Printable View
Well I for one am glad that the Federal government has learned its lesson during this whole housing bubble thing about the irresponsibility of lowering lending standards.....
Oh wait.... just fucking wait..... Are you fucking kidding me? You have to be fucking kidding me?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/con...teid=rss&rss=1
Yes, a little more than a year ago my friend was in the process of getting a FHA loan and he was telling me that he could buy a house for 3.5% down. I told him his information had to be wrong, that it must be obsolete. I was the one who was wrong. He got the loan- $285,000. for 3.5% down. By the way his net worth is $5,000. So A 2% decrease in his home he will have a negative net worth. I wonder how much homes in Denver increased / decreased by last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by hard4janira
The GOP embraces OWS?
Coburn decries "welfare for the well-off" and Limbaugh rails against the 1 percent
By David Sirota
http://media.salon.com/2009/10/rush_...1472373648.jpg Rush Limbaugh
As I noted on Tuesday, most of the leadership of the Republican Party has openly aligned itself with the rich and powerful in America via a campaign to demonize the victims of the ongoing recession. In this, they differ from the Democratic leadership primarily in how they frame populist arguments. Whereas Democratic politicians tend to pair the blustery rhetoric of underdog populism with stealth support for corporatist policies, the GOP redefines the very lexicon of populism, presenting the corporate elite as the oppressed underdog, thereby portraying corporatism as a populist crusade unto itself.
That said, two top Republicans made stunning moves this week to appropriate a part of the Democratic formula. Importantly, the moves came at a time where we’re seeing particularly heated spasms of Occupy Wall Street protests and subsequent backlash. That timing shows that at least some in the GOP correctly appreciate the transpartisan appeal of the Occupy movement and the underdog populism it truly embodies.
The first bit of news came from ultra-conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who not only used his special power as senior Republican on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to issue a report condemning millionaire tax breaks, but also couched the report in the kind of no-holds-barred rhetoric that defines the Occupy protests. As the Hill newspaper reported (emphasis mine):The report found millionaires enjoy about $30 billion worth of “tax giveaways” and federal grants every year — almost twice NASA’s budget, the report notes.This was followed up by none other than Rush Limbaugh, who, in the midst of an otherwise absurd and hyper-partisan screed about the Clinton family, stumbled into a spot-on analysis of the divide between the 99 percent and the 1 percent and the larger unfairness of the bipartisan power structure in modern American life. Discussing the recent announcement that Chelsea Clinton — who has no journalistic experience whatsoever — will now be a top correspondent for NBC News, Limbaugh echoed some of the points made (far more cogently) by my Salon colleague Glenn Greenwald. He said (emphasis mine):
“From tax write-offs for gambling losses, vacation homes and luxury yachts to subsidies for their ranches and estates, the government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Multimillionaires are even receiving government checks for not working,” Coburn said in a statement Monday…
“This welfare for the well-off — costing billions of dollars a year — is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future generations. We should never demonize those who are successful. Nor should we pamper them with unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs,” Coburn said.All of a sudden she’s at the top of the media. She’s at the top of the ladder. She’s paid no dues. Not born on third base. Born at home plate after the home run. She has not worked anywhere in journalism. She’s never had a job.In considering these two stories, it’s important to remember that Coburn and Limbaugh represent different parts of the political right. The former, while extremely conservative, is a far more principled ideologue than the latter, who is wholly driven by Republican partisanship, ideology be damned. That is to say, Coburn has been known to occasionally form left-right alliances on issues with progressives and challenge his own party when he believes it is veering from his principles — while Limbaugh seems happy to defend the Republican Party almost irrespective of what that party is actually doing.
Now, that gets to the other point of this. Let’s go down to Occupy Wall Street or wherever else that there’s an Occupy, or go wherever there is a collection of liberals. What are they mad about? They’re mad about the 1 percent, and what are they mad about about the 1 percent? The 1 percent’s got it all. The 1 percent has everything and they’re not sharing it with anybody, and they didn’t work for it. There aren’t any jobs for anybody else because the 1 percent are making sure they’ve got all the jobs and they’ve got all the money.
So here we come with Mr. Democrat Party, the highest ranking, biggest star, most respected member of the Democrat Party, and with pure nepotism and nothing else his daughter, who is unqualified for this job, gets pushed ahead of everybody that works at NBC and gets this job. This is the quintessential thing the 99 percent are fed up with, that they don’t have a chance, that the game’s rules are rigged, that everything’s stacked against them…
And with apparently just a phone call, all Bill Clinton had to do, pick up the phone and call Steve Capus at NBC or Jeff Immelt or whoever, we don’t know, and say, “Hey, I have this person interested in working for you.” “Who, Mr. President?” “Well, you may have heard, name’s Chelsea.” “Oh, say no more.” Because NBC doesn’t want to consider the alternative of saying “no.”
So here you have a very prominent member of the 1 percent who flaunts that membership of the 1 percent greasing the skids for a child who’s unqualified and inexperienced. What does that say to all these people with all of these thousands of dollars in student loans, desperately trying, they think, to get jobs to pay off their student loans? They think the game is stacked against them. They think that the rules are rigged, that people like them are shut out, don’t have a chance.
But their positions in two separate camps of the GOP coalition only underscore why these developments are significant.
With Coburn, there seems to be the very real possibility that at least some principled conservatives are looking for common ground with the Occupy sentiment to the point that those conservatives may be willing to go to war with the factions of the Republican Party who are most committed to defending the super-rich (as evidence, the Hill notes that this could become a big “clash between Coburn and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform”). Sure, the Oklahoma senator will still probably end up more on the side of the 1 percent than the 99 percent when the final debt deal is negotiated and passed, but his initiative this week is a major acknowledgement of the changing politics of economic inequality.
Limbaugh likewise validates the real agency of the Occupy movement. Indeed, when the most unscrupulous, principle-free opportunists in the GOP are suddenly airing Occupy-themed grievances about huge student debt, “the game’s rules (being) rigged” and the establishment’s open disregard for meritocracy, it proves that even a few hardcore Republican partisans see the shifting tectonics in American politics, and are therefore trying to both get ahead of the earthquake and get themselves to safer political terrain.
To be sure, of the two, it’s much harder to take Limbaugh seriously, if only because he has a much longer record of making purposely outlandish (and offensive) statements. Additionally, his diatribe on Tuesday was weakened by the obvious fact that it was motivated by a severe case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome (thus, all the unsubstantiated speculation about supposed phone calls and conversations between the former president and NBC executives).
That said, setting Limbaugh’s personal motivation aside (which, I’ll admit, is hard to do, considering how much I and many progressives dislike his politics), the parts of his statement about privilege and nepotism are perhaps the most momentous of all.
The sad truth is, you almost never hear a Republican Party leader — or even a Democratic Party leader — whispering such things, much less bellowing about them on the largest talk radio show in America. In fact, that’s one of the big reasons why the Occupy movement arose in the first place — to force those very taboo issues to the forefront in a culture that has refused to even discuss them.
So when that discussion actually starts happening — and on the biggest conservative radio show in the nation — it is definitive proof that while the GOP will probably oppose the Occupy movement’s ultimate demands, and while most Republican political leaders will continue a more brazen campaign to discredit that movement, the protesters are now winning their battle to change the terms of America’s political discourse for the long haul.
We live in a DEMOCRACY.....people are free to do as they please with no regulation....thats why we call it the land of the free. These protesters are ridiculous and I hope the cops beat them all down. Do they not realize the places they are protesting are full of the 99% who are just trying to make a living? The 1% they are protesting about are just sitting back and laughing at how foolish they look.
I dont agree with some things people have done at high levels in our financial system, but they did not break the law. Sure you could questions ethics, but when it comes to money....it never sleeps.
The real problem in America is well its not full of Americans anymore.
We, actually, don't live in a meaningful democracy. A meaningful democracy means equal power.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSL4u
I can assure you that Exxon has more power than you and I. And has far more influence over our government than you and I.
We're not on an even playing field with the likes of Exxon. Everyone knows that the most powerful institutions in our society control our government. That's been understood since the dawn of America. And John Jay, the first chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said: The people that own the country ought to govern it.
So, authentic and meaningful democracy simply doesn't exist.
