Monday, November 24, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Ten Recurring Characteristics of U.S. Capitalist Heyday Booms
from "Bad Money" by Kevin Phillips 2008 -
note: Phillips was in the Nixon administration and in the 70's helped found the modern (economically conservative) Republican party
Ten Recurring Characteristics of U.S. Capitalist Heyday Booms
The Late-Nineteenth-Century Gilded Age, The Roaring Twenties, and the Post-1982 Second Gilded Age
1. Conservative politics: mostly Republican presidents but several conservative Democrats
2. Normative support for reduced government: Laissez-faire, reduced regulation, deregulation, privatization.
3. Poor climate for labor: Hostility to unions, declining union membership, loss of influence
4. Large-scale corporate restructuring: Rise of trusts, consolidation and merger waves, holding companies, leveraged buyouts
5. Tax reduction: Reduction or elimination of wartime taxes, reduction of top personal income tax rates
6. Disinflation or deflation: Return to hard currency, productivity gains, tight monetary policy.
7. Two-tier economy: Difficult times in agricultural and mining regions and old industrial areas; booms in emerging industrial, service, and financial centers
8. Concentration of wealth: Huge gains in the top 1 percent of wealth income relative to the rest of the population
9. Increased debt and speculation: Major increases in individual and corporate debt, innovation in types of credit and debt instruments, heavy speculation.
10. Speculative implosions and stock market crashes: 1873, 1893, 1929, 1987, 2000, and 2007 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
now 2008 -
Dow Jones in July - 10,831
today - 8579 a 20% drop and still plummeting despite bailout.
In 1982, the Dow Jones was - 777
Some other figures to take note of -
Highest Paid CEO -
1981 - R. Genin of Schlumberger - $5.7 million annual
2007 - Steve Jobs of Apple - $650 million annual
Total U.S. financial and nonfinancial debt in billions
1974 2006
Domestic financial $258 $14,184
Foreign financial $81 $1,764
Total nonfinancial business $821 $9,031
Total household $680 $12,873
Federal Government $358 $4,885
State and Local Government $208 $2,007
Total $2,407 $44,744
Growth of Debt of the U.S. Financial Sector as a % of GDP - 1969-2006
1969 12%
1979 21%
1989 44%
1999 82%
2004 104%
2006 107%
It hasn't always been like this . . . From about 1935 to about 1975 we had stable debt levels relative to our economy.
Then came the 70's oil crises and our economy started to recede.
We had a choice then (or I should say our parents had a choice).
We could have tightened our belts and got back to work and probably would have come out of it OK. This is what Jimmy Carter asked the American people to do and he was ridiculed.
Instead we (our parents) elected Ronald Reagan who promised "A City On a Hill". He aligned his own blind-faith trust in capitalism with religious fanaticism and won the election.
He, Clinton and the George Bushes have been running the government credit card ever since. All the while allowing the financial services sector of our economy to profit at the expense of others.
Our current national (governmental) debt just exceeded $10 trillion dollars.
Some economists estimate the the TOTAL material wealth of the entire planet - that is, the entire value of EVERY THING on the planet if one were to buy it, would be about $100 trillion.
Our financial sectors have been dealing with largely fictitious transactions and products like derivatives and CDOs with notional values of about $500 trillion dollars.
To believe these people are actually creating wealth is the equivalent of someone in the Dark Ages believing an Alchemist could make gold out of pewter and stone.
So the 1970's sucked economically. Everyone who remembers the decade can attest to it.
But that was a real economy as it had been since the 1930's.
Our entire existence, for most of us, our entire life's duration, has been artificially created to make it seem like we are a wealthy nation.
Indeed we are. We have food, shelter, clothing, and amenities well beyond the standards of most in the world.
But we always need what we want now. And not later. No savings. No production. No hard work (is typing on a computer all day really so hard, compared to mining with no shoes like in Bangladesh?).
A decision was made, in about 1982 to get what we wanted - then. And they charge the bill to their children - us.
What have we gotten for it?
Consumer products? Flat Screen TV's? Laptops that break every 2 years? Bloomin' Onions at Applebees? Six Flags?
Is it worth it?
As you continue to watch the Dow Jones plummet, possibly back to natural levels in the following days(dare I say about 1000 is natural), even as the last ditch effort that was the Paulson bailout fails to stop the bleeding, think about this:
It was Ronald Reagan who said lowering taxes would allow wealth to trickle down - see inner city Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Newark, Trenton, or the thousands of small towns nearly deserted across Texas, Missouri, Ohio, etc. How'd that trickle down work again? Is that it?
It was Ronald Reagan who encouraged pension funds, saved up over years by union members, to be invested into the financial sector. Now such invested retirement funds are commonplace and as the stock market drops our parents, who thought they were retired, will either have to come back to the work force or we'll have to foot the bill of their retirement.
It was Ronald Reagan who encouraged deregulation as a means to spark investment, leading to the 1989 crash and over time the re-emergence of the same economic activity that lead to the late 19th century and 1920's conditions that preceded intense recessions each of which generated domestic civil unrest and World Wars.
It was Ronald Reagan who intentionally ran up the deficit so that government could no longer function and would have to cut services, especially welfare. Which government would you rather have? A "big" one that provided some basic services less efficiently than private companies, but paid its bills? Or our current one which essentially doesn't function at all except in spending and inflating money?
Again, I remind you. It wasn't like this before Ronald Reagan.
Now,
I don't believe a lot of what John McCain says these days, but I do believe him when he says "Ronald Reagan is my hero". To him, and most of the Republican party this is something to be proud of.
Remember that as you think about voting this month, all the while watching the "City on a Hill" falls precipitously down the mountain.
Monday, September 29, 2008
One more rant, this time with a Social Conservative
Another series of rants on www.realclearpolitics.com , this time it gets ugly and I get threatened with bodily harm by a social conservative.
 | Sep 29, 06:36 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
What about the fact that Reagonomics leads to Pelosinomics? If you go too extreme in one way you get a reaction from the other side. Maybe if from 2000-2006 the Republicans actually dismantled government and maintained fiscal responsibility instead of talking about Terri Schiavo and Freedom Fries we might not be confronted with a blowback from so called "socialists" in Congress.
I wish we had a choice today to bailout Halliburton and Lockheed Martin but they're still running away with profits. Sound investment. The economics of destruction never ceases to pay dividends. And you're complaining about government special interest that encourages people to have homes and rebuilds neighborhoods? Even if its a flawed waste, you're fine with spending how much of our money on the war in Iraq? And that's been just a model of efficiency.
Neither side knows what their doing, but at least Obama has some new ideas. And if you read his policies there's actually attention to the unintended consequences of the Democratic policies you mentioned above. At least he's aware of the consequences of his idealism. You free marketeers are completely oblivious to anything that doesn't nestle right into you fairy tale worldview.
Trickle down economics doesn't work. Mmm, can you taste that trickle?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a working chump, your view doesn't give me much to work for. I might as well jump on the gravy train. I don't like what I see when I look up or down but I am totally against a socialist state. Too oppressive for me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish we had a choice today to bailout Halliburton and Lockheed Martin but they're still running away with profits. Sound investment. The economics of destruction never ceases to pay dividends. And you're complaining about government special interest that encourages people to have homes and rebuilds neighborhoods? Even if its a flawed waste, you're fine with spending how much of our money on the war in Iraq? And that's been just a model of efficiency.
Neither side knows what their doing, but at least Obama has some new ideas. And if you read his policies there's actually attention to the unintended consequences of the Democratic policies you mentioned above. At least he's aware of the consequences of his idealism. You free marketeers are completely oblivious to anything that doesn't nestle right into you fairy tale worldview.
Trickle down economics doesn't work. Mmm, can you taste that trickle?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sep 29, 06:43 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Sep 29, 07:15 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
Thought experiment - would Obama sign off on a Bridge to Nowhere? Bush did. Which one represents socialism and big government waste?
Obama's biggest problem is with unrelated measures stuffed within bills. He doesn't owe Congressional democrats much and won't tolerate unilateral legislation. He legitimately sees where Republicans are coming from and even though he may have an ideal like healthcare for all that he is approaching from a particular point of view, he knows its doomed to failure if Republicans think its too extreme. For example, he's not mandating healthcare for all. He's merely providing access to government healthcare which will remove the power of the pharmaceutical and insurance oligopolies that have choked prices up unnaturally. Isn't sort of like a orthodox economics? Providing an economy of scale in order to reduce costs?
Another thought experiment. McCain comes in and wants to clear out the bums. Unless he becomes dictator, I don't see how he will accomplish one thing. How does he intend to do this? He's going to clean up Washington by passing what legislation? Even the Republicans today are revolting from his directives, they're going to let him take them on? Is he going to work with Democrats to compromise on programs completely antithetical to his ideological worldview. The only times he's reached across the aisle is when he sought to punish his own party. He's never taken up a Democratic issue and tried to convince his party of its merits. His debate performance demonstrates he has no respect for alternative points of view. I mean, he's faulting Obama for saying "I agree with John McCain". That's supposed to be be where you say, "OK thanks, now let's figure out where we disagree and resolve that". This isn't tennis or war. You're supposed to be seeking to govern.
What you address above is a structural inability within American government to civilly reached compromise. Instead you have pendulum swings of equally ill effects.
Obama has airs, for sure. Its the air of respect. This is the essential change we need.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Obama's biggest problem is with unrelated measures stuffed within bills. He doesn't owe Congressional democrats much and won't tolerate unilateral legislation. He legitimately sees where Republicans are coming from and even though he may have an ideal like healthcare for all that he is approaching from a particular point of view, he knows its doomed to failure if Republicans think its too extreme. For example, he's not mandating healthcare for all. He's merely providing access to government healthcare which will remove the power of the pharmaceutical and insurance oligopolies that have choked prices up unnaturally. Isn't sort of like a orthodox economics? Providing an economy of scale in order to reduce costs?
Another thought experiment. McCain comes in and wants to clear out the bums. Unless he becomes dictator, I don't see how he will accomplish one thing. How does he intend to do this? He's going to clean up Washington by passing what legislation? Even the Republicans today are revolting from his directives, they're going to let him take them on? Is he going to work with Democrats to compromise on programs completely antithetical to his ideological worldview. The only times he's reached across the aisle is when he sought to punish his own party. He's never taken up a Democratic issue and tried to convince his party of its merits. His debate performance demonstrates he has no respect for alternative points of view. I mean, he's faulting Obama for saying "I agree with John McCain". That's supposed to be be where you say, "OK thanks, now let's figure out where we disagree and resolve that". This isn't tennis or war. You're supposed to be seeking to govern.
What you address above is a structural inability within American government to civilly reached compromise. Instead you have pendulum swings of equally ill effects.
Obama has airs, for sure. Its the air of respect. This is the essential change we need.
-------------------------------------------------------------
| | Sep 29, 07:02 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
worldsfairdesign Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about the fact that Reagonomics leads to
> Pelosinomics? If you go too extreme in one way
> you get a reaction from the other side. Maybe if
> from 2000-2006 the Republicans actually dismantled
> government and maintained fiscal responsibility
> instead of talking about Terri Schiavo and Freedom
> Fries we might not be confronted with a blowback
> from so called "socialists" in Congress.
>
Hey, worldsfairdesign,
Let's take the gloves off jacka$$.
RE: Terri Schiavo
A conscious woman was murdered by starving her to death over a period of three weeks.
I despise you bleeding heart liberals who defend serial pediphilic-mulitple-torturer-murderers from a 3 minute fast and virtually painless death, but you have the audacity to murder a helpless conscious woman through Hilterian concentration camp methods; or murdering live born babies.
Come back to me and let's have this one out if you have the crust for it.
Terri Schiavo was a thinking feeling person who was murdered in cold blood through an extended torturous method!
There is a special place in hell for you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about the fact that Reagonomics leads to
> Pelosinomics? If you go too extreme in one way
> you get a reaction from the other side. Maybe if
> from 2000-2006 the Republicans actually dismantled
> government and maintained fiscal responsibility
> instead of talking about Terri Schiavo and Freedom
> Fries we might not be confronted with a blowback
> from so called "socialists" in Congress.
>
Hey, worldsfairdesign,
Let's take the gloves off jacka$$.
RE: Terri Schiavo
A conscious woman was murdered by starving her to death over a period of three weeks.
I despise you bleeding heart liberals who defend serial pediphilic-mulitple-torturer-murderers from a 3 minute fast and virtually painless death, but you have the audacity to murder a helpless conscious woman through Hilterian concentration camp methods; or murdering live born babies.
Come back to me and let's have this one out if you have the crust for it.
Terri Schiavo was a thinking feeling person who was murdered in cold blood through an extended torturous method!
There is a special place in hell for you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Sep 29, 07:31 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
> Hey, worldsfairdesign,
>
> Let's take the gloves off jacka$$.
>
> RE: Terri Schiavo
>
> A conscious woman was murdered by starving her to
> death over a period of three weeks.
>
> I despise you bleeding heart liberals who defend
> serial pediphilic-mulitple-torturer-murderers from
> a 3 minute fast and virtually painless death, but
> you have the audacity to murder a helpless
> conscious woman through Hilterian concentration
> camp methods; or murdering live born babies.
>
> Come back to me and let's have this one out if you
> have the crust for it.
>
>
> Terri Schiavo was a thinking feeling person who
> was murdered in cold blood through an extended
> torturous method!
>
> There is a special place in hell for you.
Just wondering what it had to do with small government and fiscal responsibility. The author seems to speaking to a fear of letting a Democratic president and Democratic congress have their way.
I was happy to discuss the Terry Schiavo case in a public setting perhaps on Fox News which could have held public forums with the equivalent airtime it spent documenting Congressional sessions. Euthanasia an important, deeply moral choice. As is abortion.
In the case of Terry Schiavo, I think there is some humanity in either decision, and I don't think the husband took his decision lightly. Even after thinking thoroughly on this matter its hard to know how I feel about this, and the government certainly did nothing to help me make such a judgment.
In the case of abortion, my faith leads me to a morality in which I do think life begins at the moment of conception. If I had the choice (which I find difficult to say as a man) I would choose life. But that is my faith and I've heard others of other faith give equally thoughtful regard in other directions.
I just don't think the government has any business in legislating these moral issues. They are based off religious and philosophical principles, and last time I checked the constitution protected a plurality of religious beliefs.
Suppose I imposed my moral belief on you that it is evil to engage in moneylending activity, as I do, as it is written in the Bible. Would that be OK with you?
Suppose I said you couldn't worship false idols, like the Evangelical preachers such as the pedophile Tony Alamo? Would that be OK with you?
My point is that Republicans came into power this decade and had an excess of it. They could have legislated every last fiscally responsible, conservative agenda item they wanted if they'd only worked hard.
If they didn't spend all their time demonizing liberals for being atheists and homos they could have actually done something to reduce abortions if not possibly reverting the legislation to the states, where I think such a law should reside even as a Liberal.
My point is that there's as much to fear of a Democratic autocracy as the Republican. But I have faith, that the Democrats actually want to get some things done.
>
> Let's take the gloves off jacka$$.
>
> RE: Terri Schiavo
>
> A conscious woman was murdered by starving her to
> death over a period of three weeks.
>
> I despise you bleeding heart liberals who defend
> serial pediphilic-mulitple-torturer-murderers from
> a 3 minute fast and virtually painless death, but
> you have the audacity to murder a helpless
> conscious woman through Hilterian concentration
> camp methods; or murdering live born babies.
>
> Come back to me and let's have this one out if you
> have the crust for it.
>
>
> Terri Schiavo was a thinking feeling person who
> was murdered in cold blood through an extended
> torturous method!
>
> There is a special place in hell for you.
Just wondering what it had to do with small government and fiscal responsibility. The author seems to speaking to a fear of letting a Democratic president and Democratic congress have their way.
I was happy to discuss the Terry Schiavo case in a public setting perhaps on Fox News which could have held public forums with the equivalent airtime it spent documenting Congressional sessions. Euthanasia an important, deeply moral choice. As is abortion.
In the case of Terry Schiavo, I think there is some humanity in either decision, and I don't think the husband took his decision lightly. Even after thinking thoroughly on this matter its hard to know how I feel about this, and the government certainly did nothing to help me make such a judgment.
In the case of abortion, my faith leads me to a morality in which I do think life begins at the moment of conception. If I had the choice (which I find difficult to say as a man) I would choose life. But that is my faith and I've heard others of other faith give equally thoughtful regard in other directions.
I just don't think the government has any business in legislating these moral issues. They are based off religious and philosophical principles, and last time I checked the constitution protected a plurality of religious beliefs.
Suppose I imposed my moral belief on you that it is evil to engage in moneylending activity, as I do, as it is written in the Bible. Would that be OK with you?
Suppose I said you couldn't worship false idols, like the Evangelical preachers such as the pedophile Tony Alamo? Would that be OK with you?
My point is that Republicans came into power this decade and had an excess of it. They could have legislated every last fiscally responsible, conservative agenda item they wanted if they'd only worked hard.
If they didn't spend all their time demonizing liberals for being atheists and homos they could have actually done something to reduce abortions if not possibly reverting the legislation to the states, where I think such a law should reside even as a Liberal.
My point is that there's as much to fear of a Democratic autocracy as the Republican. But I have faith, that the Democrats actually want to get some things done.
I Love Arguing With Conservatives Online
Recently I've been getting really into pointless commentary back and forth with free marketeers. A lot of the times I'm kind of bullshitting, but not nearly as much as they are. Here's some excerpts from today's debate on realclearmarkets.com
------------------------
| Sep 29, 01:00 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
When was the last there was an actual free market in place?
Throughout the history of capitalism (which did not exist as separate from society until 150 years ago) there have been continuous pressure to restore order and avoid the dangers of a truly free market. The free marketeers always blame these measures for disturbing their ideal vision of a naturally equilibrating market on the unions and government pressures for regulation. 'If it weren't for those damned collective bargainers and long term interest government initiatives the world wouldn't be as bad as it is.' If both diametric trends have existed throughout the development of society, how do you know it hasn't been the free market that has caused most if not all of the problems we find today? Where is your evidence that your pure capitalism actually works outside of mathematical models?
What is the market for? The material distribution of wealth. What wealth has Wall Street created since the fiscal conservatives have been in power? What has trickled down? More useless commodities and international and domestic debt. I agree that we should let the market work freely, but not as the basis of our entire society. We need to reembed markets into society and ensure that it meets societal needs. This will require more government intervention in the form of breaking up monopolies and dismantling obsolete industries that no longer serve a material purpose.
Unfortunately the current and past government intervention is the inevitable result of the economic structure of capitalism. Their revenues are dependent on the growth of the market. They, like the shady brokers that caused the housing bubble, have an interest in having the most transactions take place to garnish taxes. Modern government, especially in the US, provides next to no services, and when they do they are pathetically poor and inefficient because they have unskilled, useless employees at the helm while their counterparts in the private sector make more for the same job. No wonder institutions like FEMA and Medicare and the educational system are dysfunctional.
It would be great if the government didn't have to prop up business. It would be great if it actually could function as idealistically as you propose in your utopian vision that is as ludicrous as the equitable vision of Communism. This would mean the end of overbloated Economics and Business schools and Law Schools and a return to what human society is all about. Which you're telling me is to get as much profit as possible? If this was taken to its further conclusion. Why would profits ever trickle down except in the purchase of luxury items and other useless commodities?
You're talking about the displacements of people from their homes in Florida and California. These are people, not numbers. What if there was an invisible hand that forced you out of your home suddenly. What if it was because someone told you some abstract concept of supply and demand meant your home value would go up forever? You know, Western society is (or at least used to be) the only society in which it was acceptable for one person to starve unless the entire community was starving. We say its their own fault. Get a job. How can a society as wealthy as ours not feed or shelter or maintain the health our entire population? When someone like the CEO of Goldman Sachs, or Steven Spielberg, or Bill Gates, or whoever is sitting on this accumulated wealth we have the gall to say, "we can't give this person food because it disrupts the functioning of our economy". Or "we should let people live out on the street or in their cars because they misunderstood their finances and the market needs to correct itself"?
Does this make you feel good about yourself? Is the utopian ideal you want to continue to perpetrate?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the history of capitalism (which did not exist as separate from society until 150 years ago) there have been continuous pressure to restore order and avoid the dangers of a truly free market. The free marketeers always blame these measures for disturbing their ideal vision of a naturally equilibrating market on the unions and government pressures for regulation. 'If it weren't for those damned collective bargainers and long term interest government initiatives the world wouldn't be as bad as it is.' If both diametric trends have existed throughout the development of society, how do you know it hasn't been the free market that has caused most if not all of the problems we find today? Where is your evidence that your pure capitalism actually works outside of mathematical models?
What is the market for? The material distribution of wealth. What wealth has Wall Street created since the fiscal conservatives have been in power? What has trickled down? More useless commodities and international and domestic debt. I agree that we should let the market work freely, but not as the basis of our entire society. We need to reembed markets into society and ensure that it meets societal needs. This will require more government intervention in the form of breaking up monopolies and dismantling obsolete industries that no longer serve a material purpose.
Unfortunately the current and past government intervention is the inevitable result of the economic structure of capitalism. Their revenues are dependent on the growth of the market. They, like the shady brokers that caused the housing bubble, have an interest in having the most transactions take place to garnish taxes. Modern government, especially in the US, provides next to no services, and when they do they are pathetically poor and inefficient because they have unskilled, useless employees at the helm while their counterparts in the private sector make more for the same job. No wonder institutions like FEMA and Medicare and the educational system are dysfunctional.
It would be great if the government didn't have to prop up business. It would be great if it actually could function as idealistically as you propose in your utopian vision that is as ludicrous as the equitable vision of Communism. This would mean the end of overbloated Economics and Business schools and Law Schools and a return to what human society is all about. Which you're telling me is to get as much profit as possible? If this was taken to its further conclusion. Why would profits ever trickle down except in the purchase of luxury items and other useless commodities?
You're talking about the displacements of people from their homes in Florida and California. These are people, not numbers. What if there was an invisible hand that forced you out of your home suddenly. What if it was because someone told you some abstract concept of supply and demand meant your home value would go up forever? You know, Western society is (or at least used to be) the only society in which it was acceptable for one person to starve unless the entire community was starving. We say its their own fault. Get a job. How can a society as wealthy as ours not feed or shelter or maintain the health our entire population? When someone like the CEO of Goldman Sachs, or Steven Spielberg, or Bill Gates, or whoever is sitting on this accumulated wealth we have the gall to say, "we can't give this person food because it disrupts the functioning of our economy". Or "we should let people live out on the street or in their cars because they misunderstood their finances and the market needs to correct itself"?
Does this make you feel good about yourself? Is the utopian ideal you want to continue to perpetrate?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sep 29, 01:04 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
how many people do you expect one american taxpayer to support?
live isn't fair no...and you wouldn't be blogging on your computer if bill gates hadn't done what he did but, i guess he should have just done that for the betterment of mankind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
live isn't fair no...and you wouldn't be blogging on your computer if bill gates hadn't done what he did but, i guess he should have just done that for the betterment of mankind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Sep 29, 01:19 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
No one said anything about taxes. I agree taxes are the percentage equivalent of slavery in that the government controls our labor. But the majority of our taxes goes to prop up business. Case in point our military intervention in the Middle East. How is that a free market?
What about companies that extract resources and pollute our land? We could get our tax revenue from this is you'd like?
What about Firefox? They seem to have done just fine without running a monopoly for profit. Bill Gates stole most of his ideas and use the government legal system to protect his property rights to overcharge consumers for things he often didn't even develop.
The only way the free market would ever work in satisfying material needs on your terms is if the government consistently dismantled monopolies and useless corporations that don't serve societal needs. For example, why do we need a spray that freezes dog poop? Because everyone has the individual right to profit?
If everyone has individual rights, why doesn't an individual have the right to stop work and strike? Why can't they bargain for their wages if they are supposedly selling it freely?
All I'm saying, is your free market doesn't exist, so stop using it as a model for success. Your terms aren't useful to me. I have everything I materially need. Food, clothing, and shelter. And a few novelties that I could have spent a lot more money on if they meant so much to me, Bill Gates or no. Your assumption is that capitalism is the only way to progress civilization. Civilization has consistently progressed before the advent of capitalism and our dogmatic allegiance to this religion has caused a great many sacrifices in human culture and progress. Perhaps as much as we have gained.
rebekahhuang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how many people do you expect one american
> taxpayer to support?
> live isn't fair no...and you wouldn't be blogging
> on your computer if bill gates hadn't done what he
> did but, i guess he should have just done that for
> the betterment of mankind.
What about companies that extract resources and pollute our land? We could get our tax revenue from this is you'd like?
What about Firefox? They seem to have done just fine without running a monopoly for profit. Bill Gates stole most of his ideas and use the government legal system to protect his property rights to overcharge consumers for things he often didn't even develop.
The only way the free market would ever work in satisfying material needs on your terms is if the government consistently dismantled monopolies and useless corporations that don't serve societal needs. For example, why do we need a spray that freezes dog poop? Because everyone has the individual right to profit?
If everyone has individual rights, why doesn't an individual have the right to stop work and strike? Why can't they bargain for their wages if they are supposedly selling it freely?
All I'm saying, is your free market doesn't exist, so stop using it as a model for success. Your terms aren't useful to me. I have everything I materially need. Food, clothing, and shelter. And a few novelties that I could have spent a lot more money on if they meant so much to me, Bill Gates or no. Your assumption is that capitalism is the only way to progress civilization. Civilization has consistently progressed before the advent of capitalism and our dogmatic allegiance to this religion has caused a great many sacrifices in human culture and progress. Perhaps as much as we have gained.
rebekahhuang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how many people do you expect one american
> taxpayer to support?
> live isn't fair no...and you wouldn't be blogging
> on your computer if bill gates hadn't done what he
> did but, i guess he should have just done that for
> the betterment of mankind.
| | Sep 29, 01:31 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
i'm proud of you comrade that you have all you need but , i refute your right to assess how and what i need. i will take care of my self.
mmmm, sounds like you have a lot of issues with a lot of people and mostly the successful ones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Baloney Grinder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> worldsfairdesign Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When was the last there was an actual free
> market
> > in place?
> >
> > Throughout the history of capitalism (which did
> > not exist as separate from society until 150
> years
> > ago) there have been continuous pressure to
> > restore order and avoid the dangers of a truly
> > free market.
>
> Commerce, Invention and Free Trade have existed
> for all of written human history and probably
> thousands of years before that.
>
> "Communism" "also operationally practiced in the
> animal and insect world" however has always been
> an abject failure among humans.
>
> The world's greatest civilizations were always
> founded on the rule of law, trade, commerce and
> invention. These civilizations include (but are
> not limited to), Adam and Eve, the Egyptian, the
> Judean, the Persian, the Greek, the Roman, the
> Holy Roman, Great Britain and the United States.
>
> Learn it. Love it. Don't leave it.
Economics existed in the form of householding, merchants, currency etc. But if you look at the actual structure of all of the societies you mentioned, the economy was a minor component of what mattered to them.
For example, in Rome, all the people were fed. Even slaves.
you mention Adam and Eve, but I'm assuming you wouldn't want to go back to the actual realization of Christian economics in which moneylending was prohibited by faith and parishes provided for their poor and sick our of charity entirely - without any input from economics other than contributions from landowners and alms.
This is the oldest, and falsest claim in the book. Both economics and communism have existed in forms throughout history. That doesn't mean there was a free market and that profit and competition were the basis of society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
mmmm, sounds like you have a lot of issues with a lot of people and mostly the successful ones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sep 29, 01:36 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
worldsfairdesign Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When was the last there was an actual free market
> in place?
>
> Throughout the history of capitalism (which did
> not exist as separate from society until 150 years
> ago) there have been continuous pressure to
> restore order and avoid the dangers of a truly
> free market.
Commerce, Invention and Free Trade have existed for all of written human history and probably thousands of years before that.
"Communism" "also operationally practiced in the animal and insect world" however has always been an abject failure among humans.
The world's greatest civilizations were always founded on the rule of law, trade, commerce and invention. These civilizations include (but are not limited to), Adam and Eve, the Egyptian, the Judean, the Persian, the Greek, the Roman, the Holy Roman, Great Britain and the United States.
Learn it. Love it. Don't leave it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> When was the last there was an actual free market
> in place?
>
> Throughout the history of capitalism (which did
> not exist as separate from society until 150 years
> ago) there have been continuous pressure to
> restore order and avoid the dangers of a truly
> free market.
Commerce, Invention and Free Trade have existed for all of written human history and probably thousands of years before that.
"Communism" "also operationally practiced in the animal and insect world" however has always been an abject failure among humans.
The world's greatest civilizations were always founded on the rule of law, trade, commerce and invention. These civilizations include (but are not limited to), Adam and Eve, the Egyptian, the Judean, the Persian, the Greek, the Roman, the Holy Roman, Great Britain and the United States.
Learn it. Love it. Don't leave it.
| | Sep 29, 01:37 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
I actually own a successful small business and have consistently been prevented from attaining profit by monopolies. I'm not a Communist. I'm saying Liberal free market ideology is as utopian and as unrealistic.
I'm also saying that government intervention is the inevitable outcome of your agenda in many ways. So stop complaining about it get a better goal and life's work than getting as much profit as possible.
There are other more important things.
Free market is fine, but regulation would be an essential component of ensuring an ACTUAL free market would exist. You fat cats would not be as rich in this circumstance and have historically prevented such a free market from actually becoming manifest.
As in this bailout. As soon as it affects you, its a crisis. Not when thousands of human beings have lost their home and livelihood.
rebekahhuang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i'm proud of you comrade that you have all you
> need but , i refute your right to assess how and
> what i need. i will take care of my self.
> mmmm, sounds like you have a lot of issues with a
> lot of people and mostly the successful ones.
I'm also saying that government intervention is the inevitable outcome of your agenda in many ways. So stop complaining about it get a better goal and life's work than getting as much profit as possible.
There are other more important things.
Free market is fine, but regulation would be an essential component of ensuring an ACTUAL free market would exist. You fat cats would not be as rich in this circumstance and have historically prevented such a free market from actually becoming manifest.
As in this bailout. As soon as it affects you, its a crisis. Not when thousands of human beings have lost their home and livelihood.
rebekahhuang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i'm proud of you comrade that you have all you
> need but , i refute your right to assess how and
> what i need. i will take care of my self.
> mmmm, sounds like you have a lot of issues with a
> lot of people and mostly the successful ones.
| | Sep 29, 01:43 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
The Baloney Grinder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> worldsfairdesign Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When was the last there was an actual free
> market
> > in place?
> >
> > Throughout the history of capitalism (which did
> > not exist as separate from society until 150
> years
> > ago) there have been continuous pressure to
> > restore order and avoid the dangers of a truly
> > free market.
>
> Commerce, Invention and Free Trade have existed
> for all of written human history and probably
> thousands of years before that.
>
> "Communism" "also operationally practiced in the
> animal and insect world" however has always been
> an abject failure among humans.
>
> The world's greatest civilizations were always
> founded on the rule of law, trade, commerce and
> invention. These civilizations include (but are
> not limited to), Adam and Eve, the Egyptian, the
> Judean, the Persian, the Greek, the Roman, the
> Holy Roman, Great Britain and the United States.
>
> Learn it. Love it. Don't leave it.
Economics existed in the form of householding, merchants, currency etc. But if you look at the actual structure of all of the societies you mentioned, the economy was a minor component of what mattered to them.
For example, in Rome, all the people were fed. Even slaves.
you mention Adam and Eve, but I'm assuming you wouldn't want to go back to the actual realization of Christian economics in which moneylending was prohibited by faith and parishes provided for their poor and sick our of charity entirely - without any input from economics other than contributions from landowners and alms.
This is the oldest, and falsest claim in the book. Both economics and communism have existed in forms throughout history. That doesn't mean there was a free market and that profit and competition were the basis of society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sep 29, 02:36 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
all the people were fed, even slaves?!?!? are you serious? no one in rome went hungry?
look you don't like capitalism...fine. why live in america? you just sound bitter. "i don't have as much as my neighbor so he should share."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
look you don't like capitalism...fine. why live in america? you just sound bitter. "i don't have as much as my neighbor so he should share."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sep 29, 03:33 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
People went hungry in Rome, but it was the policy to feed everyone. Maybe it was the bare minimum, and maybe slaves were mistreated and starved, but it wasn't based on our economic system, which is essentially that it is ok to let someone starve while next door someone else is drinking champagne on their yacht.
As I said before, I'm doing fine. I don't need anyone's handout. I think most people can do without government assistance. That's not what I'm talking about. I was just arguing that saying economic activity existed in history doesn't mean that the society was based entirely on economics as it is today.
I don't think capitalism is bad. Its just not independent of society or government and can never be. To continue to argue as if this were possible is detrimental to understanding what is actually going on.
I'm not saying capitalism is wrong, it just needs to be regulated in a very specific way that is not being done because there's this irrational ideology of libertarianism which has its head in the cloud if you think people won't take advantage of other people if the market opens up into complete freedom. Without government protection it would immediately descend into monopoly. See Russia for what happens when you have a free market with a weak government.
Say's Law is incorrect. Ricardo is incorrect. Perhaps Mises is onto something, but if you actually switched back to the gold standard all hell would break loose.
The oft quoted Smith primarily wrote Wealth of Nations so that government could remove itself from the day to day maintenance of the market. He did not say there should be no taxes or no government. He said government should get to the business of fulfilling all the needs not adequately covered by the market. It was his intention that the market would provide revenues for these extra-marketservices.
And if McCain is elected. Yes, I will leave this country, as will many other intelligent people who are sick of letting this country of great ideals (where does it mention a free market in the constitution?) ruin itself. Its well documented that our current leveraged system of governance is pushing America into decline, especially via the overextension of the military and the cowardice of politicians who won't admit that our entitlement programs are going bankrupt. I wonder if the first generation of post-imperialist Brits realized that their hegemony was over. Or were there a bunch of conservatives pushing for the good old days and blaming all the responsible people who looked at reality for their troubles.
Continue to push for lower taxes. Have fun while it lasts. You're just pushing the burden onto your children who most likely will be the ones who cancel Social Security exactly when you need it.
rebekahhuang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> all the people were fed, even slaves?!?!? are you
> serious? no one in rome went hungry?
> look you don't like capitalism...fine. why live in
> america? you just sound bitter. "i don't have as
> much as my neighbor so he should share."
As I said before, I'm doing fine. I don't need anyone's handout. I think most people can do without government assistance. That's not what I'm talking about. I was just arguing that saying economic activity existed in history doesn't mean that the society was based entirely on economics as it is today.
I don't think capitalism is bad. Its just not independent of society or government and can never be. To continue to argue as if this were possible is detrimental to understanding what is actually going on.
I'm not saying capitalism is wrong, it just needs to be regulated in a very specific way that is not being done because there's this irrational ideology of libertarianism which has its head in the cloud if you think people won't take advantage of other people if the market opens up into complete freedom. Without government protection it would immediately descend into monopoly. See Russia for what happens when you have a free market with a weak government.
Say's Law is incorrect. Ricardo is incorrect. Perhaps Mises is onto something, but if you actually switched back to the gold standard all hell would break loose.
The oft quoted Smith primarily wrote Wealth of Nations so that government could remove itself from the day to day maintenance of the market. He did not say there should be no taxes or no government. He said government should get to the business of fulfilling all the needs not adequately covered by the market. It was his intention that the market would provide revenues for these extra-marketservices.
And if McCain is elected. Yes, I will leave this country, as will many other intelligent people who are sick of letting this country of great ideals (where does it mention a free market in the constitution?) ruin itself. Its well documented that our current leveraged system of governance is pushing America into decline, especially via the overextension of the military and the cowardice of politicians who won't admit that our entitlement programs are going bankrupt. I wonder if the first generation of post-imperialist Brits realized that their hegemony was over. Or were there a bunch of conservatives pushing for the good old days and blaming all the responsible people who looked at reality for their troubles.
Continue to push for lower taxes. Have fun while it lasts. You're just pushing the burden onto your children who most likely will be the ones who cancel Social Security exactly when you need it.
rebekahhuang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> all the people were fed, even slaves?!?!? are you
> serious? no one in rome went hungry?
> look you don't like capitalism...fine. why live in
> america? you just sound bitter. "i don't have as
> much as my neighbor so he should share."
| | Sep 29, 04:28 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
you know i think you probably would be happier some where else. america isn't perfect but, most americans wouldn't trade it because one person or another is the president.
bill clinton wasn't solely responsible for our good economy and bush isn't for the bad. whole lotsa bubbles going on.
this and socialism has been in place since the dems last great dreamer...carter and the community reinvesting....everyone should have a home even if they can't pay for it. where is the value in that?
if you're pinning all your hopes and dreams on obama i think you're going to be disappointed. one man, even the ONE can't do all that.
and if he really was all hope and change his end wouldn't have gotten as ugly as it has.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bill clinton wasn't solely responsible for our good economy and bush isn't for the bad. whole lotsa bubbles going on.
this and socialism has been in place since the dems last great dreamer...carter and the community reinvesting....everyone should have a home even if they can't pay for it. where is the value in that?
if you're pinning all your hopes and dreams on obama i think you're going to be disappointed. one man, even the ONE can't do all that.
and if he really was all hope and change his end wouldn't have gotten as ugly as it has.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sep 29, 06:09 PM | Report Abuse Reply |
I don't think in any of those unnecessarily huge tirades I went into I once mentioned Obama. If I had my choice I would have voted for either Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, or Dennis Kucinich. Now I'm probably considered crazy for listing these kooks but they're the only ones who spoke truth to power about the dangers of a big brother, wartime government and the essential conflicts between corporate and societal interests.
Now, I am voting for Obama now, because McCain, and especially Palin are dangerous. They need to be stopped under all circumstances. I am certain if we continue on the path laid since Reagan took office, continued by Clinton, accelerated by Bush and Cheney, that domestically we will go bankrupt and there will be further attacks upon the American public which is made oblivious to the unintended consequences of our foreign policy.
Obama is not the ONE (which I do recognize as code word for the anti-Christ in Evangelical understandings of the apocalypse. real nice). But he's thoughtful enough to see at least some of what is actually going on. And he will invest smartly in education which I think the only weapon we have against the ignorance and danger of Right Wing (or Left Wing) ideology.
So, I'd really like to stay in America. Its one of the greatest civilizations that's existed on Earth. But if more than 50% of this country is willing to accept even a 1% possibility that Sarah Palin one day could be the leader of the Free World, I don't want to live in the minority.
rebekahhuang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you know i think you probably would be happier
> some where else. america isn't perfect but, most
> americans wouldn't trade it because one person or
> another is the president.
> bill clinton wasn't solely responsible for our
> good economy and bush isn't for the bad. whole
> lotsa bubbles going on.
> this and socialism has been in place since the
> dems last great dreamer...carter and the community
> reinvesting....everyone should have a home even if
> they can't pay for it. where is the value in
> that?
> if you're pinning all your hopes and dreams on
> obama i think you're going to be disappointed. one
> man, even the ONE can't do all that.
> and if he really was all hope and change his end
> wouldn't have gotten as ugly as it has.
Now, I am voting for Obama now, because McCain, and especially Palin are dangerous. They need to be stopped under all circumstances. I am certain if we continue on the path laid since Reagan took office, continued by Clinton, accelerated by Bush and Cheney, that domestically we will go bankrupt and there will be further attacks upon the American public which is made oblivious to the unintended consequences of our foreign policy.
Obama is not the ONE (which I do recognize as code word for the anti-Christ in Evangelical understandings of the apocalypse. real nice). But he's thoughtful enough to see at least some of what is actually going on. And he will invest smartly in education which I think the only weapon we have against the ignorance and danger of Right Wing (or Left Wing) ideology.
So, I'd really like to stay in America. Its one of the greatest civilizations that's existed on Earth. But if more than 50% of this country is willing to accept even a 1% possibility that Sarah Palin one day could be the leader of the Free World, I don't want to live in the minority.
rebekahhuang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you know i think you probably would be happier
> some where else. america isn't perfect but, most
> americans wouldn't trade it because one person or
> another is the president.
> bill clinton wasn't solely responsible for our
> good economy and bush isn't for the bad. whole
> lotsa bubbles going on.
> this and socialism has been in place since the
> dems last great dreamer...carter and the community
> reinvesting....everyone should have a home even if
> they can't pay for it. where is the value in
> that?
> if you're pinning all your hopes and dreams on
> obama i think you're going to be disappointed. one
> man, even the ONE can't do all that.
> and if he really was all hope and change his end
> wouldn't have gotten as ugly as it has.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Intelligent Markets
For many of us accused Liberals, the current economic crisis is both the culmination of our worst fears and the validation of our strongest arguments against the immorality of Neo-Liberalist economics. While the crash and subsequent bail out of our markets may come as a shock to most Americans, many of us saw this coming.
Not that we’re patting ourselves on our back. That would be both crude and perversely congratulatory.
And yet I’d like to draw your attention to something we can hopefully be proud of establishing. The effete elite Liberals were and are worth listening to. The nearly last man standing in this crisis, Goldman Sachs, is a testament to this case. As Joe Nocera pointed out in the New York Times Saturday, it is one of the few firms with “a pristine balance sheet and almost none of the bad assets that are bringing down other firms.”
Goldman Sachs has consistently recruited from the highest performers of the Ivy Leagues. This practice by Sachs and others has been criticized by the Republicans as being unfair, since it relies on the nepotistic admissions practices of Old Money universities to prequalify eventual employees.
But I used to live in the New York metro area and knew many of these “elites”. While many of the alumni from these institutions were clearly selected solely for their genetics (see George W. Bush), the vast majority of those Harvard, Princeton and Yale graduates I knew were impressive in the extreme. Sachs, Deutschebank and other solid banks are still selecting from the top of the top these institutions.
And the flip side is that the vast majority of those people I knew in Finance were not of this sort. Rather the, usually male, stockbrokers I met were senseless in the extreme. I’m not even in Finance - at that time, I hadn't taken an Economics course, and yet, I would marvel at what these people took the significance of their job to be. It was something between rigging a roulette wheel and playing a football game, except perversely, with other people’s money.
I would argue that this is exactly what the deregulating Republicans like McCain, Phil Gramm, and George Bush intended. They wanted to neuter the power and stability with which the elites of our country have dominated not just our country for 350 years, but European society for millennia.
You see Old Money isn’t interested in seeing the wholesale disruption of our economy for a quick dollar. They understand the importance not just of steady, smart economic investment and growth, but the value of reputation and honor.
The frat boys that swarm into Lower Manhattan every morning are thinking more about the strip club they’ll be getting $1000 bottle service at than the success of the businesses or homes their investing in. Its these careless idiots that assumed that there was an insurance policy for their risks. After all, its not their neck on the line.
Or is it? By all accounts this bail out is going to insert an unprecedented amount of regulation into the markets. It will require careful, honest, and strategically complex maneuvers to survive the accountability procedures that will be put in place. No more cliff notes versions of Accounting practices and Risk Management.
Regulation, particularly the kind inserted by a Republican administration, will not be overly bureaucratic. But it will not allow for short cuts. To put it bluntly, it will be Survival of the Fittest.
So as you see the Armageddon of collapse and the Phoenix of a Free Market emerge in the coming weeks – listen and you might just hear the smallest violin lamenting the death nell of Frat Boy Economics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
