The Next American Revolution: Main Street vs. Wall Street 75 comments
Mark McQueen
About this author:
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The stories are well known:
- American Automaker executives flying to Washington in private jets to beg for government handouts.
- Two hundred thousand dollar California spa bills at AIG (AIG), even after the U.S. taxpayers had to bail that insurance company out of certain bankruptcy.
- Eliot Spitzer and his difficult three diamond session.
- Citigroup (C) taking delivery of its new $50 million Falcon after receiving more than $40 billion of preferred share capital from the U.S. Treasury to keep the world’s Financial Supermarket from the annals of Receivership.
The impetus for the French Revolution can’t be summarized in a blog post, but there were two core elements that strike me as perfect parallels for the ongoing lack of judgment among some elites south of the border. I’ve always thought that average Americans shared many of the ideals of The Enlightenment, particularly equality and freedom of the individual.
Now that American taxpayers are bailing out many of the elites of their society, the parallels to pre-Revolution France begin to appear. Louis XVI took power during a financial crisis. France was nearing bankruptcy and the costs of the government exceeded tax revenues. Some of the most blessed in society didn’t pay tax.
After several years of deficits, the U.S. government has been forced to dig even deeper to ensure that Citigroup, Morgan Stanley (MS), GE Capital, General Motors (GM), etc., stay solvent just long enough for the economy to recover. In the meantime, President Obama is in the unhappy position of having to respond to the spectacle of Wall Streeters taking in $18.4 billion of bonuses even as the TARP funds continue to flow.
And this is where the prospect of a virtual revolution kicks in. If you work at a technology company that is in dire straits and hits the wall, your severance and benefits are an unsecured liability, you might get zippo from your employer. At Merrill Lynch (MER), for example, insolvency was only staved off by the intervention of the U.S. Treasury. But that didn’t prevent John Thain from recommending (and paying) $4 billion in bonuses just prior to the closing of the Bank of America (BAC) acquisition. And that patent unfairness will be the genesis of this modern day revolution.
It isn’t that average citizens reject the idea that risk-takers should be rewarded. Americans have none of that “Tall Poppy” syndrome that we see here in Canada. But this situation is different. Even failed risk-takers are being rewarded: that’s something that will not go over well in coffee shops across the 50 States. The idea that “we need to pay people to retain them” is just poppycock in this situation. The company is insolvent — you don’t have anything to pay them with. And, since the rest of Wall Street also took TARP funds, they probably can’t hire these teams away from you, either. The notion of pay-for-retention is a hollow argument.
There won’t be torches and pitchforks in this revolution; it will be the tax system and compensation caps that are brought to bear instead. But elected officials will have to make a choice: Pick the side of Wall Street or Main Street.
The choice will be an easy one to make.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 75 comments:
After the November election, when both Time magazine and the New Yorker had featured pieces optimistically reflecting on the similarities between the victory of Barack Obama and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt mandate of 1932, the London Economist immediately moved to put the brakes on the euphoria. There were plenty of risks in "over-interpreting" the political mandate, they cautioned. After all, in their minds, the election was much more about getting rid of Bush, than ushering in "an era of activist government."
A month later, the conservative Heritage Foundation held a seminar in Washington, "Learning From the New Deal: How FDR's Economic Legacy has Damaged America." The speaker, Burton Folsom Jr. had just penned a book, New Deal or Raw Deal?, and argued that the legacy of FDR was one of "price fixing, court packing and regressive taxation." Among apologist Fulsom's other books are, The Myth of the Robber Barons, Empire Builders, and Urban Capitalists.
On December 30, Amity Shlaes, an "adjunct fellow" at the American Enterprise Institute, posted her first anti-FDR piece, "An Era of Uncertainty." There, she fretted about the "market uncertainty" which all of FDR's reforms caused, specifically when he pulled the dollar off the gold standard. Likewise, today, she said, all the questions about new regulation and taxes, "make it hard for the market to settle" on the price of paper assets. Clearly nervous about which way Obama would go, she urged him to "define" his programs early, and thus signal "Open for Business" to Wall Street.
As the inauguration approached, others got into the act. On January 9th, the libertarian CATO Institute sponsored an ad in the New York Times and the Washington Post, signed by hundreds of financial "heavies," telling Obama that "Keynsian" spending was the wrong way to go. That same day, Pat Buchanan penned a piece on MSNBC which received wide circulation, implying that the new President's choice would be between the spending of Franklin Roosevelt, and the tight money of Ronald Reagan. First of all, in Buchanan's imagination, things today aren't nearly as bad as they were in 1932; and then, FDR's programs didn't work. How does he know? Treasury Secretary (and Wall Street intimate) Henry Morganthau said so, in testimony (which he quotes) before Congress in 1939. Reagan's program of tax breaks and tight spending worked much better, adding that even JFK favored tax breaks over government spending.
The day after the inauguration, the Heritage Foundation again chimed in, this time posting a frantic piece titled, "Get Over it, the New Deal Didn't Work," which offered expanded quotes from Morganthau in 1939, with additional wisdom from author Fulsom. Heritage was determined to rebut charges (in "liberal" press accounts) that their unemployment figures, which they had compiled into a convenient downloadable chart, were distorted. Their preferred solution: tax breaks (again), and the insight of Morganthau.
.They know that Obama is a pro-Roosevelt man which has excited them no end. Cato, Heritage, AEI. These things are the fascist organizations of America. They have their various colors: green, pousse. Especially pousse.
The guys who were pro-Hitler and pro-Mussolini in the 1920s and 1930s, in 1941 had to run for cover. What they did is they closed down their offices, or let the offices die, and opened up new offices by reassorting the organization. Then, when Roosevelt was dying, after the successful breakthrough at Normandy, then they came out of the woods. And they're back again, and that's what we call these right-wing think-tanks. So they're still the same old thing as the pro-Hitler, pro-Mussolini crowd of former times, and they have the same essential ideology. And the Bushes are part of it.
I predict there will be little or no civil unrest in the U.S. as Americans will never overthrow the Government, hell half of them don't even bother to register to vote. Give em a steady diet of reality TV, NFL football and a sic-pack and they may grumble about the Government and the bank's antics while they flick through the channels-that's about it.
Thanks to 'investfarm' and 'frosty' for well spoken comments above.
An effective snip...er, I mean "hunter" could pin down a whole platoon. And there are millions of deer rifles (with scopes) in the hands of average american citizens. Think Sarajevo. You don't think that might make the powers-that-be think twice?
On Feb 03 09:54 AM investfarm wrote:
> We need a peaceful political & social revolution. Why ? The
> same banking circles, including relatives of the former President,
> who financed Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, some of them continuing
> even after Pearl Harbor attack, are now turning their collective
> "influence" against a potential resurgence of the policies of Franklin
> Delano Roosevelt in the new administration. Since the beginning of
> the year, a steady drumbeat has been growing, to the effect of driving
> a wedge between the new Democratic administration of Barack Obama,
> and the policies of FDR. Obama, who is known to have been reading
> on FDR on the eve of his inauguration, clearly poses a threat to
> the financial elites' control of policy.
>
> After the November election, when both Time magazine and the New
> Yorker had featured pieces optimistically reflecting on the similarities
> between the victory of Barack Obama and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> mandate of 1932, the London Economist immediately moved to put the
> brakes on the euphoria. There were plenty of risks in "over-interpreting"
> the political mandate, they cautioned. After all, in their minds,
> the election was much more about getting rid of Bush, than ushering
> in "an era of activist government."
>
> A month later, the conservative Heritage Foundation held a seminar
> in Washington, "Learning From the New Deal: How FDR's Economic Legacy
> has Damaged America." The speaker, Burton Folsom Jr. had just penned
> a book, New Deal or Raw Deal?, and argued that the legacy of FDR
> was one of "price fixing, court packing and regressive taxation."
> Among apologist Fulsom's other books are, The Myth of the Robber
> Barons, Empire Builders, and Urban Capitalists.
>
> On December 30, Amity Shlaes, an "adjunct fellow" at the American
> Enterprise Institute, posted her first anti-FDR piece, "An Era of
> Uncertainty." There, she fretted about the "market uncertainty" which
> all of FDR's reforms caused, specifically when he pulled the dollar
> off the gold standard. Likewise, today, she said, all the questions
> about new regulation and taxes, "make it hard for the market to settle"
> on the price of paper assets. Clearly nervous about which way Obama
> would go, she urged him to "define" his programs early, and thus
> signal "Open for Business" to Wall Street.
