Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look
WASHINGTON - Only five days into the Obama presidency, members of the new administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are already dancing around one of the most politically delicate questions about the financial bailout: Is the president prepared to nationalize a huge swath of the nation's banking system?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has alluded to internal debate over whether large banks should be nationalized, while aides to President Obama have avoided the word and are looking into alternatives. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images) Privately, most members of the Obama economic team concede that the rapid deterioration of the country's biggest banks, notably Bank of America and Citigroup, is bound to require far larger investments of taxpayer money, atop the more than $300 billion of taxpayer money already poured into those two financial institutions and hundreds of others.
But if hundreds of billions of dollars of new investment is needed to shore up those banks, and perhaps their competitors, what do taxpayers get in return? And how do the risks escalate as government's role expands from a few bailouts to control over a vast portion of the financial sector of the world's largest economy?
The Obama administration is making only glancing references to those questions. In an interview Sunday on "This Week" on ABC, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, alluded to internal debate when she was asked whether nationalization, or partial nationalization, of the largest banks was a good idea.
"Well, whatever you want to call it," said Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California. "If we are strengthening them, then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization.
"I'm not talking about total ownership," she quickly cautioned - stopping herself by posing a question: "Would we have ever thought we would see the day when we'd be using that terminology? ‘Nationalization of the banks?' "
So far, President Obama's top aides have steered clear of the word entirely, and they are still actively discussing other alternatives, including creating a "bad bank" that would nationalize the worst nonperforming loans by taking them off the hands of financial institutions without actually taking ownership of the banks. Others talk of de facto nationalization, in which the government owns a sizeable chunk of the banks but not a majority, with all that connotes.
That has already happened; taxpayers are now the biggest shareholders in Bank of America, with about 6 percent of the stock, and in Citigroup, with 7.8 percent. But the government's influence is far larger than those numbers suggest, because it has guaranteed to absorb the losses of some of the two banks' most toxic assets, a figure that could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Many believe this form of hybrid ownership - part government, part private, with the responsibilities of ownership unclear - will not prove workable.
"The case for full nationalization is far stronger now than it was a few months ago," said Adam S. Posen, the deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "If you don't own the majority, you don't get to fire the management, to wipe out the shareholders, to declare that you are just going to take the losses and start over. It's the mistake the Japanese made in the '90s."
"I would guess that sometime in the next few weeks, President Obama and Tim Geithner," he said, referring to the nominee for Treasury secretary, "will have to come out and say, ‘It's much worse than we thought,' and just bite the bullet."
So far the Obama administration has signaled that it is trying to avoid that day, and members of its economic team - among them Mr. Geithner and the president's top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers - made the case during the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s that governments make lousy bank managers.
Indeed, the risks of nationalization they warned about then apply equally to the United States now. The first is that nationalization can prove contagious. If the Obama administration took over Bank of America and Citigroup, two of the largest banks in the United States, private investors could decide to flee from the likes of JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, or other major banks, fearing they could be next.
Moreover, Mr. Obama's advisers say they are acutely aware that if the government is perceived as running the banks, the administration would come under enormous political pressure to halt foreclosures or lend money to ailing projects in cities or states with powerful constituencies, which could imperil the effort to steer the banks away from the cliff.
"The nightmare scenarios are endless," one of the administration's senior officials said.
The argument in favor of nationalization, even a brief nationalization of a few months or years, is straightforward: It might be the only way to pull America's largest financial institutions out of the downward spiral that makes it enormously difficult to raise the capital they need to keep operating.
Right now, many banks are reluctant to write off their bad debts, and absorb huge losses, unless they can first raise enough capital to cushion the blow. But they cannot attract that capital without first purging their balance sheets of the toxic assets. Japan's experience proved the dangers of that downward swirl; the economy stagnated, new lending ground to a halt and the country's diplomatic clout shrank with its balance sheets.
Nationalization could pull the banks out of that dive, at least temporarily, as the government injected capital, hired new managers and ordered a restart to lending. But some Republicans who bit their tongues when President George W. Bush ordered huge interventions in the market would charge that Mr. Obama was steering America toward socialism.
Nationalization, said Charles Geisst, a financial historian at Manhattan College "is just not a term in the American vocabulary."
"We think of it," he continued, "as something foreigners do to us, not something we do."
It is also something foreigners do to themselves: the British have recently taken a majority stake in the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Some of Mr. Obama's advisers have asked who the government would get to run the banks. Many of the most experienced executives are tainted by the decisions they made during the age of excess. And how would the government attract the best talent if it demanded that they take minimal pay - a political reality in the current environment?
Another option is for the government to buy the banks' most toxic assets either through a giant fund, or, more likely, a federally supported bad bank designed to buy up troubled investments. But in that case, taxpayers might well be the losers: They would have all of the banks' worst assets and none of their performing loans. And unless a deal is worked out to take a larger share of the banks whose bad loans are shuffled off to the government, the taxpayers would not have the chance to benefit by selling the shares back to private investors.
Moreover, cleaning up the banks' bad assets, without extracting a heavy price for the bank managers, shareholders and their lenders, is exactly what Mr. Summers and Mr. Geithner warned against during the Asian financial crisis.
"We told the Asians that they had to be willing to let banks and companies fail," said Jeffrey Garten, a professor at the Yale School of Management and a top official in the Clinton administration. "We warned that there was great moral hazard if governments just bailed them out."
"And now," he said, "we are doing the polar opposite of our advice."
Eric Dash contributed reporting from New York.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
54 Comments so far
Show AllYou bet the US needs to nationalize the banks.
Who could possibly be expected to run these banks at modest salaries?That's a red herring if there ever was one.The very worst of humanity has been in charge and caused this terrible mess we're in,and it's thrown out that only the very greedy could be expected to work in the industry?
The robber barons of old and slaveowners before that should be more than enough to prove that capitalism has crushed the common folk repeatedly.
The kleptocracy is so relentness in trying to thwart any progress that they have hundreds of talking heads to trot out in MSM and denounce socialism with such fervor that you'd swear the response they expect is religious ecstasy.Think of Bob Novak and all of Fox Network.
Socialism or a close cousin is the only thing that will alleviate our suffering.
nwfisher:
You apparently missed Klever's argument: "The robber barons of old and slaveowners before that should be more than enough to prove that capitalism has crushed the common folk repeatedly."
If commoners haven't been or continue to be "crushed" by robber barons, you wouldn't have to ask about CHILDREN GOING TO BED HUNGRY or LIVING ON THE STREET; they would all be fed and have a house to live in. There is presently enough food on this planet to feed everyone. There is also plenty of un-occupied real estate where street dwellers could be living.
"American capitalism has long had an element of systemic insatiability, but till now that voraciousness has been held in check, at least to a meaningful degree, by ideas about responsibility to the greater good. We’ve long known, for example –from the stories of the tobacco and asbestos industries—that America’s corporate systems are prone to succumb to the temptation to put profits ahead of caring for life." -A.B. Schmookler
What makes you think that going hungry or living on the street is the only form of suffering taking place in peoples lives today? Have you ever considered that some people may be working 70 hours per week so they can pay their health insurance, only to discover that their plan doesn't cover the treatments they need for a life-threatening disease they may have developed? Is that not suffering in your limited world view?
klever:
Agreed. Let's start by nationalizing the "Federal Reserve", which is NOT federal and has NO reserves.
WARNING: What they're calling "nationalization" of the banks is really privatization of the Treasury. When the banks get "rescued" or "bailed out" by the government, it's just a looting of the Treasury for the sake of the banks' balance sheets. The people will still have no oversight. The bank CEO's, if they're actually canned, will have their management responsibility assumed by - guess who? - the Treasury Secretary. And who's interest will he represent? The banking industry. No, we need to put an end to this deception and exploitation and let the banks fail, then terminate the privately owned unaccountable Federal Reserve System (which is not federal and not a reserve system). After that, with constitutionally issued interest-free currency, we should amend the constitution with an Economic Equality amendment, to ensure universal equal access to non-usurious credit. Non-exploitative credit should be recognized as a human right. The basic principle here is that of non-intervention; a principle which is found at the heart of Democratic Theory. It is the economic corollary to the conception of civil liberties which seeks to guarantee for each individual all those freedoms which are consistent with the same guarantee for every other individual. In its economic manifestation the principle of non-intervention can be stated as follows: "It is every prospective debtor's right to issue their promise to pay, free of extrinsic manipulation, adulteration, or exploitation of that promise, or the natural opportunity to make good on it."* If we want economic democracy, this principle absolutely demands constitution-level recognition.
*This is the essential definition of Mathematically Perfected Economy™ www.perfecteconomy.com
...a most salient point. This is what people need to keep firmly in mind as they try to interpret Obama's "stimulous" package. The Globalist Bankster Bailout(heist) is still alive and well.
".....Mr. Geithner and the president's top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers - made the case during the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s that governments make lousy bank managers."
Mr. Geithner is former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
"The Federal Reserve’s track record is one of complete failure. For most mortals, a job resume that contained such dismal performance would insure that one would not get a job, let alone one that pays so well." - D. Gnazzo
True! How many recessions and depressions do we have to endure before this government decides to re-vamp the policies of the Federal Reserve System - or eliminate it all-together? Since the inception of the Federal Reserve, this country has seen one econonmic bubble after another with "alleged" financial geniuses at the helm of our sinking ship. It's too bad for the citizens here and around the globe that Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan and Mr. Geithner (financial gurus), with the help of the SEC, didn't realize that hedging simply transfers risk to someone else while increasing risk to the global financial system.
Mr. Summers is a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
He was one of the many cheerleaders of DEREGULATION and debt derivatives that now threaten both the U.S. and global economy.
Both of these men, along with others in the "self-interest" / "private-for-profit" business, are responsible for the financial crisis we are facing today.
I guess the gurus of finance management forgot to calculate the probability/impact ratio when taking risks with depositors' savings, pensions plans and the like. WTF would we do without this private-for-profit intelligencia?
I would argue that the Federal Reserve has been an outstanding success for the twelve banks that make up the Fed...
The thirty year cycles of boom&bust, coupled with adjustable interest rates, has been a mechanism for siphoning wealth...
Most mortgages are on a 20 to 30 year term, so it is likely that the home"owners" will experience a burst of the bubble at some point...
The working poor give their wages back to the banks through rent and income taxes and sales taxes...
The middle class workers give their salaries back to the banks through mortgages, property & income taxes, and pension plans...
The management class give their money back to the banks through their mortgages, property & income tax, & investment portfolios...
the Fed ensures a steady inflation to devalue any wealth in savings or real estate, and recently kept the interest rate low for 5 years
To encourage new home buyers to buy into a bubble about to burst... This benefits the über rich just like after a stock market crash...
After a "pump & dump" in the real estate or stock market... Those that can afford to start buying up their competition (smaller banks)
At pennies on the dollar... Or purchasing real estate at half price, since they have cash in hand during a credit freeze...
It folows a general pattern of industrial opportunists taking advantage of (if not outright manufacturing) the economic collapses of the 1890's, 1929, (skipped one due to post WWII imperialism & leaving the gold standard), and has accellerated in recent years with the dotcom bubble, real estate bubble, and now the stock market predictably imploding under the weight of derivatives and bad securities...
All that money, albeit imaginary wealth creation by shuffling around the same stuff in paperless transactions, had to go somewhere...
The banksters knowingly created this giant ponzi scheme, and realized that they were soon holding the bag of all these worthess IOU's...
So they intentionally gamed the economy to crash... By manufacturing the crisis, they knew they could strong arm congress into a trillion dollar handout, and use that to leverage out their competition... Continuing the long tradition of capitalizing on disaster...
>>So far the Obama administration has signaled that it is trying to avoid that day, and members of its economic team - among them Mr. Geithner and the president's top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers - made the case during the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s that governments make lousy bank managers
It seems to me the Bankers that created this mess, from the BOA to Citigroup, from WAMU to Indymac , made lousy bank managers.
No one can argue with that statement of fact!
How can the government do this? The banks are a business owned by the shareholders. How can the government say look we think your business might fail so we are going to take it from you and give you nothing in return? That's robbery, that shows as little respect for law and rights as guantanamo bay. If they are going to fail then just let them fail. We've had enough fed power expansion under Bush we don't need under Obama too.
Two laws of nature are catching up that we have ignored.
Our compound interest (exponential rising) debt based money system violates the natural law that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
And the principle of "diseconomy of scale" when organizations get too big to succeed, the harder they fall.
In 1976 President Ford (Republican) consolidated a bunch of bankrupt private railroads and created Conrail, a government corporation. By 1996 Conrail was healthy enough to be divided and sold to two private companies, CSX and Norfolk Southern. It was a drastic measure. In retrospect, it was the best solution among a lot of bad choices.
Nationalization of banks is the best choice among a lot of horrible choices. It will be a lot better than continuing to throw trillions of taxpayer dollars at banks, only to see them use the money to line the pockets of the Wall Street pirates who caused the current depression, and create more banks that are "too big to fail".
Unless New Deal financial industry regulations are restored soon, even nationalization won't work. If Obama fails to do so, he will not succeed at anything because the Wall Street pirates will suck up every last penny, leaving zero funding for ANY program.
Money is too important to leave the bankers in charge. The Federal Reserve is apparently tooself serving, ie. not serving the nation. Lincoln took charge of the money, and there was a great mobilization to deal with WW II. It might be sort of ironic, that GW Bush, who wanted to be dictator, but instead did all the things that made it necessary for the next president to have to take charge in such a way, just to maintain order. An aside that I think is as interesting, is that usury, ie interest on loans, is one concept that both Christianisty and Islam agree is bad.
Pelosi sez: "Would we have ever thought we would see the day when we'd be using that terminology?"
Sanger sez: "So far, President Obama's top aides have steered clear of the word entirely ..."
Geisst sez: "Nationalization is just not a term in the American vocabulary."
***
This entire story is about not the economy, but about language (propaganda) and its role in selling USAns. Economically, the country has been run on a corporate socialism model for decades. That is, YOU get the risks and the losses while the 'Masters of the Universe' get the profits and benefits. But you won't hear that "terminology" from politicians or the press who will continue to "steer clear" of its use. It's "just not a term in the American (sic) vocabulary."
Also, whatever title is given to the fix for this bank mess, expect only superficial adjustments to the current flow of capital from The People to The Privateers.
Truth = political suicide.
Yes the term Socialism will be the next buzz word for the media to avoid the Truth.
Once in a while you will hear the Question "Socialism for who, the Banksters or the people?"
But because the word Socialism has been demonized it will be the political football like "the Left".
"Many believe this form of hybrid ownership - part government, part private, with the responsibilities of ownership unclear - will not prove workable."
And they're right. We already have something like that; it's called the federal reserve system.
How about instead of nationalizing, we completely deregulate the banking system. Then there will be no barriers to entry for small, localized banks. This will lead to so much competition that banks will only be able to charge interest rates that are enough to cover operating costs. Loans would be freely available to everyone that wanted them and the debt cycle would come to an end.
Anyone who thinks that more government meddling is the "progressive" response to the financial crisis should read Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. Only the government can prevent workers from earning their natural wage: their labor's product.
AndrewQ, ownership of wealth is highly uneven in this country, and throughout the world. Explain how, if you just deregulated the banking system, and got rid of the Fed, the differences in wealth wouldn't lead to consolidation in the market, and there wouldn't be HUGE and growing issues with differences in economics of scale. Give me an example in modern times of this or something similar in practice. I have a background in economics, could care less about theory alone. In the real world, with the differences in wealth and power, how could that possibly work? In what way would this be better? If you think getting rid of the Fed is important, what would you do about the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Eurodollar zone (with no reserve ratios), offshore tax shelters, fractional reserve banking, the un-earned wealth gained in the financial markets and its horrible effects on democracy (both problems centuries before this country was formed)?
Give me an example in modern times where the state has stepped away (especially in countries where there are large differences in wealth, 99% of the countries on Earth) and workers have gotten their "natural" wage. The term "natural" was used over and over again by classical economists. The said that the wage should be equal to a workers marginal productivity. Have any idea how high that would be in developed countries, where technology is so advanced and worker output is therefor extremely high (worker productivity has grown in the US as the government has stepped away and workers' wages have declined)? The classical economists basically said that in the long run the economic system would be at a stationary state for these types of reasons. The economy would hit a wall ecologically, wages would push down profitiability to point that capital investment would not make logical sense and fewer jobs would be created.
To me, mutualist ideas only have relavence in a country or region that is relativelhy egalitarian to begin with, it HAS to be preceeded by a social revolution. The more unequal a society is the more "mutaulist" ideas are nothing more than a justification for private tyranny. I HAVE read about mutualism, and am inclined towards social anarchism, so I don't say this in ignorance. There's a blog that you might find interesting called "Free market anti-capitalism".
The problem that governmental meddling is that we don't have a democratic government, we have rule by out of touch politicians, so there is no way to stop them from benefiting one industry or cooperative over another. If we have a functioning participatory democracy it wouldn't be as much of a problem and maybe you're ideas would be possible.
"Give me an example in modern times where the state has stepped away and workers have gotten their "natural" wage."
The state has never stepped away. It has always provided *huge* benefits to the wealthy. That's it's sole function.
"Explain how, if you just deregulated the banking system, and got rid of the Fed, the differences in wealth wouldn't lead to consolidation in the market, and there wouldn't be HUGE and growing issues with differences in economics of scale."
You seem a bit confused. In a free market, businesses do not grow nonstop. They grow until they reach the point of maximum efficiency. modern corporations are extremely large and inefficient. They are only feasible because of massive government intervention. Take agriculture for example. Does anyone really believe that agribusiness would be able to compete with local farms if the government didn't give them handouts and heavily subsidize transportation?
I was wondering if anyone out there actually reads the Constitution and knows what the government can and cannot do. You know folks it is not the governments job to save the economy. That's the simple fact. The Constitution was written for individuals to have freedoms and to limit the government's role in society.
To the people who think capitalism is evil, that's just a an easy scape goat on this economic melt down. How come before the Federal Reserve was put into place in 1913 that the United States was doing fine. Sure there was the depression during Martin Van Buran's presidency, which was the cause of the government trying to set up central banks. Thomas Jefferson was right in every way that the government has no business handling money. IT IS NOT their job to redistribute wealth! The government has no business to run a business! Does anyone catch what I am saying? Did you know the income tax didn't exist until 1913? Did you know that dollar you hold in your pocket is literally worth nothing?
We wouldn't need all this pointless regulation that obviously does not solve the problem if we didn't allow 'those in charge' to create the problem. If somebody can point out in the Constitution as to where the government has a right to do this, by all means, congratulations, you win, capitalism was the failure of everything from those greedy men and now the government must dictate where all our money goes and who gets what.
The definition of capitalism is: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Okay, why is this such a bad ordeal? I work my job to make money to pay for food, housing, bills, AND believe it or not to better my future with that extra money or profit to do as I see fit with it. It's human nature! It's our natural right that work is the exchange of service for in this case money. If somebody makes billions of dollars, who fault is it? Look at Walmart with their rich paranoid people. Is it capitalism's fault that these weirdos have so much money and control over the system, OR is it the people's fault for continuing to buy products from their store and not holding the government accountable by acting as anti lobbyists. It boils down to the people's lack of care.
So back to the basic question... does anyone actually read the Constitution?
Yes, I read the Constitution and I feel Capitalism and Socialism are two concepts but do not exist in pure form because all systems are a mix of private and public ownership.
I think that money is a utility that should be owned by the public like interstate freeways not by private international banking corporations that charge the people compound interest for their own money. The reality that our medium of exchange is owned privately determines the value of labor and everything including how our systems have evolved to what we now have.
It is as if the big banks owned our language and charged us interest for its use. Big money owns the media so in a way they do that too.
This is why we are now socializing all the losses of the System to put on the backs of ourselves and future generations.
One good thing is that this has become a public issue for the first time in a long time.
This is not pure Capitalism or Socialism... this is just letting money control the people instead of the people controlling money.
Without nationalizing the FED and our money, nationalizing the little banks under the control of the FED will just put us in Deeper Debt and then there is the International Bank of Settlements, who determine what the relative value of currencies are worth, to deal with.
I feel we will have to fall deeper before we get out and up. That is about as optimistic as I can be for us.
The Fed is secret and not accountable... If Obama wants to follow the money, I suggest he threaten to nationalize the Fed.
Then, order an investigation and send in the FBI.
National Security and emergency... that's what I would do.
Damn, that would break the wall of silence fast!
Jim Glover:"I think that money is a utility that should be owned by the public like interstate freeways not by private international banking corporations that charge the people compound interest for their own money."
That is why our Founding Fathers and people like Ron Paul spoke about the United States not getting involve in foreign affairs and the game of enemies and allies. I am not talking about stalling trade or not defending ourselves, but not allowing America to be members in world organizations such as the UN, NATO, NAFTA, etc... because than they begin to dictate where our money goes and that leads us to start world banks. Also we allow foreigners to purchase government bonds and invest in this country, which I'm not sure how I feel about that.
JG: "It is as if the big banks owned our language and charged us interest for its use. Big money owns the media so in a way they do that too."
Who decides to let big banks get big? Well, we do. It's the people who put their money into these banks or buy products from people who put money into these corporate banks. Nobody has a gun to my head to support them, and my money remains away from them. I don't support mainstream media. Thankfully we have the internet to fuel our alternative media resources and just books in general are a media form and I don't own a t.v. I don't allow big media in my life.
JG: "One good thing is that this has become a public issue for the first time in a long time. This is not pure Capitalism or Socialism... this is just letting money control the people instead of the people controlling money."
I concur.
JG: "Without nationalizing the FED and our money, nationalizing the little banks (...)"
We shouldn't nationalize the Federal Reserve, we should completely abolish it.
Yes, I do, what does that matter? ANYTHING you read should be logically questioned. If the constitution says something, does it make it logically sound, is it the truth without question? If so, why bother amending the constitution? Personally, I think there is a huge flaw in the constitution, the lack of a fourth branch. The three branches check each other, but who make up the three branches but people usually with the same background, similar ideas and roughly the same interests. The check each other but who checks them all collectively? There are no direct, participatory measures, which is a problem in times like these, where popular opinion on the issues so differs with the opinions of elites in government.
There are many problems with capitalism. For one, the "free market" capitalism they teach in economics classrooms doesn't exist. The state has always, without exception, had a massive role in every capitalist country. No state has ever developed without massive state involvement. Not a single one, I challenge you to name a country that has. Our economic system is almost entirely reliant on the state and has been for decades (Dean Baker's "The Conservative Nanny State" details it well). A good portion of our technological breakthroughs come out of the socialist institution the US military or from companies reliant on state money for R & D. We socialize the costs of R & D at universities as well, and government grants. The state has ALWAYS protected domestic industry and has had for decades a capital intensive agricultural system protected by the state, with large and growing subsidies.
It isn't and never has been about the state having a strong hand in industry, since it always has and realistically always will. It is about how much we collectively get back on our investment. In capitalism, not so much, since the proceeds usually go back towards capital investment or financial speculation (creating money out of thin air).
There's also the fact that the vast majority of the world is under the capitalist system, but are dirt poor, with chronic underdevelopment, exploitation and environmental destruction. There is a finite amount of resources in the world. We in the West consume about six times more per capit than those in the poorer countries. Our wealth is directly related to the poverty of the majority of the world's people. If they increase their consumption we'll have to decrease ours, or we'll destroy the environment.
Functionally, there is no capitalism without large differences in wealth. Once you realize that there are limits to growth in the long term, that ecological information missing in the economic system (completely absent in prices and national indices, the costs are now socialized), that poorer countries (especially in Latin America) are demanding development and higher consumption levels and that democratic economic planning will be needed to deal with this, capitalism's days are numbered. The system that follows might have elements of capitalism, but will be no closer to capitalism than system it replaced.
Wilber1: "Yes, I do, what does that matter? ANYTHING you read should be logically questioned. If the constitution says something, does it make it logically sound, is it the truth without question? If so, why bother amending the constitution?"
Okay... did I say the Constitution was the perfect document of the world? The Founding Fathers permitted amendments because they knew the Constitution is a living document that must continue to evolve. After they wrote the Constitution, they quickly added the amendments called the Bill of Rights. I believe the Constitution though is written well enough to help us dictate the rules to govern America. Sadly, it has been abused and changed with added crap like prohibition that errors against the Constitution. The Founding Fathers new the citizens can't have their hand held by them forever, thus the greatest freedom about the Constitution is the freedom to amend it for better or worse.
I sincerely believe that if we didn't stray so far off from the Constitution, than we would be in much better shape and we could continue to iron out the imperfections that come along instead of working on the problems that develop from not following this important document. That is in a perfect world though and perfection only exists when we strive for it, we never reach it. If you believe you have achieved perfection, than you have fallen off the path.
W1: "Personally, I think there is a huge flaw in the constitution, the lack of a fourth branch."
We the people are the fourth branch. It's the failure of us to keep them in checked and balanced ultimately. The Constitution gives us the right to abolish our government if we choose to.
W1: "No state has ever developed without massive state involvement. Not a single one, I challenge you to name a country that has."
I couldn't, but in the late 1700's, America was also the first nation to have a free democracy. It takes time and an educated public to make that change, so someday if we gave it a chance, it could happen. Where we draw the line between a free market and state involvement, I couldn't give you that answer in detail, but I am working on it.
W1: "In capitalism, not so much, since the proceeds usually go back towards capital investment or financial speculation (creating money out of thin air)."
Creating money out of thin air isn't permitted by the Constitution, or logic for that reason. It's the owners of the money who decide where the money goes. Are you saying the philanthropic money from billionaires such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet was terrible capitalism? It all depends on the person's heart, not the theory itself. Capitalism gives that person the right to do for good or ill whatever they want with their money. You cannot deny them that right. If they earned it through government corruption, who is to blame? I would say it's the people's morals, not our natural given freedoms.
W1: "There's also the fact that the vast majority of the world is under the capitalist system (...)"
Not a free market, more like the fake government controlled market.
W1: " Our wealth is directly related to the poverty of the majority of the world's people. If they increase their consumption we'll have to decrease ours, or we'll destroy the environment."
As Peter Schiff put's it, there are seven people on an island. Six are asian and one is American. The six asians spend all their time working to put food on the table, the American's only job is to eat the meal. Once the asians figure out they don't need that American and they can use that food for themselves, they will cut off the American.
That is a quick summary of it, and he is right, we are the caboose of the world dragging it rather than helping it. That time will come when the world is tired of this. So you are right, we do need to decrease our consumption. I speak for myself by living a Buddhist philosophy called the Middle Way.
I would argue that the worlds IQ is going up and people are realizing the freedoms they could have if they fight for them and that is how the wealth playing field will level out. If you look at it, we are living in the most non violent times in humans existence.
There is no direct say by the people in the actual workings of the government. You seem to be a libertarian, and libertarians HATE formal and economic democracy (if you want direct quotes let me know), so I don't think you'd care.
Look at almost every issue and look at the opinions of the corporate media and the politicians (and as a result governmental policy). There is a HUGE gap between the two, the people are to the "left" of either party and the media by a mile on the issues themselves. There are endless polls and studies done on public opinion, and they show this without question. The reason is that we vote for representatives and they make the policies, our job is to beg them to listen to us. In countries like Switzerland and Venezuela, they have direct democracy, so if the public disagrees with a set of laws or wants the head of state out, a public referendum is done and if the public supports the reversal of policy or the removal of a politician they get it. THAT is what I'm talking about. The founding fathers were rich property owners, who had a dislike for democracy (they were republicans) and wanted the public to allow elites to make policy since they were so much smarter than us.
You seem like a smart guy, please read about capitalism in practice. Charity is nice, it isn't enough. Frankly, an economic system that allows someone to be as rich as Bill Gates is fundamentally flawed to begin with. Remember, Adam Smith said that profits would be highest in the countries going quickest to ruin, and that profits above the "natural" rate would be a tax upon the general public. Hear anyone, outside of the radical left, saying that now?
Capitalism rewards banks and financial investors who add NOTHING to the world. They create wealth for themselves by playing around with numbers on a computer screen or by currency arbitrage, and they monopolize the work of productive people. Most of the wealth shouldn't be there's in the first place. They, and corporations, are also externalizing machines who get rich by creating costs that they never pay for, and with the state of the environment this problem is growing.
Private charrity is nice, but no where near enough. Again, provide me with an example where it has. What you have is THEORY, and if theory alone can be an argument then I'm sure you'd accept communism on theoretical grounds, since it is far different in theory than practice.
You could say I am a libertarian, but classifying beliefs is like labeling a genre to music.
W1: "There is a HUGE gap between the two, the people are to the "left" of either party and the media by a mile on the issues themselves. There are endless polls and studies done on public opinion, and they show this without question. The reason is that we vote for representatives and they make the policies, our job is to beg them to listen to us."
I don't think the people know how to vote. How many people do you think actually care to be involved in the government? The big flaw in the system is laziness and it isn't until the public gets slapped around a few times are they willing to wake up and make a change. This applies to any theory or philosophy.
W1: "In countries like Switzerland and Venezuela, they have direct democracy, so if the public disagrees with a set of laws or wants the head of state out, a public referendum is done and if the public supports the reversal of policy or the removal of a politician they get it."
I truly believe Venezuela is ran by a dictator, but that is for future discussion. Switzerland is a unique country in my mind and a country I would love to visit. There seems to be great policies coming out of Switzerland that I agree are working for them. The difference between Switzerland and the United States is vastly different. A reason why our Founding Fathers chose for us to elect representatives is because it allows a proportionally smaller group to make decisions that the general public could not spend the time researching and working out in a new bill. I don't think this is bad and in this country we still have the right to elect them out and get honest people in. If people took the time to research those who they were electing than a better representation would be in order.
I agree with you on that public referendum can work. Take my home state of Montana for example. In 2006 the voters passed a law allowing medical marijuana to be prescribed by physicians. It passed 3:2 which is the majority, but still close to 1:1. In this case I am glad the public was smart enough to pass this act, but those who were against it had some terrible arguments on their side with the typical government propaganda on the false dangers or cannabis. Our representatives united during the legislation session to allow this opportunity. That is an example of success in our political system. It could have been wreck whether politicians or the public voted it down. Of course my bias was in favor so it all depends on personal interpretation.
But, the Founding Fathers knew a majority could overwhelm the rights of a minority, which could have been the case in the medical marijuana vote.
Back to the Switzerland issue. When you have a country as diverse as the United States, I don't think you could get the public as a whole to agree on any national policy. We couldn't even get around step 1 which is identifying the problem. You could (as would I) that those we elect seem to have a hard time on this, but maybe a better.
I notice my argument is funneling towards that whether you are a capitalist or a socialist, or a libertarian or whatever, it can work out if people care and quite being lazy. If the hearts of the people are good, than it shouldn't matter what theory, right? Well capitalism still allows that element of individual freedom that socialism is dictated by the government on my personal possessions such as money. In my case I've begun to drop out off the system or grid in order to quit feeding that monster and to start right again. You argue these polls or media know what we want, but look at the people like my grandma who only voted for McCain because she knew Obama was for abortion. How pitiful yet this is how our public votes.
The Constitution understands the need for state independence and not to rely on the federal government. I am for strong state rights truly, not federal would be my ultimate argument. That way if you and others in your state want a socialist movement, than by all means get it going! I don't care what theory you believe in unless you are in my state, than I would be down at the state capital arguing against it! If your side won I'd either give it a try or move to a new place with my similar thinking.
I greatly disagree that the Founding Fathers were against democracy.
"I truly believe Venezuela is ran by a dictator, but that is for future discussion."
The constitution that Venezuela has rights given to citizens that we could only dream of. If 35% of the public wants the president recalled it goes to a national referendum. It was used once against Chavez, every international election monitor (including the Carter foundation) said the vote was fair and accurate. The recall lost. The people of Venezuela only have this right thanks to the constitution they agreed on in a national referendum in 1999. Do dictators give people rights like that? If 10% of the public disagrees with a law, the law is put up for a national vote and can be overturned. Chavez's campaign to amend the constitution was rejected, which he accepted. Is that what dictators do? Set up community councils to give people direct power?
The RCTV case, the "media repression", is illustrative of the lies people like you believe. In 2002 there was an attempted destruction of the economy by the (minority) opposition, it was supported by the US through the NED, USAID and the CIA. There was a coup, which for a brief period dissolved all branches of the democratically elected government, dissolved the constitution, removed the head of the central bank and set up a military dictatorship. The US supported this and was the first country to recognize a military dictatorship that removed a democratically and widely supported government. RCTV openly helped the coup, to the point that the coup plotters thanked, on national TV, RCTV in particular for their help.
What did Chavez do in response? What would happen if China funded a coup here that installed a dictatorship, with the open help of CNN? What would happen to CNN if they did this? By law, it's treason, possibly death sentence. Chavez waited for the license to be renewed and let it run out. The station's punishment for openly supporting the removal of Venezuela's democracy was that it had to go to cable. What did the press say here? Dictatorship! Freedom of the press under attack!
Never mind that countless times the government here has shut down the press, going back to the beginning of the country. That Uribe in Colombia shuts down papers and kills reporters who dare point out the truth, Chavez closed down a right wing dictatorship supporting press.
I say this because it is illustrative of your mindset. Lula in Brazil, the “good left” according to elites here, was asked about democracy in Venezuela and said, roughly, “the problem in Venezuela isn’t that there is too little democracy, it’s that there’s too MUCH democracy”.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:-WKyB5TpqPcJ:www.rethinkvenezuela.co...
Latinobarómetro 2008 finds that Venezuela has the region’s highest rate of support for democracy as the best system of government, and the second highest rate of satisfaction with the actual functioning of democracy. Satisfaction with democracy has shot up by 14 percentage points over a decade ago, when President Chávez was first elected. While Venezuela ranked two percentage points below the regional average on this issue in 1998, it is 12 points ahead of the regional average in 2008.
In the poll, Venezuelans were the most likely among all Latin Americans to view voting as the best way to affect political change. A full 80 percent held this view, compared to 55 percent in Chile. Venezuelans were by far the least likely to agree that it is impossible to influence political change, while Chileans were the most likely to agree. Meanwhile, though fifteen percent of Venezuelans said they had attended a protest, this country was the second-to-least likely to express the view that political change is best sought by protesting. This indicates a high level of confidence in official channels for political participation.
If your philosophy is so wonderful, why the dismal results in the region who's attempted them most?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14444480.htm
According to the annual Latinobarometro survey, more than 80 percent of those living in continental Latin America and the Dominican Republic -- a region of 400 million people -- believe the government should control and oversee public services such as pensions, health and education, the annual survey showed.
...In Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, some 90 percent believe that pensions should be in the hands of the state. All currently have private pension systems. Seventy-eight percent of respondents in Chile also believe the telecoms system, privatized 20 years ago, should be in state hands.
Here are links proving US involvment in the coup in Venezuela:
DOCUMENTS OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: http://venezuelafoia.info/cia.html
DOCUMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY (NED)
http://venezuelafoia.info/ned-english.html
DOCUMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID)
http://www.venezuelafoia.info/usaid.html
THE CARMONA DECREE
http://www.venezuelafoia.info/carmona.html
(Additional documents from the Drug Enforcement Agency [DEA] and the FBI will soon be posted at http://www.venezuelafoia.info/. From The Wilderness is providing a permanent link to this site.)
The biggest worry for me is hero worship, or a cult of personality. This isn't about Chavez, it's about the ideas of the Bolivarian Revolution, which will go on with or without him.
Hey Wilber1, I'll get around to replying to this, but right now I can't add my rebuttal, but I am enjoying this discussion and would like to keep debating this and you into the future. Would you like to email me at a very old email address that I don't use for personal reasons (that way I am not posting the email account that matters to me) that way we aren't having this conversation just on Common Dreams? It's usa_basketball17@hotmail.com Tell me whether you want to or not (I wont take offense), but I don't check that account unless I am expecting something, so let me know.
On a side note, I cannot interpret Spanish, so those links don't necessarily do me good, but intriguing none the less. You did comment earlier about me reading the Constitution and not questioning it. My argument would be, how do you know this is true? Anyone could have written these? The fact the CIA would be involved should only be expected, however I am not stating you are lying.
That is an interesting case about Venezuela. I admit that I haven't looked into it as much as you and thus I am not saying he isn't a dictator, but it would be immature to say he is with my lack of knowledge on Chavez. I have picked up information here and there, but you have sparked my interest in this and I'll delve into this. I do find statistics and polls easily manipulated, but that is evidence against the lack of mine on Venezuela.
I went to wikipedia to see what they had to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27état_attempt
What do you think of the information on here? I haven't fully read it, but I'll check the wikipedia article out. If you do disagree with anything in it and have evidence, you can challenge that article, which you should.
I'm done, just one more comment.
"I greatly disagree that the Founding Fathers were against democracy."
They were. Basically they were for a republic, they didn't want democracy. There is a difference between the majority's opinions being implemented and squashing the rights of minorities. In practice, what you're saying is that you and the founding fathers object to democracy because of the rule of majority, but are for, in the end, rule by a minority over the majority. If the minority owns most of the wealth, earned usually without work, a "free market" is simply giving them the ability to chose what policies THEY find "acceptable". We can argue this back and forth, libertarians answer the question before it is even asked. It really isn't a realistic or just philosophy.
W1: "Capitalism rewards banks and financial investors who add NOTHING to the world. They create wealth for themselves by playing around with numbers on a computer screen or by currency arbitrage, and they monopolize the work of productive people."
This is a corrupt form of capitalism. I believe this same thing could happen under socialism as well. Do I trust the government to be handling our money. Hell no! This system is quickly crashing as you see and I predict a revival of the true value of precious metals like gold and silver will arise. What gold is worth on the market today in terms of US dollars is hog wash. It only has meaning if you want to convert it back to US Dollars or any currency. I don't want to start a side topic on gold, but how people like Bill Gates becomes so rich is essentially the illusion we allow ourselves to believe. In my view, he isn't rich. In fact having billions of dollars means nothing personally to me. We decide whether he has power or not and whether to accept his wealth. The people have through stocks and Bill Gates along with other like Steve Jobs marketed technology that has transformed humanity on a large scale, so I wouldn't call that a flaw but a risk with a big return they took. The majority could not have done what Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have done, they don't either have the intelligence or motivation.
You'll notice soon that Bill Gates will be a 'poor man' in terms of how much money he is going to loose.
W1: "What you have is THEORY, and if theory alone can be an argument then I'm sure you'd accept communism on theoretical grounds, since it is far different in theory than practice."
What do you have than my friend? Show me socialism or communism that is demonstrating your view. I exemplified above how capitalism and a libertarian view has effected us. With sarcasm aside, I am interested on your reply.
It isn't the corrupt form of capitalism. I am not a Marxist, but Marx had some interesting things to say about the birth of capitalism in the last ten chapters of Capital Vol I. He, along with the economist Karl Polanyi (you should look up and read "The Great Transformation", written the same year as "The Road to Serfdom" and far aplicable to the real world) showed that capitalism without a doubt was born out of government, and has never existed for long periods without governmental intervention. There's also an interesting book by Ha-Joon Chang called "Kicking Away the Latter" that goes over this exact thing, how countries without exception have developed with massive state intervention, and how the high standard of living results (in large part from a violent foreign policy, and authoritarian economic policies that benefit the already rich at the expense of the poor) and is maintained by social democracy. Social democracy is just as much socialism as capitalism and it is the ONLY system that has created a large middle class and delivered basic social services to the general public.
You asked for an alternative. The first would be to tax out of existence the un-earned financial wealth that the banks and investors have made on our backs, without adding a damn thing to the world, which would have to be done cooperatively throughout the world to realistically work, right now not a possibility. I would implement a "Tobin Tax" to tax speculative financial transactions, the funds going to help development in poor countries (which should only be given to functioning democracies, not elite run governments who'll spend the money on luxuries). In other words, take away the power of finance. Financial powers are the number one killers of democracy worldwide, they should be under democratic control. I would make those who create environmental costs (including over consumption beyond sustainable levels) to pay for them directly, not socialize the costs like now. I would include ecological information in prices and national induces. I would encourage the growth of cooperatives, and press for them to replace the outdated and destructive corporate form (one way of doing this would be do remove "limited liability" rights for corporations, and to give preferential funding to cooperatives, with incentives to trade and barter with one another, and to make the corporations pay for their externalities). I would give participatory economic rights, we as a general principal should have a direct say in every economic decision that effects us. The more it effects us the more say we should have. I also think that things like prices (currently determined by a small group of elites, with no ecological information included) should be determined democratically, not necessarily in national referendums, in a participatory matter in some way. I think monetary policy should be under popular control and the central bank should be under popular will, not independent and controlled by financial interests like now. If population and consumption cannot grow forever, which they can't, the monetary base can't either, so this is a huge problem we'll have to deal with. When the monetary base doesn't grow, there are big problems. These are just some ideas that I think would be an improvement.
If you're interested, an economist named Robin Hahnel wrote an amazing book articulating these ideas far better than me, called "The ABC's of Political Economy". If you want a fundamental critique of market economics and an alternative, he's the best there is. Herman Daly has a good book on the problems of orthodox economics in regards to the environment called "Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development".
Your example of taking care of themselves is nice and all, the problem is that economic development has eluded the underdeveloped countries because the rich countries force the poor countries to accept the exact opposite of the policies that they and every other country that has developed. They do so because these policies benefit the already rich countries at the poorer countries' expense and they DON'T lead to economic development. If you believe in self interest and profit being a prime movers in economics, what incentive is there for the current capitalists to help to develop their future competition? Will it be in a bank's interest to provide a loan to a country that wants to set up its own banking system, and who will be a future competitor? Or, does it make more sense (which has happened) to give out loans at interest rates that are always above inflation (which means loans won't be given out unless the country goes into debt it can never pay back) and to force the countries to liberalize finance, so if they inflate their currency to pay back the lone investors can flee? Please, before you answer, again acknowledge reality. The massive debt of the former Third World, and the role that debt has in replacing the hole left by declining wages.
To be self sufficient, and to develop in democratic ways (ie, a public can chose policies that investors might not like but that help them develop regardless and investors won't have the right or ability to cause economies to collapse) means essentially either economically isolating yourself from the international market and doing rapid industrializtion (which has been historically pretty brutal) or by nationalizing key sectors of the economy, and that can scare off investors as well. All countries without exception want to control their own lives and develop on their own terms, the problem is that capitalists (who got rich largely by monopolizing the work of others, sometimes their parents) have the needed funds and it isn't in their best interest in allowing other countries to develop out of their control.
You should look up what the financial markets ARE, look at what fractional reserve banking IS and tell me that wealth isn't created out of thin air. It is, and both have been around centuries before there was a Fed or the US.
You are talking about modern day economics. This isn't my form of capitalism because the governments play too much of a role for it to be free market capitalism.
W1: "You should look up what the financial markets ARE, look at what fractional reserve banking IS and tell me that wealth isn't created out of thin air. It is, and both have been around centuries before there was a Fed or the US."
Sure it has been created out of thin air. The only way to avoid that is to not have a currency whether that be paper, plastic, gold, silver, anything! We'd have to resort to the Rainbow Gathering philosophy of trading for items only. Well, no evil in that, I just think it's a bulky hard way to do that. It's easier to carry gold around and it is a finite metal compared to many others, that's why it still has an accepted value around the world. I personally wouldn't twist my life around gold for currency, but a little bit could help in the future...
Here is a post from someone on my favorite website, Campaign for Liberty.
We have a MIXED economy
1 part free-market capitalism
1 part central economic planning
The free-market-- is millions of individuals making mutually beneficial decisions on a minute by minute basis. People buying and selling with specific knowledge of there transaction.
Central economic planning-- is a bunch of bureaucrats off in Washington trying to micromanage the economy through regulation.
Now who is to blame WE THE PEOPLE aka the free-market -or- CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING aka POLITICIANS OFF IN WASHINGTON
The blame of the housing crisis goes to the democratic ideology that “everyone deserves a house” even poor people who have no money. OOOPS they’re poor they can’t pay the mortgage back. Look at the community reinvestment act under Carter (deregulated by Bill Clinton) Why because people owning a piece of the American Dream is a good thing right…? Housing prices are only going to go up right? WRONG! It’s not the poor people who are to blame it’s the politicians pushing these bad mortgages.
NOW it’s everyone deserves healthcare. Where will that take us? I heard someone refer to it as “Housing affirmative action” I think that says it all.
"The free-market-- is millions of individuals making mutually beneficial decisions on a minute by minute basis"
Nonsense. We live in a world that is highly un-equal. If we lived in an already egalitarian society your ideas might have a chance to be the same in practice as in theory. That egalitarian society cannot happen within capitalism. What we have is a world where wealth and power is highly concentrated. So, for example: let's say I have no land (the majority of the world doesn't and won't own land) and you own all the land, you own all the resources I need to survive. The resources underground, like oil or other energy sources, and above ground, food and sometimes energy. So, if there are no laws forcing you to hire me or me to work, we aren't "coerced". Will this situation be economically just or fair? It won’t be coerced according to people like you, but would it be fair? Could we not do any better for the weaker party, so both TRULY benefit, beyond simplistic notions of "coercion" and "personal liberty" (in practice only for the party who owns capital). There are endless amounts of people like me, if I don't agree to be paid just enough to stay alive, I'll starve as will my family, and someone else out of desperation will. So my wages will be set just enough to keep me alive and working and no more. The value of my output as a worker on the market will be monopolized by the land owner, and he himself didn't even work. Capitalists claim that my wages should, under their conditions, be equal to my marginal productivity. Is this the case? If not, what implications are there?
THIS is the reality of the world, not your ideas based on unrealistic assumptions. In a free market, there is coercion, and it is systematic thanks to huge differences in wealth. There is no getting around this. I asked you to provide and example, and you can't. How many countries have done their best to follow the "free market" playbook and you can't give one.
I said that all you have is theory, which is true. If we're going to base our ideas on assumptions that are unrealistic, then we can't really fundamentally critique ANY theory. I could devise some assumptions that would allow me to have the most off the wall policy options, and based on those assumptions they might work. How realistic are the assumptions and expectations by "libertarians", based on their ideas in practice? Realize that many claim that real communism has never been attempted. If we can't make at least partial conclusions on ideas in practice, again, we can't make conclusions about any theories, since nothing is ever pure.
This conversation is branching off quite a bit, which is fine. Again, the email deal that way we can focus a little more and not have it split up on a post that Common Dreams is sucking into it's black hole of archives.
Can somebody please explain what's the point of nationalizing banks when the government can use that to further dip into our money and misuse the funds for more foreign wars and bailing out corporate criminals?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Good one!
Uhhh... Maybe Time to Nationalize the Government first?
Maybe we will fight the next war with spit-balls of worthless Franklins.
"The definition of capitalism is: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Okay, why is this such a bad ordeal?"
This is such a "bad ordeal," according to the majority consensus of any given society worldwide (not just inside the USA), because the "private owners for profit" earned enough money in a given time frame to control the state, nation, country (whatever you want to name such entity) with the vast amount of wealth that the government was not allowed to regulate under the, evidently according to you, USA Constitution (Do you REALLY believe that the USA conducts fair and clean elections. I really hope you do not). You seem oblivious to this unfortunate detail of unbridled unfettered capitalism that you seem to espouse. This money is used to pay some representatives, some senators, some cabinet members, you know...general USA politicians, in an effort to vote against their constitutencies ("constituencies" meaning "majority of society" interests). The welfare of any given society, traditionally (and when I mean "traditionally" I mean MILLENNIA long traditions worldwide), has been more important than said individual's desires to make the most money than any other human being in said society of where one lives. This is the "Achilles Heel" of Capitalism to the detriment of ANY society throughout History that Funguymon seems to ignore (i.e. the RED HERRINGS that Funguymon used as historical references to elaborate on his argument that the upper class should thrive at the expense of the starvation and the homelessness of the majority in any given nation). Someone please explain this rationale better than me because I find Funguymon neither fun nor funny when defending the upper-class.
Again, nations throughout the world and throughout history that adopt capitalism economics have inevitably benefitted the most wealthy of any given society - which is ALWAYS a small percentage of any given population. The reason why is because capitalism is based on the INDIVIDUAL'S DESIRES to make money - regardless of the impact of where one lives. Human nature is innately greedy Funguymon might say? Yes. I agree with you there; BUT, it is the government of a given country where you live in which you are responsible for abiding by its laws - which are always subject to change - regardless of what nation you live in Funguymon. For example, the USA Constitution has left room to change its letter in order to adapt to the times via amendments and/or constiution conventions (It must be noted, "constitution conventions" have NEVER been conducted in the 232 years of USA existence - although they are allowed by the USA Constitution) in an effort to revise and redefine the USA Constitution when appropriate. I almost forgot to mention that caveat. However, it seems you forgot to mention the constitutional convention part of the USA Constitution in order for yourself to make your point that it can never be changed radically with certain conditions; at least I had that impression.
By the way, are you a USA citizen Funguymon? You seem out of place here...
havenofearjason: "This is such a "bad ordeal," according to the majority consensus of any given society worldwide (not just inside the USA), because the "private owners for profit" earned enough money in a given time frame to control the state, nation, country (whatever you want to name such entity) with the vast amount of wealth that the government was not allowed to regulate under the, evidently according to you, USA Constitution."
The majority consensus? That's quite an assumption there, I beg to differ. So, explain how that is capitalism's fault and not human greed? Sounds like the government is corrupt, and the socialists here believe giving them more money (money=power?) that the people will actually own that money; how stupid.
hnfj: "This money is used to pay some representatives, some senators, some cabinet members, you know...general USA politicians, in an effort to vote against their constitutencies ("constituencies" meaning "majority of society" interests)."
Well, I voted for Ron Paul who is a house representative and he doesn't vote against my constituencies. You seem to understand the thoughts of the majority in society, so I better back off because of your supreme knowledge. I claim society has no idea what it wants.
Oh and uhhhh...Funguymon.
Please Google:
Marie Antionette, Louis XVI, Fulgenico Batista, Czar Nicholas II, and other such folks that agree with your opinions and then do more research on the consequences RENDERED upon said people by the societies over which they ruled. Please read some of Karl Marx's opinions on Economics for additional frustration in your assessment that seems, according to History, doomed for failure.
Okay, and the rest of your article is such a mess with your perfect English (mine isn't perfect by far, but yours is better).
Jason, I think you're an idiot. A big fat balding ugly idiot. I say this because you ramble on like drunkard and all those people you posted were dictators and along with other lousy information. I also say this because I knew it would get you going. ha!
Hell yeah I am an American.
You must not be an American because you speak for communism. Just kidding jason, just kidding.
George C. Brown - Sorry, but the corporatizers and the greed heads have had their day. What's the difference between a small bunch of selfish "entrepreneurs" (who really are NOT willing to take risks) owning the banking industry and the people owning it? We are winding up paying for their selfish machinations anyway, we might as well officially take responsibility for running it!
It's also may be the right time to think about nationalizing the utility and energy industries as well!
Well. all I know is that my bank has no money to loan to retirees, people struggling to keep their homes, people with medical bills taking all of their basic income. However, they proudly announced, after they received the bailout, that they have bought another bank! This does not give me confidence!
Nor should you have any confidence. My advice, take your funds from the bank and invest in a local credit union. I don't know why people aren't fleeing these toxic behemoths for credit unions. At least you can be relatively sure your money is being re-invested in the local economy...and if it isn''t (you can find this out), look for a CU that does keep its money at home.
The government should have opened their own highly regulated banks to make quality loans to people for houses and small businesses. The interest rate should have been attractive and the terms conservative. People who had higher rate loans with the banks would refinance if they met the high standards. The banks could use the money they get when the loans are refinanced to fix their own toxic assets. Any bank that can't make it should crash.
Banks should also be broken up so that they are all small enough that we can safely allow the bad ones to fail.
The government should have control of the banks in proportion to the level of the risk they assume - just as any logical investor would require.
It's interesting that Democrats and Republicans alike are fine with bailing out and nationalizing the Banks...and even assume control of car companies, housing giants, but when it comes to nationalizing health-case, they cry "socialism!" I guess as long as tax payer are supporting corporations, socialism is okay, but it's only a bad thing when it may benefit the people.
That's because they have great healthcare and their immediate interests are most threatened by a collapse of the banks, so they are more interested in having our tax dollars support ways to serve those more immediate interests... we can pay out the ear to keep the banks afloat to maintain the flow of their investment income, and then go to health care hell and die from things they will survive because they will be able to afford the best medical technology and treatments money can buy, including those made available through stem cell research. The rest of us will rot in four bed medicaid nursing home rooms because we can't afford to go to the doctor until it's too late. Makes sense don't it? They will live longer than any of us and will need more income and property investments and ways to pay for comprehensive private in-home health care for their waning years. We should be glad to provide this for them.
and just think of the employment possibilities! A growth industry cleaning up wealthy elderly and infirm ex-congressmen and women's, lobbyists', and presidents' fecal accidents. It won't pay well... but boy the job satisfaction!