Bailout Alternative???

[Clint Johnson]

Your ideas are also not really based in reality either. Big corporations have greater power than most governments, and they aggressively exert influence. You`re against regulation of markets, but that leads to perverse excrescences like tvs running advertisement in schools, so called "press" to promote views and surreptitious advertisement for affiliated corporations. The list goes on and on. You`ll probably say "shit happens". But this is the exact shit that also led to the iraq war.

I most emphatically do believe that the government should regulate the markets. I just believe that those regulations should be based on how real humans behave an not how Karl Marx thought they could be re-educated to behave.

Most of the undue power that these corporations exercise is through buying influence with the politicians. The more power the politicians have, the more unearned power the corporations can buy. The state needs to leave the market alone except where it impinges on individual rights.

Things like companies running advertisements in schools should be a municipal decision. Advertisement is not in and of itself evil. It is simply someone letting someone else know that they have a product or service that they are offering. If you believe it to be a "perverse excrescence" rather than a legitimate way to increase funding for the school, then it is up to you to convince the school board of this, it isn't the governments role to enforce your personal value judgements. The state should step in if the advertisement is false or misleading- that is their regulatory roll.

Ask yourself where the advantage lays for the politician and then ask yourself what would be more likely to happen if you give the federal government the power to control the schools in this way?

A) The politicians uphold your values and push all advertisement out of the schools - losing revenue stream for the schools, largely offsetting any philosophical gains in voter support as either their taxes go up or school activities are cut.

B) The politicians accept the contribution and force every school in the union to show Nike advertisements five times a day - thereby gaining campaign funds and allowing them to tell the public that they are going to lower taxes because of the new revenue stream.

I admitted that capitalism is not perfect but if you want to say that Nike running advertisements in schools is as bad as the Soviet Union starving 20 million Ukrainians to death... I gotta disagree with that.

I'm also pretty sure that a large standing army and not enough restrictions on federal powers had a lot more to do with the Iraq war than duplicitous marketing practises by Wal-Mart.

 

[Mark B.]

Their meddling in (what was supposed to be) a small sector of the mortgage market lead to a financial disaster that will take years to dig out from under... and you want to hand them the reins to pretty much every market sector?

Socialism and collectivism may infatuate you with an idealized vision where the people in charge always make the right decisions and only with the best intentions... in the real world you end up with the Soviet Union, East Germany or North Korea.

Those aren't anomalies, they are inevitabilities.

Capitalism isn't perfect by any means and the state has a legitimate role in making sure that individual rights aren't trampled by money... but what you are calling for has, every time it has been tried over the last hundred years, lead to abject poverty for everyone but the politically connected and powerful.

Please, forget what your heart insists is real- emotions and wishful thinking sometimes have to take a back seat to what happens in the real world outside of coffee house discussions, musty books and philosophical table thumping.

What would be cruel is to put the fundamentals of life into the hands of the ruling class that has historically mismanaged everything they touch... let the government handle the police, judicial system and the military and leave the market to the market. The state's role is to have a near monopoly on the threat and use of extreme violence... but that means the also need to be tightly regulated in how they are allowed to exercise that violence.

If you insist they control anything in the market, please let it be luxury goods. People don't starve to death when there is a shortage of $80 million dollar yachts.

It was the lack of government involvement that got us into this mess... the lack of oversight into the activities of greedy capitalists in the private sector.

Soviet Union, East Germany, and North Korea were all isolationist communist countries that utilized absolute socialist economic principals backed by static dictatorial leaders. That's far removed from what I'm proposing... which is a democratic government with only partial socialist economics. We'd keep our individual freedoms, politicians wouldn't maintain power for more than their term, and the supply/demand for luxury goods would still exist, creating incentive for people to labor and create. If men want to impress women in that system, they're still going to have to go out and get jobs. If you want to buy a RedOne in that system, you're still going to have to toil at a job to save up for it.

Political graft has always been active, especially in a capitalist system. It doesn't mean that a socialist undertaking wouldn't work, just that it might not be as efficient as it otherwise could be. If you want to get rid of graft, perhaps a law should be passed that says anyone holding political office must get rid of all their assets and savings at the beginning of their time in office. They would then receive a small stipend to keep them well situated while in office. Then, once out of office, they would be disallowed from getting any gifts that exceed a small monetary value each year, and they would be restricted from earning a yearly income beyond the median salary of the average worker. The people running for political office, given those conditions, would not be the corrupt types that are currently elected into office.

 

[Priyesh P.]

Clint, before you misunderstand me. I deeply believe that the human nature is (like I call it) Pittbull-capitalistic. Socialism is (like you correctly said) a philosophical idea that crumbles as soon as it exits the mind. But once again referring to my example with advertisement in schools - I can honestly say that I`m nearly totally immune to advertisement and propaganda or at least try have my own thoughts and researches before making judgements. But most of the average or ill-educated people are not able to make proper decisions due to their lack of education or (even simpler) interest - and those at power, whether in politics or (even worse) in the economy know this very well and simply refer to the the "free mind" of grown up citizens when they decide that having Mc Donalds muck three times a day is proper food.
We always assume that each person is equal (which may, in juridical terms, be correct). But from the perpective of intellect this is absolutely not true. You just stated this point yourself indirectly by saying that poor people should not have been granted loans - those who took the loan thought they`ll be able to amortize them, the banks knew about the incredibly high risk that they can`t make it. So who had the proper foresight?

But don`t mistake me. It is correct that those at charge should not make each and all decisions for the uneducated and / or poor, but at the other hand there are things we cannot leave unrestricted to the hands of unresponsable "money collectors" either (I prefer to call people who sit on their accumulated = dead money exactely this - money collectors)

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Well, as long as this so-called bailout has stupid riders attached to it, such as 100 MILLION dollars to ACORN, which has been convicted of voter fraud in several states, and an outright ban on oil shale field development, then it should die.

 

[GlennChan]

Mc Donalds muck three times a day is proper food

IMO I think this attack is misguided. You can buy salad at Mcdonalds (or if you got a meal, you can switch salad for fries). You can buy proper food at McDonalds. But most of us don't.

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

Here are a few websites for good info:

http://www.survivalblog.com/

http://bailoutscorecard.blogspot.com/

 

[Priyesh P.]

IMO I think this attack is misguided. You can buy salad at Mcdonalds (or if you got a meal, you can switch salad for fries). You can buy proper food at McDonalds. But most of us don't.

And that`s just another trick. But let`s take mercedes as an other example - for an extremely long time they didn`t care that much about fuel consumption on their fat cat cars, but now, being forced by rocketing gas prices and global warming (and bad image they`ve acquired by not caring) they introduce the hybrid S-Class, the bluemotion. It´s not much different with Mc Donalds. How long did "Mc" and everyone else know that junkfood ain`t healthy (at least in higher "doses") until they promoted their salads (which, by the way, was already there as long as I remember).

But I was not into bashing specific companies, I just want to express my concern that those in charge at big corps do exactely know when they are doing wrong and always recess into shelter by telling them: "as long as it`s not illegal it`s totally ok, whether it does damage to the society we or others are living in".

I`m a capitalist, too. I love money. But I never (never!) would go for it in favor of other people`s damage.

 

[GlennChan]

I think your blame is misplaced here... for the most part, we the consumers have free will. Some of us choose to drive gas guzzlers when we could have bought fuel efficient cars. And many of us choose to eat junk food instead of the healthier items on Mcdonald's menu. Should we not be responsible for our own actions??

2- For the most part, capitalism has greatly improved the quality of our lives. We live *a lot* longer, are much healthier (even after junk food ), and live in much safer environments.

3- There are corporations that engage in ethical business practices and there are corporations that engage in unethical business practices... but I don't think that corporations are significantly more (un)ethical than you or me. People do unethical stuff too... tax evasion (esp. among waiters and bartenders), software piracy, etc.

4- If anything, I'd argue that mcdonald's is fairly ethical in its business practices.
They are transparent: You can get nutritional information on their menu items.
They give you choice: You can eat healthy if you choose to do so.

And compared to Subway, they don't engage in deceptive marketing. Subway advertises that their subs have less than 6 grams of fat. Most people end up thinking that they are eating a sub with less than 6 grams of fat when they aren't, because they order subs with cheese and sauce.

 

[PatrickW]

And compared to Subway, they don't engage in deceptive marketing. Subway advertises that their subs have less than 6 grams of fat. Most people end up thinking that they are eating a sub with less than 6 grams of fat when they aren't, because they order subs with cheese and sauce.

