September 12th, 2008, 12:14 PM
Hi,
I would like to suggest the folowing link about strategic innovation:
www.innovapulse.com
It contains articles about politics; some are pointing to democracy preservation like this :
http://www.innovapulse.com/democracy...ation/#more-33
Br
Pioner
The only way to preserve a democracy is to control capitalism rather than having capitalism controlling the government.
Mind you, I do not oppose cap'n but we do need to control the 'runaway' cap'n.
By that, I mean putting limits on how much money or dollars they can stuff into their bank accounts.
Currently in the US economy, the worker wages and benefits are being downsized while the billionaire populations are inflating by the thoiusands now and worldwide.
The best way to control this lopsided economy is to transform our political electoral system to SHUT out the influece dollars that promote a 'dollar republic' that is serving the wealthy.
That is why I advocate a electoral system financed by the government monies only and all self serving dollar imputs be outlawed .
This is a government function only. So only government money should be allowed.
Cosmo
Why? what benefit would that bring to the rest of us?Originally Posted by Cosmo
In agreement with cosmo.
Governements =
Control and Regulate companies to make sure they keep basic ethics.
Should provide health care and education
Protect and organize society (roads etc...)
--------------------- We are quite far from this.
USA for example:
health = money
education = money if you want good education
companies have buddys in governement.
infrastructure wise no complains.
it would have to be done through exponential taxes. so in short. ALOT.Cosmo wrote:
I mean putting limits on how much money or dollars they can stuff into their bank accounts.
Why? what benefit would that bring to the rest of us?
An economy is prosperous when the money is put into circulation by the mass buyers. I mean when the workers are payed a good wage to afford the benefits of healthcare, pensions and the extra monies to buy houses, cars and any other such products that we (workers) create.Why? what benefit would that bring to the rest of us?
Surplus dollars are stagnant dollars because they are not put into circulation.
So no buyers, no prosperity.
If the monies are spread around, you create more buyers to purchase the goods we all crave.
Cosmo
err... edit!
the real problem with the idea, is that the country would struggle on the international market, because the largest companies wouldn't have the cash-flow to keep up with the competitors. it would be a pretty big drain on the whole economy.
so, unfortunatly, this would only work as an international law (impossible), or under a one-world government (too curruptable).
Timel
Thanks .
righthand
Yes, the top rate for 'surplus' (stagnant) income would have to be graduated and scaled down to the lowest income earners.
Everyone now pays the same level of taxes on buying goods and services, such as gas, entertainment, sales tax, (should be eliminated), services of sorts and etc.
These, of corce apply to the US. I do not know anything about the UK but it may be similat to the US.
The top earners could afford to pay a rate of 95% on their surplus income after deduction of all living expenses. So this wiould not effect their luxurious lifestyles.
Cosmo
Cosmo; Then if a person earning 50k a years, living as if earning 40k, you suggest taking 95% of that 10k. We can tell all those starting out, educating themselves, in some business, a farm or working an entry level job...all in hopes of living comfortable in the future, to forget it. When they reach a predetermined level set by government that 95% will go to those that have done or go through what they have or will. Quit school, don't bother with your dreams, hang around the pool hall or some Union Hall, have kids and if you don't succeed, government will reward you.
Your still insisting the rich, place their extra cash in some mattress or maybe in some materialistic item, a bigger boat, bigger house, more houses or some kind of scheme to deny the poor of something. Those thing they buy take workers, companies and some kind of marketing system. Excess cash, whatever that is to each individual is placed INTO circulation by investment, new business or in many cases, some pure benevolent purpose. We don't need this, government can print money and do the same with out any such nonsense.
timel; Where on this planet do you live. It can't be in the US or you have no idea our system of National government. Health Care and especially education are not their responsibility. Government can't tell me what to eat, what not to eat, where to work or not because its dangerous, when to lose weight or when to commit suicide because I am getting old and WILL get sick. They can't just go around taking money from whomever for whoever for any reason. Thats called thievery and punishable by law, even for government. Get you own insurance, if you need to get a job and pay for it yourself...let corporations compete in the world markets where governments do these things are losing business daily. GM and Ford alone at one time had 4-500k workers, now paying a million not to work (retired), somehow thinking others will keep paying more and more for their cars/trucks. Now pleading with government (for 50 billion) to allow this to continue. It won't and less and less will eventually have anything. The entire idea of wealth distribution is nonsense and destructive to the human character or spirit.
On education, get real. It cost an average of 3k per year in my little town to educate a public student and near 20k in NYC, LA or Detroit. How in the world could government mandate or control this or why. They contribute less than two percent of cost anyplace, coerced and basically for complying with mandates that have nothing to do with educating, but testing and special programs...
It seems he lives in a civilised place like Europe where we take our responsibilities to our fellow man a little more seriously than you. (And that is not an anti-American observation. I noticed at least one American expressing similar views the other day. What was his name? Obama something or other. :wink: )
Admittedly, I had not check his/her profile. However having done so, am sorry Canada is now part of Europe, I frankly like the Canadians I know and their government.It seems he lives in a civilised place like Europe where we take our responsibilities to our fellow man a little more seriously than you. (And that is not an anti-American observation. I noticed at least one American expressing similar views the other day. What was his name? Obama something or other. :wink: )
Industrialized Countries in my mind, are all EU countries and if you honestly feel the American's in say, Missouri or Texas have less sympathy for the under achieved than those in Europe, I'll gladly argue the issue. However, the US government is not, nor should it be concerned with individual rights authorized or programed for States.
If you feel Obama, has expressed an anti American view point, which I have not noticed, that would or could explain his massive drop in the polls. Personally, I believe it has been a result of Ms. Palin, who amplifies what American is and probably the person you will be dealing with for generations.
Jackson,
I do wish we could sit down over a beer and shoot the breeze. I suspect we would get on remarkably well, but at the end of it we would still hold very different views on how the world functions and on how it ought to function.
Take care.
O.
Jackson
You do not seem to understand what I write.
I said the 'surplus' tax would be at a graduated rate.
So you interpret the top earners (450,000,000 a year surplus) and the 50k surplus of 10k as an equal rate?
Haw can you misinterpret what I write?
450,000,000 tapped at 95% leaves the billionaire 22,500,000 as 'pocket money for other liesures.
The person with a 10k surplus could be tapped at a rate of say, 20%. That leaves him an additional 8k as 'pocket' money.
That would be a rough estimate of how this would work in my Democratic Socialism government.
So you can see the top earner can afford to pay those high rates and be a loyal patriot of our country. So he can stand there with the crowd and wave the US flag.
Cosmo
Cosmo; First, no one in their right mind takes profit or has a total income above what they want to...and with the knowledge of what taxes will be due. No one would report an income above any point you or government sets at 95% or in fact today down to probably 50%. You seem to think billionaires, actually earn billions each year, when these values are based on years of accumulated success. I have no idea how many set up trust funds, living wills or charitable trust to avoid taxes and contribute to these rather than paying government. Warren Buffett, lives a life style of about 100k a year, takes income to cover this only, pays less tax (or would at 95%) than many of his employees and yet has a value of 50 Billion, no income tax paid on any and since BH stock pays no dividend has never paid 'gains tax' either. All your trying to do is cease what you think is 'transfer of money', limiting a majority of what the US economy is all about.
The US Treasury receives income today of about 1.1 Trillion from Income Tax, SS and Medicare payments, 1 Trillion from the Corporate tax structure and about .6 Trillion from other sources. Of the income tax, the top 5% of income earners, already pay 95%, many responsible as well for the corporate taxes paid, or many of the misc. income. They also pay directly or indirectly pay a large percentage of State and local taxes, most of which they will never use the purposes for. You and many are trying to kill the golden goose or just destroy the very idea the 'so called' American Dream, has been and for those it was intended, future generations.
That person earning 50k, today pays no income taxes (does pay SS/MC) and in living a lifestyle of 40k and probably investing the 10k, is in pursuit of that dream and to increase his/her taxes to pay for things a person earning and spending that 50K, is exactly what the entire issue is about. Personal responsibility, goals have to be included when living a life. Failure, set backs are going to happen to every one, are not crimes and not the responsibility of others or are the success of some the check books for government...
Over the years we have shot a lot of breeze and probably over more than a few beers. Over more years, I have associated with 'liberals' or folks that think the US NATIONAL Government is responsible for many things, it is not only not, but actually has little to no influence, then or today. Education, Health Care, Welfare of individuals are often mentioned and all what we call 'States Issues'. The State of Wisconsin, many years ago adopted a generous Welfare program, which led to a migration of women with children from Chicago and around the country and about 5 years later, dropped it back to less than what it was. Massachusetts, has a Universal State Health Care System, TODAY and is facing a variety of problems. Business is moving out of State, people leaving not happy with being forced to pay even part of the cost, doctors leaving for controls imposed by State government and waiting list increasing daily.
You work for an American Company, I assume an International Corporation. They are not obligated to maintain their central office in Houston, pay the taxes in Texas or the US Corporate Taxes, but do so for reasons. The same no less true for thousand of Business which have come from all parts of the world, IMO because we have yet to become a 'Welfare Nanny Federal State', where other places have.
Immigration, legal or illegal remains primarily an economic issue, better life and income, various freedoms and opportunity and where government intrusions are limited. In Europe this immigration apparently is for benefits, since these groups are and have remained the lowest or producers. I could go on, with the same philosophy in Health Care, Education, Job opportunity and a host of social issues, but no doubt we would disagree in the end. I can only give my opinion and in doing so hope to slow governments in the US from becoming like those in Europe. For the record, I think France/Germany are taking a second look at socialism, may be England and Spain as well...
Not a second look - a hundredth look. They are likely to tweak their mixed economies to cope with changing circumstances. The pragmatic approach is better able to respond to issues such as you mention (immigration for instance) than a purely ideological approach.For the record, I think France/Germany are taking a second look at socialism, may be England and Spain as well...
Jackson
The top earners (billionaires) have incomes as high as 500,000,000.
Their tax would be currently tapped at 35-38%? I think that is the top rate in the US.
Practically all the income for the ultra rich is surplus.
Like I said, all you need to live a luxurious lifestyle is about 1-3 million.
So these excesses are used to buy out their competition, form mergers that reduce jobs for the workers, buy out the media to censor critics (corporations tried to silence Rachel Caqrsons book 'Silent Spring' that was critical of the polluting chemicals in our country), invest abroad and there are other examples.
But like I said, capitalism creates NO real tangible wealth. You need a pair of hands to do that.
Brains only create ideas, dreams and greed. I could challenge anyone to create a toothpick, just with his brains? It can't be done.
So my opinion is that the workers should get one half of the wealth THEY produce.
Another thing wrong with cap'n is the yo yo free enterprise system. It needs some regulation.
The best investment a person could hace made was in buying a house.
And that turned out to be a disaster for many unfortunate people.
Cosmo
Migration into Europe, acceptable in the past as local birthrates dropped and created need for menial labor IMO has created a welfare state. Where this has not NECESSARILY been the case in the US, where labor laws are less strict, in Europe to hire a person requires in many cases a life long obligation. Said another way the migrants cannot get a job to begin with and welfare remains better than where they came from. I don't know the results, but Germany and France were trying to lengthen the work week and shorten vacations or in economics terms increase productivity. Spain has a terrible migration problem and has started returning or stopping migrants. England or the UK does seem to be doing what you suggest, think tweaking social issues, more the point, to accommodate the migrants...An example would be General Motors, which took a loss, selling their plants last year (in Germany) and having dealt with this same obligations in the US, but under labor contracts or not government mandates...
No body earns a half billion dollar on any job in the US. Many do take profits and with their income (plus perks) could top this, but totally an option to the tax payer.
There are a good many persons, under the 'Corporate Structure' who control their own income. When taxes drop, as in 2003, they take those profits, paying the current limits. Anyone with anything do do with business (where capital is at risk) can Incorporate, the farmer, mom and pop store to any degree of potential income. They can pay themselves 1.00 or a half billion, or leave it in the Corporation as cash reserves, though would pay Corporate tax (35%). Whats taken as income, that is taxed just like any persons income with a current max also 35%, that then an expense of the business or not taxed. Rather than keep complicating a post with figures, the point is; people with money or access to money control their own taxes.
Any person with an idea, takes a risk and employees are NOT subject to any risk if the business fails. If a produced product by an employee is responsible for killing a person or many, the Company is liable, not the employee*. From the other angle, if an employee desires to join in on potential profits, he/she can invest in the Company, even more so than the owner if a public company, a good many have and become those terrible millionaires. Said another way, most any person, working for a publicly owned or most all start ups, has the option to join in on those potential profits.
*In civil law, the employee can be sued along with company, but the liability usually falls to the company, or if the act was intentional can be charged with a crime.
Most any job today can be done by a machine, robot or done away with, once the cost of doing that job by a person is reached. In many cases, toothpicks for instance, are from start to finish produced in this manner, with a couple maintenance workers keeping the lines running. Wal Mart, with its massive sales and inventory, sales, inventory, distribution and purchasing is all done by computer. Its not greed of the Company, but cost control and the idea you will buy a product or service that cost the least.
The welfare states in Europe began long before there was significant immigration. It was largely a response to the poverty created by laissez faire capitalism during the 20s and 30s and the Great Depression.Migration into Europe, acceptable in the past as local birthrates dropped and created need for menial labor IMO has created a welfare state.
It’s true, in the US we expect people to “make it on their own” to a greater degree than in Europe. We have higher child mortality, shorter life expectancy, greater percentage of the population in poverty and now according to recent reports a lower overall standard of living than some European countries. Correlation doesn’t prove cause and effect. One can only look and ponder.
Crap. They lose their job, their entire livelihood. Often, though certainly not always, the company's owner has resources to fall back on, often another business. He walks away from the failed company with no liabilities, leaving his creditors scrambling for 10c on the dollar.
But to say the the employee takes no risk is insulting to the working man and woman.
And as I think you know I am not talking as some embittered employee who thinks they are a wage slave. I have been self employed, unemployed, employed by a company, by an individual, and I've been a company owner. I don't believe I ever worked for the government - I do have some pride.
Well, you have hit on the point, I have been trying to make with Cosmo. As you said "the company's owner has resources to fall back on" and this should be the employee's responsibility as well. Especially if you choose to work for a start up or some highly competitive business, a restaurant for instance. Keep in mind many business fail and a good many (especially lately) are forced out for reasons other than failure, fires, floods and so on...Crap. They lose their job, their entire livelihood. Often, though certainly not always, the company's owner has resources to fall back on, often another business. He walks away from the failed company with no liabilities, leaving his creditors scrambling for 10c on the dollar.
But to say the the employee takes no risk is insulting to the working man and woman.
And as I think you know I am not talking as some embittered employee who thinks they are a wage slave. I have been self employed, unemployed, employed by a company, by an individual, and I've been a company owner. I don't believe I ever worked for the government - I do have some pride.
Things must be worse than I though in Scotland. In the US every employer, by law pays for unemployment insurance on each employee. For up to six months (more in some cases) every one in that failed business will receive a portion of their pay.
I have also done all you have including working for government. More than once when leaving, the Small Company has gone out of business and it has bothered me on occasion. One in particular had 100 employees, in 8 stores and thought was going to make it. It did not and since in small towns, I know it hurt and the owner the most...I liked him.
In understanding your point, even if not relevant to my discussions with Cosmo, many folks do spend years with a Company, become apathetic, dependent on that weekly check and get older in the process, limiting job potential, but then another topic. IMO, risk goes to those that create jobs, not to those that take them.
If I restate your comments your saying; Even though European Country's have been mired in poverty (welfare states) for 70 years, they have better everything than the US. I personally think Europe came out of the depression, for many of the same reason we did, WWII, and have been falling back in the past 20-30 years trying to cope with migration and for the reasons mentioned.
Think poverty level today for a family of six is 50k, as a US average. The trouble is in 45 States, a family of six lives better than in most any Nation on the planet and in those other five does live in poverty. Cost of living varies tremendously from State to State. Same for any statistic you want to argue and my point would be in probably any 10 State, if listed independently would rank 1-10 worldwide...
I suggest you check your facts before making such silly statements.Even though European Country's have been mired in poverty (welfare states) for 70 years
Your words sir...
Yes. Which part didn't you follow?Your words sir...
You claimed that the welfare state was a response to immigration. This is false as I showed.
You said European country's (sic) have been mired in poverty for 70 years. This is so obviously false that I can't imagine why you would say it. You surely know that the standard of living in Britain is higher than in the US according to the Oxford Economics consultancy, and even if you wish to dispute their benchmarks you cannot dispute that Britain is not in poverty, nor has it been for 70 years; neither has Germany or Switzerland or Sweden or France.
Jackson
My argument is not directed against capitalism as a whole but just the 'runaway' cap'ts that overpay thenselves and underpay their employees.
This is bad economics.
Individuals that do not spend all their dollars in the local economy, are lowering the 'mass purchasing power' of the people and workers.
This results in reduced car sales, house sales and etc.
It is the 'spenders', not the hoarders that keep the market thriving.
So sharing the wealth is best for the country and its economy .
I never got one cent of welfare money. So what? That does not mean that all
people can survive on their own.
Our US government is supposed to represent the citizens, not the corporations or the wealthy. Many are born with a 'silver spoon' in their mouths.
If you think these wealthy people can survive without goveernment, think again.
They get protection from the government issued patents and copyrights.
These are government granted monopolies.
The drug companies bribe the government for these monopolies.
So they are waging war on the alternative healthcare practicianers that are more credible in healing the sick than those drugs.
So don't elevate yourself above the others because that is biblical OT teachings.
There is no greater equality than in Nature.
I hate to sound like a preacher.
Cosmo
Briefly; You have said, welfare states began as a result of Capitalism in the teens and twenties, assume you give cause for the Great Depression. There are other theory/reasons on this, but my point was most societies came out of that depression, just as the US did during and after WWII. 'Industrialized Nations' given to them. Welfare to anything known today has formed and propagated from government and in most places to cope with a few poor local and a mass migration, generally since about 1970 and IMO as a result of social programs.
Of course no 'Industrialized Nation' is mired in poverty, that was a re-write of your words, as said. They had been tending rather rapidly toward 'Welfare States' or the deep concept of 'Wealth Distribution' and government mandate to control society and INDUSTRY.
Specifically; 'standard of living' in Wyoming, N/S Dakota or Alaska is probably better than most European Countries. This statistic and all, are based on the total of our 50 States, not often mentioning the fact the laws/welfare systems/health care/education and many other issues are controled by States, their government and their legislatures. That is to say the US is 17th in some area has no meaning, since any number of our States, if judged alone would be the highest rated in the world. We have serious urban problems in this country, all drawing down the averages on any particular comparisons. An example; Did you know the average Asian Lady, living in the US lives to about 88, one of if not the highest stats available, but they are also the shortest, drawing down that statistic. The US also has one of the highest Black populations in any industrialized country, who have the least longevity of all the races. My point on statistics or trying to point out advantages of them to a system of government, a health care system or any particular ideology is a false and inaccurate method...
Mike, in the first place most industry does not make that much money. Many small business probably pay their own employees more than they take home. Even the major's that seemingly earn billions, paying the already higher wages, earn less than 10% on their products or could do nearly as well just investing in municipal bonds, rather than the hassle of operating. Of the 60-80k business in this country that are public, very few break even of show a profit in all of any five year period, yet wages are paid, investors get their divided.
Since, I can't say "I have never got one cent of welfare money", I assume your talking about yourself and further assume you never received unemployment or as me on SS/Medicare. BUT, then I knew what was coming years in advance of retirement and planned accordingly and could have been in a position not to accept this welfare.
Guess thats where your preaching comes in; I actually fault government for those that teach so many people, they NEED government to survive or that government should be responsible for all things. Thats an absurd assumption and folks depending on that (there are plenty) want more (health care) and have no intention of contributing anything, if can be avoided and while they are younger is IMO teaching/preaching dependency (not American) and throwing self reliance into the trash can...as you say putting myself above them.
You obviously don't understand anything I write. Must be my fault. Note to self: Must lern to write good.Of course no 'Industrialized Nation' is mired in poverty, that was a re-write of your words, as said.
Democracy? DEMOCRACY?
What Democracy, It's just a word isn't it?
There's no place for democracy in a capitalist environment.
Democracy is a concept politicians use, which is rather like a tranquilizing pill to subdue the masses and con them into thinking there's fair play because we have 'democracy' to depend on.
Rubbish.
Back in time when the unions were strong and the workers got paid good wages and benefits, the US auto industry was making good profits.
Ford had a 'slush' fund of 7 billion and Chysler had a slush fund of 9 billion.
I do not know how much of a slush fund GM had since there was no annoucement about that.
The 'free market' economy caused the US companies the major problems of losing sales and profits.
The competitors like Toyota and Honda were producing better 'quality' (more dependable) cars and as a result, they were gettng more sales. So, even though the US cars were more powerful and locally made, the quality did no match the competitors.
So this is a fault at the top because they ignored the quality factor.
So the problem here was at the top management.
Sure, I recieved unemployment compensation on occasion and am now getting SS/Medicare.Since, I can't say "I have never got one cent of welfare money", I assume your talking about yourself and further assume you never received unemployment or as me on SS/Medicare. BUT, then I knew what was coming years in advance of retirement and planned accordingly and could have been in a position not to accept this welfare.
Guess thats where your preaching comes in; I actually fault government for those that teach so many people, they NEED government to survive or that government should be responsible for all things. Thats an absurd assumption and folks depending on that (there are plenty) want more (health care) and have no intention of contributing anything, if can be avoided and while they are younger is IMO teaching/preaching dependency (not American) and throwing self reliance into the trash can...as you say putting myself above them.
So you call this welfare?
Have you seen some of the recent headlines about six months ago of some CEOs getting the boot for poor company management and being payed off with severence packages of from 100 million to 300 million?
That isn't welfare? Ha ha. Wow.
The current slump in the US market is a problem with the free market economy.
Reaganomics working backwords. Instead of a trickle down economy. it turned out to be a trickle UP economy.
So whos got all the money now?
See the latest Forbes news?
Cosmo
No, you have it somewhat backwards. Absolute capitalism, by which I mean unregulated free markets, cannot survive in a democracy. There will always be some regulation and social engineering. The New Deal was a Keynesian project designed to preserve capitalism against leftist movements resulting from the Soviet communist threat to Europe, and related challenges in the US. Now the Cold War is over those challenges are gone. The calls for deregulation and privatization of social asecurity and so on are signs of the resurgence of the Friedman unrestricted free market philosophy. The current US meltdown is one example of how this works.
Free Market/Unregulated Capitalism, survives only with participation of the consumers or the people they operate with in....I don't know a better example of Democracy!!!!
The "CURRENT US MELTDOWN(?)" has been caused from Government intervention and manipulation of matters that should have been 'market' corrections or stimulation. For increased 'home ownership' (FM/FM), attempting to control economic conditions (interest rates) or some social agenda (both major party's) the end results will fall back to the markets, or government will collapse.
Absum; Democracy is THE word used to explain peoples/societies influence in their Government. Other words, Monarchy/Dictatorship/Communism give meanings to government that limits the people or in fact restricts completely. Capitalism is a method of doing business and can survive in any of the above, does quite well in any but remains dependent on those customers...
*******************************************
Actually Henry Ford, set the pattern for higher wages feeling his workers should at least be able to buy his product. Many others have followed, looking for the best, brightest and most loyal to an idea. These ideas continue in business today and often those with the best qualities, advance with in the company.
I don't remember the year, but GM did have a 50 Billion dollar slush fund, almost required by law to cover its employees and former employees retirement funds.
Free market allowed those auto makers, in the first place or we would still be mandated to travel in Horse Driven Carriages, if government wished this and their are some TODAY wishing this would happen (Environmentalist).
Not going over contract law again with you. When a board of directors, feels it has the right person to head any major company, they contract with that person. I don't agree with this, in many cases, but many more of these people save a company or produce earnings well above their cost. The CEO's of Toyota and Honda made those decisions, GM, Ford and Chrysler CEO's did not.
Yes, SS/Medicare IMO are social payments to the poor, even though the well off are eligible. Originally in 1935 this was the entire purpose. Dozens of additions since and in particular Johnson's 1965 programs have added many programs including Medicaid itself into the SS Program. When you reached (I will this year) total payments of what you put in, with interest its 'total welfare' and being paid for by todays workers. My total payments were around 60k (paid all in many years, self employed), suggest yours was much less as were my Dad's (your age) when contributions (?) TAX, was much less.... My 60k @ 6% in theory should allow me 150.00 a month, go up and down with interest rates, not the 1100.00/month I receive and going up every year for inflation. We also pay 20.00 or so for Medicare per month, which may pay for one office call and a total joke.
Have already gone over unemployment insurance (paid by employer) and 'current economic slump' which has nothing to do with trickle down but rather government interference in those free markets...
Let's get away from hypotheticals. Can you list some countries that are democracies where free unregulated capitalism survives?
You don't?! Representative democracy is not participatory democracy. Have you ever been active member of a group that self-governs by open democratic process i.e. without leaders?
Yes
And can be bloody hard work because in order to have a proper democracy people have to remove their ego's and lust for power and control from the vicinity which is easier said than done!
This is because most people are not cognitive that they even have this dynamic or tendency within them and what they can't see they certainly won't change!
Rousseau had the right idea.....that if we have a common aim then we can have a democracy, but even that nice idea is difficult to put into practice because of course most people have different ideas about where things are going and as Rousseau pointed out, you can't force them!
Who is responsible for the current free market that we all are supposed to enjoy?
Back in the late 20's when the stock market collapsed, the government stepped in to try to restore the countries problem with government jobs and other such programs to keep the economy working.
Who else could save it and create the needed jobs to represent the people as our Constitution mandates.
Do you think capitalism would have done it? Ha ha.
In todays sinking economy and bankruptcies, who is getting all the welfare?
It certainly is not the homeowners that were losing their homes. No, it was the financial institutions and there is a long list of them.
You may say these institutions have a lot of peoples monies in their accounts, but most of that money belongs to the wealthy.
Certainly not the minimum wage earners that have no money to save or invest.
So again, these bailouts are primarily beneficial for the wealthy rather than the general population. If they limited those bailouts to the general population savings,than I would not have reason to criticize this.
This is the same as Bushes tax rebates. There was no limits here either, as far as I know. So again, the wealthy benefitted more from these benefits. The minimum wage earnerts did not benefit because they could not afford to pay taxes.
Can you tell me who is responsible for those worker benefits like unemployment insurance, healhcare, pensions that the CEOs get. Did the companies volenteer to give these benefits to the workers or were these mandated by the unions and government?
Nuff said.
Cosmo
The only example I can offer you is Taiwan. During and after democratization in the 70's and 80's, they tried 'Open Capitalism'. The only government mandate was a 25.00 permit for any business to operate in or out of their little Republic. They came from nothing to the biggest player in Technology in the 90's.Let's get away from hypotheticals. Can you list some countries that are democracies where free unregulated capitalism survives?
In the US, each State has different "Corporate Laws', Delaware/Massachusetts apparently best for Insurance/Finance/Banking and some related business as many are based in those two States. Texas is less restrictive than many, zoning laws or permits easier to acquire and many business trending toward Texas, even technology.
Governments could allow unbridled capitalism and there are degrees to/from this all around the world. IMO they would gain more in revenue, but in any free society, people/government wants as much control over the providers of the people (jobs, income, distribution) as possible.
My point, if not understood, is that a Business is 100% dependent on acceptance of the public or at least to the degree of success. Even if the business is a job/tax producer only (Military/Mining/Manufacturing), acceptance must come from the people or through the people from government. The Chicago Government, denied access to Wal Mart, they in turned built stores just outside Chicago and are now some of their highest volume store. Government even in defiance cannot dictate success without the public. Democracy in action...so to speak.You don't?! Representative democracy is not participatory democracy. Have you ever been active member of a group that self-governs by open democratic process i.e. without leaders?
Henry Ford promoted higher income jobs, feeling the workers in his new company should make enough to purchase the product they make. This philosophy has always existed in business, not usually for that purpose, but there. Unions did do some good things for the worker and some not so good things have happened. There have been hundreds of company's go out of business (many auto) which could not compete with union labor or afford to pay union wages and packages.
To your original point and this; if unions had 100% control over labor (you say government) then we would all have jobs with near the same pay, products all priced to cover all this and all be living near the same life style. Under this scenario, there is no place left to collect taxes. This utopia, I like to recall 'Star Trek' where incentives come from a collective desire are not going to happen anytime soon, if ever and we have already a welfare state to show success or failure.
Government did nothing to halt the depression, slow its worldwide effect or to stimulate a come back. This is a very complicated issue, from tax hikes, to WHY business failed, government work programs, the dust bowl days and oh yes, WWII when government called on remaining business perk up and produce items which had never before been done, in many cases.
Today's 'sinking economy', is a result of 'GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE'. It's not going to be solved with more interference and seemingly where were headed.
I oppose the bail outs, whether for those that built, bought or speculated in housing, the financing of them or the packaging of those bundles. There is not one thing, that was not predictable and you go back on FC, you can find my predictions over two years ago. You just can't promote business (banking) for years with a 1% Fed Rate, while long term rates were 5-7% (market driven) and expect this to go on forever.
If that is democracy, then the uncontrolled migration of refugees is democracy. A riot is democracy. Nuts!My point, if not understood, is that a Business is 100% dependent on acceptance of the public or at least to the degree of success. Even if the business is a job/tax producer only (Military/Mining/Manufacturing), acceptance must come from the people or through the people from government. The Chicago Government, denied access to Wal Mart, they in turned built stores just outside Chicago and are now some of their highest volume store. Government even in defiance cannot dictate success without the public. Democracy in action...so to speak.You don't?! Representative democracy is not participatory democracy. Have you ever been active member of a group that self-governs by open democratic process i.e. without leaders?
And "public acceptance" isn't democracy either.
Taiwan has a host of state-owned businesses including the giant oil company Chinese Petroleum (CPC).The only example I can offer you is Taiwan. During and after democratization in the 70's and 80's, they tried 'Open Capitalism'. The only government mandate was a 25.00 permit for any business to operate in or out of their little Republic. They came from nothing to the biggest player in Technology in the 90's.
Taiwan also has a single payer national health service.
This is not unrestricted capitalism. It's a good example of a Keynesian mixed economy.
Guess this is where the confusion came from...This analogy of participation in business activity to government systems was not intended to make them equal or connected in any way.
Taiwan, yes today is becoming socialistic and IMO will eventually VOTE themselves back into mainland China's system. Many of those originals already have moved into China, as they try Capitalism. In the US, we had virtually no regulation of industry or socialism until the early 20th century either, but have advanced both, to a point only the very most successful can compete. Free Market/Capitalism can survive any government, but cannot survive with out public acceptance. My only point...
The consumers in China participate in a freewheeling (and corrupt) capitalist experiment because they have no choice. Anywhere where there is democracy there is more regulation and a social safety net of some sort.
Just exactly what do you oppose about government?Guess this is where the confusion came from...This analogy of participation in business activity to government systems was not intended to make them equal or connected in any way.
Taiwan, yes today is becoming socialistic and IMO will eventually VOTE themselves back into mainland China's system. Many of those originals already have moved into China, as they try Capitalism. In the US, we had virtually no regulation of industry or socialism until the early 20th century either, but have advanced both, to a point only the very most successful can compete. Free Market/Capitalism can survive any government, but cannot survive with out public acceptance. My only point...
Do you oppose the granting of patents, copyrights , licensing of property ownerships and other such needed services?
Do you think all crooks selling phoney products or dangerous products and etc should be operating freely?
We have a government that is supposed to protect the people from these predators and 'self helpers'.
This latest disaster of an conomy is the product of Reaganomic that pushed through a 'dollar ' republic.
We do NOT have a Constitutional Deomocracy that calls for the government to serve the citizens, not those dollar self serving free market supporters.
Because they had the freedom to pay themselves those 'inflated' salaries with impunity, the market was turned upside down where all the money was going to the wealthy while the workers were being downsized by these selfserving businesses and I do not mean the small businesses.
Cosmo
It's not a question of opposing government, but how government operates. IMO, to many times in my lifetime, government (both major parties) has operated to
gain control, maintain control, advance an agenda, increased revenue or in general to engineer society. I'll add this is true in all City/State governments, no less that the Federal. Industry or Capitalism is and has been an outlet to demonstrate their power....
Government simply cannot protect people from themselves, nor should they try to... I am told the three major things that damage people in general are Liquor, Tobacco and the Automobile. Two of the three have generated tax incomes and the third used to structure society, the most. This nonsense that Government CAN protect people, has created a society that will not think beyond what government tells them. In my day there have been 100 individual products, said to be dangerous in one way or another, then later told.."sorry, we were wrong". Asbestos has been said to cause problems, tens of thousands of people lost jobs, major companies gone out of business, billions paid in law suites (generally going to attorney's) and yet asbestos in still used around the world, with no apparent problems. We changed from using Freon to another chemical, because some one convinced government it caused problems with the ozone hole, later to be told..."well thats not really the problem". On and on, now were down to creating problems with possibilities of problems, that don't exist.
No, the latest problem and the next ten will come from Government, trying to do what you suggest...serve the individual, or the idea they can. Federal was intended to serve the States not the individual. In fact the C and BoR, protect people FROM government, whether intrusion, mandates or outright control. Tens of thousands of people, bought homes they could not afford (by no means all poor folks) and have been encouraged to default by insinuation or desire they will be helped. There are hundreds of thousands (the average family) that struggle to make payments, with increasing cost of TAXES, maintenance, insurance and all the things involved in ownership. Since private ownership first existed, the problems have not changed, but today government thinks they can fix this problem. All that can possibly happen, is prolonging the inevitable. People that can't afford or fail to understand the concept of ownership, will lose their homes.
A message from a true Republican:
"Certainly no nation ever before abandoned to the avarice and jugglings of private individuals to regulate according to their own interests, the quantum of circulating medium for the nation -- to inflate, by deluges of paper, the nominal prices of property, and then to buy up that property at 1s. in the pound, having first withdrawn the floating medium which might endanger a competition in purchase. Yet this is what has been done, and will be done, unless stayed by the protecting hand of the legislature. The evil has been produced by the error of their sanction of this ruinous machinery of banks; and justice, wisdom, duty, all require that they should interpose and arrest it before the schemes of plunder and spoilation desolate the country." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Rives, 1819. ME 15:232
Jackson
You may blame government for all the problems but how about the quality of the air and water? Is the government responsible for this pollution?
How about the diseases the miners acquire like silicosis (coal mines), hodgkins disease (lead mines(?), prescription drug deaths (100,000 a year), and other such problems that exist in our country?
You cannot blame the people for all the problems because they are just followers. They trust the government and the corporate management.
That is why they need representation to help manage their lives.
The current 'bailout' of the financial institutions by the government is not justified because these people are all mostly wealthy people. I know you also agree here.
Since this is a corporate problem, I think these institutions should be bailed out by the billionaires in our coutry. If there is about 100 such individual, they can contribute 7 billion apiece to add up to the 700 billion needed for this baikout .
This way, they can repay the system that allowed them to enrich themselves with all that wealth.
What do you think?
Cosmo
"All great change in America starts at the dinner table".
"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves"
"The most terrifying nine words in the English Language; I'm from the Government and I'm here to help".
"Government is not the solution to your problem, government is the cause"
These among many quotes by; Ronald Reagan.
The Republican Party, formed in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas/Nebraska Bill which allowed those two states to decide the slavery issue. Of course then Lincoln became the FIRST Republican president...
Jefferson was interested in Education and believed Government should somehow get involved, but its very unlikely he would have approved the our current government and the intrusions into the individuals life. He opposed many such intrusions by the English Government. By the way he was a member of the Democratic/Republican Party, with no similarity to either of todays two parties.
No sir, Freddy/Fanny were under the control of Government. Government has been encouraging an 'ownership' society for years, probably back to Johnson's tenure. There gone; The 'Bail Out' is the backing of certain notes to insure certain people don't lose their homes. (details still being worked out). The major problem here is who gets help and who doesn't, were the line is drawn. Where ever this line is drawn they will catch flack from those below that line. One neighbor makes 2.00 a year more, has more kids or whatever. Another problem is those people who receive help, will be for a certain period and even if interest free all other cost will continue as well as whatever reason they defaulted for. If payments were hard to make last month, they will likely be harder later. The folks that mismanage money, will do so in the future, with any additional income (forgiven expense). Insurance and local taxes will go up, labor cost to maintain and so on...
As for the notes or those financial institutions that ended up with them and that government cannot bail out, investors will. There are only 46, that were worth 7 Billion in the US (probably a few less today). Then these are the values of a persons estate (all things), not disposable income or liquid assets.
IMO, there is no viable solution, other than letting the market work, that the people who could lose their homes are going to anyway. Once the property(s) are defaulted on the property gains a real value or what someone (anyone) will pay. Investors will buy them up, in many cases renting to the people who lost ownership. Governments thoughts are in the fear created and the thousands and thousand who could soon fail, when in fact any action could not settle all that fear or keep anyone from defaulting.
Jefferson considered free public education to be essential to a free country. He was a leader of the Republican wing of the Democratic Republican Party, and as such I agree has no similarity whatsoever with the modern Friedmanite Republican Party.
That's why I called him a "true" Republican.
Democracy is a myth
And so is all the other bullshit they feed us............
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt1Lo-WPDQg
So stop fooling yourselves that your debates and discussions are going to make any difference or that you have any power to change things.
Other people hold the strings....you are just the puppet
..ughSo stop fooling yourselves that your debates and discussions are going to make any difference or that you have any power to change things.
so we should all just shut-up and bend over?
social change is a gradual thing, and also unstoppable.
even just exchanging ideas between sheep can affect the 'direction' or at least the 'velocity' of the change.
besides, we all have the power to change things, just not the will.
:edit: btw, watching that utube link now, its sampling the doco 'zeitgiest', which i recommend to EVERYONE. you can watch it online at http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Do whatever takes your fancy, you have free will on that, but not when it comes to politics and society unless you become a politician, president or Guru, and even then you will still be somebodies puppet and have little power.
Yes, but what does it change into?
There have been many incident in history where just one persons ideas have influenced and inspired civilization & societies to change.
The success of this pivots on being able to answer the call & prayers of people when they are at a time of need or despair and being able to lead them, because there has always been a majority happy to follow not lead.
That's where the power lays in influencing en-mass.
Religions and states have always known that.
Control of the masses today, isn't done by offering a solution to the people and allowing them free will to decide.
Control today is achieved via money and the economy.
People panic at a credit crisis or fall in the economy, and talk of the economy as if it is a separate entity operating independently.
The economy always rises and fluctuates because somebody wills it to, and there is always someone else or some organization benefiting from these fluctuations.
What a fantastic way to get people to work harder and harder than by increasing the cost of living.
What a fantastic way to maintain control over people than lead them into despair and panic about their own survival.
Because in that mind-frame when people are desperate they are so easily led. The powers know this all too well.
The scary thing here is that, when people are desperate, they hope and believe there is a benevolent government or presidency, which they voted in for the job, that will help them, and is on there side.
Ha....think again!
Yes......get the herd infected en-masse!
And yes, as i pointed out, individuals have changed things.........but be careful because there are powers out there watching you trying to change things who are not 'on your side' and who could be described as purely malevolent.
Power does strange things to people.
Did you watch the film? What did you think to it?
yeah it seems like its just a part of the http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com documentary.
i think only the ignorant and idiotic would argue that we are not being manipulated for the gain of those at the top. even if you don't buy the arguements made in these clips, capitalism itself reflects the same ideals.
i think we agree on the fundemental level, but for the sake of debate...
well maybe you should start thinking a little more laterally. there ARE methods you could use to make SOME impact. not alot, but more than nothing.you have free will on that, but not when it comes to politics and society unless you become a politician, president or Guru, and even then you will still be somebodies puppet and have little power.
on a side note, leaders are powerless without followers.
And maybe you should start thinking a little more expansive.
The only real impact you could have on people is to perhaps....blow up the twin towers? Shit someone beat me to it........
They should have assassinated Bush, but they voted him in again!! And they want to assasinate Obama cos he's black and 'Muslim'.....even though he isn't actually Muslim at all!
How stupid can you get........
Oh yeah.....as stupid as the followers
Jackson
So Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae are government backed but not controlled by the government as far as I know .
How about the rest of them? Are there any others set up by the government?
My belief is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae were set up to keep the poorer individuals from being ripped off by the private sectors.
Cosmo
hehe you really need to watch this documentary, its got a section on the twin towers :wink:The only real impact you could have on people is to perhaps....blow up the twin towers? Shit someone beat me to it....
and yes, there are other (somewhat more effective) things you could do, none that i will mention here since i don't fancy being interrogated for conspiring an act of terrorism.
... and for the record, i have no intent on following through with any of them, ever.
its easy to lose your morals if you concentrate on the greater good.
From 1938 to 1968, the secondary mortgage market IN THE US, was the FEDERAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, an AGENCY of the US Government. Also known as Freddy Mac. In order to clear the Federal Budget for other expenditures (1965 Welfare Reform) this organization was privatized but obligation to control was specifically granted the US Congress. Freddie Mac...Federal Home Loan Corporation, set up in 1970, was formed by government to aid the poor in obtaining finance, private operation but again under Congressional Oversight.
No other entities in the US are or are controlled to this extent. Financial concerns do fall under many rules/regulation of Congress under National Security concerns, but in these cases government is not responsible to maintain. An example, easier to understand; If your City were to privatize 'Trash Collection' (many have), but the Company chose for any reason goes out of business, the City is then AGAIN responsible to collect trash...
Reagan and Bush I, had reservation about this operation and Clinton was very concerned, even trying to get Congress to cut back both operations, IMO probably at the suggestion of Robert Rubin. He failed and Bush II did nothing to correct the obvious problems.
I do hope, you will take some time and study some world history. Society, for most of existence have lived and died under some form of direct rule. The Tribal Chief, then his son and then his son and so on...Later called King's, with an occasion Queen (when no male was available) and then to forms of government that were decedent from particular royalty/elites in the society. Most free people today and in 180 or so countries, democracy of different sorts, allow these leaders to come from the ranks of people. Some co-existing with royalty. If you live in the US, Canada or a number of places, even you have the right to work your way up the food chain and become a leader in the government. School Board, City, County, State and if your bright enough, have some good ideas or accomplished in some other way, you could even represent your State at the Federal Level or become the President. Puppets only exist, when they allow others to talk for them, do not vote, get involved or in some manner voice their opinions....
Thank you Jackson33 but I have studied a plethora of World History already to know the power of control and what power does to Leaders as well as their sheep or puppets.I do hope, you will take some time and study some world history. Society, for most of existence have lived and died under some form of direct rule. The Tribal Chief, then his son and then his son and so on...Later called King's, with an occasion Queen (when no male was available) and then to forms of government that were decedent from particular royalty/elites in the society. Most free people today and in 180 or so countries, democracy of different sorts, allow these leaders to come from the ranks of people. Some co-existing with royalty. If you live in the US, Canada or a number of places, even you have the right to work your way up the food chain and become a leader in the government. School Board, City, County, State and if your bright enough, have some good ideas or accomplished in some other way, you could even represent your State at the Federal Level or become the President. Puppets only exist, when they allow others to talk for them, do not vote, get involved or in some manner voice their opinions....
You make the mistake of presuming, as many do, that just because certain conditions have existed for centuries, then it is the 'norm' and we should all then just sit back and put up with it.
Leadership as you have pointed out is essential to any hierarchic structure.
Just as religion is essential for the spiritual impulse.
But it is those who wield the stick or the book who abuse this favorable position not the tools themselves.
And, worse, it is the idiots who let them, who are the most guilty in perpetuating corruption.
Regarding the management of these investment banks, the private sector like Baer Stearns went down first, right?
The Government backed Fanny Mae anf Freddy Mac were the last to go under, right?
Besides, if you look back several decades, you will notice that the 'spread' between the incomes of the top management and the workers was about 40 to one.
But recently the ratio inflated to 400+ to one. This gross distortion of the distribution of wealth was a major cause of the current problem with our economy, plus the opening of the world market to the corporations to buy abroad like cheap labor.
So the incomes of the lower level workers buying power shrank to buying just their living necessities like food and housing.
So capitalism is to blame for this problem of inflating their own incomes while they reduced the general population to nothing but commodities instead of treating them like the people that they are.
I repeat, only HANDS create the real tangible weath, not the corporate brains that just issue orders.
It is about time the government took control of these free market stuffing individuals. By restoring some balance, we may be able to revive the economy to what it was back in the 40's and later when we had the unions emerging to representing the workers.
AMEN.
Cosmo
Cosmo; Fanny/Freddie packaged their note, selling them to anyone that would invest. Many Global Investment/Banking concerns jumped in on high yields feeling real estate values would continue going up or that if dropped would be to the limits of what cash on hand (limits set by Congress). IMO; From the original decline of the housing industry, now three years ago, they should have known different and have to believe certain folks in Congress were encouraging more time.
Bear Stearns, reached the point were liquid assets left no money to loan or invest, the actual purpose of their business. You can't run a grocery store, with no groceries, a used car lot with no cars and so on...Technically, the investors in their stock (BSC) lost everything, the assets joined to JP Morgan and I suppose an agreement has been reached with other creditors of BS. On average five banks (some large) fold in any given year. They are not immune to failure as any other type of business. Washington Mutual, this morning met the same fate, now also part of JP Morgan and the investors taking the hit.
What you continuously suggest or the 'Fat Cats' should take the heat for failures, is actually the problem....They are and it's those same people that feed the markets, invest the capital and allow trade to occur. They have STOPPED investing, what little is available is at very high interest rates and now all banks have tightened up in hopes of some kind of relief. Government has a couple loans out there at 12% interest and Buffett just loaned AIG 5B at 10%. You and I are getting 3% at best and probably going to 2% next year...
One more time on organized labor; Worthless teachers are teaching and all government Employees are unionized. They work 20-30 years at well above average wages, retire at 90-95% pay and receive packages covering them for life.
Your paying for this and there is no one else left to pay for any one else. On top of this most are also eligible for SS...
What you have described is a totalitarian government, where people accept the premise. Democracy can only survive with the approval of the people, life with in the rule of law and accepting less than desired by a minority of citizens.
Corruption of what??? There are always going to be some people, who take advantage of power for their own gains, in any form of government, Corporation on in fact in any neighborhood. By FAR, there are more that play by the rules, advancing the society they work in or serve. Trying to place blame on the system and not those few individuals seems to me a false objective. I think you have some political objective and I would bet if a certain party or candidate wins, your complaints would cease.
Where have i described a totalitarian government?What you have described is a totalitarian government, where people accept the premise. Democracy can only survive with the approval of the people, life with in the rule of law and accepting less than desired by a minority of citizens.
I think you have imagined that!
Jackson
How about all those perks the CEO's get on top of their regular salaries ?
Are you telling me that those management people do not get retitement packages and those severence packages that are excessive for being a failure?
Quit knocking the unions and government .
Capitalism corrupts, period.
Cosmo.
No, I won't stop criticizing Unions or socialism in government. I find you consistency to a persons value stops at management, just past common labor.
Of the 200,000 actually Corporations, in the the US, how many would you say are corrupt? Corrupt means/infers illegal and any effort to COMPETE with competition is not illegal.
IMO, no matter what people like Iaccoca, Fred Smith, Allen, Buffett or about 200 others become involved in, they would succeed, producing fortunes for their company and those that invest in them. Its these people and people aspiring to be like them, that drive the engine labor can then work in/for. Without that engine, workers no matter how skilled would no place to practice. Watch the Jim Cramer financial show 'Mad Money', where he has the 'Hall of shame' CEO/CFO for high profile industry. These 10 folks, he condemns for their abilities, rarely for corruption, they simply do not have the ability to manage at the levels they are, in his opinion. To get the level a company needs wage, perk and retirement or early loss of position (for any reason) the Board of Directors and stock holders have to pay the price.
[quote="jackson33"]I don't know a democracy this post could refer to...Maybe Iran, Cuba or Venezuela but your not talking about them an you know it...
Jackson
I didn't mean to tell you to quit criticizing but you are targetting the people that are legally mandated by our Constitution to represent the citizens and who is more worthy of the work they do? Are you telling me these workers should not have anyone representing their economic well being?
A top CEO in a corporation can take a 6 month vacation and the corporation would still continue to opperate because there are vice presidents that can do the jobs as well.
You remove just 'one' worker and he/she has to be immediately replaced or the production will stop. You need all the parts.
Iococca worked fo no salary when he took over Chrysler after the government bailed them out.
Warren Buffet said he should be paying higher taxes when he said his workers were paying more.
I do not failt these two. but there are a lot more that are the self help type that take a lot more than they deserve.
Cosmo
Socialism, has never been the intent of this government. It formed from need of the electable to be elected and from the increased electorate of the have nots. Thats the short of it, no matter how distasteful it sounds. I do and have argued the right of all citizens to vote and will argue to continue this practice. However you have to admit, voting has come down to, which "PARTY" not person, will get me the most from government. Government make no money, has no income, can do nothing for any one individual (legally) and can only redistribute the earnings and achievements of others.
You continue to place the worker in some sort of vacuum, where management, ownership, even the creating medium is ignored. Unions have fought mechanized production, computerized systems for years. This is productivity and vital to industry, no less vital in government where replacing typewriters is still fought by unions. People are being paid to do nothing more than watch a machine to do what they used to do. The purpose of unions was to protect members, not to maintain their purpose.
Yes, I know Iaccoca worked for $1.00 per year and while bringing Chrysler out of bankruptcy. I once worked of the record for nothing to do the same thing for a very small operation and thousands of other work for a value change in stock values. Thats my point with him, he and just so many like him have what it takes to do what he did do. By the way when Iaccoca was with Ford and brought the Mustang to life, he received top pay...Buffett, Gates and many very wealthy people do favor higher taxes. They also know full well only the ignorant will pay those taxes and they DON'T pay that much. Both combined have 165Billion in a 'Charitable Trust' (tax free, 80B in tax never going to be paid), because they feel they can do better than the Government in doing many ways...Don't kid yourself on a quality CEO/CFO taking a six month vacation. If one of those top 2-300 gets sick, retires or indicates retirement, the Stock in that Company will drop like a rock.
[quote="jackson33"]Dear Jackson33I don't know a democracy this post could refer to...Maybe Iran, Cuba or Venezuela but your not talking about them an you know it...
I am talking about the concept and method of democracy which is applied in verbatim and theory in many countries, but isn't actually applied in practice, because those practices which should be democratic such as voting is not.
If you live in America i think you will know exactly what i mean........or perhaps you don't
Jackson
Regarding those non profit charities,
Why isn't those dollars being distributed? I think they are just being used for 'show'.
If I was the manager of those charities, I would distribute those excess dollars within a few months. Their are hudreds of people in need.
So why aren't they getting some help from these charities?
The only money they need to keep is the funds needed for the management and that would be just about say, 5 million'?
About the CEOs on vacation, this is nonsense that the stock prices are based on the presense of the CEOs.
Stock prices vary with the dividents they pay.
However, in a new industry based on an invention or some other such reason, the value of the stock may have some future capital gains resulting from its acceptibility by the public even though it may not have any immediate dividents being distributed.
But in an established business, it is the dividents being payed out that determine the values of the stock.
Cosmo
I actually live in New Mexico, practice democracy in New Mexico trying to elect representatives to a Federal Union of States, I feel will address their duties under the Constitution. The Federal Government is not and has never operated as a Democracy. No vote, you or I cast is of any value outside the state you live in...
If I lived in LA, Chicago, Boston, or a number of places, my principles would be no different, my influence minimal and my efforts would seem in vain. BUT, I have the right, protected by law to voice my opinions under a variety of means, all of which is the the idea of a Democracy...
Cosmo;
Charitable Trust, under law or to prevent being taxed, must distribute 5% of there total each year. This includes profits and/or new contributions. Jim Cramer, who made billions at his own 'Hedge Fund' for clients (now retired from trading anything) has one such fund that brags of 15-20% annual gains (probably not this year). There are other forms of Trust, where members of a family receive money from an untaxed sum of an original source, that the recipient does pay tax and at his/her normal rate, usually well below what the founder of the trust would have been charged. Joe Kennedy for instance would have paid around 70-90%, but set up such a trust to avoid taxes.
Government and frankly no one person should determine who is truly in need of assistance, IMO to begin with. I could make a case for any person in this country that is for some reason living below another persons lifestyle. My first impression of the impoverished, came in the 1940's, visiting my Grandfather's farm in Virginia. There were some 100 folks, still share cropping, living in REAL shacks and totally dependent on three people in their 80's for their next meal. They were totally free (even begged) to do whatever they wanted and encouraged to do something but would not leave that life style. I learned there, that the human spirit can be diminished by charity of any sorts. For the record, that farm sold in the 50's, those three old folks still living and each of those 100 people given a share of the proceeds.
Please ask any other person who deals in equities, whether the management has anything to do with the perceived value of a company. When Henry Ford IV, retired (was working for that 1.00 per year) the value of Ford Stock tripled in weeks and when Iaccoca retired from Chrysler, the stock dropped in half and eventually was sold to a German Corporation, with no apparent future as a privately owned company. The most valued stocks, on this planet , Berkshire/Hathaway to Microsoft, PAY NO DIVIDEND. P/E racial do influence most stocks and managements of those mentioned few, like Apple Computer determine many others, including many that still make NO money.
Jackson
Those charitible/nonprofit funds should be required to pay out more. 5% only?
If there is any growth in the fund, than that is profit.
I hate to see a lot of money tied up in some way where it remains 'stagnant '.
In my opinion, money that is in circulation is good for the econmy.
The current crop of billionaires has tied up a lot of money that does not work.
At least not in the US .
The government should urge the billionaires to bailout these banks since the current economy allowed them to 'enrich' themselves at the expense of cheap labor and other bookkeeping tactics and cheap taxes.
Cosmo
Cosmo; For the 2167th time, rich people don't stash their money in some mattress. Even if placed in a bank (savings/checking...rare) the bank turns around and invest their money. All those billions in Charitable Accounts/Trust is in some manner working and generating the economy. Those million dollars homes, those big boat/car/bus mobiles were built by worker's as is any persons purchases. What you are wishing for would destroy this capital.
Investors rich or not so rich, will step in when property values retreat to manageable prices or when bank who have been encouraged to make those ridiculous notes have paid the price. Government continues in this strange idea they can maintain the value of a product with intervention, THEY CANNOT.
You may remember after WWII, Cars sold for more than they cost new and for many years. SUPPLY/DEMAND the cornerstone of any free trade economy is based on this principle. There are simply to many homes available and the market will set the prices. For instance if you like 'Pork and Beans' and used to paying .75 cents per can, but some year every bean producing area in the world started producing corn, you would have to pay 10.00 per can if you could find one and government could do nothing legally about this...
Jackson
I prefer a representative government, not a self serving government.
The current state of our economy is a product of your self serving government.
And I use the term government for capitalism that is our secret government, since they do everything behind closed doors.
Cosmo
October 3rd, 2008, 06:49 AM
The real problem with the idea, is that the country would struggle on the international market. The largest companies wouldn't have the cash-flow to keep up with the competitors.
________________________
Carhartt Work Gloves
investment real estate
October 3rd, 2008, 09:27 AM
Part erasure of 1st URL accidentally, sorry.
The current cash flow shortages here in the US that require a bailout, are not caused by government.
The current devaluation of the dollar internationally has helped the companies since now they can have more business internationally.
But how does that help the US consumer when they are losing their jobs and healthcare reductions.
To buy on credit, you have to have a job. It would be better if that bailout money was used to create government jobs.
That way, the surviving companies would have a good influx of workers needing loans for the purchase of cars and saving their homes.
Cosmo
Cosmo; There is no cash flow shortage, in the USA, none, nada, end of comment.
The ability to barrow money, has reverted back to what was pre-Clinton directives to Fanny/Freddie...In short loans were being made or authorized to buy, by those two Government Entities with qualifications one third those that were before. Home loans for instance (WAS) 25% of Net income (after taxes) and with expected ownership cost included. It has been until recently 65% of the Gross income taxes and expenses ignored. I don't care how you figure it any person making less that one million dollars, has no business paying that percentage of an income for housing. Today, the Banks and Financial Concerns, WILL NOT write those loans for anybody, unless qualified and under the original theory to be qualified...
Would you please remember THIS; The devaluation of any National Currency is a relation to other currencies. Inflation creates the problems you continuously blame on devaluation. Inflation will be going up, but today is nothing out of the ordinary and well in check compared to the past 18 years or back when the Carter Administration was running 15-18%...There was no said crisis then.
On the point Tom, was trying to make; Any given day there are trillions of dollars in equities, bonds, commodity or property transfers. All of this represents the cash value of Industry and/or the investors, NOT GOVERNMENT which has disposable incomes in any one year of less than 5-700 Billion per YEAR. This comes from your definition of rich (disposable income) left after personal expenses and willing to risk in the markets, THAT CREATE jobs. Government has no ability to create jobs, other than ones we all pay for and pay dearly....
Jackson
Who is going to pay for the current loans to the financial institutions that are on the verge of bankruptcies?
The government already has more workers on their staffs than any industry like the government officials from the president to the Congress and the Supreme Courts.
And these sources have staffs that number in the tens to thousands.
That is just the managing government. But how about the police, fireman, licensing bureaus, parks personell, waste disposal and the water boards.
Then you can include the maintenance of roads, lighting systems, sewers, and etc.
So instead of the bailout of the financial institutions that have no money to lend (no cash flow here) could have been spent on more government jobs to contribute the various managing and protection services to create more cash flow wiith these added jobs that would give these new employees the slending dollars to buy the cars and houses that need the buyers for their products. That is real cash flow in the hands of these new workers.
This added 'mass' purchasing power would be more beneficial than loaning dollars to jobless people.
To have good credit, you need to have a job or the release of the stagnant dollars in the possesion of the wealthy.
Moving those stagnant dollars would help too.
Cosmo
Cosmo; Yes, there are about 2 million people employed by the Federal Government in one manner or another. The Military about 800k and spread though out the country offices of the Federal employ many. States also employ millions, many of which overlap the Federal and then City/County Governments employ additional numbers and also overlap in purpose. No business could survive with such tactics and we do pay ALL those cost. Wal Mart, probably the closest to this with 1.3 million employees world wide but few (if any) jobs overlap.
Tens of thousands of business have gone out of business over US History and most from poor management, not changing methods to meet competition or the changing needs of society. Whether a financial or an auto maker, IMO government or the peoples money should not be used protect this poor management.
Since your talking in most part about Fanny/Freddie, these are/were entities of the Federal System and like the Military with specific designed purpose, those responsible for the problems are trying (apparently have) to inject Socialism by extending there designed purpose to new meanings. If allowed to fail, at some point while property values declined, investors would jump in buying/selling/renting those properties. Said another way, market values will change to federal mandated values, which in turn will be taxed accordingly to equalize values, or simply another means to support the weaker contributors to the system. The then problem is those weaker links to society, that are so for reasons, will maintain those principles at the cost of those that have traditionally held up the system. Taking away from any foundation for the sake of the top levels, will in the end tumble the entire thing...
Jackson
Like I said, those dollars being given to the failing banks or others are not the
proper stimulous for reviving the economy.
By spreading those dollars to create new jobs for more workers, this would expand the efficiency of the governments and contribute the needs for all smaller goverments to balance their budgets that are currently cutting jobs.
So by expanding the numbers of working personel, you have more dollars for the workers to BUY the goods we make here in the USA .
So jobs are needed to prop up the economy . This is the best way to get the country working again.
Like I said in my Brand of Socialism, the first requirement would be to gaurantee jobs for all.
NO unemployment.
Those hoarded dollars the wealthy have would also help if they started to spend a few of them or lots of them.
Cosmo
Cosmo; You know were going around in a circle and any given post can be found here or on some other forum saying the same things...
There are no dollars going to Banks or financial institutions. Government is simply buying up bad debt back, which was sold by THEIR Fanny/Freddie in some form of a pyramid scheme. Whether this way under some idea of a crisis or by virtue of obligation. We still don't have any idea where the lines will be drawn, but its obvious any person that has a note in the 12 Trillion dollar market is in some manner covered, if they wish to push the issue. They can get a reduced interest rate, more years to pay, forgiven of past due payments or a combination.
Problems are; Those folks that couldn't afford to buy homes (any price range) are not going to be able to afford those same homes and this will be the requirement. The homes in question will still be worth less than their notes. What should have happened, letting the true values of homes be set by the markets, those that failed should suffer the consequences of letting their credit go bad, however it came about.
Your 'Brand of Socialism' has been around forever. In the US, it was first called slavery when people were GIVEN all the benefits required to maintain breathing. Food, lodging, if curable medical attention. We then went to 'The Company Store' form where a business owned the town and the workers could get those requirement so long as they worked. Of course the cost of existence always stayed just ahead of earnings. By the way, what would you do with those that simply won't work, have families and prefer the woman stay home with the kids or was incapable or working....
No, we are not. You are attacking government while I am supporting it.
I am promoting the merits of government and you are promoting the free market economy without government interference.
Well, the current state of the economy is the freedom the wealthy have bought with their dollar influences of the government officials.
Responsible business practicioners would have informed the borrowers of the changes in payments if and when the interests rates of the government regulations would rise again that would increase their house payments accordingly.
This way, the borrowers would not have been so eager to refinance their loans with a rising governments rate again. In other words, they should have informed them that their variable rates of paymemts would rise again and could they be able to pay the higher rates.
There you go again. criticizing the original government loan agency and ignoring the others.There are no dollars going to Banks or financial institutions. Government is simply buying up bad debt back, which was sold by THEIR Fanny/Freddie in some form of a pyramid scheme. Whether this way under some idea of a crisis or by virtue of obligation. We still don't have any idea where the lines will be drawn, but its obvious any person that has a note in the 12 Trillion dollar market is in some manner covered, if they wish to push the issue. They can get a reduced interest rate, more years to pay, forgiven of past due payments or a combination.
Baer Stearns was one of the 1st to go under and was resqued with a government crutch provided by getting some other corporation to take over.
My opinion is that those home owners were not informed of a future rise in the interest rates of government borrowers that would result in future defaults when the rates would go up. You cannot blame the home borrowers for this ignorance.Problems are; Those folks that couldn't afford to buy homes (any price range) are not going to be able to afford those same homes and this will be the requirement. The homes in question will still be worth less than their notes. What should have happened, letting the true values of homes be set by the markets, those that failed should suffer the consequences of letting their credit go bad, however it came about.
The knowledgeble lenders should have informed them of a future rise in payments.
I would give the welfare check to the mother and inform the lazy bum that you can exist only with the allowance given him by the mother.Your 'Brand of Socialism' has been around forever. In the US, it was first called slavery when people were GIVEN all the benefits required to maintain breathing. Food, lodging, if curable medical attention. We then went to 'The Company Store' form where a business owned the town and the workers could get those requirement so long as they worked. Of course the cost of existence always stayed just ahead of earnings. By the way, what would you do with those that simply won't work, have families and prefer the woman stay home with the kids or was incapable or working....
Any abuse of her by him would put him behind bars for a while on government welfare.
Cosmo
I am attacking 'LIBERALISM' in the US Government, which was designed to serve the common interest of the then 13 States and now 50. There is no conceivable system, that can serve the interest of any one State, without obstructing the domestic interest of another. Example; The interest of Wyoming, their economic base, cultural and traditional ideology being nothing like that of California or Florida. At the State level, these same things already cause problems, where the rural is paying the cost for liberal structures of urban areas. People can move, remaining Americans but cannot if the entire country becomes a pure nanny society. Frankly the one reason so many have and still come to this country is for that very freedom. Business, the operation and practice is under this same freedom and business will locate where wanted or laws are most advantageous to there concerns.
FDIC backs up every bank, their depositors and assets. When certain levels are reached to maintain solvency they by law are required to assume responsibility and are authorized to do whats necessary to shrink the cost to the Federal Governments liability. Finding a capable buyer of those assets, is to the advantage of them (us the tax payers) but do not assume the title of owner. Fanny/Freddie a different issue, as would be the Federal Reserve, Amtrak or other public services assumed by this socialistic attitude instilled in an ever increasing system of Government control.
Don't play so ignorant, I know you better than that. Extended arms on interest, are the common reason sub-prime loans can be offered. Every one knows interest rates go up and down or subject to change. Telling me so many people were somehow duped into taking out loans, thinking that first payment would equal their last is foolish nonsense. The Banks themselves would have benefited if they had taken out fixed rate loans, in the beginning. People (not business) were refinancing fixed notes into sub-prime, for short term lower payments. All were responsible for these decisions and now every other person who knew what they were doing, is going to pay. I have no sympathy for anyone who lost 10 cents and that includes a lot of well off people.
You do realize, what you say you would do to people on welfare is beyond socialism. Its direct interference in the personal affairs of a family. Actually welfare works in reverse, where if a provider is available (generally meaning husband) welfare is somewhat restricted. If you hold a job, own a certain model car or have so much money in an account, you will not qualify. It encourages having children to the people who should not have any, rewarding with additional benefits when they do.
Jackson
When the government provides the welfare to a recipient , it has the right to interfere if their is abuse of the children and that would also include the mother.
Spousal abuse is a crime.
You ignored my solution to the current economic problem and blame the people (home buyers) for these problems?
I suppose you also blame the gas prices on the people as wel?
The best solution for our current economy is the creation of JOBS.
This way, there would not be any defaults on these house payments .
Also, people with fixed incomes had a problem when the payments increased on these mortgages.
If the defaulters had jobs, there would not have been so many defaults.
My Brand of Socialism would gaurantee jobs for all.
The only problem to this would be the crybaby tax rebels.
Cosmo
No Mike, Government has no right to govern individuals, under any circumstances.
They impose on those rights by offering gifts, which is as wrong as humanly possible.
LAW, forbids domestic abuse, to different degrees in ALL states, as are the punishments. Unless you beat your kids or wife in two states (cross borders) the Federal cannot get involved, even here the States would have priority and each State would prosecute ahead of the Federal.
No, people are defaulting on home loans, who had no business making those loans in the first place. A good many were retired folks moving to Florida on fixed incomes, thinking they could afford more than was realistic.
I still want to know your fix, for those that won't work, incapable of working, to young or to old to work, not to mention the level of expertise it now takes to do many jobs. We can't all grow gardens and get paid for that...
Ok, back on the Runway.
In basic commun sens, a population can't keep on living on this pure capitalist track.
Governements have to implement themselves into education, first to set standards and also to make sure people get provided and everyone gets the chance of having a good education. At least investing in good teacher.
Otherwise, only private school promote good education, so private school gets good teacher = good pay.
Good educated country = Higher quality of Job and research. Higher incomes for the country.
Not everyone has the money to send they kids in school that can provide them a good teaching.
Public health. I have to disagree once again. Life is not business. I wouldn't bet on my life with a damn insurance. What the hell!
Insurances already make fuss when it is to pay you back because your car got hit. What is it about health. Health is not money. It's human life, not a statistic.
Yes it's expansive. Yes it is a challenge for Governements. Yes some doctor earn 250 000$ a year and it's not enough for them. But you don't choose to get sick and some don't. And it's a bit of humanity to take care of this people if they can't.
Why 700 bn$ for Irak and an other 850bn$ for Stock Markets?? At the end why do you pay taxes? I wouldn't. Governement does't do nothing for you.
I accidentally erased the first part of the last paragraph regarding my fix on people that do not work.
Those people have these charitible institutions to park their bodies in those places.
Otherwise, they could be arrested for vagrancy.
The rest, of course have government support to help their survival as a result of their conditions .
That last sentence gave me a laugh. Ha ha
Growng your own garden is like growing dollars since you start with a seed you can save or had saved. Also an excellent hobby for a retiree.
This involves work but you do get paid when harvest time comes around.
I noticed that you recognize that jobs are the best way to promote a thriving economy since you did not question that solution.
Cosmo
Double post .
Cosmo
Cosmo; Your not very charitable to those poor, by choice and won't participate in society. Unfortunately in your plan, your going to need a good many new prisons. People that don't WANT to work are doing just that today.
People working or participating in the economy, paying their taxes and abiding laws are essential to any society. I just don't think its governments job to supply those jobs.
Thought that 'garden' comment would have meaning to you, remembering you did garden, when you had a home.
That 2nd paragraph would apply to me.
On a minimum subsistance level, I was able to donate about 20-25% 0f my income to the Environmentalist and Animal Rightists plus politics with lesser amounts.
Regarding the economy, we need the workers, consumers and the providers.
But if government supports only the providers, who is going to create the goods besides Nature?
Cosmo
Many people do want to work but some just can't. For many reason. Vets for example.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4368682.shtml
But maybe it's because they want to go prisonAn estimated 300,000 veterans from the two wars have come home with mental health problems, so-called invisible wounds, and about the same number suffered head injuries, according to a private study by the RAND Corp. think tank. Associated problems can include depression, flashbacks, irritability, headaches and short-term memory loss.
For those in the National Guard and Reserves, returning to a civilian job at a workplace such as a bank or firehouse can be difficult as they make the transition while trying to cope with new issues. Also, some veterans have complained that they can't find work after leaving the military because employers are hesitant to hire them.Nicer there
timel; Adding realism to life's natural drama, is not showing fairness to the millions who experience daily trauma or those that accept duty in obviously dangerous places. Bad things happen everyday, accidents on the road, shooting and killing in every city and serving in places where cultural difference (alone) can traumatize the very best of us. I am just as sure, the hundreds of thousand that have been wounded, patched up and returned to duty, would tell those people to get off their butt, face life's ups/downs and move on, the world is not here to supports your problems. Six thousand plus people die in the US EVERY DAY, not on the battlefield, with no less effects on people in their lives. Flash backs, sometimes are good things...I have them daily, thinking of 9-11, my days in the Air Force, driving down some road, seeing 8 dead people from one accident or any number of events in my life. Those 300k, are some of the lucky ones and still live.
Cosmo; Good for you and your benevolent nature. I would question the usefulness of your preferences, but the intend is fine.
Government intrusion into the Corporate Structure, will lose jobs for Americans. The small business (70%) person finds it less attractive to attempt or put everything on the line to end up giving the profits to Government and Big Business (30%) has no obligation to stay in the US.
Well, machines/robots/computers/technology have replaced so many jobs, its no longer a question of who makes what, but finding a means to support a family. This isn't the 20's to 80's, when the working man/woman was the back bone of every business Producer/purchaser and government sought their support. Keep up this socialism trend, governments will become the providers equal to that of the mid-evil days. Talk about a few rich people....
The machines are built by workers also.
But do those machines buy cars and houses? By reducing the buyers in our economy because of reduced jobs does NOT create a thriving economy.
If you think that this techology and buying abroad for cheap labor is the source of a thriving economy, THINK again, because it takes BUYERS to keep the economy thriving, NOT DOLLAR STUFFING by a small self serving cult .
Cosmo
.
Cosmo; Trying not to become to specific, what your seeing today is the shut down of the investor. The worker, as you seem to be portraying as the poor, in the end are the victims. Lost jobs, probably heavy reductions in benefits and losing the dollar pool for welfare programs. What you continuously deny is that the rich don't participate in economy and continuously try to emphasize, that they hold up the economy. Government intervention by trying to socialize home ownership and manipulating loaning practices have created a nightmare scenario, where everybody has or will lose. Top this off and because its an election year, government and both with the apparent blessing of both major parties, has stimulated this into a worldwide crisis. What worries me and not for myself, is the end results looking not far ahead, will be the socialization of the American people or if you prefer the downfall of Free/Trade Capitalism in the US. We could very well as a nation be dependent on other nations which have been heading an opposite direction in recent years and with out a doubt many haters of freedoms, enemies of the US and those looking for the 'end of humanity' for religious reasons will try to do just that...end humanity, at least as you and I have enjoyed or had the opportunity to do.
Jacksin
You do not seem to understand that this current economic problem is a US wide problem that is affecting the states and cities.
These government agencies are required to maintain a balanced budget and are then cutting their staffs of regular employees that are not on welfare.
This then includes police, firemen and etc.
So if anyone should have gotten help from those welfare dollars, than they
should have been given those subsidies.. To the states and cities to save thise jobs. These are needed services, not those loan agencies that can only provide loans to the workers, not to the unemployed.
So preserving jobs for regular employees is more important that giving welfare to the wealthy.
They have enough dollars to bail themselves out of their mess.
Cosmo
| « Estimates of the future | So... Obama won. Feelings? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