BUT WE DO LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY, A VERY FREE COUNTRY. Actually, unusually free. Up in Canada and over in Britain the state says what's truth. And if you deviate from that truth, well, you could be prosecuted.
Is this shit still going on?
Revolution brother!:soapbox
Yep exactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by irvin66
This is the CHANGE that Obama was talking about. But he didn't mean it. He is deep in the pockets of Wall Street. Actually, specifically: Goldman/Government Sachs. A corrupt, fraudulent (and what was a zombie bank) and monstrous institution.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
People are simply starting again what Obama started: Change.
Americans, and whether you agree or disagree with the protests, well, Americans have a first amendment right to exercise freedom of speech and to assemble and the right to petition the government for legitimate grievances. And, well, with grievances, um, where should we start -- ha ha ha! I mean, we Americans live in a very free country. Much freer than Canada, Britain, China! -- ha ha! Anyway, I'm all for freedom -- and, too, democracy.
And the way democracy works is pretty straightforward: PUBLIC POLICY MUST REFLECT PUBLIC OPINION. The government is waaay to the right of the majority of Americans. And this is a sharp attack on democracy.
But, well, is it fair for the many to control the few? Probably not. And is it fair for the FEW to control the many? Absolutely not.
SO, WHAT'S THE SOLUTION? Any ideas? Well, protesting -- ha ha ha ha! :) :) :)
yep what a bunch of retards,i think its a good demacratic move if they shoot them all so the unemployment numbers look alittle better lol.even better ship them all to africa and see how the other half lives.fuckin idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
Is that really your argument? 'The U.S. is still richer than Africa?' Interesting standard. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by lisaparadise
~BB~
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Helpless case indeed....
One from me, then it's over to the political boards...
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.
Helpless case. Apparently the better argument is the bigger argument. Okay then: The Bush Housing and Banking Collapse has Greed, Tax Cuts, Deregulation and Two off-the-book Wars written all over it.
On the one hand both the Tea Party clusters and the OWS people are all alienated from the top tiers of finance and government, critical of central government policy either because it does too much, or too little; yet the Tea Party has powerful backers whose interests are actually top end finance; they are not capitalists interested in the little guy, and small to medium enterprises. Tea Party clusters are oriented to electoral politics; OWS as I see it, is a ragged bunch with no coherent alternative programme, it is primarily the ventilation of rage and frustration, which in the current situation is not suprising, but it can also alienate the general public who don't like seeing public spaces become alternative, if temporary housing estates.
But with more than 1 million people under the age of 25 unemployed in the UK, a figure that is worse in Spain and will get worse in Greece, we are facing a world in which young people will not be in work for most of their 20s. Or, it could just be that they are sitting at home waiting for a job, when they should be taking off on an experimental journey to see what's out there -but it doesn't suit everyone, even if there are times when taking risks pays dividends. And it doesn't rely on machine politicians to open the opportunity. With so much energy, it is a pity the younger people in the OWS whichever country it is in, don't use it for something more creative. And its not like the people being shouted at care one way or the other.
I'm embarrassed for you that you thought that screed was evidence of anything except how flimsy and twisted your history of the crisis is. So the repeal of Glass-Steagall is somehow more and stricter regulations? Dear god, that's fucking stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
Helpless case is putting it mildly.
Clearly an appropriate response to violating the sacrosanct CITY ORDINANCE. :roll:
Police pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis - YouTube
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassCat
...must've accidentally fallen out of the "Occupy UC Davis" thread...lol
It's a wonderful response and a terrific lesson in civics for those students. Rarely are students afforded the opportunity to get a hands-on, real-life lab assignment such as this. Pepper spray not only clears the nasal passage, it also gives the student some quality down-time where he can contemplate on the events at hand and possibly consider alternate strategies for future engagements. It would behoove all of us not to underestimate just how rewarding and enriching these educational opportunities are for our precious youth.
