originated by companies with no federal supervision, primarily mortgage brokers and stand-alone finance companies. Another 25% were made by finance companies that are units of bank-holding companies and thus indirectly supervised by the Federal Reserve; and 23% by regulated banks and thrifts. [10]

Because insured banks and S&Ls originated only 23 percent of subprime loans in 2005, the most obvious adjustment to using SARs to estimate total subprime mortgage fraud would be to multiply the annual SAR total by five. However, unregulated mortgage lenders made a disproportionate share of the fraudulent loans. The largest mortgage control frauds cause grossly disproportionate losses and represent an enormous percentage of the total incidence of mortgage fraud. According to a Government Accounting Office report:

Of the top 25 originators of subprime and Alt-A loans in 2006 (which accounted for over 90 percent of the dollar volume of all such originations):

* 21 were nonbank lenders, including 14 independent lenders and 7 nonbank subsidiaries of banks, thrifts, or holding companies.
* the 21 nonbank lenders accounted for 81 percent of the dollar volume (44 percent was originated by independent lenders and 37 percent by nonbank subsidiaries of banks, thrifts, or holding companies).[11]

The worst mortgage frauds operated primarily in the unregulated sector. The New York Times reported:

43 percent of the cases sampled in the study involved misrepresentation of income, assets or debts. The next-largest category was forged documents, totaling 28 percent of the sampled loans. Mortgage brokers initiated the loans on 64 percent of the reports involving misrepresentation of income, assets or debt…

The FBI erred by partnering with the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA)—which represented the worst control frauds. The MBA’s priority was blocking regulation of mortgage banking—not stopping mortgage fraud.

SARs underreport nonprime mortgage fraud at insured depositories. Many frauds are not spotted. Nonprime lenders ended verification to make it easy, fast, and cheap for them to approve uncreditworthy borrowers. Verification is the most effective means to deter and identify fraud, so the worst lenders had enormous undiscovered fraud. The Times report continued:

Indeed, according to a report on mortgage fraud released Thursday by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a unit of the Treasury Department, only 31 percent of suspected fraud was detected before loan disbursements in the 12 months ended March 31, 2007. On stated income loans, only 19 percent of the cases of suspected fraud were detected before the loans were financed, versus 33.5 percent on more fully documented loans.

The federally insured control frauds’ incentive was not to file SARs.

The FBI reports that, based on existing investigations, 80 percent of all reported fraud losses arise from fraud for profit schemes that involve industry insiders. [12]

A survey from Fitch Ratings also showed endemic nonprime mortgage fraud.

Characteristics by percentage of the 45 files reviewed included (loans may appear in more than one finding):

* 66% Occupancy fraud (stated owner occupied — never occupied), based on information provided by borrower or field inspector
* 51% Property value or condition issues — Materially different from original appraisal, or original appraisal contained conflicting information or items outside of typically accepted parameters
* 48% First Time Homebuyer — Some applications indicated no other property, but credit report showed mortgage information
* 44% Payment Shock (defined as greater than 100% increase) — Some greater than 200%
* 44% Questionable stated income or employment — Often in conflict with information on credit report and indicated to be outside “reasonableness” test
* 22% Hawk Alert — Fraud alert noted on credit report
* 18% Credit Report — Questionable ownership of accounts (name or social security numbers do not match)
* 17% Seller Concessions (outside allowed parameters)
* 16% Credit Report — Based on “authorized” user accounts
* 16% Strawbuyer/Flip scheme indicated based on evidence in servicing file
* 16% Identity theft indicated
* 10% Signature fraud indicated
* 6% Non-arms length transaction indicated [13]

Note that Fitch did not conduct any investigation. It identified frauds obvious from a review of the loan files.

SARs filed by federally regulated lenders seriously underreport mortgage fraud. The reported number is enormous. My belief, consistent with fraud incidence found in file reviews, is that it represents roughly 5 percent of the true incidence, which implies roughly one million fraudulent mortgage loans were made in FY 2007. [14]

The testimony of Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, at a 2007 Federal Reserve Board hearing shows why fraud losses are enormous:

Over the last several years, the subprime market has created a race to the bottom in which unethical actors have been handsomely rewarded for their misdeeds and ethical actors have lost market share…. The market incentives rewarded irresponsible lending and made it more difficult for responsible lenders to compete. Strong regulations will create an even playing field in which ethical actors are no longer punished.

Despite the well documented performance struggles of 2006 vintage loans, originators continued to use products with the same characteristics in 2007.

[M]any originators … invent … non-existent occupations or income sources, or simply inflat[e] income totals to support loan applications. A review of 100 stated income loans by one lender found that a shocking 90% of the applications overstated income by 5% or more and almost 60% overstated income by more than 50%. Importantly, our investigations have found that most stated income fraud occurs at the suggestion and direction of the loan originator, not the consumer.

It is no answer to say, “they did not underwrite because they sold their loans.” That model can only work if an ultra-sophisticated entity buys. Investors must stop accounting control fraud if markets are to be efficient. But they do not. Elite investors’ Potemkin models created illusory sophistication. Their only skill was in the intricate footwork required in the Totentanz with their partners at the rating agencies in which they structured toxic nonprime paper into risk-free “AAA.”

As Paul Volcker has concluded, “modern finance” has failed the market test. Its policies optimize the environment for control fraud and create perverse dynamics that create recurrent financial crises.

—

William K. Black is associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.

Notes

[1] Black, William K., 2005. The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, (Austin, TX: U. Tex. Press).

[2] “FBI warns of mortgage fraud ‘epidemic’: Seeks to head off ‘next S&L crisis‘” CNN, Sept. 17, 2004.

[3] Akerlof, George, and Paul M. Romer, 1993. “Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 1-73.

[4] Galbraith, James, 2008. The Predator State (NY: Simon & Schuster).

[5] Minsky, Hyman, 1982. “The Financial-Instability Hypothesis: Capitalist processes and the behavior of the economy”, in Kindleberger and Laffargue, editors, Financial Crises. See also recent works by Wray, R. and Kregel, J. extending and applying Minsky’s theories to the ongoing crises.

[6] Raines’ observation about the perverse impact of such compensation systems has been confirmed. Lucian Bebchuk & Jesse Fried, Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation (2004): at 183-85. “Executive Compensation at Fannie Mae: A Case Study of Perverse Incentives, Nonperformance Pay, and Camouflage.” Lucian A. Bebchuk and Jesse M. Fried. Journal of Corporation Law, 2005, Vol. 30, pp. 807-822 (at p. 811).

Even Michael Jensen now warns that they caused endemic accounting and securities fraud. Jensen, Michael. “Putting Integrity Into Finance Theory and Practice: A Positive Approach” (June 9, 2007) (available on SSRN). The Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee has decried rating agencies’ perverse compensation systems. Statement No. 257: “Reliance on Third-Party Credit Ratings” (February 11, 2008).

[7] Gretchen Morgenson, “Fair Game: A Road Not Taken by Lenders” (April 6, 2008). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/business/06gret.html?scp=2&sq=mortgage+fraud&st=nyt

[8] “Mortgage Loan Fraud: An Update of Trends Based upon an Analysis of Suspicious Activities Reports,” [pdf] Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, 2008.

[9] “’Mortgage fraud is the fastest-growing white-collar crime affecting the United States today,’ says Karen Spangenberg, chief of the financial crimes section of the FBI’s criminal investigative division.” “Mortgage Shakedown,” Mortgage Banking, August 1, 2006.

[10] Greg Ip & Damiam Paletta. “Regulators Scrutinized In Mortgage Meltdown.” (March 22, 2007). The Wall Street Journal Online

[11] GAO briefing of the Committee on Financial Services House of Representatives. Subject: Information on Recent Default and Foreclosure Trends for Home Mortgages and Associated Economic and Market Developments (October 16, 2007: 54).

[12] “Mortgage Fraud: Strengthening Federal and State Mortgage Fraud Prevention Efforts” (2007). Tenth Periodic Case Report to the Mortgage Bankers Association, produced by MARI.

[13] http://www.fitchratings.com/corporate/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=356624.

[14] Note that this discussion also refutes two of Larry’s regulatory claims: (1) that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was a material contributor to the crisis and (2) that inadequate regulation did not contribute to the crisis. The principal nonprime lenders were not even subject to the CRA. The principal buyers of nonprime paper were not subject to the Act. The CRA had been in place for decades, yet caused a crisis during a decade when the Bush administration gutted CRA supervision. The regulated lenders that were nonprime specialists (and made the great bulk of nonprime loans in that sector) did not have to do so to comply with the CRA. Lenders made nonprime loans to maximize accounting income. The CRA never requires a lender to make a bad loan.

Larry also misses the entire concept of desupervision. When the OTS Director brings a chainsaw to a press conference to destroy the rules and when he and the head of the FDIC gut the agency staff effective supervision ends. When the guardians don’t guard, rules fail.

PBS link added:

April 3, 2009 William K. Black: CSI Bailout

William K. Black suspects that it was more than greed and incompetence that brought down the U.S. financial sector and plunged the economy in recession — it was fraud. And he would know. When it comes to financial shenanigans, William K. Black, the former senior regulator who cracked down on banks during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, has seen pretty much everything.

 

[Shogun]

Figures lie and liars figure.

History shows your intellectually adolescent trade isolationist views to be grossly in error. Which goes a long way to explaining your adolescent emotional tirades.

At least Agnoplebe has an excuse....He is an adolescent.

I don't really give a shit about what YOU think is a rhetorical craptstic response to numbers that keep my pimp ring connecting with your fucking brow, motherfucker. Your OPINION means two things in light of the facts on the ground: jack and shit. You want to suggest that these figures LIE? Then post your own fucking evidence beyond regurgitating the sme old tired shit Alan Greenspan spouted, much to his later admitted mistake, back int he 90s.

The very reason you don't post evidence of your own is because you know how pussy weak your entire position is. This is why you rely on googled images rather than facts. And, it's why i'm already waist deep in the giant mudhole i've stomped in your ass. Perhaps when your kind can whip out anything besides crusty fucking theroies that we all know amounts to the Flat Earth opinions of conservative economists (and, lets face it.. that title is very generous in spite of the utter failure of your opinions) you'll be able to retort with someone a little more heavy than "boo hooo ad hominem! now, let me go post an ad hominem"



ps, bitch.. enjoy some reading material since you CLEARLY didn't receive an education during your laughable time in college economics.





U.S. Trade Deficit Soars; Oil Imports Rise - CBS News

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/business/worldbusiness/03fobriefs-FIRSTTRADEDE_BRF.html

Assessing the Impact of America's Trade Deficit : NPR

The $1.4 Trillion Question - The Atlantic (January/February 2008)

NUMBERS LIE, DONT THEY, MOTHERFUCKER?

American trade deficit soars by 44% in June - Business, News - The Independent

 

[Agnapostate]

Figures lie and liars figure.

History shows your intellectually adolescent trade isolationist views to be grossly in error. Which goes a long way to explaining your adolescent emotional tirades.

At least Agnoplebe has an excuse....He is an adolescent.

So you have an ignorance of the historical record in addition to your ignorance of sound trade policy? It's a well-known reality that the capitalist powers of the world utilized protectionism as a component of strategic trade policy, thus undermining your laissez-faire perspective. Even today, it's a well-understood fact that the state protection of infant industries is hardly "trade isolationism," but merely protects the development of those industries and ultimate healthy competition of the sector, thereby maximizing dynamic comparative advantage in the long-term.

 

[Shogun]

yes,, the largest populations in the US of KKKA are in the states of California and New York... democwat strongholds both.. and the American Samoans?? why they work for little nan. fact is wasn't pop up recently caught on tape telling a room full of illegals how wonderful they were?? how much they were needed?? why yes by golly I think she was yes,, so you guys can stop with the dishonest fuckery of telling us how much American jobs matter..

hey, ****... the fact remains that ole Ron Reagan is the guy who gave us 8 million free illegals for the purpose of driving down labor cost... and, I can quote more wal street republicans than you can bleedingheart dems when it comes to the value of cheap labor..

You wanna try me? I bet you dont.

so,, asshole,, 8 million? that all ya got? and you forgot to add the part where Reagan later said "it's the biggest mistake I ever made" you dishonest fuck.. I never figured you for a dishonest fuck til now,, but there you are right on top of the list.. newp indisputable fact is the largest congregation of illegals are in the liberal states,, that's a fact jack,, and the sanctuary cities are in the liberal states and that's a fact jack,, and the aclu fights every attempt to control illegals and that's an anti american liberal fascist group and that's a fact jack.. so I'm gonna shop wal mart just cause I want to you dumbazz liberals don't get to tell us where to shop yet!

Mistake or not, thats on YOUR shoulders.. and, give me a fucking break.. you know goddamn well that WALL STREET JOURNAL REPUBLICANS call you a fucking fool to your face on this issue of who wants cheap labor.



By all means, ****.. since you know your opinion of me doesn't matter at all.. quit wasting your fucking breath and POST YOUR EVIDENCE THAT ITS LIBERALS WHO WANT CHEAP ILLEGAL LABOR TO FLOOD THE FUCKING JOB MARKET.

I look forward to your evidence, ****.

 

[WillowTree]

hey, ****... the fact remains that ole Ron Reagan is the guy who gave us 8 million free illegals for the purpose of driving down labor cost... and, I can quote more wal street republicans than you can bleedingheart dems when it comes to the value of cheap labor..

You wanna try me? I bet you dont.

so,, asshole,, 8 million? that all ya got? and you forgot to add the part where Reagan later said "it's the biggest mistake I ever made" you dishonest fuck.. I never figured you for a dishonest fuck til now,, but there you are right on top of the list.. newp indisputable fact is the largest congregation of illegals are in the liberal states,, that's a fact jack,, and the sanctuary cities are in the liberal states and that's a fact jack,, and the aclu fights every attempt to control illegals and that's an anti american liberal fascist group and that's a fact jack.. so I'm gonna shop wal mart just cause I want to you dumbazz liberals don't get to tell us where to shop yet!

Mistake or not, thats on YOUR shoulders.. and, give me a fucking break.. you know goddamn well that WALL STREET JOURNAL REPUBLICANS call you a fucking fool to your face on this issue of who wants cheap labor.



By all means, ****.. since you know your opinion of me doesn't matter at all.. quit wasting your fucking breath and POST YOUR EVIDENCE THAT ITS LIBERALS WHO WANT CHEAP ILLEGAL LABOR TO FLOOD THE FUCKING JOB MARKET.

I look forward to your evidence, ****.

who inhabits caleeeeefornia asshole??? who? and new yawk city??? who??? i'll tell ya who it's libtards that's who...who's run their fucking states into the ground supporting their lust for illegals??? whoooo?? libtards that's whoooooo

 

[Derek_Plumber]

Mistake or not, thats on YOUR shoulders.. and, give me a fucking break.. you know goddamn well that WALL STREET JOURNAL REPUBLICANS call you a fucking fool to your face on this issue of who wants cheap labor.

Here are two Republican National Committeemen who will work cheap.

 

[Toro]

Wal-Mart outsourcing allows Americans to buy things for less, charge for less and increases the disposable income for people, particularly for poor people.

 

[Oddball]

So you have an ignorance of the historical record in addition to your ignorance of sound trade policy? It's a well-known reality that the capitalist powers of the world utilized protectionism as a component of strategic trade policy, thus undermining your laissez-faire perspective. Even today, it's a well-understood fact that the state protection of infant industries is hardly "trade isolationism," but merely protects the development of those industries and ultimate healthy competition of the sector, thereby maximizing dynamic comparative advantage in the long-term.

You mean the historical records of places like Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and Taiwan??

Like I said earlier in this thread, I'm old enough to remember all the economic populist ignoramus weeping and wailing about all the inexpensive merch America imported from those countries.....All those nations AND America are better off for the trade.

Your ivory tower bookworm economic populism fails when the light of historical evidence is shined on it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

yea dude! the comparative impact of a yearly 9 dollar salary versus a 24 dollar salary SURE IS ARBITRARY!

Arbitrary No, many of those who were making $24.00 an hour are out of work or soon to be out of work, those working in factories making $9.00 an hour still have jobs and will have jobs in the future, there's a simple explaination to that conundrum, those that were making $24.00 an hour in UAW factories weren't worth that much. The union geniuses priced much of their own membership right out of the labor market.

yea dude! our economy, and it's total meltdown of consuming ability, sure does agree with you!



Buy a fucking house lately? How many 9/hr factory workers do you think are out getting new homes built? Or, I daresay, buying homes period? 24/hr are out of work because assholes like you don't have a problem shipping those opportunities to Mexico. Don't deflect the blame, dude. It's entirely the fault of people like you that we are wading through the river of shit that seems to have stunk up our domestic economic climate.

-YAWN-

Yeah... that's right...

Those companies decided to go through the hassle of moving their manufacutring facilities to Mexico just to piss off the American workers... It wasn't because of the regulatory expenses slapped upon them by the US left... It wasn't a result of those regulatory liabilities causing them to be unable to bring a product to market at competitive price established by the natural forces of the market place...

The American worker is ENTITLED to take home two, three, five, TEN times the wages of equally skilled workers elsewhere...

It's the cognitive limitations of the left which make them so damn dangerous.

The fact is that the skill levels necessary to do certain functions are not static... what was once a valuable skill, which were fairly rare... eventually become quite common.

If you had worked on an assembly line for 20 years and one day you come to work and there's a parrot sitting on the line doing your job... then YOUR JOB IS NO LONGER WORTH the wages that you were earning yeasterday...

TODAYS WAGES for your job are equal to those demanded by THE PARROT.

Now you've a CHOICE... continue to work that line and take home a bag of birdseed everyday... or GO FIND A JOB WHICH A PARROT CAN'T DO!

It isn't an honest argument to complain that the factory moved its operations to the PET SHOP; thus robbing you of a living... the fact is that the skills necessary to DO YOUR JOB are no longer as valuable as they once were... and where one adds MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF GOVERNMENT REGULATORY LIABILITY TO YOUR WAGES... moving to the pet shop, where no such regulations exists, isn't a hassle AT ALL... it's THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION!

 

[barry1960]

Don't waste my time, moron.

Well it's good to see you have your name calling skills to fall back on in case your career as a guy, doing an impression of a guy doing an impression of another guy career doesn't pan out.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person is dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned, especially if the dependency is total and immediate. The term is used to draw an analogy between slavery and some (or all) forms of wage labor. Some uses of the term may refer only to situations where workers are paid comparatively low wages (e.g. sweatshops). More controversially, others point to similarities between owning and employing a person, and extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with limited job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma).

Just because the term exists on Wikipedia doesn't make it any less of an oxymoron.... but you still didn't answer the question regarding Wal Mart employees, don't they work for a mutually agreed upon price for their labor?

The trouible with libertarians is that while they may wave a flag and spout freedom and democracy, in reality it is a philosophy of utter selfishness. It says just minimize government and let me keep my money. "I love my country, just not the people it in who are less fortunate than me."

A president once said that the business of America is business. Calvin Coolidge however will not go down as one of the great presidents. America historically has always tried to balance the needs of democracy with the needs capitalism. An example of this is Government accomplishes this by putting breaks on capitalism. This protects the lower and middle classes. A strong middle class strengthens democracy. The trade off of increased government control is to slow economic growth. Pure capitalism is both highly efficient and ruthless.

As far as Walmart employees contracting for their wages: wages are effected by supply and demand. The worker's skill set and bargaining position greatly effect wages. Weakening worker's bargaining position through weaker unions and outsourcing jobs to countries with lower standards of living results in workers being unable to bargain for satisfactory wages. The result of a swing to capitalism is high profits for business, with more wealth being concentrated in the top of society.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

The trouible with libertarians is that while they may wave a flag and spout freedom and democracy, in reality it is a philosophy of utter selfishness. It says just minimize government and let me keep my money. "I love my country, just not the people it in who are less fortunate than me."

LOL, complete hogwash, you call libertarians "selfish" when it's the collectivists that want to use FORCE to steal our rights and property to fund their social experiments, pet causes and self enriching gub'ment programs. I have a news flash for you, we're not the ones that promote or want to participate in the current system of legalized plunder of our fellow citizens.

What you're saying could be likened to saying that the victim of a mugging is selfish because he didn't want to hand over his money to the mugger, thank him for his time then encourage him to go mug somebody else.

 

[HUGGY]

Well it's good to see you have your name calling skills to fall back on in case your career as a guy, doing an impression of a guy doing an impression of another guy career doesn't pan out.


Just because the term exists on Wikipedia doesn't make it any less of an oxymoron.... but you still didn't answer the question regarding Wal Mart employees, don't they work for a mutually agreed upon price for their labor?

The trouible with libertarians is that while they may wave a flag and spout freedom and democracy, in reality it is a philosophy of utter selfishness. It says just minimize government and let me keep my money. "I love my country, just not the people it in who are less fortunate than me."

A president once said that the business of America is business. Calvin Coolidge however will not go down as one of the great presidents. America historically has always tried to balance the needs of democracy with the needs capitalism. An example of this is Government accomplishes this by putting breaks on capitalism. This protects the lower and middle classes. A strong middle class strengthens democracy. The trade off of increased government control is to slow economic growth. Pure capitalism is both highly efficient and ruthless.

As far as Walmart employees contracting for their wages: wages are effected by supply and demand. The worker's skill set and bargaining position greatly effect wages. Weakening worker's bargaining position through weaker unions and outsourcing jobs to countries with lower standards of living results in workers being unable to bargain for satisfactory wages. The result of a swing to capitalism is high profits for business, with more wealth being concentrated in the top of society.

The trouible with libertarians is that while they may wave a flag and spout freedom and democracy, in reality it is a philosophy of utter selfishness. It says just minimize government and let me keep my money. "I love my country, just not the people it in who are less fortunate than me."


I dabbled in the thought that the libertarian party could be the most viable to change to a reasonable facimilie of the republican party of the late fifties. But the truth of thier platform is that which you noted.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

I dabbled in the thought that the libertarian party could be the most viable to change to a reasonable facimilie of the republican party of the late fifties.

LOL, the Libertarian Party is just as F'd up as the two major parties only on a smaller scale, heck they nominated a closed minded, right-winger trying to disguise himself as a libertarian as their presidential candidate in the last election for cryin' out loud.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well it's good to see you have your name calling skills to fall back on in case your career as a guy, doing an impression of a guy doing an impression of another guy career doesn't pan out.

Just because the term exists on Wikipedia doesn't make it any less of an oxymoron.... but you still didn't answer the question regarding Wal Mart employees, don't they work for a mutually agreed upon price for their labor?

The trouible with libertarians is that while they may wave a flag and spout freedom and democracy, in reality it is a philosophy of utter selfishness. It says just minimize government and let me keep my money. "I love my country, just not the people it in who are less fortunate than me."

Ahh... old "FAIRNESS" raises it's pain-riddled face... it's NOT FAIR that someone has MORE than someone else... setting aside the effort, the time and the circumstances which otherwise provided for the disparity.

Bad news on this one sis... IT'S EXTREMELY FAIR... as that is the RESULTS which occured from the disparative efforts... Equality is a function of one's RIGHTS... which provide for equality of OPPORTUNITY... that you are intellectually deficient and thus lack the means to recognize that OUTCOME is NOT A FUNCTION WHICH FAIRNESS CAN EVER ADDRESS is NEVER going to change that FACT.

A president once said that the business of America is business. Calvin Coolidge however will not go down as one of the great presidents. America historically has always tried to balance the needs of democracy with the needs capitalism.

ROFL... Sweet Mother... a non sequitur which hopes to establisha valid point... ALWAYS A GAS!

Capitalism is LIBERTY... IT'S FREEDOM... one cannot tweak Capitalism and not infringe on liberty; PERIOD. Capitalism is NOTHING MORE THAN: The Free Exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... OKA: FREEDOM..

An example of this is Government accomplishes this by putting breaks on capitalism.

Thus Government 'putting the brakes on FREEDOM"... OKA: OPPRESSION, for which you're here to ADVOCATE... and I bet you like to think of yourself as open minded and elightened... a LIBERAL; one who advocates for LIBERTY... yet here ya are advocating for OPPRESSION... Doesn't that SUCK... for you?

This protects the lower and middle classes. A strong middle class strengthens democracy.

Ahh... so you're saying that oppression; the restriction of freedom, the limiting of liberty... this benefits the lower and middle classes? In a society which has no actual class system... only the realized annual revenue stream, which the social scientists can't RESIST to turn into "CLASS" for the sake of trotting out the fallacious appeal to ENVY...

Hardly the stuff of which sound argument is comprised...

The trade off of increased government control is to slow economic growth. Pure capitalism is both highly efficient and ruthless.

Sweet Non sequitur... One actually has nothing to do with the other... Nature operates around balance... thus all things in nature cycle... ebbing and flowing around a balance. Thus the natural cycle of the markets are not something which can be changed, altered or otherwise avoided by governmant opppression... All that has historically resulted from government manipulations of the market is the intensifying of the cycle... noted by the FIRST attempt of the Social Scientists overt manipulation of the markets in the 1930s, which converted an average recession cycle into a decades long global depression; which is occuring even as we speak... by the NEO-PROGRESSIVES who caused the same thing the LAST TIME THEY TROTTED THIS DRIVEL OUT.

Pure capitalism, is PURELY; THE FREE EXCHANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICES TO THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF BOTH PARTIES... Where a culture is moral and virtuous, holding itself to high moral standards of VIRTUE... things tend to work themselves out... where secularism is twisted from atheist roots, crushing any sense of virtue of a culture, by rejecting religious principles of such, cultures will rot from the inside out as they experience the certanties associated with such... and this in ALL facets of society; ending of course int he unbridled corruption of government power; which inevitably kills off any trace of freedom.

As far as Walmart employees contracting for their wages: wages are effected by supply and demand. The worker's skill set and bargaining position greatly effect wages.

WOW... a well reasoned point... it's as if you've some hope...

Weakening worker's bargaining position through weaker unions and outsourcing jobs to countries with lower standards of living results in workers being unable to bargain for satisfactory wages. The result of a swing to capitalism is high profits for business, with more wealth being concentrated in the top of society.

ROFLMNAO... OH! SLAM! You go from a well reasoned fact, to an absurd rationalization, wherein you initially recognize that skill sets and supply of same, set the natural value, through the inherent in the demand for a given individual's skills, in terms of their potential wages and DEMAND that this should be set aside through the coercion of collectively bargaining for wages; wherein the workers of a given trade unite to demand MORE, GREATER VALUES in terms of wages, as compensation for the skill sets they bring to bear, THEN THE MARKET OTHERWISE PROVIDES!

The result of which is artificially increased wages, higher costs to the consumer, lowering the consumers buying power, which come BACK IMMEDIATELY TO THOSE WORKERS; AS EACH ONE IS A CONSUMER...

ROFL... Leftists...