OT Government control of compensation at all levels [Archive]

View Full Version : OT Government control of compensation at all levels

keno

04-01-2009, 06:22 AM

sspielman

04-01-2009, 06:47 AM

I would assume that $250,000 (or was that $150,000 by the end of the campaign...oh wait a minute...did the campaign end?) will become the NEW maximum salary for anybody...Obama...Biden...Dodd...Pelosi...Frank... Geithner...am I the only one who thinks that our government has been taken over by the sideshow of Ringling Brothers?....

rwsaunders

04-01-2009, 06:50 AM

I heard that Barney has hired an outside compensation consultant team....

johnnymossville

04-01-2009, 07:21 AM

I'd say it's all about daddy'o knowing best. how much you make, and soon who, when, where, what for and why you go to the doctor. Nice gig they have, they help break it, then come in and help fix it. Coooool!

93legendti

04-01-2009, 07:55 AM

It is clear THIS government aims to control EVERY aspect of our lives. I think this realization will eliminate the desire of Americans to elect leaders who have zero experience.

One and done.

TMB

04-01-2009, 08:00 AM

RPS

04-01-2009, 08:15 AM

It is clear THIS government aims to control EVERY aspect of our lives. I think this realization will eliminate the desire of Americans to elect leaders who have zero experience.

One and done.Experience � or lack thereof � is a tough one to evaluate. The real problem will be if the new ideology doesn�t work as marketed to and bought by the American people. And in a sense I�d agree experience counts because some �new and improved ideas� haven�t been tried previously and proven to work.

Obviously everything has to be tried for a first time, but it�s better IMHO when done on a smaller scale first. Unfortunately Obama has no track record by which to judge whether his ideas will work or not; which creates lots of uncertainty and angst. We�ll know soon enough � just hope for the best.

johnnymossville

04-01-2009, 08:24 AM

...Unfortunately Obama has no track record by which to judge whether his ideas will work or not; which creates lots of uncertainty and angst. We�ll know soon enough � just hope for the best.

I'm not sure, but I think dictators, kings and slave owners have tried some of these tactics for centuries. Maybe we could look to those examples. LOL

Pete Serotta

04-01-2009, 08:56 AM

Please lets tone it down some - there is enough blame to go around for all.

All assumptions on the future are just that "assumptions" so please lets present our view of outcome in a non attack mode.... The prior presidency has not been exactly a period of :D :D . We are now in the hangover phase of some of those "good"plans

Thanks

Sandy

04-01-2009, 09:05 AM

Experience � or lack thereof � is a tough one to evaluate. The real problem will be if the new ideology doesn�t work as marketed to and bought by the American people. And in a sense I�d agree experience counts because some �new and improved ideas� haven�t been tried previously and proven to work.

Obviously everything has to be tried for a first time, but it�s better IMHO when done on a smaller scale first. Unfortunately Obama has no track record by which to judge whether his ideas will work or not; which creates lots of uncertainty and angst. We�ll know soon enough � just hope for the best.

I operated a small wholesale business and dealt with the US Government, selling military commissaries. I sold to the Air Force, Marines, Navy, and Army. I billed each military discipline separately and received payment from each. It worked quite well. Then someone had the idea to do all the billing and payment through one central location. I had real doubts about it and told those in charge that there would be significant problems and that they should try it on a "small scale first". They did not listen and it was a disaster. Payments became exceptionally slow and I received duplicate payments, clearly unknown to those in charge. The duplicate payments totalled about $110,000, if I remember correctly. I notified them of the duplicate overpayments and sent the money back, without even a thank you, as I recall. I always wondered how much overpayment money was sent out and never returned. I was but a little guy playing in the world of giant suppliers.....

Sandy

93legendti

04-01-2009, 09:16 AM

goonster

04-01-2009, 09:28 AM

In the case of most of the proposals pushed thus far, they have been tried in Europe.
. . . and what a dump that place is!

93legendti

04-01-2009, 09:50 AM

"...This week, the President of the United States insisted on the removal of a private sector CEO. And once he had been removed, that CEO�s severance package was governed by Treasury Department regulations.

No longer just bailing out companies, the White House is now determining who should run them and what their retirement packages should be.

Not only that, Obama has taken the unprecedented � and unnerving � step of guaranteeing all GM and Chrysler warranties.

Thank about that for a moment, in its ongoing attempts to revive a dying patient, the Obama administration has just put every American taxpayer on the hook for potentially billions in auto repairs!

Obama�s auto task force is also calling the shots on which models GM should produce and sell, and telling Chrysler who to merge with and for how much � all the while holding additional bailout billions over the heads of the two �private� corporations in case they refuse to abide by the government�s wishes.

One pro-free market commentator told me that �Obama might as well have reached into the corporate boardroom and started running that company.�

�That�s exactly what he did,� I said.

Obama�s actions "should send a chill through those who believe in free enterprise,� said Tennessee Senator Bob Corker.

How true.

And yet even as the government is guaranteeing GM�s warranties and providing an undisclosed amount of interim operating cash during this latest two-month reprieve, Obama and his socialist sycophants are pretending that they have administered some �tough love� to the company.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

America should have never taken those first, fateful steps down the road toward our present socialist experiment. And yet $13 trillion later, with the market still in shambles, jobs still on the decline and income levels flatter than pancakes, we�re stuck with an administration that seems hell bent on pushing the envelope of government control as far as it will go...

With each fresh interventionist encroachment, Obama is twisting the knife deeper into the belly of an economic system that founded, built and sustained these United States through generations.

Certainly, based on tens of billions of dollars lost and tens of thousands of jobs lost, Rick Wagoner deserved to be shown the door at GM.

But that should be a decision reserved for GM shareholders.

The fact that such a decision was made unilaterally by the President of the United States � holding the taxpayers� checkbook in his hand as he made it � runs completely counter to everything this country stands for.

Yesterday�s invisible hand has become today�s iron fist."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_howie_rich/obama_s_chilling_effect_on_capitalism

mschol17

04-01-2009, 09:55 AM

johnnymossville

04-01-2009, 09:55 AM

93legendti

04-01-2009, 10:05 AM

What makes you so angry about this when Sen. Corker and a host of other people were demanding that the UAW lower its salaries to match the foreign car workers' salaries?

It's not okay to determine compensation for the people who were in charge and in some way responsible for the mess, but it is okay to determine salaries of the workers who have nothing to do with the mess?

You think that the salaries paid to union workers have no effect on the price of GM's cars?
Did I advocate that the Pres. of the USA should determine the salaries of union workers?

I advocated giving nothing to the Big 3.

Ahneida Ride

04-01-2009, 10:11 AM

Ray

04-01-2009, 10:12 AM

I now would suggest anyone who thinks O's doing everything wonderfully to go out and purchase a new GM product to help out. Come on, be patriotic people!

Oh wait, he might force us to do so anyway now that he's got his meathooks in there.
I had a GM rental car a couple of weeks ago. To my surprise (based on past experience), it was an awesome car. Obviously don't know about reliability, but the fit, finish, ride, handing, etc, were far better than I'd have expected and only a small notch below the Hondas and Toyotas I've know. Now, this happened since Obama's been president, so, by your standard of holding him accountable for everything that's happened in the economy since he was sworn in, I'm here to tell you that he's clearly saving GM and that car's fine attributes were do to his fine leadership. :cool:

I mean, jeez, every day he spoke and the stock market was still tanking, Adam reminded us of how his mere words were causing all of the problems. When it had a couple of good weeks, I don't think I saw any similar posts praising his fine words and efforts - I was shocked, SHOCKED to not see those daily posts anymore.

He's never gonna get the benefit of any doubt from some of you folks. And some of us are giving him a lot of leeway. Only is gonna tell anyway.

-Ray

93legendti

04-01-2009, 10:19 AM

I had a GM rental car a couple of weeks ago. To my surprise (based on past experience), it was an awesome car. Obviously don't know about reliability, but the fit, finish, ride, handing, etc, were far better than I'd have expected and only a small notch below the Hondas and Toyotas I've know. Now, this happened since Obama's been president, so, by your standard of holding him accountable for everything that's happened in the economy since he was sworn in, I'm here to tell you that he's clearly saving GM and that car's fine attributes were do to his fine leadership. :cool:

I mean, jeez, every day he spoke and the stock market was still tanking, Adam reminded us of how his mere words were causing all of the problems. When it had a couple of good weeks, I don't think I saw any similar posts praising his fine words and efforts - I was shocked, SHOCKED to not see those daily posts anymore.

He's never gonna get the benefit of any doubt from some of you folks. And some of us are giving him a lot of leeway. Only is gonna tell anyway.

-Ray
1. If you had rented a GM car while Pres. Bush was in office, you would have known GM has not improved since Jan. 20, 2009.
2. I hold Pres. Obama accountable for spending $3 trillion and making things worse.
3. No, it was every time Pres. Obama spoke badly about the economy that the market tanked. The Pres. stopped his doom and gloom and the stock market rose. Obviously, Pres. Obama listened to me, so I credit myself with the rally.

Actually, I do support the Pres. on Afghanistan and I do thank the Pres. for the $1,500 tax credit I received on my two, 95% efficiency furnaces. My HVAC guy tells me these furnaces are flying off the shelves. I am happy the Pres. realizes tax credits/cuts can stimulate sales.

sspielman

04-01-2009, 10:22 AM

Since 1913, we have had a private bank (the incredible preserve)
controlling our nations currency and economic freedom.

Concentration of power. That is the ultimate goal. This is just a
natural progression.

WAR IS PEACE (1984)

Of course you are correct.....I hear congressmen, senators and EVEN THE PRESIDENT refer tour our government as a democracy...when we are a supposed to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC... I have no use for a democracy as the people quickly learn that they can vote themselves benefits at somebody else's expense. As a result the progression is always from democracy to socialism to communism to dictatorship...Is this the "progression" that the left refers to when they renamed themselves from liberal to "progressive"?

Pete Serotta

04-01-2009, 10:34 AM

I advocated giving nothing to the Big 3.

We agree :) :)

93legendti

04-01-2009, 10:38 AM

We agree :) :)
OK, you and Saab are FREAKING me out. Too much agreement!!!!! :)

Pass me the (SRAM) Red!

Pete Serotta

04-01-2009, 10:40 AM

OK, you and Saab are FREAKING me out. Too much agreement!!!!! :)

Pass me the (SRAM) Red!
;) :bike: RED it is

Dekonick

04-01-2009, 10:52 AM

thejen12

04-01-2009, 11:32 AM

"...
Obama�s actions "should send a chill through those who believe in free enterprise,� said Tennessee Senator Bob Corker.
..."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_howie_rich/obama_s_chilling_effect_on_capitalism
How is it free enterprise when the company is running on taxpayers' money? If you're running on government money, you're now a government employee. If you don't like that, go back to real free enterprise. These big cats run huge companies into the ground and then want to be bailed out but don't want to give up anything personally in return and don't want to change the way they do business. What a bunch of whiners! They just don't get it.

Jenn

johnnymossville

04-01-2009, 12:17 PM

Ray, I have nothing against GM cars and would hope people would at least test drive one before they go buy their Honda. Personally I like to drive Fords and have 2. They've been the most reliable cars I've owned, which included toyotas and chrysler products in the past.

OK, all kidding aside, I would like to know and think as a taxpayer we all should know where the $13.4 or so Billion dollars that were already given to GM is. I think if we follow the money we'll find the root of what this is really all about.

Now they are talking bankruptcy, in other words, at least $13.4 Billion we will never see again. Someone is seeing it. Parts Suppliers of course, but I have a suspicion it's in Union Coffers right now, but that's just a hunch.

I really want to know.

SamIAm

04-01-2009, 12:41 PM

Of course you are correct.....I hear congressmen, senators and EVEN THE PRESIDENT refer tour our government as a democracy...when we are a supposed to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC... I have no use for a democracy as the people quickly learn that they can vote themselves benefits at somebody else's expense. As a result the progression is always from democracy to socialism to communism to dictatorship...Is this the "progression" that the left refers to when they renamed themselves from liberal to "progressive"?

Great comment. Or as it is also stated. "He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the vote of Paul."

abqhudson

04-01-2009, 12:44 PM

As the resident radical here, I would like to propose some government interference that I believe would be in the best libertarian tradition. I don't understand how bankrupt companies with "no cash" can pay executives - or anyone else - exorbitant salaries. It seems to me that these salaries are nothing more than theft from creditors - basically a fraud. These folks are thieves and they should be put in jail. GM certainly doesn't have any extra cash - it's my understanding that they do not have enough cash to even fund retirement benefits owed to retired employees - why not? If they have raided/stolen the retirement funds - again, they are thieves and should be put in jail.

Please do not misunderstand, I sincerely believe that profitable companies are entitled to pay their management (or anyone else) any salary they can negotiate/afford - BUT, not-profitable companies should not be allowed to steal from anyone they can steal from.

SamIAm

04-01-2009, 12:44 PM

;) :bike: RED it is

Red as in wine or communism? :)

TMB

04-01-2009, 12:49 PM

Are you nuts? Ever read the communist manifesto??

Sorry,

I forgot to put one of these on the end .......> :rolleyes:

Louis

04-01-2009, 12:55 PM

sspielman

04-01-2009, 12:55 PM

sspielman

04-01-2009, 12:56 PM

Louis

04-01-2009, 01:08 PM

BTW,

I suggest you call Ted Stevens and ask him what he thinks of our new president.

Louis

Marcusaurelius

04-01-2009, 01:13 PM

in companies taking bailout money, at least according to Barney Frank's House Finance Committee. Who knows where, if anywhere, this will go. If it does become law as to the AIGs and financial firms, will it be applied to the auto industry and risk alienation of the unions? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...y-42158597.html

This is exemplary of the thinking done in some powerful quarters in our government, and it scares the crap out of me. In my view, we are firmly positioned on a slippery slope that has dire implications for future generations in this country.

My wife and I decided that offspring would not be in our future for good reason. While I am very concerned about the direction of the country, I can't nearly be concerned as many of you might be, regardless of political inclination.

keno

Hm, well many companies have been taking money from the government for years (military-industrial complex and agricultural subsidies) so why should this be so disconcerting?

On a more serious note, I never thought it was a good idea to give funds to either a company that makes cars no one wants or a fiancial institution that can't manage it's fiances.

SamIAm

04-01-2009, 01:15 PM

that can't manage it's fiances.

Multiple fiances can be very difficult to manage not to mention dangerous. :)

Ray

04-01-2009, 01:22 PM

1. If you had rented a GM car while Pres. Bush was in office, you would have known GM has not improved since Jan. 20, 2009.
2. I hold Pres. Obama accountable for spending $3 trillion and making things worse.
3. No, it was every time Pres. Obama spoke badly about the economy that the market tanked. The Pres. stopped his doom and gloom and the stock market rose. Obviously, Pres. Obama listened to me, so I credit myself with the rally.

Actually, I do support the Pres. on Afghanistan and I do thank the Pres. for the $1,500 tax credit I received on my two, 95% efficiency furnaces. My HVAC guy tells me these furnaces are flying off the shelves. I am happy the Pres. realizes tax credits/cuts can stimulate sales.
No no, I asked at the counter. They said that all GM cars started running mysteriously better on Jan 20th, but not until noon. They got all kinds of calls from their renters worried they might have done something to mess up the cars. I did rent GM cars when Bush was in office. Not impressed. The Obama model was the first GM car that's impressed me since I was old enough to drive. It may be that only those of us with the implants in our necks can fully appreciate the dramatic improvement. :cool:

And I'd like to thank you for the rally in the stock market. I fear its temporary though, so anything you can do to fix the underlying problems, we'd all appreciate.

Liberals have always believed in tax credits for things like energy efficiency. But you guys always called it social engineering. You don't realize it because you lack the requisite chip, but you've just been socially engineered!

-Ray

Marcusaurelius

04-01-2009, 01:22 PM

You guys are only now finding out about this?

The plan all along was this: Whoever voted for Obama received a secret chip (implanted at the base of the neck). Those who voted for anyone else did not. In a few months Men in Black will descend from Black Helicopters. Those who do not have the chip will be taken away to concentration camps (currently being built in Canada) for reeducation. We got the manuals on how to do it from Pol Pot. Those who are successfully reeducated will be allowed to return to the US to serve as slaves for those of us who did vote the right (left) way. The recalcitrant few who are unwilling to accept the New World Order will meet an unfortunate fate. (Do you know what they do to baby seals up there?)

Sorry. I thought you guys knew that that's what the choice was all about.

It's all about change.

Louis

PS after you shine my shoes, be sure you line them up exactly as I've instructed you. And my cassette needs to be cleaned - it's been 200 miles
since you last did that.

Well I am not sure what planet you are from but if I'm not mstaken it was President Bush who thought certain torture techniques was useful and the geneva convention doesn't apply to everyone. I do believe there was a certain believe that certain civil liberties could be taken away in the best interest of seurity. This sounds just a little too much like 1984?

And creating a large government called Homeland Security that is supposed to
protect everyone and watch everyone to keep them safe is not just a little reminscent of Soviet Russia?

I think people have some sort of short term memory loss.

Ray

04-01-2009, 01:24 PM

Well I am not sure what planet you are from but if I'm not mstaken it was President Bush who thought certain torture techniques was useful and the geneva convention doesn't apply to everyone. I do believe there was a certain believe that certain civil liberties could be taken away in the best interest of seurity. This sounds just a little too much like 1984?

And creating a large government called Homeland Security that is supposed to
protect everyone and watch everyone to keep them safe is not just a little reminscent of Soviet Russia?

I think people have some sort of short term memory loss.
I can say with almost total certainty that Louis was joking about the chip i the neck. Besides, they let off a very minor morphine drip - its AWESOME! :cool:

-Ray

TMB

04-01-2009, 01:27 PM

Multiple fiances can be very difficult to manage not to mention dangerous. :)

Only if you get caught ...... :)

SamIAm

04-01-2009, 01:27 PM

And creating a large government called Homeland Security that is supposed to
protect everyone and watch everyone to keep them safe is not just a little reminscent of Soviet Russia?

I think people have some sort of short term memory loss.

Let's hope Obama's track record on preventing domestic terrorist attacks is as good as Bush's post 9/11.

johnnymossville

04-01-2009, 01:37 PM

...And creating a large government called Homeland Security that is supposed to
protect everyone and watch everyone to keep them safe is not just a little reminscent of Soviet Russia?

I think people have some sort of short term memory loss.

The DHS is nothing compared to this little doozy,... gotta wonder who's protection this is for eh? LOL

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e194/xnodesign/CNS_Force.jpg

zap

04-01-2009, 01:50 PM

Think about the plus side for the workers though.

If the gov't is going to control their pay rates and essentially set them at civil service levels, then surely that must mean they will all qualify for fully indexed gov't guaranteed pensions for life ..........

Most federal government employees hired after 1983 do not get inflation adjusted pensions (FERS). The only portion that is adjusted for inflation is SS.

It is the CSRS retirement plan that is adjusted for inflation and only those hired before Dec. 31, 1982 are eligible. If they didn't switch to FERS

RPS

04-01-2009, 01:55 PM

No no, I asked at the counter. They said that all GM cars started running mysteriously better on Jan 20th, but not until noon. They got all kinds of calls from their renters worried they might have done something to mess up the cars. ...........It�s called OnStar � a back-seat version of Big Brother. The GM geeks can change the way the car drives at any time. :rolleyes:

I�m paranoid about erosion of personal privacy, so that in itself is enough to avoid buying GM again.

1centaur

04-01-2009, 06:07 PM

How is it free enterprise when the company is running on taxpayers' money? If you're running on government money, you're now a government employee. What a bunch of whiners! They just don't get it.
Jenn

Uh, no. There's a difference between a loan and ownership. That difference is a matter of negotiation. The government lent money specifically NOT to be an owner. If I lent a dollar to GM would GM employees be working for me (for the second it took to spend)? If the loan has strings, they should be pre-negotiated, they are not rights to be decided later.

Dictating compensation as a matter of public policy is both dumb and a slippery slope. Why not dictate compensation to those who do business with the government (hello doctors and everyone else forced to do such business)? How much is paid for work both creates and limits incentives. Incentives are what drives productivity and the growth of national wealth. Having people who clearly don't understand the importance or source of that growth set compensation at arbitrary or even carefully considered numbers is therefore dumb. Compensation is a constantly evolving system that does not take well to bureaucratic miasma.

Somebody today told me about a story that I hope was an April Fool's joke about a proposal capping sports star compensation at $1 million a year. He said, boy, the owners would love that, more money for them. But in the long run, how would the owners get that compensation? Can they pay it to themselves without punitive taxation? Would the quality of the product suffer (and ticket sales plummet) if the European NBA suddenly paid $2MM per year and Kobe/Lebron/Dwayne/Yao went to Italy?

As to the comment from the other poster about companies not making money stealing from creditors, again, not correct. Owners set wages, or in actual bankruptcy, not imagined bankruptcy, not emotional bankruptcy, the court sets wages. The rule of law is kind of a big deal. It helps overcome one man's/one town's/one party's emotional truth. Ownership, contracts, Chapter 11...they are what should, and traditionally have, prevailed in our country on compensation. Ironically, those legal straight jackets are what help support our freedom and thus our strength.

Elefantino

04-01-2009, 06:21 PM

BTW,

I suggest you call Ted Stevens and ask him what he thinks of our new president.

Louis
Dear former Sen. Stevens:

Do you miss the previous administration, whose Justice Department was so inept that it couldn't make a conviction stick, even to you?

Hmm, Ted? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVuqVW4rq-o&feature=player_embedded)

93legendti

04-01-2009, 06:36 PM

How is it free enterprise when the company is running on taxpayers' money? If you're running on government money, you're now a government employee. If you don't like that, go back to real free enterprise. These big cats run huge companies into the ground and then want to be bailed out but don't want to give up anything personally in return and don't want to change the way they do business. What a bunch of whiners! They just don't get it.

Jenn
How is it your home, when you are running it on a bank's money? If the bank decides retroactively to impose new conditions on you are you going to whine?

Tobias

04-01-2009, 09:58 PM

The rule of law is kind of a big deal. It helps overcome one man's/one town's/one party's emotional truth. Ownership, contracts, Chapter 11...they are what should, and traditionally have, prevailed in our country on compensation. Ironically, those legal straight jackets are what help support our freedom and thus our strength.Hate to sound like a broken record, but the slippery slope was starting any bailouts in the first place. How can anyone think that the government can get involved financing businesses like this and not end up with these kinds of problems? :confused:

Bankruptcy was the right answer from day one; albeit with government help to fund and back auto warranties.

Dekonick

04-01-2009, 10:49 PM

the government has no business being in business.

The free market will adjust (well - it would have...)

sometimes it hurts... but remember this -

the mess we are in is because of government meddling - freddie m and fannie m... sound familiar?

we are our own worst enemy.

bailing out crooks, companies that should fold, squandering what is going to cost our children dearly...

It is a sad state of affairs.

I, however, am doing my part - stimulating the economy with a new set of wheels. :beer:

BBB

04-02-2009, 02:17 AM

This is an interesting thread.

While a lot of anger is being directed towards your new administration, it might be worthwhile reflecting on exactly what caused the mess in the first place. It is a relevant question for all of us when a number of western countries are starring recession in the face.

To my way of thinking it was simply greed, for want of a better word, that has caused this mess. While it is easy to blame those in charge of big corporates or express dismay (see various politicians around the world at present), the rash action of a corporate merely reflects the rash behaviour of individuals in general. Thinking up a sub-prime like investment scheme and cashing in when the going is good is surely not a great deal removed from extending a loan facility to buy a bigger house and four wheel drive to boot. To my mind they are the flipside of the same coin.

Now the 'market' has corrected. Companies have or are going to the wall, tax payers are helping to fund solutions, be it through handouts to companies or hand outs to individuals, while an awful lot of people are facing the prospect of losing their job (or have already lost it).

Clearly some things need changing. To address the general dismay in this thread, maybe there is something wrong when CEOs or their ilk are receiving large amounts of money when companies are performing poorly. To my mind there is something wrong when someone is being paid 10, 20, 30, 100 times the average income. And to what end? They get judged by a few lines in a balance sheet or the companies' share price.

While the 'market' may set executive income, clearly, as things presently stand, the market is not a particularly reliable guide. Perhaps we need to re-orientate the primary goal in capitalist society of making more and more money. I have no beef in people being rewarded for effort, but where do we stop? Maybe Government's do have a role in this process. Maybe not an all pervasive role, but clearly some role.

Perhaps we need to perform a similar anaylsis as individuals. Do we really need more, more and more? While there are plenty of sensible and prudent people out there or there are plenty of people who are not seduced by the capitalist creed, it is, to my mind, the unescapable reality that we, as individuals, are the archietects of our own doom.

The challenge is now how to fix the mess we are in.

Ray

04-02-2009, 06:00 AM

As a result the progression is always from democracy to socialism to communism to dictatorship...Is this the "progression" that the left refers to when they renamed themselves from liberal to "progressive"?
Sorry to re-open this, but I just saw this post and have to ask whether its historically accurate? I don't believe it is, but I'm genuinely interested in the history and would love some examples.

My understanding is that almost all, if not all, of the countries that have tried full on marxism, were previously capitalist and saw those at the top (economically) gain more and more control of the government until those at the bottom (there was pretty much just a top and bottom in most such nations - no middle class to speak of) finally revolted. They usually went straight from hyper-capitalism (often molting into fascism) to revolution and directly into Marxism, where you had the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" syndrome and nothing got any better. Russia, Cuba, and Nicaragua all come to mind pretty quickly for following this model. Two of the three have since headed back toward free markets and the third seems to be starting that evolution now as well. China may fit as well although I'm not sure exactly how they functioned prior to Mao. I think it was pretty repressive, but I could be wrong. But they've clearly headed back towards free markets with a vengeance.

There are plenty of nominally Socialist countries in western Europe that pretty much follow the model you suggest from capitalism to voters creating more and more governmental controls until they are either socialistic or hover somewhere between capitalism and socialism. But I've never heard of one of these "progressing" (your word, not mine) to full on communism. If anything, they tend to periodically turn back more toward capitalism and go back and forth on some sort of socialism-capitalism continuum. Look at England before Thatcher, during Thatcher, and today, for example. Both France and Italy have elected fully socialist leaders, but both have gone back and forth, so they remain somewhere in that continuum.

I'm not arguing good or bad, right or wrong here. But I question whether your historical model has really happened and where? Can anyone else shed any light?

-Ray

Climb01742

04-02-2009, 06:07 AM

97CSI

04-02-2009, 06:15 AM

I would assume that $250,000 (or was that $150,000 by the end of the campaign...oh wait a minute...did the campaign end?) will become the NEW maximum salary for anyone ...Obama...Biden...Dodd...Pelosi...Frank...Geithne r...am I the only one who thinks that our government has been taken over by the sideshow of Ringling Brothers?....While I don't disagree about who is running our government, I am very much in support of limits on income. No one is worth the obscene amounts folks pay themselves through the cabals known as 'corporate boards' or through gaming the system. That money should either go to stock-holders (me and you), to improve the company and its competitiveness on the global playing field or to support our country (taxes) so that we do not have these horrible deficits the so-called 'fiscal conservatives' have given us since the day of ronnie raygun (small letters to match his small brain and the brains of those who think like him). Just because the clowns in congress (again, no cap for the obvious reason seen above) are paid off by the K-Street gang doesn't make it right.

93legendti

04-02-2009, 06:15 AM

This is an interesting thread.

While a lot of anger is being directed towards your new administration, it might be worthwhile reflecting on exactly what caused the mess in the first place. It is a relevant question for all of us when a number of western countries are starring recession in the face.

To my way of thinking it was simply greed, for want of a better word, that has caused this mess. While it is easy to blame those in charge of big corporates or express dismay (see various politicians around the world at present), the rash action of a corporate merely reflects the rash behaviour of individuals in general. Thinking up a sub-prime like investment scheme and cashing in when the going is good is surely not a great deal removed from extending a loan facility to buy a bigger house and four wheel drive to boot. To my mind they are the flipside of the same coin.

Now the 'market' has corrected. Companies have or are going to the wall, tax payers are helping to fund solutions, be it through handouts to companies or hand outs to individuals, while an awful lot of people are facing the prospect of losing their job (or have already lost it).

Clearly some things need changing. To address the general dismay in this thread, maybe there is something wrong when CEOs or their ilk are receiving large amounts of money when companies are performing poorly. To my mind there is something wrong when someone is being paid 10, 20, 30, 100 times the average income. And to what end? They get judged by a few lines in a balance sheet or the companies' share price.

While the 'market' may set executive income, clearly, as things presently stand, the market is not a particularly reliable guide. Perhaps we need to re-orientate the primary goal in capitalist society of making more and more money. I have no beef in people being rewarded for effort, but where do we stop? Maybe Government's do have a role in this process. Maybe not an all pervasive role, but clearly some role.

Perhaps we need to perform a similar anaylsis as individuals. Do we really need more, more and more? While there are plenty of sensible and prudent people out there or there are plenty of people who are not seduced by the capitalist creed, it is, to my mind, the unescapable reality that we, as individuals, are the archietects of our own doom.The challenge is now how to fix the mess we are in.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need!

sspielman

04-02-2009, 06:34 AM

Sorry to re-open this, but I just saw this post and have to ask whether its historically accurate? I don't believe it is, but I'm genuinely interested in the history and would love some examples.

My understanding is that almost all, if not all, of the countries that have tried full on marxism, were previously capitalist and saw those at the top (economically) gain more and more control of the government until those at the bottom (there was pretty much just a top and bottom in most such nations - no middle class to speak of) finally revolted. They usually went straight from hyper-capitalism (often molting into fascism) to revolution and directly into Marxism, where you had the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" syndrome and nothing got any better. Russia, Cuba, and Nicaragua all come to mind pretty quickly for following this model. Two of the three have since headed back toward free markets and the third seems to be starting that evolution now as well. China may fit as well although I'm not sure exactly how they functioned prior to Mao. I think it was pretty repressive, but I could be wrong. But they've clearly headed back towards free markets with a vengeance.

There are plenty of nominally Socialist countries in western Europe that pretty much follow the model you suggest from capitalism to voters creating more and more governmental controls until they are either socialistic or hover somewhere between capitalism and socialism. But I've never heard of one of these "progressing" (your word, not mine) to full on communism. If anything, they tend to periodically turn back more toward capitalism and go back and forth on some sort of socialism-capitalism continuum. Look at England before Thatcher, during Thatcher, and today, for example. Both France and Italy have elected fully socialist leaders, but both have gone back and forth, so they remain somewhere in that continuum.

I'm not arguing good or bad, right or wrong here. But I question whether your historical model has really happened and where? Can anyone else shed any light?

-Ray

Peru....Bolivia...Ecuador....Venezuela....

sspielman

04-02-2009, 06:41 AM

"-ism"s are almost always used by one side to pejoratively characterize (mischaracterize?) the other side's positions, policies and politicians. it's an intellectually lazy and inaccurate way to have a political discussion. its bias in the guise of ideas, anger in the guise of rhetoric. this is equally true whether it's coming from the left or the right.

...speaking of rhetoric....Nothing sends the left into apoplexy faster than to boil down their bloviating into a single accurate term....That is because they have an AGENDA to expand government involvement in every aspect of our lives. To accomplish that they need to obfuscate the truth and therefore blather on ad infinitum about their plans (ever heard Barney Frank?)..As for intellectual laziness, I will have to cede the point to the left. My goal is simplistic-I simply want the government out of my life to the extent that is provided for in the Constitution. Anyhow, the leftists MUST be smarter because they are always telling us that they know better about what is best for us... As for me, I would rather be ruled over by the first 100 people in the Boston phonebook than the entire faculty of Harvard....

Ray

04-02-2009, 06:43 AM

Peru....Bolivia...Ecuador....Venezuela....
Thanks - I don't know their histories as well as the ones I mentioned. I'll have to read up.

-Ray

sspielman

04-02-2009, 06:54 AM

Thanks - I don't know their histories as well as the ones I mentioned. I'll have to read up.

-Ray

The progression is general.....and never smooth....but it is a progression....Of course I do tend to discount the 'democracies" that are propped up...You know, the kind where a single person or a group of puppets run for a "free election"....

johnnymossville

04-02-2009, 07:15 AM

...I simply want the government out of my life to the extent that is provided for in the Constitution. Anyhow, the leftists MUST be smarter because they are always telling us that they know better about what is best for us... As for me, I would rather be ruled over by the first 100 people in the Boston phonebook than the entire faculty of Harvard....

now this is progressive. The party that uses that word today is anything but.

ti_boi

04-02-2009, 07:47 AM

now this is progressive. The party that uses that word today is anything but.
Laissez-faire is dead.

93legendti

04-02-2009, 07:50 AM

If the neo-liberals were honest, they would admit that socialism does little to help the poor. I have lived in 2 socialist countries and their poor are no different than ours - other than their opportunities for advancement/improvement are fewer. We have seen recent riots in France by the poor demanding work.
Attempting to "equalize" and make society more "fair" by punishing those who are successful and support the economy, is pure class warfare - driven by jealousy.

It is ironic that the same people who rant, rail and fume about "wasteful government spending" advocate higher taxes. Why? So the government can waste more?

Those who seek to help the poor out of 100% altruism, but do not see fit to donate themselves, should advocate government credits and subsidies to allow the poor to have access to the same things we do, without allowing standards to drop. Socialized medicine means mediocre medicine for all, with little incentive to invent/discover/improve. That's why the standard for angiograms in the USA is 90 minutes upon presenting and the national average is 63 minutes. On the other hand, our family friend sat in Windsor, Ontario, Canada's Hotel Dieu Hospital for FOUR (4) days waiting for an angiogram. When I and a board member prevailed upon the president of the Hospital to perform the test, they found a 90% blockage. Then, he had to take a 1 1/2 hr ambulance ride to London, Ontario. You see, in a town of 300,000 with 2 major hospitals, there are no heart surgeons. Luckily, the same hospital received its first MRI machine in 2007, courtesy of my parents' foundation. Hopefully, Hotel Dieu has enough bandages for cuts and scrapes. The good news is, everyone in Windsor, Ontario has health care. The bad news is, it SUCKS.

"...Coughlin said the move will include "hard-to-recruit" positions such as nuclear medicine technicians, MRI technicians and pharmacists. But the hospital will be sure not to wage-freeze itself out of the talent pool when it comes to recruitment, he said.

"It is a concern," said Coughlin. "That is why we have essentially said we will revisit the decision as far as they are concerned.

"Certainly in pharmacy, we have a very difficult situation trying to compete with the private sector in recruiting pharmacists. So we need to revisit that and certainly keep pace with the rest of the province as far as that small group is concerned."

...Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital has recruited a second physician to work in its angioplasty unit, meaning fewer patients will have to travel to London or Michigan for treatment.

The second interventional cardiologist should be here by the summer. Dr. Amr Morsi, currently Hotel-Dieu's only interventional cardiologist, said another pair of hands means the hospital can move from doing angioplasties three days a week to doing them every day."
http://www.windsorstar.com/Health/Hospital+freeze+union+salaries/1428937/story.html

Ray

04-02-2009, 08:04 AM

The progression is general.....and never smooth....but it is a progression....Of course I do tend to discount the 'democracies" that are propped up...You know, the kind where a single person or a group of puppets run for a "free election"....
I'll have to check it out. I discount those puppet democracies as well. I have to admit to an oversimplified understanding of much of South America - I tend to look at a lot of those countries as oligarchies without much middle class and without much of a democratic tradition. I know that Argentina has had a fairly robust middle class, and I'm sure a lot of other countries do as well, but I'm just less aware of them.

I think there's a key distinction here. There are relatively free market countries that are not politically democratic (small "D", not talking parties), Russia and China being the most obvious and significant examples and many that are (us, Israel, much of western Europe, Canada, perhaps parts of Latin America?). And there are obviously centrally controlled economies that are not democratic (much of the Arab world seems to fit this mold - USSR and China used to). But there are also nations with long democratic traditions that are more socialist, like much of Europe has at least flirted with, and some of Scandinavia seems to have gotten very comfortable with. I personally have less concern with democracies that flirt with socialism that still maintain their democratic political systems than ANY economic system that has centrally controlled politics. One would hope that as Russia and China become more free market, they'll become more democratic as well, but the story is far from told on that one. Russia, in particular, seems to have advanced economically and regressed politically in recent years.

That's where I guess my biggest question about the Latin American countries you point out. I have no problem with a pendulum that swings right and left, as long as the people continue to have a real say in those swings. That's worked in Europe and has worked here, despite the fears of the left during the last eight years and the fears of the right at this point. Did those countries you pointed out have real democratic traditions that just fell apart somewhere along the line? Or were they historically ruled from on high?

-Ray

Climb01742

04-02-2009, 08:22 AM

...speaking of rhetoric....Nothing sends the left into apoplexy faster than to boil down their bloviating into a single accurate term....That is because they have an AGENDA to expand government involvement in every aspect of our lives. To accomplish that they need to obfuscate the truth and therefore blather on ad infinitum about their plans (ever heard Barney Frank?)..As for intellectual laziness, I will have to cede the point to the left. My goal is simplistic-I simply want the government out of my life to the extent that is provided for in the Constitution. Anyhow, the leftists MUST be smarter because they are always telling us that they know better about what is best for us... As for me, I would rather be ruled over by the first 100 people in the Boston phonebook than the entire faculty of Harvard....

you missed my point. my critique of "ism"s isn't meant to stifle arguments or disagreements. it's meant to facilitate genuine debates. (nor was my point to defend liberalism or any "ism".) a careful reading of what i actually wrote is necessary to have a discussion -- unless all you want is an excuse to regurgitate your opinion.)

here is an example of what i mean: some on the left often fall back on a charge of racism against politicians on the right. not only is that lazy and often inaccurate (though racists might attach themselves to any political opinion) it obscures a deeper, and i would argue more fundamentally important, debate about why lower income voters vote republican even though many republican policies work (debateably, ok?) against the economic self-interest of lower income workers. so what is really a rational economic debate is obscured by a cheap, emotional charge of racism. most charges of "ism"s are meant to appeal to our fears. where if we really debated the underlying issues, we could use facts and our minds, not our hearts and our fears.

that is my issue with all "ism"s, both left and right.

today, using "socialism" as a brickbat against obama obscures what i think would be a more useful debate: what is the appropriate governmental response to a potential depression? we could actually argue based on historical facts: the responses of the u.s. and european governments between oct 1929 and jan 1933 to the world economy. that is perhaps the best, if not the only, accurate analogy for what we're now facing. but that debate would require reading, thought, analysis, subtle formulation of arguments and cases, and actually listening to competing intrepretation of historical data. but it's so much easier to throw around "socialism" to scare and obscure.

both sides do it. yet it serves no one. except politicians.

93legendti

04-02-2009, 08:27 AM

Without even mentioning the '80's response to a bad recession, we are not having an honest debate. Not once have I heard the President refer to the recession Pres. Reagan inherited and how he fixed it.

RPS

04-02-2009, 08:28 AM

"-ism"s are almost always used by one side to pejoratively characterize (mischaracterize?) the other side's positions, policies and politicians.Reminded me of a line from Miracle on 34th Street. ;)

When Alfred (or whatever his name was) was sweeping the floor and complaining about too much emphasis being placed on making a buck.

SamIAm

04-02-2009, 08:29 AM

Hate to sound like a broken record, but the slippery slope was starting any bailouts in the first place. How can anyone think that the government can get involved financing businesses like this and not end up with these kinds of problems? :confused:

Bankruptcy was the right answer from day one; albeit with government help to fund and back auto warranties.

Of course bankruptcy was the right answer, but I disagree that the government should be backing auto warranties. Maybe allow tax deductions for out of pocket warranty work, maybe. Should the government back all warranties not honored by companies that go bankrupt or just auto warranties? A warranty is as good as the company issuing it. That must be taken into consideration when the purchase is made. It is not the governments job to make sure no financial harm ever comes to its citizenry.

Climb01742

04-02-2009, 08:38 AM

given the ripple effect on employment that a bankruptcy of GM might have, i wonder if a key issue is this: letting GM go belly up when unemployment was at 4% is one thing. when unemployment is near 9% -- and in double digits in many places in the midwest -- is letting GM fail the same?

believe me, in my opinion, few companies, by their own actions, deserve to fail more than GM does. but could the economy as a whole weather the impact its failure would have on employment? instead of a policy or philosophical move, is keeping GM afloat really a cold-eyed, all be it distasteful, pragmatic move? just sayin'.

RPS

04-02-2009, 08:52 AM

China may fit as well although I'm not sure exactly how they functioned prior to Mao. I think it was pretty repressive, but I could be wrong. But they've clearly headed back towards free markets with a vengeance.Repressive, oppressive, suppressive, exploitive,��whatever you want to call it. The problem is that�s the way I view socialism (communism light � remember your own words? ;) ).

I�m confounded by why so many assume socialism does more good than harm to the working class; or the poor for that matter. It doesn�t. It brings everyone down, including the poor. About the only good thing about it is that everyone will be equally poor. Honestly; is that a better way to live, with your hopes and dreams limited by government? Would you be happier going hungry just because you know your neighbor is also hungry instead of eating a steak? Isn�t that what actually drives a lot of these revolutions?

Isn�t envy and jealousy what socialism really comes down to? Or are the poor so misguided that they think they will be better off when everyone goes �equally� hungry?

TMB

04-02-2009, 08:55 AM

. You see, in a town of 300,000 with 2 major hospitals, there are no heart surgeons.

In a very surprising piece of news we discover that doctors, having the freedom to choose where they want to live and work, do NOT want to live in Windsor.

This is hardly surprising.

No one in their right mind would want to live in Windsor, and the chances of getting anyone there now, are declining by the day.

RPS

04-02-2009, 09:02 AM

Of course bankruptcy was the right answer, but I disagree that the government should be backing auto warranties. Maybe allow tax deductions for out of pocket warranty work, maybe. Should the government back all warranties not honored by companies that go bankrupt or just auto warranties? A warranty is as good as the company issuing it. That must be taken into consideration when the purchase is made. It is not the governments job to make sure no financial harm ever comes to its citizenry.I agree on this, but without government assistance I see no way that GM could reorganize and continue operations � at least not in the US. So are you saying that the government should allow GM to close the doors, or do you think they would survive in another form � much smaller perhaps?

keno

04-02-2009, 09:14 AM

in the current crisis has been typically associated with Wall Street, mortgage originators, dishonest borrowers, and so on. One of the least focused on yet most important of greedy stinkers are the politicians themselves. Their greed, putting aside those who enjoyed industry favors, was to be seen as furthering the notion of the "American dream" - home ownership regardless of reality.

The numbers did not lie, as housing prices began soaring in the late nineties without regard to inflation or other circumstances to support it. Speculation, and not home ownership, was an important ingredient. Barney, the self-proclaimed brain, Frank as chairman of one of the most powerful committees in congress, finance, knew the numbers, yet chose to ignore them as did many other politicians. The reins could have been pulled in early in the bubble before it burst. When you have greedy, ego-oriented foxes guarding the chicken coop, nothing good will follow.

The biggest difference between the greedy ones on Wall Street and in DC is that the DC ones can deflect attention from themselves by holding hearings and villifying their Wall Street dopplegangers while the latter cannot.

By what delusion people think that those who have failed us in the past and were an important part of the problem will make us healthy I cannot comprehend, save the fact that they don't really understand how we got here.

The second hardest thing to do in DC is to create a government program and the hardest is to end one.

keno

goonster

04-02-2009, 09:23 AM

The reins could have been pulled in early in the bubble before it burst.

(snip)

The second hardest thing to do in DC is to create a government program and the hardest is to end one.

How will all those ended government programs pull in the reins?

What mechanism should curtail unbridled speculative bubbles in the future?

thejen12

04-02-2009, 10:01 AM

How is it your home, when you are running it on a bank's money? If the bank decides retroactively to impose new conditions on you are you going to whine?
No, it's more like I bought my home with a bank mortgage, but I'm pretty bad at managing money. I run up credit card debt and have no savings, but I get by. In fact, I recently got a new credit card and I've ordered a new Meivici. Suddenly the economy goes south and my hours are cut back at work. "I'm going to lose my house!", I cry.

So my dad says, "Don't worry, Kitten, I'll loan you a big pile of money until you get back on your feet".

"Thanks, Dad!" Then my snotty sister tells my dad I have an expensive bike on order.

"Young lady, you cancel that order right now! That was not what I expected you were doing with your money, when I agreed to tide you over!", says Dad.

Now I do which of the following:
a) Cancel the order
b) Can't cancel the order, so I put the bike up for sale in the classifieds as soon as I get it
c) Tell my Dad "tough luck, you should have stipulated that before you loaned me the money" and keep the bike and ride it to my heart's content.

Jenn

Disclaimer: My dad does not call me "Kitten" ;)

Ray

04-02-2009, 10:05 AM

Repressive, oppressive, suppressive, exploitive,��whatever you want to call it. The problem is that�s the way I view socialism (communism light � remember your own words? ;) ).
I'm not going to get into arguing the merits of liberalism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, whatever. We've all been through it and we know where we stand. I'm merely saying that as long as its a democratic process and the voters of a country are choosing for themselves, I'm not nearly as bothered by policies that I hate (or that you hate) as I am when there's no democracy.

During the last eight years, many on the left feared that we were heading in a dangerous direction that we could never reverse. Well, we reversed it to some degree. Now, many on the right are concerned that we're heading in a dangerous direction that we can never reverse (I've seen the opinion expressed here more than a few times). My guess is that we can reverse it and someday will. Its happened often enough before.

To me, that's the bottom line. Although I have strong opinions and you have strong opinions, I'm less concerned with which one of us has society moving in our more favored direction than in whether the society has the ability to continue to change, adjust, etc, based on the will of the people, as imperfect and crude as that will may sometimes seem to be.

To me, there's a big difference between places like Sweeden or Norway, whose people choose to put certain functions of the economy in the hands of the government and a place like Cuba, where the people don't have a say.

-Ray

93legendti

04-02-2009, 11:11 AM

In a very surprising piece of news we discover that doctors, having the freedom to choose where they want to live and work, do NOT want to live in Windsor.

This is hardly surprising.

No one in their right mind would want to live in Windsor, and the chances of getting anyone there now, are declining by the day.
Really? All those people living in Windsor are crazy? Wow. Neo-liberalism, what a religion.

fiamme red

04-02-2009, 11:19 AM

Really? All those people living in Windsor are crazy? Wow. Neo-liberalism, what a religion.What's neo-liberalism? :confused:

93legendti

04-02-2009, 11:39 AM

What's neo-liberalism? :confused:
You're looking at it.

It's when Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are in charge. It looks nothing like any other version of liberalism the USA has ever known.

It is where:
The Gov't apologizes to Mexico;
the Gov't begs Iran to talk to us;
the Gov't changes the "War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Operation";
the Gov't considers changing to a international currency and letting the US dollar die; borrowing trillions to spend trillions in order to cure a problem caused by spending;
bills are passed without reading them - let alone debating them;
the "rich" are evil;
wealth is spread around;
punitive taxes are enacted retroactively;
checks mailed to those who do not pay federal taxes are called "tax cuts";
our African-American AG, nominated by our African-American Pres., tells US that WE are cowards when it comes to race;
a lying, tax cheat is considered the right person to lead the US Treasury and collect taxes;
the Gov't tells the U.K. it is no longer our closest ally - they are now one of our closest allies;
a spending bill, with 85% of the spending taking place in 2010, 2011 and 2012, is NECESSARY NOW to get us out of the recession. Worse, it is called a "stimulus";
the Gov't uses reconciliation to ram thru major policy changes without minority party input - and still the Gov't talks about post-partisanship and transparency;
the Gov't passes bills creating more deficit than THE TOTAL OF EVERY OTHER ADMINISTRATION IN OUR HISTORY -and the next day talks about fiscal responsibility;
where the tools of persuasion are" I won, you lost" and "Pres. Bush had a big deficit, what's the big deal?";
the gov't decides what salaries will be;
the gov't runs car companies.

Presidents Kennedy, Truman, and Clinton did not act this way.

Tobias

04-02-2009, 11:44 AM

I'm not going to get into arguing the merits of liberalism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, whatever. We've all been through it and we know where we stand. I'm merely saying that as long as its a democratic process and the voters of a country are choosing for themselves, I'm not nearly as bothered by policies that I hate (or that you hate) as I am when there's no democracy.As someone pointed out earlier, we don't live in a real Democracy. That's what has made us great thus far.

The majority can't decide to do whatever it wants just because of numbers, right? There is always going to be abuses like many under Bush which I absolutely hated -- even little things like homeland security making me take my freaking shoes off at an airport. :crap:

However, when I'm forced to feed, house, and educate someone else's kid because they decided to have 14 of them and now they can't afford to do it themselves it becomes a different problem. If I decide not to have kids so I can buy cool toys that's my decision, and doesn't entitle the majority to force me to pay college tuition for some moron's herd.

Kirk007

04-02-2009, 12:55 PM

What's neo-liberalism? :confused:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

see also Obama vs. Marx, Alan Wolfe, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, April 01, 2009, www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=e050da85-7d49-46da-80fc-d9168c0faec7

mschol17

04-02-2009, 01:21 PM

the Gov't considers changing to a international currency and letting the US dollar die;

Come on. You need to stop watching Glen Beck and listening to the paranoid ravings of Rep. Michelle Bachman.

International RESERVE currency. RESERVE. No one is taking the dollar away.

Pete Serotta

04-02-2009, 01:23 PM

Things must be good and all the problems behind us....Market is up once again.

See the bad times are over!! :banana: :banana:

SamIAm

04-02-2009, 01:49 PM

Pete Serotta

04-02-2009, 01:51 PM

What goods or service would you ever want to buy from them vs. the private sector?

only US dollars :D

sspielman

04-02-2009, 01:53 PM

I, for one, would feel so much better if the government took a prolonged break from trying to "fix" things. Regardless of intentions, good or bad, the government sucks at basically everything it does outside of national defense and maybe the post office. They are not just bad. They are very, very bad and the scary part is they don't know it. What goods or service would you ever want to buy from them vs. the private sector?

...now that they are in the car/warranty business, it is going to give new meaning to the phrase "close enough for government work"....

Kirk007

04-02-2009, 02:01 PM

Regardless of intentions, good or bad, the government sucks at basically everything it does outside of national defense and maybe the post office. They are not just bad. They are very, very bad and the scary part is they don't know it. What goods or service would you ever want to buy from them vs. the private sector?

Well, while not traditionally thought of in terms of goods and services, I would like governments to exercise their obligation to protect the commons - the very fundamental building blocks upon which life is built - clean air, water and soil, biological diversity, functioning environments that can support all the life that is necessary for human life to exist, without which all this hew and cry about forms of government is irrelevant.

Business has proven completely incapable of performing this function and will not absent suitable motivation, which in my experience (16 years representing businesses on environmental compliance matters) is and will continue to be only government regulation. Absent a huge fundamental shift in how we do things it will remain cheaper to externalize the costs of environmental protection.

The government does a pretty sucky job of this at times (like the last 8 years); other times it does it better - not perfect but better. Our water and air is generally cleaner than it was in the 70s, even though we have abjectly failed to meet the goals of the clean air act and clean water act as written and intended by Congress.

ti_boi

04-02-2009, 03:05 PM

Come on. You need to stop watching Glen Beck and listening to the paranoid ravings of Rep. Michelle Bachman.

International RESERVE currency. RESERVE. No one is taking the dollar away.

Let's just be grateful that B.S. is now the 'minority' position. :beer:

RPS

04-02-2009, 04:02 PM

Things must be good and all the problems behind us....Market is up once again.

See the bad times are over!! :banana: :banana:Or could it just be a bunch of guys covering their shorts?

Either way I guess it's better than bad news. :beer:

Louis

04-02-2009, 04:18 PM

Presidents Kennedy, Truman, and Clinton did not act this way.

Things must be pretty bad, if you're waxing nostalgic for Slick Willie :banana:

97CSI

04-02-2009, 04:34 PM

I, for one, would feel so much better if the government took a prolonged break from trying to "fix" things. Regardless of intentions, good or bad, the government sucks at basically everything it does outside of national defense and maybe the post office. They are not just bad. They are very, very bad and the scary part is they don't know it. What goods or service would you ever want to buy from them vs. the private sector?You are not paying attention to the latest on the PO. After paying out $millions in bonuses to those at the top (why?) it is again cutting services and raising prices. There are certain basic government services that should not be expected to pay for themselves. The P.O. is one of them.

mschol17

04-02-2009, 04:42 PM

I, for one, would feel so much better if the government took a prolonged break from trying to "fix" things. Regardless of intentions, good or bad, the government sucks at basically everything it does outside of national defense and maybe the post office. They are not just bad. They are very, very bad and the scary part is they don't know it. What goods or service would you ever want to buy from them vs. the private sector?

I think the government's funding of basic science research is something it does a lot better than the private sector.

Ray

04-02-2009, 05:42 PM

I think the government's funding of basic science research is something it does a lot better than the private sector.
Lets let the private sector fund and plan and build all of the roads and bridges and transit services and manage air traffic for a while. That'll go well. Not to mention police, fire protection, emergency response/coordination, public parks. And we should REALLY let the private sector regulate itself because they've shown what a GREAT job they do at that.

Businesspeople always think the government sucks because the government operates under a completely different bottom line than business. The government is not a business and would suck at trying to be a business. Business would suck at trying to govern. They're not the same thing. They're not SUPPOSED to be.

-Ray

93legendti

04-02-2009, 05:45 PM

Come on. You need to stop watching Glen Beck and listening to the paranoid ravings of Rep. Michelle Bachman.

International RESERVE currency. RESERVE. No one is taking the dollar away.
I don't listen to either one of those 2. I did hear Turbo Tax Tim Geitner say it. You should listen to the lying, tax cheat.

93legendti

04-02-2009, 05:47 PM

Things must be pretty bad, if you're waxing nostalgic for Slick Willie :banana:
I'll say it: I miss Pres. Clinton. No lie.

ti_boi

04-02-2009, 06:10 PM

I'll say it: I miss Pres. Clinton. No lie.

For those of us who lived through the Dot Com bubble...this is nothing new.

The difference is that 'this time' it affect far more people.

SamIAm

04-02-2009, 06:22 PM

Lets let the private sector fund and plan and build all of the roads and bridges and transit services and manage air traffic for a while. That'll go well. Not to mention police, fire protection, emergency response/coordination, public parks. And we should REALLY let the private sector regulate itself because they've shown what a GREAT job they do at that.

Businesspeople always think the government sucks because the government operates under a completely different bottom line than business. The government is not a business and would suck at trying to be a business. Business would suck at trying to govern. They're not the same thing. They're not SUPPOSED to be.

-Ray

Ray, you just have drunk the Kool-aid. There is no hope to cure your love of big government. Give private sector the capital the government uses to provide those services. They will crush it.

Ray

04-02-2009, 07:27 PM

Ray, you just have drunk the Kool-aid. There is no hope to cure your love of big government. Give private sector the capital the government uses to provide those services. They will crush it.
Nicely dismissive, thanks. You really think the private sector can deal effectively with all of the competing interests trying to get their way from the government? When the competition for highway and transit dollars gets intense and you have to balance the requests coming from all over the place combined with the technical basis for where things are needed and the pet projects of key politicians who's support you need for some other key task, put together a full package that balances all of those competing influences - you really think that's a job for a business? Should we just give it to the lowest bidder? Who bids the job. What happens when a different firm comes in lower next year and all of the continuity and knowledge of the deals cut last year are gone and you're starting from scratch?

All due respect, business can do specific jobs MUCH more efficiently than government. But government is not fundamentally a financial bottom line undertaking. Yeah, building a particular section of highway or designing a park or building buses and trains are, and that's why those kinds of jobs are bid out to private business - because they can crush 'em. But managing and balancing the competing interests that go into almost EVERY decision that government makes, and dealing with both the politicians and the public and trying to meet their needs is not something that I believe businesses can do very well. Because bottom line efficiency is just one input - there are zillions of other that are sometimes more important and have to always be accounted for and balanced.

I've worked in both the private sector and the public sector. I've seen good businesses and bad, good government and bad. But they're fundamentally different undertakings and they're not interchangeable.

There are lots of flavors of Kool-Aid for each to enjoy!

-Ray

Climb01742

04-02-2009, 07:27 PM

Ray, you just have drunk the Kool-aid. There is no hope to cure your love of big government. Give private sector the capital the government uses to provide those services. They will crush it.

like AIG crushed it? like GM crushed it? like citibank is crushing it? like bernie madoff crushed it? while i agree that in the overwhelming % of instances private beats gov't, we need to be fair. private fails too, cheats too, embezzles too, miscalculates too, practices crony capitalism too. the odds favor private but no one is infallible.

Big Dan

04-02-2009, 07:42 PM

There's no ideology. Cash is all that matters.

Louis

04-02-2009, 08:09 PM

This is getting so old. How many times are you guys going to rehash the same old argument? If at least the discussion were making some sort of headway, but it's the same stuff time and again.

For all the complaining, I have yet to hear what someone's going to do about it. Whine, whine, whine. Form a new political party, go picket the White House or Congress, please do something. Cry, cry, cry. Somehow I don't think that's going to advance your cause a whole lot.

At the very least perhaps we (you?) should get some new material for our political OT threads.

Louis

Elefantino

04-02-2009, 08:10 PM

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU...WILL...ATONE!

Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those *are* the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that . . . perfect world . . . in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of.

That pretty much sums it up.

Onno

04-02-2009, 08:33 PM

ti_boi

04-03-2009, 12:03 AM

Old and tired....unless you understand the fact that what is happening now is only beginning.

Louis

04-03-2009, 12:32 AM

what is happening now is only beginning.

Given all the calls we've heard lately of "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING" and "WOLF, WOLF, WOLF" I'm just surprised that there are any stars or sheep left.

My suggestion: save your energy for later. If it's as bad as you fear you're really going to need it.

Also, I heard on the radio (AM, of course) that they're about to ban all sales of ammo throughout the country, so you might want to stock up. ;)

BBB

04-03-2009, 12:43 AM

:)

Chapter One, Bombardiers

1. Filth

It was a filthy profession, but the money was addicting, and one addiction led to another, and they were all going to hell. Turner had gone to hell, and Mike McCafferey had gone to hell. Wes "Green Thumb" Griffin developed a wandering eye, while Antonia Zennario, who used to joke that "all investors are made from Adam's rib," lost her sense of humor, and then her smile, and then her job. Carol Manning miscarried. Coyote Jack began to stutter on his numbers and was moved into management. They had all gone to hell. Sid Geeder hated them all and missed them like crazy. The phone rang constantly and everyone suffered cauliflower ears, neck rashes, and cervical pain, and when the sun came up in the morning and they had already been at their desk two, three hours, they went to the 41st floor window and imagined what it would be like to have to ride a bus or find a parking place. The squawk-box cackled as traders in London and New York and Chicago bid up the long bond, then it quieted as the dust cleared and they settled in to wait for retail to continue the rally. Green monochrome monitors tinted everyone's face a pasty color, and Lisa Lisa reached for her pancake of low-lustre, firming-action moisture cream. Sidney Geeder drank some coffee. Nickel Sansome massaged his scalp. Sue Marino flipped through a bridal magazine.

When the sun didn't come up and instead their tower was socked in by clouds and fog, the other world existed even less than usual; they could not see the streets below, or most of the shorter buildings, and they were one of the few spaceships in the sky. The next attack could come from anywhere. The economic forecasts were useless. The fundamentals were ignored. The Federal Reserve was unpredictable. Money supply meant nothing in a global market. The Yanks followed the lead of the Japs, and the Japs followed the Krauts, and the Krauts followed the Yanks. They waited for instructions from the top, but their standing instructions were to sell first and not wait for instructions. Nobody knew where the market was going, but those that knew less than others lost their shirts and had their eyes ripped out and were made to swallow. In the mornings, there was always a chance to make it back. Later, the government would bail them out. But this wasn't later; they got glasses with higher prescriptions and gained weight and rode yellow cabs to work and the market was always the same. This unmerciful uniformity of their days was always something to joke about. They also joked about Coyote Jack's management wardrobe, especially his leather suspenders and corporate initialed cufflinks. And Nelson Dicky's teeth, which were rotting. And the corporation's name, which was mud on the street after the Euro-Floaters deal and had to be changed to revive the firm's image. And Lisa Lisa's testicles, which were made of steel and clanged when she sold the flip from mortgages to high-yield corporates. They joked about these things and they wondered what it would be like not to have a paycheck and though it wasn't easy, they all survived. Then there were things that were not so easy to joke about, such as when Sid Geeder nearly killed himself from drinking coffee. And when Eggs Igino vanished. Or during the Euro-Floaters deal when that kid, Turner, fell asleep and couldn't wake up. They never left their trenches and they did as they were told; they didn't do anything except go to work eleven hours a day, five days a week for a few years of their lives. They gave 110% in service to the firm. In the end, only one of them would be left standing, and everything would be different except the market, which was normal, because it was normal to rub out everything human and leave only the cockroaches and those made of steel. Sid Geeder looked around him at who was left from the old days. Paul DeShews was still there, tipped back in his chair like an astronaut. Clark Kalinov was still there, eating his breakfast and reading the paper as if nothing had happened. Cockroaches, all of them. Sid Geeder slurped his coffee. Nine more months and then he could cash out his company shares and leave here with his head high. He called a customer and sold him $6 million Dai Nippon Floating Rate Notes, which usually would have made Sid feel better. But all his friends were gone, even the ones he hated, and in their place was fresh young meat that believed this would be the last job they ever needed.

Sid's stomach soured and his back stiffened and he began to worry that he was going to develop an ear infection from all the germs that breeded unrestrained in the receiver of his phone.

"Do you see anything in there?" he asked Lisa Lisa, having unscrewed the receiver cap, exposing the resonator drum.

"I don't see anything," she answered, scrutinizing the cap. She poked the end of a paper clip through the holes in the hard plastic.

"I'm thinking of microwaving it," he commented. "Kill `em off."

"Would that do anything?"

"It couldn't hurt."

Lisa Lisa unplugged her handset from the long cord that ran down under her desk. "Let's go," she whispered. They walked across the sales floor nonchalantly, holding their phone handsets down at thigh level, below the height of the desks. The kitchen was empty. They set the microwave on high, timed for five minutes.

"What do you think?" Sid asked, leaning up against the counter.

"Hard to say."

"You want some coffee?"

Lisa Lisa retrieved two mugs from a cupboard and poured in coffee and milk. They sipped at it slowly.

"Yup," Sid said, drumming his fingers on the countertop. "I have a good feeling about this."

"You think?"

Sid nodded. "Could be the start of a trend." He grinned broadly. "If so, I'll let you take half the credit."

They indeed had started a trend. When the word got around the floor that all the microbes festering in their phone receivers could possibly be eradicated by just five minutes in the microwave, a line formed at the entrance of the kitchen. Out on the sales floor, phone lines rang unanswered as the salesforce stared sullenly at the opened machinery of their handsets. In the kitchen, scuffles broke out as salesmen argued whether putting more phones in the microwave required a commensurate increase in cooking time. Then John White came storming out on the trading floor and asked Sid Geeder into his office and told everyone else to go back to work. This is it, Sid Geeder thought to himself as John White's secretary poured him a fresh cup of coffee. Now I'm gone too.

"Jesus ????ing Christ, Geeder," John White said. "What's all this about you nuking your goddam phones?"

"I don't know anything about it," Sid mused delightedly.

"Don't lie to me. This caper has got your name all over it. Who else is so paranoid that they'd worry about germs in a place as clean as this?"

Sid fumbled with a button on his cuff. "I heard about it from Lisa Lisa," he admitted.

"Yeah? Well she says she heard about it from you."

Sid shrugged and looked down.

John White blew out a deep breath. He shook his head despondently. "If you weren't so goddamed important to this firm, I'd fire you in a second."

"You can't fire me," Sid said. "You need me."

"You're dammed right we need you. Look, we've got another big Resolution Trust deal coming down the pipes. The firm's really gone out on a limb on this one, and we're going to need your early support. We can't have you creating diversions like this microbe scare."

"Another Resolution Trust!" Sid balked. "We just did a big deal for them nine months ago. Have they run out of that money already?"

John White leaned back and shook his head in exaggerated disbelief. "That's exactly the sort of monkey business I'm talking about, Geeder. I just mention the deal and already you're criticizing. We need team players on this one."

"Uh oh. Red alert. Every time you ask me to be a team player it means you're about to announce some major ????ing bull**** that you expect me to swallow."

To calm down, John White took a deep, slow inhale through his nose, which he'd heard took the oxygen right into the brain. Sid Geeder always came through in the clutch, but in the month or so between when a deal was announced and when it finally came down, Sid was predictably disruptive. "Look, Sid, we're just asking you not to jump to any conclusions. Try the deal on for size for a while."

"Oh, don't worry about me," Sid said. "I don't have an opinion about the Resolution Trust Corp., despite the fact that last $40 billion--which was supposed to last a couple years, if my memory serves me--appears to have been squandered in just nine months. Boy, those guys at the RTC could teach the pentagon a lesson. If the pentagon could build a two-year rocket in just nine months, then they wouldn't be in such hot water all the time."

John White just rubbed his jaw and tried to wait out Sid's rage. "You just be careful what you say out on the floor or to your accounts. And no sneak attacks, either. No sly asides. If something like this microbe scare or that sweatshirt fiasco happens, you're out on your butt."

"What makes you think I was behind that sweatshirt fiasco?" When the firm's name became mud on the street after the Euro-Floaters deal soured, Sid Geeder had called the decal company that printed corporate mugs, calendars, and ashtrays. Sid ordered two dozen extra large sweatshirts in corporate blue color with the firm's recognizable logo of a schooner ship at full sail emblazened on the front. Above the logo, in the typestyle normally reserved for "First Boston", was silkscreened "Mud on the Street." The sweatshirts were sent anonymously via Inter-Department Mail to senior management.

"We know more than you think," John White said. "A lot of people wanted you fired. I had to save your ass."

"The only thing that saved my ass was the realization that I make this firm a hell of a lot of money." Sid was quiet for a moment. "Maybe I'm going to quit," he mumbled, suddenly seeling sorry for himself.

"You won't quit. You've got nine more months and then you're cashing out your corporate shares and we all know it."

"That didn't make a difference to Wes Griffin."

John White shook his head remorsefully. "I should have fired you a long time ago, Geeder. We can't let people become invaluable to us."

"That's crazy," Sid said.

"It's not crazy. It's management."

Sid Geeder looked out John White's 41st floor window. There was nothing but fog and they were the only spaceship in the sky. There was no way to tell they were in San Francisco--they could be flying over Tokyo or London or Bonn and they wouldn't even know, they were so tuned in to the market. It didn't even matter that they were the Atlantic Pacific Corporation now, they just went right on flying. But the firm was nothing without its trimmings. Sid knew that if you took away the marbled elevators and the mahogany-panelled entranceway and the low-static corporate-blue carpet and the historically-correct, proportional-to-scale toy schooners that were the new company logo, the firm would look like any other retail chop house on the street. If you took away the custom-designed mahogany trading pits and the global clocks and the LCD ticker tape running across one wall, it could be any other cost-center of any other big downtown business, such as a phone company or an insurance carrier. And if you took away the downtown view and knocked $300 off everyone's suits and put a parking lot outside, it could be any back office support in Stockton or Sacramento. The jobs weren't much different. The salespeople answered the phone and sent faxes off and stared at their computer monitors and had meetings in the mornings over cream-cheese danishes where they wondered under their breath if there would ever come a time when they didn't have to work so hard.

Therefore Clark Kalinov, the office manager, had a great responsibility. His responsibility was to rebuild the corporate image as the finest selling machine on the planet. His first step in this objective was to secure himself a window office. Clark was a translucent-faced know-it-all with blunt hair like a beaver, and nobody respected him because he hung out in his flourescent-lit cubicle off the copy room. So Clark requisitioned two hundred reams of stationery, six cases copier toner, seven thousand corporate-blue ball point pens, a cutting board, a second fax machine, a Z3200 Pitney Bowes mail machine, and one thousand Interdepartment Mail reusable envelopes. Then he wrote out lengthy complaints to the Facilities department in New York that they were so packed into their office that copier toner and stationery were piling up in the hallways.

"This place is a mess," Sid Geeder said, trying to squeeze past the overstocked supplies to use the fax machine.

"Call New York and complain," Clark answered.

Sidney Geeder stood over the two fax machines, one of which was busy receiving a very long document and one of which was busy sending a very thick prospectus. He looked at his watch. "Do you think this fax going through is very important?" he asked.

"Extremely important," Clark answered.

Sidney rifled through the prospectus pages looking for a cover letter to see who was sending such a long document, but there was no cover letter. Then he rifled through the incoming pages to look for a cover letter to know how many more pages were coming, but there was no cover letter there either.

"Hey," Sidney Geeder said. "Some idiot accidentally sent this prospectus to our second fax machine."

"It's not an accident," Clark said, not bothering to look up from the office supply catalog he was leafing through.

"Are you testing the new machine?"

"I'm trying to wear it out."

"Why?"

"So I can order a new one."

Sidney Geeder didn't get it, but he was long accustomed to the asinine antics of Kalinov's bureaucracy. But accepting that his fax wouldn't get through was nearly impossible. "If you order a new one, it'll be even more crowded around here. There'll be no space to put anything."

"Exactly!" Clark said, finally looking up from his catalog.

"The phone line has probably been busy for an hour," Sidney reasoned. "What if someone in New York is trying to fax us something important?"

Clark leaned back in his chair and rested his feet on the desktop. "What if they are?"

"They'll think we don't have enough fax machines, that's what," he said with great exasperation.

"Exactly! Now you're getting it."

But Sidney wasn't getting it at all. When he got angy, his back began to stiffen, and when his back stiffened he couldn't think straight. "I can't work without a fax machine," he mumbled.

"Exactly!" Clark laughed. "That's why I'm getting us a third one."

They needed a larger space. After all, the fundamentals for growth were good, despite all the firm had gone through. This was an information economy, and they were in the information business. They sold predictions for the direction of money, and they sold financial instruments designed to take advantage of that direction. There would always be money, and as long as there were markets, money would always have a direction, and a speed, and an acceleration, all of which could be sold. And as long as Atlantic Pacific was selling money, it would burn through stationery and fax machines and employees at an alarming rate, all of which would need wise management. Some of the systems Atlantic Pacific had established to handle the volume of business would break down, such as its self-insured health system or its Interdepartment Mail system. So sure was Clark Kalinov that the Interdepartment Mail system would break down that he set out to prove it to Facilities in New York. All mail was supposed to get anywhere in the world in two days. Every afternoon Clark ordered prospectus and trading reports and closing prices from research departments in New York for each of the salespersons, and every two days later twelve canvas sacks of Intermail were delivered to the copy room for sorting. Ricky, the simple-minded doughboy of a mail clerk who previously spent most of his afternoons snacking on Fritos he had stolen from the vending machine in the kitchen, now found himself struggling to enforce corporate policy of 2-day Intermail. When he got tired he suffered more paper cuts, which stung horribly and didn't stop bleeding and hurt even worse when the salt from the Fritos rubbed into the wounds. Eventually, Ricky strained the sacro-iliac joint in his butt when he tried throwing a canvas sack of Intermail across the room at Clark. Then the self-insured health system broke down too, because sacro-iliac stress is difficult to relieve, particularly in the overweight. Intermail took three or four days to reach the salespersons desks, and by that time it was out of date and entirely worthless.

When the entire 42nd floor upstairs was vacated by an insurance company that moved to Stockton, Clark Kalinov's requests were finally granted. The firm decided that the vast, ethereal, lofty 42nd floor would be a whole lot more impressive than the squat, cramped, tarnished 41st floor. Clark ordered more mahogany entranceway panelling, 14,000 square feet low-static corporate-blue carpeting, and brass railings for the ramps down to the sales floor, which had 40 mahogany-laid, 4-foot-high cubicle/desks organized into platoons for the Mortgages, Money Markets, Municipals and Equities Departments. Clark had his own office with his own squawk-box and his own computer monitors and his own incandescent, rose-tinted lighting system and his own window, which had a 42-story view of the wall of fog that surrounded the building. Then, because the walls of the sales floor looked barren, he ordered eight identical clocks showing the time in the Atlantic Pacific offices around the world and a twenty-foot long LCD ticker tape that rushed stock quotes by at a manic pace only manic salesmen could read. Coyote Jack, the sales manager, had his own fishbowl office looking out over the sales floor. Managing Director John White, who split his time between their office and New York, had an even bigger window office with two couches and a coffee table. It was horribly expensive but not a single person complained because life on the 42nd floor was the luxury they had always felt entitled to. The doors were wired with a magnetic card-key security system. The kitchen had a microwave, a vending machine full of candy bars, and a refrigerator. The briefing room, where they gathered in the mornings to hear about new bond issues, had a televideo screen that visually connected them to a similar conference room in midtown Manhattan. The only remaining resemblance to the insurance company that moved to Stockton was the employees, who spent their days faxing and calling and wondering if the future would be any different.

"Will there ever be a time I don't have to work so hard?" Sid Geeder wondered under his breath as he ate around the cream cheese center of his danish and listened to someone in New York describe the sales mission for the new Resolution Trust Corp finance package. On the conference table in New York were danishes with strawberry jam centers, and Sid Geeder kept wanting to reach into the video screen and grab one. He hated cream cheese, especially the yellowy half-melted type in two-day-old danishes; they reminded him of sales mission briefings, which reminded him of having to sell whatever they'd been briefed on, which reminded Sid of how hard he'd had to work to meet his quota....

ti_boi

04-03-2009, 12:49 AM

Given all the calls we've heard lately of "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING" and "WOLF, WOLF, WOLF" I'm just surprised that there are any stars or sheep left.

My suggestion: save your energy for later. If it's as bad as you fear you're really going to need it.

Also, I heard on the radio (AM, of course) that they're about to ban all sales of ammo throughout the country, so you might want to stock up. ;)

I am glad you added the wink. Somewhere someone is paying the ultimate tab right now as the theater plays on.

Dekonick

04-03-2009, 01:16 AM

Lets let the private sector fund and plan and build all of the roads and bridges and transit services and manage air traffic for a while. That'll go well. Not to mention police, fire protection, emergency response/coordination, public parks. And we should REALLY let the private sector regulate itself because they've shown what a GREAT job they do at that.

Businesspeople always think the government sucks because the government operates under a completely different bottom line than business. The government is not a business and would suck at trying to be a business. Business would suck at trying to govern. They're not the same thing. They're not SUPPOSED to be.

-Ray

Ahhh - well put. The govt doesn't have the same concern for the bottom line. (they should but don't)

***
on another note...
Carl Sagan was right - we will destroy ourselves.

ti_boi

04-03-2009, 02:09 AM

The angel continued, "Never again in you, Babylon, will be heard the song of harpists and minstrels, the music of flute and trumpet; never again will craftsmen of every skill be found or the sound of the mill be heard; never again will shine the light of the lamp, never again will be heard the voices of bridegroom and bride. Your traders were the princes of the earth, all the nations were under your spell."

Who are these traders who rose to become the princes of the earth, captivating the world under the spell of Babylon's siren call? We know them by the empires of their wealth: railroads; shipyards; oil fields; munitions; new

Ray

04-03-2009, 05:23 AM

Ahhh - well put. The govt doesn't have the same concern for the bottom line. (they should but don't)

Governments have budgets that they have to live within (except the Feds, which can run deficits, but most state and local budgets have to be balanced annually), so the bottom line is always there and is met. But their goal is not to MAKE money or turn a profit, its to govern, to make policy and law that reconciles competing interests and demands, to provide infrastructure and emergency services, etc, etc, etc. From my experience, there's PLENTY of attention to the bottom line, but its seen as a constraint that has to be lived within, not as the focus of the operation. Which I believe is how it SHOULD treat it. Businesses shouldn't and can't - governments can and should. A huge difference in tasks, goals, and approach.

-Ray

93legendti

04-03-2009, 06:20 AM

I am glad you added the wink. Somewhere someone is paying the ultimate tab right now as the theater plays on.

Winks are good.

Our next "big issue" if there are not enough is going to be currency....

Sovereign defaults occur when currencies implode.

History tells us that this leads to civic unrest and eventually revolution.

The great race to devaluation/debasement has begun --

SamIAm

04-03-2009, 06:49 AM

keno

04-03-2009, 06:50 AM

Ray

04-03-2009, 07:07 AM

So as long as the government appropriates 500MM for a bridge that private sector could construct for 300MM and stays within that bloated budget, you view this as success. Interesting. I view it as failure.
Sam, I fully agree with you on issues like that and, no, I don't see that as a success. Without a profit motive, there's less incentive for efficiency than there ought to be. That's where business is clearly better. I'm not sure of the way out of it - those jobs are DONE by private businesses who have to bid on it but the govt has to budget and appropriate the money before the job can be bid and they don't want to be caught with too little, so generally they budget too high and award too much. I've worked in and dealt with offices that were very conscious of being as efficient as possible and others that were not. I've dealt with DOTs that were VERY good about squeezing the contractors to get things done under budget (often by offering incentives, which can drive up the cost but by less than just not paying attention to it) and DOTs that sucked at this - made no effort.

There are portions of government operations that could be better handled by business and that govt is not well set up to deal with. There are portions of businesses that THEY suck at and are better handled by government (self-regulation has never worked too well).

I'm not contending for a second that government is perfect or wonderful or anywhere near as good as it should be. And neither is business as has become abundantly clear recently. My argument is that government and business are two completely different entities with different jobs, different priorities, and different masters. And you simply cannot judge one by the standards of the other.

-Ray

Ray

04-03-2009, 07:12 AM

unfortunately, states have there own way of printing money and that is to raise taxes. Cutting wasteful programs simply does not get the attention it should. Programs, once started, take on lives and size of their own and are difficult to end.

keno
Unlike printing money, raising taxes is a political process with costs and benefits and public debate. Politicians are loathe to do it too much because they get tossed out of office if they do. To the extent that the public supports it, it'll happen but not much beyond that. Its a self-regulating situation. I don't view that as ANYTHING like printing money.

-Ray

avalonracing

04-03-2009, 07:36 AM

This is a very interesting thread.
Your screen names is making this hard to follow though. To avoid confusion can you please use your real names: Glen Beck, Rush, Sean Hannity etc.

Thanks.

Ray

04-03-2009, 07:45 AM

This is a very interesting thread.
Your screen names is making this hard to follow though. To avoid confusion can you please use your real names: Glen Beck, Rush, Sean Hannity etc.

Thanks.
Yeah, I go by Olberman in my other life. :cool:

-Ray

sspielman

04-03-2009, 07:49 AM

This is a very interesting thread.
Your screen names is making this hard to follow though. To avoid confusion can you please use your real names: Glen Beck, Rush, Sean Hannity etc.

Thanks.
I was thinking the same thing.....Lenin....Marx....Chavez.....the entire lineups of PMSNBC and Air(head) America....

ti_boi

04-03-2009, 07:51 AM

I was thinking the same thing.....Lenin....Marx....Chavez.....the entire lineups of PMSNBC and Air(head) America....

I will go by Nietzsche then.

Sandy

04-03-2009, 08:07 AM

Governments have budgets that they have to live within (except the Feds, which can run deficits, but most state and local budgets have to be balanced annually), so the bottom line is always there and is met. But their goal is not to MAKE money or turn a profit, its to govern, to make policy and law that reconciles competing interests and demands, to provide infrastructure and emergency services, etc, etc, etc. From my experience, there's PLENTY of attention to the bottom line, but its seen as a constraint that has to be lived within, not as the focus of the operation. Which I believe is how it SHOULD treat it. Businesses shouldn't and can't - governments can and should. A huge difference in tasks, goals, and approach.

-Ray

If you consider the US Government versus a business, size and inefficiency are two major differences between the US Government and a business.-The US Government is a mammoth. Any business is tiny in comparison. The US Government is often grossly inefficient. If the US Government needs more money to overcome its inefficiencies, it has ways of obtaining it from its citizens. It can simply borrow whatever it needs with no real concern of whether it will ever be able to pay it back. Easy to print more of it too. If a company needs more money, it must become more efficient and creative or it ultimately goes out of business, in most instances. The Government has no need to be efficient as it will remain a viable entity, unlike a business. The US Government clearly has no concern with the bottom line and that simply allows for more inefficiency. The US Government moves at its own slow inefficient pace, as a function of its size and the requirements/constraints it places upon itself and its citizens as they interact. It is so large that flexibility/common sense/equity in decison making is often lost to written rules/regulations that adds to its inefficiency. Efficient allocation of time, goals, expenditures, and individual's productivity simply is less in the Government because of its inherent size and inability to monitor itself very effectively/efficiently. Allowing the US Government to become larger and larger and entering and staying in areas that were previously more in the domain of individuals and businesses, produces an increased likelihood that inefficiency and overbearing/overwhelming constrains/regulations and time inefficiencies will evolve.

How the US Government would obtain the funds and qualified people to increase its size and participation in individual/business decisions is a mystery to me. How it plans on paying for the proposed massive Federal Budget is more of a mystery, unless future generations will have that obligation.

Sandy

Birddog

04-03-2009, 08:33 AM

I will go by Nietzsche then.
Did you mean Nijinsky?

ti_boi

04-03-2009, 08:55 AM

Did you mean Nijinsky?

I am either demented or a great dancer....?

Harvard Derivatives Whiz Fired For Emailing Larry Summers About "Frightening" Trades?
By Moe Tkacik - April 1, 2009, 1:31PM
Late update: Harvard spokesman John Longbrake called to emphasize that the university had conducted thorough investigations of all allegations about Harvard Management Company and point out the 13.8% annualized returns HMC delivered in the ten years that ended June 2008. In a separate development, we learned that Mack was scheduled to be the subject of a February 23 Newsweek story by Michael Hirsh that had been subsequently shelved. Hirsh declined to comment.

A former quantitative analyst at Harvard Management Company, the university's once-vaunted endowment manager, tells the Harvard Crimson she was fired for voicing concern to then-university president Larry Summers' chief of staff about the money manager's risky use of derivatives the traders didn't understand.

The episode dates back to 2002, when analyst Iris Mack, whose website identifies her as the second African American woman to earn a Harvard PhD. in applied math (and someone who likes primary colors) joined the much-venerated Harvard Management Company, which invests the university's then $18 billion endowment, to find what she termed a "frightening" state of affairs.

"The group I was working for had no background whatsoever to be working on [derivatives]," Mack says, adding that, to her knowledge, several of her colleagues were not licensed securities traders. "Sometimes the ways they handled even basic Black-Scholes models [widely used to price stock options] were puzzling."
So Mack took inventory of the abuses -- high employee turnover, lax risk management practices and a "low level of productivity in the workplace" were among others, and detailed them in an email to Marne Levine, Summers' chief of staff and a Treasury staffer on the Obama Transition Team. (Summers was the only person to whom Meyers reported, and according to a recent Forbes story he personally ordered the university's biggest derivatives trade, a purchase of interest rate swaps that cost the university billions this year.)

A month after sending her email, Mack was fired after a meeting in which the endowment fund's then-chief furnished her the emails and castigated her for making "baseless accusations." She later sued for wrongful termination and settled out-of-court with the university. But she claims the practices "shocked" her, and -- the punchline is -- she had joined the company from Enron.

Which is also to say, lest you dismiss Mack as an opportunistic snitch capitalizing on Summers fateful opposition to regulating the derivatives that wreaked havoc on the financial system, she had a pretty valid reason to believe in the importance of whistleblowing.

"I'm not trying to pretend I'm omniscient or anything, but a lot of people who were quantitative traders, in the back of our minds, we knew a lot of these models were just that: guestimates," Mack says. "I have mixed feelings, on the one hand, I wasn't crazy, I knew what I was talking about. But maybe if more and more people had spoken up, the economy wouldn't be the way it is now."
Mack is doing her part to affect change: she's a vociferous advocate of better math education for minorities and like FDIC chairman Sheila Bair, the writer of a children's book. It's called Mama Says Money Don't Grow On Trees (sequel idea: *...Unless You Are A Monstrously Overleveraged Bank With Access To The Federal Reserve Discount Window!).

If Mack's allegations are true Harvard certainly paid the price for its recklessness: Summers' swaps sowed the seeds for a financial disaster at HMC:

It doesn't feel good to be borrowing at 6% while holding assets with negative returns. Harvard has oversize positions in emerging market stocks and private equity partnerships, both disaster areas in the past eight months. The one category that has done well since last June is conventional Treasury bonds, and Harvard appears to have owned little of these. As of its last public disclosure on this score, it had a modest 16% allocation to fixed income, consisting of 7% in inflation-indexed bonds, 4% in corporates and the rest in high-yield and foreign debt.

For a long while Harvard's daring investment style was the envy of the endowment world. It made light bets in plain old stocks and bonds and went hell-for-leather into exotic and illiquid holdings: commodities, timberland, hedge funds, emerging market equities and private equity partnerships. The risky strategy paid off with market-beating results as long as the market was going up. But risk brings pain in a market crash. Although the full extent of the damage won't be known until Harvard releases the endowment numbers for June 30, 2009, the university is already working on the assumption that the portfolio will be down 30%, or $11 billion.

Mack's boss at HMC, Jack Meyer, parted ways with the university in 2005. His bets were still paying off but his relationship with Summers had reportedly cooled -- among other things, over alumni outcry led by the university's Class of 1969 over the hedge fund-sized bonuses being awarded to employees of a supposed nonprofit. But if there's anything we've learned from the past year, gratuitous compensation and gratuitous risk go hand-in-hand.
"The events of the last year show that the whole procedure of rewarding people so handsomely based on increases on paper value of the endowment was deeply flawed," says a spokesman for the [Class of 1969], which recently sent a letter to the Harvard president suggesting HMC staffers return $21 million of their latest bonuses. "Even now we don't really know how well it has done in the last ten years."

johnnymossville

04-03-2009, 09:03 AM

The Govt. should concentrate on what it does well. Nothing? exactly.

zap

04-03-2009, 09:07 AM

Yeah, I go by Olberman in my other life. :cool:

-Ray

Ray, give yourself more credit.

fiamme red

04-03-2009, 09:08 AM

The Govt. should concentrate on what it does well. Nothing? exactly.Yes, it should leave important stuff to corporations like Halliburton. They're all about efficiency. :rolleyes:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/is_government_t.html

Tobias

04-03-2009, 09:09 AM

Governments have budgets that they have to live within (except the Feds, which can run deficits, but most state and local budgets have to be balanced annually), so the bottom line is always there and is met. But their goal is not to MAKE money or turn a profit, its to govern, to make policy and law that reconciles competing interests and demands, to provide infrastructure and emergency services, etc, etc, etc. From my experience, there's PLENTY of attention to the bottom line, but its seen as a constraint that has to be lived within, not as the focus of the operation. Which I believe is how it SHOULD treat it. Businesses shouldn't and can't - governments can and should. A huge difference in tasks, goals, and approach.

-RayI think there are more similarities than differences between large corporations and governments.

Corporations have to govern, they make policies/laws, enforce them, have competing interests (shareholders vs. management vs. employees vs. public relations vs. governments etc��.), they deal with manufacturing infrastructures, budgets, capital financing, etc�. And they have to keep customers happy just like politicians have to keep voters happy.

Some would argue that a significant difference between businesses and governments is lack of competition, and there again I see little fundamental basis for that conclusion. We may not like to think about it but nations compete with each other economically just like businesses do. We compete directly with China just like Coke with Pepsi. And outside forces out of their control continuously shift the dynamics of that ongoing competition for both businesses and governments.

I�d agree the magnitude and specifics are different, but the basics are very similar ATMO. Most importantly, governments must keep their �economic� engines running efficiently or risk the equivalent of going out of business. That�s what fiscal conservatives fear most right now IMO.

johnnymossville

04-03-2009, 09:10 AM

Yes, it should leave important stuff to corporations like Halliburton. They're all about efficiency. :rolleyes:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/is_government_t.html

and who forces you to buy things from Halliburton?

ti_boi

04-03-2009, 09:14 AM

The Govt. should concentrate on what it does well. Nothing? exactly.

Why do You Hate America so much?

johnnymossville

04-03-2009, 09:16 AM

I absolutely love america, I'm just not too crazy about the crop of people who run it.

ti_boi

04-03-2009, 09:21 AM

I absolutely love america, I'm just not too crazy about the crop of people who run it.

Were you happy with Bush? And if so, why?

johnnymossville

04-03-2009, 09:22 AM

Didn't like Bush either. He was too liberal.

I'll elaborate. I actually think Bush was an ok guy, I voted for him after I had previously voted for Clinton and Dems before that and felt burned by it. Government wrecked him like it does most good men. He and his Republican buddies in congress became nothing but bad versions of democrats. I guess I'm more an anarchist? Not really, but sorta that direction. I just want people to be in more control of their lives with as little govt. intrusion as possible that's all.

I see a lot of the problems we have rooted in the failed good intentions of government.

:)

avalonracing

04-03-2009, 09:34 AM

and who forces you to buy things from Halliburton?

The Bush Administration... With my tax money.
Damn, that was an easy one.

johnnymossville

04-03-2009, 09:36 AM

The Bush Administration... With my tax money.
Damn, that was an easy one.

I rest my case. Government.

Birddog

04-03-2009, 09:40 AM

I am either demented or a great dancer....?
I couldn't resist, the road you took with Nietzsche compared to Olberman, Beck, et al was just too high.

Birddog

avalonracing

04-03-2009, 09:57 AM

I rest my case. Government.

That wasn't the Government. That was a regime.

goonster

04-03-2009, 10:10 AM

I guess I'm more an anarchist?

You are.

Good luck with that. AFAIK there is exactly one historical example of successfully applied anarchism: isolated watchmaking communities in mid-19th century Switzerland. Don't know what happened to them. Perhaps GOVERNMENT ate them. :rolleyes:

Pete Serotta

04-03-2009, 10:14 AM

Please feel free to open another thread if you would like. THANKS