I don't agree with this statement. I am a conservative and I STRONGLY identify with the Tea Party movement, yet I am very aware of how large corporations and lobbyists influence the system at the expense of the little guy and small business. Many Republicans are pro-business. I'm not pro-busienss, I'm pro-markets. That is a big difference. I believe that the market should be picking winners and losers, not government. What we have is a government that has allowed select businesses (and unions) to influence the system to the point where the odds are stacked in thier favor at the expense of small and medium business. It's a corrupt system through and through. Government policies actually favor the few and reward them when they fail by using taxpayer dollars to bail them out or subsidzie them. It's government that encourages all of this behavior though, if they just allowed the markets to operate freely then capitalism would punish the losers are reward the winners, and we wouldn't have any of this bailout baloney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I agree. I think OWS is a rag-tag bunch: Some are protesting capitalism, some are protesting nebulous things like 'corporate greed', some are protesting the 1%, some are just happy to be protesting anything, and some (a very small % I think) actually have thier finger on pulse of what happenned in 2008 and why, and I agree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Im starting to become dissillusioned with the movement. Been down there a good amount of times to support and it has dramatically changed. The last couple days before Zucotti was shut down were bad, lots of fighting, junkies, and freeloaders. Its a shame because the real activists have a heart of gold, and are there for all the right reasons, but are being overshadowed by bad people. On Thursday it became pretty much an anti-cop rally, and i left early and dont plan on returning anytime soon. I know some of the stuff we've seen online with the police has been shocking, but based on my own personal account (have been there to support OWS over 2 dozen days/nights), the police have been professional and its been large groups of young punk kids and squatters who are instigating confrontation with them.
A movement without clear direction, A) Doesn't get very far, B) doesn't last very long, C) Does nothing but piss off the people they are trying to impress and, D) Their message (whatever it was intended to be) becomes lost.
A mob is just that, a mob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Really now Trish? Do Tell. You are so pathetically and woefully wrong it's painful. Your Bush derrangement syndrome has taken an otherwise open mind and closed it. I'm friends with former Congressman Chris Shays. He routinely sparred with the majority Democrats for years about the stability and the social engineering of Fannie and Freddie. Google it. Get educated, but in the meantime put down the NY Times and watch this.
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube
Barney Frank Caught Lying About Fannie Mae - YouTube
If there are so-called junkies, well, we as a society should help them. I think the problem with our culture is that we simply abandon people. We simply don't care. Ya know, part of the problem is: the visible loss of care.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeCumInPiece
People are moral agents. We expect people to act morally. And most people, if they aren't psychopathic, are deeply moral and decent. It's the culture that drives out our humanity, as it were. (And, too, our culture is all about serving our own interests and who cares about anyone else. And that goes against the core nature of being a human being: empathy for other human beings. Now, you can't humanize people. Because people are human. But you can certainly dehumanize people. Think: Germans in Nazi Germany.
The nature of being a human being allows for all sorts of behaviors. Anyone of us, under the right circumstances, can either be an absolute saint or a gas chamber attendant.
Institutions by their very design -- whether government or corporations -- are monstrous. (They are monstrous precisely because they're rationally designed. And constructed, as it were, to not care about right and wrong. That's the institutional system of both government and corporations. It's not the people. But the institution.
A corporation isn't a moral agent. Nor is a government institution. That's the problem in our society. Because these amoral -- again, not caring about right and wrong -- institutions have ultimate power in our society.) But people, deep down, are good, decent and moral. It's the culture that DRIVES that decency out of us!
Again, in our narcissistic culture it's important to drive that out of people's heads. The act of care and concern for others.
If the direction, message or intent were clear, it wouldn't be a movement. If it was trying to impress anyone, or cared who got pissed off, it wouldn't be a movement. The US hasn't seen a real movement in 40 years. Contrary to popular meme & myth, the "Tea Party" (®?) was never a movement. It's an organization, directly affiliated with a political party, with media backing, put together top down, with specific strategy, tactics, & agenda. A movement, by its very nature, is disorganized. It's a bottom up groundswell. No leaders. No spokesmen. No specific philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CORVETTEDUDE
Messy as it is, this current movement has a common denominator running through all the protests across the country & around the world. It's clear if you ignore the petty bullshit & lies.
2 parts:
Anger. Welcome to the real rage against the machine. What really has people pissed is the (reak or perceived) total lack of accountability for the obvious fraud that crashed the economy. The capital markets are right back where they were before the crash, have been for the last 2 years, & nothing's being produced except more junk paper. The same assholes are pushing out the same shit. Hedge bets are still controlling the flow of capital. WTF?!! I'm pissed. Aren't you?
Fear: Folks don't want to lose their representative democracy. It's hard to articulate because the revisionists, pundits, & other assorted assholes have distorted the language to the point where people are afraid to use the proper descriptives. I'm not. This movement is anti-fascist. Now don't anybody start yammering about nazis & ovens because that's not fascism. Simple version, fascism is corporate control of government. This movement isn't about "socialism" or any crackpot Marx shit. Left to their own devices, corporations will always try to swallow up the competition & gain monopoly status. That's why we have regulations & anti-trust legislation. Monopolies are anathema to a free market. Want to see free enterprize disappear? Just allow private monopolies. Fascismis just one step ahead of feudalism.
It's not a mob either. The only ones acting like a mob are the powers that be with these unnecessary police riots. The lame excuses for sending in the troopers would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Occupy Wall Street complaining about freeloaders... the ultimate irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeCumInPiece
[quote=Revolution brother!:soapbox[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
Simon Johnson - on Starting a Revolution - YouTube
The Quiet Coup by Simon Johnson:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ngle_page=true
Quoting briefly from Simon Johnson's article about how the finance sector controls our government. (Forget all the nonsensical niceties about government of, by and for the people.) Simon Johnson worked at the I.M.F. So he has an insider's take on the world banking system -- :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
And it's well understood that the institutions who control money (and what is money after all but a simple accounting entry and a computer keystroke; but it's necessary, vital and people certainly need it) are going to control the society. I mean, everyone grasps that uncontroversial notion. So, the private banking sector will control the society, the government and the people. And the overall "bullshit culture" will defend those specific short-term interests.
Here's Simon Johnson and I quote:
"Squeezing the oligarchs, though, is seldom the strategy of choice among emerging-market governments. Quite the contrary: at the outset of the crisis, the oligarchs are usually among the first to get extra help from the government, such as preferential access to foreign currency, or maybe a nice tax break, or—here’s a classic Kremlin bailout technique—the assumption of private debt obligations by the government. Under duress, generosity toward old friends takes many innovative forms. Meanwhile, needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk—at least until the riots grow too large."
Anti-Capitalist? Too Simple. Occupy Can Be the Catalyst for a Radical Rethink
Capitalism has many guises. Pigeonholing protesters will only allow those who are against reform to avoid the issue
by Ha-Joon Chang
The Occupy London movement is marking its first month this week. It is routinely described as anti-capitalist, but this label is highly misleading. As I found out when I gave a lecture at its Tent City University last weekend, many of its participants are not against capitalism. They just want it better regulated so that it benefits the greatest possible majority.
But even accepting that the label accurately describes some participants in the movement, what does being anti-capitalist actually mean?
Many Americans, for example, consider countries like France and Sweden to be socialist or anti-capitalist – yet, were their 19th-century ancestors able to time-travel to today, they would almost certainly have called today's US socialist. They would have been shocked to find that their beloved country had decided to punish industry and enterprise with a progressive income tax. To their horror, they would also see that children had been deprived of the freedom to work and adults "the liberty of working as long as [they] wished", as the US supreme court put it in 1905 when ruling unconstitutional a New York state act limiting the working hours of bakers to 10 hours a day. What is capitalist, and thus anti-capitalist, it seems, depends on who you are.
Many institutions that most of us regard as the foundation stones of capitalism were not introduced until the mid-19th century, because they had been seen as undermining capitalism. Adam Smith opposed limited liability companies and Herbert Spencer objected to the central bank, both on the grounds that these institutions dulled market incentives by putting upper limits to investment risk. The same argument was made against the bankruptcy law.
Since the mid-19th century, many measures that were widely regarded as anti-capitalist when first introduced – such as the progressive income tax, the welfare state, child labor regulation and the eight-hour day – have become integral parts of capitalism today.
Capitalism has also evolved in very different ways across countries. They may all be capitalist in that they are predominantly run on the basis of private property and profit motives, but beyond that they are organized very differently.
In Japan interlocking share ownership among friendly enterprises, which once accounted for over 50% of all listed shares and still accounts for around 30%, makes hostile takeover very difficult. This has enabled Japanese companies to invest with a much longer time horizon than their British or American counterparts.
