Let the redistribution of wealth begin.

Let the redistribution of wealth reverse, a little. This has no chance of happening as long as there is one Republican alive in the country.

I am shocked and appalled. This is one of the most absurd examples of pandering to the unwashed masses I have ever seen.

How quickly we forget that this is how it used to be…….

If it worked then, why wouldn’t it work now?

yeah…lets raise taxes on businesses in a recession, when we’re trying to jumpstart the economy. Genius.

How about cutting spending in other areas? (apparently a foreign idea in Washington nowadays) If anything, we should be slashing the tax rates, as a low tax rate would be the only thing we can possibly have going for us to attract businesses (As labor is cheaper elsewhere, and Americans are currently not in a b.uying mood, beyond basic necessities)

Common Sense, because Adam Smith is rolling in his grave like a rotisserie chicken

He is way late to the game.

Most of the major hedge funds were wiped out and most of the wealthy don’t do hedge funds, because hedge funds tend to be very complicated and the majority of wealthy like simpler concepts on how to gain wealth.

Also what is a hedge fund? It’s a group of private individuals that pool their money for an investment. Now there are things called stock parties done at local schools and also by friends and clubs. They aren’t as famous as chess clubs, but they do exist even for a short time (like a class project). Those would be deemed hedge funds too.

There is also another problem with Obama’s plan and that’s buy and hold vs flipping/day trading. One gets taxed on the sale and not the buy. At 15% tax, it doesn’t seem like a lot and that’s the way flippers see it too so there are lots of flippers that flip a lot. Increasing taxes creates a buy and hold climate which decreases taxes.

Meanwhile, they are going to lend a trillion dollars to hedge funds, and cover any potential losses. The hedge funds can borrow up to 95% of the face value of an asset, and the government won’t let them loose “too much” money.

So, this tiny little tax increase has to be seen in the context of a massive profit-give to the industry.

Be more critical Tim. Just because your team is now in power doesn’t mean you go from critical opposition to power to cheerleader for power, over night.

From the New York Times:
”
Under the program, the Fed will lend to investors who acquire new securities backed by auto loans, credit card balances, student loans and small-business loans at rates ranging from roughly 1.5 percent to 3 percent.

Depending on the type of security they are borrowing against, investors will be able to borrow 84 percent to 95 percent of the face value of the bonds. Investors would not be liable for any losses beyond the 5 percent to 16 percent equity that they retain in the investment.

In the initial phase, the Treasury will provide $20 billion and the Fed will provide $180 billion. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said last week that the Treasury could increase its commitment to $100 billion to allow the Fed to lend up to $1 trillion.
“

I just read the article. I am laughing my fukking ass off. I missed the point that this is meant to shore up revenue. What incentive a hedge fund have to remain in say Stamford versus offshoring to the Mauritius, the Caymens? Who is John Galt?

Jed Clampett

When Chile democratically elected a soc.ialist, a soc.ially conscious person, one of the first acts was to analyze the major industries and natural resources. They found that most of the wealth of the nation, the true value, was being funneled to a few and shipped out to foreign lands, in a manner not much different if less violent than the Spaniards of almost 500 years earlier. In order to counteract the Ferengi they nationalized mining, agriculture, education and other major resources. Their efforts helped bring about a period of prosperity and resourcefulness that had been absent for a long time, as the wealth had been monopolized by opportunists and hope had been replaced by the despair of realizing it was impossible to remove the entrenched without armed struggle. It took one doctor with a vision and great advisers to restore hope enough to take the populace out of their doldrums and activate themselves into prosperity.
Unfortunately the Ferengi’s had amassed much more power and influence among their own allies. They blockaded commerce from without and paid off conspirators in the selfish and unpatriotic within the country to create scarcity, discord and fear.
Eventually, with the specter of contrived militant insurrection they put the nation in the hands of military dictators who ruled with an iron fist. These were self professed Military Men of modest means who ‘only had the health of the nation’ as their aim, yet they became wealthy beyond belief by exploiting the labor of the needy and destitute. The Ferengi’s won. They learned lessons they could apply elsewhere, devoid of any allegiance to flag or higher power, they now have no reprehension at applying that knowledge to their own compatriots.
The point is, sometimes nationalization is necessary to drive out those who have monopolized power and wealth, but one must always be aware of the ability of those who have amassed power and resources to manipulate their followers into doing what is beneficial for themselves rather than the whole.

Truth, ignoring it causes history to repeat itself in greater and greater degrees of decline.

WAY off topic:

An 11 year old boy shoots his dad’s girlfriend in the back of the head, killing her, with the shotgun his dad bought him for christmas. The ‘big’ news is that they may try him as an adult. But, aren’t they missing the real news: That the father bought an 11year old boy a shotgun for christmas.

If that father had bought beer/drugs for the kid, the media would be in an uproar. But, since it’s only a 20g shotgun, well,…………..

Coach:

And, there’s your evidence of a conservative slant to news……

Jed Clampett

Has anyone forgotten the other kid a few months ago, I think he also was 10 or 11 that shot his father and tenant with a 22 his father had bought for him? About that time there was also the story about an 8 year old that blew his own head off with a fully auto Uzi his dad had allowed him to shoot at the ‘gun festival’ sponsored by the Sheriff of that county. No negligence charges placed against the sheriff or anyone else involved as I recall.

What do you think it all means? The children are killing their parents because they see so much violence on TV they consider it a viable option? How advanced is that?

Jed, I believe the alibi was ‘accidental’. How does a bullet ‘accidentally’ explode?

So, heroin overdose could be considered ‘accidental overusage’. Drunk driving could be considered negligent math (don’t know how many drinks I actually had).

Guns get away with murder. Ponder that one for a minute…….

Jed Clampett

Been watching that development for a while. I saw “Lord of War” with Nic Cage and recognized it was the dramatized tale of a real person. Strange that we would allow companies that sell implements of destruction such leeway in destroying our own society and the one to our south. As if shooting a gun wouldn’t have a recoil.

They ‘accidentally’ ignored a group of Iraqis removing explosives from Saddam’s weapons complex. They ‘accidentally’ failed to recognize the space shuttle was damaged. etc etc. I guess the longer we remain silent the worse it gets. People should be on the streets raging mad. Thankfully today we have the internet and the ability to express our disgust directly to our leaders. Remember how they got Fox to stop airing ‘Married with Children’ for a while?

Jed-
If you really think the ‘true value’ of a nation is measured merely by its natural resource wealth, your litanies on the human spirit seem quite silly. How do you explain Taiwan for example? For the last several decades Taiwan has enjoyed roaring economic growth despite being, more or less, a depleted rock. This has been accomplished because political leadership has avoided interventionist economic policies, choosing instead to allow the many small and medium size businesses that drive the economy to chart the course. Taiwan now enjoys a per capita GDP comparable with the EU. To me, your emphasis on seizing control of natural resources and means of production is quite telling. It becomes quite apparent that you are a closet aristocrat at heart. My impression is that, to you, only those possessing some (nonexistent) revelation are capable of operating the controls of industry and commerce; it would seem that your avowed experience of oppression has convinced you only that it is better to be the oppressor than the oppressed.

Ole,

I thought one of the reasons we’re in the fix we’re in is that the gov’t relaxed regulations?

I heard a suggestion that had a ring of logic to it; name a gov’t rep to each board of directors.

Coach,

It is fairly axiomatic that stupid people beget stupid children. Both the kid and his father should be, at the very least, castrated. As for ownership of the gun, if the kid didn’t have one of his own, he’d have used his old man’s.

When I was a puppy, a ‘local’ killed his old man, while he was sleeping, with a baseball bat. Both were having sex with the same woman; jealousy.

The dark side exists and expresses itself, with whatever means available.

DD-
That is an opinion that is proffered by a lot of folks who want to fix the problem (and the solution) to government. As I have argued on other threads, the crisis is rooted in people not paying their bills. The reason why this is all of a sudden a problem is that a group of people who had previously been denied mortgages eventually became mortgage holders – the subprimes. This is because financial institutions in the need to find new classes of investments started considering securitized subprime debt. It is not surprising that the highest rates of default have occurred in zip codes where previously there had been the highest rate of mortgage denials. If you want to pin this on regulators, in my opinion you are starting from a protectionist standpoint and we are having two different conversations. I suppose relaxing lending standards to qualify for government programs is part of it. Still, the big problem in my opinion is financials simply made bad bets on insolvent people. If you are looking for an institution to blame, consider the Fed. It is arguable that monetary policy for the last seven years was a little too loose, driving banks to the point of considering subprime mortgage.

DD-
In terms of raw intelligence progeny tend to deviate toward the mean.

DD, my premise was that the DAD should also be on trial for buying his 11yr old a shotgun for xmas.

Blood: I agree wholeheartedly with your statement regarding the culprit of our banking problems. The ‘poor’ people were not the ones approving the loans. The banks were the ones exploiting the poor, knowing full well they’d either be bought out or bailed out when necessary.
But, as far as people not paying their bills, maybe that started when they were scared out of their socks by the energy prices last year…………which were started by the same people buying up the subprimes……coincidence?

Coach-
Just to clarify…I think people not paying their bills is definitely a problem. You sign a contract, you better be ready to abide by the terms. I recognize that predatory lending practices exist, but I also recognize that making bad financial decisions is a more universal problem in America. One of our most endearing qualities is an abiding optimism. I suppose, if you look at the Dow for example, over its entire history, it might be tempting to conclude that the market is on a continuous upward trend. At the same time, folks made some very bad decisions out of unrealistic optimism, betting skyrocketing real estate prices would allow them to refi out of unfavorably-termed mortgages after a year had created enough appreciated equity to allow them to do so. It turned out that this trend, not surprisingly, was not sustainable. We have to hold people to be responsible for making bad decisions like this. When you sign a contract, the expectation has to be that you understand the terms and conditions. A civil society cannot exist with this degree of responsibility. I definitely agree that the financial services who made these bets were stupid. Bottom-line is that they need to be accountable for understanding the lending practices that originated the receivables they were purchasing. So, financials made more or less the same mistakes that homebuyers did on a grand scale. We would have been much better off in the long run to let the market punish them. Regardless of the stupidity of what was going on in the financial services sector, there should not be a free pass to all of the people who got themselves into bad mortgages. Coddling stupidity is never a good practice. If you set up a situation where the government swoops in and resets these peoples mortgages, you are setting a terrible precedent of dependence. How can people be trusted going forward to make sound financial decisions? And no, I don’t think high gas prices ’scared’ people out of not paying their bills. I don’t see how one follows from the other.

Blood: Ever live paycheck to paycheck? Ever had gas prices rise 400% in less than a year while living paycheck to paycheck? I bed you’d sacrifice that Macy’s credit card payment for a few months……..That’s how they correlate.

Anyway. I, don’t recall saying we shold coddle stupidity. But, at the same time, that’s why we elect officials to do the deciding for us. They’re the ones who should realize that the ‘masses’ are the stupid ones, and they should realize that there WOULD be an outbreak of low-incomers seeking to finally own a home. Irresponsibility of the home ‘buyers’ should have been anticipated is all I’m saying. Therefore, I put WAY more responsibility on the legislators that opened up this subprime avenue, and the lenders, themselves.

Ole,

Not surprising, I buy into Coach’s assessment. the pros and the gov’t are supposed to be the ’smart’ ones to prevent this sort of chit from happening. Most in the country are clueless about such things and if they’re turned down for a loan by a ‘reputable’ firm, they’ll keep looking until they can find a shady one. And for that they SHOULD be ‘punished’. I think the fact that they’ve lost everything is a good start. The fact that they’ll probably NEVER be able to buy a home should be another.

But we, I hope Coach is in agreement, are talking about preventing a financial crisis, and the only ones who had the means and wherewithal to do so, did not. A pox upon both their houses.

I’m not sure what measures are available but not being able to work in the business would be a good start for the private sector and chopping a grade or so for the gov’t folks would be nice.

By the by, Ole, how come you can call for accountability but ‘chastise’ me for same?

Coach,

There is no legal answer. If he couldn’t buy the gun for the brat, he could simply ‘give’ him one of his own. I’d like to think there are some laws of culpability vis a vis the use of firearms that reach out and nab stupid parents but given the strength of the gun lobby, I fear not.

I’m sure (I hope) the father is grieving considerably over the incident but I’d take it farther, cite him with a felon which prevents him from the ownership of firearms, forever. That’s a pretty hard knock for folks of that ilk.

Otherwise, this is just fodder for another Grisham story to get folks all riled up. But NOT enough to make change.

DD-
I am calling for people to be accountable to the terms and agreements of legal contracts. I don’t think it is a stretch of the imagination to see where this differs from making bad business decisions. Corporate executives have a fiduciary responsibility to act to the best of their abilities. If they fail in this regard, it is definitely significant and calls for a certain kind of accountability; my criticism of your position was that it appeared to me that you were conflating criminal negligence with pure ineptitude, and that didn’t seem accurate or fair to me. I agree that in a number of sensational examples – Madoff, Thain, etc. – both of these shortcomings were at issue, but in the bulk of the cases, I don’t think there was any real malfeasance. I can’t remember if we established that you were either conflating these two issues or if I was incorrect in assuming you were, or whether you thought it even mattered. But I will defer to your better judgment.

Indeed it is not surprising that you think government should be the ones to protect the public from there own stupidity. (You have to admit you set yourself up for that snide remark.) Anyway, we’ll just have to agree to disagree that society is somehow strengthened from a state that makes sure people don’t walk off of financial cliffs. I suppose you don’t find it alarming that people can’t be depended on to comprehend a legal contract or accurately project their ability to meet financial obligations based on their ability and willingness to perform certain labors. I suppose you think that it is the government’s fault that these people have not been swept off their feet by some amazing government program aimed at their sensitive hearts and minds. Honestly, I don’t suppose all this. You’ve told me that you don’t feel this way; you’ve told me you have bootstrapped yourself up into the existence that you enjoy. So, I guess I am just having a little trouble understanding why you think the government needs to be the agent to make everything right. What am I missing? Where am I misunderstanding how these different perspectives are reconcilable?

Bloody, props on the ’snide’ one. However, I don’t think we’re ‘justifying’ stupidity. I think it’s more of a ‘fact of life’ type assessment. And, based on that assessment, we realize the alternative would be so much worse.

Can you imagine a world with zero government aide?

This whole thing just reminds me how sick and tired of the whole ’soci@list’ echo. As if there’s some kind of threshold. Social spending as a part of our gdp is still going to be WAY lower than western Europe.

Before anyone points it out, I’ll take the liberty of calling out that the second sentence in my previous posts sounds absolutely idiotic. I identify the distinction I was trying to make later on, but this probably was not the best way to make it.

Coach-
Yes, I have lived paycheck to paycheck. It was not pleasant. When I was in college – that I paid for myself – my wife and I shared a $27 a week grocery budget so that we could pay off debt and save for a house. These times were tough. I remember poking my fingers in the change return of pay phones (does that date me?) so my wife could pay the toll to cross the bridge on her way to work in the morning. Life was not exactly pleasant. It got me out the fukking door, though. I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life eating living in a flea-infested shtthole. I worked hard in school. I took the hardest classes I could so I could prove to employers that although I attended a state school that I could work at a high level. I recognize that there were many deviations that I might have taken from what was a both a disciplined and lucky path that very easily would not have led to traction in a lifestyle where my previous concerns were able to be somewhat transcended. I think that what got me (and my wife) through this period was that we had a solid upbringing by good upstanding families; we got the right instincts from our parents. I don’t delude myself into thinking that I am merely wiser than the rest of the world. Nevertheless, those instincts aren’t going to be transmitted to people by way of the government. Cultures, subcultures, and individuals evolve instincts based on the consequences of their own decisions. It took me years to get over a single heating bill I left unpaid for a whole impoverished winter and the(barely -poverished) subsequent spring and summer. The lessons I learned from the credit implications of this mistake, the shear embarassment of dealing with it, and the period of forgoing the immediate use of income to pay off this debt were tough ones. Seeing ‘Illinois Power Company’ on my credit report for seven years was an unpleasant reminder of this mistake that thwarted me at many financial crossroads. There were numerous other financial crises from that period, but I made it through it by working very hard, worrying constantly, drinking heavily, etc. I am not going to say that this is ideal, but I just don’t see where government might have intervened on my behalf in all of this.

Ole,

Coach said it pretty good but I’ll amp it a bit.

I think we’re in agreement that ‘man’ evolved into the social animal he is through the introduction of institutions to help govern his/her life. I suppose Church might be considered the first although others might say the tribal council.

Some ‘thing’ (institution?) was necessary to establish good behavior and bad behavior and dealt with the latter.

With an increase in numbers and the complexity of existence, a more ‘complete’ institution was called for: gov’t. (Sorry for the pedantry.)

I should hope, therefore, that we both agree the need for some institutional oversight in the behavior of ‘man.’ I think we only disagree in the extent. Small potatoes I believe.

The ‘life’ you cited is both admirable and ‘normal.’ Most of us in life were blessed with a heritage that dictated that we not settle for second-best and we strive to be as successful as we would like to be. But what of those that were not so endowed? Cast them aside.

I don’t know from whence the opinion, but in school I read an opinion that an industrialized society will always have a certain percentage of unemployed. I expand that premise to state that in a complex, industrialized society such as we have, there will always be a small percentage ‘left behind.’ They just can’t cope. And that’s not a detrimental assessment, the amount of prescription drugs to treat depression and anxiety issued each year speaks to how difficult it IS to cope. That some should fail should not be considered remarkable.

That said, what of them? Cast them aside as I said? Methinks not. It is the nature of ‘man’ for the ‘haves’ to see to the needs of the ‘have nots.’ That used to be the purview of churches and philanthropic societies. With a ‘melting pot’ of 300+ million, it is not possible anymore and it falls to the gov’t to “do what’s right.”

An example of the difference in perspective is offered by the late, lame Ronald Reagan and his unconscionable actions in casting mental patients out of their hospitals and onto the streets. An extreme example, perhaps, but defining when juxtaposed against the gov’t subsidizing oil companies.

DD-
I agree institutions have played a role in establishing systems of ethics. I disagree that government should take over in this role as the influence of the cultural institutions such as church and family decline. I believe that it is the government’s duty to foster, or at least not obstruct, a climate where these institutions can prosper. Ideally, governments make laws that appeal to our reason by comparing specific practices to a generalized system of ethics that reflects that of the culture as a whole. Governments don’t, for example, decide whether the practice of abortion per se is right or wrong; rather, governments establish how this practice can be reconciled or not with common ethical norms. As a result, the law is more an effect than a cause. Certainly, this is not a perfect system, but it works and improvements are periodically made. What you are proposing would be for law to be both the cause and the effect. I am not inclined to worry about slippery slopes, but this is probably the slipperiest slope of them all. When you vest government with the ability to define right and wrong versus the authority to merely implement their interpretation of the people’s sense of right and wrong, you are setting the stage for authoritarianism, monarchy, etc. Ultimately, a class of people who claim revelation will be empowered to enforce their interpretation of ‘right conduct’ on a population who cannot dissent without being in violation of this code.

Studies show that religious people are no more likely to act ethically than non-religious people. There is a plethura of additional evidence that indicates that Religion is NOT the source of morality in any way.

Tinfoil-
Interesting point, but I am a bit skeptical. A study can’t (shouldn’t?, wouldn’t?) show that behavior is ethical, so I am assuming that you are suggesting that studies show that religious people versus non-religious are no more likely to have a system of ethics informing their behavior. I would be interested to know how such an experiment could be designed that would not rely on self-reporting which to me is inherently biased towards cognitive associations. If you believe that our behaviors are purely motivated by cognition, I can understand where these studies might appear to be valid. In my opinion a system of ethics goes beyond cognition. Our motivations are much more informed by the organic structure of our minds. To me familial bonds and religious experience are much more likely to effect the development of our non-cognitive minds and/or establish connections between our centers of cognition and non-cognitive centers. Indeed there is ample evidence to support this belief. In any case, an experiment that would rely on self-reporting is undermined by a test subject’s incomplete, strictly cognitive, interpretation of his behavior.

Ole,

I’m really not sure what you’re saying; you must have elevated over my head.

If I DO understand some of what you’re saying, you seem to suggest the most idealistic/unrealistic form of gov’t imagined.

Aside from local gov’t, which is definitely NOT a form of representative gov’t, the intent is for the populace to express their collective opinion about behavior and for the State to enforce that opinion. Opinions change and the laws reflect that.

There WAS, I’m sure you know, a time that abortion was deemed illegal by the State.

There was a time, too, when a husband ‘disciplining’ his wife was not ‘illegal.’ Frowned upon, perhaps, but not illegal.

DD-
You are echoing my point. Law is supposed to reflect the governed population’s ethical beliefs. I read your previous posts as advocating that government fill the void that remains following the decline of the church:

“Some ‘thing’ (institution?) was necessary to establish good behavior and bad behavior and dealt with the latter.

With an increase in numbers and the complexity of existence, a more ‘complete’ institution was called for: gov’t. (Sorry for the pedantry.)”

My point is that when government becomes the institution that sets the tone for what is right and wrong, then the governed populations’ moral/ethical beliefs become redundant. The government no longer need to turn to the population to guide its functioning. This sets the stage for more autocratic forms of government.

Ole,

Must be terminology. I think you’re taking a more canonical perspective than I. I’m talking about managing the affairs of man so all can live peacefully together.

Is it wrong to dump raw sewage into a stream? I sure think so and I doubt the church is going to do anything about it. It takes a larger, more defined, body.

So, in the evolution of gov’t, which came first, the sheriff or the tax collector? Organizationally, probably the latter, to fund the former. Vigilantes don’t count.

I don’t see how any religious creed would countenance any action that was known to be harmful. The Bible, for example is not silent on environmental issues.

Exodus 23:10
For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.

Reading this makes me think that it wouldn’t be to outside the realm of possibility to read a parable of the poisoned well. Religion is not merely some old stuff carved into stone. Why shouldn’t religion reflect expanding awareness of our physical world?