>
> As the inauguration approached, others got into the act. On January
> 9th, the libertarian CATO Institute sponsored an ad in the New York
> Times and the Washington Post, signed by hundreds of financial "heavies,"
> telling Obama that "Keynsian" spending was the wrong way to go. That
> same day, Pat Buchanan penned a piece on MSNBC which received wide
> circulation, implying that the new President's choice would be between
> the spending of Franklin Roosevelt, and the tight money of Ronald
> Reagan. First of all, in Buchanan's imagination, things today aren't
> nearly as bad as they were in 1932; and then, FDR's programs didn't
> work. How does he know? Treasury Secretary (and Wall Street intimate)
> Henry Morganthau said so, in testimony (which he quotes) before Congress
> in 1939. Reagan's program of tax breaks and tight spending worked
> much better, adding that even JFK favored tax breaks over government
> spending.
>
> The day after the inauguration, the Heritage Foundation again chimed
> in, this time posting a frantic piece titled, "Get Over it, the New
> Deal Didn't Work," which offered expanded quotes from Morganthau
> in 1939, with additional wisdom from author Fulsom. Heritage was
> determined to rebut charges (in "liberal" press accounts) that their
> unemployment figures, which they had compiled into a convenient downloadable
> chart, were distorted. Their preferred solution: tax breaks (again),
> and the insight of Morganthau.
>
> .They know that Obama is a pro-Roosevelt man which has excited them
> no end. Cato, Heritage, AEI. These things are the fascist organizations
> of America. They have their various colors: green, pousse. Especially
> pousse.
>
> The guys who were pro-Hitler and pro-Mussolini in the 1920s and 1930s,
> in 1941 had to run for cover. What they did is they closed down
> their offices, or let the offices die, and opened up new offices
> by reassorting the organization. Then, when Roosevelt was dying,
> after the successful breakthrough at Normandy, then they came out
> of the woods. And they're back again, and that's what we call these
> right-wing think-tanks. So they're still the same old thing as the
> pro-Hitler, pro-Mussolini crowd of former times, and they have the
> same essential ideology. And the Bushes are part of it.
>
On Feb 03 10:36 AM anarchist wrote:
> Seems as every time there is one of these "the end is near" articles
> (and it may be) we get a rash of people talking about the gun toting
> Americans as if they would revolt against the Government. You guys
> think the Government is somehow intimidated by citizens with deer
> rifles and hand guns when half of our taxes are spent giving the
> military the best weapons in the world you REALLY think the Government
> is intimidated?
> I predict there will be little or no civil unrest in the U.S. as
> Americans will never overthrow the Government, hell half of them
> don't even bother to register to vote. Give em a steady diet of reality
> TV, NFL football and a sic-pack and they may grumble about the Government
> and the bank's antics while they flick through the channels-that's
> about it.
> Thanks to 'investfarm' and 'frosty' for well spoken comments above.
On Feb 03 01:03 PM GeminiAtlas wrote:
> Anarchist,
> An effective snip...er, I mean "hunter" could pin down a whole platoon.
> And there are millions of deer rifles (with scopes) in the hands
> of average american citizens. Think Sarajevo. You don't think that
> might make the powers-that-be think twice?
so called stimulus. Most of the stimulus is pork, to pay back
people that got him in the white house. He said he wouldn't do
business as usual
For example, on another site one poster pointed out, what about a situation in which a company is having a very bad year, and is anticipating $3 billion in losses and being forced to cut 3,00 jobs. But they bring in a talented turnaround artist who is able to lose only $1 billion who also saves 2,000 of those jobs. Should this person not be allowed a fairly large bonus? Do situations like this exist? And if so, shouldn't they be considered? After all this talented individual could command much higher pay at some other company that isn't constrained by having been a recipient of TARP funds. But the companies who need him the most wouldn't be able to afford him. My question is, to those of you who know more than the rest of us out here, are there situations like this and how do we distinguish them from the others?
if bush hadn't been so awful, i wonder if obama wld hv been elected> and, BTW, the demographics are such that people with any historical perspective are outnumbered by the optimistic, hopeful but not necessarily well informed younger people, who will be paying most of the bills of privatizing the benefits and socializing the failures.
old guys such as I may suffer but not too much longer, thank God. there used to be a sense of proportion that operated in the USA; it's gone for good.
Please turn off that tape loop running around in your head before the little mind remaining explodes!
On Feb 03 12:53 PM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:
> Close but not quite: it's also Main Street vs. Washington. Sure,
> CEOs have pillaged the people, but not alone...it's quite clear that
> it was done in full concert with the globalist economic illuminati
> -- those in government in conjunction with their buddies in the board
> rooms. Look at the absolutely corrupt Obama administration -- two
> nominees who have withdrawn, one tax cheat confirmed, and yet another
> still pending. Add in an Atty General involved in incidents of excessive
> and legally doubtful use of force against civilians at Waco and at
> the Elian Gonzalez home...and you quickly see that this government
> is not Hope and Change -- but yet another admin that has very LITTLE
> concern about the rule of law and the inherent rights of We The People.
>
Your selective interpretation of the New Deal forgets where we were before Social Security and later Medicare. Before that my mom and dad considered themselves lucky in 1931 to have a seven-day-a-week job paying a respective 10 cents and 5 cents per hour. Without the New Deal and Great Society, after you leave your work you would be looking at no income and one medical emergency step away from true poverty.
Folks like you believe government can do no good. Of the latter government program example:
Medicare's effective overhead rate is 2-3%.
The average overhead rate within the fractured HMO market is ~27%
On Feb 03 04:23 PM clam75 wrote:
> If you study any of the Austrian economists such as Murray Rothbard,
> you will learn how FDR's policies actually lengthened the Depression.
> In short, massive governmental borrowing and spending caused misallocation
> of needed savings/capital. Moreover, a cornerstone of FDR policies
> --- the Agricultural Adjustment Act (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> --- was the very definition of government foolishness; millions of
> piglets and thousands of pregnant cows were slaughtered in an effort
> to raise meat prices while Americans were going hungry. Even worse,
> the AAA's Thomas Amendment was the vehicle used by FDR when he ordered
> that the gold content of the dollar be reduced to 41%. And these
> are only some of FDR's economic policies; I haven't even begun to
> address FDR's provocation of the Japanese that eventually led to
> disaster at Pearl Harbor.
>
> On Feb 03 09:54 AM investfarm wrote:
The Speech I Wish Obama Could Give
Fellow Citizens:
My administration came to office with a mandate for bold action at a time when our most powerful economic institutions had clearly failed us. They crippled our economy; burdened governments with debilitating debts; corrupted our political institutions; and threatened the destruction of the natural environment on which our very lives depend.
The failure can be traced directly to an elitist economic ideology that says if government favors the financial interests of the rich to the disregard of all else, everyone will benefit and the nation will prosper. A thirty-year experiment with trickle-down economics that favored the interests of Wall Street speculators over the hardworking people and businesses of Main Street has proved it doesn't work.
We have no more time or resources to devote to fixing a system based on false values and a discredited ideology. We must now come together to create the institutions of a new economy based on a values-based pragmatism that recognizes a simple truth: If the world is to work for any of us, it must work for all of us.
Corrective action begins with recognition that our economic crisis is, at its core, a moral crisis. Our economic institutions and rules, even the indicators by which we measure economic performance, consistently place financial values ahead of life values.
We have been measuring economic performance against GDP, or gross domestic product, which essentially measures the rate at which money and resources are flowing through the economy. Let us henceforth measure economic performance by the indicators of what we really want: the health and well-being of our children, families, communities, and the natural environment.
Like a healthy ecosystem, a healthy twenty-first-century economy must have strong local roots and maximize the beneficial capture, storage, sharing, and use of local energy, water, and mineral resources. That is what we must seek to achieve, community by community, all across this nation, by unleashing the creative energies of our people and our local governments, businesses, and civic organizations.
Previous administrations favored Wall Street, but the policies of this administration henceforth will favor the people and businesses of Main Street—people who are working to rebuild our local communities, restore the middle class, and bring our natural environment back to health.
We will strive for local and national food independence by rebuilding our local food systems based on family farms and environmentally friendly farming methods that rebuild the soil, maximize yields per acre, minimize the use of toxic chemicals, and create opportunities for the many young people who are returning to the land.
We will strive for energy independence by supporting local entrepreneurs who are creating local businesses to retrofit our buildings and develop and apply renewable-energy technologies.
It is a basic principle of market theory that trade relations between nations should be balanced. So-called free trade agreements have hollowed out our national industrial capacity, mortgaged our future to foreign creditors, and created global financial instability. We will take steps to assure that our future trade relations are balanced and fair as we engage in the difficult but essential work of learning to live within our own means.
We will rebuild our national infrastructure around a model of walkable, bicycle-friendly communities with efficient public transportation to conserve energy, nurture the relationships of community, and recover our farm and forest lands.
A strong middle-class society is an American ideal. Our past embodiment of that ideal made us the envy of the world. We will act to restore that ideal by rebalancing the distribution of wealth. Necessary and appropriate steps will be taken to assure access by every person to quality health care, education, and other essential services, and to restore progressive taxation, as well as progressive wage and benefit rules, to protect working people.
We will seek to create a true ownership society in which all people have the opportunity to own their homes and to have an ownership stake in the enterprise on which their livelihood depends. Our economic policies will favor responsible local ownership of local enterprises by people who have a stake in the health of their local communities and economies. The possibilities include locally owned family businesses, cooperatives, and the many other forms of community- or worker-owned enterprises.
We will act to render Wall Street's casino-like operations unprofitable. We will impose a transactions tax, require responsible capital ratios, and impose a surcharge on short-term capital gains. We will make it illegal for people and corporations to sell or insure assets that they do not own or in which they do not have a direct material interest.
To meet the financial needs of the new twenty-first-century Main Street economy, we will reverse the process of mergers and acquisitions that created the current concentration of banking power. We will restore the previous system of federally regulated community banks that are locally owned and managed and that fulfill the classic textbook banking function of serving as financial intermediaries between local people looking to secure a modest interest return on their savings and local people who need a loan to buy a home or finance a business.
And last, but not least, we will implement an orderly process of monetary reform. Most people believe that our government creates money. That is a fiction. Private banks create virtually all the money in circulation when they issue a loan at interest. The money is created by making a simple accounting entry with a few computer keystrokes. That is all money really is, an accounting entry.
My administration will act immediately to begin an orderly transition from our present system of bank-issued debt money to a system by which money is issued by the federal government. We will use the government-issued money to fund economic-stimulus projects that build the physical and social infrastructure of a twenty-first-century economy, being careful to remain consistent with our commitment to contain inflation.
To this end I have instructed the treasury secretary to take immediate action to assume control of the Federal Reserve and begin a process of monetizing the federal debt. He will have a mandate to stabilize the money supply, contain housing and stock market bubbles, discourage speculation, and assure the availability of credit on fair and affordable terms to eligible Main Street borrowers.
By recommitting ourselves to the founding ideals of this great nation, focusing on our possibilities, and liberating ourselves from failed ideas and institutions, together we can create a stronger, better nation. We can secure a fulfilling life for every person and honor the premise of the Declaration of Independence that every individual is endowed with an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No government on its own can resolve the problems facing our nation, but together we can and will resolve them. I call on every American to join with me in rebuilding our nation by acting to strengthen our families, our communities, and our natural environment; to secure the future of our children; and to restore our leadership position and reputation in the community of nations.
This is an abridged excerpt from David Korten's new book, "Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth," to be published by Berrett-Koehler, Feb 2009. This extract forms part of the YES! series, "Path to a New Economy." An earlier version of this chapter first appeared as part of David's article in Tikkun, Nov/Dec 2008. David Korten is the author of the international bestseller "When Corporations Rule the World and The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community." He is co-founder and board chair of YES! Magazine, and a board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies
In his book, 'When Corporation Rule the World', David Korten pointed out that the laws of profit dictate corporate governance. An executive who chooses to do the 'right' thing vs. the profitable thing will be bounced out by the shareholders. In a global economy, if American corporations get social justice religion and sacrifice profit for other goods their international competitors will drive them out of business.
Consumers go to Walmart because Chinese products are good enough and they're cheaper than American or European products. Consumers practice morality with their wallets. In a world where money is a scarce economic good people will inevitably spend their money where they perceive the highest value to themselves. We do not feel rich enough to change the world by paying more than we have to for the goods we consume. So a bottom-up approach to renewing the world will run up against the wall of individual self-interest and stall there.
I'm all for cleaning up corruption in high places, but realistically I don't think it's possible. In 'The Republic' Plato recognized that the wrong kind of people (greedy egos) seek political power, so Plato advocated that the right kind of people (philosopher-kings) should be compelled to do their duty by serving in public office. That's 2400 years ago and nothing much has changed. Greedy egos rule the world and philosopher-kings observe and bemoan it.
There is a huge personal price to pay for becoming a 'public' person. You lose all your privacy and anonymity. Unless you're a big ego who thrives on public attention and actually enjoys public life, the price of public service is too high for most private people to pay. So the wrong kind of people want power and the right kind of people avoid it like the plague. Which means the top-down approach to renewing the world runs up against the reluctance of 'good' people to serve and the eagerness of 'bad' people to cash in on the power and glory.
Human nature has created the world we have. It would be nice if human nature was different (moralists have preached this change for millenia), but it is what it is and this is what the resultant human society looks like.
That progression of Platonic and Socratic teachings reached the great schism with the abandoment of Plato's great observation, which you so eloquently described. The British philosophers Hobbes and Locke particularly agreed with your own perception and described the only workable social contract as one built upon the recognition that the fundamental nature of man as being selfish.
There was another view of man's nature, however, best expressed by Plato in his allegory of the cave and man's eventual recognition of his true nature, later expounded by Rousseau.
We are experiencing the fruits now of this schism because we have lost hope in another path. But out of crisis comes opportunity.
While most of the posters here express that hopelessness in the form of rather silly revolutionary, reactionary language, there are a growing number I believe that see the only solution to the greed-is-good view of human nature as a fundamental shift in what constitutes true value.
No, I don't expect the Walmart shopper to suddenly change into that idealized man. Yet, if we relegate the nature of man to the surface conclusions of Hobbes and Locke, then we all deserve the circumstances in which we find ourselves now.
I think that Korten was making the clarion call for that philospher king to emerge. I'm not saying that he was talking about Obama, but we have in Obama a unique opportunity to merge the role of politics with the possibilities of man.
It doesn't take all the monkeys agreeing to change that direction -- only the thousandth monkey to crystalize that change.
Or have you lost all hope?
On Feb 04 05:53 PM derryl wrote:
> Mediapro,
> In his book, 'When Corporation Rule the World', David Korten pointed
> out that the laws of profit dictate corporate governance. An executive
> who chooses to do the 'right' thing vs. the profitable thing will
> be bounced out by the shareholders. In a global economy, if American
> corporations get social justice religion and sacrifice profit for
> other goods their international competitors will drive them out of
> business.
>
> Consumers go to Walmart because Chinese products are good enough
> and they're cheaper than American or European products. Consumers
> practice morality with their wallets. In a world where money is
> a scarce economic good people will inevitably spend their money where
> they perceive the highest value to themselves. We do not feel rich
> enough to change the world by paying more than we have to for the
> goods we consume. So a bottom-up approach to renewing the world
> will run up against the wall of individual self-interest and stall
> there.
>
> I'm all for cleaning up corruption in high places, but realistically
> I don't think it's possible. In 'The Republic' Plato recognized
> that the wrong kind of people (greedy egos) seek political power,
> so Plato advocated that the right kind of people (philosopher-kings)
> should be compelled to do their duty by serving in public office.
> That's 2400 years ago and nothing much has changed. Greedy egos
> rule the world and philosopher-kings observe and bemoan it.
>
> There is a huge personal price to pay for becoming a 'public' person.
> You lose all your privacy and anonymity. Unless you're a big ego
> who thrives on public attention and actually enjoys public life,
> the price of public service is too high for most private people to
> pay. So the wrong kind of people want power and the right kind of
> people avoid it like the plague. Which means the top-down approach
> to renewing the world runs up against the reluctance of 'good' people
> to serve and the eagerness of 'bad' people to cash in on the power
> and glory.
>
> Human nature has created the world we have. It would be nice if
> human nature was different (moralists have preached this change for
> millenia), but it is what it is and this is what the resultant human
> society looks like.
RT
online-anonymity.at.tc
What planet doyou live on?Well so far the "thousandth monkey's "appointments have been tax cheaters whose transgressions would have landed you or I in prison.But the ruling elite gets a free pass.
The only change I've seen so far is the new crooks have replaced the old crooks.By the way did you know Tom daschle's wife is one of the pharmaceutical industry's largest lobbyists.And what does the head of HHS control:FDA.Talk about the fox minding the hen house.
So you sound like the lamb being led to the slaughter.
I don't think they are quite as well armed in Irak and Afghanistan, nonetheless the American military has been quite powerless... so it would be possible.
I don't think it is going to happen, not in the US. In Europe maybe- they know how to strike and create mayhem and block their country to express discontent.
I am surprised, given how much more CEOs and the elite has looted the rest of us here, that there hasn't been public unrest yet. Too busy with NFL and American Idols maybe?
On Feb 03 10:36 AM anarchist wrote:
> Seems as every time there is one of these "the end is near" articles
> (and it may be) we get a rash of people talking about the gun toting
> Americans as if they would revolt against the Government. You guys
> think the Government is somehow intimidated by citizens with deer
> rifles and hand guns when half of our taxes are spent giving the
> military the best weapons in the world you REALLY think the Government
> is intimidated?
> I predict there will be little or no civil unrest in the U.S. as
> Americans will never overthrow the Government, hell half of them
> don't even bother to register to vote. Give em a steady diet of
> reality TV, NFL football and a sic-pack and they may grumble about
> the Government and the bank's antics while they flick through the
> channels-that's about it.
> Thanks to 'investfarm' and 'frosty' for well spoken comments above.
On Feb 03 09:54 AM investfarm wrote:
> We need a peaceful political & social revolution. Why ? The
> same banking circles, including relatives of the former President,
> who financed Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, some of them continuing
> even after Pearl Harbor attack, are now turning their collective
> "influence" against a potential resurgence of the policies of Franklin
> Delano Roosevelt in the new administration. Since the beginning of
> the year, a steady drumbeat has been growing, to the effect of driving
> a wedge between the new Democratic administration of Barack Obama,
> and the policies of FDR. Obama, who is known to have been reading
> on FDR on the eve of his inauguration, clearly poses a threat to
> the financial elites' control of policy.
>
> After the November election, when both Time magazine and the New
> Yorker had featured pieces optimistically reflecting on the similarities
> between the victory of Barack Obama and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> mandate of 1932, the London Economist immediately moved to put the
> brakes on the euphoria. There were plenty of risks in "over-interpreting"
> the political mandate, they cautioned. After all, in their minds,
> the election was much more about getting rid of Bush, than ushering
> in "an era of activist government."
>
> A month later, the conservative Heritage Foundation held a seminar
> in Washington, "Learning From the New Deal: How FDR's Economic Legacy
> has Damaged America." The speaker, Burton Folsom Jr. had just penned
> a book, New Deal or Raw Deal?, and argued that the legacy of FDR
> was one of "price fixing, court packing and regressive taxation."
> Among apologist Fulsom's other books are, The Myth of the Robber
> Barons, Empire Builders, and Urban Capitalists.
>
> On December 30, Amity Shlaes, an "adjunct fellow" at the American
> Enterprise Institute, posted her first anti-FDR piece, "An Era of
> Uncertainty." There, she fretted about the "market uncertainty" which
> all of FDR's reforms caused, specifically when he pulled the dollar
> off the gold standard. Likewise, today, she said, all the questions
> about new regulation and taxes, "make it hard for the market to settle"
> on the price of paper assets. Clearly nervous about which way Obama
> would go, she urged him to "define" his programs early, and thus
> signal "Open for Business" to Wall Street.
>
> As the inauguration approached, others got into the act. On January
> 9th, the libertarian CATO Institute sponsored an ad in the New York
> Times and the Washington Post, signed by hundreds of financial "heavies,"
> telling Obama that "Keynsian" spending was the wrong way to go. That
> same day, Pat Buchanan penned a piece on MSNBC which received wide
> circulation, implying that the new President's choice would be between
> the spending of Franklin Roosevelt, and the tight money of Ronald
> Reagan. First of all, in Buchanan's imagination, things today aren't
> nearly as bad as they were in 1932; and then, FDR's programs didn't
> work. How does he know? Treasury Secretary (and Wall Street intimate)
> Henry Morganthau said so, in testimony (which he quotes) before Congress
> in 1939. Reagan's program of tax breaks and tight spending worked
> much better, adding that even JFK favored tax breaks over government
> spending.
>
> The day after the inauguration, the Heritage Foundation again chimed
> in, this time posting a frantic piece titled, "Get Over it, the New
> Deal Didn't Work," which offered expanded quotes from Morganthau
> in 1939, with additional wisdom from author Fulsom. Heritage was
> determined to rebut charges (in "liberal" press accounts) that their
> unemployment figures, which they had compiled into a convenient downloadable
> chart, were distorted. Their preferred solution: tax breaks (again),
> and the insight of Morganthau.
>
> .They know that Obama is a pro-Roosevelt man which has excited them
> no end. Cato, Heritage, AEI. These things are the fascist organizations
> of America. They have their various colors: green, pousse. Especially
> pousse.
>
> The guys who were pro-Hitler and pro-Mussolini in the 1920s and 1930s,
> in 1941 had to run for cover. What they did is they closed down
> their offices, or let the offices die, and opened up new offices
> by reassorting the organization. Then, when Roosevelt was dying,
> after the successful breakthrough at Normandy, then they came out
> of the woods. And they're back again, and that's what we call these
> right-wing think-tanks. So they're still the same old thing as the
> pro-Hitler, pro-Mussolini crowd of former times, and they have the
> same essential ideology. And the Bushes are part of it.
>
Revive the Guillotine!
A bunch of these could be manufactured, keeping steelworkers, ironworkers, foundaries and cutlery specialists employed. We could set up several in each financial district. These could be exported to foreign financial districts (except to France and former French colonies, unless they recycled theirs).
At least they represent a departure from dangerous Friedmanomics based economic policies, creepy domestic surveillance, centralization of executive branch power through fiat, wars of choice, fear-mongering, divisive-neo-con-based ideology that has left us the laughing stock of the rest of the world, and complete incompetence in dealing with the tragedies that their policies wrought.
The alternative would have been Bush III. Maybe Bob Barr would have been a break from the mold, but that wasn't going to happen on the very real planet I inhabit.
You should supply us with your coordinates so that we can spot you with our scopes.
On Feb 05 10:44 AM bones33 wrote:
> To Media Pro:
> What planet doyou live on?Well so far the "thousandth monkey's "appointments
> have been tax cheaters whose transgressions would have landed you
> or I in prison.But the ruling elite gets a free pass.
> The only change I've seen so far is the new crooks have replaced
> the old crooks.By the way did you know Tom daschle's wife is one
> of the pharmaceutical industry's largest lobbyists.And what does
> the head of HHS control:FDA.Talk about the fox minding the hen house.
>
> So you sound like the lamb being led to the slaughter.
On Feb 05 07:22 PM mediapro wrote:
> Aside from your not-very-cleverly disguised racist characterization
> of your new President, apparently I don't live on your planet. I'll
> take my chances with the newsest batch.
>
> At least they represent a departure from dangerous Friedmanomics
> based economic policies, creepy domestic surveillance, centralization
> of executive branch power through fiat, wars of choice, fear-mongering,
> divisive-neo-con-based ideology that has left us the laughing stock
> of the rest of the world, and complete incompetence in dealing with
> the tragedies that their policies wrought.
>
> The alternative would have been Bush III. Maybe Bob Barr would have
> been a break from the mold, but that wasn't going to happen on the
> very real planet I inhabit.
>
> You should supply us with your coordinates so that we can spot you
> with our scopes.
No, I haven't lost all hope. I'm happy with my customers and the people I do business with and my family. I'm happy to find intelligent and knowedgable people writing on this site, and I also like the angry and radical views because that's also my first response to the latest outrage (Kenna Wickman is right: 'Revive the Guillotine!' would be a better economic stimulus, but I prefer guns). I just try to avoid having anything to do with government and politics and power except for times like now when old ideas are collapsing and there may be an opening for some new perspectives.
I don't think much is going to change in the upper circles of power. Greed and ego will continue to claim those 'top lobster' spots to demonstrate their supremacy on the food chain. But I'm with Hobbes: we need government, we need leadership, we need policing. No matter what I think of the quality of the leaders, what we have is better than a new dark ages if our system collapses. So if I can help prop it up I'll do what I can.
Really, I'm constantly amazed that we've made it as far as we have with this Western enlightenment and free enterprise and democracy as an alternative to the same old same old tyranny that ebaumhatr describes above. So if there are people who want to try to run this thing and we can still be fairly free, let 'em have at it.
On Feb 04 01:17 PM consumeronstrike wrote:
> How do they differentiate between an outrageous bonus situation and
> one where a large bonus is truly appropriate or do they even try?
>
> For example, on another site one poster pointed out, what about a
> situation in which a company is having a very bad year, and is anticipating
> $3 billion in losses and being forced to cut 3,00 jobs. But they
> bring in a talented turnaround artist who is able to lose only $1
> billion who also saves 2,000 of those jobs. Should this person not
> be allowed a fairly large bonus? Do situations like this exist? And
> if so, shouldn't they be considered? After all this talented individual
> could command much higher pay at some other company that isn't constrained
> by having been a recipient of TARP funds. But the companies who need
> him the most wouldn't be able to afford him. My question is, to those
> of you who know more than the rest of us out here, are there situations
> like this and how do we distinguish them from the others?
On Feb 04 01:17 PM consumeronstrike wrote:
> How do they differentiate between an outrageous bonus situation and
> one where a large bonus is truly appropriate or do they even try?
>
> For example, on another site one poster pointed out, what about a
> situation in which a company is having a very bad year, and is anticipating
> $3 billion in losses and being forced to cut 3,00 jobs. But they
> bring in a talented turnaround artist who is able to lose only $1
> billion who also saves 2,000 of those jobs. Should this person not
> be allowed a fairly large bonus? Do situations like this exist? And
> if so, shouldn't they be considered? After all this talented individual
> could command much higher pay at some other company that isn't constrained
> by having been a recipient of TARP funds. But the companies who need
> him the most wouldn't be able to afford him. My question is, to those
> of you who know more than the rest of us out here, are there situations
> like this and how do we distinguish them from the others?
Mistakes like the bungled coup against Roosevelt won't occur again. The populace is already indoctrinated with the principles of the corporate state, all that remains is for the Republican right to scuttle the President's attempt to save the nation - once that's accomplished he'll be lucky to finish his term.
Then the real fun begins
On Feb 03 09:54 AM investfarm wrote:
> We need a peaceful political & social revolution. Why ? The
> same banking circles, including relatives of the former President,
> who financed Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, some of them continuing
> even after Pearl Harbor attack, are now turning their collective
> "influence" against a potential resurgence of the policies of Franklin
> Delano Roosevelt in the new administration. Since the beginning of
> the year, a steady drumbeat has been growing, to the effect of driving
> a wedge between the new Democratic administration of Barack Obama,
> and the policies of FDR. Obama, who is known to have been reading
> on FDR on the eve of his inauguration, clearly poses a threat to
> the financial elites' control of policy.
>
> After the November election, when both Time magazine and the New
> Yorker had featured pieces optimistically reflecting on the similarities
> between the victory of Barack Obama and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> mandate of 1932, the London Economist immediately moved to put the
> brakes on the euphoria. There were plenty of risks in "over-interpreting"
> the political mandate, they cautioned. After all, in their minds,
> the election was much more about getting rid of Bush, than ushering
> in "an era of activist government."
>
> A month later, the conservative Heritage Foundation held a seminar
> in Washington, "Learning From the New Deal: How FDR's Economic Legacy
> has Damaged America." The speaker, Burton Folsom Jr. had just penned
> a book, New Deal or Raw Deal?, and argued that the legacy of FDR
> was one of "price fixing, court packing and regressive taxation."
> Among apologist Fulsom's other books are, The Myth of the Robber
> Barons, Empire Builders, and Urban Capitalists.
>
> On December 30, Amity Shlaes, an "adjunct fellow" at the American
> Enterprise Institute, posted her first anti-FDR piece, "An Era of
> Uncertainty." There, she fretted about the "market uncertainty" which
> all of FDR's reforms caused, specifically when he pulled the dollar
> off the gold standard. Likewise, today, she said, all the questions
> about new regulation and taxes, "make it hard for the market to settle"
> on the price of paper assets. Clearly nervous about which way Obama
> would go, she urged him to "define" his programs early, and thus
> signal "Open for Business" to Wall Street.
>
> As the inauguration approached, others got into the act. On January
> 9th, the libertarian CATO Institute sponsored an ad in the New York
> Times and the Washington Post, signed by hundreds of financial "heavies,"
> telling Obama that "Keynsian" spending was the wrong way to go. That
> same day, Pat Buchanan penned a piece on MSNBC which received wide
> circulation, implying that the new President's choice would be between
> the spending of Franklin Roosevelt, and the tight money of Ronald
> Reagan. First of all, in Buchanan's imagination, things today aren't
> nearly as bad as they were in 1932; and then, FDR's programs didn't
> work. How does he know? Treasury Secretary (and Wall Street intimate)
> Henry Morganthau said so, in testimony (which he quotes) before Congress
> in 1939. Reagan's program of tax breaks and tight spending worked
> much better, adding that even JFK favored tax breaks over government
> spending.
>
> The day after the inauguration, the Heritage Foundation again chimed
> in, this time posting a frantic piece titled, "Get Over it, the New
> Deal Didn't Work," which offered expanded quotes from Morganthau
> in 1939, with additional wisdom from author Fulsom. Heritage was
> determined to rebut charges (in "liberal" press accounts) that their
> unemployment figures, which they had compiled into a convenient downloadable
> chart, were distorted. Their preferred solution: tax breaks (again),
> and the insight of Morganthau.
>
> .They know that Obama is a pro-Roosevelt man which has excited them
> no end. Cato, Heritage, AEI. These things are the fascist organizations
> of America. They have their various colors: green, pousse. Especially
> pousse.
>
> The guys who were pro-Hitler and pro-Mussolini in the 1920s and 1930s,
> in 1941 had to run for cover. What they did is they closed down
> their offices, or let the offices die, and opened up new offices
> by reassorting the organization. Then, when Roosevelt was dying,
> after the successful breakthrough at Normandy, then they came out
> of the woods. And they're back again, and that's what we call these
> right-wing think-tanks. So they're still the same old thing as the
> pro-Hitler, pro-Mussolini crowd of former times, and they have the
> same essential ideology. And the Bushes are part of it.
>
And that was at non-lethal intensities.
On Feb 03 01:03 PM GeminiAtlas wrote:
> Anarchist,
> An effective snip...er, I mean "hunter" could pin down a whole platoon.
> And there are millions of deer rifles (with scopes) in the hands
> of average american citizens. Think Sarajevo. You don't think that
> might make the powers-that-be think twice?
Prop up the bad guys with money!
Reward the mistakes & incompetence!
We’ve increased the Money Supply 70% since October!!!!!
Can you imagine?!
Bernanke refused to show up the other day before congress
Altogether, the world’s markets over the past four weeks saw $11 trillion worth of assets wiped out. This sum corresponds to virtually the entire annual gross national product of the US, or the European Union.
Fed debt per person: $58K
Un-funded Medicare/Medicaid per person: $332K
Fed's plundered trusts per person: $30K
Un-funded SS: $166K
Every American owes: $586K for FED debt
Gov grows 4 Xs faster than economy
Fed spending grows 16 times faster than economy, (16 fold expansion in control & gov dependence)
The US gov now holds 57% share of entire National Income = Government makes more than all the money made in private sector!
How long does the USA honestly think it will last?
Pentagon admits that 2.3 Trillion dollars has gone missing, ($8000 from every man, woman & child in the USA) – Army office hit at the Pentagon on 911 was their accounting office!
One quadrillion dollars is the sum of outstanding fake derivatives (fake money pledged by the wealthy banks to buy real things) 1,000,000,000,000,000 on the market, (e.g. a bank with only one real dollar can legally say it owns several billions of real dollars) – Total combined assets of the world is only actually a very small fraction of that sum! -- Reuters
The Bail Out does not help Main Street; its welfare for Wall Street!
Small businesses can’t get loans; kids can’t get loans to go to college; home owners can’t get loans; but the elite of Wall Street get to keep their billions of dollars in Christmas bonuses last year!
And these banks are using the money to give more bonuses to their executives; buying more banks; and, extending gratuitous benefits & pedicures to the corporate aristocracy
You will need to adjust to the "thumbs down" stuff around here.
Ask the wrong question, or word it in a way that it seems like you are making a statement-- or, heaven forbid, say anything negative about Obama, and you get a slew of them.
However, if your comment includes a lot of indecipherable mumbo-jumbo about global economics and theories nobody has ever heard of....thumbs up !!!
On Feb 03 10:36 AM anarchist wrote:
> Seems as every time there is one of these "the end is near" articles
> (and it may be) we get a rash of people talking about the gun toting
> Americans as if they would revolt against the Government. You guys
> think the Government is somehow intimidated by citizens with deer
> rifles and hand guns when half of our taxes are spent giving the
> military the best weapons in the world you REALLY think the Government
> is intimidated?
> I predict there will be little or no civil unrest in the U.S. as
> Americans will never overthrow the Government, hell half of them
> don't even bother to register to vote. Give em a steady diet of reality
> TV, NFL football and a sic-pack and they may grumble about the Government
> and the bank's antics while they flick through the channels-that's
> about it.
> Thanks to 'investfarm' and 'frosty' for well spoken comments above.
ARE YOU READY?
As Jesse Ventura said, "DON'T START THE REVOLUTION WITHOUT ME"
prepareforandgainfrom....
I'd love to be a fly on the wall during an interview with one of these jokers:
HR REP: Thank you Mr. X for taking the time today. So tell me a bit about your responsibilities at AIG
MR. X: Well as a Quant on the Derivatives Desk, I was responsible for the creation, and trading of the firms MBS, CDS, and CDO's.
HR REP: OK Great! Well that concludes our interview today. Do you have any questions for me? No, great then. Don't call us, We'll call you!! Er-r I mean, we'll be in touch. Thanks have a great day.