Japanese companies provide lifetime employment for their core workers (accounting for about a third of the workforce), thereby creating strong worker loyalty. They also give the workers a relatively large say in the management of the production process, thus tapping their creative powers. There are heavy regulations in the agricultural and retail sectors against large firms, which complement the weak welfare state by preserving small shops and farms.
German capitalism is as different from the American or British version as Japanese capitalism, but in other ways. Like Japan, Germany gives a relatively big input to workers in the running of a company, but in a collectivist way through the co-determination system, in which worker representation on the supervisory board allows them to have a say in key corporate matters (such as plant closure and takeovers), rather than giving a greater stake in the company to workers as individuals, as in the Japanese system.
Thus, while Japanese companies are protected from hostile takeovers by friendly companies (through interlocking shareholding), German companies are protected by their workers (through co-determination).
Even supposedly similar varieties of capitalism, for example Swedish and German, have important differences. German workers are represented through the co-determination system and through industry-level trade unions, while Swedish workers are represented by a centralized trade union (the Swedish Trade Union Confederation), which engages in centralized wage bargaining with the centralized employers' association (the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise).
Unlike in Germany, where concentrated corporate ownership has been deliberately destroyed, Sweden has arguably the most concentrated corporate ownership in the world. One family – the Wallenbergs – possesses controlling stakes (usually defined as over 20% of voting shares) in most of the key companies in the Swedish economy, including ABB, Ericsson, Electrolux, Saab, SEB and SKF. Some estimate that the Wallenberg companies produce a third of Swedish national output. Despite this, Sweden has built one of the most egalitarian societies in the world because of its large, and largely effective, welfare state.
And then there are hybrids that defy definition: China, with its large socialist legacy, is an obvious case, but Singapore is another, even more interesting, example. Singapore is usually touted as the model student of free-market capitalism, given its free-trade policy and welcoming attitude towards multinational companies. Yet in other ways it is a very socialist country. All land is owned by the government, 85% of housing is supplied by the government-owned housing corporation, and a staggering 22% of national output is produced by state-owned enterprises. (The international average is around 10%.) Would you say that Singapore is capitalist or socialist?
When it is so diverse, criticizing capitalism is not very meaningful. What you have to change to improve the Swedish or the Japanese capitalist systems is very different from what you should do for the British one.
In Britain, as already physically identified by the Occupy movement, it is clear the key reforms should be made in the City of London. The fact that the Occupy movement does not have an agreed list of reforms should not be used as an excuse not to engage with it. I'm told there is an economics committee working on it and, more importantly, there are already many financial reform proposals floating around, often supported by very "establishment" figures like Adair Turner, the Financial Services Authority chairman, George Soros, the Open Society Foundations chairman, and Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's executive director for financial stability.
By labeling the Occupy movement "anti-capitalist", those who do not want reforms have been able to avoid the real debate. This has to stop. It is time we use the Occupy movement as the catalyst for a serious debate on alternative institutional arrangements that will make British (or for that matter, any other) capitalism better for the majority of people.
http://www.commondreams.org/sites/co...oto/hajoon.jpg
Ha-Joon Chang teaches economics at the University of Cambridge in London. He is the author of the forthcoming book, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism (Allen Lane).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
srsly Ben
http://www.jgaver.com/wp-content/upl...Bootstraps.jpg
The problem you have is that the Tea Party clusters are borderline conservatives at best, but for the most part libertarians whose biblical texts are the worthless drivel of Ayn Rand or the utopian nonsense of Robert Nozick; yet much of the finance which has propelled TP representatives into office has come from the very same corporate finance they -and you- claim to be opposed to. Some time ago Board Member Prospero provided a link to the analysis of the Koch Brothers financial engagement with the TP (linked below) -simultaneously big business rooting for minimal government -I dont see any passion for markets there, but I do see a desire to clear the field for business to do what it wants free of government interference -which is how we got into this mess in the first place. You get to the point where either you want a free market in the literal sense, or you want some regulation, in which case you are not a libertarian but an old fashioned conservative used to the private dining clubs of New York, DC and Philadelphia, or the chili bean jamborees of Texas -the same people who believe in corporate America because it pays their wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by hard4janira
Conservatives are divided, as divided as the left has always been, because they can't really face the reality that their policies no more guarantee jobs than liberal capitalism; and jobs is what all of the protests in the USA, the UK, Spain and Greece are all about. The Congressional system is dependent on the capitalism that showers money from Washington DC to districts and states to purchase goods and services that also employ people, and not just in the defence industry. If the TP and people obsessed with de-regulation have their way, how many more hundreds of thousands of public servants become unemployed -and how can you be 'pro-market' when the consequence is a collapse of demand from people who can't afford to shop for anything more expensive than bread and cheese?
