Nationalization...
saveuplife
Posts: 1,173
...it's happening. Bye-bye capitalism. You gave us many good years.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Capitalism was (edit: is) doomed to fail. Gambling is a risky business.
naděje umírá poslední
Yea, private property should be abolished. That way no one can gamble or do anything with their own money. Let the "efficiency" of government take over. It's such a novel plan. One that has been proven as a complete disaster time and time again.
That's not what I said. At all.
naděje umírá poslední
america will always govern in the interests of the "me" over the "we" ... that's what makes americans americans ...
OK. What exactly did you say?
If capitalism is dying, by definition government grows and the private sector shrinks. I think of that as a large-scale gamble. That's what I said.
Yes; winter does stink.
There's litte evidence of laissez-fair and capitalism involved in the gov't nationalization of the U.S. auto industry.
That would be severely overstating it.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Capitalism was conceived here in America, but has definitely been aborted somewhere in the 2nd trimester.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
on the whole - would you say that a bailout of the auto industry is:
a) good for americans
b) good only for the auto-makers
??
I said that capitalism is doomed to fail, at least this form of capitalism, due to a number of reasons. Capitalism is gambling and gambling is a risky business, we're witnessing that right now.
I'm merely saying that it's no surprise.
naděje umírá poslední
If you consider economic growth cannibalism.
Also, when you say "you gave us many good years" are you refering to Wall Street big wigs who suck the nation and government dry of wealth, yet have caused our entire economy to become vastly unstable and unproductive for a long time to come? Because the whole "us" certainly isn't the averave american citizen...and if you think I'm wrong, look up statistics on the separation of wealth in this nation in the past 20yrs.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
c) Neither.
people want to be paid well, but they do not want to pay the price for a quality item.
i simply do not like to see capitalist with their hand out.
The irony is that people don't even understand what got us into this mess. It had to do with GOVERNMENT!
Poor monetary policy (excessively low interest rates) along with increased federal governmental policy determined to increase homeownership is the reason we had a bubble in housing. When that bubble burst, prices went down. Speculators bailed. Mortgage rates reset. People couldn't afford their homes because they used exotic ARMs. They foreclosed. Companies that invested in MBSs got hit. Here we are.
Monday morning quarterbacking saying we shouldn't have allowed those people to take those loans (exotic mortgages), or allow businesses to give them doesn't take away the fact the bubble was there because of governmental intervention. Saying more government to stop problems government caused is ridiculous as government bailing out people blaming the problem on too little government.
ALSO, please indulge us and tell us how exactly the U.S. auto industry is directly tied to the lack of regulation in mortgages... please... this should be interesting.
I'm referring to the enormous amount of prosperity our country (and the world) has had since the inception of capitalism.
Also, you can have very large seperattion of wealth in a certain timespan if the rich and poor both double their wealths. For instance, Rich guy A doubles his millions. Poor guy B double his wealth. Seperation of wealth increases and yet amazingly.... BOTH BENEFIT.
You are quick to defende capitalism, but in reality we don't practice such things. We don't have the invisible hand keeping markets and economies at bay, we have government involvement and private intrusion for the business world skueing the balance - and that's something you're not recognizing in this process which is also the large problem in all this mess.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
This doesn't make sense. Please read what I wrote in my last post.... the government created the problem.
I agree we don't practice complete 100% capitalism. But, nationalization of the auto industry is a clear step towards 100% socialism.
It was GOVERNMENT intrusion that created the problem. You're not recognizing that.
Also, the auto industry is not directly tied to this mortgage issue but more of an example of how screwed this economy is. The car companies have been moving factories and jobs out of this nation for years, yet always received government backing and funding for various issues and projects yet have shown zero loyalty to the american citizens. They, like the airline industries, have milked this country for decades and offer little growth and future opportunity for the workers and citizens of this nation - other than jobs which they continually downsize and shrink wages, beneftis and status levels, yet are so poorly run in terms of efficiency and changing with the times, their failures become not their own, but the american peoples. None of these companies have loyalty to anything other than their profit margin, and yet we as a nation have banked our well being on their backs (all these industries). Maybe you've forgotten, but our government's role is it to oversee for the people and carry out policy for the people's best interest... if you're saying you're against that, you're not for capitalism, but against one of the sole tenets our nation was created.
Lastly, you can play wordsmith or fix the figures to say it anyway you please, but when roughly 10% of the people own more than 90%, something is inherintly wrong with the system and that figure continues to rise over time as it has over the decades. That's not capitalism - it's corruption and crime.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I not going to try and make an argument for socialism because it has its own problems. That being said Capitalism has failed miserably in the distribution of wealth. You just happen to live in one of the countries where all the wealth is concentrated in.
please look at the numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
21st century
At the end of the 20th century, wealth is concentrated among the G8 and Western industrialized nations, along with several Asian nations. An EIA report stated that OPEC member nations were projected to earn a net amount of $1.251 trillion in 2008 from their oil exports, due to the record crude prices.[5]
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth. Extensive statistics, many indicating the growing world disparity, are included in the available report, press releases, Excel tables and Powerpoint slides.[6] Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global household assets.[7] Despite this, the distribution has been changing quite rapidly in the direction of greater concentration of wealth.[8]
In the United States
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[10]
In describing tax systems, it is important to distinguish between the share of taxes paid on a given income, and the share paid by a person with a given income. For example, if a person earns $1,000,000 and is taxed at a rate of 10%, they will owe $100,000 in taxes. On the other hand, if a person earns $10,000 and is taxed at a rate of 20%, they will owe $2000 in taxes. The person with the greater income is taxed at a lower rate but pays a higher tax. The person with the lesser income is taxed at a higher rate but pays a lower tax.
The US tax system is a mixture of progressive taxation and regressive taxation. The income tax is progressive, the payroll tax, on the other hand, could be considered regressive. In 2003, the 1% with the highest salaries paid more than 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the 10% with the highest salaries paid nearly 66% of the total income tax; the top 25% of paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper 50% accounted for nearly 97% of US income tax revenue [11].
Also check this out
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/wealth_distribution1999.html
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorests people.
The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries.
No, I do also blame the business' and people for making individual "mistakes". They errored. The companies did not foresee the collapse in housing and the rise in mortgage rates, neither did the people. They made errors of judgement.
That said, my friend in college ran up a $20000 credit card debt, never paid all of it off and is in credit problems today. The credit card co didn't make their money back, neither did he. It was not the government's problem regulating that he went out and spent his credit card money on kegs when he had no intention of paying it back. He made an error of judgement, a stupid error that we corrected him for while he was doing it. Yet, he did it anyway. So, did the credit card company. You can Monday Morning QB all you want, but do you think gov't regulation is the answer in this example? I don't. I think the bank was dumb to lend the money, but they did it thinking even if he doesn't pay it, they'll take the risk. I think he was dumb to use it. I think they are both being punished as is. The gov't doesn't need to do anything at all. Actually, getting involved and bailing people out makes it worse to be a guy who pays off his credit card and gives credance to those who don't. It also gives credence to banks that lent that money to people they shouldn't have and hurts those that didn't. It's MORAL HAZARD.
So, yes, people made mistakes in this situation. But, that is not why there was a pervasive problem. The pervasive problem is due to the decline in house prices and the affect on mortgage rates... due to gov't. One more time, the pervasive problem is due to the decline in house prices and the affect on mortgage rates.... due to gov't.
Dude, you're not making any sense. You say "our gov'ts role is to oversee for the people and carry out policy for the people's best interest.... if you're saying you're against that, you're not for capitalism, but against one of the sole tenets our nation was created".
I am for capitalism. I am also for our gov't staying out of this situation. It is my belief that if gov't stays out of the situation, we will all benefit. Once again, your point made zero sense.
Yea, please keep those numbers, data and facts out of the argument right?
Capitalism:
Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned, operated and traded chiefly by private individuals or corporations for the purpose of profit, with the state confined in providing some public goods and infrastructure.
Absolutely.
These companies should go bankrupt instead of getting free money for 6 months... when they will have the exact same problem again... They are the ones that took over all those mom and pop shops. Now it's less profitable to have all those makes and models no one wants. Those are the breaks. It's really cute that these politicians get on TV and talk about conditions. Yeah that always works out with the conditions. Let me just ask the American Indian what US government papers are worth.
Our major old corporations got big on thier own and they should be forced to restructure on thier own. Anything else is Unhealthy for our economic system. Even if large amounts of people lose jobs temporarily.
This is a group of very rich kids, asking for money from their already spent out parent to help them fix the cars they wrecked.
The Corporate Jets are a red herring. What they indicate however are companies that have not even thought about image... or waste in the least. They could Use a private air service to do everything they need to do and not have the capital it requires to own 6 G4's. If they indicate anything it's that these companies have not in the least done ANYTHING they need to do to be efficient. I don't hear Porsche calling for a bailout in Germany, nor do I hear Toyota crying to Japan. Thier sales are down too. Clearly thier management has been better over the last 30 years.
No, it's not failed in the distribution of wealth. You can make the argument for "non-equitable" distribution... but, it's done better than any system ever in quantity of distribution. That's my point. Also, what's with the term "distribution"? Who's doing the distributing? I certainly don't want gov't doing that. How about the term... "making" instead. In that case, it's people doing it.
And my point still stands: If you are poor and double your income and you are rich and double your income.... the gap widens. The way to make it more equitable is to tax the rich and give to the poor. But, that hurts the quantity of wealth (or the making or creation of wealth) and grows gov't.
Also, I'm for free trade... that benefits those countries that are not as wealthy as the U.S. I think it's fine when they "steal our jobs" as some politicians say. They deserve them as much as we do.
What you're doing is saying too much government creates a problem in the market and for the public, but it's unrealistic not to expect government involvement in business, oversight and policy. You want pure capitalism with no government involvement at all and this is just a fallacy and not in the real world. The fact is, in reality and practice, we need government involvement and oversight to keep things in check because without such things, business's and corporations will bleed the public dry with no remorse of their wrong doing.
Lastly, as for you comment about statistics, the fact is the polarization of wealth is a direct result of the rich getting richer, not all rising. You can't defend such inequality and perhaps you don't care, but in the end, when a highly concentrated group control the vast amount of wealth it creates a ton of problems for any society and its very obvious in ours and will only get worse.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis