Property Rights Take a Hit

[Kevin_Kennedy]

“Crony capitalism” is a term often applied to foreign nations where government interference circumvents market forces. The practice is widely associated with tin-pot dictators and second-rate economies. In such a system, support for the ruling regime is the best and only path to economic success. Who you know supersedes what you know, and favoritism trumps the rule of law. Unfortunately, this week’s events demonstrate that the phrase now more aptly describes our own country.

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Chrysler’s secured creditors based on the government’s argument that the needs of other stakeholders outweighed those of a few creditors. In this case, the Administration concluded the interests of the United Auto Workers outweighed the interests of the Indiana teachers and firemen whose pension fund sued to block the restructuring. Given the enormous financial support that the UAW poured into the Obama campaign, such partiality is hardly surprising.

Property Rights Take a Hit by Peter Schiff

 

[Agnapostate]

Schiff's rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism fits the term most aptly, since the lack of governmental input thus exacerbates the lack of democratic input. But perhaps it's for the best, as laissez-faire policies will ultimately destabilize capitalism, thus making free marketers the best friends of socialists.

 

[Citizen]

“Crony capitalism” is a term often applied to foreign nations where government interference circumvents market forces. The practice is widely associated with tin-pot dictators and second-rate economies. In such a system, support for the ruling regime is the best and only path to economic success. Who you know supersedes what you know, and favoritism trumps the rule of law. Unfortunately, this week’s events demonstrate that the phrase now more aptly describes our own country.

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Chrysler’s secured creditors based on the government’s argument that the needs of other stakeholders outweighed those of a few creditors. In this case, the Administration concluded the interests of the United Auto Workers outweighed the interests of the Indiana teachers and firemen whose pension fund sued to block the restructuring. Given the enormous financial support that the UAW poured into the Obama campaign, such partiality is hardly surprising.

Property Rights Take a Hit by Peter Schiff

Just one more step down th road to total government control, and property rights were one of the things our Constitution protected.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The simple truth is that the government has no Constitutional right to void private contracts and this is exactly what has been done, again.

That the government will negate the traditional and legal rights of creditors and bond holders in a legal bankruptcy proceeding even though it has not one iota of legal authority to do so is a blatant misuse of power and a very disturbing if not frightening trend.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

“Crony capitalism” is a term often applied to foreign nations where government interference circumvents market forces. The practice is widely associated with tin-pot dictators and second-rate economies. In such a system, support for the ruling regime is the best and only path to economic success. Who you know supersedes what you know, and favoritism trumps the rule of law. Unfortunately, this week’s events demonstrate that the phrase now more aptly describes our own country.

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Chrysler’s secured creditors based on the government’s argument that the needs of other stakeholders outweighed those of a few creditors. In this case, the Administration concluded the interests of the United Auto Workers outweighed the interests of the Indiana teachers and firemen whose pension fund sued to block the restructuring. Given the enormous financial support that the UAW poured into the Obama campaign, such partiality is hardly surprising.

Property Rights Take a Hit by Peter Schiff

Just one more step down th road to total government control, and property rights were one of the things our Constitution protected.

We have no real rights anyway. Since EVERY supposed private piece of property has a yearly tax on it now. You don't really own it. The Government owns it and lets you use it as long as you pay those taxes. Taxes you have no control over. They raise them when ever they want with absolutely no INPUT from the people that own the land.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The simple truth is that the government has no Constitutional right to void private contracts and this is exactly what has been done, again.

That the government will negate the traditional and legal rights of creditors and bond holders in a legal bankruptcy proceeding even though it has not one iota of legal authority to do so is a blatant misuse of power and a very disturbing if not frightening trend.

The Government does have the right to establish Bankruptcy laws and to enforce them. So long as what they are doing is within the frame work of existing laws, the Government does have the power.

Though in these cases the appearance and reality is the Government has a vested interest in and is manipulating the Courts and the outcomes.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

We have no real rights anyway. Since EVERY supposed private piece of property has a yearly tax on it now. You don't really own it. The Government owns it and lets you use it as long as you pay those taxes. Taxes you have no control over. They raise them when ever they want with absolutely no INPUT from the people that own the land.

I don't know where you're seeing that, but here where I own property, you have the right to appeal any change in your property tax. And the appeals usually win.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have no real rights anyway. Since EVERY supposed private piece of property has a yearly tax on it now. You don't really own it. The Government owns it and lets you use it as long as you pay those taxes. Taxes you have no control over. They raise them when ever they want with absolutely no INPUT from the people that own the land.

I don't know where you're seeing that, but here where I own property, you have the right to appeal any change in your property tax. And the appeals usually win.

Only if YOU pay to have an appraisal and do all the leg work and any required pictures or other documents.

My first loves Parents lived on a ranch/farm. The land was rocky and broken ground, they had a few small valleys they could grow hay and grass in and ran cattle.

His land was located NEAR Wheat farm land and the County increased the entire area by about 400 percent on taxes one year. He was ignored when he pointed out his land was scrub and broken and told to bad. He had to hire a lawyer, hire a pilot and photographer to fly over and make pictures of his property, he had to pay 2 appraisers to appraise the value of his farm/ranch and the scrub/broken ground it was.

After all those expenses he finally got a hearing and got his taxes lower by half.

The point is when they decide to RAISE the taxes we have ZERO say in the decision or the process. We have to do the work to challenge any new rates and foot what ever bills are involved in proving we should not have to pay the County the new taxes. And there is no promise they will rule in your favor after all that.

Once again you do not actually own land, EVERY year you have to pay taxes, fail to pay and that land that is supposedly yours will be legally seized by the Government.

 

[Metternich]

Schiff's rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism fits the term most aptly, since the lack of governmental input thus exacerbates the lack of democratic input. But perhaps it's for the best, as laissez-faire policies will ultimately destabilize capitalism, thus making free marketers the best friends of socialists.

You fall into a mental blackhole when you seem to indicate that popularity, people's opinions, changes scientific fact.

It doesn't matter if a lot of people vote for a economic system that's faulty, because it is still faulty.

 

[Oddball]

Schiff's rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism fits the term most aptly, since the lack of governmental input thus exacerbates the lack of democratic input. But perhaps it's for the best, as laissez-faire policies will ultimately destabilize capitalism, thus making free marketers the best friends of socialists.

That is by far the stupidest and most ignorant shit I've seen you post, and brother that's saying something.

This is about the usurpation, by executive fiat, of contract law that's been in existence for centuries and bankruptcy laws that have stood for decades.

But hey, when haven't communists just made shit up as they went??

 

[Toro]

Obama's intervention into the Chrysler bankruptcy is disturbing.

But it is not surprising. In this country (as in every developed country), there is a long history of government intervention into the economy to close the gap in income disparities when the population feels it has become too wide. This decade, the disparities in incomes between the haves and have-nots became, if not the highest in a century, then close to it. If the market does not close those disparities, the polity eventually will.

 

[Agnapostate]

You fall into a mental blackhole when you seem to indicate that popularity, people's opinions, changes scientific fact.

It doesn't matter if a lot of people vote for a economic system that's faulty, because it is still faulty.

You fall into a far deeper blackhole by not realizing that it's the democratic elements themselves which eliminate the "faulty" elements of an economic system, as can be gathered from analysis into the superior efficiency of worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives, for example.

That is by far the stupidest and most ignorant shit I've seen you post, and brother that's saying something.

This is about the usurpation, by executive fiat, of contract law that's been in existence for centuries and bankruptcy laws that have stood for decades.

But hey, when haven't communists just made shit up as they went??

This post contained no comment relevant to my own post. Care to try again?

 

[Metternich]

You fall into a mental blackhole when you seem to indicate that popularity, people's opinions, changes scientific fact.

It doesn't matter if a lot of people vote for a economic system that's faulty, because it is still faulty.

You fall into a far deeper blackhole by not realizing that it's the democratic elements themselves which eliminate the "faulty" elements of an economic system, as can be gathered from analysis into the superior efficiency of worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives, for example.

There is a distinct difference between a free market system in which "democratic elements" sift through the various energies it produces for the most efficient result - versus - and a participatory system in which the worker loses the initiative to find the most efficient result (for he has a monopoly on the production, and decision making abilities) because frankly: he has a predisposition towards his own creation.

Namely, a factory worker in a free market system has only one consideration: value. In any other system, he has to take the considerations of a myriad of other factors that inevitably reduce the efficiency of the factory by making it - to be blunt - a popularity contest.

 

[Agnapostate]

There is a distinct difference between a free market system in which "democratic elements" sift through the various energies it produces for the most efficient result - versus - and a participatory system in which the worker loses the initiative to find the most efficient result (for he has a monopoly on the production, and decision making abilities) because frankly: he has a predisposition towards his own creation.

