Actually that's not true. If you look at areas before they became states, cattle ranchers and such, as well as blacks smiths, as well as pelt trader, all had a thriving economy, and there was no government at all.
Fascists are in fact socialists. And socialist countries were just as much ruled by the wealthy, as any other.
You claim Unions do not cause crashes. Yet did Honda and Toyota crash? Or GM and Chrysler? Did Non-Union Little Debbie crash? Or Union Hostess? BTW, Hostess is now non-Union. Wonder why.
You claim the minimum wage doesn't cause crashes, and yet Greece tried increasing the minimum wage in 08,09,10, and the result was devastating. To the point they cut the minimum wage, in order to increase employment.
And the very last economic policy to pass before the crash here in the US, was the minimum wage hike.
Pelt trading? You talk about pelt trading in a thread about economies and you expect to be taken seriously?
Absolutely. The fact you don't take it seriously, reflects poorly on you. Have you ever taken a course on economics?
Additionally Fascism and Socialism are two distinct and separate constructs. Of course their can be some mixing and matching..but generally? Fascism is a nexus of corporate, religious and military entities to form government. Socialism is the notion that the government can do some functions for the public good. There is socialism in the Constitution, like the mail service. Or the military.
And now you are comparing apples and oranges. GM to Honda?
And no socialist based system has corporate and military entities which form most of the government............ really? Socialist system seek to eliminate religion to bend people toward their views. Fascism seeks to bend religion to bend people toward their views.
In both cases, they seek to dominate the people. Different sides to the same coin.
Capitalism, doesn't seek to bend people to their will, but simply allows Freedom.
Yes, GM and Honda are very comparable. It reflects poorly on you, that you think they are not.
You ever even been to Japan? Japan has government health care. Additionally? If a CEO was paying himself 400 times what an average worker made and they found out about it? He'd have to perform ritual suicide. (Well not really..but he'd be forced to resign). Most workers in Japan, up until very recently, had their jobs for life. And they are paid pretty well.
Nissan s 10 Million CEO Set to Top Japan Pay Rankings - Bloomberg
Ghosn was paid a total of 995 million yen ($9.8 million) in salary and bonuses for the fiscal year ended March 31, an increase of 0.7 percent from a year earlier, he said at the carmaker’s annual shareholders’ meeting today in Yokohama, Japan. Including dividends, his total compensation rises to more than 1 billion yen.
The CEO of UPS, was paid $10 Million. It's true that on average, Japanese CEOs are paid less than US CEOs, but not nearly the 'upper middle class' wages the left is constantly barking on about.
Yes, and Japan's gov-care is far worse than ours. Their survival rates are so much lower, they tend to not be included in international stats.
Have you ever been to Greece? It's basically a basket case of a country. The Greeks are rude. And their work ethic is for shit. They work until noon, have a 2 hour lunch and get drunk..and maybe don't go back to work. Be that as it may? Greece's problem wasn't minimum wage. Greece's problem was borrowing money to upgrade their military. Why? Who knows. Maybe they wanted to make another grab at Cypress.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. The problem with your commentary, is not that it isn't somewhat true, but that it ignores basic economics.
People could not find jobs. They simply didn't exist. Why didn't they exist? Because businesses couldn't be profitable.
Greek Companies were still earning revenue from production and service, that was greater than that of China. Yet, they were not profitable, but China based companies were.
Why? Because the labor cost is lower. No matter how little you are earning from your production, if you can find labor cheaper than that cost, you will hire people, and be successful.
They couldn't do this in Greece. Every year, the minimum wage increased, because it was tied to automatic cost of living increases. As such, the cost of labor was going up, while the value of the labor was not. End result, businesses closed, employment disappeared, people were laid off. Everything else you said is still true, but even in the worst governmental budget problems, if people can hire labor profitably, they will do so.
That's why when they eliminated the cost of living increase, and rolled back the minimum wage, suddenly employment started going back up.
Why is it you folks want to compare us to other countries in some capacities yet completely leave out a whole lot of stuff? Like Iceland. Iceland also has socialized Medicine. They don't have a huge military nor do they have corporation heads that pay themselves 100s of times what their workers make. They also scale fines and penalties to wealth. For example, if you get pinched for speeding and you are rich? You pay vastly more than someone not so rich. And when the banks "collapsed", the government imposed new regulations on them effectively putting them under glass steagall, Iceland style.
And your saying that the passage of a minimum wage hike caused the Bush cataclysm? You mean the rain had nothing to do with it? How about the OJ trial? Or Madonna's concerts? Or any number of things that had nothing to do with the crash. Heck, throw those in too.
You keep bringing up all these countries that have health care that is much worse than ours. Are you saying you want more people to die? Let's go adopt a health care system that has a lower survival rate, so more people die.... but it is 'free' even though they pay much much higher taxes, taxes much greater than how much health care premiums are... but that doesn't matter because we want our 'free' myth.
And no, I have not ignored Iceland at all. I wish we had followed the policies of Iceland, and let our banks fail.
And lastly, it's possible Iceland may break up their banks into separate parts, but that isn't going to solve anything. Glass-Steagall would not have prevented a single bank in the US, from doing everything that they did. Nor would it have prevent a single bank from failing. Not one.
The left has their panties all in wad around a myth. Hint.... AIG? Was just an insurance company. Glass-Steagall would not have affect AIG at all. Hint.... Bear Stearns? Was just an investment bank. GSA would not have affected Bear Stearns at all. Countrywide, Wachovia, IndyMac, Meryl Lynch, the list goes on and on and on and on. The vast vast majority of all banks that failed, would not have been covered by Glass Steagall at all. If the 1999 repeal had never happened, the entire sub-prime boom, housing price bubble, and resulting melt down would have occurred exactly as they did.
Besides that, the sub-prime boom, and price bubble, started before 1999. There is no evidence that anyone intelligent, can point to, to suggest Glass-Steagall would have helped anything.
Sallow didn't say that to you ... he said that in response to:
