Yes! Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley now! ...anyone want to start an energy and commodities company with me? I think we can make billions!
Sam said it best. 30 years of dereg and tax cutting and we've still got idiots walking around thinking we're living in big brotherville with atlas shrugging his ass off. We live in a millionaires paradise and a corporate playground, and guess what, it f***ing sucks.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-proposes-letting-jobless-sue-discrimination-191042168.html Wow! Jobs bill allows Unemployed people to sue if they feel they're discriminated because they're unemployed??? Restrictions to hiring and firing and more ammunition for law firms (which make billions with little labor) is not something that will promote job growth and the defense against claims will cost jobs. Another clueless example of attacking those that create jobs and companies.
Compared to the pre-Columbian Native Americans, even the poorest among us live like kings. For this reason, no matter how exploited a person might become, how unjustly his portion may be expropriated by the rich, he shouldn't complain because at least he isn't shivering in a teepee and chasing a herd of buffalo through the snow-covered plains of Idaho. He should bow and scrape before the Rockefellers of the world for allowing him to eat the crumbs that fall from their plates.
Don't be obtuse. Many countries lifestyles have declined as the US has gained a disproportionate amount of the worlds wealth. With our small population we control almost 25% of the world's GDP. This is due to our explosion in growth of our global companies in virtually all industries. Because of these companies, which are usually founded by entrepreneurs and visionaires, ALL OF US BENEFIT. To stifle that spirit and overburden those that create these opportunities for all is just not the way this economy will turn around. Again. We've seen 3 years of these policies and the unemployment rate remains over 9%. Therefore that is the most important barometer to Americans of failed policies.
You might not be old enough to remember but a lower middle class guy could send his kids to college, without them borrowig tens of thousands of dollars, he could look forward to a pension that did not disappear whenever the elite got carried away playing with their fuc.you money, etc. Having an i-pad and or hulu to amuse yourself with does not compensate for those losses.
Seriously, what revisionist history books has this guy been reading... Anybody remember single income families? Medical bills for the uninsured that wouldn't bankrupt you? Being able to go to school without signing your life away? A lower retirement age and better pensions? Anybody...? And this joker thinks that since we have the internet and a vaccine for hepatitus that everybody is "better off" now economically than they were then? Really?
Some countries have suffered reversals since the '70s that have impoverished their populations. But besides those idiosyncratic events, pretty much the whole world has benefited from the march of civilization and technology, just as the entire population of the USA has (besides the reversals in the private lives of some individuals). My point is that your wealth relative to the mean, to the minimum, and to the maximum is relevant. That a middle class person has more stuff than in the '70s does not mitigate the concentration of wealth in the upper class. Class disparity is a separate problem.
Your posts in this thread are a microcosm of what is wrong with modern conservatism. You throw out a bunch of platitudes, talking points, and rhetoric without providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up. Then, when you do provide statistics to make a point you provide them out of context so as not to back up the point you're trying to make. It's ridiculous. The irony of it is that you did this in the business world you so promote as the answer to every problem, you'd get fired.
Please . . the indoctrinate a new generation every 20 yrs or so Rocket River They don't die. . . they multiply!
What you people don't understand is that the utopia you desire is unattainable. In order to have a system where all people are better off, we must allow the entrepreneurs and businesspeople in our society to ability to attain great wealth without significant regulations. Any company becomes old and stodgy and gets taken out by a new, more entrepreneurial person and company and we need to give these people the tools to do this which lowers prices, creates jobs and builds economic success. Sam Walton stole market share and destroyed K-Mart and Woolworths and new innovative companies free from government scrutiny and over-regulation will. This is a fair question to ask you people: Would you rather have better lifestyle's and opportunities for all or greater income equality? If we normalize income as many have done in Europe what you create is a majority of the population is lower middle class and this is countered by a group of super elite. That is how it is in France, Spain, Argentina and such. It collectively drags all people down with the false notion of having government normalize income between rich and poor. I never knew that was a goal of the US Government by the way.
What you don't realize is that there was a period in US history almost exactly like what you describe is necessary for Utopia. Only it didn't lead to Utopia... It lead to slum lords, monopolies, children working 80 hour weeks in dangerous conditions and dying. It lead to unsafe working conditions where employees were vastly underpaid. Many products that were put out were unsafe and unhealthy. It was horrible. We don't need to reach Utopia, but a step in the right direction would be going back to economic conditions of the 90's, or wealth distribution like in the 50's and 60's when we had a growing middle class instead of a shrinking one. We can look at the conditions of those time periods and see that it wasn't lower taxes for the wealthy that brought those on.
Nah, they slowly die out, the new generation is not interested in old battles...they are too into themselves to care. DD
What you people don't understand is that the utopia you desire is unattainable. In order to have a system where all people are better off, we must allow the entrepreneurs and businesspeople in our society to ability to attain great wealth without significant regulations. Any company becomes old and stodgy and gets taken out by a new, more entrepreneurial person and company and we need to give these people the tools to do this which lowers prices, creates jobs and builds economic success. Sam Walton stole market share and destroyed K-Mart and Woolworths and new innovative companies free from government scrutiny and over-regulation will. This is a fair question to ask you people: Would you rather have better lifestyle's and opportunities for all or greater income equality? If we normalize income as many have done in Europe what you create is a majority of the population is lower middle class and this is countered by a group of super elite. That is how it is in France, Spain, Argentina and such. It collectively drags all people down with the false notion of having government normalize income between rich and poor. I never knew that was a goal of the US Government by the way.
Was business more or less regulated in the 1950's and 1960's and in the 1990's than we are now? I would say much, much less. The typical business cycle will have ups and downs. During those downs, frauds will be uncovered (Recessions find what Auditors don't JMK). We can't have the government go in and over regulate things to ensure something that is a byproduct of strong markets never happens again as all we're doing is stifling future growth potential.
I responded to the first part of your post when you posted this the first time. I'll respond to the second part now. Your facts about Europe are off. There is greater social upward mobility in both Spain and France than in the US. http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/2377/america_ranks_toward_the_bottom_of_social_mobility/ Right now government regulation, and real taxes for the wealthy and business in the US is at a much lower rate than nations like Spain and France. Yet upward social mobility is lower. Your theories just seem like they aren't backed by reality. I do commend you for debating this in a civilized manner, and not insulting people, or anything like that. It's cool to discuss things with someone who has a different view point, but isn't hostile and insulting about it. Glad you are part of the bbs.
I think it depends on the business. Financial businesses were less regulated until they lead to the great recession. Now they are more regulated.
Thanks and I enjoy the discussion. I am not completely set on my beliefs and believe as the famous economist said "When the facts change, I change my mind. Do you?" The main areas of de-regulation I wasn't against was Graham Leach or the repulsion of Glass Steagall. I do believe there was some underhandedness as Citigroup had already formed and was essentially illegal until the law was passed and then subsequently Bob Rubin (democrat) joins the board of Citigroup and Phil Grahmn (republican) joins the board of UBS, which went on a buying spree acquiring Painewebber and Warburg. I think this was shady but was a red herring regarding the current financial crisis, just as the Community Reinvestment Act (conservative propaganda) as the greatest failures in risk management happened in the pure investment banks that had no affect by Grahmn Leach or CRA. I really think the biggest mistake was a simple one. Allowing the Net Capital Rule (the amount an Investment Bank can leverage up) to go away. This forced IB's to reduce leverage levels originally when they approached 10x. In 2004, they allowed the mega's (over $5 billion) to go above that rate if they hedged with insurance (Hellooo AIG). Leverage rates from there skyrocketed. This was a mistake by AIG, which reiterated the Buffet Quote that if an insurer misprices risk people will swim to the middle of the ocean to find them. Lehman went to 33 to 1, Bear to 40 to 1 and so on. All these investment banks covered their asses by buying insurance from MBIA, Ambac and AIG. When they all of a sudden realized their insurance from MBIA and Ambac was no good they suffered huge write-downs. I would blame much of this on the lunacy of insurance and the false belief in credit rating agencies. Much of the above is known and the markets have corrected themselves. No way will people ever percieve mortgage credits with the view of safety that they did and asset backed securities will not find an insurer that will underprice risk so significantly (until we forget and this happens in some other area).
I think there will be a revolution of sorts in the way companies compensate their employees. Investment Banks typically pay out 50% of their profits as bonuses which really pushes people to take undue risk at the expense of the long-term sustainability of the business. Whether in government or business, their actions must be tied and there should be clawback provisions.
