Will this usher in socialism?

[Diuretic]

I've earned everything I have. No one gave me anything.

The reality of life in this world, be it individual or a nation-state, is that you are "entitled" only to what you can take and what you can keep. THAT is the fundamental axiom of the human condition.

Nature red in tooth and claw

If you have something I want and I can take it from you does that mean it's a moral act by me?

 

[editec]

Based on conversations with you and our differing beliefs as to how most people get to wherever they are, I think you may be suprised at the outcomes if we had a true meritocracy.

I'd be more than willing to try it out.

What do you mean by level playing field?

I mean a market where people are informed, and where dishonest people go to jail for breaking the rules. I ALSO mean a market where we only have rules to keep the market fuctioning fairly, too.

How do you have true capitalism, which by definition says the playing field won't stay level, and keep a level playing field.

You seem to think that I want a communist system. I just want one that doesn't give one class so much advantage that there is little chance for the rest of us. That is what we have RIGHT NOW.

You say it would work well, unfortunately if you regulate it to that extent it isn't really capitalism anymore.

To what extent?

Again, you seem to be decided you know exactly what I mean, and you see seem to be presuming that I am something and someone I am not.

You obviously cannot know what I mean since I haven't given you an example.

An EXAMPLE of what I mean by how much BULLSHIT this soupposed capitalist system really is
​

In a FAIR market, for example, INSIDER TRADING is illegal, right? (I mean you do agree with the principle behind THAT law, right5?)

And in a FAIR SOCIETY, Insider traders are severely punished.

Now in this society, insider trades are seldom caught, and if they are caught, their punishment is often a fine less than they actually made!


Michal Miklien for example... caught for insider trading, he ended up doing another insider trading deal (with the SEC!!!) so that he could offload his stocks in his company, (before the world knew he'd been busted by the SEC) such that the FEDS could fine him.

"Why? How did THAT happen, editec?" you ask

Had they SEC announced to the market that Miliken was busted, his stocks would have been worthless.

Had that happend, they FEDs couldn't have levied their multibillion dollar fines on Miliken.

And even, after Miliken was busted (and paid about 40% of his net worth)and got out of prison he was STILL a muiltibillionaire.

Now the above is the kind of UNFAIR market/goverment CLASS BIASED interaction that I am complaining about.

It is so obvious to me that CLASS is as important to laws as CRIME, that it sickens me that people like you (who I preume are honest people struggling to make it, just like ME) can't see it.

Now in the editecian FAIR capitalism world, Miliken might have been hanged.

But certainly he'd have stripped of every fucking cent he ever had, and NEVER allowed to own so much as a fucking stock or bond FOREVER.

Did you even know the above insider trading deal between Miliken and the SEC happened?

I rather doubt you did. But I did. this is PUBLIC information, but you need to read A LOT to know this kind of fact. (I happen to have a LOT of time to read)

You seem to be so busy imagining that I am a communist or something, that you READ INTO my posts things which are NOT there.

I suspect, Bern 80, I am a more ardent defender of the CAPITALIST system than you are, to be honest.

But since you do not understand what the fuck I am even talking about most of the time, you seem to assume a load of bullshit about what I must have meant (in your mind) , rather than THINK about what I actually wrote.

LOTS of that going on here, sport.

A lot of "let's turn everyone into a cartoon commie, so we can be rude to them" crap happening here.

Now pay attention, lad: Editec thinks:

Capitalism is a grand system for producing wealth

Capitalism needs LAWS to keep it from turning running fairly

The market cannot regulate itself because? BECAUSE MOTIVATED BY GREED, PEOPLE ARE THIEVES AND LIARS.

GOOD GOVERNMENT can do regulate that and needs to punish those who cheat.

BAD GOVERNMENT cannot do that because BAD GOVERNMENT becomes enablers of CHEATERS.

NO government will NOT work AT ALL. There will be NO market without regulations to keep the market from destroying itself because? BECAUSE BAD BUSINESS PRIACTIVES DRIVE OUT GOOD ONES!

We are enjoying the benefit of BAD government, RIGHT NOW in the form of ths credit crises meltdown.