Instead of deceptive advertising McDonald's goes for the long term marketing strategy of selling to kids. No need to deceive anyone about their filthy food, get the kids addicted to it early, and make them consumers for life. (That and the addicting caffeinated Coke and the cheese that I swear they put heroin in).

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

everyone better stock up on munitions.. we might have to fight the "government"

 

[BigLu]

Elite / Power / Control /

How do you get rid of the middle class and gain more control.

Make 2 classes and only allow 2 classes to exist.

Get rid of the American dollar.
Take everything away from the middle class or those who own anything.
Raise the cost of living in all areas.
Give un-payable loans to the working class.
Reposes their belongings.
Re give those belongings to new loans who will ultimately loose in repositions.
Create fear by creating terrorism.
Force debt to the point of no return large and small loans.
Crush all hope and moral.
Get the public to "vote" and give in to anything those in charge say.
Open the Canadian and Mexican border.
Create 1 large country between the 3 making that a New Country. nwo if you will.

Bring the American living down to Mexico's control and level.
and
Create a new currency in order to replace the worthless Dollar bill which was made worthless not an accident, it was made to be this way.
At this point there will be the introduction of the AMERO similar to the EURO.
With an entire design from the begining.
Mexico has done this time and time again with the Peso just recently in the last 25 years.
Jamaica has done this with their currency and in both countries the super rich gained amounts of riches/land/power one can never imagine without being there.


You dont have to believe me.
Look it up.

 

[Priyesh P.]

everyone better stock up on munitions.. we might have to fight the "government"

lol, you`re right, zak. not terrorists nor criminals are those we need to be afraid of, but the "EVIL GOVERNMENT"

 

[Priyesh P.]

Elite / Power / Control /

How do you get rid of the middle class and gain more control.

Make 2 classes and only allow 2 classes to exist.

Get rid of the American dollar.
Take everything away from the middle class or those who own anything.
Raise the cost of living in all areas.
Give un-payable loans to the working class.
Reposes their belongings.
Re give those belongings to new loans who will ultimately loose in repositions.
Create fear by creating terrorism.
Force debt to the point of no return large and small loans.
Crush all hope and moral.
Get the public to "vote" and give in to anything those in charge say.
Open the Canadian and Mexican border.
Create 1 large country between the 3 making that a New Country. nwo if you will.

Bring the American living down to Mexico's control and level.
and
Create a new currency in order to replace the worthless Dollar bill which was made worthless not an accident, it was made to be this way.
At this point there will be the introduction of the AMERO similar to the EURO.
With an entire design from the begining.
Mexico has done this time and time again with the Peso just recently in the last 25 years.
Jamaica has done this with their currency and in both countries the super rich gained amounts of riches/land/power one can never imagine without being there.


You dont have to believe me.
Look it up.

Eh, did I miss anything? Isn`t this the current state? ;-)

 

[Clint Johnson]

Those with a philosophical axe to grind eliminate the middle class through redefining what the middle class is.

The middle class was minuscule before it started to slowly climb under capitalism during the industrial revolution. Then, about a hundred years ago it started a real growth spurt when the technological revolution allowed the productivity of the worker to rapidly multiply and unionization started to give them the power to demand a more equitable share of that productivity increase.

This created an unprecedented situation over the later half of the last century where the majority of the population was suddenly (historically speaking) elevated into the "middle class".

Capitalism + Technology + Unions = Most of the population is "middle class"

But what is considered "middle class" has been pushed ever upwards over that time. Fifty years ago you were middle class if you rented a 950 square foot home, took the bus to work while you saved up for ten years to buy a second hand car, where able to buy new cloths for all your children - not just the oldest child and then handed them down... today, the standard has been pushed ever upwards to the point where that is now considered below the poverty line.

If the middle class is shrinking, it is our expectations and demands for an ever higher standard of living that is causing it. The low hanging fruit of productivity increases is long behind us now and the only way that people can get a true higher wage is if they can do more work in a given time. Wage increases without productivity increases simply means that the cost of living goes up as the cost of goods and services is increased to compensate for those higher wages that can no longer be subsumed into productivity increases.

The expectation of the 2100 foot home with two cars in the garage has to be reigned in a little bit. We expect this standard of living to be easy and we expect it to increase every year... that is what is shrinking the middle class.

 

[Priyesh P.]

A german economics professor said it directly and clearly : the western countries have to accept that their standards of living will fall since a couple of former third world countries are on the rise - not everyone on the planet can have everything, we have to accept it...

 

[Joseph Ward]

What gets me upset or sad is why does the middle class/public give away their rights/power to the people who want to steel it from them? Rhetorical.:excl:

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Without the US, the global economy fails. Without the global economy, the US fails (as it's setup right now). They depend on each other now.

There is no doubt that greed in the US and other places as well, has created a reliance on the almighty dollar. Capitalism is a great system - until greed and corruption enter the mix and then well, we end up with the situation we're in. I also think the US is going through a bit of an identity crisis right now. We don't know who we really are because we try to be so many things to so many people. One day it's the world's policeman, the next it's "securing" the world's oil. We are defined by our politicians, some spoiled celebrities and athletes, and Wall Street. And the media has a lot of responsibility in creating this.

Honestly I don't have all the answers. All I know is that I try to see the good in everyone, and try very hard to give people benefit of the doubt because a lot of us make mistakes. We make decisions that in retrospect are the wrong ones. It's just frustrating that corruption has had such an impact on our world. And it seems like a problem that has become so big, it's almost impossible to solve. I guess the best place to start is with our kids. If they're not brought up with a strong sense of right and wrong, we have a long road ahead.

I just hope for all of our sakes the country gets back on track so we can run honest businesses that provide a living for ourselves and our families. Let's hope this financial crisis is not a long term trend.

 

[jpp]

If the middle class is shrinking, it is our expectations and demands for an ever higher standard of living that is causing it.

So it couldn't possibly have anything to do with declining real wages and benefits over the past 40 years, or the regressive tax policies which came in with Reagan, or anti-labor legislation, or failure to enforce the few labor laws still on the books or the general propaganda and policy assault on New Deal policies which has been going on since the 1970s, mounted by big business?

The low hanging fruit of productivity increases is long behind us now and the only way that people can get a true higher wage is if they can do more work in a given time. Wage increases without productivity increases simply means that the cost of living goes up as the cost of goods and services is increased
to compensate for those higher wages that can no longer be subsumed into productivity increases.

You're omitting some crucial facts here. There have been huge productivity gains since 1970, and corporate profits are up enormously in the last 40 years. But real wages are still at 1970s levels for most American workers, and in recent years wages have actually been dropping despite continued productivity gains, creating in the U.S. the largest disparity between rich and poor in the industrialized world.

This is a system which doesn't pay off for most Americans, no matter how rich the corporate sector gets. Then again, if by "free market" we mean the richest and most powerful interests in the world are free to write their own rules and structure the system however they want, it's been a great success.

Are we doomed, Clint, to have these arguments, across threads, forever?

 

[GlennChan]

In a capitalist economy, of course you are going to have inequality. If you allow people to work hard for their money, then of course some people are going to have more than others.

2- A large disparity between rich and poor is due to the scalable nature of many of the products/services in a capitalist economy. Take web search for instance. Google has 90%+ of the market share and (probably) has at least 9X the profits than its competitors in web search. In many cases, a small number of people will hold vastly more wealth than everybody else. It's also the case in pro sports, acting, etc. Superstar athletes and actors get paid a lot more than the rest.

3- Personally, I would worry about those at the very bottom of society. Should we not ensure that everybody meets a certain standard of living? There are people living without proper shelter... that, to me, is inequality we should worry about and fix.

 

[jpp]

In a capitalist economy, of course you are going to have inequality. If you allow people to work hard for their money, then of course some people are going to have more than others.

So, by your definition, the CEOs who made hundreds of millions on unsound mortgages have earned their wealth, while burger flippers, who get no bailouts, deserve to be poor?

The trouble with this approach, even if we're prepared to accept extreme levels of inequality (a dubious proposition in a democracy), is that it assumes that the free market is actually free. Which of course is a myth. The system is fixed, and inherited privilege has a great deal to do, in modern America, with who's rich and who isn't, and who's comfortable and who isn't.

The fact that the economy does reward innovation and hard work (some of the time) doesn't mean that the system is either sound or fair. And not everyone can be an entrepreneur. If there aren't decent wages for a day's work, the society has no future.