|
|
Post by socal on Oct 22, 2008 12:16:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 22, 2008 15:20:47 GMT -6
I don't know why McCain is so damn scared of Socialism. When you look at the tenets of Communism against modern American society, it's pretty easy to see Dubya and his fiscal liberal allies have done a great deal to realize Messrs. Marx and Engels dream:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. [Feudal system is gone, rents of land not all applied to public purposes, though, other than through the tax system - rent control system does ration real estate in some areas of the US, though, thereby giving the public a windfall at the expense of the landlord.]
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. [Got it, gonna get more of it.]
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. [We'll probably never abolish completely, but no matter which party wins, a material portion of decently sized estates will be confiscated by government as soon as Dubya's cuts expire.]
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. [Not in place with respect to emigrants, but law breakers have property seized with virtually no judicial oversight]
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. [US Treasury and Federal Reserve Board control money and banking - private banks still have power to issue credit, but now the government owns a material amount of those, too - add in government lending programs like Fannie, Freddie and the SBA, and the gov controls a material portion of the credit available to home buyers and small business owners]
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. [Government owns almost all roads, communication bandwidth is also owned or heavily regulated by government]
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. [Waters looking to nationalize oil, not too many nationalized industries so they have a ways to go there, common plan of agriculture has been in place bince Roosevelt.]
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. [Agriculture's role in the labor market is miniscule now due to industrialization, minimum wage, exec comp rules, highly progressive income tax and negative income tax for low earners have gone a long way to somewhat equalize pay]
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. [Hasn't really happened]
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. [Done]
Other than a few tweaks here and there, we are already pretty close to realizing the dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Oct 22, 2008 15:28:27 GMT -6
I don't know why McCain is so damn scared of Socialism. When you look at the tenets of Communism against modern American society, it's pretty easy to see Dubya and his fiscal liberal allies have done a great deal to realize Messrs. Marx and Engels dream: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. [Feudal system is gone, rents of land not all applied to public purposes, though, other than through the tax system - rent control system does ration real estate in some areas of the US, though, thereby giving the public a windfall at the expense of the landlord.] 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. [Got it, gonna get more of it.] 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. [We'll probably never abolish completely, but no matter which party wins, a material portion of decently sized estates will be confiscated by government as soon as Dubya's cuts expire.] 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. [Not in place with respect to emigrants, but law breakers have property seized with virtually no judicial oversight] 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. [US Treasury and Federal Reserve Board control money and banking - private banks still have power to issue credit, but now the government owns a material amount of those, too - add in government lending programs like Fannie, Freddie and the SBA, and the gov controls a material portion of the credit available to home buyers and small business owners] 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. [Government owns almost all roads, communication bandwidth is also owned or heavily regulated by government] 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. [Waters looking to nationalize oil, not too many nationalized industries so they have a ways to go there, common plan of agriculture has been in place bince Roosevelt.] 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. [Agriculture's role in the labor market is miniscule now due to industrialization, minimum wage, exec comp rules, highly progressive income tax and negative income tax for low earners have gone a long way to somewhat equalize pay] 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. [Hasn't really happened] 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. [Done] Other than a few tweaks here and there, we are already pretty close to realizing the dream. [/b] I don't think so BTR. Apparently Mccain has been calling Obama a socialist for the last few weeks so Obamas tax strategists took a look at their tax plan and have noticed a "flaw" in it. They just said they tweaked it to seem more moderate. Don't worry BTR, capitalism will still be there, you just won't have any control over it. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 22, 2008 16:14:18 GMT -6
Matta - when you look at the tenets of Communism and think about how they relate to American society today, do you see any possibility of the realization of substantially all the tenets in at least a watered down form from happening or increasing? I don't.
Barry will win the election. He will then mandate that all insurance comapnies have to cover pre-existing conditions. Then, when insurance companies cease to write new business because it's not profitable, he will say, see the market failed, now we need single payer. How will he pay for it? Progressive taxes.
Furthermore, as Medicare and Socialist Insecurity move further and further toward insolvency and as the Treasuries that SS has "invested" in become due (after the end of Barry's term), we're going to see substantially higher tax rates as the general fund will then need to subsidize SS. The taxes will be progressive in nature.
We need a truly fiscally conservative candidate to run for President or for fiscal conservatism to gain a foothold in Congress. The problem is that it will not happen. The President who is best at pandering to the proles promising to give them the most loot from the Treasury will win the presidency and the game in Congress is to bring as much pork home as you can, ensuring its fiscally liberal nature forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Oct 22, 2008 20:35:43 GMT -6
Matta - when you look at the tenets of Communism and think about how they relate to American society today, do you see any possibility of the realization of substantially all the tenets in at least a watered down form from happening or increasing? I don't. Barry will win the election. He will then mandate that all insurance comapnies have to cover pre-existing conditions. Then, when insurance companies cease to write new business because it's not profitable, he will say, see the market failed, now we need single payer. How will he pay for it? Progressive taxes. Furthermore, as Medicare and Socialist Insecurity move further and further toward insolvency and as the Treasuries that SS has "invested" in become due (after the end of Barry's term), we're going to see substantially higher tax rates as the general fund will then need to subsidize SS. The taxes will be progressive in nature. We need a truly fiscally conservative candidate to run for President or for fiscal conservatism to gain a foothold in Congress. The problem is that it will not happen. The President who is best at pandering to the proles promising to give them the most loot from the Treasury will win the presidency and the game in Congress is to bring as much pork home as you can, ensuring its fiscally liberal nature forever. Yes, the proles are about to overthrow the castle.  www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/redistribution.html |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Oct 23, 2008 6:35:15 GMT -6
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. [US Treasury and Federal Reserve Board control money and banking - private banks still have power to issue credit, but now the government owns a material amount of those, too - add in government lending programs like Fannie, Freddie and the SBA, and the gov controls a material portion of the credit available to home buyers and small business owners]
Now you you trying to blame for that one? Leftists? You have said that a government bailout was necessary. It's probably necessary because they operated in a deregulated environment. Personally, I'm for capitalism, but I don't mind a few regulations.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 23, 2008 7:12:14 GMT -6
Don't sweat it Nacho, those top 1% of earners have paid a material amount of taxes to the government and after the smoke clears in the current credit crunch, they won't be too much better off than they were in 2002. I know you want to prevent anyone from acquiring more property than you or having more income than you, but those people pay a big chunk of the taxes and they create a helluva lot of jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 23, 2008 7:21:02 GMT -6
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. [US Treasury and Federal Reserve Board control money and banking - private banks still have power to issue credit, but now the government owns a material amount of those, too - add in government lending programs like Fannie, Freddie and the SBA, and the gov controls a material portion of the credit available to home buyers and small business owners] Now you you trying to blame for that one? Leftists? You have said that a government bailout was necessary. It's probably necessary because they operated in a deregulated environment. Personally, I'm for capitalism, but I don't mind a few regulations. Look at Nach's article. Even the left winger in there who's trying to pin everything on Bush mentions monetary policy. For the millionth time, banks are amongst the most regulated businesses in America. And whenever anyone asks what "deregulation" led to the mess, the liberals inevitably cite two pieces of legislation signed by Bill Clinton. The government intervention in the mortgage market is never cited as a contributing factor, it's always the "free market" that doesn't exist that is blamed. The market is fixing the CDS market on its own, they are building an exchange that will bolster transparency of counterparties. They'll probably have something lined up prior to the government rolling some regulatory death machine out. |
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 23, 2008 7:35:46 GMT -6
If Iowafan1 were in charge of the Country's finances, this entire train wreck would have been avoided. "You want to buy a $500,000 home with nothing down? F you! Cough up 30%....$150,000 for the down payment and you will be considered. Until then, get the hell out of my office Prole!"
but noooooo........the liberals of the world demanded that every prole on God's Country (USA for you libs) be granted the "right" to own a home regardless of employment, income, immigration status, and even the lack of ID, a background check or a credit check. You give something for nothing you get our current economy. Thanks libs!.....yeah, that includes virtually every Democrat, GW and 3/4 of the f'ing Republicans in Congress! We are seeing our Country move to socialism before our very eyes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 23, 2008 10:29:57 GMT -6
I don't know why McCain is so damn scared of Socialism. When you look at the tenets of Communism against modern American society, it's pretty easy to see Dubya and his fiscal liberal allies have done a great deal to realize Messrs. Marx and Engels dream: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. [Feudal system is gone, rents of land not all applied to public purposes, though, other than through the tax system - rent control system does ration real estate in some areas of the US, though, thereby giving the public a windfall at the expense of the landlord.] 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. [Got it, gonna get more of it.] 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. [We'll probably never abolish completely, but no matter which party wins, a material portion of decently sized estates will be confiscated by government as soon as Dubya's cuts expire.] 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. [Not in place with respect to emigrants, but law breakers have property seized with virtually no judicial oversight] 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. [US Treasury and Federal Reserve Board control money and banking - private banks still have power to issue credit, but now the government owns a material amount of those, too - add in government lending programs like Fannie, Freddie and the SBA, and the gov controls a material portion of the credit available to home buyers and small business owners] 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. [Government owns almost all roads, communication bandwidth is also owned or heavily regulated by government] 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. [Waters looking to nationalize oil, not too many nationalized industries so they have a ways to go there, common plan of agriculture has been in place bince Roosevelt.] 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. [Agriculture's role in the labor market is miniscule now due to industrialization, minimum wage, exec comp rules, highly progressive income tax and negative income tax for low earners have gone a long way to somewhat equalize pay] 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. [Hasn't really happened] 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. [Done] Other than a few tweaks here and there, we are already pretty close to realizing the dream. Ralphie....as much as you have been riding that "moderate" fence lately or even leaning to the left (pro-bailouts), I gotta give you credit where credit is due. You pretty much nailed it with this. There's hope for you yet. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 23, 2008 11:27:04 GMT -6
Iowafan, if we didn't have a structured system in place to deal with the money center banks right now, they'd all go under. A collapse of one bank that didn't find a white knight would cost the taxpayers a lot more than the bailout will cost once the smoke clears.
When the smoke clears, the best thing the government could do would be to make sure the mortgage market functions properly by removing subsidies to incur mortgage debt, treat gains on the sale of a home the same as all other capital gains, keep the Fed from flooding the market with ultracheap money and get the taxpayer backed mortgage guarantees away from the market. My guess, however, is that in lieu of common sense, market based reforms, we'll see government enact more measures to create more incentives to overconsume housing, and then we'll be shocked in 20 years when the market hits a rough spot again.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Oct 23, 2008 20:41:45 GMT -6
Republicans are always guilty of the crimes of which they accuse others. As surely as rain is wet.
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Oct 24, 2008 2:34:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 24, 2008 7:13:17 GMT -6
See Nach, here's the flaw in Mr. Greenspan's logic: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said. Mr. Greenspan does not understand that the entity itself is not a living, breathing being capable of determining its own self-interest. The self-interest of the company is left up to those running the company. However, those running the company in the C-level suites are richly compensated and lack the same long term "Oh fuck am I gonna fired" fear that we proles face every day because they've got plenty of cash to live off of, as well as bankruptcy proof retirement plans and such. They have a vested incentive to maximize short-term profits in order to maximize their bonuses over a few year period. This is in the interest of the corporation and its shareholders over the short run, but over the long run, it can have disastrous impacts. There are three fiduciary duties that each director and officer owes a corporation: Care, good faith and loyalty. If a director breaches the duties of good faith or loyalty, they can be held personally liable for the breach. Until the Smith v. Van Gorkom case, directors could also be held liable if they were grossly negligent in discharging their duties. But then the Delaware legislature (and I think all other states - at least states where any public company is domiciled) amended the statute so that the duty of care was exculpable by the company, i.e., the company could waive any liability the directors would owe to the company for any breach of the duty of care. As a result, no matter how shitty a director is, no matter how bad their decisions are, if the corporation has waived liability of the directors, the shareholders are left without a remedy against the people who are ultimately responsible for driving the company down. To recap what the top people in companies have: (a) an interest in maximizing short term profits, (b) enough money that they don't care if they get run, and (c) no liability if the company is run aground due to shitty management. True adherents to free market ideology generally believe that the free market needs to have a remedy in place to go after tortfeasors. Delaware and other states have allowed directors to fuck shareholders over through grossly negligent management with no remedy, the lack of a remedy against a grossly negligent director is NOT a free market idea, it is liberal fascism of the political class protecting their rich buddies. If Mr. Fuld thought that he had any chance of losing his Connecticut estate if he were deemed to be grossly negligent in running Lehman Brothers, he'd have been a helluva lot more careful. Bince companies can be run into BK and the senior people can walk away from the smoking heap of trash with impunity and their personal wealth substantially intact, the legal shield's role in incentivizing risk taking should be considered as well. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Oct 24, 2008 8:28:33 GMT -6
See Nach, here's the flaw in Mr. Greenspan's logic: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said. Mr. Greenspan does not understand that the entity itself is not a living, breathing being capable of determining its own self-interest. The self-interest of the company is left up to those running the company. However, those running the company in the C-level suites are richly compensated and lack the same long term "Oh f**k am I gonna fired" fear that we proles face every day because they've got plenty of cash to live off of, as well as bankruptcy proof retirement plans and such. They have a vested incentive to maximize short-term profits in order to maximize their bonuses over a few year period. This is in the interest of the corporation and its shareholders over the short run, but over the long run, it can have disastrous impacts. There are three fiduciary duties that each director and officer owes a corporation: Care, good faith and loyalty. If a director breaches the duties of good faith or loyalty, they can be held personally liable for the breach. Until the Smith v. Van Gorkom case, directors could also be held liable if they were grossly negligent in discharging their duties. But then the Delaware legislature (and I think all other states - at least states where any public company is domiciled) amended the statute so that the duty of care was exculpable by the company, i.e., the company could waive any liability the directors would owe to the company for any breach of the duty of care. As a result, no matter how shitty a director is, no matter how bad their decisions are, if the corporation has waived liability of the directors, the shareholders are left without a remedy against the people who are ultimately responsible for driving the company down. To recap what the top people in companies have: (a) an interest in maximizing short term profits, (b) enough money that they don't care if they get run, and (c) no liability if the company is run aground due to shitty management. True adherents to free market ideology generally believe that the free market needs to have a remedy in place to go after tortfeasors. Delaware and other states have allowed directors to f**k shareholders over through grossly negligent management with no remedy, the lack of a remedy against a grossly negligent director is NOT a free market idea, it is liberal fascism of the political class protecting their rich buddies. If Mr. Fuld thought that he had any chance of losing his Connecticut estate if he were deemed to be grossly negligent in running Lehman Brothers, he'd have been a helluva lot more careful. Bince companies can be run into BK and the senior people can walk away from the smoking heap of trash with impunity and their personal wealth substantially intact, the legal shield's role in incentivizing risk taking should be considered as well. What you just described is rich, white conservative lawyers and lawmakers protecting their rich, white conservative CEOs. Liberal fascism my ass. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 24, 2008 8:48:57 GMT -6
Hey lp, just because someone claims to be a conservative doesn't mean they can't be a liberal fascist as well. See, e.g. Dubya. And I don't understand why you have to get racist about it. Capital knows no race. When the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds and Asian banks pick off our assets for fire sale prices over the course of the next few years, their board appointees will be afforded the same legal protections as everyone else.
I guess that's the mantra from the left this year, though, when all else fails, play the race card.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Oct 27, 2008 11:55:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Oct 27, 2008 17:55:27 GMT -6
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. [US Treasury and Federal Reserve Board control money and banking - private banks still have power to issue credit, but now the government owns a material amount of those, too - add in government lending programs like Fannie, Freddie and the SBA, and the gov controls a material portion of the credit available to home buyers and small business owners] You Now you you trying to blame for that one? Leftists? You have said that a government bailout was necessary. It's probably necessary because they operated in a deregulated environment. Personally, I'm for capitalism, but I don't mind a few regulations. Look at Nach's article. Even the left winger in there who's trying to pin everything on Bush mentions monetary policy. For the millionth time, banks are amongst the most regulated businesses in America. And whenever anyone asks what "deregulation" led to the mess, the liberals inevitably cite two pieces of legislation signed by Bill Clinton. The government intervention in the mortgage market is never cited as a contributing factor, it's always the "free market" that doesn't exist that is blamed. The market is fixing the CDS market on its own, they are building an exchange that will bolster transparency of counterparties. They'll probably have something lined up prior to the government rolling some regulatory death machine out. Look again at your number 5, above. Your pal McCain was all for the socialization of the banking industry, was he not? Yet, he croons about small government. I have my qualms with many on the left, but at least there is some ideological consistency. The right appears to do what ever they feeeeeeel like doing (sorry everhawk). |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Oct 27, 2008 18:00:14 GMT -6
little time,
I agree with the section regarding monetary policy (this is the part that you're referring to, right?).
'
For much of the Bush administration, the Federal Reserve discount rate—the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans money to member banks and one mechanism it uses to guide interest rate policy—was held below the rate of inflation. That is not only a powerful stimulus in terms of encouraging people to buy things they really can’t afford, but also a license for mischief for investment bankers and financiers who can be highly creative with the possibilities that present themselves when the government is willing to loan them money at negative real interest rates.
However, did YOU read the part about productivity increasing but wages not following?
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Oct 27, 2008 18:01:47 GMT -6
Dude, you better get out and vote, like 15 million times next week. btw, thank God you quoted a fair and balanced news source like Fox. Fair and balanced like Iowaflame, that is. |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Oct 27, 2008 18:22:23 GMT -6
See Nach, here's the flaw in Mr. Greenspan's logic: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said. Mr. Greenspan does not understand that the entity itself is not a living, breathing being capable of determining its own self-interest. The self-interest of the company is left up to those running the company. However, those running the company in the C-level suites are richly compensated and lack the same long term "Oh f**k am I gonna fired" fear that we proles face every day because they've got plenty of cash to live off of, as well as bankruptcy proof retirement plans and such. They have a vested incentive to maximize short-term profits in order to maximize their bonuses over a few year period. This is in the interest of the corporation and its shareholders over the short run, but over the long run, it can have disastrous impacts. There are three fiduciary duties that each director and officer owes a corporation: Care, good faith and loyalty. If a director breaches the duties of good faith or loyalty, they can be held personally liable for the breach. Until the Smith v. Van Gorkom case, directors could also be held liable if they were grossly negligent in discharging their duties. But then the Delaware legislature (and I think all other states - at least states where any public company is domiciled) amended the statute so that the duty of care was exculpable by the company, i.e., the company could waive any liability the directors would owe to the company for any breach of the duty of care. As a result, no matter how shitty a director is, no matter how bad their decisions are, if the corporation has waived liability of the directors, the shareholders are left without a remedy against the people who are ultimately responsible for driving the company down. To recap what the top people in companies have: (a) an interest in maximizing short term profits, (b) enough money that they don't care if they get run, and (c) no liability if the company is run aground due to shitty management. True adherents to free market ideology generally believe that the free market needs to have a remedy in place to go after tortfeasors. Delaware and other states have allowed directors to f**k shareholders over through grossly negligent management with no remedy, the lack of a remedy against a grossly negligent director is NOT a free market idea, it is liberal fascism of the political class protecting their rich buddies. If Mr. Fuld thought that he had any chance of losing his Connecticut estate if he were deemed to be grossly negligent in running Lehman Brothers, he'd have been a helluva lot more careful. Bince companies can be run into BK and the senior people can walk away from the smoking heap of trash with impunity and their personal wealth substantially intact, the legal shield's role in incentivizing risk taking should be considered as well. What should be done about this? |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 27, 2008 18:26:40 GMT -6
Look at Nach's article. Even the left winger in there who's trying to pin everything on Bush mentions monetary policy. For the millionth time, banks are amongst the most regulated businesses in America. And whenever anyone asks what "deregulation" led to the mess, the liberals inevitably cite two pieces of legislation signed by Bill Clinton. The government intervention in the mortgage market is never cited as a contributing factor, it's always the "free market" that doesn't exist that is blamed. The market is fixing the CDS market on its own, they are building an exchange that will bolster transparency of counterparties. They'll probably have something lined up prior to the government rolling some regulatory death machine out. Look again at your number 5, above. Your pal McCain was all for the socialization of the banking industry, was he not? Yet, he croons about small government. I have my qualms with many on the left, but at least there is some ideological consistency. The right appears to do what ever they feeeeeeel like doing (sorry everhawk). Senator McCain is incredibly fiscally liberal. The modern Republican Party is the worst of all worlds, big government Christian fundamentalist social conservatives married to fiscal liberals. Of course, their fiscal liberalism is marginally less repugnant than the alternative. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 27, 2008 18:32:00 GMT -6
little time, I agree with the section regarding monetary policy (this is the part that you're referring to, right?). ' For much of the Bush administration, the Federal Reserve discount rate—the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans money to member banks and one mechanism it uses to guide interest rate policy—was held below the rate of inflation. That is not only a powerful stimulus in terms of encouraging people to buy things they really can’t afford, but also a license for mischief for investment bankers and financiers who can be highly creative with the possibilities that present themselves when the government is willing to loan them money at negative real interest rates. However, did YOU read the part about productivity increasing but wages not following? Do you really think production went up that much? Really? The "causes" of wage drops that the person cites are all knuckledragging sources, weaker unions, no hike to minimum wage, etc. If you really think a higher minimum wage (oh, say $20 an hour) or unionization of all industries is the way to increase wages, you are sorely mistaken. The looters who are lucky enough to keep or get a job will be fine, but those on the outside are effed. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Oct 27, 2008 18:35:36 GMT -6
See Nach, here's the flaw in Mr. Greenspan's logic: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said. Mr. Greenspan does not understand that the entity itself is not a living, breathing being capable of determining its own self-interest. The self-interest of the company is left up to those running the company. However, those running the company in the C-level suites are richly compensated and lack the same long term "Oh f**k am I gonna fired" fear that we proles face every day because they've got plenty of cash to live off of, as well as bankruptcy proof retirement plans and such. They have a vested incentive to maximize short-term profits in order to maximize their bonuses over a few year period. This is in the interest of the corporation and its shareholders over the short run, but over the long run, it can have disastrous impacts. There are three fiduciary duties that each director and officer owes a corporation: Care, good faith and loyalty. If a director breaches the duties of good faith or loyalty, they can be held personally liable for the breach. Until the Smith v. Van Gorkom case, directors could also be held liable if they were grossly negligent in discharging their duties. But then the Delaware legislature (and I think all other states - at least states where any public company is domiciled) amended the statute so that the duty of care was exculpable by the company, i.e., the company could waive any liability the directors would owe to the company for any breach of the duty of care. As a result, no matter how shitty a director is, no matter how bad their decisions are, if the corporation has waived liability of the directors, the shareholders are left without a remedy against the people who are ultimately responsible for driving the company down. To recap what the top people in companies have: (a) an interest in maximizing short term profits, (b) enough money that they don't care if they get run, and (c) no liability if the company is run aground due to shitty management. True adherents to free market ideology generally believe that the free market needs to have a remedy in place to go after tortfeasors. Delaware and other states have allowed directors to f**k shareholders over through grossly negligent management with no remedy, the lack of a remedy against a grossly negligent director is NOT a free market idea, it is liberal fascism of the political class protecting their rich buddies. If Mr. Fuld thought that he had any chance of losing his Connecticut estate if he were deemed to be grossly negligent in running Lehman Brothers, he'd have been a helluva lot more careful. Bince companies can be run into BK and the senior people can walk away from the smoking heap of trash with impunity and their personal wealth substantially intact, the legal shield's role in incentivizing risk taking should be considered as well. What should be done about this? Get rid of the liberal fascist regime so plaintiff's lawyers can sue these guys for gross negligence. Make the C-suite executives paranoid in the operation of their business. |
|