Had we NOT changed our regualtions from the FDR regualtions NONE of this could have happened.

 

[Bern80]

I'd be more than willing to try it out.

I mean a market where people are informed, and where dishonest people go to jail for breaking the rules. I ALSO mean a market where we only have rules to keep the market fuctioning fairly, too.

There is a fairly common thread here to an earlier post where you essentially agreed with me that people have become complacent in terms of participation in the political process. So would it not be reasonable to believe the same is probably true in their day to day pursuits of their standard of living? If people don't care enough to participate in the political process then you would have to agree the burden would also fall on them to get informed, right? If so, what then? Do we scrap the system simply because people won't take the responsibility that the system requires? Or do you let the system do exactley what is was designed to do and let it either weed those people out or teach them a lesson that hopefully learn and change from?

You seem to think that I want a communist system. I just want one that doesn't give one class so much advantage that there is little chance for the rest of us. That is what we have RIGHT NOW.

The problem is finding a concrete example and the results of playing that out. Wal-Mart for example is public enemy number one for a lot of people. Claiming they have so much in one place at such reduced prices that it is unfair to other companies trying to compete. That part of it is true, it indeed is harder for small businesses to compete against that. My question is do you believe they are an example of something that Wal-mart has too much advantage to the extent that someone needs to step in and make it more fair?

Again, you seem to be decided you know exactly what I mean, and you see seem to be presuming that I am something and someone I am not.

You obviously cannot know what I mean since I haven't given you an example.

An EXAMPLE of what I mean by how much BULLSHIT this soupposed capitalist system really is
​

If someone said something like, I don't know....

The libertopians are going to finally get to see what a society run by for-profit corporations really looks like.

what is one going to logically infer about your position on for-profit capitalistic economics?

Did you even know the above insider trading deal between Miliken and the SEC happened?

I rather doubt you did. But I did. this is PUBLIC information, but you need to read A LOT to know this kind of fact. (I happen to have a LOT of time to read)

You seem to be so busy imagining that I am a communist or something, that you READ INTO my posts things which are NOT there.

I suspect, Bern 80, I am a more ardent defender of the CAPITALIST system than you are, to be honest.

But since you do not understand what the fuck I am even talking about most of the time, you seem to assume a load of bullshit about what I must have meant (in your mind) , rather than THINK about what I actually wrote.

LOTS of that going on here, sport.

That goes both ways.....sport. Most of what you have said has been in the vein of what I quoted above from another thread. There has been little evidence that you are this 'ardent' supporter of capitalism. If you are great, and I will accept.

Now pay attention, lad: Editec thinks:

Capitalism is a grand system for producing wealth

Capitalism needs LAWS to keep it from turning running fairly

The market cannot regulate itself because? BECAUSE MOTIVATED BY GREED, PEOPLE ARE THIEVES AND LIARS.

GOOD GOVERNMENT can do regulate that and needs to punish those who cheat.

BAD GOVERNMENT cannot do that because BAD GOVERNMENT becomes enablers of CHEATERS.

NO government will NOT work AT ALL. There will be NO market without regulations to keep the market from destroying itself because? BECAUSE BAD BUSINESS PRIACTIVES DRIVE OUT GOOD ONES!

We are enjoying the benefit of BAD government, RIGHT NOW in the form of ths credit crises meltdown.

Had we NOT changed our regualtions from the FDR regualtions NONE of this could have happened.

Mostly agree. Couple things:

Yes the market can regulate itself, which it is attempting to do all by itself with no help as we speak. We are circumventing that with this legislation simply because we won't allow the anyone, financial institutions or people, to feel the full burden of this correction. I don't know if that's good or bad. On one hand we learn not to repeat the same mistakes and thus become smarter, stronger, more efficient, etc., when we experience dire consequences from them. We aren't allowing that to happen however. On the other my compassionate side (yes, i have one) says we simply can not allow the skyrocketing potential homelessness and joblessness that likely could result in inaction.

 

[Diuretic]

A market might be able to achieve equilibrium but I don't see how it can regulate itself. There have to be rules. Rules have to be enforced. Violators have to be removed.

 

[Bern80]

A market might be able to achieve equilibrium but I don't see how it can regulate itself. There have to be rules. Rules have to be enforced. Violators have to be removed.

Again you need look no further than our current crisis for an example. No economic system acheives equilbrium, they cycle, they have to. The system would indeed regulate itself in this case if we didn't pass any legislation. The fat cats would be held personally accountable, because if no one saves them from their own mess they are going to go belly up.

 

[editec]

There is a fairly common thread here to an earlier post where you essentially agreed with me that people have become complacent in terms of participation in the political process. So would it not be reasonable to believe the same is probably true in their day to day pursuits of their standard of living?

Ah...no, that would not be a reasonable to believe. Most people who can work are working their asses off.

If people don't care enough to participate in the political process then you would have to agree the burden would also fall on them to get informed, right?

Few people have the luxury I do to spend all day reading. They depend on the media and they do not have the time to ferret out the truth from the lies (mostly presented as half truths) they are being fed every damned day.

If so, what then? Do we scrap the system simply because people won't take the responsibility that the system requires?

Yeah, right like I can tell us how to fix this system in this venue?

Or do you let the system do exactley what is was designed to do and let it either weed those people out or teach them a lesson that hopefully learn and change from?

This system isn't designed to weed out the people, it's designed to FLEECE the people. Big BIG difference.

The problem is finding a concrete example and the results of playing that out.

Well... this banking meltdown is fairly concrete, isn' it?

Wal-Mart for example is public enemy number one for a lot of people.

Yeah, and they're idiotic liberals who don't understand a damned thing. I take no responsibility for the what fools who think they;re liberals (and who don't actually know what that means).

Claiming they have so much in one place at such reduced prices that it is unfair to other companies trying to compete. That part of it is true, it indeed is harder for small businesses to compete against that. My question is do you believe they are an example of something that Wal-mart has too much advantage to the extent that someone needs to step in and make it more fair?

I have no problem with WALMART.

I hate FREE TRADE as currrently structured, though.

WALMART wasn't the primary industry that forced that idiotic policy through, (the arms industry was) WALMART just took advantage of it.

That goes both ways.....sport. Most of what you have said has been in the vein of what I quoted above from another thread. There has been little evidence that you are this 'ardent' supporter of capitalism. If you are great, and I will accept.

I believe capitalism is a grand system for creating wealth if it is regulated. Ask me something specific and I can probably tell you what regulations I think are needed to keep captialism from eating itself.



Mostly agree. Couple things:

Yes the market can regulate itself, which it is attempting to do all by itself with no help as we speak. We are circumventing that with this legislation simply because we won't allow the anyone, financial institutions or people, to feel the full burden of this correction. I don't know if that's good or bad. On one hand we learn not to repeat the same mistakes and thus become smarter, stronger, more efficient, etc., when we experience dire consequences from them. We aren't allowing that to happen however. On the other my compassionate side (yes, i have one) says we simply can not allow the skyrocketing potential homelessness and joblessness that likely could result in inaction.

Here we go...back to square one.

Bern, do you think capitalism can exist in a society without order?

How much capitalism do you think is happening right now in Somalia?

Here's another clue about why I inist that the whole concept of ENTIRELY FREE MARKETS is just so much nonsense

Without an overarching GOVERNMENT to establish a curency by law, no modern market can be created because markets require a KNOWABLE specie to work.

Do you really understand that?

Do you understand that is why Hamilton was right and Jefferson was wrong?

Now of course BAD GOVERNMENT and BAD LAWS might very well be worse than none at all, but believe me, without some order the whole idea that a MARKET can work is just so much post pubescant science fiction NONSENSE.

Robert A Heinline and Ayn Rand are BOTH fucking idiots!

 

[editec]

A market might be able to achieve equilibrium but I don't see how it can regulate itself. There have to be rules. Rules have to be enforced. Violators have to be removed.

Exactly.

the invisible hand of the market is the propensity for people to do what they percieve as in their own best intests.

That obviously exists and it can be a good thing.

Unless of course there are no laws preventing people from doing bad things to other people in business.

Like, for example: LYING to BONDHOLDERS about the REAL RISK associated with those bonds; or INSIDER TRADING; or BAITING AND SWITCHING or a whole host of other business scams that are inevitable if there are no laws in place to prevent business from doing those things.