Namely, a factory worker in a free market system has only one consideration: value. In any other system, he has to take the considerations of a myriad of other factors that inevitably reduce the efficiency of the factory by making it - to be blunt - a popularity contest.

There is no "free market" for you to speak of; the mixed nature of the capitalist economy is a permanent reality for that system. Capitalism will naturally have a propensity toward inefficiency because of the sufficiently high equilibrium unemployment rate necessary to maintain internal firm efficiency and ensure effort extraction. Since unemployment is a form of static inefficiency, we're left with a paradoxical state of affairs in that external inefficiency is a necessary condition of internal efficiency in the capitalist economy.

 

[Metternich]

There is a distinct difference between a free market system in which "democratic elements" sift through the various energies it produces for the most efficient result - versus - and a participatory system in which the worker loses the initiative to find the most efficient result (for he has a monopoly on the production, and decision making abilities) because frankly: he has a predisposition towards his own creation.

Namely, a factory worker in a free market system has only one consideration: value. In any other system, he has to take the considerations of a myriad of other factors that inevitably reduce the efficiency of the factory by making it - to be blunt - a popularity contest.

There is no "free market" for you to speak of; the mixed nature of the capitalist economy is a permanent reality for that system. Capitalism will naturally have a propensity toward inefficiency because of the sufficiently high equilibrium unemployment rate necessary to maintain internal firm efficiency and ensure effort extraction. Since unemployment is a form of static inefficiency, we're left with a paradoxical state of affairs in that external inefficiency is a necessary condition of internal efficiency in the capitalist economy.

The criticism that full employment is needed, regardless of cost, and a free market doesn't provide - in of itself holds no water. The Free Market shall, and should not, employ people against their will. For if employed - if they are given financial capital for a service (such as voting for the 'right' candidate) - they would undoubtedly produce a more inefficient system that is, in laymen terms, referred to as a "overheating" economic system. In which too many units of currency, or an approximation such as fiat legal tender, is 'chasing' to few goods.

Indeed, to have a medium of unemployment, is not - economically proven - to be bad in of itself. Undoubtedly, unwanted employment; the actual inability to possess any job of any kind, is a poor situation. Yet that sort of position is practically non-existent; most unemployment is voluntary to some degree or another.

For example in a hypothetical situation: you are, for lack of a better term, 'fired' from your job. Yet at any time, if you so desire, work is available simply by accepting lower nominal wage rates. Though many do not do this, thus unemployment. Literally, the best and most efficient use of a useless good. Which is, to be radical, a over educated bum who wants more money then he should get.

This all aside, what is your actual - technical - definition of one unemployed?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

We have no real rights anyway. Since EVERY supposed private piece of property has a yearly tax on it now. You don't really own it. The Government owns it and lets you use it as long as you pay those taxes. Taxes you have no control over. They raise them when ever they want with absolutely no INPUT from the people that own the land.

I don't know where you're seeing that, but here where I own property, you have the right to appeal any change in your property tax. And the appeals usually win.

Only if YOU pay to have an appraisal and do all the leg work and any required pictures or other documents.

Baloney.

Where I live, they cannot raise property taxes on a whim, they must pass voter muster. Then, if you think the increases for your property are out of line, you schedule a hearing and 9 times out of ten they put the rate back where it was before the re-appraisal.

Maybe where you live it's different. My property taxes haven't gone up in 10 years, no appeal even needed so far.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The fact that you have to pay taxes on your own property at all means that it's not really your property. You're essentially renting it from the government.

 

[Toro]

Saying that you don't own property because you are taxed on it is like saying you are a slave because you are taxed on your labor.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Saying that you don't own property because you are taxed on it is like saying you are a slave because you are taxed on your labor.

Exactly.

 

[Paulie]

Property Rights Take a Hit by Peter Schiff

Just one more step down th road to total government control, and property rights were one of the things our Constitution protected.

We have no real rights anyway. Since EVERY supposed private piece of property has a yearly tax on it now. You don't really own it. The Government owns it and lets you use it as long as you pay those taxes. Taxes you have no control over. They raise them when ever they want with absolutely no INPUT from the people that own the land.

Land owners have all the input they will ever need, the vote. If they want to continally elect politicians who would rather raise taxes, then they don't really have a whole lot to complain about, do they?