The salvation of mankind in markets?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...0fa_fact_mayer
China solved the problem of junkies many years agoQuote:
Originally Posted by Silcc69
China solved the problem of junkies many years ago:Bowdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Silcc69
What about people who are addicted to tobacco???????Quote:
Originally Posted by Silcc69
Drug addiction is a serious health issue. And should be treated as such.
I mean, if someone -- like an Amy Winehouse -- is determined to destroy themselves, well, I'm not sure what to do. But: at that point it becomes a serious physical and mental health issue.
Again, some people have a predisposition to alcohol. Does society simply abandon them? Should we incarcerate people who take drugs? And what is a drug after? I mean, more people die from junk food addiction (and it is an addiction) than illicit drugs. What should we do with people addicted to junk food? Plus, well, some people speculate that PORN is an addiction. Is TV an addiction? Well, we know caffeine is a drug and addictive and harmful. Should we, say, incarcerate people who sip coffee -- ha ha!
The point is: it's a serious health issue and should be treated as such. Human behavior is incredibly complex. I think it's simply lacking humaneness, morality and decency to abandon people.
And:
Glenn Greenwald talks about what we should do. Legalize it. Control it. Get rid of the violence. And the petty criminality.
Glenn Greenwald on Drug Decriminalization in Portugal - YouTube
CATO Portugal Report 04/03/09 [1/6] - YouTube
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Conservatives are divided, as divided as the left has always been, because they can't really face the reality that their policies no more guarantee jobs than liberal capitalism; and jobs is what all of the protests in the USA, the UK, Spain and Greece are all about. The Congressional system is dependent on the capitalism that showers money from Washington DC to districts and states to purchase goods and services that also employ people, and not just in the defence industry. If the TP and people obsessed with de-regulation have their way, how many more hundreds of thousands of public servants become unemployed -and how can you be 'pro-market' when the consequence is a collapse of demand from people who can't afford to shop for anything more expensive than bread and cheese?
Dude...
if that's your interpretation of conservatism, you're ill informed, with all due respect. You're premise is completely faulty. Conservatives may be divided by some who are more libertarian than others on social issues, but there's little disagreement on fiscal policy. You come at this disadvantaged if you think conservatives are trying to guarantee anyone a job, or even trying by any means other than pro growth, free market capitalism. You want a guaranteed job from cradle to grave? Punch your ticket to Shanghai and toil in a Nike factory for 3 bucks a day for the next 50 years. Free Market Capitalism is still the best way to raise the most people from one economic class to the other. That's a historic, undeniable fact. It never promised 100% employment or perfection. William F. Buckley loved to say "Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich."
A conservative is someone who cares more about his own profit than yours; if you mean someone who cares more about providing for his family than providing for yours; if you mean someone who trusts that he is a better caretaker of his own interests and desires than a bureaucrat he’s never met, often in a city he’s never been to: then we are all capitalists. Because, by that standard, conservative capitalism isn't some far-off theory about the allocation of capital; it is a commonsense description of what motivates pretty much all human beings everywhere. And it’s also why the problem with capitalism is capitalists. Some people will always abuse the system and take things too far. Some will do it out of the hubris of intellect. Some will do it out of the venality and greed, but the answer is not to put more control in the hands of politicians and the greedy, ill equipped government bureaucrats. Look where government meddling got us in the Fannie/Freddie debacle. The battle between liberals and conservatives is not about imposing limits on free markets and capitalism, that's a given...it's about how much, and by whom.
I am not ill-informed at all; the confusion lies in your description of conservatism, and although there are differences in what that term means in the UK from what it means in the USA, both have an attachment to the state that doesn't figure so much in your definition; and in both cases the actual practice of conservatives in power does not radically change the nature of the state.
In the UK conservatism has supported the Monarchy precisely on the basis that to conserve it is to conserve a fundamental structure of authority that has enabled this country to avoid civil war, and which also structures the distribution of wealth and power in the shape of a pyramid. Yes, the compromise with capitalism in 1688 enabled the emerging middle classes to command more of the economy than they did before while diminishing (over time) the powers of the Monarch to interfere in political decision-making, but then the same middle classes that overthrew the monarchy in 1640 realised it was also in their interest to compromise. 'One nation Tories' do believe that they should 'look after' the poor and not be completely selfish economically, this was what divided them from the so-called Thatcherites, and yet in spite of Thatcher, the State and the bureaucracy did not shrink dramatically under her leadership -but the real economy, the one where people make things and feel proud to see the ships sail away from the Tyne, the cars roll of the production line in the West Midlands and the coal shipped out of Wales and Yorkshire- that crucial sector of the economy for the working class was trashed, while the 'Big Bang' and de-regulation in the City boosted what is still but not affectionately known as 'financial services'.
English Conservatives are still divided between the One Nation Tory whose patrician and patronising view of the poor is linked to the Church of England and, critically, Christian guilt; and the free-market fanatics who as you suggest, care only for their own comforts and have replaced the Church of England with an astonishing faith in markets in spite of all the evidence that shows a 'free market' is an ideal not a reality, be it in the USA or the UK.
But capitalism is not just about bonds, futures and gilts, it is about the tangible assets that people make or grow that are brought to market. So on one level I agree with you, and think your American conservative politicians should be honest on the stump and tell the voters: We are capitalists, we make money, not jobs -and then presumably when a candidate comes up with a plan to 'grow the economy and provide jobs' you can shriek with laughter at this RINO and plan your next skiing holiday in Japan while a few million more Americans join the queue for the food the 'free market' has priced out of their pocket.
Ultimately, because capitalism has no nationality, conservative and libertarian policies, propelled by fanatics in government, become anti-American because in the 21st century, capitalism is more ruthlessly global than it ever was before, and to just 'let it rip' means, in effect, ripping up your precious stars and bars, and replacing it with a large dollar sign; or a question mark. I wonder, for how many Americans, will the next Thanksgiving dinner be their last? At least in the UK we have another month to go before Christmas.
We may not be talking about the same thing here. I've never brought up campaign financing at all, and I don't know the campaign finance details of the representatives that were elected into office claiming to represent the Tea Party. Do you or are you just assuming? In fact, I'd wager that most corporate money DIDN'T go to tea party canddiates, because the Corporations and the Unions already have thier lackies in office (from both parties) - the Tea Party represents the anti-RINO movement and corporate America doesn't know what they are going to get from them. But even then, I'm not opposed to any corporation, organization, or individual giving whatever they want to finance anybodies campagn. I am against so-called campaign finance reform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
If you believe that regualations (think beyond wall street) have made if impossible for American corporations to compete globally (and I do), then you don't have a problem with idea of clearing away the beaurocratic red tape around a government regulation - If government keeps making it harder and harder for companties to compete (Obamacare) then they have every right lobby for and root for minimal government and I am right there with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
And I say again: the way to show you have a 'passion' for the market is to let the market work. Don't bailout companies that should go bankrupt. Don't create institutions that implicitly guarantee 75% of all the mortgages in the country. It seems really simple to me, this concept of creative destruction that no politician has the balls to let unfold.
I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that my only two options are free markets with zero regulation or I'm totally bought by corporate America?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Only politicians 'guarnatee' jobs. We will have to disagree on the value of a large vs. a small government. I believe earnestly that government spending should be capped at 15% of GDP - we have seen the damage caused by government that cannot control spending. I think having a large public sector work force is bad becuase they don't produce anything. Something has to be produced first in the private sector and then taxed so that there is money to pay the public sector workers. We should remove the chains that burded private sector jobs (such as an oppressive tax code) and let the private sector grow (which it will - I have no doubt) and let the public sector shrink.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros