The Impending Global Liquidity Crisis

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Stock markets across the world have been skyrocketing lately. In fact, Forbes reported on Tuesday that: “all 22 of the developed-world markets tracked by Morgan Stanley Capital International are in positive territory year-to-date. …Emerging markets are looking just as flush. Of the 29 emerging market countries that MSCI tracks, only four--Argentina, Sri Lanka, Russia and Venezuela--are in negative territory.”

Yahooo! The markets are soaring and we’ve entered a new “globalized” Age of Prosperity.

Sounds great doesn’t it?

There’s just one little problem; the Commerce Department announced yesterday that that GDP in the first quarter was revised downward to a measly .6%.

Are you kidding me? Economic growth is underwater and yet the stock market is still flying-high? What gives?

It’s easy. The markets are just responding to the growth in the money supply which is in double-digits just about everywhere around the world. When there are more dollars chasing the same number of assets---stocks go up. It’s just that simple. What we’re seeing isn’t the result of investor confidence or industrial output. Heck no! Stocks are rising because our $800 billion current account deficit is recycling into the stock market. What we are really seeing is the first signs of inflation---galloping inflation which will soon spill over into the broader economy.

If we eliminate the “frothy” exuberance of America’s trade deficit, then the stock market would be sucking air through a tube right now. And, you can bet that as soon as our foreign creditors wise-up and start raising interest rates the Dow Jones will quickly become the Dow Doldrums and the economy will nosedive into a 1929-type Depression.

Does that sound overly pessimistic?

At present, the “don’t worry, be happy” crowd still thinks the good times will roll on forever. They don’t see that the US consumer is running out of gas and won’t be able to sustain his gluttonous spending spree much longer. He’s already stopped siphoning the equity out of his home ($600 billion last year) and now he’s has started to max-out his credit cards. (Credit card debt increased 9.2% last month alone!) Now, US consumers are facing a blizzard of bad economic news---rising prices at the gas pump, a 6.7% increase in food prices, and a sickly dollar that keeps losing ground on the currency exchange. (Kuwait is the latest country to announce they will be dumping the dollar for a basket of currencies)

Currently, the US gobbles up two-thirds of the world’s credit each year with no conceivable way of paying it back. That won’t last much longer. Central banks around the world are increasingly hesitant to accept are our flaccid greenbacks and the Chinese are the only ones who are still buying our Treasuries. That’s mainly because it gives them power over political decision-making in Washington. The truth is the Chinese are planning to send the US into receivership and take over as the world’s bank. With dollar-backed reserves of $1.3 trillion, their plan appears to be going “full-steam ahead”.

The bottom line is that we are buried beneath a $9 trillion mountain of debt and there’s no way to dig out. If there’s a break in the liquidity-flows to our stock market---stocks will crash, unemployment will soar, and we’ll be pulled into a deflationary downspin.

Economic soothsayer Elaine Supkis puts it like this:

“World wealth isn't growing, world DEBTS are growing and the place they are growing the fastest is the US which is the sole terminus of world trade at this point. The biggest growth industry today is selling debt instruments. The entire existence of hedge funds, for example, is to funnel profits from uneven trade with the US back into the US via dumping debts onto the backs of any corporations that can run up more debts!” (http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/money_matters/)

Get it? It’s all just recycled dollars---debt piled on debt piled on debt piled on debt-- repeat ad infinitum. America’s equities portfolio = 1% assets, 99% pure helium.

This may explain why Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has been frantically beating the bushes for “foreign investment” to keep the stock market bubble afloat. He has no interest in rebuilding America’s industries or increasing our competitiveness. No way. What he’s looking for is a quick liquidity-fix to keep the over-bloated stock market sputtering along while more wealth is shifted to mega-rich corporations. In fact, no one in Washington is even talking about renovating America’s battered manufacturing sector. What do they care if we turn into a nation of busboys and bed-pan cleaners? They’re just hanging around long enough to sell off whatever’s left of our national assets then it’s “off to new markets in the Far East”.

And, they are doing a great job, too! The United States is handing over 1.5% of its national wealth every year to foreign investors while the American public continues to snooze away.

We’re having a giant garage sale and everything must go---roads, water, mineral rights, natural gas etc. We’re getting “picked clean” and no one seems to care.

The boys in Washington and Wall Street don’t work for you and me. They’re destroying the currency and selling everything that isn’t bolted to the floor. Then, they’ll pack-off to Asia and Europe where they can begin the scavenging-cycle all over again.

How bad will it get in the USA?

Consider these comments from Princeton University economist Alan Blinder, who recently attended the business summit at Davos, Switzerland: (summarized by Rep. Ron Paul)

“Word has it that there may be plans yet again to “outsource” highly skilled American jobs to other countries. Approximately 40-million American jobs could be at stake and yet US workers have not been told or consulted about it, until now. Just to put the number of 40 million into perspective, that is more than twice the amount of people that are employed in manufacturing. (According to Alan Blinder) The ‘choice’ jobs of skilled Americans could be lost and given to foreign countries within the next decade or two.”

40 million high-paying US jobs will be outsourced to lower-wage countries within the decade?!?

This is a blueprint for the economic destruction of America!

Maybe this will finally convince the dozy American public that the corporatists who run Washington are a disloyal gaggle of traitorous swine. “Globalization” is public relations swindle designed to steal jobs, plunder the economy, and shift wealth to ruling elites.

The name of the game now is to keep the stock market flying-high for as long as possible while the transfer of wealth continues unabated. That means the hucksters on Wall Street will have to devise even better scams for expanding debt---increasing margin limits, escalating derivatives trading, loosening accounting standards, inflating the booming hedge fund industry, and---the new darling of Wall Street---increasing the mega-mergers, the biggest swindle of all.

These over-leveraged mergers create boatloads of new credit, but add nothing to GDP. They reflect the basic disconnect between the stock market and the real economy. May is on track to be the biggest month for global mergers ever recorded. Marketwatch reports:

“For the year to date, companies have announced at least $2.2 trillion in deals worldwide. Of these, US companies have engaged in $830 billion”.

But look at the figures---Do they sound familiar?

Once again, the insightful Elaine Supkis makes this observation:

“Note that the 'deals' roughly equal our trade deficit. This isn't accidental. They are one and the same! And I will never see this fact stated so baldly in our media. No one dares say it in public.”

Wow; she’s right. Our trade deficit is being concealed by these gargantuan mega-deals in the markets.

And there’s something else we need consider about these mergers; they’re not producing growth in the economy. In fact, GDP keeps falling while stocks keep going higher.

Why?

Because the mergers do not increase productivity; they’re an indication of “asset inflation”. As Thorsten Polleit says, “the government-controlled paper money systems have decoupled credit expansion from the from the economy’s productive capacities.” The link between the stock market and GDP has been broken by inflation.

Henry C K Liu explains it like this in his article “Liquidity Boom and Looming Crisis” in the Asia Times:

“The five-year global growth boom and four-year secular bull market may simple run out of steam, or become oversaturated by too many late-coming imitators entering a very specialized and exotic market of high-risk, high-leverage arbitrage. The liquidity boom has been delivering strong growth through asset inflation (property, credit spreads, commodities, and emerging-market stocks) WITHOUT ADDING COMMENSURATE SUBSTANTIVE EXPANSION OF THE REAL ECONOMY. Unlike real physical assets, virtual financial mirages that arise out of thin air can evaporate again into thin air without warning. As inflation picks up, the liquidity boom and asset inflation will draw to a close, leaving a hollowed economy devoid of substance. …A global financial crisis is inevitable”.

Liu’s right. There’s no “expansion in the real economy”—no increase in output; no boost in GDP. It’s all recycled credit which will “evaporate” at the first sign of trouble.

Greenspan’s low interest rates and currency deregulation have set us up for “global liquidity crisis”.

The basic problem is that credit growth has been outpacing GDP for some time now. That means that debt has been building up faster than the rate of growth in the economy. Eventually those imbalances will have to work themselves out by way of a steep recession or perhaps another Great Depression. There’s a price to pay for low interest rates and, inevitably, we will end up paying it.

Thorsten Polleit of the Mises Institute explains it like this in his article “The Dark Side of the Credit Boom”:

“Today's government-controlled paper-money systems have decoupled credit expansion from the economies' productive capacities: "circulation credit" feeds a "credit boom" that is doomed to end in severe economic, social and political crisis. Austrian economists of the Mises Institute fear that the collapse of the credit boom will lead to the destruction of the currency through a deliberate policy of (hyper-)inflation, destroying the free-market order.”

“Destruction of the currency”; is that too strong?

No. In fact, the United Nations issued this gloomy statement just last week:

“The United States dollar is facing IMMINENT COLLAPSE in the face of an unsustainable debt”. America’s current account deficit is now a matter of international concern.

Polleit says that “the increase in debt-to-GDP ratios ….can actually be observed in all major currency areas, not only in the United States”. This is true. Most of the industrial countries in the world have increased their money supplies to dangerous levels to avoid strengthening against the dollar. It is a prescription for disaster.

If the Fed chooses to lower interest rates now; (to ease the slumping housing market) they will only aggravate “existing disequilibria”. In fact lowering of interest rates will only perpetuate “the fateful expansion of circulation credit that must end in a collapse of the monetary system”.

So, why would the Fed engage in such reckless behavior when it violates fundamental laws of economics? According to Polleit, “the ongoing lowering of interest rates and the accompanying rise in circulation credit and debt-to-GDP ratios — the characteristic features of today's state-controlled paper-money systems — is driven by a deep-seated anti-capitalist ideology.”

This is also true. The serial “bubble-makers” at the Federal Reserve secretly hate the free market system; that’s why they are engaged in plutocratic social engineering. They're using interest rates as a means for shifting wealth from one class to another and creating a centrally-controlled economy. There actions are essentially anti-free market and “anti-capitalist” as Polleit says. We can see this trend even more clearly in US foreign policy where the pretense of “free markets” has been abandoned altogether and America is securing its resources with gunboats and missiles rather than with a checkbook.

The current credit bubble is bigger than anything we’ve ever seen before. For example “The total market volume of credit derivatives outstanding was an estimated US $20.2 trillion in 2006, amounting to around 1.5 times annual nominal US GDP….The market is expected to grow further to US$33.1 trillion until 2008. In fact, the credit derivative market has become the biggest market segment of the international banking business already. The problem, however, is that the “credit derivative markets have emerged on the back of a government-controlled credit and money supply system. And as the latter is assumed to be crisis prone, credit derivative markets might be seen as a multiplier of the crisis potential inherent in today's monetary system”.

In other words, the whole $20 trillion derivative’s market is at risk because it is built on a shaky foundation of hyper-inflated currency. Once again, if money supply exceeds GDP there’ll eventually be a day of reckoning. We expect that derivatives and hedge funds will get hammered once the huge imbalances begin rumble through the markets.

So, what should we be looking for now?

Any break in the liquidity chain will send markets into downward spiral. The likely catalyst for such a crash could be contagion from the housing bubble creeping into the stock market, a sudden downturn in the Shanghai stock market, (which is up nearly 300% in just 2 years) or an increase in Japan’s interest rates. Any one of these could potentially trigger a massive sell-off on Wall Street.

Today’s stock market needs a steady flow of cheap capital to stay aright. That’s why Paulson is desperately looking for new investors. But there’s a basic problem which the markets cannot escape. Inflation is surfacing in all the countries where the stock markets are soaring because of their increases in the money supply. When the central banks are finally forced to raise interest rates; money will tighten up, it’ll be harder for creditors to make their payments or for banks to issue additional loans. As credit dries up more people will default on their loans, demand will drop off for consumer goods, prices will fall, and we will go into deep recession.

Once this process begins, speculators will be forced to abandon their positions, liquidity will continue to evaporate and the market will go into freefall.

Markets are self-correcting. Eventually the overleveraged debt-instruments, which pushed the Dow to historic highs, will be expelled from the system, but not without considerable pain for everyone involved.

Here’s an excerpt from Paul Lamont’s excellent article “Credit Collapse—May 10” which provides a compelling description of what happens a credit bubble begins to unwind:

“On May 10, 1837, the banks of New York suspended gold and silver payments for their notes. Fear of a bank run spread throughout the United States. The young country fell into a 7 year depression. How could two decades of prosperity end so suddenly? According to America: A Narrative History: “monetary inflation had fueled an era of speculation in real estate, canals, and railroad stocks.” Cracks in the dam were visible much earlier, as the stock market peaked in inflation-adjusted value three years prior. According to Rolf Nef, debt levels in the private sector rose to 150% of GDP. In late 1836, the Bank of England concerned with inflation raised interest rates. As rates rose in England, credit tightened, and U.S. asset prices began to fall.

On May 10, investors panicked and scrambled for cash. “By the fall of 1837 one third of the work force was jobless, and those still fortunate to have jobs saw their wages fall 30-50% within 2 years. At the same time, prices for food and clothing soared.”

We can expect a similar scenario in the very near future. When interest rates are kept below the rate of inflation for an extended period of time; enormous equity bubbles arise and threaten the entire system. The stock market is undergoing a period of asset inflation. It has broken free from the real economy and is headed for a crash. As Edward Chancellor, author of “Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation” says: “The growth of credit has created an illusory prosperity while producing profound imbalances” in the American economy….At some point the system will have to adjust “to face a new reality. The process of adjustment is likely to be painful. It may well end in either an extraordinary deflation...or an extraordinary inflation."

Get ready. The credit boom is coming to an end.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7907

[W*GS]

Yet another reason to distrust money being monopolized by the State.

Thanks for the support of libertarian ideals, LABF. Unintentionally so, I'm sure, but it's appreciated nonetheless.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm sure W*GS will jump to conclude that the foregoing article and its arguments support his Ayn Randian "baby out with the bath water" position that all government control or regulation of markets is intrinsically evil.

However, his isn't the necessary conclusion.

The article might just as easily support the argument that our present form of govenment - not all forms of government - represents a threat to markets and the global economy.

[W*GS]

As opposed to your Chavezista "all government control of markets is intrinsically good"...

How's your slobbering all over Chavez doing these days, BTW?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Countdown to another W*GS strawman...

1...2...3....

[W*GS]

Your posts are almost always strawmen, LABF.

Your embrace of hypocrisy is pathetic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

As opposed to your Chavezista "all government control of markets is intrinsically good"...

But if this was, in fact, my position then wouldn't that have to include the present government, i.e., the administration of the past seven years?

Wouldn't I have spent the past seven years arguing in support of BushCo economic policy?

(Or do you have some esoteric meaning in mind when you use the word "all?")

Thanks for playing, in either case.

[Rohirrim]

Thanks for posting this, LABF. Pretty damn spooky. I guess I should continue to buy gold.

[Hotrod]

Thanks for posting this, LABF. Pretty damn spooky. I guess I should continue to buy gold.

Go ahead Im gonna keep buying bullets ;)

[atomicbloke]

Thanks for posting this, LABF. Pretty damn spooky. I guess I should continue to buy gold.

Will bullion appreciation stay above inflation?

[W*GS]

But if this was, in fact, my position then wouldn't that have to include the present government, i.e., the administration of the past seven years?

Wouldn't I have spent the past seven years arguing in support of BushCo economic policy?

(Or do you have some esoteric meaning in mind when you use the word "all?")

Thanks for playing, in either case.

You still aren't even familiar with the rules of the game.

It shocks you, just shocks you, when your ideology's relentless push for State control (going back decades, heck, it's the foundation of your beliefs) of the economy comes back to haunt you when "conservatives" are in power and use that same State power for their own ends.

When are you going to learn?

[Rohirrim]

Strange take, given that the article pretty much outlines how the states are becoming slaves to the multi-nationals.

[W*GS]

Strange take, given that the article pretty much outlines how the states are becoming slaves to the multi-nationals.

Why are corporations intrinsically evil?

[Rohirrim]

Why are corporations intrinsically evil?

I didn't say that, did I, Grover?

[The Lone Bolt]

Interesting article LABF. I'm no economist however so I'd also be interested in the counterargument.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Interesting article LABF. I'm no economist however so I'd also be interested in the counterargument.I hear them every day on CNBC.

[W*GS]

I didn't say that, did I, Grover?

It drips from everything economical you write, mH.

[Rohirrim]

It drips from everything economical you write, mH.

Obviously, you believe that corporations are intrinsically good. I think we're now living in an uber-redux of the British East India Company.

[The Lone Bolt]

I hear them every day on CNBC.

Well I haven't heard anything on CNBC that specifically addresses the liquidity crisis argument and others that this author makes. That is what I'm interested in.

[alkemical]

Obviously, you believe that corporations are intrinsically good. I think we're now living in an uber-redux of the British East India Company.

yeah i never have figured out why he always insists that a CEO is any more trust worthy than any politician.

[Spider]

It's W*GS ... anything is possible in W*GSland .......... Located near Dollywood ;D

[Odysseus]

I wonder what is going to happen when this spending project called Iraq shuts down?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Strange take, given that the article pretty much outlines how the states are becoming slaves to the multi-nationals.

Yep.

That's what happens when people like W*GS and Grover Norquist have their way.

W*GS' economic philosophy is essentially that the "free market" should be like a football game with no refs.

Most disturbing. :oyvey:

[Rohirrim]

Yep.

That's what happens when people like W*GS and Grover Norquist have their way.

W*GS' economic philosophy is essentially that the "free market" should be like a football game with no refs.

Most disturbing. :oyvey:

We've already tried that. It's called feudalism. ;)

[Hotrod]

I wonder what is going to happen when this spending project called Iraq shuts down?

I wont be good.

[W*GS]

Obviously, you believe that corporations are intrinsically good.

I don't say much about corporations - whereas you think they're the highest level of the free market. I believe otherwise.

[W*GS]

yeah i never have figured out why he always insists that a CEO is any more trust worthy than any politician.

Show me where I've said CEOs are trustworthy.

Think about it this way, however. I don't like Wal-Mart. I can shop elsewhere. I don't like Bush - I can't choose another President, excepting every four years.

[W*GS]

W*GS' economic philosophy is essentially that the "free market" should be like a football game with no refs.

Wrong.

Your economic philosophy is that there is no market - the players are employees of the State.

Democratically elected, of course.

See recent Venezuelan history for why your ideology always fails.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We've already tried that. It's called feudalism. ;)

Yep.

More on W*GS' ill-conceived, Ayn Randian fantasy world:

A Failed Experiment

On January 20, 1981, in his first inaugural address, Ronald Reagan told the nation: "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Thus began a grand experiment: Release the American economy from the bonds of government regulation. Individual enterprise and initiative, the profit motive, the free market and open competition will usher in a new birth of freedom and a new era of unprecedented prosperity.

“It’s morning in America.”

Twenty-six years later, what do we have? A dismantled and “outsourced” industrial base, an impoverished work force, a nine trillion dollar debt burden upon future generations, and a degradation of education and scientific research, and a captive media that deprives the public of essential news as it issues outright lies. In addition, the Bush administration, the current keeper of the covenant, has accomplished the trashing of the Constitution and its guaranteed Bill of Rights, a seemingly endless war with no prospect (or even definition) of victory, and the contempt of the peoples and governments of the civilized world.

The grand experiment has failed, and we are just beginning to realize the enormous costs of that failure.

How did it happen? It happened because the core dogmas of this so-called “conservatism” – the possibility and desirability of an ungoverned society, the superior “wisdom” of an unconstrained free market, the suitability of simple greed as a driving force of society – were fated from the start to fail the test of “real world” application.

A Fallacy of False Comparison. “The theory is beautiful, but reality is a bitch,” is a maxim that should be carved above the entrance of every college of economics, not to mention The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Analyses of competing theories is appropriate in academic journals and seminar rooms is appropriate, as is a comparative evaluation of competing policies in action (e.g., murder rates in states with capital punishment vs. states without). But untried utopian schemes can not be fairly compared with worst-case anecdotes of policies-in-action, in this case government regulation of market forces. For history has taught us, time and again, that idealized abstract concepts such as “the free market,” “the profit motive” and privatization of the commons, inevitably come a-cropper when applied uncompromisingly to actual, ongoing, practical circumstances. Theory is best applied empirically and pragmatically, as reality “feeds back” information that prompts alterations and improvements of policy. This is why the New Deal succeeded, while utopian communities usually fail.

Thus we have discovered at length, what wise individuals knew at the outset of "the Reagan revolution:" that the profit motive and free market, while necessary ingredients of a thriving economy, are not, all by themselves, sufficient providers of prosperity, and that government, while a nuisance and a burden (especially to the wealthy and powerful), is the essential protector of the ordinary citizen, entitled to "equal justice under law." In short, "the market," while an invaluable servant, can be a ruthless master. (For an elaboration and defense of this claim, see my "With Liberty for Some," and in particular, the closing sections).

The regulated capitalism that flourished in the United States until Reagan and his successors dismantled it is the result of countless experiments and adjustments – an accumulated “political wisdom,” learned from and validated by experience.

Contaminated meat and deadly patent medicine? Bring in the Food and Drug Administration. Bank failures and stock market crashes? Establish the FDIC and the SEC. Cacophony on the airwaves? Bring on “traffic control” with the FCC – at the request of the broadcast industry, as it happened. Contamination of the common air, water, and landscapes? Voila! The Environmental Protection Agency.

All these functions of the government, and more, exist for reasons learned through the practical exercise of government as it legislates in Congress, adjudicates in the courts, and administers through the executive and the agencies. And yet we are told that all this practically proven regulatory structure is to be brushed aside by an untried theory: “government is the problem, not the solution.”

Well, now it has been tried, beginning with Reagan in 1981, with the woeful results enumerated above. And as for the dogma of “free market competition,” that old war horse was dead at the starting gate. The corporate interests that have purchased our government have little regard for competition. They much prefer the total control that comes with monopolies. Hence the consolidation of the media and the no-bid government contracts to the mega-corporations. The remedy? The enactment and enforcement of anti-trust legislation, which means, of course, government regulation -- the best friend of “competitive enterprise."

Ranchers in the American West have a long-standing rule: “Never take down a fence unless you know for sure why it was put up.” Political theorists and reformers would be well advised to follow this rule.

So it comes to this: the so-called “conservatives,” aren’t! They are determined to tear down regulatory “fences” heedless of the practical problems that led to their installation. And it turns out that the “liberals” are the authentic “conservatives,” as they endeavor to maintain proven governmental functions, and as they resist the uncompromising imposition of untested dogmas. (See my “Conscience of a Conservative”).

“The Profit Motive” is a sometime thing. The classical economic theory embraced by Reagan/Bushism proclaims that optimal economic outcome is the result, “as if by an invisible hand” (Adam Smith), of each individual seeking to maximize his or her “preference satisfaction.” Or more simply, “the profit motive.” In the words of Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street,” “greed is good.” Greed, we are told, is the fuel of the freest and most productive economic engine.

The proponents of “the grand experiment” fail to recognize that “the profit motive” is not all that important to everyone. Perhaps it is to the “captains of corporatism” promoting the experiment, but not to all of us. There are other motives: service to others, the promotion of justice, the pursuit of scholarly knowledge, the advancement of science, the joy of teaching.

This is not to say that those of us who, for example, have chosen a scholarly profession would not like a salary boost, or that we would turn down a no-strings salary of a million dollars a year. We are not indifferent to wealth, it is just not all-important to us. Moreover, the trappings of wealth -- multiple homes, a fleet of automobiles, the management of an extensive investment portfolio, etc, – would be unwelcomed burdens, since they would be distractions from our preferred activities: research, writing, and teaching.

Similarly, many individuals of high accomplishment and opportunities for great wealth, simply choose not to acquire that wealth – their profit motive might be weak and practically insignificant. Medical doctors might choose to join “Doctors Without Borders” and treat the poor, or they might choose a career in medical research. Lawyers might choose to work, not on Wall Street, but for Environmental Defense or Public Citizen.

Not everyone is driven by the profit motive, and arguably not the most significant and productive citizens. A society and an economy without individuals primarily motivated by service, or the pursuit of knowledge, etc, rather than by a quest for personal wealth, would be at best a morally impoverished society, and more likely, an unsustainable society.

And significantly, these non-profit-motivated professions are often, though not always, most effectively pursued "in the public interest" in governmental institutions: schools, universities, government agencies, research facilities, courts, etc. "Private enterprises" have little use for them. Abolish government, and these service-oriented professions would vanish with it.

Clearly, the “great experiment” – down with government and up with “the unregulated free market” – has failed. It has proven itself to be bad for our workers, bad for our families and our children, bad for the moral tone of our society, bad for the natural environment, bad for future generations, and eventually it will prove bad for those very few who are now enjoying lavish prosperity at the expense of the rest of us. For in the long run, there is no prosperity on a ruined planet, and few of the privileged wealthy will remain so when the economy they have promoted collapses.

We have before us the results of the great experiment. Now it is past time to end it. The sooner and the more decisively we do so, the better it will be for all of us.

http://www.igc.org/

[W*GS]

A gigantic strawman, LABF. As usual.

Government hardly "disappeared" and the market left "unregulated" under Reagan.

For some reason, however, the genuine failure of the USSR (i.e., the perfection of your ideology) is a lesson you have yet to learn. Too afraid?

[alkemical]

Show me where I've said CEOs are trustworthy.

Think about it this way, however. I don't like Wal-Mart. I can shop elsewhere. I don't like Bush - I can't choose another President, excepting every four years.

Wagsy, your position is always the free market and companies are far more trust worthy than the gov't. I do understand where think that way, i just think it's flawed.

[W*GS]

Wagsy, your position is always the free market and companies are far more trust worthy than the gov't. I do understand where think that way, i just think it's flawed.

The market is less forgiving of fraud, i.e., politicians have precious little incentive to be honest.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wagsy, your position is always the free market and companies are far more trust worthy than the gov't. I do understand where think that way, i just think it's flawed.

Bingo. :thumbsup:

The foregoing article breaks the flaws down in detail.

[W*GS]

Problem is, who controls the money supply? Politicians...

[alkemical]

The market is less forgiving of fraud, i.e., politicians have precious little incentive to be honest.

I don't know about that Wags. You'd have to define whom or what "the market" is. CEO's aren't any more honest than politicians.

[alkemical]

Problem is, who controls the money supply? Politicians...

Weren't you the one telling me about how good a central bank was?

[Rohirrim]

Problem is, who controls the money supply? Politicians...

That statement is ludicrous on its face.

[Rohirrim]

Clearly, the “great experiment” – down with government and up with “the unregulated free market” – has failed. It has proven itself to be bad for our workers, bad for our families and our children, bad for the moral tone of our society, bad for the natural environment, bad for future generations, and eventually it will prove bad for those very few who are now enjoying lavish prosperity at the expense of the rest of us. For in the long run, there is no prosperity on a ruined planet, and few of the privileged wealthy will remain so when the economy they have promoted collapses.

That is one of the best pieces I've read all year. Thanks, LABF. We need to remind ourselves of what a society is - it's a collection of human beings working together to accomplish kindred goals. That cooperation is what has allowed us to survive as a species. "Trickle down" economics is the opposite of that. I think this essay captures perfectly why America is getting ****ed up. Whereas the "New Deal" set up a social contract that allowed us to work together for the benefit of all, "Supply side" has set up a winners/losers economy where we work against each other. Our corporations now have no social responsibility whatsoever. In fact, few of them are even tethered to the U.S. anymore. They are their own countries, serving their own interests. Greed, for want of a better word, is not good. Which might be why the ancients added it to the list of seven deadly sins.

[W*GS]

Weren't you the one telling me about how good a central bank was?

Ahhhh, no.

[alkemical]

Ahhhh, no.

No it wasn't you - but i did ask for your input on a thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=54618)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well I haven't heard anything on CNBC that specifically addresses the liquidity crisis argument and others that this author makes. That is what I'm interested in.There are analysts on every week talking about world liquidity and if it is or isn't a problem, sometimes every day.

[Rohirrim]

LABF, who wrote that piece? I can't find it on the posted site.

[The Lone Bolt]

There are analysts on every week talking about world liquidity and if it is or isn't a problem, sometimes every day.


I usually don't watch the financial programs, but I'll keep an eye out for debate on this issue.

[Rascal]

Interesting article, but what exactly was done to "release the American economy from the bonds of government regulation"? To clarify I'm curious if the author meant more then the New Deal removals, which actually began when Nixon left office with Ford, Carter, and Reagan.

Plus it might be more convincing from a better source. Not sure where you got http://www.igc.org/ as the source for this article as I didn't find it.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7940

[W*GS]

We need to remind ourselves of what a society is - it's a collection of human beings working together to accomplish kindred goals. That cooperation is what has allowed us to survive as a species.

Indeed. A successful society isn't built on the use of force to take from group X to give to group Y.

"Trickle down" economics is the opposite of that. I think this essay captures perfectly why America is getting ****ed up. Whereas the "New Deal" set up a social contract that allowed us to work together for the benefit of all, "Supply side" has set up a winners/losers economy where we work against each other.

Puhleeze. The New Deal helped create the notion of one group fighting against another - namely, the younger poorer working folk resenting being forced to support the older richer retired folk. It's ironic that you hold it up as an example of a good "social contract", given that it, and its descendants, are creating a fiscal and political crisis of unimaginable proportions over the next generation or so. That's not how a good thing works.

Besides, what about government did Reagan "dismantle", exactly? What agencies and programs were zeroed-out? I can't think of any.

Our corporations now have no social responsibility whatsoever. In fact, few of them are even tethered to the U.S. anymore.

Provide this list of "few" American corporations. It's much longer than you think. And "social responsibility" isn't something only the State can create and enforce. It's too bad that your initial thought of a "solution" is "There oughta be a law!", which ought to be the last step.

They are their own countries, serving their own interests.

I don't want corporations serving the State interest. That's fascism.

Greed, for want of a better word, is not good. Which might be why the ancients added it to the list of seven deadly sins.

Strange how the rah-rah years of the Clinton era were good, but the rah-rah years under Reagan are emblematic of all that's wrong with the nation. Why is that?

[Rohirrim]

Indeed. A successful society isn't built on the use of force to take from group X to give to group Y.



Puhleeze. The New Deal helped create the notion of one group fighting against another - namely, the younger poorer working folk resenting being forced to support the older richer retired folk. It's ironic that you hold it up as an example of a good "social contract", given that it, and its descendants, are creating a fiscal and political crisis of unimaginable proportions over the next generation or so. That's not how a good thing works.

Besides, what about government did Reagan "dismantle", exactly? What agencies and programs were zeroed-out? I can't think of any.



Provide this list of "few" American corporations. It's much longer than you think. And "social responsibility" isn't something only the State can create and enforce. It's too bad that your initial thought of a "solution" is "There oughta be a law!", which ought to be the last step.



I don't want corporations serving the State interest. That's fascism.



Strange how the rah-rah years of the Clinton era were good, but the rah-rah years under Reagan are emblematic of all that's wrong with the nation. Why is that?

I'm tired of arguing with you. You're an extremist. If I say, "I think that guy needs a shave." You respond with, "Why do you think decapitation works?" It's pointless.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

LABF, who wrote that piece? I can't find it on the posted site.
A blogger named Mark Whitney (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7907).

[Bronco Bob]

The market is less forgiving of fraud, i.e., politicians have precious little incentive to be honest.

The only incentive CEOs have to be honest is jail time if they aren't.
Ironically laws, courts and jails are government functions. Take away
government regulations and what is there to stop them?

[Rascal]

A blogger named Mark Whitney (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7907).

I thought he was talking about teh second article he posted?

Doesn't matter both are now linked.

[alkemical]

The only incentive CEOs have to be honest is jail time if they aren't.
Ironically laws, courts and jails are government functions. Take away
government regulations and what is there to stop them?

Tinker bell

[W*GS]

I'm tired of arguing with you. You're an extremist.

Name-calling is beneath you.

If I say, "I think that guy needs a shave." You respond with, "Why do you think decapitation works?" It's pointless.

If you're not willing to justify your views, then you're not going to get very far in getting others to agree with you, or, you don't believe in them that strongly. Either way, it's not good for you.

[Rohirrim]

Name-calling is beneath you.



If you're not willing to justify your views, then you're not going to get very far in getting others to agree with you, or, you don't believe in them that strongly. Either way, it's not good for you.

Spoken by a guy who has never, in a single instance, justified a single view he has posted on this board.

[W*GS]

The only incentive CEOs have to be honest is jail time if they aren't.

"Only"? What about shareholders? Consumers?

Ironically laws, courts and jails are government functions. Take away government regulations and what is there to stop them?

Ironically, many government regulations reward CEOs for being dishonest. Ponder that.

[Rascal]

Here is a good, and lengthy, read about the US economies history for those that are interested.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap1.htm

[W*GS]

Spoken by a guy who has never, in a single instance, justified a single view he has posted on this board.

:bs:

What you apparently want is for me to tell you how to live your life, down to the tiniest detail. You're not an infant, and I ain't your Mommy. Grow up.

[Rascal]

Interesting read.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/PB_Deregulation_Crandall.pdf

[Rohirrim]

:bs:

What you apparently want is for me to tell you how to live your life, down to the tiniest detail. You're not an infant, and I ain't your Mommy. Grow up.

All I'm discussing here is political philosophy. I didn't know you took this stuff so personally, but the idea that I would look to you for any guidance whatsover gave me my laugh of the day. Thanks, Grover.

[W*GS]

All I'm discussing here is political philosophy. I didn't know you took this stuff so personally, but the idea that I would look to you for any guidance whatsover gave me my laugh of the day. Thanks, Grover.

You've complained more than once that libertarianism lacks details - and I've responded that the details are, by and large, left to the individual.

You don't want a free society, you want an ordered (i.e., controlled) society.

[alkemical]

You've complained more than once that libertarianism lacks details - and I've responded that the details are, by and large, left to the individual.

You don't want a free society, you want an ordered (i.e., controlled) society.



So do you. Existence of a government, indicates there are laws - which means society is ordered/controlled.

You knock me for my anarchism - yet you contradict yourself.

At least i'm honest stating the Libertarian philosophy i can back because it's the "most" free out of any current philosophy - understanding people need rules and order - until proven otherwise.

Hmm - ponder that.

[W*GS]

So do you. Existence of a government, indicates there are laws - which means society is ordered/controlled.

You knock me for my anarchism - yet you contradict yourself.

At least i'm honest stating the Libertarian philosophy i can back because it's the "most" free out of any current philosophy - understanding people need rules and order - until proven otherwise.

Hmm - ponder that.

OK, ya got me - poor word choice.

I shoulda left out "ordered" and used "controlled". Apparently, Ro is uncomfortable with the idea of "live and let live" - he wants micromanagement. I'll pass.

[alkemical]

OK, ya got me - poor word choice.

I shoulda left out "ordered" and used "controlled". Apparently, Ro is uncomfortable with the idea of "live and let live" - he wants micromanagement. I'll pass.

No - Ro wants a balance that doesnt give one side more power than the other. Ro wants to use the state to ensure this, for the side of the people. Ro doesn't address the side of corporations - since corporations are treated with better rights than people (albiet this is my interpretation of Ro's discussions) - he wants legislation to make this balanced. Not by adding more power by the state - but by making the state more efficient in process and procedure.

Basically - Ro wants to reorg the gov't. to where there is some saftey net for people who fall through the cracks. Not a full blown socialist state. I mean Ro & I read posts by you - where it's only the Corporation that is in the right. Not the workers for the companies, not the responabilities the companies have as "citizens", etc.

If we are all in it together - no-one - not even a corporation is better than any individual citizen.

[Rohirrim]

No - Ro wants a balance that doesnt give one side more power than the other. Ro wants to use the state to ensure this, for the side of the people. Ro doesn't address the side of corporations - since corporations are treated with better rights than people (albiet this is my interpretation of Ro's discussions) - he wants legislation to make this balanced. Not by adding more power by the state - but by making the state more efficient in process and procedure.

Basically - Ro wants to reorg the gov't. to where there is some saftey net for people who fall through the cracks. Not a full blown socialist state. I mean Ro & I read posts by you - where it's only the Corporation that is in the right. Not the workers for the companies, not the responabilities the companies have as "citizens", etc.

If we are all in it together - no-one - not even a corporation is better than any individual citizen.

Spoken like somebody who actually reads my posts. Thank you, Clav. I don't know where Grover gets his takes on my stuff. I think he just makes it up.

[alkemical]

Spoken like somebody who actually reads my posts. Thank you, Clav. I don't know where Grover gets his takes on my stuff. I think he just makes it up.

Really what it boils down to is Mgmt v. Labour - Wags will side with mgmt. It's his nature. What he fails to realize is that corporations rule in much the same way as gov't. Exploitation of people, etc.

Doesn't matter IMO for myself. Injustice is always done under a flag (or Logo). How can someone tell me that paying third world workers **** wages and horrible living conditions is OK the workers....Wait i forgot - the market doesn't care.

[Rohirrim]

I also don't believe that corporations are "persons." Legally, or otherwise.

[alkemical]

I also don't believe that corporations are "persons." Legally, or otherwise.

I don't either. If you want to classify a corporation as a singular entity, you are (as you stated) turning into it's own nation. Where only IT'S laws are applicable.

[Rascal]

There are so many things that need to be reorganized in our government it's amazing anything ever gets done.

[W*GS]

No - Ro wants a balance that doesnt give one side more power than the other. Ro wants to use the state to ensure this, for the side of the people. Ro doesn't address the side of corporations - since corporations are treated with better rights than people (albiet this is my interpretation of Ro's discussions) - he wants legislation to make this balanced. Not by adding more power by the state - but by making the state more efficient in process and procedure.

I don't want an efficient State. Efficient States are very dangerous.

Basically - Ro wants to reorg the gov't. to where there is some saftey net for people who fall through the cracks. Not a full blown socialist state.

We already spend hundreds of billions of dollars for "safety nets". Where does it all go?

I mean Ro & I read posts by you - where it's only the Corporation that is in the right. Not the workers for the companies, not the responabilities the companies have as "citizens", etc.

:bs:

How many people are forced to work for those evil corporations? Not a single one. How many people work for those evil corporations, as a percentage? Which corporations are evil? A list would be nice.