I no more believe that the market is inherently honest without laws, than I believe society is inherently peaceful and happy without laws.

Why you laisse fair nitwits think businessmen are never going to lie cheat or steal, but you all seem to stock up on guns becuase you all KNOW that society is filled with liars cheaters and stealers simply mystifies me.

Your trust of corporate giants is niave.

 

[Bern80]

Ah...no, that would not be a reasonable to believe. Most people who can work are working their asses off.

Again you must live in a different reality than me. One where you observe the avg worker on a daily basis running around frantically in near fits of exhaustation for their companies. I think that's a fair definition for 'working one's ass off'.

Few people have the luxury I do to spend all day reading. They depend on the media and they do not have the time to ferret out the truth from the lies (mostly presented as half truths) they are being fed every damned day.

Yeah, right like I can tell us how to fix this system in this venue?

Thank you for demonstrating time and again the one thing most people intuitvely know will not fix the system.

This system isn't designed to weed out the people, it's designed to FLEECE the people. Big BIG difference.

What system? Capitalism? This is a biased opinion if ever there was one. YOU be specific what is this fleecing you keep referring to?

I believe capitalism is a grand system for creating wealth if it is regulated. Ask me something specific and I can probably tell you what regulations I think are needed to keep captialism from eating itself.

Mortgage lending. Go.

Here we go...back to square one.

Bern, do you think capitalism can exist in a society without order?

How much capitalism do you think is happening right now in Somalia?

Here's another clue about why I inist that the whole concept of ENTIRELY FREE MARKETS is just so much nonsense

Without an overarching GOVERNMENT to establish a curency by law, no modern market can be created because markets require a KNOWABLE specie to work.

Do you really understand that?

Do you understand that is why Hamilton was right and Jefferson was wrong?

Now of course BAD GOVERNMENT and BAD LAWS might very well be worse than none at all, but believe me, without some order the whole idea that a MARKET can work is just so much post pubescant science fiction NONSENSE.

Robert A Heinline and Ayn Rand are BOTH fucking idiots!

They aren't idiots, they had an expectation of behavior that allowed their systems to work that fewer and fewer posses. They aren't wrong, the knew full well the system doesn't work unless people acknowledge their responsibility in it and most people simply don't. My guess is you call them idiots because you dont' understand (especially Rand) what they stood for. You claim to be all for capitalism and there were few stauncher supporters than Rand of it. I doubt she would disagree that some regulation is needed to protect people in the case that a situation would arise where they truly couldn't protect themselves.

 

[Bern80]

No-one's stopping you doing without anything, go right ahead and dump everything you feel you're not entitled to.

Think you missed the point a little on that one. An entitlement is something owed to you that you don't have to work for. Too many people look at what others have and believe they simply must have them as well, they're just not willing to put in the same work someone else did to get them at which time the excuses ensue.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Governments run your lives, like it or not. The existence of government says your lives - and mine too - are being run by government. The point is will you take the opportunity to begin the slow move towards abolition of government? It has to start somewhere, may as well be now. I don't mean the Grover Norquist model of drowning government so corporations can take over, that's just replacing one form of plutocracy with another. I mean the actual move towards the dismantling of the state to be replaced by a pure communist society.

How does that strike you?

Dude,

Do you mean like, states seceding from the union? I had been hoping that Alaska would lead the way, until I met their governor.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Think you missed the point a little on that one. An entitlement is something owed to you that you don't have to work for. Too many people look at what others have and believe they simply must have them as well, they're just not willing to put in the same work someone else did to get them at which time the excuses ensue.

Some have worked hard and some were born into the right family as WWII closed out the fairly successful, but not absolute, European conquest of the planet.

Historically, especially in Western Civilization, wealth has been obtained and kept by the families willing and able to use the brute force required. Technology made a huge difference... the Europeans weren't smarter than everyone else on the planet, nor did they serve a more righteous God... they practiced the art of brutal war on on each other and then used the technology to spread like a profit-seeking virus. Part of my family was among the oppressed... part of it came from the oppressors. Do I feel life is unfair? Hell, yes! Do I feel my neighbor "owes" me anything? Hell, no!

But...

You will never convince me that wealth distribution in America's great capitalist economy is fair. Never. This does not mean I want anything, save fair rules to live by.

The class struggle is real. A lot of people feel unfairly treated. Feelings are precious things that everyone gets to create for themselves in the privacy of their own minds. As long as the gap between the 'have somes' and the 'have a shit-loads' keeps widening, so will the feelings of unfairness grow. If the feelings of unfairness become strong enough, the infrastructure gets damaged or destroyed in protest.

One day, a generation of rich folks is going to get smart and realize that there is such a thing as enough. They'll see that there is value in keeping the infrastructure intact and they'll start giving back by doing the opposite of slavery - paying what they can afford and not what they have to for labor.

As soon as this change in attitude occurs, 'government' will be put on the path to obsolescence.

-Joe

 

[Charles_Main]

You want to know what will usher in socialism.


a Obama presidency with A Democrat majority in both houses of Congress.

Since that is very likely to happen, get ready for socialism, and an eventual economic disaster that will make the current situation pale in comparison.

 

[Chris]

You want to know what will usher in socialism.


a Obama presidency with A Democrat majority in both houses of Congress.

Since that is very likely to happen, get ready for socialism, and an eventual economic disaster that will make the current situation pale in comparison.

What a fantasy.

Getting out of Iraq, universal healthcare, and American energy independence is not socialism. Socialism is control of the means of production by the government.

 

[elvis]

What a fantasy.

Getting out of Iraq, universal healthcare, and American energy independence is not socialism. Socialism is control of the means of production by the government.

universal healthcare, right or wrong, is socialism.

 

[elvis]

Update: my cousin is now texting me to read the "manifesto" how we are fitting Karl Marx's model. That socialism will complete our evolution.

 

[Bern80]

You will never convince me that wealth distribution in America's great capitalist economy is fair. Never. This does not mean I want anything, save fair rules to live by.

Ummm DUH! No system is going to be completely fair. Ideally in capitalism you earn your keep/money. Unfortunately there will always be trust fund babies like Paris Hilton. it also depends on how you define fair. To me fair is a person being entitled to essentially what they have earned. How they do that is gernerally defined by a contract, or an individual starting their own company. To other people fair means equal distribution of wealth regardless of the effort put forth by the individual in attaining it.

The class struggle is real. A lot of people feel unfairly treated. Feelings are precious things that everyone gets to create for themselves in the privacy of their own minds. As long as the gap between the 'have somes' and the 'have a shit-loads' keeps widening, so will the feelings of unfairness grow. If the feelings of unfairness become strong enough, the infrastructure gets damaged or destroyed in protest.

And that's half the problem is people's poor feelings. What you feel is unfair what just plain is unfair have become to very different things in our society. If the reason a person is poor is due to their behavior or lack of effort they put into it vs. a rich person who did put the effort into they have zero justification for 'feeling' that it is unfair. And as I've said before even if it really is unfair, what good does it do to piss and moan about. Regardless of how someone else got rich, it has nothing to do with behaviors you control to make yourself rich.

One day, a generation of rich folks is going to get smart and realize that there is such a thing as enough. They'll see that there is value in keeping the infrastructure intact and they'll start giving back by doing the opposite of slavery - paying what they can afford and not what they have to for labor.

As soon as this change in attitude occurs, 'government' will be put on the path to obsolescence.

-Joe

I hope for the opposite, I hope sooner or later people like you who aren't filthy rich will quit whining and constantly playing the victim. Things will be easier or more difficult for people depending on the socio-economic environment, granted. But corporate america isn't out there wasting their time intentionally trying to keep people down. I hope your generation wakes the fuck up and decides the person most in control of your financial future is you and how anyone else came into their wealth, or how much they decided to keep or giveaway is completely irrelevant.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Ummm DUH! No system is going to be completely fair. Ideally in capitalism you earn your keep/money. Unfortunately there will always be trust fund babies like Paris Hilton. it also depends on how you define fair. To me fair is a person being entitled to essentially what they have earned. How they do that is gernerally defined by a contract, or an individual starting their own company. To other people fair means equal distribution of wealth regardless of the effort put forth by the individual in attaining it.

