Bush the Patsy-part deux

[Monkeyleg]

"Then the greed of the financiers imploded the stock market in 1929, screwing the common man again."

Riley, you surprise me on this thread.

By 1929, the evil financiers recognized a market out of control, and were getting out. It was the greed of the uneducated investors that created a bubble market. The "evil financiers" had gone to the sidelines by then.

The same thing happened in 2000. I heard tons of people from all walks of life talking about their great stock picks. I knew enough from my commodity trading days to realize that the markets had reached unrealistic peaks. And I got out.

"FDR took a number of steps that increased and consolidated federal power (not all of which I agree with, btw), the result of which brought us into the prosperity of the 1950's, unprecedented economic growth, and a vital middle class."

You're kidding, right? FDR's articifical manipulation of the economy prolonged the Depression. His make-work programs paid unemployed people to do government work, and those workers were paid with the tax dollars of those who could pay taxes.

The Depression ended because of one tried and true economic boost: war.

Yes, WWII put the US budget into the red, but it also generated revenues that would continue into the 1950's.

WWII also created new products and technologies which we were able to export around the world, thus creating new jobs.

[longeyes]

There is no "corporate globalist war."  There is no "reigning in the multi-nationals."
These things aren't real, except on hyperventilating left-wing (or right-wing, depending) discussion boards and blogs.
The middle class is largely employed by said corporations, who could not function without them, in turn.  Corporations are largely responsible to their shareholders, who are largely middle class people.

The problem is that large corporations are inherently incompatible with and inimical to political liberty.  We knew that long, long ago, back in the "trust-busting" epoch.  You are not talking about idealized, "classical" capitalism when you talk about large corporations, national or multi-national.  They are feudalistic in structure, unresponsive to their employees and largely indifferent to their stockholders (when they are public).  The idea that "competition" makes up for all their other delinquencies is, in my opinion, naive.

[Perd Hapley]

Socialists among us.  I'm surprised, too. 

[The Rabbi]

There is no "corporate globalist war."  There is no "reigning in the multi-nationals."
These things aren't real, except on hyperventilating left-wing (or right-wing, depending) discussion boards and blogs.
The middle class is largely employed by said corporations, who could not function without them, in turn.  Corporations are largely responsible to their shareholders, who are largely middle class people.

The problem is that large corporations are inherently incompatible with and inimical to political liberty.  We knew that long, long ago, back in the "trust-busting" epoch.  You are not talking about idealized, "classical" capitalism when you talk about large corporations, national or multi-national.  They are feudalistic in structure, unresponsive to their employees and largely indifferent to their stockholders (when they are public).  The idea that "competition" makes up for all their other delinquencies is, in my opinion, naive.

Inimical to political liberty?  I'd love to see that one fleshed out.
But you might want to pitch that one to the CEOs of:
Sunbeam
Enron
Eastern Airlines
American Telephone & Telegraph
Chrysler
And a host of other big corporations no longer with us due to uncompetitiveness, changes in the market place they couldn't adapt to, or management that wasn't responsive to shareholders.

[Jamisjockey]

Competition is great, until you are the one having to compete with someone from another country who will do the job for a quarter of what you are paid to do it.

Thats not really competition.

Driving trucks that aren't held to the same standards, and drivers taking meth to stay awake for 4 days at a time.

[Paddy]

"Then the greed of the financiers imploded the stock market in 1929, screwing the common man again."

Riley, you surprise me on this thread.

By 1929, the evil financiers recognized a market out of control, and were getting out. It was the greed of the uneducated investors that created a bubble market. The "evil financiers" had gone to the sidelines by then.

Economists have proffered a number of reasons for the 1929 crash, but 'the greed of the uneducated investors that created a bubble market' isn't one of them.

Keynes said it was lack of demand for goods and services that stifled investment

Friedman (and later Bernanke) blamed the low money supply-ie the Federal Reserve should have printed more money.  Bernanke went on to say it was the gold standard system-the link of currency to gold-that prevented such an increase in the money supply.

Hayek claims the expansion of the money supply during the 1920's created an unsustainable credit driven boom.

The widely accepted cause however, is simply overproduction and underconsumption. The economy produced more that it consumed because consumers did not have enough money. Why?  There was a huge
unequal distribution of wealth. in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%.  That same top 0.1% of Americans in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no savings at all. 

During the 1920's individual worker output increased significantly, but wages increased very little.  The result was that corporate profits skyrocketed.  A few people had most of the money.  The problem was exacerbated by the 'conservative' Coolidge administration who favored business and the wealthy.  They reduced income and inheritance taxes (any of this sound familiar?)

So yeah, it was the greed of the financiers and the industrialists that caused the Great Depression.  The common man used all his yearly income to buy basics; he didn't have the money to speculate in the stock market.

As for 2, a bunch of stupid people invested huge sums in companies that produced nothing, had no income or profits.  They simply gambled on increasing stock prices of companies with no underlying fundamentals. 

"FDR took a number of steps that increased and consolidated federal power (not all of which I agree with, btw), the result of which brought us into the prosperity of the 1950's, unprecedented economic growth, and a vital middle class."

You're kidding, right? FDR's articifical manipulation of the economy prolonged the Depression. His make-work programs paid unemployed people to do government work, and those workers were paid with the tax dollars of those who could pay taxes.

The Depression ended because of one tried and true economic boost: war.

The economy began expansion about 1938, well before our entry into WWII.  The expansion stopped about 1945, before the end of the war.

I know that FDR is the Great Satan of modern 'conservatives', none of whom lived through the Depression. and have no idea of the hunger and poverty of the time.  Talk to some old timers who were actually there, and you'll have a new perspective.  Anyway the demonization of FDR isn't the point of this thread.  We can start a new one to villify him, if you like.

[longeyes]

Did someone sniff a "socialist?"  I've run my own small business, worked for years for a small corporation and several more years for a large multi-national conglomerate.  To discriminate among levels of capitalistic enterprise is not "socialist," it's to recognize that different size entities with different operating modes are different breeds of cat and have very different impacts on society.  Yes, large corporations are alien to our concepts of political liberty.  They are hierarchical in structure.  The Founding Fathers had little to say, as far as I know, about economic systems but we can be sure they weren't thinking of the economic nation-states we now call multi-national corporations.  Anyone who believes these corporations aren't one of the big issues for people who want to retain their liberties is, again, being naive.  Scale makes all the difference.  I am not saying that all corporations, large or small, are "evil," that they don't provide useful services and haven't revolutionized modern commerce, but I am saying that they do not provide a template for rational self-governance and have already shown that they are a de facto government unto themselves. 

[Paddy]

Anyway, we're way off track.  Carte blanche for Mexican trucks to enter this country at will isn't about 'free markets' or 'serving consumers'.  It's about the expansion of corporate globalism to replace sovereign nations.  It's about the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few.  It's about transferring public funds into private pockets. (One of) the result(s) will be a permanent underclass.  An individual's value will be only what he can contribute to the corporate bottom line.  Success will be measured solely in how much one can accumulate and how fast one can assume.

This is not the stuff of the Founding Father's visions.

[The Rabbi]

Did someone sniff a "socialist?"  I've run my own small business, worked for years for a small corporation and several more years for a large multi-national conglomerate.  To discriminate among levels of capitalistic enterprise is not "socialist," it's to recognize that different size entities with different operating modes are different breeds of cat and have very different impacts on society.  Yes, large corporations are alien to our concepts of political liberty.  They are hierarchical in structure.  The Founding Fathers had little to say, as far as I know, about economic systems but we can be sure they weren't thinking of the economic nation-states we now call multi-national corporations.  Anyone who believes these corporations aren't one of the big issues for people who want to retain their liberties is, again, being naive.  Scale makes all the difference.  I am not saying that all corporations, large or small, are "evil," that they don't provide useful services and haven't revolutionized modern commerce, but I am saying that they do not provide a template for rational self-governance and have already shown that they are a de facto government unto themselves. 

Well, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are among the biggest liberals out there, so I guess personal resume doesn't mean much to political ideas.
Corporations are hierarchical.  The Catholic Church is hierarchical.  The military is hierarchical.  The bureaucracy is hierarchical.  So freaking what?  You haven't explained how "corporations" are a threat to our way of life.  And btw I own a corporation.  Two shareholders, me and my wife.  I guess we're a threat too.

[longeyes]

No, it's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

But then unlike our current President they didn't cry on God's shoulder while throwing a sop to corporate cronies whose vision of the noble life can be expressed with a spreadsheet.

[longeyes]

Well, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are among the biggest liberals out there, so I guess personal resume doesn't mean much to political ideas.
Corporations are hierarchical.  The Catholic Church is hierarchical.  The military is hierarchical.  The bureaucracy is hierarchical.  So freaking what?  You haven't explained how "corporations" are a threat to our way of life.  And btw I own a corporation.  Two shareholders, me and my wife.  I guess we're a threat too.

And...  I don't want a corporate state.  I don't want a religious state.  I don't want a military state.  I don't want a bureaucratic state.  I think you grasp my ideas a little better than you let on, Rabbi.

All large, top-down entities are a danger to individual liberty when they are unchecked.  I'll stand by that.  Corporations are treated as "individuals," a piece of dubious logic that came out of the era that gave us the Federal Reserve and the Federal income tax, if I remember correctly.  Corporations are efficient engines of production, and they've certainly produced a great consumer society.  The question remains, is a great consumer society also a moribund citizen society?  Some of us might wonder about that, looking around today at America.

By the way, I also own a corporation.  So what?

I saw first-hand what happens when a small, efficient, responsive "family-style" corporation was swallowed by a global entity with too many VPs making six-figure salaries who had never been near "the firing line."  I'll bet a lot of us have. 

[The Rabbi]

So what?

Exactly.  So what if we have corporations?  So what if we have a Catholic Church?  So what if we have a military? Just because they are organized a certain way does not make them threats to Democracy and The American Way of Life.  Any more than the organization of the Baptist Sunday School Board or The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations in America makes them a threat.

If you had a point it has long since eluded me.  I have asked repeatedly what makes corporations evil and a threat.  You have failed to give a coherent answer.
I have pointed out that I own a corporation.  I will assume (even though you didnt say so) that you don't consider my corporation a threat to America.  So what is the difference between my corporation and GE?  Size?  At what size does a corporation become a threat?  Why?
You can't answer these questions because your theory is crackpot.  They are found distributed on the windshields of cars in the Wal Mart parking lot, or found on tin-foil hat wearing discussion boards.

[Paddy]

I have pointed out that I own a corporation.  I will assume (even though you didnt say so) that you don't consider my corporation a threat to America.

Your corporation (C corp or S corp) is a Mom & Pop, not a multinational, multibillion $ enterprise.

  So what is the difference between my corporation and GE?

Your corporation cannot borrow without your personal guarantee.  Your corporation does not sell equity stock or issue bonds to raise capital.  Your corporation is not regulated by the SEC, Sarbanes Oxley etc.  Your corporation does not spend millions$ to lobby congress, to buy politicians and favorable legislation.  Your corporation does not have tens of thousands of employees to screw out of their pensions because you didn't fund them. Your corporation is a corporation in name only.

At what size does a corporation become a threat?  Why?

See above.

[Paddy]

Also Rabbi, your corporation isn't likely to do irreparable environmental damage just to add to the bottom line.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, just because a corporation is large and capable, it is inherently evil?  Are you serious?

The potential to do harm isn't recognized as a threat or a crime.  At least, not by sensible people.  We all have the potential to do harm.  It's what we do, what we actually do, that matters, not what some crackpot idjit on the internet says we might possibly be able to one day maybe think about potentially doing.

What, exactly, does a typical major corporation do that is so terribly wrong?  So far, all you've said is that they spend their own money as they see fit, as is their (and anyone's) prerogative.  All you've really said is that they act in their own interest instead bending over and taking it in the arse for everyone else's benefit.

Oh, and please continue to ignore all the beneficial things our major corporations do for us, for our country, and for the world.  It helps to illustrate your prejudices and ignorance.  Really, who needs affordable goods, or a job, or an economy that makes us the world's lone superpower free to plot our own destiny? 

[Paddy]

The potential to do harm isn't recognized as a threat or a crime.

I thought that's why 'we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here'.  We've been engaged in a war, spent hundreds of billions $, suffered thousands of casualties, because of a potential to do harm.

  At least, not by sensible people.

Exactly.

As for the rest of your post, it's just more of the same arrogant, libertarian style 'I'll do what I want' as though you live in a vacuum.

 

[The Rabbi]

  So what is the difference between my corporation and GE?

Your corporation cannot borrow without your personal guarantee.  Your corporation does not sell equity stock or issue bonds to raise capital.  Your corporation is not regulated by the SEC, Sarbanes Oxley etc.  Your corporation does not spend millions$ to lobby congress, to buy politicians and favorable legislation.  Your corporation does not have tens of thousands of employees to screw out of their pensions because you didn't fund them. Your corporation is a corporation in name only.

At what size does a corporation become a threat?  Why?

See above.

OK.  So one stock I own is called Epolin (epln).  The make near-infrared dyes.  It has about 20 employees and is run by a 75 year old Jewish chemist in N.J.  The company borrows money without his guarantee.  It issues stock.  It abides by Sarbanes-Oxley (the dumbest piece of legislation to come down the pike since McCain-Feingold). Etc.
And this little company is a threat how exactly?

And my corporation is not a corporation in name only. It has exactly the same benefits and laws that any other one does.  I could issue stock, raise capital, etc.

[Perd Hapley]

The potential to do harm isn't recognized as a threat or a crime.

I thought that's why 'we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here'.  We've been engaged in a war, spent hundreds of billions $, suffered thousands of casualties, because of a potential to do harm.

It always comes back to Iraq for this guy. 
A.  Wars are not usually fought as punishments for crimes.
B.  Saddam covered both bases by having done us wrong and showing potential to harm us.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The potential to do harm isn't recognized as a threat or a crime.

I thought that's why 'we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here'.  We've been engaged in a war, spent hundreds of billions $, suffered thousands of casualties, because of a potential to do harm.

  At least, not by sensible people.

Exactly.

As for the rest of your post, it's just more of the same arrogant, libertarian style 'I'll do what I want' as though you live in a vacuum.

 

This reminds me of a scene in Minority Report, about the notion of predestination.  Character A rolls a ball down a table.  Character B catches the ball right before it falls off the end of the table and onto the floor. 

Character A asks "Why'd you do that?" 
Character B responds "Because it was going to fall onto the floor." 
Character A replies "But it didn't fall on the floor.  You caught it." 
Character B smiles and says "But it would have fallen if I hadn't caught it."

Saddam didn't merely posses the potential to threaten the US and others, he had been actively threatening and attacking us for years.  He promised to continue doing so for as long as he was able to.  He sought, both in appearance and in fact, to increase his ability to harm the US, and he repeatedly threatened to use any increased capability against us.  Most everyone agreed that he was a disaster waiting to happen.  Saddam was the proverbial ball that would inevitably fall onto the floor.  We caught that ball before it fell, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have fallen had we failed to act.

At worst, all a corporation has is the potential to harm the US.  Sure, a given corporation might (or might not - I think you overestimate the destructive potential latent in our companies) be able to hurt the US.  But the simple fact remains that there isn't a single corporation out there is going to hurt us.  Those few that do hurt a small subset of the population are so rare as to be the exception that proves the rule - and they are punished accordingly for their crimes.

There's a difference between what actually happens (or what is obviously and inevitably going to happen) versus what might possibly happen under some far-fetched imaginary scenario.  Anything could happen, but only a few things ever do happen.

[longeyes]

Inimical to liberty.

That's right.

And the reason, Rabbi, if you've been reading closely, is that the structure of a corporation is inherently non-representative.  As large corporations influence and control more and more of not only our political life but our social and cultural life such issues become HUGE.  I'm sorry if you don't see the repercussions all around you.  Large corporations are dangerous in the way big government is dangerous: control a man's livelihood, directly or indirectly, and you make him a de facto slave.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Huh? 

Name for me any corporation that controls anyone's livelihood.  Any such arrangement, which you accurately describe as slave labor, is illegal.  Corporations offer jobs.  They don't force anyone to do anything against their will.  Most of us find it to our advantage to take one of those jobs, but we do so freely because it benefits us.  But if it isn't to your advantage to work for Corporation X, don't.  There are plenty of alternatives.

Corporations are some of the the most representative, free, and egalitarian organizations ever conceived by man.  Anyone is free to participate or not as he likes, to any degree he is willing and able to commit to.  Unlike citizens of a government, any shareholder of any corporation is free to opt out if he chooses, or to opt in further if he chooses, or to take over the whole thing if he's able, or even to act out in competition against the corporation.

[Paddy]

So, just because a corporation is large and capable, it is inherently evil?

Nobody said that.

Oh, and please continue to ignore all the beneficial things our major corporations do for us, for our country, and for the world.  It helps to illustrate your prejudices and ignorance.  Really, who needs affordable goods, or a job, or an economy that makes us the world's lone superpower free to plot our own destiny?

Another kneejerk leap of 'logic'.  We would probably not have the prosperity we do today without the corporate structure.  The problem is with the way that structure is being used and directed.  This widespread corporate fraud, bogus financials, capitalizing expenses, off-balance-sheet loans to partnerships owned by officers and boardmembers, etc. is a more recent phenomenon. 

The 'privatization' of war, including the transfer of untold billions to 'contractors', and the lack of accountability for their activities is a new phenomenon.

The revolving door between government and corporations, where top level personnel regularly interchange, is a new phenomenon.

The massive 'outsourcing' of labor to third world countries is a new phenomenon.

Breaches of contractual obligations to pay employee pensions are a new phenomenon.

And it goes on and on.  And the so-called 'restraints', the threat of lawsuits, contractual obligations, and the marketplace aren't doing much to bring integrity, accountability, or even compliance with those obligations.

[Paddy]

Corporations are some of the the most representative, free, and egalitarian organizations ever conceived by man.

That one line alone would get you to the finals in "Last Comic Standing". 

[longeyes]

Thanks, McRiley.  It's been a long day.  You covered it. 

Corporations are a two-edged sword, and in that they resemble many of the blessings of modern civilization.  It's up to us how that sword swings.

[The Rabbi]

Inimical to liberty.

That's right.

And the reason, Rabbi, if you've been reading closely, is that the structure of a corporation is inherently non-representative.  As large corporations influence and control more and more of not only our political life but our social and cultural life such issues become HUGE.  I'm sorry if you don't see the repercussions all around you.  Large corporations are dangerous in the way big government is dangerous: control a man's livelihood, directly or indirectly, and you make him a de facto slave.

As the Headless One pointed out.  This might win least in touch with reality post of the week.
The Catholic Church is hierarchical.  The Catholic Church controls vast amounts of money and real estate.  The Catholic Church is inherently non-representative.  And the Catholic Church influences a lot of public life.
I guess teh Catholic Church is dangerous and needs to be stopped too.