People Power

[race aficionado]

I know this can be a touchy subject - it is actually - and it is one that has me filled with excitement.

In downtown Manhattan a group of people started a movement that has been growing exponentially and it will continue to do so as days go by.

At the beginning it was laughed at, ignored by the media but as days go by and the numbers of participants grow it has now taken center stage in our now "messed up US of A".

What will eventually happen, I do not know but what I do know is that if the White House isn't doing it, the people will demand that is done so - as it is intended with a true democracy and government that should be of the people.

There has to be a strong reaction to the present economical and political situation.

They are also getting more organized - and without a leader, but as a people, which is great.


Keith Olbermann Reads The Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters - 2011-10-05 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q&feature=player_embedded)


:s mokin:

[Gregor-y]

The problem with most American protests is the lack of a central point and the tendency to attract all manner of people who only want to publicize their own more narrow agenda. The few anti war protests I saw in 2003 were a mix of opportunists looking to goof off, display their bongo drum skills and distribute pamphlets urging the destruction of Israel. To be sure none of them were supporting the war but there wasn't much cohesion on that particular topic during the event. I do hope there's a bit more focus, like other countries are able to manage when they go out to protest.

[Lousada]

What will eventually happen, I do not know but what I do know is that if the White House isn't doing it, the people will demand that is done so - as it is intended with a true democracy and government that should be of the people.

There has to be a strong reaction to the present economical and political situation.

They are also getting more organized - and without a leader, but as a people, which is great.



The White House should do what? What do you/they want? And what if that doesn't happen?

[race aficionado]

The problem with most American protests is the lack of a central point and the tendency to attract all manner of people who only want to publicize their own more narrow agenda. The few anti war protests I saw in 2003 were a mix of opportunists looking to goof off, display their bongo drum skills and distribute pamphlets urging the destruction of Israel. I do hope there's a bit more focus, like other countries are able to manage when they go out to protest.

I'm sure you will find many types of people involved and with their unique agendas. I posted the thread precisely to note that it is getting more focused and organized. Let's see what happens as days go by and I do hope that it grows immensely and that it spreads around like a healing virus.

[Roamy]

I listened to the statement from Occupy. It seems quite good and this could be the start of middle america organizing and if that should happen then katie bar the door. The timing is sooooooo right to organize. I am for capitalism but not for uncontrolled greed capitalism. We need a severe adjustment and perhaps this will be the beginning.

[Eki]

It's good that people realize that not just governments are evil, but also banks and corporations.

[Roamy]

deball them all

[Bob Riebe]

Just more liberals with too much time on their hands, or a gathering of incompetent hypocrites.

Gee I wonder where the hollywood types who are there have and get their money?

Dodd and Frank destroyed Fannie and Freddie, hmmm, I wonder why they do not go after people who are really guilty of destroying lives-- WAIT-- because they are also liberals.

[Mark]

Can we have ONE thread without "liberal" bashing? I guess not.

[Bob Riebe]

Can we have ONE thread without "liberal" bashing? I guess not.What do you think the morons in the so called protest are?
I guess I could call them socialists, but I do not want to give more intelligent socialists a bad name.

[Mark]

It's just that some here seem to trot out "liberal" for anyone they disagree with. So much so it's become meaningless. Perhaps a more detailed analysis is appropriate rather than generic name calling?

[Bob Riebe]

It's just that some here seem to trot out "liberal" for anyone they disagree with. So much so it's become meaningless. Perhaps a more detailed analysis is appropriate rather than generic name calling?In the U.S. there were Republicans and Democrats, who ususally stood for there parties political dogma.

Along came Rinos (Repulican in name only) and Democrats so far left that to call them a Dem. denies what the party once stood for, so Liberal, which is most accurate has become the more accurate term.
Dem. use the term Radical Right for Rep. that still honor what the Rep. party once stood for to them a Rino (which is Dem. light) is what they think all Rep. should be.

It is because of Rinos, not liberal Dem. that the T.E.A. party came to be, which is why the Dem. hate it so much as unlike Rinos who main concern is to remain in office, the T.E.A. party conservatives is to return the Rep. party to conservative standards.

If you think the term is meaningless look up on the net, what the liberal Dem. in the state of Wisconsin did when the Rep. governor challenged their politics.

[ArrowsFA1]

...if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html?_r=2&hp

[ioan]

What do you think the morons in the so called protest are?
I guess I could call them socialists, but I do not want to give more intelligent socialists a bad name.

Same old, same old.
Luckily there is Bob Riebe the 'wise'. LOL

[Bob Riebe]

Same old, same old.
Luckily there is Bob Riebe the 'wise'. LOLThank you!

[race aficionado]

I would please ask you to refrain from throwing this thread into a personal battlefield which disrespects the original intent of this said thread.

thank you.

[Bolton Midnight]

Nice idea but won't achieve a single thing.

In the UK people marched against the Iraq war, hunting ban, funding cuts, anti capitalism etc etc and guess what, yep nowt happened.

Rather than demos best way to hurt authority is cut off its funding, stop paying taxes / rates etc then they would have to take notice.

[Rollo]

Duverger's Law suggests that in a plurality voting system, over time it should produce a tendency towards two-party politics. Really the only way to upset the system is to form a new party with sufficient clout to upend one of the existing two.
Especially in the United States where there is no direct opposition to the President in the mechanics of government (because he doesn't sit in the congress), it means that the job itself will only be a revolving door between two parties.

Small groups like the Tea Party, Occupy Wall St although they might help to colour the political discussion and may on odd occasions might see their ideas adopted by the exiting two majors, never can do much beyond that unless there is a seismic shift in the political landscape. The Lib Dems in the UK could have done that if Clegg hadn't been such an ultimately weak leader; in practice in the short term they'll occupy the same niche as the National Party does in Australian politics over the next few election cycles.

Currently in the US House of Representatives and the Senate there are ZERO "third" voices. Third Parties do exist but they contribute virtually to political discussion without solid representation because they don't have voices on the floors of houses.
Seemingly the American Public even if they complain, are through their current voting actions fine with this. If they weren't they'd do something concrete.

[markabilly]

Amen, Bros and sisters, and yes, even you hos,


workers of the world, arise!!!!!


You have nothing to lose but your chains!!!





well, and also your jobs, or chances for a future job.....and your 401k....but hey, let not reality get in the way of brits having wet dreams...

[markabilly]

Duverger's Law suggests that If they weren't they'd do something concrete.




Jethro, good to see the FBI ain't caught up with you yet....that rarefied air of being a professor must be getting them light headed

[Bolton Midnight]

The Lib Dems in the UK could have done that if Clegg hadn't been such an ultimately weak leader

But they have some power now, which would never have happened without PR (hence their love affair with it). Clegg effectively won the TV debates.

They could promise all sorts in their manifesto as they knew full well they didn't have a hope in hell of winning. They might as well said free Porsches and blowjobs for all!

Nothing party supported by dreamers by in large.

[Jared East]

I listened to the statement from Occupy. It seems quite good and this could be the start of middle america organizing and if that should happen then katie bar the door. The timing is sooooooo right to organize. I am for capitalism but not for uncontrolled greed capitalism. We need a severe adjustment and perhaps this will be the beginning.

Controlled Capitalism is what we have, its the problem. Its easy to be greedy when you know if you mess up the government will bail you out.. A true free market will limit greed with real risk.

[Rollo]

Jethro, good to see the FBI ain't caught up with you yet....that rarefied air of being a professor must be getting them light headed

Maybe you'd like to come up with a different explanation as to why it's so rare for someone who isn't a Republican or a Democrat to be voted to the Congress, or why there hasn't been anyone but a Republican or a Democrat who has been voted into the Presidency since possibly Johnson.
The deck is currently stacked in favour of the existing two and the party machines and the rather drawn out process of the primaries more or less ensures that the status quo is maintained. I can't forsee anyone but a Republican or a Democrat taking up either the Presidency or a seat in the Congress for a very very long time.

That's why I don't see groups like Occupy or the Tea Party having very much influence at all. It's putting people into seats that actually changes real policy in the long run.

[Bolton Midnight]

Is the average American bright enough to deal with anything other than 2 parties? Remember these are the same people who voted for Bush and Obama!

[Bob Riebe]

Is the average American bright enough to deal with anything other than 2 parties? Remember these are the same people who voted for Bush and Obama!We are bright enough not to have government dissolving sillyness.

We elect a Presindent for four years, Senators for six years and Congressmen/women for two years.
We do not have any "We do not like this government, let's dissolve it" sillyness.

We elect them and if it is not satisfactory, it is changed next election, not willy-nilly any time some get unhappy as some other rather childish systems do.

[race aficionado]

This guy is pissed off!
i don't know about the music in the background that means to give it a particular mood . . . . but the fact is that this people take over/ protest gatherings are causing some conversation.

What will eventually happen? i don't know but I a sure glad that it is happening.

Occupy Wall Street Our One Demand - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI_P3pxze5w&feature=player_embedded)

[edv]

http://i51.tinypic.com/k2zujc.jpg

[race aficionado]

Times are a changing . . .

"10 years ago we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.
Now we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash."

:dozey:
:s mokin:

[Bob Riebe]

Times are a changing . . .

"10 years ago we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.
Now we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash."

:dozey:
:s mokin:Rimshot--LOL.

[race aficionado]

Okay . . .
so sue me for posting another video link . . . .

This one is ironic - and well done.

I AM NOT MOVING - Short Film - Occupy Wall Street - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGRXCgMdz9A&feature=player_embedded#!)

[Eki]

Times are a changing . . .

"10 years ago we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.
Now we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash."

:dozey:
:s mokin:
That would be funny if it wasn't sad.

[555-04Q2]

Times are a changing . . .

"10 years ago we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.
Now we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash."

:dozey:
:s mokin:

:laugh: classic :laugh:

[edv]

Times are a changing . . .

"10 years ago we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.
Now we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash."

http://i.imgur.com/T26uN.jpg

[Eki]

http://i.imgur.com/T26uN.jpg
Who will save our bacon?

[AAReagles]

Post #1

I know this can be a touchy subject - it is actually - and it is one that has me filled with excitement.

.... as it is intended with a true democracy and government that should be of the people.

There has to be a strong reaction to the present economical and political situation.

They are also getting more organized - and without a leader, but as a people, which is great.



Yes, this is a good thing - though long overdue as far as I’m concerned. And I say this not a recent born-again Marxist - thanks to the education I obtained from our distant cousins in Europe during the ‘Eat The Bank’ campaign in the spring of 2009 - but with the experiences of my own ‘enlightenment’ during and after the gulf war (1991). When I enlisted in the service, almost 4 years prior to that event, I was naïve enough to still believe that people in high-level leadership position (aka power) were responsible individuals and knew what they were doing. Unfortunately that notion quickly dissolved once reality reared it’s dreadful head and unveiled what was going on.

Taking an oath and performing the swearing-in ritual of defending the United States “against enemies, foreign and domestic”is one thing; discovering later that you’ve been employed to function as a mercenary for corporations is another. Giving a whole new meaning to the term ‘national interests.’ And yes, that whole escapade was about oil, not reestablishing democracy as some would wish the world to think. For whatever reason, folks back home couldn’t (or wouldn’t, rather) grasp the facts and became agitated when I pointed out the obvious to them after they just got done patting me on the back and telling me ‘job well done.’ In other words, too many people see what they want to see, as long as it comforts them. It’s human nature with its impulse to survive, and to a degree I understand that, since I’m guilty of such traits as well. However sooner or later people should realize it’s not about just them, their own family or particular interests - it’s about everyone who has ever existed, people who are with us at the present, and of course, those who will follow after us when our journey here is done.

I must say that I find that this protest is a bit mixed for me. It’s good in the sense that the people involved - well, here in the US at least - are unprecedented with such a varied composition that covers almost all boundaries with regards to beliefs, race, culture, age, gender, social & political backgrounds and such. Though I feel it should have never been initiated because of our own financial hardships. Especially since so many around the globe have suffered for so long from the very thing we here in the states (and Europe) suddenly find ourselves in defiance of; ruthless and murderous corporate profiteering. Aka Capitalism.

The movements in the 1960’s was primarily about people and the environment, not lack of income, which appears to be the basis of this movement. Let’s hope that us folks in the present can learn from those in the past, and of course, make some progress. And I mean REAL progress… such as co-existing for starters. And you can’t go wrong with that.



Post #16

I would please ask you to refrain from throwing this thread into a personal battlefield which disrespects the original intent of this said thread.

thank you.


No, I’m sorry, but you and I know this wasn’t going to happen. Especially with what I read of the remarks from a couple of other Americans. So, if you’ll forgive me, I have a bit more to say…



Post #8

Just more liberals with too much time on their hands, or a gathering of incompetent hypocrites..

Yeah, can you imagine that? Protesting against inequality. Sheesh. These OWS bums are about as worthless as those characters in the 60’s and 70’s crusading against an unpopular war, oppressive bigotry, and unimaginable destruction to the environment. At least these OWS lunatics are not a bad as those baseless fools in the late 18th century who protested against welfare tyranny created by a royal establishment (British Parliament).

Where do these people come from? These people with un-American agendas are unacceptable and can no longer be tolerated. Therefore they should all be IMMEDIATELY deported from this country, so they can never to be heard from again. Ain’t that right Bob?…. Bob??… BOB??!!!


Post #19

Amen, Bros and sisters, and yes, even you hos,


workers of the world, arise!!!!!


You have nothing to lose but your chains!!!

Actually that one bit has been loosely translated as ‘Workers of the world unite.’ However, from the Communist Manifesto itself, it states:

‘Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries unite!’

Indeed We The People do have a world to win, while some misguided few are intent on destroying it and its inhabitants. And that is something We can not allow to happen.

But hey, as they say in the corporate world, ‘It’s nothing personal, it’s just business.’ Right? So in good spirits of the humor that I’ll assume is being associated here, I’ll try to find a suitable slogan for capitalism.

Hmmm…. now let’s see…. oh I know! ‘Arbeit macht Frei’ Why yes, that’s it! We could place that on all those wonderful facilities involved in the arms-trade manufacturing, oil-producing industry and of course, your favorite and mine, the financial institutions. Which would include Wall Street itself.

After all, that slogan worked out pretty good in Auswitch, right?

[AAReagles]

Nice idea but won't achieve a single thing.

In the UK people marched against the Iraq war, hunting ban, funding cuts, anti capitalism etc etc and guess what, yep nowt happened..

This might be different in the sense that it affects pocketbooks globally. For the Greek PM to take a different turn, and allow the population to vote on the possible measures that the rest of the world wants is going to be interesting once the results are in. And, of course, if the expert economists are right about the financial fallout.

Personally I’m glad it’s turning out this way.

[Lousada]

Yes, communism is the answer! Since that worked out so well the last 100 years :rolleyes:

[AAReagles]

Oh why silly me, I forgot that we were the 'beacon of liberty'.

Translation: Lenin, Stalin, Mao and such were no better examples of communism that any of our presidents were in the last 40+ years of representing democracy... well democracy without any strings attached that is. Any guesses as to where those strings might lead to? Take a guess.

[chuck34]

Oh why silly me, I forgot that we were the 'beacon of liberty'.

Translation: Lenin, Stalin, Mao and such were no better examples of communism that any of our presidents were in the last 40+ years of representing democracy... well democracy without any strings attached that is. Any guesses as to where those strings might lead to? Take a guess.

"Liberty"?! You want to talk about liberty? What system do you think provides more personal liberty, communism or the free market?

Oh I get it now, you are one of those "we've never really tried true communism" types. Give me a break. A simple look at human nature will tell you that will never work, people won't work if there's nothing in it for them. Free markets aren't perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than communism. Only the people that don't want to take responsibilty for their actions screaming "It's not fair!!!" can't see that. Life's hard, get a helmet. I know you'll get all offended now and take pot shots at me. But I'm just being honest.