I am not talking about the economic system we live under. The current distribution of wealth in this country is unfair. We are way to close to the end of the cruel European conquest of planet Earth for it not to be.

Why do some families in Texas control thousands of productive acres while others can barely read? Why does Phelps Dodge Corporation own most of the copper in Arizona and Navajo kids starve? The Euro-descendant grab for wealth! There was an inherent unfairness in the brutal grab for wealth as Western Civilization spread out of Europe like a virus.

So, what do we do now? Is it fair for my European side to pay reparations to my Native American side? Of course not! But, until we admit that America has its 'issues', we'll never get beyond the anger and guilt of the past.

And that's half the problem is people's poor feelings. What you feel is unfair what just plain is unfair have become to very different things in our society. If the reason a person is poor is due to their behavior or lack of effort they put into it vs. a rich person who did put the effort into they have zero justification for 'feeling' that it is unfair. And as I've said before even if it really is unfair, what good does it do to piss and moan about. Regardless of how someone else got rich, it has nothing to do with behaviors you control to make yourself rich.

Feelings are real. There is nothing like walking a mile in another mans shoes, even if the trip never leaves your imagination, to open your eyes. You will find that most people of modest means don't want a hand-out, they want easy to understand rules that make sense without having to hire a professional (lawyer, accountant, etc). They want what little they pay in taxes to garner the same respect of hard work as the thousands grudgingly paid by the Wall Street mortgage backed securities salesman.

I hope for the opposite, I hope sooner or later people like you who aren't filthy rich will quit whining and constantly playing the victim. Things will be easier or more difficult for people depending on the socio-economic environment, granted. But corporate america isn't out there wasting their time intentionally trying to keep people down. I hope your generation wakes the fuck up and decides the person most in control of your financial future is you and how anyone else came into their wealth, or how much they decided to keep or giveaway is completely irrelevant.

A) You NEVER heard me complain about my circumstances. I make observations - happiness discussions are for little girls.

B) The JOB of corporate America is to maximize share price by maximizing profits. If profits can be increased by "keeping people down", corporate America will not hesitate - unless it is against the rules.

C) What the fuck generation do you think I belong to?

-Joe

 

[Bern80]

I am not talking about the economic system we live under. The current distribution of wealth in this country is unfair. We are way to close to the end of the cruel European conquest of planet Earth for it not to be.

Again WHY is it unfair? Joe having more money than Jim is not inherently unfair. The circumstances by which either or both came more or less than the other determines whether it is fair or not. A blanket statement that wealth distribution in this country is unfair is quite ridiculous.

Why do some families in Texas control thousands of productive acres while others can barely read? Why does Phelps Dodge Corporation own most of the copper in Arizona and Navajo kids starve? The Euro-descendant grab for wealth! There was an inherent unfairness in the brutal grab for wealth as Western Civilization spread out of Europe like a virus.

So, what do we do now? Is it fair for my European side to pay reparations to my Native American side? Of course not! But, until we admit that America has its 'issues', we'll never get beyond the anger and guilt of the past.

I will grant that people need to become more aware of the role their consumption choices make. But your view of how this evolved and from whos descendants is a little off. First off just barely over half the country is of European descent anymore. Hispanics now come to the U.S. for the same reason said Europeans came here 400 years ago. For a better opportunity. It is the nature of most races to continually improve their standard of living. Of some cultures however, that is not the case, they are able to say enough is enough.

The only solution I see is a balance of some type. One that allows each group to live the way it wants. Curbing our desire to continually upgrade our standard of living and wealth need not be sacraficed to do that. What does need to happen is for people to be aware and be compassionate about the effects their consumption choices have.

Feelings are real. There is nothing like walking a mile in another mans shoes, even if the trip never leaves your imagination, to open your eyes. You will find that most people of modest means don't want a hand-out, they want easy to understand rules that make sense without having to hire a professional (lawyer, accountant, etc). They want what little they pay in taxes to garner the same respect of hard work as the thousands grudgingly paid by the Wall Street mortgage backed securities salesman.

I never said they weren't real. I said they may not always be valid. Feelings or emotions are diametrically oppossed to objectivity and rationality. Most people FEEL nervous about getting on airplanes but think nothing about getting in their cars everyday, when objectively speaking they should 'feel' exactley they opposite. What you feel needs to be filtered through the lens of objectiivity and rationality to determine whether it is valid or not.

B) The JOB of corporate America is to maximize share price by maximizing profits. If profits can be increased by "keeping people down", corporate America will not hesitate - unless it is against the rules.

The problem with that as with most that complain about corporate America is that you believe the exception is the rule. With we have seen in the financial sector and the press that a few large firms get I guess why I can see it is easy to believe that corporate America is 'trying to keep people' down. For the majority that simply isn't the case. It would be just swell if a business could remain solvent and never have to lay people off or cut back hours or reduce pay. But in the real world that simply isn't the case. I have witnessed first hand several heads of business have to announce in front of their employees that layoffs have been made, and they generally feel horrible about it. But it usually boils down to some people being layed off now or everybody being layed of later. It isn't about maximizing profit, especially in these conditions, it's about making any profit at all. When ecomic times are good like we saw for about the past decade we had record unemployment and companies were hiring like crazy, which we seem pretty strange if what you say is true and corporate america is screwing people all the time.

C) What the fuck generation do you think I belong to?

-Joe

It have been observation there has been a dramatic change in atitude from my gerneration (I'm 27) and my parents generation. There simply wasn't this entitlement mentality that is so pervasive today. Complaing about, or 'observing' as you call, disparities between rich and poor was pointless because it was, well, pointless. It's an activity that won't change anything. All you can do is worry about and improve yourself.

 

[oreo]

Just watched a special on Fox News, October 5, 2008.

Unbelievable!

As we know, on Sept. 30, 1999 the Clinton adminstration pressured Fannie & Freddie to lower standards (credit & income) to persuade banks to loan out mortgage money to lower income people & minorities. They went as far as not even requiring down payments. (Easy money raced through our economy--thru new mortgages to refinancing). Not only were lower income & minorities getting homes they could not afford, but others jumped on the band wagon--using this money to buy vacation beach homes.

At this time--government lead by pressuring democrats wanted Freddie & Fannie (government) to back 50% of these new loans in their portfolios to be what we know can honestly say (risky borrowers.)

Wall Street bought up these mortgages in packages to hedge their capital. When housing prices fell--these risky borrowers walked out of the homes they purchased, primarily because they had nothing to lose. No down payment = no investment to lose.

In 2001 the Bush adminstration warned that Freddie & Fannie may be getting out of control. Then again in 2003 the Bush administration brought new legislation in to reign these agencies under control. Then again Allan Greenspan warned. Then in 2005 John McCain sponsored a bill to get tighter regulations on these agencies.

So who blocked these several new pieces of legislation that would have saved us from this 700 BILLION DOLLAR bail-out.

Every time a new piece of legislation was brought up to the banking/finance committee. Every democrat on the board would vote against new regulation, every republican on the board would vote for it. This happened at least 3 different times during the Bush adminstration.

NAMES MENTIONED: Democrat Criss Dodd--democrat Barney Frank--democrat--Charles Schumer whom were adamant that Fannie & Freddie needed no stricter regulations. Criss Dodd being the # 1 donor receipiant of Fannie/Freddie--Barack Obama being the # 2 donor receipiant of Fannie/Freddie.

ACORN--whose sole purpose was to go into banks & scream discrimination--was also a player in this. BTW--Barack Obama is connected to ACORN--& was actually this agencies attorney in his Chicago community organizing days--whom also promoted loans given to people who could not pay them back. (Note that the first bail-out bill that house republicans defeated had $20 BILLION dollars going to ACORN). This outraged them. ACORN is also currently under criminal investigation in several states for voter registration fraud.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind--who is to blame for this financial crisis. The party who started it, the party who ignored it, & the party who voted several times against any new regulation to reign these agencies in. Democrats

 

[AVG-JOE]

Again WHY is it unfair? Joe having more money than Jim is not inherently unfair. The circumstances by which either or both came more or less than the other determines whether it is fair or not. A blanket statement that wealth distribution in this country is unfair is quite ridiculous.

Current wealth distribution is unfair because the decedents of colonial and conquering families kept all of the wealth that they're ancestors earned, fair and square under the rules of the time, by taking and developing land that wasn't theirs, sometimes using slave labor.

Can we go back in time and change that? No, history can't be changed and life is not fair. Is it fair to punish the current generation for the sins of the past? Not monetarily, that's for certain! There are too many examples of wealth accumulation by families on land that was purchased from the original thief. That should count for something!

I will grant that people need to become more aware of the role their consumption choices make. But your view of how this evolved and from whos descendants is a little off. First off just barely over half the country is of European descent anymore. Hispanics now come to the U.S. for the same reason said Europeans came here 400 years ago. For a better opportunity. It is the nature of most races to continually improve their standard of living. Of some cultures however, that is not the case, they are able to say enough is enough.

Barely half the country is of European decent today, eh?

How much of the power-controlling wealth in America do you reckon, as a percentage, is in the hands of European descendants today? My guess is at least 90%.

The only solution I see is a balance of some type. One that allows each group to live the way it wants. Curbing our desire to continually upgrade our standard of living and wealth need not be sacraficed to do that. What does need to happen is for people to be aware and be compassionate about the effects their consumption choices have.

Dude, if you want a 'free market' economy, you can't be telling people what they can or can't buy, and you can't be telling them what they can or can't earn.

If you want any semblance of fair-play and equality, the only thing a free market government can do is to make rules that are easy to understand and easy to apply evenly to all players.

In spite of the word 'free' in free market economy, we need rules: O.K. to kill for profit? Probably not a good idea... Government control of the means of production of real assets? Also not a good idea.

Somewhere between is the dynamic set of rules that the American economy needs for this moment in history. Will that need change? Just as sure as the internet replaced the telegraph and congress failed to keep up!

I never said they weren't real. I said they may not always be valid. Feelings or emotions are diametrically oppossed to objectivity and rationality. Most people FEEL nervous about getting on airplanes but think nothing about getting in their cars everyday, when objectively speaking they should 'feel' exactley they opposite. What you feel needs to be filtered through the lens of objectiivity and rationality to determine whether it is valid or not.

Feelings, even incorrect feelings are never invalid. Have you ever loved someone who did not feel the same toward you? - Doesn't invalidate your feelings...

Feelings need to be filtered through the lens of objectivity to determine the validity of acting on them.

The problem with that as with most that complain about corporate America is that you believe the exception is the rule. With we have seen in the financial sector and the press that a few large firms get I guess why I can see it is easy to believe that corporate America is 'trying to keep people' down. For the majority that simply isn't the case. It would be just swell if a business could remain solvent and never have to lay people off or cut back hours or reduce pay. But in the real world that simply isn't the case. I have witnessed first hand several heads of business have to announce in front of their employees that layoffs have been made, and they generally feel horrible about it. But it usually boils down to some people being layed off now or everybody being layed of later. It isn't about maximizing profit, especially in these conditions, it's about making any profit at all. When ecomic times are good like we saw for about the past decade we had record unemployment and companies were hiring like crazy, which we seem pretty strange if what you say is true and corporate america is screwing people all the time.

Again it is a matter of percentage of control...

The 'bad' corporations control a percentage of the government that is unwarranted, except for the money. It would be like someone having 3 votes because they had more money to throw around. Unfair.

It have been observation there has been a dramatic change in atitude from my gerneration (I'm 27) and my parents generation. There simply wasn't this entitlement mentality that is so pervasive today. Complaing about, or 'observing' as you call, disparities between rich and poor was pointless because it was, well, pointless. It's an activity that won't change anything. All you can do is worry about and improve yourself.

You are correct in observing that complaining about disparities between the classes is pointless, although as the gap widens the point will become more of a call to action by profiteers and the poor alike, valid or not.

The best course of action is establishment of easily understood rules, along with public assistance for education and entrepreneurial start-up capital for people who are willing to look at it as an opportunity that they need to act on, and a loan that needs to be repaid with interest.

-Joe