On Feb 03 09:57 AM frosty wrote:
> Bonuses began life as 'performance bonuses' and were given only to
> those who demonstrated exceptional performance compared to challenging
> objectives. Of late, they have become entitlements in the financial
> industry to the tune that after a year when the financial industry
> drove the entire world to the brink of a depression, the average
> wall street bonus is DOUBLE the median family income! Pay to retain
> these 'most capable', 'brightest', 'best performing' people? Sorry,
> they should all be fired for the poor performance they contributed
> to! And they should give back prior year bonuses! Personally, I'm
> getting burned twice - I took big stock losses from several of these
> firms and now I have to give them tax money! OK - if they take tax
> money, they work for the government and should be put on the civil
> service pay scale.
No, watching it in a historical film retrospective doesn't count. It lacks the impact of (a) not knowing how it was going to end and (b) which city, could be yours, is next.
And when they get really really really mad it doesn't matter if they think they're outgunned and will likely get killed. Look at that hole in the ground in New York. Look at the stone wall at Gettysburg. Look at Valley Forge. Look at Hiroshima. Nothing is as dangerous as a bunch of truly angry people because most folks are slow to anger, but they boil it's Honey, Bar The Door.
Millions of people who did not believe this simple truth have died with that "Duh, what?" look on their face.
Anybody who thinks It Can't Happen Here has a dangerous innocence in their thinking.
On Feb 03 10:36 AM anarchist wrote:
> Seems as every time there is one of these "the end is near" articles
> (and it may be) we get a rash of people talking about the gun toting
> Americans as if they would revolt against the Government. You guys
> think the Government is somehow intimidated by citizens with deer
> rifles and hand guns when half of our taxes are spent giving the
> military the best weapons in the world you REALLY think the Government
> is intimidated?
> I predict there will be little or no civil unrest in the U.S. as
> Americans will never overthrow the Government, hell half of them
> don't even bother to register to vote. Give em a steady diet of reality
> TV, NFL football and a sic-pack and they may grumble about the Government
> and the bank's antics while they flick through the channels-that's
> about it.
> Thanks to 'investfarm' and 'frosty' for well spoken comments above.
On Feb 03 10:36 AM anarchist wrote:
> Seems as every time there is one of these "the end is near" articles
> (and it may be) we get a rash of people talking about the gun toting
> Americans as if they would revolt against the Government. You guys
> think the Government is somehow intimidated by citizens with deer
> rifles and hand guns when half of our taxes are spent giving the
> military the best weapons in the world you REALLY think the Government
> is intimidated?
> I predict there will be little or no civil unrest in the U.S. as
> Americans will never overthrow the Government, hell half of them
> don't even bother to register to vote. Give em a steady diet of reality
> TV, NFL football and a sic-pack and they may grumble about the Government
> and the bank's antics while they flick through the channels-that's
> about it.
> Thanks to 'investfarm' and 'frosty' for well spoken comments above.
Move your money from the scumbag firms who get the TARP and bonus out themselves although their companies are on the verge of collaps.
It seems envy is the new greed. I really don't care if other people have tremendous wealth. What I do resent is that their wealth buys them the ability to live outside the rules. Offshore accounts to avoid taxes, access to political power and high-priced lawyers who can help them avoid responsibility for their actions - this is what I oppose.
Politically disengaged people are bought off with with "bread and circuses", be it Paris & Britney, NASCAR, NFL or what have you. They just don't participate in public life and are barely aware that there is a financial crisis going on. My disappointment is with politically engaged people. They are bought off with the culture wars. The excessive focus on all things racial, gay marriage (please, we've managed this far without it, just LET IT GO) and religion, creates such division in this country that elites are left unchallenged.
For those who invoke "fascism" - please grow up. Go to Wikip_dia and read the definition. George Orwell's 1944 quote is the best. If you think Obama is somehow better than Bush, you are deluded. Obama is surrounded by elitists who are content to maintain the status quo and entrench their own power. Exhibit A - George Soros.
I'm a Republican, but I don't hate liberals or any American who doesn't share my views. I do hate the elites who have become entrenched in this country, whichever party or stripe they represent.
If the revolution starts, what will the sides be? Left vs. right? Elites would love that. Shoot the rich? Sorry, there are still a lot of people who earned it honestly and my envy is not just. I really wouldn't know who to shoot at. What I don't want is a revolution which seeks to take the existing order and replace it with something similar or worse (read - Animal Farm). It seems many of the posters here have something like that it mind - their only problem with the ruling elites is that they aren't among them.
We did do more or less well in the early and mid-growth cycles in America, as all cycles do, but this end cycle today truly shows what happens when all power and influence blasts out of control due to the pursuit of wealth, with all resulting imbalanced power residing totally in the monetarily much more successful, and taking control by abuse over all else beneath it, thereby ruining all social and economic trust and confidence of all Americans built up over 240 years in the process.
I truly believe that the Reagan act of drastically reducing income tax rates for the ultra-rich was the beginning of the end of our system's attempts at any equality, as the very rich now pay a drastically lowered portion of our tax needs than previously for their very unfair and piggish share of the nation's and the world's resources. And, more than ever before, they feel untouchable by any consequences for their destructive actions. The tax rates are the first thing Obama should correct, but he is now a rich man so does he want to harm himself and friends? That is the 800 lb gorilla in the room now that is resisting all that could be remedial to save America.
I am not at all confident that we can repair the recent socioeconomic damage done by the ultra wealthy without returning to another Great Depression and suffering though it as "water seeks to achieve its own natural level". I sure wish we humans could learn some life lessons that would stick with us for more than a nanosecond.
For small business, a coop form of organization exists in many states, and may be designed to be more transparent and egalitarian than the for-profit-corporate way of organizing. Because coops have more than one individual in them, they can be more difficult for larger organizations to torpedo than a one-person outfit. Faith communities (not leaving out the atheists, as Obama does not) could create coops with an appearance or a reality of having quite a few voters at once, as long as they are not isolated like Waco. I really don't think the powers that be want to return to street riots in the cities, that's too French.
Some for-profit corporations, with the collusion of customers and employees, have decided to look long-term. My favorite example is Dr. Bronner's soap, which used earnings to sue the DEA to allow it to use hemp products, and won the right for others as well.
Assuming things will be cheaper at a big box isn't necessarily so, and trading with neighbors is more convenient often anyway. By hoarding money for its friends or printing it Zimbabwe-style, government makes the currency unpredictable. People will need to survive around it or only partly with it.
Another interesting thing going on is the sovereignty movement in the states among legislators wishing to protect their own populations from drones or the DEA or whatever the government could plan to try out domestically against populations who might seem passive.
As independent centers of power rise, Obama can turn to his patrons and shrug. His own words encouraged people to think they ought to have some power. He essentially made mutually exclusive promises to get elected, in the grand tradition of U.S. politicians. If the people rattle enough fax machines, maybe they can get substantive change rather than just having Daschle demur.
Meanwhile, Sen. Grassley (R) is making a name for himself by exposing pharmaceutical corruption. He needs a muck-raking competitor from the Democrats, but it does not look as though that is going to happen.
Obama will have two years to throw play money around. Then there will be an election for house of reps. If he's got massive inflation and he has to run against a corruption-buster, he's got an argument for busting some corruption himself. The minions of corruption who so heavily donated to him would do poorly if harm comes to him while he's busting.
In the meantime, if the IRS comes at anybody still working, they should find really good lawyers and give a shot at the Geithner defense. There are U.S. laws on the books against discriminatory prosecution.
Cheers. We are now allegedly allowed to make some alcohol in our own back yards. Just don't win any prizes that get in the paper if you want to avoid being visited by BATF.
I originally started viewing this sight because of its stated goal of finding alpha in an inedeciferable market. What I have found has been mostly, but not exclusively, folks blowing off steam. I agree with you. That's OK and is one of the things that makes the Internet our newest democratic institution.
I share your daily task of finding happiness through what we define as community. Just happen to differ with you in the strategy that limits our political participation to Main Street and Our Street.
I'm no true believer in anyone or anything, but obviously that doesn't mean I don't try to understand and share my view of our millieu.
I have watched with amazement the country and the world erode over the past thirty years while we as lemmings can't seem to face up to our situation and do something about righting the ship.
We could not sustain the path we were travelling, and this amazing experiment in representative government allowed us an opportunity once again to participate.
It's the citizens such as you that are important to a vibrant democracy of free ideas, expression and, alas, participation that can make the experiment work. The time is not for guns, pitchforks or any other silly reactionary wastes of time. The time is for trying to save this country from the elitists and their lemming-like dittos stuck in an endless tape loop from which we may never be able to extract.