If we are all in it together - no-one - not even a corporation is better than any individual citizen.

Indeed - and no individual citizen is better than any other.

So why have the Statists created a system in which some are given to, and some are taken from? That exactly makes the recipients more than the "donors" - and the State makes sure that the wants of the recipients grow without limit, as their "plight" only makes the State larger and more powerful.

[yavoon]

I think some people should attempt to find a positive position for labor w/o going into crazy anti-capitalist screeds and theories.

capitalism has lifted more ppl out of poverty and brought more wealth to the world, including the worlds poor ppl then every other system combined, tripled, and then increased by a power of ten.

[alkemical]

I don't want an efficient State. Efficient States are very dangerous.


So a bloated inefficient state, is preferred?


We already spend hundreds of billions of dollars for "safety nets". Where does it all go?


I do wonder why we give billions in tax breaks for multinational companies, or use gov't manipulation to keep them solvent.



:bs:

How many people are forced to work for those evil corporations? Not a single one. How many people work for those evil corporations, as a percentage? Which corporations are evil? A list would be nice.


Can we include workers in a sweat shop in a 3rd world country?


Indeed - and no individual citizen is better than any other.

So why have the Statists created a system in which some are given to, and some are taken from? That exactly makes the recipients more than the "donors" - and the State makes sure that the wants of the recipients grow without limit, as their "plight" only makes the State larger and more powerful.


Exactly - why do allot of corporations get tax breaks funded by taxpayers?

[yavoon]

So a bloated inefficient state, is preferred?





Can we include workers in a sweat shop in a 3rd world country?




Exactly - why do allot of corporations get tax breaks funded by taxpayers?

corporations are overtaxed as it is. we should be taxing corporations like ireland, which went into a huge economic boom when it put in its new more corporation friendly laws.

[alkemical]

corporations are overtaxed as it is. we should be taxing corporations like ireland, which went into a huge economic boom when it put in its new more corporation friendly laws.

Funny - IBM had a $1bln tax credit they exploited via a loophole - yet they laid off TONS of workers (mostly contractors).

Not to mention i think the 46% tax rate i'm taxed (all taxes added up for 06) - is a bit absurd - again - no mention of the working class.

I think alot of capitalists forget that the working class is IMPERATIVE to the success of the free market system.

[W*GS]

So a bloated inefficient state, is preferred?

Certainly not bloated... That's what we have now. And if we want efficiency, we can have a dictatorship. There's a reason the Constitution puts lots of constraints on the exercise of power.

I do wonder why we give billions in tax breaks for multinational companies, or use gov't manipulation to keep them solvent.

They should receive neither, including implicit subsidies.

Can we include workers in a sweat shop in a 3rd world country?

I realize it's easy to get emotional mileage out of such an image, but the reality is more complicated. What would you suggest we do for such people? Force them away from the sweatshops and back to the country, where they cannot farm and will starve to death?

Exactly - why do allot of corporations get tax breaks funded by taxpayers?

They shouldn't.

I'm for free-market capitalism. For some reason, you and Ro assume that means I love corporations and always take their side. You're quite wrong. The solution isn't throttling the economy, the solution is to keep the State from manipulating markets as much as possible.

[alkemical]

Certainly not bloated... That's what we have now. And if we want efficiency, we can have a dictatorship. There's a reason the Constitution puts lots of constraints on the exercise of power.


I believe you are arguing semantics here. Why can't there be efficiency in how the gov't operates under the US Constitution? Things can be done in a timely manner.


They should receive neither, including implicit subsidies.


I agree


I realize it's easy to get emotional mileage out of such an image, but the reality is more complicated. What would you suggest we do for such people? Force them away from the sweatshops and back to the country, where they cannot farm and will starve to death?


So....working in say an unsafe working environment being paid say $1/day is what... spreading democracy? lol

Come on wags you have to do better than that. Companies like cheap 3rd world labor to keep their profits high, at the expense of it's labor force. You and I know that. It's why Debeers wants to keep war lords managing the mines for diamonds.

I mean i've read reports of Coca-Cola using guerillas to keep workers in line in south america, etc.....

Mind you i don't think all corporations are "evil" - but screwing people for a buck isn't "kosher" (In my Opinion anyway).....


They shouldn't.

I'm for free-market capitalism. For some reason, you and Ro assume that means I love corporations and always take their side. You're quite wrong. The solution isn't throttling the economy, the solution is to keep the State from manipulating markets as much as possible.

Don't corporations maniuplate the market(s)? I mean didn't enron help manipulate the markets by influencing gov't? (From Cheney to Gray Davis, etc). I understand that Gov't is implicit in the corruption - but - it's a scratch my back/yours deal wags. It's not all or one that is to blame.

[yavoon]

Funny - IBM had a $1bln tax credit they exploited via a loophole - yet they laid off TONS of workers (mostly contractors).

Not to mention i think the 46% tax rate i'm taxed (all taxes added up for 06) - is a bit absurd - again - no mention of the working class.

I think alot of capitalists forget that the working class is IMPERATIVE to the success of the free market system.

I would lower personal taxes as well. should I have put that in a post about corporations just to reassure u? woulda seemed kinda odd.

[alkemical]

I would lower personal taxes as well. should I have put that in a post about corporations just to reassure u? woulda seemed kinda odd.

In a conversation about labour v. mgmt - it would not be odd.

[yavoon]

In a conversation about labour v. mgmt - it would not be odd.

well then u needn't worry ur pretty little head then. I assure u that I have healthy amounts of antipathy towards the personal tax code both in structure and size. and u can stop wondering if indeed I am "just out to make corporations richer." or whatever worry u were harboring that made u want to make sure that I didnt want to JUST drop taxes on corporations.

[Rascal]

We already spend hundreds of billions of dollars for "safety nets". Where does it all go?


uh...gets wasted, lost, or overspent because of ineffectiveness which you apparently want.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

corporations are overtaxed as it is. we should be taxing corporations like ireland, which went into a huge economic boom when it put in its new more corporation friendly laws.Really? Do you have the numbers for these overtaxed companies?



<h2 class="date">April 06, 2004</h2>
<div class="blogbody">
<h3 class="title">GAO: Most Corporations Don't Pay Federal Taxes</h3>
<p>As tax time nears, here's something for US citizens to chew on. from the Wall Street Journal:</p>
<p><b></b></p><blockquote><b>More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000, years when the economy boomed and corporate profits soared, the investigative arm of Congress reported. ...
</b><p><b><img alt="no_corp_taxes.jpg" src="http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/archives/images/no_corp_taxes.jpg" border="0" height="305" width="248"></b></p>
<p><b>Corporate tax receipts have shrunk markedly as a share of overall federal revenue in recent years, and were particularly depressed when the economy soured. By 2003, they had fallen to just 7.4% of overall federal receipts, the lowest rate since 1983, and the second-lowest rate since 1934, federal budget officials say. </b></p></blockquote>
<p>To make it even more sickening, most corporations that actually do owe taxes pay a rate less than 5%. So when you add the corporations that pay no taxes with those that pay tiny taxes, 94% of US-controlled companies and 89% of foreign-controlled companies paid zero to 4% in taxes.</p>

<p>Now fork over one-fourth to one-third of your income to the IRS, citizen!</p>
<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108120535291874840,00.html?mod=todays_us_page _one">WSJ article</a></p>
<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/06/news/economy/taxes_corporate.dj/">related CNN article</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04358.pdf">The GAO report</a>

[yavoon]

Really? Do you have the numbers for these overtaxed companies?



<h2 class="date">April 06, 2004</h2>
<div class="blogbody">
<h3 class="title">GAO: Most Corporations Don't Pay Federal Taxes</h3>
<p>As tax time nears, here's something for US citizens to chew on. from the Wall Street Journal:</p>
<p><b></b></p><blockquote><b>More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000, years when the economy boomed and corporate profits soared, the investigative arm of Congress reported. ...
</b><p><b><img alt="no_corp_taxes.jpg" src="http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/archives/images/no_corp_taxes.jpg" border="0" height="305" width="248"></b></p>
<p><b>Corporate tax receipts have shrunk markedly as a share of overall federal revenue in recent years, and were particularly depressed when the economy soured. By 2003, they had fallen to just 7.4% of overall federal receipts, the lowest rate since 1983, and the second-lowest rate since 1934, federal budget officials say. </b></p></blockquote>
<p>To make it even more sickening, most corporations that actually do owe taxes pay a rate less than 5%. So when you add the corporations that pay no taxes with those that pay tiny taxes, 94% of US-controlled companies and 89% of foreign-controlled companies paid zero to 4% in taxes.</p>

<p>Now fork over one-fourth to one-third of your income to the IRS, citizen!</p>
<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108120535291874840,00.html?mod=todays_us_page _one">WSJ article</a></p>
<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/06/news/economy/taxes_corporate.dj/">related CNN article</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04358.pdf">The GAO report</a>

only a third? sounds low to me!

and wth does foreign owned even mean? the US corporate tax rate is 32% or something like that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Really? Do you have the numbers for these overtaxed companies?



<h2 class="date">April 06, 2004</h2>
<div class="blogbody">
<h3 class="title">GAO: Most Corporations Don't Pay Federal Taxes</h3>
<p>As tax time nears, here's something for US citizens to chew on. from the Wall Street Journal:</p>
<p><b></b></p><blockquote><b>More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000, years when the economy boomed and corporate profits soared, the investigative arm of Congress reported. ...
</b><p><b><img alt="no_corp_taxes.jpg" src="http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/archives/images/no_corp_taxes.jpg" border="0" height="305" width="248"></b></p>
<p><b>Corporate tax receipts have shrunk markedly as a share of overall federal revenue in recent years, and were particularly depressed when the economy soured. By 2003, they had fallen to just 7.4% of overall federal receipts, the lowest rate since 1983, and the second-lowest rate since 1934, federal budget officials say. </b></p></blockquote>
<p>To make it even more sickening, most corporations that actually do owe taxes pay a rate less than 5%. So when you add the corporations that pay no taxes with those that pay tiny taxes, 94% of US-controlled companies and 89% of foreign-controlled companies paid zero to 4% in taxes.</p>

<p>Now fork over one-fourth to one-third of your income to the IRS, citizen!</p>
<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108120535291874840,00.html?mod=todays_us_page _one">WSJ article</a></p>
<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/06/news/economy/taxes_corporate.dj/">related CNN article</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04358.pdf">The GAO report</a>

Deadeye Dick's old company just moved its headquarters to Dubai (where it will no longer have to pay American taxes.)

And the trend continues...

[W*GS]

I believe you are arguing semantics here. Why can't there be efficiency in how the gov't operates under the US Constitution? Things can be done in a timely manner.

The State needs to be as small and simple as practical - that will reduce the inefficiency of the current obscene obesity considerably.

So....working in say an unsafe working environment being paid say $1/day is what... spreading democracy? lol

It's better than starving to death.

Come on wags you have to do better than that. Companies like cheap 3rd world labor to keep their profits high, at the expense of it's labor force. You and I know that.

So what's the solution? US-mandated labor standards?

Don't corporations maniuplate the market(s)? I mean didn't enron help manipulate the markets by influencing gov't? (From Cheney to Gray Davis, etc). I understand that Gov't is implicit in the corruption - but - it's a scratch my back/yours deal wags. It's not all or one that is to blame.

Eliminate the overreach of the State, and you eliminate the use of the State to manipulate the market. It's when the State attempts to fix the market (usually via the megalomania of politicians and/or the desire of bureaucrats to be more than parasitic paper-pushers) that the real messes take place. Remove the excessive power of the State to screw with markets, and the problem goes away.

[Rascal]

Personally I think there needs to a balance of both government and market forces. But sometimes democrats and republicans go to far in either direction. The dream situation for Wigs is IMO a dreamworld, because companies will trample all over the workers if possible as seen in many third world countries as well as the US before work protection laws were put in. I think the government has grown to much though. Ideally it would be republicans to try and make it smaller, but those conservative ideas were trampled upon by Bush and his fellow idiots. Now I wonder if the republican leadership and those running for president follow the same belief. If so it pretty much eliminates any desire I would have to vote for them.

[yavoon]

Deadeye Dick's old company just moved its headquarters to Dubai (where it will no longer have to pay American taxes.)

And the trend continues...

so lets see if this all reads. companies move overseas to avoid american taxes because america doesn't make corporations pay taxes. it seems to me corporations moving overseas means we need to figure out how to make them stay, not pound them harder.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

so lets see if this all reads. companies move overseas to avoid american taxes because america doesn't make corporations pay taxes. it seems to me corporations moving overseas means we need to figure out how to make them stay, not pound them harder.

It's nothing but inspired greed on the part of these corporations and the politicians they own.

They don't want to contribute any tax revenue - even at a piddly rate - to the American economy, so they move offshore where they don't have to pay anything.

[yavoon]

It's nothing but inspired greed on the part of these corporations and the politicians they own.