[nigelred5]

This might be different in the sense that it affects pocketbooks globally. For the Greek PM to take a different turn, and allow the population to vote on the possible measures that the rest of the world wants is going to be interesting once the results are in. And, of course, if the expert economists are right about the financial fallout.

Personally I’m glad it’s turning out this way.

:rolleyes:

how's all that socialism working out there in the commonwealth??

[AAReagles]

Funny I was going to ask the same thing about capitalism... not just for here, but globally.

[AAReagles]

Oh I get it now, you are one of those "we've never really tried true communism" types. Give me a break. A simple look at human nature will tell you that will never work, people won't work if there's nothing in it for them. Free markets aren't perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than communism. Only the people that don't want to take responsibilty for their actions screaming "It's not fair!!!" can't see that. Life's hard, get a helmet. I know you'll get all offended now and take pot shots at me. But I'm just being honest.

Looks like you took the first pot shots Chuck.

Guess you're still living off the psueo-patriotic notions that everything is okay just as long as it doesn't affect the US, or you personally. Nice going.

[ArrowsFA1]

For the Greek PM to take a different turn, and allow the population to vote on the possible measures that the rest of the world wants is going to be interesting once the results are in.
It would seem that George Papandreou is about to resign:

The Greek government was on the verge of collapse after several ministers said they did not support Mr Papandreou's plan for a referendum on the EU bailout.
BBC News - Greek crisis: Papandreou 'to offer to resign' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15575198)

So perhaps the Greek electorate will not have a say after all.

[chuck34]

Looks like you took the first pot shots Chuck.

Guess you're still living off the psueo-patriotic notions that everything is okay just as long as it doesn't affect the US, or you personally. Nice going.

"psueo-patriotic"? Seriously? No, I just look at reality. Did I say everything was okay? No, just that communism is absolutely not the way to go. Heck you don't even have to look at communist nations to see that. Just look at occupy Wall Street, and see the infighting that has already begun about the money they have collected. There will always be someone in power and someone jealous of that power. The free market system gives those out of power an opportunity to change their situation through hard work, a good idea, and yes a bit of luck. The communist/socialist system by definition can not allow anyone to change station in life. Call me crazy, but I would like the opportunity to profit from my hard work. But if you would like to share your profits with me, feel free.

[BDunnell]

Just look at occupy Wall Street, and see the infighting that has already begun about the money they have collected.

In what sense is this in-fighting somehow inferior to that which goes on inside large corporations?

[race aficionado]

for those who want to know more about this movement and care to listen to two very eloquent persons: Chris Hedges and Amy Goodman, go to this link to listen to this Charlie Rose interview.
I found it very educational and enlightening.

Charlie Rose - A discussion about Occupy Wall Street (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11961)

[chuck34]

In what sense is this in-fighting somehow inferior to that which goes on inside large corporations?

I never said it was superior or inferior. But the claim always seems to be that under communism everyone will be equal and all things will be peace and harmony. I'm simply pointing out the reality does not match the propaganda.

[BDunnell]

I never said it was superior or inferior. But the claim always seems to be that under communism everyone will be equal and all things will be peace and harmony. I'm simply pointing out the reality does not match the propaganda.

I'm in no sense advocating Communism here, but exactly the same could be said to those who have an exaggerated regard for private enterprise.

[chuck34]

I'm in no sense advocating Communism here, but exactly the same could be said to those who have an exaggerated regard for private enterprise.

How so? I don't think I have ever seen claims of free markets like I have of communism. Pretty much any time I have ever seen a debate of the merits/detriments of the two systems, the free market people are pretty up front in saying that the system isn't perfect, there are winners and loosers, etc. But those advocating communism pretty much claim that under their system all will be great and wonderful, if only those with a different view would just submit to the "will of the people".

Look at the OWS people for one example. Their claim is that the top 1% are oppressing the 99%, that if we had equal distribution of wealth everyone would be happy. Then what's just about the first thing that happens? Their finance committee starts taking in money, and distributes it to their friends, others are mad. Pretty ironic if you ask me. Just like I said, some will always have power/money, others will be jealous. It's just a matter of which system allows for economic/political/class mobility.

[BDunnell]

How so? I don't think I have ever seen claims of free markets like I have of communism. Pretty much any time I have ever seen a debate of the merits/detriments of the two systems, the free market people are pretty up front in saying that the system isn't perfect, there are winners and loosers, etc. But those advocating communism pretty much claim that under their system all will be great and wonderful, if only those with a different view would just submit to the "will of the people".

Oh, there is no doubt that those advocating Communism do suffer from certain delusions way beyond those on other sides of the argument, I grant you. I suppose I am referring here to the lack of recognition of the failings of the private sector when, for example, governments hand over large tracts of the public sector to it.

[chuck34]

Oh, there is no doubt that those advocating Communism do suffer from certain delusions way beyond those on other sides of the argument, I grant you. I suppose I am referring here to the lack of recognition of the failings of the private sector when, for example, governments hand over large tracts of the public sector to it.

Again, I'll be the first to admit that in a free market system there are winners and loosers. Obviously that means not everyone will be happy, and that things won't be comming up roses all the time. And yes some things are better done by the public sector than private. However, I believe those to be extremely few and far between, especially when the private sector is allowed to operate in a truly free market, free of restrictive government intervention. Many times when "public sector" projects are turned over to the private sector they are so riddled with rules, regulations, and oversight that they can't help but fail. Thus pushing the argument that the government can do certain things better. Anyway, we're way off topic now, sorry.

[nigelred5]

Funny I was going to ask the same thing about capitalism... not just for here, but globally.

Capitalism isn't the problem per se, loose CREDIT is the root cause of the problem as I see it. Live within ones means and we are fine. Buy what one can afford on one's actual income, not what one can convince a lender they can afford.

Taking my hard earned money and giving it to others less willing to work creates as much anomosity as it solves, if not more. Why should I work to improve my situation, only to have it taken from me? I' might as well be a lazy a$$ like the next guy.

[Eki]

Capitalism isn't the problem per se, loose CREDIT is the root cause of the problem as I see it. Live within ones means and we are fine. Buy what one can afford on one's actual income, not what one can convince a lender they can afford.

Taking my hard earned money and giving it to others less willing to work creates as much anomosity as it solves, if not more. Why should I work to improve my situation, only to have it taken from me? I' might as well be a lazy a$$ like the next guy.
Because then there would be two "lazy a$$" guys others have to support or the whole system collapses. Somebody has to work. I don't complain as long as I get a bigger share than the "lazy a$$" guy.

[chuck34]

Because then there would be two "lazy a$$" guys others have to support or the whole system collapses. Somebody has to work. I don't complain as long as I get a bigger share than the "lazy a$$" guy.

Wow Eki gets it! I never thought I'd say that. You've just explained why communism will never work.

[anthonyvop]

Funny I was going to ask the same thing about capitalism... not just for here, but globally.

The difference that Capitalism actually works.

[ArrowsFA1]

Taking my hard earned money and giving it to others less willing to work creates as much anomosity as it solves, if not more. Why should I work to improve my situation, only to have it taken from me? I' might as well be a lazy a$$ like the next guy.
Perhaps by trying to make society more equal, rather than individuals chasing wealth & consumer goods in the short term, the whole of society will ultimately benefit...?

[chuck34]

Perhaps by trying to make society more equal, rather than individuals chasing wealth & consumer goods in the short term, the whole of society will ultimately benefit...?

How does taking something from one, to give to another, benefit society in the long run?

[BDunnell]

Again, I'll be the first to admit that in a free market system there are winners and loosers. Obviously that means not everyone will be happy, and that things won't be comming up roses all the time. And yes some things are better done by the public sector than private. However, I believe those to be extremely few and far between, especially when the private sector is allowed to operate in a truly free market, free of restrictive government intervention.

If the private sector is allowed to operate in a truly free market, then one surely ends up with giant monopolies, and thus a situation no better — except ideologically in the eyes of those with, as I mentioned earlier, an exaggerated sense of respect for private enterprise — than it would have been in a situation where the state held sway.

[chuck34]

then one surely ends up with giant monopolies,

Why?

[BDunnell]

How does taking something from one, to give to another, benefit society in the long run?

How does huge quantities of wealth being in the hands of a relatively few people benefit society in the long run? How does a widening gap between richest and poorest benefit society in the long run? How does an unfettered free market leading to a few companies enjoying unchallenged monopoly positions benefit society in the long run?

Many politicians on all sides of the modern political divide seem to believe that the private sector's natural altruism will fill the gap created in state involvement by the rolling-back of the state. This is deeply misguided.

[BDunnell]

Why?

Because of the nature of business, surely, seeing larger companies taking over smaller ones? This is why monopolies and mergers commissions exist in order to provide safeguards.

[ArrowsFA1]

How does taking something from one, to give to another, benefit society in the long run?
The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence)

[Eki]

Wow Eki gets it! I never thought I'd say that. You've just explained why communism will never work.
Cut-throat capitalism doesn't work either. Those who can't find a work that gives them and their families decent living, will turn to crime and the few rich have to protect themselves with walls and private armies. Only some hybrid system between communism and capitalism has a chance to work.

[BDunnell]

I believe that capitalism with a genuine social conscience, as opposed to the impression of one, can be a genuine force for good. But let's not think that it has a monopoly on this.

[chuck34]

Because of the nature of business, surely, seeing larger companies taking over smaller ones? This is why monopolies and mergers commissions exist in order to provide safeguards.

But why would that happen? Say there is a monopoly on, oh I don't know, air travel. If there is one sole airline and I feel that they are ripping people off by charging too much, what stops me from buying a plane and undercutting their price and or improving upon their service? Or heck what stops me from building a high speed rail line that can get there faster and cheaper?

True free markets encourage competition, they don't stifle it. Communism, by definition, enshrines state run monopolies. Is that good?

[chuck34]

The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence)

Ohhhh fun with statistics. Do I really need to take the time to refute all those? I will if you want me to.

[chuck34]

Ohhhh fun with statistics. Do I really need to take the time to refute all those? I will if you want me to.

Infant mortality reporting issues:
Factors Contributing to the Infant Mortality Ranking of the United States (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0)

Problems of definition and measurement, however, hamper cross-national comparisons of health statistics. Alternative measures of infant mortality may provide better information but cannot completely compensate for differences among countries in the overall rates of reporting of adverse pregnancy outcomes. For example, very premature births are more likely to be included in birth and mortality statistics in the United States than in several other industrialized countries that have lower infant mortality rates.

Mental illness reporting issues:
How Depressed Is Your Country? - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/15/depression-world-rate-forbeslife-cx_avd_0216depressed.html)

...the findings are likely related in part to Americans' willingness to talk about their depression.

Drug abuse:
I'll give you this one because people in the US probably has more disposable income than many other countries (even our poor). So we literally have more money to dispose of on drugs. I guess more money is bad then. :rolleyes:

Anyway now I'm bored. Those are some pretty charts though I'll give them that. I did laugh pretty hard though when they got to the "Social Mobility" one though. I thought this was a study of "equal countries"? If they're equal how do you go from poor to rich or vice versa? Funny that.

[BDunnell]

But why would that happen? Say there is a monopoly on, oh I don't know, air travel. If there is one sole airline and I feel that they are ripping people off by charging too much, what stops me from buying a plane and undercutting their price and or improving upon their service? Or heck what stops me from building a high speed rail line that can get there faster and cheaper?

And to think you accuse others of having a romanticised view of communism... Your perspective on the free market is, judging by these remarks, no better.

[chuck34]

And to think you accuse others of having a romanticised view of communism... Your perspective on the free market is, judging by these remarks, no better.

How so? Honest question. Where is my logic flawed? In a truly free market system, why wouldn't a competing business spring up to compete with an "evil monopoly"? What barrier is there stopping them? There sure as heck is a motive, profit, and that is a strong motivator.

The real world is on my side of this argument. Why is there a Delta, a United, American, etc? Why is there a FexEx and a DHL, UPS? Why is there a Wendy's and a McDonalds? Are you suggesting that only government intervention is providing competition? That without the government somehow McDonalds would buy up Wendy's, Burger King, Jack in the Box and all the rest and be some sort of monopoly?

[Eki]

True free markets encourage competition, they don't stifle it. Communism, by definition, enshrines state run monopolies. Is that good?
Competition by definition has losers. The more someone wins, the more others lose. And the more someone wins, the easier it gets for him to win some more. That leads inevitably to a situation when there are far more losers than winners. Unless there are rules and some kind of handicap system.

s-LIEr43_wk


Now I been lookin' for a job but it's hard to find
Down here it's just winners and losers and don't get caught on the wrong side of that line
Well I'm tired of comin' out on the losin' end
So honey last night I met this guy and I'm gonna do a little favor for him
Well I guess everything dies baby that's a fact
But maybe everything that dies someday comes back
Put your makeup on fix your hair up pretty and meet me tonight in Atlantic City

[chuck34]

Competition by definition has losers.

Yes, I have never stated otherwise.


The more someone wins, the more others lose.

Basic flaw by many people. Economics is not a zero sum game. McDonalds is clearly the winner in the fast food market. But that does not mean that Wendy's, Burger King, Jack in the Box, others aren't making money.

[BDunnell]

How so? Honest question. Where is my logic flawed? In a truly free market system, why wouldn't a competing business spring up to compete with an "evil monopoly"? What barrier is there stopping them? There sure as heck is a motive, profit, and that is a strong motivator.

A better question might be 'what barrier is stopping you'? I'm sure you can think of some.

[Eki]

Basic flaw by many people. Economics is not a zero sum game. McDonalds is clearly the winner in the fast food market. But that does not mean that Wendy's, Burger King, Jack in the Box, others aren't making money.
But how many mom&pop burger joints went bust and aren't making money because of them. People can't eat more fast food than they can stuff into their stomach and the population and the obesity problem aren't growing fast enough.

[chuck34]

A better question might be 'what barrier is stopping you'? I'm sure you can think of some.

Actually that is exactly my question, substitution the adverb you for them doesn't change it one bit. But I'll play along just for fun.

What barrier is stopping me in this theoretical true free market system? My own ambition, I would rather spend time with my family, and play video games than spend the time and energy needed to make a start up work. Short answer me.

What barrier is stopping me in the real world of the current US system? Again my own ambition is the main concern. But then you add in government rules, regulations, and certification processes, and those only add to drive down one's desire to devote the time and resources needed to make a start up successful.

[chuck34]

Competition by definition has losers. The more someone wins, the more others lose. And the more someone wins, the easier it gets for him to win some more. That leads inevitably to a situation when there are far more losers than winners. Unless there are rules and some kind of handicap system.

s-LIEr43_wk

You added the Springsteen bit after I replied. What a f'ing joke that man is. How much money has he made off of people charging them $100 to see him in concert whining about how hard it is to find a job, comin' out on the losin' end, and so on. Hypocrite. People like him and Michael Moore just make me sick. Making huge sums money in a capitalistic system by complaining about how horrible the capitalistic system is, how stupid is that!

[chuck34]

But how many mom&pop burger joints went bust and aren't making money because of them. People can't eat more fast food than they can stuff into their stomach and the population and the obesity problem aren't growing fast enough.

Oh no, a business might have failed. Boo hoo. I'm sorry to be so "heartless", but if those mom & pop shops were so great why couldn't they have beaten those giants? McDonalds was once a mom & pop outfit. The evil Wall-Mart was once a mom & pop shop. How did they ever compete against Macy's and Gimbals? How could a small computer company started out of some hippie's garage with a stupid fruit name ever compete against the might of IBM?

[Eki]

Oh no, a business might have failed. Boo hoo. I'm sorry to be so "heartless", but if those mom & pop shops were so great why couldn't they have beaten those giants? McDonalds was once a mom & pop outfit. The evil Wall-Mart was once a mom & pop shop. How did they ever compete against Macy's and Gimbals? How could a small computer company started out of some hippie's garage with a stupid fruit name ever compete against the might of IBM?
That proves my point that there are just few winners and thousands of losers.

And how many low-paid employees they have? I read that the CEO of a Finnish supermarket chain makes 102 times more than his employees in average. I guess it's even worse in the US.

[Eki]

Making huge sums money in a capitalistic system by complaining about how horrible the capitalistic system is, how stupid is that!
In a capitalistic system it's very smart. You sell people what they want to buy. If somebody is stupid, it's them who pay for their stuff.

[BDunnell]

Actually that is exactly my question, substitution the adverb you for them doesn't change it one bit. But I'll play along just for fun.

What barrier is stopping me in this theoretical true free market system? My own ambition, I would rather spend time with my family, and play video games than spend the time and energy needed to make a start up work. Short answer me.

What barrier is stopping me in the real world of the current US system? Again my own ambition is the main concern. But then you add in government rules, regulations, and certification processes, and those only add to drive down one's desire to devote the time and resources needed to make a start up successful.

And not at any moment do you think that the sheer extent to which the corporate giants are entrenched, the sheer financial power at their disposal and their utter ruthlessness may be no barrier?

[BDunnell]

You added the Springsteen bit after I replied. What a f'ing joke that man is. How much money has he made off of people charging them $100 to see him in concert whining about how hard it is to find a job, comin' out on the losin' end, and so on. Hypocrite. People like him and Michael Moore just make me sick. Making huge sums money in a capitalistic system by complaining about how horrible the capitalistic system is, how stupid is that!

Oh, that old chestnut — 'you can't be a rich socialist'. Why is that attitude apparently not allowed, whereas you would presumably not have any objection to a poor capitalist?

[chuck34]

That proves my point that there are just few winners and thousands of losers.

And how many low-paid employees they have? I read that the CEO of a Finnish supermarket chain makes 102 times more than his employees in average. I guess it's even worse in the US.

What the hell are you on about? Why does the number of winners and losers matter? Why is it your business how much more a CEO makes than his employees? If you don't like it, shop somewhere else. You seem to be arguing that it is some sort of national tragedy that mom & pop shops go out of business. Why? What do you want to do about it? Guaruntee that every start up will succeed? Great, get that law passed, I'll go start some stupid company then when it fails, Eki and his buddies will support me "because it's just not fair that my business was a loser".

[chuck34]

And not at any moment do you think that the sheer extent to which the corporate giants are entrenched, the sheer financial power at their disposal and their utter ruthlessness may be no barrier?

Entrenched with whom? What financial power, and why is their power a barrier to me?

[chuck34]

Oh, that old chestnut — 'you can't be a rich socialist'. Why is that attitude apparently not allowed, whereas you would presumably not have any objection to a poor capitalist?

Ah, but you can't be a rch socialist by the very definition of the term. You know everyone should be equal. From each according to their abilty, to each according to their need. And all that.

I honestly don't have an objection to what Bruce, Michael, and those like them are doing. I just don't understand why anyone would pay to see/hear their product when they are getting rich by being a hypocrite. I, for one, don't really want to give my money to someone who hates me and the system I believe in. But that's just me. If others don't feel that way, then they are free to give these hypocrites their money. No skin off my nose. Just don't cry to me when you're broke.

[Eki]

According to tax statistics, the highest salary income in Finland last year was over €8 million by the former CEO of Nokia,Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo. Much of it was from the "golden handshake" he got when they fired him. How many regular workers get millions when they're fired? None.

And Nokia has been in business since 1865, so you can't seriously believe a start-up is competing in the same league with them, no matter how good their business idea is.

[BDunnell]

Ah, but you can't be a rch socialist by the very definition of the term. You know everyone should be equal. From each according to their abilty, to each according to their need. And all that.

I honestly don't have an objection to what Bruce, Michael, and those like them are doing. I just don't understand why anyone would pay to see/hear their product when they are getting rich by being a hypocrite. I, for one, don't really want to give my money to someone who hates me and the system I believe in. But that's just me. If others don't feel that way, then they are free to give these hypocrites their money. No skin off my nose. Just don't cry to me when you're broke.

I hate to tell you that capitalist topics — hedge funds, blind trusts, dividend forecasts and so on — don't make for good music.

Aside from that, I just find your reasoning utterly groundless. There is nothing hypocritical about being wealthy and believing in the redistribution of said wealth, so long as one pays one's taxes where one should and to the required amount, and does some good with what remains. It is also worth pointing out that there is no alternative but to engage with the capitalist system. An airheadedly stupid Conservative MP was on UK television the other week saying that the anti-capitalist protesters in London should not be taken seriously because they buy their coffee from Starbucks, unfortunately failing to grasp that, if one is in a city centre nowadays, there is no choice but to use the range of blandly corporate outlets that now populate the high street.

[BDunnell]

Entrenched with whom? What financial power, and why is their power a barrier to me?

Like I said, your perspective is touchingly naïve.

Have you not seen for yourself the dominance of large chains on the high street, which have in recent years increasingly forced out the individual independents? There is one demonstration of corporate dominance in action. There is little or no way for the average person to compete. Still, I suppose you view such bland, corporate homogeneity as a positive development, proving as it does the superiority of the free market? To hell with independent individualism, hey?

[chuck34]

I hate to tell you that capitalist topics — hedge funds, blind trusts, dividend forecasts and so on — don't make for good music.

Aside from that, I just find your reasoning utterly groundless. There is nothing hypocritical about being wealthy and believing in the redistribution of said wealth, so long as one pays one's taxes where one should and to the required amount, and does some good with what remains. It is also worth pointing out that there is no alternative but to engage with the capitalist system. An airheadedly stupid Conservative MP was on UK television the other week saying that the anti-capitalist protesters in London should not be taken seriously because they buy their coffee from Starbucks, unfortunately failing to grasp that, if one is in a city centre nowadays, there is no choice but to use the range of blandly corporate outlets that now populate the high street.

How do you not see the irony in protesting "evil corporations" that make "too much profit" while at the same time using products produced by huge corporations making massive profits? I mean most of these people down occupying Wall Street have macs, ipads, and ipods. Apple's profit margin is a whopping 23.43% Apple Profit Margin (AAPL) (http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin). And to top it all off they're built by outsourcing jobs to China. How do you not see the humor in that?

[Eki]

My own ambition, I would rather spend time with my family, and play video games than spend the time and energy needed to make a start up work.
It's not just about the time and energy you put to work. Also connections, capital, ideas, skills, talent and sheer luck among other things play a role, so you can't say everybody start from the same start line.

[Eki]

How do you not see the irony in protesting "evil corporations" that make "too much profit" while at the same time using products produced by huge corporations making massive profits? I mean most of these people down occupying Wall Street have macs, ipads, and ipods. Apple's profit margin is a whopping 23.43% Apple Profit Margin (AAPL) (http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin). And to top it all off they're built by outsourcing jobs to China. How do you not see the humor in that?
Did they have choices other than being without those things? OK, the Chinese will figure out how they make cheaper mac, ipad and ipod clones withouth Apple, but not yet.

[chuck34]

Like I said, your perspective is touchingly naïve.

Have you not seen for yourself the dominance of large chains on the high street, which have in recent years increasingly forced out the individual independents? There is one demonstration of corporate dominance in action. There is little or no way for the average person to compete. Still, I suppose you view such bland, corporate homogeneity as a positive development, proving as it does the superiority of the free market? To hell with independent individualism, hey?

I wouldn't say that bland corporate homogeneity is good or bad. It just (at the moment at least) makes economic sense. I would rather support locally owned businesses, and do when I can. But do you honestly expect people to pay more for goods, just to support locally owned businesses? To hell with balance family budgets, hey?

And the fact that large chains are currently dominating the high street does not prove nor dis-prove barriers. I suppose you might be making the argument that they have a certain buying power based on scale. Ok I'll buy that. But why is that bad? And why is that necessarily a barrier to my entrance into the market? Is it even sort of a barrier to entrance into the market? What large chain doesn't have a competitor? Even if there is a monopoly somewhere, why is that inhearently bad?

Let's take an example from my life. I don't know if you are familiar with Lowe's (do they have those in Europe?). It's one of those large chain hardware stores. Stuff there is dirt cheap. The drawback to Lowe's is that they employ mostly high school and college kids at minimum wage that have no clue what the difference is between a light bulb and a 2x4. I go there when I know exactly what I want/need simply because it's cheap, and pretty much the same thing I'll get anywhere else. But if I need a specialty item I'll go to my local shop down the street because they have people in there that know what they're talking about. Sure I'll pay more there, but I'll get the right thing. You see each store has it's niche, they're good at what they do. What you seem to be proposing is for everyone to be forced to go to the mom & pop shop down the road out of some sort of "good for the community". Why is supporting someone who is expensive "good" even though I have to pay more than is necessary?

[chuck34]

It's not just about the time and energy you put to work. Also connections, capital, ideas, skills, talent and sheer luck among other things play a role, so you can't say everybody start from the same start line.

I absolutely never said everyone starts from the same start line. Are you advocating that no one can ever take advantage of their own ideas, skills, or talent?

[Eki]

I absolutely never said everyone starts from the same start line. Are you advocating that no one can ever take advantage of their own ideas, skills, or talent?
No, but I don't object if there's a limit on how much they can exploit others using their own ideas, skills and talents. That's what I meant by a handicap system. I think it should get harder the higher you get like in a video game, not easier as it's often now.

[chuck34]

And Nokia has been in business since 1865, so you can't seriously believe a start-up is competing in the same league with them, no matter how good their business idea is.

You keep adding stuff, or I keep posting too quickly. :)

You can't seriously believe that start-ups can't compete with Nokia. That is perhaps one of the funniest things you have ever said.

Nokia was founded in 1865. Nokia makes cell phones. Apple was founded in 1976 (111 years later). Apple makes cell phones.
Cellphone Market Share Shifting - NYTimes.com (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/cellphone-market-share-shifting/)

Nokia is about to drop from its position as the leading cellphone maker in the world,

Gaining strength was Apple in the No. 4 slot with 4.6 percent, up from 2.4 percent

But you're right, a start up could never compete with someone that is already established :rolleyes:

[chuck34]

No, but I don't object if there's a limit on how much they can exploit others using their own ideas, skills and talents. That's what I meant by a handicap system. I think it should get harder the higher you get like in a video game, not easier as it's often now.

Define "exploit". Are companies using slaves? Or do you object to someone making an honest day's wage for an honest day's work?

[Eki]

Define "exploit". Are companies using slaves? Or do you object to someone making an honest day's wage for an honest day's work?
No, but I object somebody needing two or more low-paid jobs just to make the ends meet. I also object someone forced to be unemployed because someone else is forced to work for two just to keep his own job.

[chuck34]

No, but I object somebody needing two or more low-paid jobs just to make the ends meet. I also object someone forced to be unemployed because someone else is forced to work for two just to keep his own job.

Who is forcing those people to take low-paid jobs?

[Eki]

Who is forcing those people to take low-paid jobs?
Lack of sufficient social security, so that a low-paid job is better than being unemployed. That's where the government and trade unions should come to play. They set the minimum wage and collect taxes and union fees to pay for the unemployed.

[race aficionado]

Ah, but you can't be a rch socialist by the very definition of the term. You know everyone should be equal. From each according to their abilty, to each according to their need. And all that.

By the very definition of what exactly?
One of the positive facts that is coming out of this Occupy movement is that we are being educated on the different types of Capitalism - as there also is different types of socialism. It is also a very common fallacy where communism and socialism are bunched together as one.

Looking for definitions of socialism I found this:

People often confuse "socialism" with the concept of "communism." While the two ideologies share much in common -- in in fact communism encompasses socialism -- the primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems, whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests. Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.

Where I hope we go in these times of change is to that well balanced combination that can exist between the type of capitalism that doesn't put a big boot on our throats and social programs that are useful and deserving.

:s mokin:

[chuck34]

Lack of sufficient social security, so that a low-paid job is better than being unemployed. That's where the government and trade unions should come to play. They set the minimum wage and collect taxes and union fees to pay for the unemployed.

The question wasn't about unemployment insurance. I asked who is forcing that person to take the low paying job? Said another way, why don't they have a better paying job?

Now you want talk about minimum wages, taxes, and union fees? Come on. What do you think happens to the price of goods if governments arbitrarily increase the minimum wage? How does that affect the buying power of someone in your "low paying job" situation? How does increased taxes help that person? Union dues? Seriously, you think someone paying more in union dues will increase their standard of living?

[chuck34]

By the very definition of what exactly?
One of the positive facts that is coming out of this Occupy movement is that we are being educated on the different types of Capitalism - as there also is different types of socialism. It is also a very common fallacy where communism and socialism are bunched together as one.

Looking for definitions of socialism I found this:

That's a cute definition of socialism you dug up there. Try this one
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism)

a theory or system of social organizationthat advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

So, as I said, by the very definition of socialism you can not have rich socialists as the ownership and control of production, capital, and land are vested in the community as a whole.


Where I hope we go in these times of change is to that well balanced combination that can exist between the type of capitalism that doesn't put a big boot on our throats and social programs that are useful and deserving.

:s mokin:

How is capitalism putting a "big boot on your throat"? And how are social programs, emplemented by the government, not putting a "big boot on your throat"? Remember, governments can only give out something that it first takes from someone else.

[Eki]

The question wasn't about unemployment insurance. I asked who is forcing that person to take the low paying job? Said another way, why don't they have a better paying job?

Lack of connections, ideas, skills, talent, education, job experience or wrong age, wrong gender, wrong ethnicity or sheer luck among other things. Of course they would take a better paying job if they were available.

[race aficionado]

That's a cute definition of socialism you dug up there. Try this one
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism)


So, as I said, by the very definition of socialism you can not have rich socialists as the ownership and control of production, capital, and land are vested in the community as a whole.



How is capitalism putting a "big boot on your throat"? And how are social programs, emplemented by the government, not putting a "big boot on your throat"? Remember, governments can only give out something that it first takes from someone else.

You and I are totally opposite on how we look at this one. I see no common ground and that's perfectly fine with me.



:s mokin:

[BDunnell]

How do you not see the irony in protesting "evil corporations" that make "too much profit" while at the same time using products produced by huge corporations making massive profits? I mean most of these people down occupying Wall Street have macs, ipads, and ipods. Apple's profit margin is a whopping 23.43% Apple Profit Margin (AAPL) (http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin). And to top it all off they're built by outsourcing jobs to China. How do you not see the humor in that?

Tell me what the alternative is if someone participating in the protests wants a computer. Are they supposed to make one themselves, or get a group of anarcho-syndicalists to do it for nothing, using wood and lentils?

One of your problems in this discussion is that you assume no middle ground between Communism and an unfettered free market. You assume that those protesting must be socialists, or even further to the left than that. I know some people who have taken part, and they are nothing of the sort.

[BDunnell]

I wouldn't say that bland corporate homogeneity is good or bad. It just (at the moment at least) makes economic sense. I would rather support locally owned businesses, and do when I can. But do you honestly expect people to pay more for goods, just to support locally owned businesses? To hell with balance family budgets, hey?

And the fact that large chains are currently dominating the high street does not prove nor dis-prove barriers. I suppose you might be making the argument that they have a certain buying power based on scale. Ok I'll buy that. But why is that bad? And why is that necessarily a barrier to my entrance into the market? Is it even sort of a barrier to entrance into the market? What large chain doesn't have a competitor? Even if there is a monopoly somewhere, why is that inhearently bad?

Let's take an example from my life. I don't know if you are familiar with Lowe's (do they have those in Europe?). It's one of those large chain hardware stores. Stuff there is dirt cheap. The drawback to Lowe's is that they employ mostly high school and college kids at minimum wage that have no clue what the difference is between a light bulb and a 2x4. I go there when I know exactly what I want/need simply because it's cheap, and pretty much the same thing I'll get anywhere else. But if I need a specialty item I'll go to my local shop down the street because they have people in there that know what they're talking about. Sure I'll pay more there, but I'll get the right thing. You see each store has it's niche, they're good at what they do. What you seem to be proposing is for everyone to be forced to go to the mom & pop shop down the road out of some sort of "good for the community". Why is supporting someone who is expensive "good" even though I have to pay more than is necessary?

I made no reference to 'expensive' meaning 'good', and find it quite telling that you make that connection.

EDIT: As, indeed, it is that you apparently have no opinion on homogeneity. I see it as an almost indisputably bad thing in any sense. In the case I was describing, you say that '(at the moment at least) [it] makes economic sense'. By 'at the moment', what you mean is 'as a result of an unstoppable process dating back very many years'. And given attitudes such as yours, is this any surprise? What consumers are left with is less choice — not what you free-marketeers would deem a good thing. What, after all, is the rightful purpose of a company if not to seek to gain market domination and thus increase its profits?

[chuck34]

Lack of connections,

BS, plenty of job listings on the internet.


ideas,

BS, many jobs do not necessarily require one to have original ideas.


skills, talent, education,

BS, many jobs will pay for training, or there are technical schools out there and plenty of financial aid to go through the program.


job experience

BS, plenty of entry level jobs that are not minimum wage.


or wrong age, wrong gender, wrong ethnicity

BS, there are laws protecting from descrimination.


or sheer luck among other things.

Pure simple BS


Of course they would take a better paying job if they were available.

Of course they could find a better job, if they made that a priority rather than sitting around watching TV, or "occupying Wall Street", or b!tching about how unlucky they are, or whatever else one might do rather than improving one's lot in life.

[chuck34]

You and I are totally opposite on how we look at this one. I see no common ground and that's perfectly fine with me.



:s mokin:

I have no problem with someone with opposite views than me. I just like debating issues. Apparently you do not, that's cool.

:s mokin:

[Eki]

BS, plenty of job listings on the internet.

Much more unemployed.

[Eki]

BS, many jobs will pay for training, or there are technical schools out there and plenty of financial aid to go through the program.

I don't know about the US, but in Finland it seems that the companies expect the government and/or the applicants take care of the training. In other words, they have outsourced the training to the government and the applicants. They have also outsourced much of their research and development to the government.

[Eki]

BS, there are laws protecting from descrimination.

Do they work?

[chuck34]

Tell me what the alternative is if someone participating in the protests wants a computer. Are they supposed to make one themselves, or get a group of anarcho-syndicalists to do it for nothing, using wood and lentils?

How about a Dell? Their profit margin is only 22.9%. Let's bend the curve a bit.


One of your problems in this discussion is that you assume no middle ground between Communism and an unfettered free market. You assume that those protesting must be socialists, or even further to the left than that. I know some people who have taken part, and they are nothing of the sort.

No I understand completely that there is a middle ground. But it's not much fun to debate the middle. ;)

I too have heard from some that have taken part in these protests. The rational ones that really do have a beef are, in my opinion, protesting the wrong thing. They are upset about the bailouts. And so am I. The government bailing out Wall Street firms was horrible. The firms that made bets on risky "securities" should have lost when their bet went south. But the blame for the bailouts lies not with the Wall Street firms (at least not totally), most of the blame rests on Congress.

But the other problem I have with the OWS folks is the fact that even if the majority are there for rational reasons, and they aren't hard core socialists/communists, the "face" of the movement has become those who are. Look at the TEA party as a counterpoint. Yes there were racist @ssholes that showed up to some TEA party rallies, but by and large those people were shouted down and forced to leave. So the "face" of the TEA party is not racist. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I've made that point 100% clear.

[Eki]

Of course they could find a better job, if they made that a priority rather than sitting around watching TV, or "occupying Wall Street", or b!tching about how unlucky they are, or whatever else one might do rather than improving one's lot in life.
Pure simple BS.

[chuck34]

Much more unemployed.

So. If one was motivated there are jobs out there.

[chuck34]

I don't know about the US, but in Finland it seems that the companies expect the government and/or the applicants take care of the training.

In the US some do, but some provide training. And as I said there is plenty of opportunity for an applicant to recieve financial aid for said training. Someone would just need the motivation to go through it.

[chuck34]

Do they work?

Mostly yes. But there are issues. No system is perfect.

[BDunnell]

How about a Dell? Their profit margin is only 22.9%. Let's bend the curve a bit.



No I understand completely that there is a middle ground. But it's not much fun to debate the middle. ;)

I too have heard from some that have taken part in these protests. The rational ones that really do have a beef are, in my opinion, protesting the wrong thing. They are upset about the bailouts. And so am I. The government bailing out Wall Street firms was horrible. The firms that made bets on risky "securities" should have lost when their bet went south. But the blame for the bailouts lies not with the Wall Street firms (at least not totally), most of the blame rests on Congress.

But the other problem I have with the OWS folks is the fact that even if the majority are there for rational reasons, and they aren't hard core socialists/communists, the "face" of the movement has become those who are. Look at the TEA party as a counterpoint. Yes there were racist @ssholes that showed up to some TEA party rallies, but by and large those people were shouted down and forced to leave. So the "face" of the TEA party is not racist. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I've made that point 100% clear.

No, you have, and in a very reasonable way. Sorry if any of my contributions towards you came across as unduly aggressive.

However, I think you're wrong about the face of the protestors being seen as the hard left. I think that's maybe the case if one is oneself positioned on the right. To many right-wingers, anyone who takes part in what could be called a left-leaning protest — anti-war marches, the current demonstrations, etc — must be an unwashed, unemployed socialist. I have always found that view quite offensive, as well as simply untrue. And in the UK at least, where politics has thankfully become less polarised than is the case in the USA, I think more people are coming to realise this. The all-encompassing nature of objection to the Iraq war probably had a hand in this.

[BDunnell]

Of course they could find a better job, if they made that a priority rather than sitting around watching TV, or "occupying Wall Street", or b!tching about how unlucky they are, or whatever else one might do rather than improving one's lot in life.

It is statements like this one, in fact, that I'm referring to in my post above.

[Eki]

So. If one was motivated there are jobs out there.
If everyone was motivated there aren't enough jobs for everybody.

[BDunnell]

If everyone was motivated there aren't enough jobs for everybody.

And it is simply not practical for literally everybody to create one for themselves.

[Eki]

In the US some do, but some provide training.
But to whom? In the company I'm working for, the boyfriend of the boss's daughter is being trained (funded partly by the government). The wife of the boss is the secretary and their son worked for the company until he moved to a different company.

[BDunnell]

But to whom? In the company I'm working for, the boyfriend of the boss's daughter is being trained (funded partly by the government). The wife of the boss is the secretary and their son worked for the company until he moved to a different company.

Ah, the tyranny of the family-run company.

[chuck34]

No, you have, and in a very reasonable way. Sorry if any of my contributions towards you came across as unduly aggressive.

I took no offense, and I don't think any of your comments were aggressive. I hope mine weren't either.


However, I think you're wrong about the face of the protestors being seen as the hard left. I think that's maybe the case if one is oneself positioned on the right. To many right-wingers, anyone who takes part in what could be called a left-leaning protest — anti-war marches, the current demonstrations, etc — must be an unwashed, unemployed socialist. I have always found that view quite offensive, as well as simply untrue. And in the UK at least, where politics has thankfully become less polarised than is the case in the USA, I think more people are coming to realise this. The all-encompassing nature of objection to the Iraq war probably had a hand in this.

True I am probably biased a bit, and that could color my opinions some. But when you hear about rapes, thefts, assaults, etc. that sure does not put a good spin on things either. And I have heard many, many of the protesters calling for the overthrow of the government (violent and otherwise), arrests of CEO's, "taking" by any means necessary people's wealth and property. I honestly have not heard anything of the sort coming from the TEA party. The closest thing to violence that I've heard of was Palin's "target these districts" ad which was a bit of a stretch to make violent if you ask me.

Again, I think that I could sit down with probably the majority of the protestors and we would agree on the problems. We may not totally agree on the solutions, but even that I think if we talked it out in a rational way we'd find more common ground than not. But it's the fact that no one has distanced themselves from the rabble-rousers in the group that bothers me. The mayor of Oakland is still expressing support for the occupy Oakland crowd even after all their violence. And Obama is still embracing the movement, and hasn't said anything to denounce the violence surrounding it. I find that disappointing to say the least.

Perhaps the coverage is just different in Europe compared to the US?

[chuck34]

I missed this post earlier, but it merits a response


I made no reference to 'expensive' meaning 'good', and find it quite telling that you make that connection.

No, you did not say expensive was good. However those are my choices. Go to a chain story and pay less, or go to a mom & pop store and pay more. What would you do?


EDIT: As, indeed, it is that you apparently have no opinion on homogeneity. I see it as an almost indisputably bad thing in any sense. In the case I was describing, you say that '(at the moment at least) [it] makes economic sense'. By 'at the moment', what you mean is 'as a result of an unstoppable process dating back very many years'. And given attitudes such as yours, is this any surprise? What consumers are left with is less choice — not what you free-marketeers would deem a good thing. What, after all, is the rightful purpose of a company if not to seek to gain market domination and thus increase its profits?

Yes free-marketeers see choice as a good thing. However, let's look at a simple example. Let's say you have a choice between store A & store B. After direct competition over a number of years store A has gained a large share of the market, and store B has such a low market share that it can no longer cover it's costs. From your comments it seems that you would rather artificially prop up store B than let the markets work (store B goes bankrupt). To what end do you force competition on the market? Do you not see a situation where store B fails, someone learns the lessons of what went wrong there, they start store C and successfully compete with store A? Is that not the true free market at work?

This free-marketeer wants to see the markets work to give me choices. I don't want to see any failed businesses being artificially propped up.

[chuck34]

It is statements like this one, in fact, that I'm referring to in my post above.

Referring to how?

[chuck34]

If everyone was motivated there aren't enough jobs for everybody.

So we should just create jobs for everyone wether they are needed, productive jobs or not?

[chuck34]

But to whom? In the company I'm working for, the boyfriend of the boss's daughter is being trained (funded partly by the government). The wife of the boss is the secretary and their son worked for the company until he moved to a different company.

And you feel that you have the right to tell that company how to run it's business? Are you saying that that company should be forced by some government agency to not help out family members? Or perhaps they should be forced to train some one off the street?

[BDunnell]

Yes free-marketeers see choice as a good thing. However, let's look at a simple example. Let's say you have a choice between store A & store B. After direct competition over a number of years store A has gained a large share of the market, and store B has such a low market share that it can no longer cover it's costs. From your comments it seems that you would rather artificially prop up store B than let the markets work (store B goes bankrupt). To what end do you force competition on the market? Do you not see a situation where store B fails, someone learns the lessons of what went wrong there, they start store C and successfully compete with store A? Is that not the true free market at work?

This free-marketeer wants to see the markets work to give me choices. I don't want to see any failed businesses being artificially propped up.

Hence you have no objection to the lowest-common denominator, crap-but-popular endlessly holding sway?

Before you ask, I am not in favour of propping up failing businesses either, but the reasons behind these processes do concern me, and for that reason I do support a degree of regulation and restriction.

[BDunnell]

Referring to how?

Your comments about the types of people protesting being utterly inaccurate.

[BDunnell]

And you feel that you have the right to tell that company how to run it's business?

Does not an employee have that right? Or should they be endlessly grateful, like some mediaeval serf, for the very fact of their having a job and never offer an opinion?

[chuck34]

Hence you have no objection to the lowest-common denominator, crap-but-popular endlessly holding sway?

I have no objection to the lowest-common-denominator. Crap has it's place. As does fine quality merchandize. If there is a market for the fine quality merchandize then the store that sells it will be profitable. If there is no market, or the store's business model is off then it fails. That's life. To go back to your Starbucks example. Starbucks is everywhere, but that does not mean that there are no other coffee joints. The popular does not exclude the smaller niche stores. Not in the least. I don't understand all the animosity directed at chain stores. It's not like they got to the position/market share for some mysterious reason. If you have a problem with them, no one is forcing you to patronize them.


Before you ask, I am not in favour of propping up failing businesses either, but the reasons behind these processes do concern me, and for that reason I do support a degree of regulation and restriction.

What are you proposing to regulate and restrict?

[chuck34]

Does not an employee have that right? Or should they be endlessly grateful, like some mediaeval serf, for the very fact of their having a job and never offer an opinion?

No, an employee has every right to express concern. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "you" in that example as Eki is an employee. I should have said something like ... Why should someone from outside the company tell that company how to do business?

[chuck34]

Your comments about the types of people protesting being utterly inaccurate.

How are my comments in that case "utterly inaccurate". Are there not people more concerned with watching TV than finding a better job? Are there not people at occupy Wall Street who's time could be better spent finding a job, or going to school? Are there not able bodied people that would rather collect an unemployment check than get a job?

[BDunnell]

No, an employee has every right to express concern. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "you" in that example as Eki is an employee. I should have said something like ... Why should someone from outside the company tell that company how to do business?

Do you object to the existence of individuals and companies who are brought in by other companies to do just that? I presume not. Do you also object to anyone writing to a company to inform it of its failings and suggesting ways it could do better?

[BDunnell]

How are my comments in that case "utterly inaccurate". Are there not people more concerned with watching TV than finding a better job? Are there not people at occupy Wall Street who's time could be better spent finding a job, or going to school? Are there not able bodied people that would rather collect an unemployment check than get a job?

There are, but I felt you were generalising.

[BDunnell]

I have no objection to the lowest-common-denominator. Crap has it's place. As does fine quality merchandize. If there is a market for the fine quality merchandize then the store that sells it will be profitable. If there is no market, or the store's business model is off then it fails. That's life. To go back to your Starbucks example. Starbucks is everywhere, but that does not mean that there are no other coffee joints. The popular does not exclude the smaller niche stores. Not in the least. I don't understand all the animosity directed at chain stores. It's not like they got to the position/market share for some mysterious reason. If you have a problem with them, no one is forcing you to patronize them.

One is in effect forced to patronise them in some places, if there is nowhere else available and you want what is on offer. So much for choice.



What are you proposing to regulate and restrict?

I believe that in some instances — not often, by any means — but sometimes — it may be appropriate to stop a particular chain from opening an outlet somewhere, for example.

Don't get me wrong — I am in favour of choice, but not endlessly. I want a choice of places to buy cheese, or a radio, or a plant, or so forth. I have no desire at all to see our high streets made up of grim state-owned monopoly outlets. But the all-pervading influence of the private sector I find almost as depressing. I do not want to have to make commercial choices relating to every aspect of my life. Shopping around for anything is no fun, and I prefer to use my time for other things. I also deplore the way bland corporate business-speak — 'issues', 'delivery', 'solutions' — has invaded the language.

[chuck34]

Do you object to the existence of individuals and companies who are brought in by other companies to do just that? I presume not.

In the US at least we would call those consultancy firms. And if a company hires one of these firms on their own, I have no problem with that.


Do you also object to anyone writing to a company to inform it of its failings and suggesting ways it could do better?

No I do not object to that. If a customer has an issue with a product, service, or price that a company is providing, they have every right to write in to that company. Just don't expect said company to listen, and in that case be prepared to take your business elsewhere.

[BDunnell]

In the US at least we would call those consultancy firms. And if a company hires one of these firms on their own, I have no problem with that.

Well, why did you make the comment you made in response to Eki?


If a customer has an issue with a product, service, or price that a company is providing, they have every right to write in to that company. Just don't expect said company to listen, and in that case be prepared to take your business elsewhere.

And if said company is the only option available to you?

[chuck34]

One is in effect forced to patronise them in some places, if there is nowhere else available and you want what is on offer. So much for choice.

How are you forced? An example might help?


I believe that in some instances — not often, by any means — but sometimes — it may be appropriate to stop a particular chain from opening an outlet somewhere, for example.

I could agree to that if a local community got together say at a zoning meeting and stated we don't want a Wal-Mart at X location. I have no problem with that, as long as it's done locally.


Don't get me wrong — I am in favour of choice, but not endlessly. I want a choice of places to buy cheese, or a radio, or a plant, or so forth. I have no desire at all to see our high streets made up of grim state-owned monopoly outlets. But the all-pervading influence of the private sector I find almost as depressing. I do not want to have to make commercial choices relating to every aspect of my life. Shopping around for anything is no fun, and I prefer to use my time for other things. I also deplore the way bland corporate business-speak — 'issues', 'delivery', 'solutions' — has invaded the language.

You are very confusing. You just made the argument as to why so many chain stores are taking over the high streets. People don't want to shop around, so they patronize the "lowest common denominator". You seem to want it both ways, you want the convenience of the chain stores but with the choice of locally owned?

[chuck34]

Well, why did you make the comment you made in response to Eki?

Because I felt his comment was a generalized government type of suggestion. Perhaps I was wrong on that.


And if said company is the only option available to you?

Give me an example where there is only one option available.

[race aficionado]

If a customer has an issue with a product, service, or price that a company is providing, they have every right to write in to that company. Just don't expect said company to listen, and in that case be prepared to take your business elsewhere.

So you have a right to complain but those that you are complaining to and of whom you are their paying unsatisfied customer have the right to not listen to your complaints about their unsatisfying service? Am I understanding you well?

That's why I have trouble debating with you because I am like in this case left aghast.

If I misunderstood, I apologize but if that's what you really believe, again, we are in complete opposite of the spectrum.

I own a company, I provide a service and I make sure that my clients are 100% satisfied with my work, It's my responsibility to come through for them, they are paying me for it.- and you don't have to own a company to provide a service. As far as I am concerned all of us that work are providing a service for a price and that service should be accounted for and responsibly executed. If you complain about my work I will do what I have to do to satisfy your needs and if I can't then I return your money back, it's that simple. *never happened to me though ;)

Any way . . .

:s mokin:

[BDunnell]

How are you forced? An example might help?

One is forced in the UK to use the services of certain private-sector public transport operators if one wishes to travel by public transport. Competition has either not worked, meaning the government has been forced to award contracts to single companies, or resulted in local monopolies.



You seem to want it both ways, you want the convenience of the chain stores but with the choice of locally owned?

And what is wrong with the provision of that choice? You yourself say you want, and take advantage of, that choice. My objection is to big business becoming all-pervading, not the very notion of a choice.

[BDunnell]

Give me an example where there is only one option available.

I have given one in my previous post. Another might be where a high street is full of chain coffee outlets in which one does not wish to go. In that case it is a genre of business about which I'm talking, rather than one specific business.

[chuck34]

So you have a right to complain but those that you are complaining to and of whom you are their paying unsatisfied customer have the right to not listen to your complaints about their unsatisfying service? Am I understanding you well?

Yes clearly a company has the right not to listen to complaints. I would not advise them to do this, if the complaints come in any number, as I do not think they will be in business long. But that's what a free market is all about. Are you suggesting that businesses be forced into bending to every single complaint that comes in? As you own a business, I'm sure that you get plenty of unreasonable complaints/requests. Do you satisfy every one of those, even to your own detriment?


That's why I have trouble debating with you because I am like in this case left aghast.

If I misunderstood, I apologize but if that's what you really believe, again, we are in complete opposite of the spectrum.

You did not misunderstand my comment. You just seem to misunderstand where I am coming from. My philosophy says that everyone should be accountable to themselves, actions have consequences, etc.


I own a company, I provide a service and I make sure that my clients are 100% satisfied with my work, It's my responsibility to come through for them, they are paying me for it.- and you don't have to own a company to provide a service. As far as I am concerned all of us that work are providing a service for a price and that service should be accounted for and responsibly executed. If you complain about my work I will do what I have to do to satisfy your needs and if I can't then I return your money back, it's that simple. *never happened to me though ;)

Any way . . .

:s mokin:

Again, that is your choice. I commend you for that. But I would never force you do do anything you felt was against your business model. In the general sense that we have been talking, it appears that you would force others to conduct business your way. I say let the free market work, if your way is the best (and in this case I believe it is, business should listen to legitimate complaints) then your competitors will go out of business.

[chuck34]

One is forced in the UK to use the services of certain private-sector public transport operators if one wishes to travel by public transport. Competition has either not worked, meaning the government has been forced to award contracts to single companies, or resulted in local monopolies.

I do not understand. Either you want public transportation, or you do not. I don't know all the ins and outs associated with transportation in the UK. But I would venture to guess when private-sector public transport operators have been tried and as you say, not worked, that it was due to a case of over regulation on the government's part. That was a very clear point I made very early on in this discussion.


And what is wrong with the provision of that choice? You yourself say you want, and take advantage of, that choice. My objection is to big business becoming all-pervading, not the very notion of a choice.

I am missing something on this point. I want choice. If "big business" because all-pervading organically, on it's own, through market forces, I don't have a problem with that. Providing of course that there are still ways for competing companies to try their hand at the market. And honestly I can't think of an example where there is one "big business" complete monopoly. Perhaps I'm missing it, and you can point it out to me.

[chuck34]

I have given one in my previous post. Another might be where a high street is full of chain coffee outlets in which one does not wish to go. In that case it is a genre of business about which I'm talking, rather than one specific business.

The example in your previous post was about public transportation. Why is private transportation not an option in that case?

So what is stopping you from going to another street and getting your coffee? Or why not order some good stuff off the internet, and brew your own at home?

Or why should there be more than one coffee shop on the high street. I mean why would one want to "make commercial choices relating to (that) aspect of (one's) life"?

[BDunnell]

The example in your previous post was about public transportation. Why is private transportation not an option in that case?

What does that have to do with anything? You asked for an example of a private company being in a monopoly position. I provided one.

To answer your question, someone might not be able to drive, or they may have chosen for some reason not to drive. The concept is not difficult to grasp.



So what is stopping you from going to another street and getting your coffee? Or why not order some good stuff off the internet, and brew your own at home?

Again, there may be all sorts of reasons why not.

[BDunnell]

I do not understand. Either you want public transportation, or you do not. I don't know all the ins and outs associated with transportation in the UK. But I would venture to guess when private-sector public transport operators have been tried and as you say, not worked, that it was due to a case of over regulation on the government's part. That was a very clear point I made very early on in this discussion.

The railways were privatised largely because John Major, when Prime Minister, had a misguidedly nostalgic view of the inter-war years, during which rail companies competed for business along the same lines. Sadly, a quick history lesson from anyone with any knowledge of the railways would have told him and those in agreement that such competition had been utterly unsustainable then without offering any improvements for the average passenger. When it was brought in once more in the 1990s, it proved similarly disastrous. It was private sector involvement in the public services at its very worst, and not because of over-regulation — quite the opposite. The reason the services provided by the private operators proved so dreadful was precisely because they were given a virtually free hand to do what they wanted, and most had not a clue how to operate rail services. Your belief that governmental interference is at the root of all evil simply doesn't apply in this case.

[Eki]

So we should just create jobs for everyone wether they are needed, productive jobs or not?
Not necessarily, but we could stop calling them "lazy a$$" and pay our taxes so that they can get sufficient social security and training while looking for work or starting their own business.

[ArrowsFA1]

I would rather support locally owned businesses, and do when I can. But do you honestly expect people to pay more for goods, just to support locally owned businesses?...Why is supporting someone who is expensive "good" even though I have to pay more than is necessary?
This will be a key question for all of us as time goes on IMHO.

Rather than ask why support someone who is expensive, perhaps we should be asking why are they expensive and what could be done to make them less so?

[Malbec]

And you feel that you have the right to tell that company how to run it's business?

Aren't these protests all about the financial industry that jeopardised the global economy precisely because it was given greater freedom to 'run its own business', targetting short term profit and creating a situation that became untenable?

I do believe greater regulation of the financial industry is a must. Hiving off risky investment banking from essential 'high street' banking for example, or ensuring that banks increase the amount of liquid capital so they can survive credit droughts.

Proponents of unrestricted free market forces got us into this problem in the first place.

[anthonyvop]

Aren't these protests all about the financial industry that jeopardised the global economy precisely because it was given greater freedom to 'run its own business', targetting short term profit and creating a situation that became untenable?

Nope....Actually in the US it was the exact opposite. Lenders were for forced by the government to offer mortgages to people regardless of their creditworthiness but because of the Race or Sex. Combined with over-regulation and High Corporate Taxes, rising energy costs(Helped by over-regulation) and a war and you have a perfect storm.

Europe is just a case of them running out of money to pay for their big Government and socialist programs. They ran out of money because of over-regulation and taxes which kills small industry and start-ups.
1 in 3 Greeks with a job work for the Government! So 2 out of ever 3 employed people in Greece were paying the salary of the other one. It is obvious that it is impossible to maintain.

[BDunnell]

Lenders were for forced by the government to offer mortgages to people regardless of their creditworthiness but because of the Race or Sex.

Proof of this from a reputable source?

[donKey jote]

1 in 3 Greeks with a job work for the Government! So 2 out of ever 3 employed people in Greece were paying the salary of the other one. It is obvious that it is impossible to maintain.

What was impossible to mantain was the debt level of the government. A debt that was well hidden from the EU thanks to -you might have guessed- the likes of your Goldmann Sachses. Long live unrestricted self-regulating free capitalists, until their bubbles burst...
Greek Debt Crisis: How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html)

[Rollo]

Nope....Actually in the US it was the exact opposite. Lenders were for forced by the government to offer mortgages to people regardless of their creditworthiness but because of the Race or Sex. Combined with over-regulation and High Corporate Taxes, rising energy costs(Helped by over-regulation) and a war and you have a perfect storm.

History proves you wrong.

Fannie Mae announced through HUD that 50% of its business would be dedicated to low and moderate income families in 2000.
Then the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 redefined over-the-counter derivatives between "sophisticated" parties as not being regulated by the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. It was the credit-default swaps and hedge trading which caused the crisis leading to an over-inflation of the housing market.

Not "over-regulation" as you put it, but a distinct de-regulation of who would be allowed to borrow money and trade the derivatives of those debt securities.
Not once was anyone "forced" to ever lend money for a mortgage. However in a de-regulated mortgage market, the fiduciary prudence which would have otherwise been employed, wasn't.

[race aficionado]

What was impossible to mantain was the debt level of the government. A debt that was well hidden from the EU thanks to -you might have guessed- the likes of your Goldmann Sachses. Long live unrestricted self-regulating free capitalists, until their bubbles burst...
Greek Debt Crisis: How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html)

Goldman Sachs is EVIL . . . . and frik'n powerful. :mad: :arrows:

[anthonyvop]

Proof of this from a reputable source?



President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a “broad-based frustration” among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.

“You’re seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place,” he complained earlier this month.

But what if government encouraged, even invented, those “abusive practices”?

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

» Smoking-Gun Document Ties Federal Policy To Subprime Mortgage Crisis - Big Government (http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/11/01/smoking-gun-document-ties-federal-policy-to-subprime-mortgage-crisis/)

[BDunnell]

» Smoking-Gun Document Ties Federal Policy To Subprime Mortgage Crisis - Big Government (http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/11/01/smoking-gun-document-ties-federal-policy-to-subprime-mortgage-crisis/)

That is not a reputable source. It is a biased source. Find it in a report in a sensible newspaper, or in online Government documentation, and I will believe it.

[anthonyvop]

History proves you wrong.

Fannie Mae announced through HUD that 50% of its business would be dedicated to low and moderate income families in 2000.
Then the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 redefined over-the-counter derivatives between "sophisticated" parties as not being regulated by the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. It was the credit-default swaps and hedge trading which caused the crisis leading to an over-inflation of the housing market.

Not "over-regulation" as you put it, but a distinct de-regulation of who would be allowed to borrow money and trade the derivatives of those debt securities.
Not once was anyone "forced" to ever lend money for a mortgage. However in a de-regulated mortgage market, the fiduciary prudence which would have otherwise been employed, wasn't.

You are so wrong just like the others who love to blame the EVIL Corporations.


Let me ask you a simple question. How can a collapse in the credit default market lead to 100's of thousands of Foreclosures? Are the people losing their homes for failure to make payment because they had invested in CDS's?

To put it simply it was the collapse of the housing bubble(which was so predictable that even I knew it was coming). Combined this with the jump in property taxes and you have an accelerated foreclosure collapse which then killed the Credit Default Swap Market


And yes.....The top lenders were FORCED to lend to less than creditworthy people. That is an undisputed fact. It is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to do.

[anthonyvop]

That is not a reputable source. It is a biased source. Find it in a report in a sensible newspaper, or in online Government documentation, and I will believe it.

Here ya go!


The threat was codified in a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" (http://www.ots.treas.gov/_files/25022.pdf) and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

"The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form," the document warned financial institutions.

Ludwig at the time stated the ruling would be used by the agen cies as a fair-lending enforcement "tool," and would apply to "all lenders" — including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies.

The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial "discrimination." But it was simply good underwriting.

It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower's credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.

[airshifter]

As much as some of you wish to simply deny anything Anthonyvop states as fact, anyone that had actually looked into the issue much would have found there are quite a number of credible sources that have had this same opinion for quite some time.

My personal opinion is that with the government pressure involved in the sub-prime loans, many of these financial institutions banked on the fact that the government would be somewhat forced to help them out when the bubble burst.

[BDunnell]

Lenders were for forced by the government to offer mortgages to people regardless of their creditworthiness but because of the Race or Sex.

In what sense does any of what you've posted in your last couple of contributions state that, as you say above, lenders were forced to offer mortgages regardless of creditworthiness and because of race or sex? All I can see is that they were obliged not to refuse on discriminatory lines, which is a very different thing.

[BDunnell]

As much as some of you wish to simply deny anything Anthonyvop states as fact, anyone that had actually looked into the issue much would have found there are quite a number of credible sources that have had this same opinion for quite some time.

Which does not mean they are true.

[Rollo]

Let me ask you a simple question. How can a collapse in the credit default market lead to 100's of thousands of Foreclosures?

CDS's were collated debt securities. The thing was no-one who traded these had the financial prudence to check on the underlying backing.
It was a bit like putting a whole heap of lamb chops into boxes and then passing the boxes around. No-one bothered to open the boxes to look and see if the meat had gone off.

When defaults started to happen, it caused a tightening of credit markets, which again tightened up the credit on which people's mortgages was financed by.



Are the people losing their homes for failure to make payment because they had invested in CDS's?

No. This is a non-sequitur.
You give part of the reason below though.



To put it simply it was the collapse of the housing bubble(which was so predictable that even I knew it was coming). Combined this with the jump in property taxes and you have an accelerated foreclosure collapse which then killed the Credit Default Swap Market

A few defaulters will cause a credit crunch and an accompanying flight to quality which is precisely what happened. In that respect the 2008 credit crunch was similar to the credit crunches of the 1960s.


And yes.....The top lenders were FORCED to lend to less than creditworthy people. That is an undisputed fact. It is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to do.

Did you bother to read the document you posted?

"Lenders must continue to ensure that their lending practices are consistent with safe and sound operating policies"
The document advises for the most part that factors like race, creed and colour should not be the basis to discriminate when lending. Not once does it suggest as you make out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to lend to anyone.

Lenders lent to people who should have never have been lent to in the first place. That's not the fault of regulation but rather a lack of it. I also note that there is no subprime market at all in Australia because bankruptcy rules mean that even if someone defaults and hands back the keys to the house, they're still liable for the debt as a result of the mortgage; even if the house is sold for less than the value of the mortgage.


My personal opinion is that with the government pressure involved in the sub-prime loans, many of these financial institutions banked on the fact that the government would be somewhat forced to help them out when the bubble burst.

I think that this is quite a valid opinion.

Penn Central (1970), Lockheed (1971), Chrysler (1980), the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989, all support this opinion nicely. There wasn't any reason to think that if a bank went bust, that the government wouldn't step in. In fact it did just that when Continental Illinois exploded in 1984.

[airshifter]

In what sense does any of what you've posted in your last couple of contributions state that, as you say above, lenders were forced to offer mortgages regardless of creditworthiness and because of race or sex? All I can see is that they were obliged not to refuse on discriminatory lines, which is a very different thing.

But in the eyes of the government, just about anything is discrimination.

Age, sex, marital status, national origin, and religion are all included. Thus the companies were forced to treat everyone the same, regardless of statistical information which would show them that there are always certain demographics that would tend to be more or less credit worthy. That leaves them in a position to either overcharge the persons they deem more credit worthy, or extend the reasonable rates to people they might deem less credit worthy.

I'm glad such laws have somehow been avoided by the auto insurance industry. If they existed an 18 year old with a clean driving record would get the same rates as a 50 year old with a clean driving record. Which would mean the older drivers would pay more, since statistics show younger drivers in a higher risk group.

Why should older people pay more for life insurance? That is age discrimination! Charging people who skydive more for medical insurance is discrimination based on sex, since somewhere around 80 percent of people that skydive are men.


Discrimination happens every day. Often it is based on facts. Those facts aren't represented in laws that disallow discrimination as such laws are not inclusive of all the facts.

[anthonyvop]

In what sense does any of what you've posted in your last couple of contributions state that, as you say above, lenders were forced to offer mortgages regardless of creditworthiness and because of race or sex? All I can see is that they were obliged not to refuse on discriminatory lines, which is a very different thing.

Did you even read it?
Do you grasp what it means?

[Malbec]

But in the eyes of the government, just about anything is discrimination.

Age, sex, marital status, national origin, and religion are all included. Thus the companies were forced to treat everyone the same, regardless of statistical information which would show them that there are always certain demographics that would tend to be more or less credit worthy. That leaves them in a position to either overcharge the persons they deem more credit worthy, or extend the reasonable rates to people they might deem less credit worthy.

So the banks ignored the line that Rollo posted which stated they should carry on with safe and sound operating practices which include risk stratification?

Or are you trying to argue something else, that even matched for creditworthiness some ethnic groups, nationalities or religions are still more likely to default than others?

[BDunnell]

Did you even read it?
Do you grasp what it means?

Please point out (a) my error, and (b) where the documentation you provided states that lenders were forced to do anything of the sort.

[BDunnell]

But in the eyes of the government, just about anything is discrimination.

Age, sex, marital status, national origin, and religion are all included. Thus the companies were forced to treat everyone the same, regardless of statistical information which would show them that there are always certain demographics that would tend to be more or less credit worthy. That leaves them in a position to either overcharge the persons they deem more credit worthy, or extend the reasonable rates to people they might deem less credit worthy.

But in no sense did that legislation compel, force, order, call it what you will, the lenders to do anything. The fact, for example, of it now being illegal for landlords to discriminate against potential tenants on grounds of race does not mean that a landlord is therefore forced to let a property to, say, an Afro-Caribbean person over and above a white Caucasian person.

[BDunnell]

Or are you trying to argue something else, that even matched for creditworthiness some ethnic groups, nationalities or religions are still more likely to default than others?

In which case, surely individuals from those ethnic groups, nationalities and religions would never be allowed credit under any circumstances.

What we have here, I think, is an example of people twisting the meaning of a piece of legislation to suit their own ends.

[airshifter]

But in no sense did that legislation compel, force, order, call it what you will, the lenders to do anything. The fact, for example, of it now being illegal for landlords to discriminate against potential tenants on grounds of race does not mean that a landlord is therefore forced to let a property to, say, an Afro-Caribbean person over and above a white Caucasian person.

But if a landlord has a history of statistical evidence showing that one race group is more reliable in paying their rent on time, they can't act on that, as it would be labeled discrimination. Thus they must rent to everyone with equal financial means and debt load, etc or not rent at all. Being all business desires to make money, they are tied and bound by government regulation stating that discrimination is against the law.

[Bob Riebe]

But in no sense did that legislation compel, force, order, call it what you will, the lenders to do anything. The fact, for example, of it now being illegal for landlords to discriminate against potential tenants on grounds of race does not mean that a landlord is therefore forced to let a property to, say, an Afro-Caribbean person over and above a white Caucasian person.What part of this do you not understand?

"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices," the official policy statement warned.

If you knew anything about Washington if they think you discriminated you did. It is up to you to prove otherwise. One can go broke hiring lawyers to lend the money to anyone and let Washington worry about the consequences which is exactly what happened.
Remember the U.S. is now a country where if one calls a member of a minority or underpriviledged a word the member does not like, one can be sued and it is up to the one to prove the one did nothing wrong. The accuser suffers nothing.
If said same member of a group says the member was discriminated against in lending, the memeber can sue no questions asked and it is up to the accused to prove otherwise.

To say this would not happen is ignorance of U.S. politics in a gross manner.

[Eki]

But in the eyes of the government, just about anything is discrimination.

Age, sex, marital status, national origin, and religion are all included.

Are you saying those aren't potential causes for discrimination? At least they don't include employment and financial status, as far as I know. And those are what matter. I'd hate a situation where I'm denied a loan just because someone else of the same age, sex,marital status, national origin and religion has not repaid his when I know that I myself can and will pay back mine.

[Rollo]

What part of this do you not understand?

Specifically what if anything it's got to do with the abandonment of prudent lending practices some 14 years later. If it had had some meaningful effect, it would have taken place almost three business cycles earlier.

Surely the invention of "no doc" and "low doc" loans as a result of deregulation and exacerbated by the Bush/Greenspan tax cuts following the DotCom bubble created the easy credit market which led to the mess.
Joseph Stiglitz had that opinion when he wrote about it in 2007.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - How the Bubble Started (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/how_the_bubble_started.html)

I call shenanigans on anthonyvop's hypothesis.

[chuck34]

What does that have to do with anything? You asked for an example of a private company being in a monopoly position. I provided one.

To answer your question, someone might not be able to drive, or they may have chosen for some reason not to drive. The concept is not difficult to grasp.

I asked for an example of a private company beingin a monopoly position. Your example is not a true monopoly. It is a state run monopoly for "public" transportation. But even at that, it isn't a monopoly as there is an alternative ... truly private trasportation. Your own car, your friend's car, taxi, etc.


Again, there may be all sorts of reasons why not.

True there may be many reasons why you want to buy your coffee on the high street. Fact of the matter is, no one is forcing you, you do have choices.

[chuck34]

This will be a key question for all of us as time goes on IMHO.

Rather than ask why support someone who is expensive, perhaps we should be asking why are they expensive and what could be done to make them less so?

As long as you are talking about reducing expensise through the free market system, I'm all for it. And in the long run, the free market will chose the highest value product (not always lowest cost). But if you are talking about some sort of government intervention to somehow try and force down prices (which seems to be the point of the OWS people), then count me out.

[BDunnell]

But if a landlord has a history of statistical evidence showing that one race group is more reliable in paying their rent on time, they can't act on that, as it would be labeled discrimination.

And quite right too. Surely these things must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis?

[chuck34]

On the Janet Reno/mortgages bit. Hopefully the link works

http://www.ots.treas.gov/_files/25022.pdf


Evidence of "disparate impact." when a lender applies a practice uniformly to all applicants but the practice has a discriminatory effect on a prohibited basis and is not justified by business necessity.

Example of "disparate impact". A lender's policy is not to extend loans for single family residences for less than $60,000.00. This has been in effect for ten years. This minimum loan amount policy is shown to disproportionately exclude potential minority applicants from consideration because of their income levels or the value of the houses in the areas in which they live.

So right there in the document itself it clearly lays out the process by which banks will be forced to lend to minority households even if they can not afford the loan.

[BDunnell]

I asked for an example of a private company beingin a monopoly position. Your example is not a true monopoly. It is a state run monopoly for "public" transportation.

No, you misunderstand completely. What I was talking about was not state-run at all. I was clearly referring to the involvement of private companies.


But even at that, it isn't a monopoly as there is an alternative ... truly private trasportation. Your own car, your friend's car, taxi, etc.

Much as I suspected, your belief in 'choice' only goes so far. In this instance, you seem to be saying that the choice is private transportation or nothing; that if one chooses not to have one's own private transportation, one abandons the right to be presented with a choice. Why should the choice only be between a private sector monopoly in the provision of public transport, or private transportation? Surely, if you believe in choice, you should also believe in the right to have a choice between different forms of service provision? The problem with the view held by you and others on the right when it comes to choice is that you only like it to be exercised within a certain pre-defined mainstream.

[BDunnell]

So right there in the document itself it clearly lays out the process by which banks will be forced to lend to minority households even if they can not afford the loan.

The process by which that can happen, maybe. But nowhere does it say that they will be forced to do so. Surely the interpretation ought to be down to the individual lender?

[chuck34]

No, you misunderstand completely. What I was talking about was not state-run at all. I was clearly referring to the involvement of private companies.

Perhaps it's because I am honestly not that familiar with the train system in the UK. My (basic) understanding is that it is government managed, but they contracted out the actual running to private companies. Those companies then, as you say, ran the trains poorly. Private involvment in a public project, at least in the cases that I'm more familiar with, don't really represent the free market. I will admit that I could be wrong in your particular example, I am truly ignorant of the specifics.


Much as I suspected, your belief in 'choice' only goes so far. In this instance, you seem to be saying that the choice is private transportation or nothing; that if one chooses not to have one's own private transportation, one abandons the right to be presented with a choice. Why should the choice only be between a private sector monopoly in the provision of public transport, or private transportation? Surely, if you believe in choice, you should also believe in the right to have a choice between different forms of service provision? The problem with the view held by you and others on the right when it comes to choice is that you only like it to be exercised within a certain pre-defined mainstream.

This is not an all or nothing proposal, and I have never said as such. I think there may be valid cases for public transportation. But to somehow claim, as you seem to be, that public transportation does not or should not have to compete against private transportation is foolish at best. Supporting the desires of the few at the expense of the many for ever more, isn't what I would call a recipe for finacial solvency.

[chuck34]

The process by which that can happen, maybe. But nowhere does it say that they will be forced to do so. Surely the interpretation ought to be down to the individual lender?

Yes it should be down to the individual lender. But the document I just quoted from, an offical US Federal Government document, clearly states that it is no longer a decision the individual lender can make.

[BDunnell]

This is not an all or nothing proposal, and I have never said as such. I think there may be valid cases for public transportation. But to somehow claim, as you seem to be, that public transportation does not or should not have to compete against private transportation is foolish at best. Supporting the desires of the few at the expense of the many for ever more, isn't what I would call a recipe for finacial solvency.

But, extrapolated, the end result of what you suggest is 'all or nothing'.

You and others like you don't really espouse choice — what you espouse is an unfettered free market, and that in itself does not always guarantee choice, let alone benefit society. You like choice on your terms. Outside them, you don't want to know. To put it another way, it's not those in the centre or on the left who have for years sought to deny people the choice to have an abortion, or the choice to marry a same-sex partner.

[BDunnell]

Yes it should be down to the individual lender. But the document I just quoted from, an offical US Federal Government document, clearly states that it is no longer a decision the individual lender can make.

I repeat: while it may say that discrimination on grounds of ethnic group, skin colour, etc is no longer permissible, where is the line where it says (I paraphrase): 'You must lend to them come what may'? That does not follow.

[chuck34]

But, extrapolated, the end result of what you suggest is 'all or nothing'.

You and others like you don't really espouse choice — what you espouse is an unfettered free market, and that in itself does not always guarantee choice, let alone benefit society. You like choice on your terms. Outside them, you don't want to know. To put it another way, it's not those in the centre or on the left who have for years sought to deny people the choice to have an abortion, or the choice to marry a same-sex partner.

Sorry but you are wrong. You choose not to see my argument. You seem to be advocating for public transportation, costs be damned. However, what I am saying is that if public transportation can compete in the free market against private industry, I'm ok with that. How is that "all or nothing"? How am I denying anyone any sort of choice?

It seems that somehow you have decided that you don't like my argument, so you pull out this crap about me not wanting choice. And then to top it off you pull out a non-sequiter of abortion and same sex marriage, which have absolutly zero to do with this debate, and I have not said one word about them. This last post of yours seems to be the last desperate all out attack on someone who has an idea you don't agree with, but you feel you are loosing the debate. Come on man you are better than that. You have rational arguments and ideas, why resort to this type of "failure" rhetoric?

[chuck34]

I repeat: while it may say that discrimination on grounds of ethnic group, skin colour, etc is no longer permissible, where is the line where it says (I paraphrase): 'You must lend to them come what may'? That does not follow.

I'll repeat my quote that was taken directly from the document in question.


Example of "disparate impact". A lender's policy is not to extend loans for single family residences for less than $60,000.00. This has been in effect for ten years. This minimum loan amount policy is shown to disproportionately exclude potential minority applicants from consideration because of their income levels or the value of the houses in the areas in which they live.

So what this is explicitly saying is that even if you apply criteria equally accross everyone we, the Federal Government, can still step in and tell you that you MUST loan more to minority applicants even if they do not meet your equally applied criteria.

To break it down farther. A bank chooses that low end housing lending is too risky for them to engage in (not loaning for housing under $60,000) because they have a higher than average default rate. And said bank happens to do business in an area where all the minorities tend to seek loans for houses less than $60,000. Therefore the bank will just happen not to lend to "enough" minorities according to the Federal Government. So the government may then go in and force the bank to change their lending practices such that they now must give mortgages for homes under $60,000. Now predictable, as the bank saw coming, those mortgages start defaulting. So the bank starts loosing money, again just as was predicted. It all spirals until things fail. Where do you see that logic failing?

[BDunnell]

Sorry but you are wrong. You choose not to see my argument. You seem to be advocating for public transportation, costs be damned. However, what I am saying is that if public transportation can compete in the free market against private industry, I'm ok with that. How is that "all or nothing"? How am I denying anyone any sort of choice?

Choice ends up being denied when market forces, as they inevitably do, take over, the good of society be damned. At that point, choice goes out of the window. We see the creep of the private sector into the public services already. In many ways, I fundamentally disagree with it.



It seems that somehow you have decided that you don't like my argument, so you pull out this crap about me not wanting choice. And then to top it off you pull out a non-sequiter of abortion and same sex marriage, which have absolutly zero to do with this debate, and I have not said one word about them. This last post of yours seems to be the last desperate all out attack on someone who has an idea you don't agree with, but you feel you are loosing the debate. Come on man you are better than that. You have rational arguments and ideas, why resort to this type of "failure" rhetoric?

Not at all. It is entirely relevant to my argument — that you, and those like you, have a very narrow view of what constitutes 'choice'. Clearly, this is a point you have no desire to address.

[chuck34]

Choice ends up being denied when market forces, as they inevitably do, take over, the good of society be damned. At that point, choice goes out of the window. We see the creep of the private sector into the public services already. In many ways, I fundamentally disagree with it.

How is choice denied? If there is no public sector service but there are multiple private services, that is clearly a choice. Society be damned? What are you talking about? If a government is forced to continue to subsidize a service that continues to loose money, plunging the government deeper and deeper into debt, how in the world does that benefit society?

You are not advocating for choice in a free market system. You are advocating for public sector services at any cost. That I fundamentally disagree with.


Not at all. It is entirely relevant to my argument — that you, and those like you, have a very narrow view of what constitutes 'choice'. Clearly, this is a point you have no desire to address.

You have no clue what my views are on those points, for the simple fact that they do not enter into this debate at all. But if you must know....

I believe that abortion should be outlawed in just about every case. I value human life. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. So killing out of mere convinence is not really respecting human life. It's a human life, a child, a beautiful thing to be cherishied, it's not a "choice" as so many would like us to believe. The "chioce" was to get pregnant in the first place. Responsibilty matters. Now here comes the "what about rape" crowd. If after much counciling and so-forth if the woman really can't bring that child into the world and put him/her up for adoption perhaps I could see that. But those cases are so very rare, and should be kept as such.

As for same sex marriage, the government should not have any role in marriage at all same sex or oposite sex. I think marriage is a contract between two people and God. If one wishes to enter into some sort of co-habitation contract or arrangement outside of God/chuch, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. Why should governments have any say one way or another?

[Rollo]

So right there in the document itself it clearly lays out the process by which banks will be forced to lend to minority households even if they can not afford the loan.

No it doesn't.

http://www.ots.treas.gov/_files/25022.pdf
Example of "disparate impact". A lender's policy is not to extend loans for single family residences for less than $60,000.00. This has been in effect for ten years. This minimum loan amount policy is shown to disproportionately exclude potential minority applicants from consideration because of their income levels or the value of the houses in the areas in which they live.

It says that the policy excludes people on the basis of their income. The remedy would be to provide loans of less than $60,000 at level which people could afford. It does not at all suggest that prudent lending practices be abandoned in order to do so.

There is no order to force banks to lend any money to anyone. Furthermore as this is only a policy document, it's not actual legislation which does define the manner in which lending practices are to take place.

[chuck34]

No it doesn't.

http://www.ots.treas.gov/_files/25022.pdf
Example of "disparate impact". A lender's policy is not to extend loans for single family residences for less than $60,000.00. This has been in effect for ten years. This minimum loan amount policy is shown to disproportionately exclude potential minority applicants from consideration because of their income levels or the value of the houses in the areas in which they live.

It says that the policy excludes people on the basis of their income. The remedy would be to provide loans of less than $60,000 at level which people could afford. It does not at all suggest that prudent lending practices be abandoned in order to do so.

No it says that if a bank doesn't want to make loans on residences of less than $60,000, if that happens to be mostly minorities, that they will prosecute the lending institutions based on the impact of their policies.

If the prudent lending practice, as determined by the lending instituion, is to not make loans under $60,000, then this document will force them to abandon their own established prudent lending practices.


There is no order to force banks to lend any money to anyone. Furthermore as this is only a policy document, it's not actual legislation which does define the manner in which lending practices are to take place.

It is a Department of Justice document outlining the basis of prosecutions that they will seek on lending institutions. How is that not "actual legislation"?

[BDunnell]

How is choice denied? If there is no public sector service but there are multiple private services, that is clearly a choice. Society be damned? What are you talking about? If a government is forced to continue to subsidize a service that continues to loose money, plunging the government deeper and deeper into debt, how in the world does that benefit society?

There are services that the public sector provides that could not continue on a commercial basis, but are extremely important nonetheless. Those are the instances beyond which I believe the societal benefit of public provision goes beyond the financial bottom line.

You seem to have a problem with people wishing to make different choices to your own.



You are advocating for public sector services at any cost. That I fundamentally disagree with.

Where have I said 'at any cost'? Nowhere. Of course there must be limits. I just wouldn't set them quite as low as yours. Nor do I believe that the private sector is in any way inherently superior when it comes to the provision of said services.



You have no clue what my views are on those points, for the simple fact that they do not enter into this debate at all. But if you must know....

I believe that abortion should be outlawed in just about every case. I value human life. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. So killing out of mere convinence is not really respecting human life. It's a human life, a child, a beautiful thing to be cherishied, it's not a "choice" as so many would like us to believe. The "chioce" was to get pregnant in the first place.

Again, your view of what constitutes 'choice' is exceptionally narrow, to the point at which I again say you are not genuinely interested in giving people a choice except when it pertains to asserting the superiority of the private sector and the free market.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I just can't get my head around the idea of a private sector in markets that are 'natural monopolies' e.g. rail network, utilities.etc. Since such markets require such an infrastructure they require a national network, this creates barriers to entry that mean 'real' competition can not develop.

Does the private owned Network Rail do a better job than the public owned British Rail? Not really, neither make/d a profit, both are/were funded by the public.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Again, your view of what constitutes 'choice' is exceptionally narrow, to the point at which I again say you are not genuinely interested in giving people a choice except when it pertains to asserting the superiority of the private sector and the free market.

I am still quite mad that some people seem to think that they have the right to stick their noses into business that doesn't effect them in anyway.

[chuck34]

There are services that the public sector provides that could not continue on a commercial basis, but are extremely important nonetheless. Those are the instances beyond which I believe the societal benefit of public provision goes beyond the financial bottom line.

I can see somethings that fit your definition, and are important. Where have I once said that the public sector could not provide services?


You seem to have a problem with people wishing to make different choices to your own.

Quite the oposite in fact. I encourage people to make their own choices as long as they feel they benefit themselves, and do not harm me. However, public services in many instances do harm me and society as they are a financial drain on society, and (now here's the key point) I am FORCED to pay for them. So I no longer have any choice in the market. My "invisible hand" now has no power to sway the market.


Where have I said 'at any cost'? Nowhere. Of course there must be limits. I just wouldn't set them quite as low as yours. Nor do I believe that the private sector is in any way inherently superior when it comes to the provision of said services.

I would not say that the private sector is inherently superior. I would say that a free market system allows for failure, and therefore in the long-ish run, services provided by the free market tend to increas value.


Again, your view of what constitutes 'choice' is exceptionally narrow, to the point at which I again say you are not genuinely interested in giving people a choice except when it pertains to asserting the superiority of the private sector and the free market.

How is my choice narrow? If you don't believe that life has value, I don't think I can help you there.

[chuck34]

I just can't get my head around the idea of a private sector in markets that are 'natural monopolies' e.g. rail network, utilities.etc. Since such markets require such an infrastructure they require a national network, this creates barriers to entry that mean 'real' competition can not develop.

That is not ture. Rail networks and utilities started out as private enterprises that competed with each other. Only after time and politicians thinking they had the best interests of societies in mind did they develop into "natural monopolies.


Does the private owned Network Rail do a better job than the public owned British Rail? Not really, neither make/d a profit, both are/were funded by the public.

If both are/were funded by the public then neither one could be clasified as "private", the free market was not at work, people were FORCED into subsidizing them.

[chuck34]

I am still quite mad that some people seem to think that they have the right to stick their noses into business that doesn't effect them in anyway.

So your argument would seem to be that one's life has no value, with the possible exception of your own?

[Rollo]

It is a Department of Justice document outlining the basis of prosecutions that they will seek on lending institutions. How is that not "actual legislation"?

Legislation is a piece of statutory law; made by a government or legislature. This is not one of those.

Considering that this is a policy document which deals with discrimination, then that's what the scope of the document is about. You would expect the DoJ to seek prosecutions on that basis.

It does not suggest though that a lending institution should adopt imprudent lending practices.
"Lenders must continue to ensure that their lending practices are consistent with safe and sound operating policies"
Not lending to people on the basis that they as an individual case can not pay it back is not being discriminatory. Not lending to people because they come from a low income area is.

[Lousada]

I just can't get my head around the idea of a private sector in markets that are 'natural monopolies' e.g. rail network, utilities.etc. Since such markets require such an infrastructure they require a national network, this creates barriers to entry that mean 'real' competition can not develop.

Does the private owned Network Rail do a better job than the public owned British Rail? Not really, neither make/d a profit, both are/were funded by the public.
The (mobile)telephone operators are a very good example of an utility that was a public service with a national network, that succesfully transitioned to a free-market private service.
The privatising of the railroads failed mainly because it is impossible to operate at the high level of service for the low price the people expect.

[Bob Riebe]

Not lending to people on the basis that they as an individual case can not pay it back is not being discriminatory. It is if a memember of a minority cries wolf and one finds oneself in court defending what you rather naively call "safe and sound lending policies."

Lawyers cost money, liberal lawyers jump at "discrimination" case like fleas jump on dogs.

It is cheap and easy to say "they did not have to do x, y or z but they are the ones who have to pay lawyers to fight discrimination charges, not internet self-appointed experts.

[BDunnell]

Does the private owned Network Rail do a better job than the public owned British Rail? Not really, neither make/d a profit, both are/were funded by the public.

I don't think there's much direct comparison to be made between them, to be honest, given the much narrower remit of Network Rail.

BR was making massive leaps forward at the time of privatisation; all were immediately cancelled out.

[BDunnell]

I can see somethings that fit your definition, and are important. Where have I once said that the public sector could not provide services?

You clearly don't like it doing so.



Quite the oposite in fact. I encourage people to make their own choices as long as they feel they benefit themselves, and do not harm me. However, public services in many instances do harm me and society as they are a financial drain on society, and (now here's the key point) I am FORCED to pay for them. So I no longer have any choice in the market. My "invisible hand" now has no power to sway the market.

I believe my influence over enormous corporations is minimal, should I decide not to buy their products/services. My 'choice', therefore, is all but irrelevant to them.



How is my choice narrow? If you don't believe that life has value, I don't think I can help you there.

Your definition of choice is narrow. If you applied your same desire for a free choice to all aspects of life, you would be in favour of offering people an entirely free choice on issues such as abortion. But you don't. You feel free choice has its limits.

[BDunnell]

The (mobile)telephone operators are a very good example of an utility that was a public service with a national network, that succesfully transitioned to a free-market private service.

I don't consider that a fair comparison, because mobile telephone services have never been provided by the state, in Britain at least.



The privatising of the railroads failed mainly because it is impossible to operate at the high level of service for the low price the people expect.

And I believe this to be totally wrong — an extremely sweeping statement. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject would cite many other reasons, such as the manner of privatisation, the sort of companies that took over, etc, etc, etc.

[BDunnell]

internet self-appointed experts.

Is this not what you are too, Bob?

[BDunnell]

That is not ture. Rail networks and utilities started out as private enterprises that competed with each other. Only after time and politicians thinking they had the best interests of societies in mind did they develop into "natural monopolies.

Are you aware of the history of the competing rail operators in the UK between the wars?

[Rollo]

It is if a memember of a minority cries wolf and one finds oneself in court defending what you rather naively call "safe and sound lending policies."

What I naively call "safe and sound lending policies"? No, I quoted verbatim from the document. Clearly you didn't bother to read it. It appears on page 3/23 at the end of the first paragraph on that page.


It is cheap and easy to say "they did not have to do x, y or z but they are the ones who have to pay lawyers to fight discrimination charges, not internet self-appointed experts.

It's also frightfully expensive to pay banks billions of dollars because they didn't employ said "safe and sound lending policies".

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So your argument would seem to be that one's life has no value, with the possible exception of your own?

Who's life?

[Bob Riebe]

Is this not what you are too, Bob?I do not try to tell you how politics work in the U.K. but you are trying to tell us how U.S. politics work.

You figure it out.

[Bob Riebe]

What I naively call "safe and sound lending policies"? No, I quoted verbatim from the document. Clearly you didn't bother to read it. It appears on page 3/23 at the end of the first paragraph on that page.



It's also frightfully expensive to pay banks billions of dollars because they didn't employ said "safe and sound lending policies".If you dealt with U.S. politics first hand, as we do from local to federal, you would realize over here words are cheap, and often worthless.

It was the Feds. who cut off their noses to spite their faces. Many, but not all, private concerns came out of it very well.

Whether you like it or not, Democrats in Washington caused the collapse, and no one else.
People, over here, who have first hand knowledge of how Washington operates, have said so, and for you to say they are wrong because you want it to be so- que sera, sera.

http://activitypit.ning.com/video/video/show?id=1981927%3AVideo%3A2252256

[Rollo]

Whether you like it or not, Democrats in Washington caused the collapse, and no one else.
People, over here, who have first hand knowledge of how Washington operates, have said so, and for you to say they are wrong because you want it to be so- que sera, sera.


I suppose that the banks were just victims then? Poor Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Lehmann Brothers, awwww. Bless.

[BDunnell]

Whether you like it or not, Democrats in Washington caused the collapse, and no one else.

Again, if the G20 leaders are reading this, here you have your solution to the world's problems.

[Eki]

I do not try to tell you how politics work in the U.K. but you are trying to tell us how U.S. politics work.

You figure it out.
Speaking of U.S. politics: I have understood that you're from Minnesota. That reminded me that the communist leader Gus Hall was also from Minnesota:

Gus Hall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Hall)

Is the US Communist Party still alive?

[chuck34]

Legislation is a piece of statutory law; made by a government or legislature. This is not one of those.

Considering that this is a policy document which deals with discrimination, then that's what the scope of the document is about. You would expect the DoJ to seek prosecutions on that basis.

It does not suggest though that a lending institution should adopt imprudent lending practices.
"Lenders must continue to ensure that their lending practices are consistent with safe and sound operating policies"
Not lending to people on the basis that they as an individual case can not pay it back is not being discriminatory. Not lending to people because they come from a low income area is.

You are still misunderstanding this document. The prosecution would be under Discrimination laws, 14th Amendment, Equal Rights Act, etc. This document is just clarifying what basis/criteria the DoJ will use to seek such prosecutions.

Let's take an example here. I own a bank. My bank sees a risk in lending on houses worth $60,000 or less. That is what my bank has decided is a safe and sound operating policy. Now 100 people come in seeking loans for $60,000 or less. My bank denies them all. But 70 of those people just happen to be minorities, 30 of them white. Well the DoJ has just defined my practice as having a "disparate impact". Therefore they can, and probably will according to this document, prosecute me for discrimination. Safe and sound operating policies be damned.

[chuck34]

You clearly don't like it doing so.

You are right, I don't really like the public sector doing things. But I can see the necessity in some cases.


I believe my influence over enormous corporations is minimal, should I decide not to buy their products/services. My 'choice', therefore, is all but irrelevant to them.

I believe my influence over enourmous bureaucracies to be minimal. However I am FORCED to pay into them. You are not FORCED to buy anything from any corporation. Do you see the difference?


Your definition of choice is narrow. If you applied your same desire for a free choice to all aspects of life, you would be in favour of offering people an entirely free choice on issues such as abortion. But you don't. You feel free choice has its limits.

You seriously want to argue that since I do not believe murder to be a choice that I am not for free choice? And almost in the same breath you are arguing for governments forcing people to pay into a system which is loosing money, as some sort of "choice".

[chuck34]

Are you aware of the history of the competing rail operators in the UK between the wars?

No and I stated as such. But between the wars is not the start of the rail industry either.

[chuck34]

Who's life?

The unborn child's life. Does that have no value to you?

[BDunnell]

You seriously want to argue that since I do not believe murder to be a choice that I am not for free choice? And almost in the same breath you are arguing for governments forcing people to pay into a system which is loosing money, as some sort of "choice".

With this statement, I'm afraid you lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned. It is no exaggeration to say I find your opinion on abortion repellant.

[Lousada]

And I believe this to be totally wrong — an extremely sweeping statement. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject would cite many other reasons, such as the manner of privatisation, the sort of companies that took over, etc, etc, etc.
The privatisation of railways actually came from EU policy, so it happened all over Europe at the same time. Everywhere in Europe the infrastructure is split from the railway operators to allow competition on the railways. Most countries then made their railway operator a publicly owned private company. Only in the UK they attempted a full privatisation. Even though free market competition is possible now all over Europe, you hardly see it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most railway companies in the UK still receive large subsidies? If you could operate a railway in a profitable manner without any sort of financial support of the government, why does it rarely happen anywhere in Europe?? It is because we as a society require a certain transportation network at our disposal, for a certain affordable price. And that is impossible for the private sector to provide for completely. The private sector cannot be made to operate non-viable lines, even if these are socially desirable. That is why full privatisation of the railways is impossible.

[chuck34]

With this statement, I'm afraid you lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned. It is no exaggeration to say I find your opinion on abortion repellant.

My position on abortion is repellant? I find human life to be worth preserving, and that is repellant? I believe there to be a right to life, and that is repellant?

How do you defend a mother murdering her child?

[BDunnell]

The privatisation of railways actually came from EU policy, so it happened all over Europe at the same time.

Not my recollection at all — and nor do any of the books written by genuine experts on the matter cite this as a reason behind the privatisation in Britain. Privatisation could have occurred earlier had the government desired it, but it didn't. It was a political decision.


Everywhere in Europe the infrastructure is split from the railway operators to allow competition on the railways.

Not in Germany, to my knowledge, where the infrastructure is still in the hands of Deutsche Bahn, which remains the main (state-owned) rail operator.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most railway companies in the UK still receive large subsidies?

The railways in Britain cost the taxpayer more now than ever they did before privatisation. At the point of its demise, British Rail was well on the way to genuine profitability, and an increasingly excellent example of a state-owned company adopting certain free market principles to positive ends. Then it was all ruined.

[BDunnell]

My position on abortion is repellant? I find human life to be worth preserving, and that is repellant? I believe there to be a right to life, and that is repellant?

How do you defend a mother murdering her child?

It is statements like these which make me somewhat glad to be European, where such over-emotional views are thankfully confined to the lunatic fringe.

[Lousada]

Not my recollection at all — and nor do any of the books written by genuine experts on the matter cite this as a reason behind the privatisation in Britain. Privatisation could have occurred earlier had the government desired it, but it didn't. It was a political decision.

Full privatisation as done in the UK was not required by the EU, no. The EU wanted to break open the railway monopolies, the way the individual states implemented this was open to themselves. As I said, the UK was the only one that attempted full privatisation, with the chaotic consequenses you know.



Not in Germany, to my knowledge, where the infrastructure is still in the hands of Deutsche Bahn, which remains the main (state-owned) rail operator.


But it is possible for other railway operators to drive on Deutsche Bahn infrastructure, which is the point.


The railways in Britain cost the taxpayer more now than ever they did before privatisation. At the point of its demise, British Rail was well on the way to genuine profitability, and an increasingly excellent example of a state-owned company adopting certain free market principles to positive ends. Then it was all ruined.
Which was exactly my point.

[chuck34]

It is statements like these which make me somewhat glad to be European, where such over-emotional views are thankfully confined to the lunatic fringe.

Over-emotional? Give me a break. You somehow think that murder equals choice. And you call me over-emotional.

And then to state that since I find murder to be repellant, that that somehow means that my views on the free-market are invalid, is just silly. Especially in light of the fact that you are arguing for people to be FORCED into paying for your transportation.

I want to give poeple free-market choices, as long as those choices don't infrige upon one's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness (or my prefered term, property). You want to FORCE people into paying for things they may not use. And I am the one against choice? Boy oh boy the Ministry of Truth would be proud of that logic.

[ArrowsFA1]

The private sector cannot be made to operate non-viable lines, even if these are socially desirable. That is why full privatisation of the railways is impossible.
:up: The same applies in other areas as well, noteably healthcare.

[Lousada]

Over-emotional? Give me a break. You somehow think that murder equals choice. And you call me over-emotional.

And then to state that since I find murder to be repellant, that that somehow means that my views on the free-market are invalid, is just silly. Especially in light of the fact that you are arguing for people to be FORCED into paying for your transportation.

I want to give poeple free-market choices, as long as those choices don't infrige upon one's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness (or my prefered term, property). You want to FORCE people into paying for things they may not use. And I am the one against choice? Boy oh boy the Ministry of Truth would be proud of that logic.

That you do not physically use public transport, doesn't mean you do not benefit from it. Smaller trafficjams and less pollution for example.

[chuck34]

That you do not physically use public transport, doesn't mean you do not benefit from it. Smaller trafficjams and less pollution for example.

That very well could be. But why does that mean that I should be forced to pay for it? Shouldn't that be my choice?

[ArrowsFA1]

Might I suggest that the whole abortion debate goes into another thread if it is to be continued.

[chuck34]

Might I suggest that the whole abortion debate goes into another thread if it is to be continued.

I would be fine with that, as I don't believe that abortion has a thing to do with the free-market. But Ben apparently thinks that if you are ant-abortion that somehow you are anti-free-market. Go figure that one? :rolleyes:

[Bob Riebe]

Speaking of U.S. politics: I have understood that you're from Minnesota. That reminded me that the communist leader Gus Hall was also from Minnesota:

Gus Hall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Hall)

Is the US Communist Party still alive?

Yeah we call them Democrats.

It is still around but that is all, although nne member of Congress is/was an avowed Communist.

As an odd aside, I just read yesterday in the local paper, one reason parts of Minn. became Democrats for life, was because Roosevelt killed prohibition.

[Bob Riebe]

Over-emotional? Give me a break. You somehow think that murder equals choice. And you call me over-emotional.

And then to state that since I find murder to be repellant,God and God alone decides if a soul enters a body. Till that point it is chunk of tissue; whereas if it is murder then God murders children with every spontaneous abortion.

I do agree the decision should be made by the end of the first trimester after which it should be illegal with exceptions for special circumstances.

[BDunnell]

I would be fine with that, as I don't believe that abortion has a thing to do with the free-market. But Ben apparently thinks that if you are ant-abortion that somehow you are anti-free-market. Go figure that one? :rolleyes:

Not my position at all. I continue to think that pointing out how those who espouse the merits of choice in one area of life do not do so in others are being inconsistent, proving that there are limits to their expression of freedom of choice.

[BDunnell]

That very well could be. But why does that mean that I should be forced to pay for it? Shouldn't that be my choice?

I might not take advantage of the street lighting on a particular road. Should I receive a small rebate on my tax bill? One could compartmentalise it endlessly. I simply don't care whether I might be paying a tiny amount for something I will never use.

[BDunnell]

But it is possible for other railway operators to drive on Deutsche Bahn infrastructure, which is the point.

Was it not always possible for this to happen, for example with privately-operated heritage trains doing so along British Rail lines? As far as I am aware, it was not illegal, let's put it that way.

[chuck34]

Not my position at all. I continue to think that pointing out how those who espouse the merits of choice in one area of life do not do so in others are being inconsistent, proving that there are limits to their expression of freedom of choice.

One more time, then I won't comment on this matter again, as it relates to abortion.

I am for freedom of choice as long as one's choice does not infringe upon anothers rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happyness (or my prefered wording property). Abortion clearly deprives one's right to life.

As to Bob's point ... Since we do not know when a soul enters into a "chunk of tissue", I believe it prudent, and the only viable option, to treat that "chunk of tissue" as a life with a soul at all times.

[chuck34]

I might not take advantage of the street lighting on a particular road. Should I receive a small rebate on my tax bill? One could compartmentalise it endlessly. I simply don't care whether I might be paying a tiny amount for something I will never use.

What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece. See the massive ratio of debt to GDP that the US currently has. Many, many rationalizations such as you just made went into adding up those crushing debts. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for street lights. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for welfare programs. Oh I don't ming paying a little bit for unemployment insurance. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for public transportation. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for this. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for that. Well those "little bits" have all added up to crush the economies of more than on nation. Do you mind now? Do the Greeks mind now? Will the OWS people mind if all their demands are met and the debt forces default of the US government, and then those demands can no longer be met?

I seem to have allowed myself to be backed into arguing against all forms of public services. I am not against them at all, and have tried to say that many times in the past. I do think there is a case to be made for things such as street lights, some public transportation, and other things. All I am saying is that there should be a concious decision made as to costs vs benefits.

[BDunnell]

What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece. See the massive ratio of debt to GDP that the US currently has. Many, many rationalizations such as you just made went into adding up those crushing debts. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for street lights. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for welfare programs. Oh I don't ming paying a little bit for unemployment insurance. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for public transportation. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for this. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for that. Well those "little bits" have all added up to crush the economies of more than on nation. Do you mind now? Do the Greeks mind now? Will the OWS people mind if all their demands are met and the debt forces default of the US government, and then those demands can no longer be met?

How come, then, the Scandinavian economies didn't collapse years ago under the weight of their expensive social programmes? How come Germany enjoyed years of economic growth while also providing high-quality public services? You are ignoring the underlying factors in favour of again stressing your own ideological bias.

[Lousada]

Was it not always possible for this to happen, for example with privately-operated heritage trains doing so along British Rail lines? As far as I am aware, it was not illegal, let's put it that way.

Well in most countries direct competition on the railways was impossible.

[ArrowsFA1]

Well in most countries direct competition on the railways was impossible.
The picture of numerous trains run by different companies turning up at my local station and waiting in line for comsumers to make their choice does rather make me chuckle :laugh:

[Lousada]

What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece. See the massive ratio of debt to GDP that the US currently has. Many, many rationalizations such as you just made went into adding up those crushing debts. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for street lights. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for welfare programs. Oh I don't ming paying a little bit for unemployment insurance. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for public transportation. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for this. Oh I don't mind paying a little bit for that. Well those "little bits" have all added up to crush the economies of more than on nation. Do you mind now? Do the Greeks mind now? Will the OWS people mind if all their demands are met and the debt forces default of the US government, and then those demands can no longer be met?

I seem to have allowed myself to be backed into arguing against all forms of public services. I am not against them at all, and have tried to say that many times in the past. I do think there is a case to be made for things such as street lights, some public transportation, and other things. All I am saying is that there should be a concious decision made as to costs vs benefits.

If you paid for all that you wouldn't be in debt. The US and Greece have such massive debts because they want to receive all those things but at the same time not pay for them.

[BDunnell]

The picture of numerous trains run by different companies turning up at my local station and waiting in line for comsumers to make their choice does rather make me chuckle :laugh:

Yet John Major's false sense of nostalgia involved virtually that picture in his mind. Had people known that it appeared there alongside one of a naked Edwina Currie, maybe there would have been more opposition.

[chuck34]

How come, then, the Scandinavian economies didn't collapse years ago under the weight of their expensive social programmes? How come Germany enjoyed years of economic growth while also providing high-quality public services? You are ignoring the underlying factors in favour of again stressing your own ideological bias.

Did I ever say that having social programs would lead to zero economic growth? No. I would propose that growth can exist with massive tax burdens. But I would also propose that there is a greater potential for greater economic growth with less burdensom taxes (less government programs, more free-market principals).

Look at the US in the past. We had less economic programs, and our economy grew at a faster rate than it is now, or than it is currently in Scandinavian economies.

[BDunnell]

Did I ever say that having social programs would lead to zero economic growth? No. I would propose that growth can exist with massive tax burdens. But I would also propose that there is a greater potential for greater economic growth with less burdensom taxes (less government programs, more free-market principals).

You clearly suggested that the underlying problem in Greece was with the government spending too much on the public services. How else is this statement to be taken: 'What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece'.

[chuck34]

If you paid for all that you wouldn't be in debt. The US and Greece have such massive debts because they want to receive all those things but at the same time not pay for them.

So your idea is that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem?

In 1999 the US took in 1.827 Trillion dollars, and had a surplus (on paper at least). In 2010 the US took in 2.163 Trilion dollars, and has a deficit of ~1.293 Billion dollars (I've seen different numbers around there). We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Just tax those "millionaires and billionaires" you say.
There Aren (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262045/there-aren-t-enough-millionaires-kevin-d-williamson)

Spread that deficit over all the households in Club 250K and you have to jack up their taxes by an average of $500,000.

You want to tax Club 1 (Club 1: the million-dollar-a-year club. Not the millionaires’ club — lots of the people earning $1 million in any given year do not have $1 million in assets — but, still, a million a year, even in rapidly depreciating U.S. dollars, is not too shabby) to get rid of the deficit, you have to hit each of those 200,000 households with an average tax hike — not an average tax bill, but tax increase — of $6 million. And a lot of those Club 1 households don’t have $6 million in income to start with, much less $6 million left after the taxes they’re already paying.

[Lousada]

Look at the US in the past. We had less economic programs, and our economy grew at a faster rate than it is now, or than it is currently in Scandinavian economies.

Could you please point to a source where it shows the historic relation between tax-burden and economic growth in the US??

[chuck34]

You clearly suggested that the underlying problem in Greece was with the government spending too much on the public services. How else is this statement to be taken: 'What if those tiny amounts continue to add up until the whole governmental system is so massively in debt that it starts to collapse? See Greece'.

The problem in Greece IS the massive government spending. I said in the post you quoted that growth can exist with massive tax burdens, not that it would exist.

[Lousada]

So your idea is that we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem?

In 1999 the US took in 1.827 Trillion dollars, and had a surplus (on paper at least). In 2010 the US took in 2.163 Trilion dollars, and has a deficit of ~1.293 Billion dollars (I've seen different numbers around there). We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.


You've got a revenue problem as well as a spending problem.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png/800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

[ArrowsFA1]

Look at the US in the past. We had less economic programs, and our economy grew at a faster rate than it is now...
Which may well be true, but doesn't help. The US, and the world, is a very different place compared with 10, 20 or 30yrs ago and returning to policies of the past will not provide solutions in the present.

[Dave B]

Yet John Major's false sense of nostalgia involved virtually that picture in his mind. Had people known that it appeared there alongside one of a naked Edwina Currie, maybe there would have been more opposition.

I've just been slightly sick in my mouth.

[chuck34]

Could you please point to a source where it shows the historic relation between tax-burden and economic growth in the US??

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jskinner/.../EngenSkinnerTaxEconGrowth.pdf

Page 11 of 26, figure 3A Capital Income Tax Rate vs Per Capital Real GDP Growth (Percent). The slope of the line is negative.

Page 18 of 26, figure 5 Capital Income Tax Rate vs Private Investment/GDP (Percent). The slip of the line is negative.


a major tax reform reducing all marginal rates by five percentage points and average tax rates by 2.5 percentage points is predicted to increase longterm growth rates by between 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points.

even these modest growth effects can have an important long-term impact on living standards.

[chuck34]

Which may well be true, but doesn't help. The US, and the world, is a very different place compared with 10, 20 or 30yrs ago and returning to policies of the past will not provide solutions in the present.

So socialism/communisim/collectivism have been tried in the past as well, and for the most part failed. Why go back to them. History is a great teacher. Ignore history at your own peril.

[BDunnell]

So socialism/communisim/collectivism have been tried in the past as well, and for the most part failed. Why go back to them. History is a great teacher. Ignore history at your own peril.

You seem, as a lot of right-wing Americans do, to confuse people whose opinions are vaguely left-wing with socialists and communists. It is tiresomely simplistic.

[Eki]

Look at the US in the past. We had less economic programs, and our economy grew at a faster rate than it is now, or than it is currently in Scandinavian economies.
That's probably just because there was less global competition. Countries like China, South-Korea and India were basically 3rd world countries back then. Now they are serious competitors to the Western economies and their economies grow fast.

[Eki]

The problem in Greece IS the massive government spending. I said in the post you quoted that growth can exist with massive tax burdens, not that it would exist.
Tax evasion is probably a more serious problem:

Greece loses (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8585593/Greece-loses-15bn-a-year-to-tax-evasion.html)