On Feb 05 08:35 PM derryl wrote:
> Mediapro,
> No, I haven't lost all hope. I'm happy with my customers and the
> people I do business with and my family. I'm happy to find intelligent
> and knowedgable people writing on this site, and I also like the
> angry and radical views because that's also my first response to
> the latest outrage (Kenna Wickman is right: 'Revive the Guillotine!'
> would be a better economic stimulus, but I prefer guns). I just
> try to avoid having anything to do with government and politics and
> power except for times like now when old ideas are collapsing and
> there may be an opening for some new perspectives.
>
> I don't think much is going to change in the upper circles of power.
> Greed and ego will continue to claim those 'top lobster' spots to
> demonstrate their supremacy on the food chain. But I'm with Hobbes:
> we need government, we need leadership, we need policing. No matter
> what I think of the quality of the leaders, what we have is better
> than a new dark ages if our system collapses. So if I can help prop
> it up I'll do what I can.
>
> Really, I'm constantly amazed that we've made it as far as we have
> with this Western enlightenment and free enterprise and democracy
> as an alternative to the same old same old tyranny that ebaumhatr
> describes above. So if there are people who want to try to run this
> thing and we can still be fairly free, let 'em have at it.
If we truly want change, the first place to start is at the ballet box. If you don't like the way TARP money is being used or if you don't like the fact that this boondoggle was passed in the first place, DO NOT re-elect any of the current batch of politicians we have in Washington. In fact, do not vote for any incumbent in office anywhere. Imagine the shock to the Washington status quo if all the powerful Washington elites were suddenly voted out of office and replaced with average citizens who would spend money in Washington like they spend money at home (and that does not include all the irresponsible people up to their eyeballs in credit card debt). Imagine what would happen if we actually had a balanced budget and only spent the money that was actually brought in. Until such time as we vote people out of office who are there for their own personal gain and reward greed, thievery and corruption with our hard-earned tax dollars, we will continue to get what we deserve.
The same goes for CEO compensation. If you own stock in a company or are invested in a mutual fund that owns stock in a company where a CEO is dramatically overpaid, DO SOMETHING. Go to a shareholder meeting and demand that the CEO make no more than 50 times more than their average hourly worker. If that doesn't work, sell your shares and call the company and tell their investor relations department you can no longer invest in their company becuase their CEO makes too much money. The greatest myth in the financial/brokerage community is that all of these people must be paid their exhorbitant salaries in order to keep them because they are so "incredibly knowledgeable". Poppycock. If they were so damn smart, their companies would not have all failed. Get rid of these people.
The choice is ours. We can either continue to be lemmings and march off the end of the cliff, or we can do something about the mess we have allowed to happen because we keep sending the same crooks back to Washington every year. It is totally up to us.
A. Blame those in political or economic power
B. Rely on those same people to help alleviate the situation
And here's why:
It seems obvious to me that our current ideological framework really began to take shape with the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency back in 1980. Since that time our national debt has grown dangerously large, even while income taxes have steadily fallen. It seems fairly obvious that there has been a more or less undeclared war on our own children at work here for many years. It also doesn't seem to matter which party is in power, as they may bicker about social issues, they tend to agree on things like taxes, immigration, trade, and of course the aforementioned accumulation of debt. Each party pays lip service various solutions that the people seem to be interested in, but the actual implementation of any proposed solution is typically ineffective and full of loopholes, or simply goes unenforced.
All of this when all of us also know that education, and medical care costs have risen far faster than average incomes. For education we implement the joke of "no child left behind," and the giveaway to banks that is the student loan program. For healthcare we implement a prescription drug program for medicare that is yet another giveaway. And we mildly proclaim that the system is corrupt, and that our wills as a people are thwarted by some inevitable force of nature, i.e., corruption. We rationalize it away.
Is this really because we are powerless? Have other policy options and approaches been off-limits due to some shadow conspiracy that limits the scope of political and economic discourse? Why have we pursued policies and politicians who on the face of it wish to return the USA to the 1880s? It's not like it happened overnight.
I really don't know what to think. But at the moment I am leaning toward a moral failure of some sort. And not on the part of our politicians either. I'm not talking religion here either - though I suppose that may play a role - because there has been a simultaneous rebirth of religious conviction.
It looks to me to be "our" fault. I can't help but believe that if we as Americans really wanted something better for our children and ourselves, we would have seen through the flimsy, and archaic rationalizations that have been offered for almost three decades.
I want to know how and why this happened. It seems as if we have failed as a society to live up to our legacy, the example of those who, for example, served in WWII. Those who built the future that we have demolished so effectively. Those who lived at a time before the word "sacrifice" was purged from the American political lexicon. In short. . ."We have met the enemy, and they are us."
To make matters worse, it does not appear that any restructuring of the ideological framework in which we have all lived for 30 years or so is in the making. The same rhetorical devices are still in use, and the same "all gain, no pain" mentality appears to be intact. The coke vs. pepsi style of our American politics is still alive and well, or so it seems to me. I really want to know. . .How did we arrive at this place? How do we get together enough as a people to move on from it? I would really like to know, because so far it looks like more of the same for the foreseeable future. And if violence is the proposed solution, have we already lost the battle? Can't we work out something besides civil war? This kind of talk seems to me to be as irresponsible as the 30 years of failed philosophy, and related rationalizations that have contributed so much to our present condition. Just a thought.
Thanks Federal Government, I really like money, so please give me some. Lots in fact - I'll promise to spend whatever you give me.
Wait, you mean I will have to pay this back later, with interest? Suddenly, this sounds more like a loan in which I am responsible for the payment. What if I don't want this loan? What if I don't like the way the money is being spent? Why is so much of the money going to people who will not be asked to pay it back? Hmm, somehow this unchecked borrowing is not the panacea that I had imagined when I thought I was going to get something for free.
As my post explained, it wasn't that Clinton and his advisors were economic geniuoses. In fact I was fearful of their change in welfare reform (TANF) and its effects on the poor. But the combination of a more practical approach to governance mixed with both returning to the early days of Reagan tax cuts, before the horrible impacts of supply-side economic approaches could kick in, we experienced our first budget surplus in decades.
If you notice what's happening now with the new stimulus proposal, even STEVE FORBES recognizes that the Bush years exacerbated the problem and was a direct cause of the current crisis. Saw him make this remarkable admission last night on Larry King no less.
In the face of such an incredible admission by the King of flat tax, we have experienced an ideological barricade in both the House and Senate on the Republican side of the aisle and John McCain, of all people, claiming that the only solution to this crisis was to cut tax rates so that money can return to the people that make the most money and begin to rebuild America.
WHA? It's as if he and the gang that led us down this trickle down path didn't hear the voice of Americans who overwhelmingly rejected the failed policies of th past and were asking that we try another path.
On Feb 06 06:13 PM rosey99 wrote:
> I have to admit I am somewhat puzzled. I tend to broadly agree with
> gnc0519, above. I suppose it is most often the case that we prefer
> to lay the blame for what goes wrong on others, but I am forced to
> wonder why we would want to continue to:
>
> A. Blame those in political or economic power
> B. Rely on those same people to help alleviate the situation
>
> And here's why:
>
> It seems obvious to me that our current ideological framework really
> began to take shape with the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency
> back in 1980. Since that time our national debt has grown dangerously
> large, even while income taxes have steadily fallen. It seems fairly
> obvious that there has been a more or less undeclared war on our
> own children at work here for many years. It also doesn't seem to
> matter which party is in power, as they may bicker about social issues,
> they tend to agree on things like taxes, immigration, trade, and
> of course the aforementioned accumulation of debt. Each party pays
> lip service various solutions that the people seem to be interested
> in, but the actual implementation of any proposed solution is typically
> ineffective and full of loopholes, or simply goes unenforced. <br/>
>
> All of this when all of us also know that education, and medical
> care costs have risen far faster than average incomes. For education
> we implement the joke of "no child left behind," and the giveaway
> to banks that is the student loan program. For healthcare we implement
> a prescription drug program for medicare that is yet another giveaway.
> And we mildly proclaim that the system is corrupt, and that our wills
> as a people are thwarted by some inevitable force of nature, i.e.,
> corruption. We rationalize it away.
>
> Is this really because we are powerless? Have other policy options
> and approaches been off-limits due to some shadow conspiracy that
> limits the scope of political and economic discourse? Why have we
> pursued policies and politicians who on the face of it wish to return
> the USA to the 1880s? It's not like it happened overnight.
>
> I really don't know what to think. But at the moment I am leaning
> toward a moral failure of some sort. And not on the part of our politicians
> either. I'm not talking religion here either - though I suppose that
> may play a role - because there has been a simultaneous rebirth of
> religious conviction.
>
> It looks to me to be "our" fault. I can't help but believe that if
> we as Americans really wanted something better for our children and
> ourselves, we would have seen through the flimsy, and archaic rationalizations
> that have been offered for almost three decades.
>
> I want to know how and why this happened. It seems as if we have
> failed as a society to live up to our legacy, the example of those
> who, for example, served in WWII. Those who built the future that
> we have demolished so effectively. Those who lived at a time before
> the word "sacrifice" was purged from the American political lexicon.
> In short. . ."We have met the enemy, and they are us."
>
> To make matters worse, it does not appear that any restructuring
> of the ideological framework in which we have all lived for 30 years
> or so is in the making. The same rhetorical devices are still in
> use, and the same "all gain, no pain" mentality appears to be intact.
> The coke vs. pepsi style of our American politics is still alive
> and well, or so it seems to me. I really want to know. . .How did
> we arrive at this place? How do we get together enough as a people
> to move on from it? I would really like to know, because so far it
> looks like more of the same for the foreseeable future. And if violence
> is the proposed solution, have we already lost the battle? Can't
> we work out something besides civil war? This kind of talk seems
> to me to be as irresponsible as the 30 years of failed philosophy,
> and related rationalizations that have contributed so much to our
> present condition. Just a thought.
attack on Pearl Harbor had been planned by the British,
Japan, and others during the early 1920s. The intended
action led by the British was intended to ruin the growing
U.S. naval power of World War I and the early 1920s. The
result was a U.S.A. responsive war-plan of which the
1920s General Billy Mitchell was a part. The British
and their pro-fascist (e.g., Mussolini-lover Winston
Chirchill) admirers inside the Coolidge-Hoover-Morgan
gang inside the U.S.A., and caused the court-martial of
Mitchell.
However, after Hitler double-crossed his British friends by
invading France, Britain (includng Churchill), which had
backed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, changed
sides to consider Hitler the greater danger to it, and begged
for assistance from FDR. In the meantime, FDR et al, had
prepared for the threat of the attack from London and
Tokyo; Mitchell's conception of an aircraft-carrier fleet
was built up under FDR - - as Midway illustrates the point.
However, when Hitler double-crossed the British with help
of a fascist government in France, and overran France,
Churchill and other pro-fascists suddenly saw Hitler as "the
greater danger, and came screaming to FDR for help.
Britain's erstwhile ally, thus, switched sides; but, Japan,
which had been Britain's ally against the U.S.A. since
1894, remained tied to Britain's and its own former
backing of Hitler. So, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, exactly
as Britain and its Japan ally had planned Japan's
assignment to take out the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor. So,
the fascist elements in Wall Street (e.g., J. P. Morgan et al.)
, who were forced to abandon their backing of Hitler on
Dec. 7, 1941 (or, like George W. Bush, Jr.'s grandfather)
with some months later, abandoned the offices of the pro-
fascist organizations inside the U.S. financier community,
in order to hide themselves in new organizations of the
same long-term, pro-fascist outlook. Today, those
"former;y" fascist organizationss are the chief promoters of
the myth that FDR accomplished nothing; I know those
organizations with their fascist traditions, name by name,
of today - - mostly Chicago-centered, and including all of
the treasonous, pro-fascist organizations with which you
associate the name of Murray Rothbard.
On Feb 03 04:23 PM clam75 wrote:
> If you study any of the Austrian economists such as Murray Rothbard,
> you will learn how FDR's policies actually lengthened the Depression.
> In short, massive governmental borrowing and spending caused misallocation
> of needed savings/capital. Moreover, a cornerstone of FDR policies
> --- the Agricultural Adjustment Act (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> --- was the very definition of government foolishness; millions of
> piglets and thousands of pregnant cows were slaughtered in an effort
> to raise meat prices while Americans were going hungry. Even worse,
> the AAA's Thomas Amendment was the vehicle used by FDR when he ordered
> that the gold content of the dollar be reduced to 41%. And these
> are only some of FDR's economic policies; I haven't even begun to
> address FDR's provocation of the Japanese that eventually led to
> disaster at Pearl Harbor.
>
> On Feb 03 09:54 AM investfarm wrote:
2nd-I love seeing the full scope and knowledge of everyone here
3rd-Without a TRUE democracy-some people always are of more value then others.
4-Like Athens-sorry been working all nite, so maybe my memory is bad...but the one true democractic state I have learned of with my public edumacation. Everyone had a single vote, screw someone representing me.
And yes, those with power, only seek to leverage their power into more power. They justify with the same things we would, my family, my friends,....blah. We are all corrupt to a certain to degree. The only way to combat our own human selfishness--is to understand we are all that way, whether we like it or not, whether can recongize it out not.
Hmm 5th-How the hell do you create wealth. Where is this fountain that makes things worth more, than they were yesterday. The same guy is still farming the same land. The same worker is still doing the same job as yesterday. But someone on wall street hit got rich off that same guy.
Really I hope someone here can tell me how, in tangible terms, money creates money.
I personally believe, that the only way someone makes more money is that someone else loses money. PROVE ME WRONG.
If you do so...then Everything Will Be Alrite...
If not...suffer like me..just an ill educated american
The people fighting against the government will be its citizens, these citizens will first stop paying taxes. Every time one is killed, there goes more potential tax dollars forever.
Im a veteran, The military with all its "superior technology" will find itself in its own struggle as half will refuse to fire on American citizens, these being brothers sisters, mothers and fathers maybe even sons and daughters they swore to protect.
The Military did not give an oath to support a fascism or socialism or combination of the two. They swore allegiance to the constitution and the protection of freedom and democracy. As it is turning out the Obama administration can give a shit less what the constitution says. As proven by its actions at the G-20 and the agreements they have made.
Once you milk someone to the point they cannot support those they love, they will do anything to stop the milking. Its human nature.
The dumb people you all call sheeple are the same people who will be the most angry when they realize the government is not going to make their life any easier than it was before. They will feel duped and humiliated.
Take a look around it is already happening. Gun violence is going up because tension is getting high. You never know whats going to throw someone over the edge. The cop shootings, the Nursing home incident and now The immigration office and another cop shooting.
Soon it will be home invasions and liquor store robberies.
The unemployed have nothing to do and you know what they say about Idle hands.
I'm not a political savvy person or an economist, I don't have a degree in anything. But what i do have is common sense. I knew Obama was full of crap when we made all his campaign promises. At first I was going to vote for him. Then I realized he is promising way too much. In order to support what he was proposing some people would have to suffer. Now look where we are at.
Yeah all the Obamatrons can say that he inherited the problem and he just got a bad start. Look around you guys, look around. He still continues all of the previous administration's policies. The fact of the matter is. He is president now. Like a captain of a ship what ever was turned over to him is now 100 percent his responsibility. It doesn't matter if the one of his engines was shot when he got the ship, it's his responsibility to fix it and make sure the baby doesn't go dead in the water.
1. This is not the country our founding fathers envisioned.
2. Gays are an abomination of normal sexuality.
3. Career politicians are worthless.
4. There should be no retention of their benefits or salary after their term is up.
5. Each office should be viewed as help for the constitutes not the politician. You should be in fear each night if you help pass some stupid law or tax that the people do not agree with. We should have the right to drag you from your home and tar and feather you.
5. Any law that affects the people should be voted on by the people. You may not vote yourself a raise, better health care, or where the American people spend their tax dollars.
6. Liberals should be seen not heard.
7. The news should be censored or at least report the stories about a solider giving his life for our freedom. The top story of the day should never be about a perverted pedophile singer. They should not be allowed to report Troop activities.
8. The ACLU should be disbanded. The NAACP as well.
9. The civil war was over years ago. If you were brought here as a slave then we will be happy to return you as quickly as possible. Now shut up about it. Hell, we lost; you don’t see us waiting for reparation or apologies.
10. Any group of people who put another country in front of Americans should be forced to return to that country. African, Asian, Mexican, whatever. If you do not feel like you are happy with being American leave now.
11. The border problem can be simply solved. Any immigrant traveling south will be given unobstructed paths. Any such person headed north will be shot on sight.
12. Any illegal alien looking for their rights to free education or health care or any other free service should be taken to the town square and hanged on the spot as the thief.
13. If you do not speak, read, or write English learn it or leave. We are taught this language from birth here and it IS our National Language Hillary.
14. We should stop all foreign aid. Use this money here to reduce the debt we are leaving future generations to pay off.
15. I am totally in favor of separating this country into Liberal Land, Fairy Garden, and Redneck America. We are the fighters, solders, hunters, and women who believe in earned freedom and respect those who have given their all for our country. They are also the people who are so fed up with our country now we are ready to form militias and get it on.
16. To all the liberal pussies who feel this is wrong, join the military go to war then tell me different. If you make it back and still feel confused about right and wrong come on down and see me, please leave a note about where to return your worthless body after we tear your head off and shit down your neck