They don't want to contribute any tax revenue - even at a piddly rate - to the American economy, so they move offshore where they don't have to pay anything.

I am shocked and appauled that a corporation would maximize profits. this is just not right. there should be laws! laws I say!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I am shocked and appauled that a corporation would maximize profits. this is just not right. there should be laws! laws I say!

:oyvey:

We can always count on you for the simpleton assessment.


Halliburton is one of the 10 largest contractors to the U.S. military. It has earned over $20 billion from the U.S.military in war-related contracts in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. This cash bonanza may well be over because of the cancelation of its two most lucrative contracts: oil infrastructure reconstruction and military base support.

"With the loss of its two biggest taxpayer-funded contracts in Iraq, Halliburton has decided that its future lies outside the United States. The company decision to move its headquarters to Dubai could spell a major financial loss to the U.S. Treasury," says Pratap Chatterjee, co-director of CorpWatch.

"Given the multiple ongoing investigations into Halliburton 's alleged wrongdoing, policymakers should closely scrutinize Halliburton 's latest move, and whether it will allow the company to further elude accountability,” said Charlie Cray, co-director of Halliburton Watch and director of the Center for Corporate Policy. “Moreover, this underscores the need for Congress to bar companies that have broken the law, or avoided paying taxes, from receiving federal contracts.”

http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14482

[yavoon]

:oyvey:

We can always count on you for the simpleton assessment.

are they implying halliburton broke the law? I'm gung ho about tracking down thems law breakers. but if all halliburton did was move because it was in their best financial interests then, THATS WHAT COMPANIES ARE SUPPOSE TO DO, IT IS WHAT MAKES CAPITALISM EFFICIENT.

caps for the commie impaired:).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

are they implying halliburton broke the law? I'm gung ho about tracking down thems law breakers. but if all halliburton did was move because it was in their best financial interests then, THATS WHAT COMPANIES ARE SUPPOSE TO DO, IT IS WHAT MAKES CAPITALISM EFFICIENT.

See, that's your problem (and, by extension, the problem with corporate America today.)

You are laboring under the misconception that these corporations' only responsibility is to themselves, i.e., not to their country or to their communities.

You couldn't be more wrong.

America's first corporations had charters which stipulated that they existed, first and foremost, to serve the public good, and that their interests should never supercede those of the public. Those charters are still in effect today.

And the sort of "capitalism" to which you are alluding is the same old Ayn Randian, laissez-faire, economic Darwinism whose implimentation has proved disastrous for America more than once (see Hoover and Red Ink Reagan's "greed is good" swindle for examples.)

People like you willingly swallow the proposition that corporations are "persons." If this is the case, then why shouldn't these "persons" be responsible, tax-paying citizens just like the rest of us?

Why should corporations be allowed to take advantage of the same infrastructure and commons as the rest of us without doing their part to pay for those things like the rest of us?

[W*GS]

America's first corporations had charters which stipulated that they existed, first and foremost, to serve the public good, and that their interests should never supercede those of the public. Those charters are still in effect today.

The above is about the most twisted interpretation possible. LABF doesn't realize it, but the fascists and Nazis (the real ones, not the people and groups he smears with those terms) believed exactly the same thing. All must serve the State.

And the sort of "capitalism" to which you are alluding is the same old Ayn Randian, laissez-faire, economic Darwinism whose implimentation has proved disastrous for America more than once (see Hoover and Red Ink Reagan's "greed is good" swindle for examples.)

:bs:

A genuine free market has never existed in this country.

And note that the rah-rah economy of the 80s under Reagan was evil and wrong, but the rah-rah economy while Clinton was President was good and just and right. Never mind that the statistical measures and the like that LABF decries that existed during Reagan continued, and were sometimes worse, under Clinton, but far be it from LABF to notice his hypocrisy.

PS - Even after all these years, I can't understand how a hard-Left loony like LABF can worship Clinton so much. The genuine hard-Left hated him - viewed him as a Republican-lite.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I am shocked and appauled that a corporation would maximize profits. this is just not right. there should be laws! laws I say!

Unbelievable. :oyvey:

You are saying, in effect, that you accept the proposition that you have to pay taxes on your income (insofar as there's nothing you can do about it) while corporations can avoid paying any taxes on their income.

I'm guessing your annual income is less than 200K.

You're saying your income should be taxed while a "person" who makes 200 billion shouldn't have to pay taxes?

Is your loyalty to Bush or to some "conservative movement" this fanatical (and irrational?)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cue W*GS with the same old invalid "government regulation = serve the state" equation.

[W*GS]

Cue LABF with the "I'm not a socialist, I'm a liberal" lie.

[yavoon]

See, that's your problem (and, by extension, the problem with corporate America today.)

You are laboring under the misconception that these corporations' only responsibility is to themselves, i.e., not to their country or to their communities.

You couldn't be more wrong.

America's first corporations had charters which stipulated that they existed, first and foremost, to serve the public good, and that their interests should never supercede those of the public. Those charters are still in effect today.

And the sort of "capitalism" to which you are alluding is the same old Ayn Randian, laissez-faire, economic Darwinism whose implimentation has proved disastrous for America more than once (see Hoover and Red Ink Reagan's "greed is good" swindle for examples.)

People like you willingly swallow the proposition that corporations are "persons." If this is the case, then why shouldn't these "persons" be responsible, tax-paying citizens just like the rest of us?

Why should corporations be allowed to take advantage of the same infrastructure and commons as the rest of us without doing their part to pay for those things like the rest of us?

ayn rand was fun to read(for commie bashing), but her stylings are ideologically claptrap. think more milton friedman and not some slightly nutty author.

and the corporations only responsibility(w/in the framework for the law) is to themselves. but if the ppl who bought from the company demanded things the company would give it.

it is important to fight commie nuts like urself, america will lose its competitive advantage going with ur uncompetitive drivel. the answer to companies leaving is not "demand they stay" or some other such crap. it is to create the best most competitive economy on the planet. u can not have the best economy by being uncompetitive, which is of course exactly what u propose.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6407847019713273360

[yavoon]

Unbelievable. :oyvey:

You are saying, in effect, that you accept the proposition that you have to pay taxes on your income (insofar as there's nothing you can do about it) while corporations can avoid paying any taxes on their income.

I'm guessing your annual income is less than 200K.

You're saying your income should be taxed while a "person" who makes 200 billion shouldn't have to pay taxes?

Is your loyalty to Bush or to some "conservative movement" this fanatical (and irrational?)

my loyalty is to american economic competitiveness. not to some pseudo-morality based on communist gripes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

ayn rand was fun to read(for commie bashing), but her stylings are ideologically claptrap. think more milton friedman and not some slightly nutty author.

and the corporations only responsibility(w/in the framework for the law) is to themselves. but if the ppl who bought from the company demanded things the company would give it.

it is important to fight commie nuts like urself, america will lose its competitive advantage going with ur uncompetitive drivel. the answer to companies leaving is not "demand they stay" or some other such crap. it is to create the best most competitive economy on the planet. u can not have the best economy by being uncompetitive, which is of course exactly what u propose.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6407847019713273360

:rofl:

I'm not sure which is worse: your inability to grasp such basics as the difference between liberalism and communism, or your strawman argument that taxation/government oversight of corporations and corporate competitiveness/economic strength are mutually exclusive.

We've tried your ideas (once again) for the past seven years, and our economy is practically on life support as a result.

Your misguided notions about competitiveness prevent you from seeing that the movement you support is nothing but a wealth transfer scheme - a sort of reverse Robin Hood scam the net effect of which is to hollow out the American middle and working classes and to consolodate the nation's wealth in the hands of a relatively small number of elites.

You are nothing more than a cheerleader for a corporate slave state.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

my loyalty is to american economic competitiveness. not to some pseudo-morality based on communist gripes.

The sort of "competitiveness" you advocate is analogous to an NFL game played with no rules and no refs.

Only a fool would expect the result to be anything but a mess.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/replaced-gop.jpg

[W*GS]

I'm not sure which is worse: your inability to grasp such basics as the difference between liberalism and communism,

You use the "you can't criticize me for being a commie/socialist because I'm really a liberal and you don't understand the difference" argument quite a lot.

What you don't get is that we do understand you, and your protestation that you're merely a mildly left-of-center "liberal" falls flat given your endless approval and repetition of hard Left ideology. Why do you feel it necessary to shirk from the accurate label? Perhaps you realize your hard Left beliefs are dead, politically and practically, so you try to obfuscate and lay the blame on others for your spinelessness.

We've tried your ideas (once again) for the past seven years, and our economy is practically on life support as a result.

Ahhh, no. Bush is not an advocate of free markets. Obviously. This strawman of yours is getting really elderly...


You are nothing more than a cheerleader for a corporate slave state.

That's OK, you're nothing but a cheerleader for Big Brother.

[alkemical]

The State needs to be as small and simple as practical - that will reduce the inefficiency of the current obscene obesity considerably.


Size of institution does not dictate how efficient it is.


It's better than starving to death.


I don't know, i haven't been forced to work for $1/day. Again keep them poor, to keep profit margins high. I guess if you pay them a dollar, they aren't technically slaves then, eh? Or since slaves got "room & board", they weren't technically slaves, right wagsy?


So what's the solution? US-mandated labor standards?


Maybe an Int'l OSHA and pay/wages are fair to the markets they are operating in.type - to make sure working conditions are safe. (They wouldn't have any authority to "set" wages, but could pressure companies to meet some standards)


Eliminate the overreach of the State, and you eliminate the use of the State to manipulate the market. It's when the State attempts to fix the market (usually via the megalomania of politicians and/or the desire of bureaucrats to be more than parasitic paper-pushers) that the real messes take place. Remove the excessive power of the State to screw with markets, and the problem goes away.


Unless of course "X" companies collude on price fixing.

[alkemical]

The above is about the most twisted interpretation possible. LABF doesn't realize it, but the fascists and Nazis (the real ones, not the people and groups he smears with those terms) believed exactly the same thing. All must serve the State.



:bs:

A genuine free market has never existed in this country.

And note that the rah-rah economy of the 80s under Reagan was evil and wrong, but the rah-rah economy while Clinton was President was good and just and right. Never mind that the statistical measures and the like that LABF decries that existed during Reagan continued, and were sometimes worse, under Clinton, but far be it from LABF to notice his hypocrisy.

PS - Even after all these years, I can't understand how a hard-Left loony like LABF can worship Clinton so much. The genuine hard-Left hated him - viewed him as a Republican-lite.




Not from what i read out of it Wagsy.

Milton Hershey.



Yes a free market DOES exist in this country. It's the "black" market wagsy.

[Odysseus]

Funny - IBM had a $1bln tax credit they exploited via a loophole - yet they laid off TONS of workers (mostly contractors).

Not to mention i think the 46% tax rate i'm taxed (all taxes added up for 06) - is a bit absurd - again - no mention of the working class.

I think alot of capitalists forget that the working class is IMPERATIVE to the success of the free market system.

There is no business process you can present that counteracts greed.

[yavoon]

:rofl:

I'm not sure which is worse: your inability to grasp such basics as the difference between liberalism and communism, or your strawman argument that taxation/government oversight of corporations and corporate competitiveness/economic strength are mutually exclusive.

We've tried your ideas (once again) for the past seven years, and our economy is practically on life support as a result.

Your misguided notions about competitiveness prevent you from seeing that the movement you support is nothing but a wealth transfer scheme - a sort of reverse Robin Hood scam the net effect of which is to hollow out the American middle and working classes and to consolodate the nation's wealth in the hands of a relatively small number of elites.

You are nothing more than a cheerleader for a corporate slave state.

god ur rhetoric is so far left. u need ur head removed from us ass. and please stop masquerading as a liberal.

[yavoon]

There is no business process you can present that counteracts greed.

u don't want to counteract greed. I know stupid commies will get mad at me, but greed is what makes capitalism great.

greed exists in human nature, and it exists in EVERY economic system ever. even soviet russia ppl maneuvered themselves through greed. the trick of capitalism is to make individual greed a driver of growth and advancement.

[yavoon]

The sort of "competitiveness" you advocate is analogous to an NFL game played with no rules and no refs.

Only a fool would expect the result to be anything but a mess.

oh yes I advocate an economy w/o laws.

how do u stomach lying so horribly?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And note that the rah-rah economy of the 80s under Reagan was evil and wrong, but the rah-rah economy while Clinton was President was good and just and right. Never mind that the statistical measures and the like that LABF decries that existed during Reagan continued, and were sometimes worse, under Clinton, but far be it from LABF to notice his hypocrisy.

???

In what nutty, right-wing parallel universe did this happen?

Reagan's policies left America drowning in red ink.

Clinton's policies turned the massive deficits created by Reagan and Poppy into surpluses.

(To name just one "statistical measure.")

PS - Even after all these years, I can't understand how a hard-Left loony like LABF can worship Clinton so much. The genuine hard-Left hated him - viewed him as a Republican-lite.

After all these years, there are still quite a few things you don't understand, obviously, but this one sort of flies in the face of your continued efforts to paint me as a "hard-left loony," doesn't it?

Oh well - at least you're consistent when it comes to contradicting yourself.

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

god ur rhetoric is so far left. u need ur head removed from us ass. and please stop masquerading as a liberal.

Ad hominem = out of ammo.

(Not that you had anything of any significance to begin with.)

[yavoon]

???

In what nutty, right-wing parallel universe did this happen?

Reagan's policies left America drowning in red ink.

Clinton's policies turned the massive deficits created by Reagan and Poppy into surpluses.

(To name just one "statistical measure.")



After all these years, there are still quite a few things you don't understand, obviously, but this one sort of flies in the face of your continued efforts to paint me as a "hard-left loony," doesn't it?

Oh well - at least you're consistent when it comes to contradicting yourself.

:D

now ur praising clinton? he was proglobalisation. I think u need to be more discerning, cuz ur looking plenty stupid right now.

and u r a hard left looney, everyone can read ur inane rhetoric. its not like ur fooling anyone LABF.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

oh yes I advocate an economy w/o laws.

how do u stomach lying so horribly?

:bs:

You've been arguing that government oversight, regulation, taxation, etc., of corporations = "communism."

You've been arguing that these things are nothing but impediments to corporations' ability to be competitive in the marketpalce.

You haven't identified one law you believe corporations should be subject to.

[yavoon]

Ad hominem = out of ammo.

(Not that you had anything of any significance to begin with.)

don't worry comrade, u will lead the proletariat.

[yavoon]

:bs:

You've been arguing that government oversight, regulation, taxation, etc., of corporations = "communism."

You've been arguing that these things are nothing but impediments to corporations' ability to be competitive in the marketpalce.

You haven't identified one law you believe corporations should be subject to.

what kind of absolute retard logic is this? because I'm not "identifying laws corporations should be subject to" I believe in no laws?

I believe in tons of laws. anti-corruption laws, anti-trust laws, anti-fraud laws(many more). I mean holy **** ur stupid. can u really even be taken seriously anymore?

just go back in ur mind and think, "man did I really just try to convince ppl that yav doesn't believe in laws, wtf was I thinking?!?"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

now ur praising clinton? he was proglobalisation. I think u need to be more discerning, cuz ur looking plenty stupid right now.

:oyvey:

If you possessed the powers of comprehension God gave a fruit fly, you'd see I was challenging W*GS' claim that the same "statistical measures" that existed under Red Ink's economy continued (or worsened) under Clinton.

Globalization wasn't even part of the discussion.

and u r a hard left looney, everyone can read ur inane rhetoric. its not like ur fooling anyone LABF.

You are essentially playing 'Tattoo' to W*GS' 'Mr. Roarke here' - and W*GS still hasn't found a way to reconcile his contradictory characterizations of me as a Clinton supporter on the one hand and a representative of the "loony hard-left" on the other.

You don't seem to be faring any better. :giggle:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

don't worry comrade, u will lead the proletariat.

If I asked you to explain the difference between liberalism and communism, you would fall on your face, wouldn't you?

:rofl:

[yavoon]

:oyvey:

If you possessed the powers of comprehension God gave a fruit fly, you'd see I was challenging W*GS' claim that the same "statistical measures" that existed under Red Ink's economy continued (or worsened) under Clinton.

Globalization wasn't even part of the discussion.



You are essentially playing 'Tattoo' to W*GS' 'Mr. Roarke here' - and W*GS still hasn't found a way to reconcile his contradictory characterizations of me as a Clinton supporter on the one hand and a representative of the "loony hard-left" on the other.

You don't seem to be faring any better. :giggle:

I can see u trying to dig ur way out of ur hole by full blown mockery. I dont mind LABF. everyone here can read ur crazy leftist rhetoric. so I feel content in the more ur left to babble the bigger hole u dig urself.

how's that I dont believe in laws thing going for u?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

what kind of absolute retard logic is this? because I'm not "identifying laws corporations should be subject to" I believe in no laws?

I believe in tons of laws. anti-corruption laws, anti-trust laws, anti-fraud laws(many more). I mean holy **** ur stupid. can u really even be taken seriously anymore?

just go back in ur mind and think, "man did I really just try to convince ppl that yav doesn't believe in laws, wtf was I thinking?!?"

All you have done here is argue against government oversight of corporations.

You have broad brushed anyone who supports oversight/regulation as a "communist."

You did not verbalize your support for the aforementioned laws until I called you on all of the above.

Your timing is interesting, to say the least.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I can see u trying to dig ur way out of ur hole by full blown mockery. I dont mind LABF. everyone here can read ur crazy leftist rhetoric. so I feel content in the more ur left to babble the bigger hole u dig urself.

how's that I dont believe in laws thing going for u?

No lying here - just an astounding lack of comprehension on your end.

[yavoon]

All you have done here is argue against government oversight of corporations.

You have broad brushed anyone who supports oversight/regulation as a "communist."

You did not verbalize your support for the aforementioned laws until I called you on all of the above.

Your timing is interesting, to say the least.

honestly LABF, ur a giant idiot. "oh **** u mean he actually does believe in laws! who would have thought that! how dare he trick me into thinking he didn't believe in laws!"

it makes me laff just thinking about it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I can see u trying to dig ur way out of ur hole by full blown mockery.

Translation:

"No, I cannot explain the difference between liberalism and communism."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

honestly LABF, ur a giant idiot.

You are a semi-literate buffoon who possesses not even a cursory understanding of basic concepts, e.g., the difference between liberalism and communism, and who can't construct a logical argument to save his life.

[W*GS]

???

In what nutty, right-wing parallel universe did this happen?

Reagan's policies left America drowning in red ink.

Clinton's policies turned the massive deficits created by Reagan and Poppy into surpluses.

Sigh.

We've been over this many times, yet your doe-eyed love of Clinton keeps you blissfully unaware of the facts.

I'm not going to reiterate for the Nth time the errors in your interpretation. You're so far away from reality it would be waste of time.

After all these years, there are still quite a few things you don't understand, obviously, but this one sort of flies in the face of your continued efforts to paint me as a "hard-left loony," doesn't it?

Facts that support the assertion that you're a far-left loony:

1) Your straight-faced spin in favor of Huge Chavez (I mean really, posting unadulterated propaganda straight from "VHeadline"!);

2) Your dismissal of the DNC wing of the Democratic Party (i.e., the Clinton wing) in favor of the hard-left loony wing;

3) Your steadfast clinging to long-since-disproven hard-left beliefs in all matters economic;

4) The overriding Kos-ian tenor to your rhetoric;

5) The instant smearing, belitting, and slurs delivered upon anyone and everyone you deem insufficiently left-wing. Mere centrists and those mildly to the left are apostates, as is obvious from how you treat them.

Simply put, you're a hard-left loony (as belied by your posts here) who, strangely, has a crush on Bill Clinton. Nearly all genuine hard-lefties despised the man; why you defend him tirelessly is a real puzzler.

[W*GS]

Size of institution does not dictate how efficient it is.

The correlation between size and efficiency isn't perfectly one, true. The State, however, is indeed a bloated behemoth, without a doubt.

I don't know, i haven't been forced to work for $1/day.

(The comments about slaves and slavery are beneath stupid.)

Your rhetoric exceeds your factual grasp. $1/day by our standards is horrific. Given the choice between staying in the countryside, and starving because there isn't enough farmland for all, or leaving and seeking employment in the city to at least have a chance isn't a problem easily solved by Western idealists who want to impose what they think right.

Unless of course "X" companies collude on price fixing.

That's peanuts compared to the billions and billions of dollars, and untold number of rules, the State uses to distort markets.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.franksreelreviews.com/shorttakes/tattoo/cottage2.jpg

[W*GS]

Typical. LABF prefers pictures to words.

I'll let him in on a secret:

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/CheStillDeadredsmall.jpg

[Atlas]

That's an interesting article. The deficit is so out of control that bill will come due and inflation, unemployment will be the result. I always thought republicans were against big government. Yet this is the biggest government in history. I always thought republicans were for cutting programs yet they spend out of control and haven't really cut anything of significance.

Bill is coming due are you ready to pay it?

[alkemical]

There is no business process you can present that counteracts greed.


We'll find out when the market goes pop.

[alkemical]

The correlation between size and efficiency isn't perfectly one, true. The State, however, is indeed a bloated behemoth, without a doubt.



I don't disagree with you about the state.



(The comments about slaves and slavery are beneath stupid.)
Your rhetoric exceeds your factual grasp. $1/day by our standards is horrific. Given the choice between staying in the countryside, and starving because there isn't enough farmland for all, or leaving and seeking employment in the city to at least have a chance isn't a problem easily solved by Western idealists who want to impose what they think right.



The comments about slavery are very apt in this case. Maybe from your personal experience, you don't see it that way. Maybe you've never had to go to a job where your boss told you that "you're his n**ger today", and being taken advantage of - because if you don't take it - you get black listed and cannot find work. In such a dire situation, the predetory practices that business use, are no different than the state's use of force. Money is a weapon. Until you are threatened with it, and in a situation that can provide you this POV - you will not understand. Interesting Wags, and your idealism isn't to be imposed on anyone?



That's peanuts compared to the billions and billions of dollars, and untold number of rules, the State uses to distort markets.

So greed is good unless it's the state that consumes?

[Rascal]

That's an interesting article. The deficit is so out of control that bill will come due and inflation, unemployment will be the result. I always thought republicans were against big government. Yet this is the biggest government in history. I always thought republicans were for cutting programs yet they spend out of control and haven't really cut anything of significance.

Bill is coming due are you ready to pay it?

Please don't align Bush's pathetic operation with typical republican beliefs about big government.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Please don't align Bush's pathetic operation with typical republican beliefs about big government.

It's hard not to do this, given that a majority of repubs have supported Bush for the past seven years (and even voted for him a second time despite full knowledge of said "pathetic operation.")

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Loose Wheels

By Jim Kunstler

Is the jailing, un-jailing, and re-jailing of Paris Hilton a harbinger of anything? Has America's Love/Hate-o-meter for wealthy celebrities swung in the negative direction? And does that swing portend something more ominous for our society at large? I've been saying for a while that the time would come when the moiling masses of the un-rich would turn on their pantheon of media-conjured demigods, and that this would be a symptom of mechanical trouble in the giant gas-sucking Hummer limousine that the US economy has become. Are the wheels about to come off?

I had an eerie thought a couple of weeks back while sojourning in Telluride, Colorado. This refuge in a box canyon, 8000-plus feet above sea level, at the end of a sixty-mile road from the nearest small-town airport, is pretty much entirely a creation of media celebrity money. Ralph Lauren's 30,000-acre spread is the town's welcome mat. The little main street is mostly occupied by realtor's offices. The mountainsides are dotted with the peeled-log palaces of Hollywood playahs. In short, what you see is a whole lot of conspicuously-displayed wealth. My eerie thought was this: what if a time came in America when the conspicuous display of wealth was not such a healthy thing for the displayer? What if these displays only made them conspicuous targets for the hordes of economic losers that the Long Emergency will shake loose? What if wealth is actually forced into hiding instead of displaying itself for all to see?

I admit it was not a big deep thought, just an eerie one. Of course, one would have to begin by asking what kind of society would worship clowns like Donald Trump in the first place -- and the answer would be: a society of envious slobs deluded into thinking that they could become the next Trump if only the Baby Jeezus would whack them over the head with a sock-full of silver dollars. This is, after all, a culture currently fueled by two dangerously childish ideas: that it's possible to get something for nothing, and that when you wish upon a star your dreams come true.

People who believe that it's possible to get something for nothing can be persuaded easily that those who have gotten a lot have gotten it unfairly. And the flip side of wishing upon stars is that when your dreams don't come true you can only blame it on the stars.

It's hard to locate in history another society so devilishly rigged for implosion than the empire that runs from sea to shining sea. Every structural element in our financial sector is a jackstraw groaning under a load of false expectation. The hedge funds are only the most elaborate pieces, with their intertwined webs of exponentially unreckoned risk. The equity markets are a three-ringed circus of "greater fools." The mortgage cluster**** has barely begun, with a tidal wave of ARM re-sets about to kick in that will not only shatter the aspirations of the formerly-middle-class, but will also put the entire suburban sprawl-building juggernaut out-of-business -- just as the imminent global oil crisis makes that way-of-life obsolete. The undercarriage of the vehicle -- medical and retirement entitlements, plus the social safety net -- is rotting away as the massive debt obligations of the federal government are suddenly denied an easy re-fi rollover by the foreign central banks who no longer see the point in buying the trash paper of a nation that manufactures little more than celebrity envy fantasies.

It was sad to see Paris crying for mommy in the moments before she was limoed back to the LA lock-up. But it was surely a milder fate than the denizens of Versailles met back in the 1790s -- perhaps the last time in historical memory that such a class of feckless parasites was so cruelly, comprehensively, and theatrically disposed of. Personally, I don't hate Paris Hilton and Donald Trump, but I'm mighty sick of them cluttering up the collective head-space of my culture. I'm afraid that the moiling masses will adopt a more punitive attitude. They usually do when gods fail. Temples tend to come down.

You wonder who the new gods will be. In France, after the bloodbath of the 1790s, the new gods were abstract virtues rather than personalities: justice, brotherhood, equality, et cetera. The mob soon tired of abstractions, though, and turned to the appealing figure of General Bonaparte. Why? because he displayed the prime signature of charisma -- the aura that he actually knew what he was doing. In a nation that has lost its head, this is a striking attribute.

http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary21.html

[BroncoBuff]

Interesting article LABF. I'm no economist however so I'd also be interested in the counterargument.
Dick Cheney! The only thing he said I dearly hope is true: "One thing we learned from Reagan is that deficits don't matter."

And ... the stock market going up is NOT good news for the middle class. It's merely good news for ... THOSE WHO OWN STOCK. And in order to cater to those who own stock, to bump the stock prices ever higher and higher, corporations spend all their time SQUEEZING LIKE MADMEN!!!!! Squeezing every dollar out from every corner of their operations - squeezing it like a tube of toothpaste that's flat on the bottom but thick and fat and squirting out the top. Pensions? Gone. Benefits? Gone. Jobs? Gone. Wages? Down. But stocks are ... up?

REMEMBER: Stock prices going up is only good ... IF YOU OWN STOCK!

And when corporations are confronted with laws and regulations that stop this tube-squeezing? Their lobbyists grease the lawmakers with cash and perks so they change anti-trust laws to permit unthinkable mergers (Exxon merges with Mobil? WTF is that?!). They relax Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcy (United AL had 30-year employees lose $700k retirements in one poof!), while also, at the same time ...... permit South Dakota to bypass usury laws for credit card companies, strangle the common man's Chapter 13 and 7 bankruptcy protections, etc .... etc .... etc ..... And all of this has happened in the last decade.




Are you p***ed off yet?!? The best thing you can do is vote HILLARY! Seriously, even if you don't like her personally, if what I wrote here bothers you, she or Edwards (or Gore) are the most likely candidates who will do something about all this.

[yavoon]

Dick Cheney! The only thing he said I dearly hope is true: "One thing we learned from Reagan is that deficits don't matter."

And ... the stock market going up is NOT good news for the middle class. It's merely good news for ... THOSE WHO OWN STOCK. And in order to cater to those who own stock, to bump the stock prices ever higher and higher, corporations spend all their time SQUEEZING LIKE MADMEN!!!!! Squeezing every dollar out from every corner of their operations - squeezing it like a tube of toothpaste that's flat on the bottom but thick and fat and squirting out the top. Pensions? Gone. Benefits? Gone. Jobs? Gone. Wages? Down. But stocks are ... up?

REMEMBER: Stock prices going up is only good ... IF YOU OWN STOCK!

And when corporations are confronted with laws and regulations that stop this tube-squeezing? Their lobbyists grease the lawmakers with cash and perks so they change anti-trust laws to permit unthinkable mergers (Exxon merges with Mobil? WTF is that?!). They relax Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcy (United AL had 30-year employees lose $700k retirements in one poof!), while also, at the same time ...... permit South Dakota to bypass usury laws for credit card companies, strangle the common man's Chapter 13 and 7 bankruptcy protections, etc .... etc .... etc ..... And all of this has happened in the last decade.




Are you p***ed off yet?!? The best thing you can do is vote HILLARY! Seriously, even if you don't like her personally, if what I wrote here bothers you, she or Edwards (or Gore) are the most likely candidates who will do something about all this.

haha trust me, if the stock market goes down, the common man WILL notice. and that "squeezing like mad men" is called efficiency. its one of the most powerful tools of capitalism, waste is ejected, how is that bad? should we all be bloated gov't beaurocracies? is that how u want to run america?

[BroncoBuff]

haha trust me, if the stock market goes down, the common man WILL notice. and that "squeezing like mad men" is called efficiency. its one of the most powerful tools of capitalism, waste is ejected, how is that bad? should we all be bloated gov't beaurocracies? is that how u want to run america?

Yes, what I described as squeezing is "efficiency" ... but the safeguards that the common man has always depended upon to avoid that squeeze and secure an ever-better standard of life - a standard of life that rises commensurate with the monied class - are deteriorating.

I am ALL capitalist, don't misunderstand that. But when laws and rules are systematically changed to kill pensions and marginalize unions, to gut individual bankruptcy protection, salaries and health benefits, while at the same time expanding corporate bankruptcy protection and grant tax breaks to only the mega-rich in an era where corporate salaries have gone through the roof, common men suffer.

If the Republicans/Oligarchy were left to their own devices, there would be a wildly rich monied class, and a huge proletariat class (if yu'll pardon the word). That's why I posted in this thread. If the global liquidity bubble bursts, that uber-rich would actually be fine - there was a very healthy super-rich class in the 1930s too.

BUT.... if the common man can maintain his hard earned protections, protections earned over the past 80 years exclusively from Democrats (see my thread "MOVING PIECE"), then the society as a whole is better. Much better.

[BroncoBuff]

When laws and rules are systematically changed to kill pensions and marginalize unions, to gut individual bankruptcy protection, salaries and health benefits, while at the same time expanding corporate bankruptcy protection and grant tax breaks to only the mega-rich in an era where corporate salaries have gone through the roof, common men suffer.

I neglected to point out that the minimum wage has not been raised in over 10 years .... there's a new one now (crowbarred into the troop funding bill) that goes into effect in September I think.



Part of the problem with some of these 'squeezes' is that we're competing in the global market now, and our very high standard of living for the working man makes it difficult to compete wioth countries who pay their workers $2 a day.

[yavoon]

Yes, what I described as squeezing is "efficiency" ... but the safeguards that the common man has always depended upon to avoid that squeeze and secure an ever-better standard of life - a standard of life that rises commensurate with the monied class - are deteriorating.

I am ALL capitalist, don't misunderstand that. But when laws and rules are systematically changed to kill pensions and marginalize unions, to gut individual bankruptcy protection, salaries and health benefits, while at the same time expanding corporate bankruptcy protection and grant tax breaks to only the mega-rich in an era where corporate salaries have gone through the roof, common men suffer.

If the Republicans/Oligarchy were left to their own devices, there would be a wildly rich monied class, and a huge proletariat class (if yu'll pardon the word). That's why I posted in this thread. If the global liquidity bubble bursts, that uber-rich would actually be fine - there was a very healthy super-rich class in the 1930s too.

BUT.... if the common man can maintain his hard earned protections, protections earned over the past 80 years exclusively from Democrats (see my thread "MOVING PIECE"), then the society as a whole is better. Much better.

the bankruptcy thing got to me, I didn't like that. and how are unions making society better? unions are destroying american industries, I hardly see that as "making society better."

[yavoon]

I neglected to point out that the minimum wage has not been raised in over 10 years .... there's a new one now (crowbarred into the troop funding bill) that goes into effect in September I think.



Part of the problem with some of these 'squeezes' is that we're competing in the global market now, and our very high standard of living for the working man makes it difficult to compete wioth countries who pay their workers $2 a day.

this is true, but largely america is still a good place to build things. just look at my favorite example, the auto industry. there are still new plants being built in america, some of the best auto plants in the world, billion+ dollar ones. they're just not being built by american companies straddled w/ the UAW.

another example I like about the auto-industry is the japanese got down to about 14 hours/car of labor back when america was at....get ready for it....52! HOURS/car of labor. why couldn't america even pretend to compete? because the union didn't allow u to fire ppl(or if u did u had to pay them anyway). so if u want to claim the credit for union awesomeness, then take the blame for union ****ing over america too.

[alkemical]

this is true, but largely america is still a good place to build things. just look at my favorite example, the auto industry. there are still new plants being built in america, some of the best auto plants in the world, billion+ dollar ones. they're just not being built by american companies straddled w/ the UAW.

another example I like about the auto-industry is the japanese got down to about 14 hours/car of labor back when america was at....get ready for it....52! HOURS/car of labor. why couldn't america even pretend to compete? because the union didn't allow u to fire ppl(or if u did u had to pay them anyway). so if u want to claim the credit for union awesomeness, then take the blame for union ****ing over america too.

What you keep forgetting....

The automaker signs a deal with the union. It's the automakers fault they made a bad deal.

[yavoon]

What you keep forgetting....

The automaker signs a deal with the union. It's the automakers fault they made a bad deal.

capitalism doesn't work on forever guarentees. the automakers simply aren't THAT smart. the unions were being extremely uncapitalistic w/ their demands and its sunk america's auto industry, that should frankly be obvious to anyone.

[alkemical]

capitalism doesn't work on forever guarentees. the automakers simply aren't THAT smart. the unions were being extremely uncapitalistic w/ their demands and its sunk america's auto industry, that should frankly be obvious to anyone.

The unions were being capitalistic. They SOLD the service package to the Automakers, who agreed to the deal and signed it. American Automakers helped dig their own graves.

[yavoon]

The unions were being capitalistic. They SOLD the service package to the Automakers, who agreed to the deal and signed it. American Automakers helped dig their own graves.

yes so now the fact that all the uncompetitive, uncapitalistic demands that sunk the american auto industry started w/ the union they actually share equal guilt!

this is absurd, stop defending unions. unions basically threataned to kill the auto industry if they didn't keep their demands. the company was stuck between a rock and a hard place. there was no longer a competitive choice to be made, merely differeing degrees of ****ing over the american auto industry. and guess what, it worked. so give a round of applause to the UAW. able to take the best auto industry in the world and in a generation make it second rate.

[alkemical]

yes so now the fact that all the uncompetitive, uncapitalistic demands that sunk the american auto industry started w/ the union they actually share equal guilt!

this is absurd, stop defending unions. unions basically threataned to kill the auto industry if they didn't keep their demands. the company was stuck between a rock and a hard place. there was no longer a competitive choice to be made, merely differeing degrees of ****ing over the american auto industry. and guess what, it worked. so give a round of applause to the UAW. able to take the best auto industry in the world and in a generation make it second rate.

Well, there wouldn't have been a need for unions if companies didn't have ****ty working conditions.....Why are you defending captialism at all costs, damn the working class? Why do you think the 8hr work day came about, etc. I don't defend unions as a whole, but i very much see the need for them in some cases. It still also doesnt' cover the automakers for caving into the UAW and signing the contracts. You can break a union.

Sorry Yvonne, your deflectionist tactics do not work.

[ant1999e]

Go ahead Im gonna keep buying bullets ;)

I'm with you.:charge:

[yavoon]

Well, there wouldn't have been a need for unions if companies didn't have ****ty working conditions.....Why are you defending captialism at all costs, damn the working class? Why do you think the 8hr work day came about, etc. I don't defend unions as a whole, but i very much see the need for them in some cases. It still also doesnt' cover the automakers for caving into the UAW and signing the contracts. You can break a union.

Sorry Yvonne, your deflectionist tactics do not work.

I"m just demanding some concession from u union nuts when its blatantly obvious the union has completely ****ed over america. thats all. unions have done good things for sure, and they can do good things in the future, LIKE AGREEING TO MORE CAPITALISTICALLY WORKABLE CONTRACTS AND NOT BEING ****ING COMMUNISTS W/ THEIR DEMANDS.

ur the one who jumped on my perfectly justified union bashing trying to play the "oh what about all the nice stuff they did, u just luv capitalism! capitalism luver." another utterly sad and pathetic argument from clav. but I guess thats what we've come to expect.

[ChargerChuck]

I"m just demanding some concession from u union nuts when its blatantly obvious the union has completely ****ed over america. thats all. unions have done good things for sure, and they can do good things in the future, LIKE AGREEING TO MORE CAPITALISTICALLY WORKABLE CONTRACTS AND NOT BEING ****ING COMMUNISTS W/ THEIR DEMANDS.

ur the one who jumped on my perfectly justified union bashing trying to play the "oh what about all the nice stuff they did, u just luv capitalism! capitalism luver." another utterly sad and pathetic argument from clav. but I guess thats what we've come to expect.
Wow! Just how have the unions done that? Especially when they only comprimise a minority of working Americans.

[yavoon]

Wow! Just how have the unions done that? Especially when they only comprimise a minority of working Americans.

I was speaking mostly in terms of the auto industry(obviously). but certainly as much as sinking the american auto industry is ****ing over america then the unions are doing that.

[ChargerChuck]

I was speaking mostly in terms of the auto industry(obviously). but certainly as much as sinking the american auto industry is ****ing over america then the unions are doing that.
I disagree completely! American auto makers got fat and lazy, let innovation pass them by and didn't plan for future world economic factors. They must carry at least as much blame as the high paid workers they hired to build their cars and trucks.

[yavoon]

I disagree completely! American auto makers got fat and lazy, let innovation pass them by and didn't plan for future world economic factors. They must carry at least as much blame as the high paid workers they hired to build their cars and trucks.

not true in the slightest. we have been growingly uncompetitive for 20 years now. the "fat and lazy" u speak of is actually trying to cut corners to hide our uncompetitive nature.

keep in mind, I dont even mind the high pay and benefits that the union won in the 50's and 60's. IF they were similarly willing to give them up when they became uncompetitive. thats the whole jist here, not that unions are disallowed from demanding to share in the glory(which the auto industry in the 50's and 60's was in full), but that they have to be quicker to understand when the glory has passed. they cant sabotage and scuttle an entire american industry demanding to hold onto things that are completely unworkable.

[alkemical]

I"m just demanding some concession from u union nuts when its blatantly obvious the union has completely ****ed over america. thats all. unions have done good things for sure, and they can do good things in the future, LIKE AGREEING TO MORE CAPITALISTICALLY WORKABLE CONTRACTS AND NOT BEING ****ING COMMUNISTS W/ THEIR DEMANDS.

ur the one who jumped on my perfectly justified union bashing trying to play the "oh what about all the nice stuff they did, u just luv capitalism! capitalism luver." another utterly sad and pathetic argument from clav. but I guess thats what we've come to expect.

So what happens when it's just major conglomerates running the show, and they drive down wages and seperate the wage gap? how capitalistic is that? If the autocompanies wanted to, they could have eaten the cost - dumped the union and hired highschool kids coming out of school for $9/hr.

You know, sort of like how Hershey Foods - doesn't want to pay health benifits for the union workers, even after the workers stated they'd forgo a % of raises to keep the health benifits. They could have an "open" shop and hire non-union workers. But they don't. Instead, they go and BUY a chocolate company in mexico and start closing down plants. Even though, they are making more money than ever - it's not enough. The CEO makes $10million/yr - and they can't cover a few extra bucks to meet a concession with the union.

It's fine, you'd like to have business institute a 12hrday/6 days a week all in the name of greed - just be honest about it.

[ChargerChuck]

not true in the slightest. we have been growingly uncompetitive for 20 years now. the "fat and lazy" u speak of is actually trying to cut corners to hide our uncompetitive nature.

keep in mind, I dont even mind the high pay and benefits that the union won in the 50's and 60's. IF they were similarly willing to give them up when they became uncompetitive. thats the whole jist here, not that unions are disallowed from demanding to share in the glory(which the auto industry in the 50's and 60's was in full), but that they have to be quicker to understand when the glory has passed. they cant sabotage and scuttle an entire american industry demanding to hold onto things that are completely unworkable.I think so. If American auto makers were making cars people wanted to buy the problem would have been mitigated to a point but they weren't, not for years and years.

And why should American workers give up everything they fought for decades to live a decent and comfortable life?

I'm sure you would give up your pension and health benefits that you had worked for years to get because your company wasn't forward thinking and fell behind the competitive curve?

You do realize that these workers are and have given up much (after the companies asked them to) during the last 10 years to try and keep the companies competitive?

[yavoon]

So what happens when it's just major conglomerates running the show, and they drive down wages and seperate the wage gap? how capitalistic is that? If the autocompanies wanted to, they could have eaten the cost - dumped the union and hired highschool kids coming out of school for $9/hr.

You know, sort of like how Hershey Foods - doesn't want to pay health benifits for the union workers, even after the workers stated they'd forgo a % of raises to keep the health benifits. They could have an "open" shop and hire non-union workers. But they don't. Instead, they go and BUY a chocolate company in mexico and start closing down plants. Even though, they are making more money than ever - it's not enough. The CEO makes $10million/yr - and they can't cover a few extra bucks to meet a concession with the union.

It's fine, you'd like to have business institute a 12hrday/6 days a week all in the name of greed - just be honest about it.

do u think it is the inherant right of american's to do for 20$ an hour what someone else will do for 10$? and yes the old "ceo's make money" beat stick, I so love that one.

[yavoon]

I think so. If American auto makers were making cars people wanted to buy the problem would have been mitigated to a point but they weren't, not for years and years.

And why should American workers give up everything they fought for decades to live a decent and comfortable life?

I'm sure you would give up your pension and health benefits that you had worked for years to get because your company wasn't forward thinking and fell behind the competitive curve?

You do realize that these workers are and have given up much (after the companies asked them to) during the last 10 years to try and keep the companies competitive?

they fell behind the competitive curve because of the union. are u not listening? u can't FIRE PPL at the UAW, remember that thing I said about hours of labor/car? thats all union baby.

and we have to come to grips a little w/ the extraordinary position we were in in the 50's and 60's. that was post WWII and us, the germans or the russians had bombed pretty much the entirity of the worlds industrial capacity. considering that then russia shut itself off america was producing round about half of the worlds consumer goods through the 50's. u honestly expect post world war, america unharmed industrial behemoth in a world bombed to smithereens is the natural state of the world?

[BroncoBuff]

they fell behind the competitive curve because of the union. are u not listening? u can't FIRE PPL at the UAW, remember that thing I said about hours of labor/car? thats all union baby.

Come on, voon! Just because the UAW negotiated some over-the-top job security for their members in the 70s does NOT mean all unions are suddenly bad! By that logic, nobody should ever play left cornerback for the Broncos again.

[BroncoBuff]

Its blatantly obvious the union has completely ****ed over america. thats all. unions have done good things for sure, and they can do good things in the future, LIKE AGREEING TO MORE CAPITALISTICALLY WORKABLE CONTRACTS AND NOT BEING ****ING COMMUNISTS W/ THEIR DEMANDS.
You're really going WAY overboard here. The American auto industry is drowning because they've been making an inferior and overpriced product for far too long. Hondas and Toyota first grabbed a foothold around 1980. We haven't made nearly as good or cheap of cars since then. THAT'S the problem, yavoon .... get real.

Another problem is that in an open, world economy, American salaries are too costly for unskilled labor. THAT'S why companies have trouble keeping manufacturing domestic ... it has little to do with unions.


But in other employment sectors, RETAIL for example, there is no such open world economy. People shop near home, and Wal-Mart (the world's largest company) has no 'world economy' excuse for compensating their retail labor so scandalously poorly. The "excuse" they use is that prices must stay "low low low." But when you sell 45% of the toothpaste bought in the United States, and at the same time give your employees - as part of their New Employee Packets - applications for food stamps, something has gone terribly wrong.

Wal-Mart/Sam's Club is the largest corporation in the world. Their chief competitors are Target and Costco. Both those companies manage to compensate and treat their employees fairly.

A year or two ago, this was true: Costco's minimum wage is $10/hr.... even for food sampler people. On the other hand, Wal-Mart's mean AVERAGE company-wide salary is $9.06. THAT, along with the knowledge they are THE WORLD'S BIGGEST CORPORATION is the best argument for a union I have ever heard.


Do u think it is the inherant right of american's to do for 20$ an hour what someone else will do for 10$? and yes the old "ceo's make money" beat stick, I so love that one.
CEO salaries are important ... they demoralize the public and turn them cynical. I hope Hillary is elected ... one of her ideas is to pass legislation along the European model of executive pay: Shareholders must vote on it. I hope she can pass that law before 51% of shares are owned by the filthy rich ... and we are headed in that direction.

BTW - Whenever you hear that a "private equity firm" has bought something, or that a public corporation is being taken "private", part of America dies.

Remember that.

[alkemical]

do u think it is the inherant right of american's to do for 20$ an hour what someone else will do for 10$? and yes the old "ceo's make money" beat stick, I so love that one.

Answer mine first....

[yavoon]

Come on, voon! Just because the UAW negotiated some over-the-top job security for their members in the 70s does NOT mean all unions are suddenly bad! By that logic, nobody should ever play left cornerback for the Broncos again.

haha, I didnt say all unions are bad. if u notice I dont even hold most of the things the UAW negotiated(like pay raises) against them. the real thing I hold against them is holding the american industry hostage when those things were no longer viable, thusly sabotaging the entire industry.

[yavoon]

You're really going WAY overboard here. The American auto industry is drowning because they've been making an inferior and overpriced product for far too long. Hondas and Toyota first grabbed a foothold around 1980. We haven't made nearly as good or cheap of cars since then. THAT'S the problem, yavoon .... get real.

Another problem is that in an open, world economy, American salaries are too costly for unskilled labor. THAT'S why companies have trouble keeping manufacturing domestic ... it has little to do with unions.


But in other employment sectors, RETAIL for example, there is no such open world economy. People shop near home, and Wal-Mart (the world's largest company) has no 'world economy' excuse for compensating their retail labor so scandalously poorly. The "excuse" they use is that prices must stay "low low low." But when you sell 45% of the toothpaste bought in the United States, and at the same time give your employees - as part of their New Employee Packets - applications for food stamps, something has gone terribly wrong.

Wal-Mart/Sam's Club is the largest corporation in the world. Their chief competitors are Target and Costco. Both those companies manage to compensate and treat their employees fairly.

A year or two ago, this was true: Costco's minimum wage is $10/hr.... even for food sampler people. On the other hand, Wal-Mart's mean AVERAGE company-wide salary is $9.06. THAT, along with the knowledge they are THE WORLD'S BIGGEST CORPORATION is the best argument for a union I have ever heard.



CEO salaries are important ... they demoralize the public and turn them cynical. I hope Hillary is elected ... one of her ideas is to pass legislation along the European model of executive pay: Shareholders must vote on it. I hope she can pass that law before 51% of shares are owned by the filthy rich ... and we are headed in that direction.

BTW - Whenever you hear that a "private equity firm" has bought something, or that a public corporation is being taken "private", part of America dies.

Remember that.

haha, why do u think they were uncompetitive/ 52 hours/car vs 14 hours/car. the japanese could have been making their cars using only albino virgins and they still woul dhave had a cost advantage on us. 52 vs 14=america fails. everything stemmed from that, and similar things like that.

right now japanese workers are about as expensive as american ones, infact both germany and japan ar eprobably more expensive places to build cars, I know the newest plant in america by I believe mercedes is more or less off-shoring for cheap labor(us).

[BroncoBuff]

I'm not sure I really understand your last post ... so let me get this straight: Are you contending that the reasons Japanese cars have caught, passed and finally overwhelmed U.S. makes is any portion less than 90% the result of better products?

[yavoon]

I'm not sure I really understand your last post ... so let me get this straight: Are you contending that the reasons Japanese cars have caught, passed and finally overwhelmed U.S. makes is any portion less than 90% the result of better products?

the japanese have better products, but why? I say they have better products because the union forced the american automakers to cut corners for 20 years. basically put them behind the 8 ball. u can blame the car companies some if u REALLY want, but they were playing from a growing disadvantage for 20 years. they compensated using cheaper products as well as running to more protected industries(like trucks), a couple years ago I think it was pointed out that even on cars built inside america the americans have as much as a 1000$ disadvantage/car.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're really going WAY overboard here. The American auto industry is drowning because they've been making an inferior and overpriced product for far too long. Hondas and Toyota first grabbed a foothold around 1980. We haven't made nearly as good or cheap of cars since then. THAT'S the problem, yavoon .... get real.

Another problem is that in an open, world economy, American salaries are too costly for unskilled labor. THAT'S why companies have trouble keeping manufacturing domestic ... it has little to do with unions.


But in other employment sectors, RETAIL for example, there is no such open world economy. People shop near home, and Wal-Mart (the world's largest company) has no 'world economy' excuse for compensating their retail labor so scandalously poorly. The "excuse" they use is that prices must stay "low low low." But when you sell 45% of the toothpaste bought in the United States, and at the same time give your employees - as part of their New Employee Packets - applications for food stamps, something has gone terribly wrong.

Wal-Mart/Sam's Club is the largest corporation in the world. Their chief competitors are Target and Costco. Both those companies manage to compensate and treat their employees fairly.

A year or two ago, this was true: Costco's minimum wage is $10/hr.... even for food sampler people. On the other hand, Wal-Mart's mean AVERAGE company-wide salary is $9.06. THAT, along with the knowledge they are THE WORLD'S BIGGEST CORPORATION is the best argument for a union I have ever heard.



CEO salaries are important ... they demoralize the public and turn them cynical. I hope Hillary is elected ... one of her ideas is to pass legislation along the European model of executive pay: Shareholders must vote on it. I hope she can pass that law before 51% of shares are owned by the filthy rich ... and we are headed in that direction.

BTW - Whenever you hear that a "private equity firm" has bought something, or that a public corporation is being taken "private", part of America dies.

Remember that.

Wow.

Way to go, bro.

Your opponent is getting schooled in this debate. :thumbs: