We Were Warned

[woodchip]

A caveat callmeslick. Dividend stocks have their advantages and disadvantages. For older people who want a steady income and don't mind paying the full income tax rate on those dividends, it's a good choice. Especially since there are few savings alternatives in banks right now that pay out a decent steady source of income. But for younger people, capital appreciation of a stock might be more important, because I think?????? (I'm not 100% sure on this at the moment) that there is a lower tax impact on capital gains. A person can potentially keep more money for less of a tax impact when they eventually sell that stock. That's something you'll have to ask your financial adviser about callmeslick. What do you want, income now or investment for the future?

I do find it funny that people fled into treasuries after the market tanked, even though the S&P downgraded bonds. They must know something we don't.

I fled to cash and today bought back in.

depending on when you fled, that should serve you well and maybe spectacularly so.
Who says the economy sucks?

Got out before about 2 weeks ago. I'm hoping for a quick 10-20% return in the next couple of weeks so time will tell.

[woodchip]

I fled to cash and today bought back in.

I hope you bought back in during the low point of the day woody.

Still sour on J&J though.

Not as quick as I wanted as I had a Doctors appt. so didn't get back until late morning. Still the stocks I bought were low and somewhat mirrored the Dow Jones in percentage loss.

[Tunnelcat]

Shoulda waited to go back in woody. The street tanked even more in the last 2 days. Me, I'm going to wait it out and either get ruined or back to where I was eventually. Who knows. There's nothing else to do. Values are almost so low I'd lose my original investment amounts anyway. If things do get so bad that I lose the ability to live in my home, get medical care or buy food, and people are rioting in the streets, trying to take what meager belongings I have left, there's always the death option. Too old and too unhealthy to go back to work anymore, if I could find work that is.

EDIT: Oh, and Michelle Obama and her kids are staying with her older brother not 10 miles from my house. Hope they're enjoying themselves.

[PsiStorm]

The truth is americans aren't very bright, capitalism is deeply imperfect... we saw two world wars and the cold war over this very problem - people not being treated with dignity or having enough to live on. Americans trying to protect rich people when we all know the facts - that history is littered with war, riots, over this very thing.

The whole of human history has been poor fighting the rich, first it was slavery, now it's the new slavery (not enough wages to live). Only in america can you find people dumb enough to protect the rich because they believe (naively) that these people earned their income, rather then it being an artifact of the imperfect nature of the system itself.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Not being treated with dignity or not having enough to live on are extremes, and neither one equates directly to poverty. Wars that have been fought over poverty are not fought because poor people are down and rich people are up, but because of a perception by the poor in question that they are in some way being unfairly manipulated such that they are held down. This is an injustice, where it happens, but I would say that the only reason you see fit to lay this at the feet of Capitalism is that you are predisposed to be antagonistic toward Capitalism--the shoe does not truly fit. Capitalism is as "deeply imperfect" as the people who live under it, but it is the most morally sound system I know of. What could make more sense than people being motivated by profit to provide goods or services to their neighbors--all the while competition keeps the price in check and quality as high as it can be for the price?

[Skyalmian]

What?

[dissent]

The truth is americans aren't very bright, capitalism is deeply imperfect...

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

...we saw two world wars and the cold war over this very problem - people not being treated with dignity or having enough to live on. Americans trying to protect rich people when we all know the facts - that history is littered with war, riots, over this very thing.

The whole of human history has been poor fighting the rich, ...

Your thesis here is highly debateable, at least in the sense that I think you mean it.

a) I think you'll have a hard time making the case that the First and Second World Wars were fought over capitalism. The Kaiser and the Fuehrer weren't capitalists, but they did like that capitalism enabled the wealth creation that allowed them to buy lots of war toys.

b) many wars have been fought by the rich against the richer, for a host of reasons.

c) Some wars are fought by the poor against the rich. For example, when your neighbor is rich in a certain resource that you are poor in, then you may choose to wage war against that neighbor in order to relieve that neighbor of those riches. This has happened since the earliest groups of humans existed. The rich rarely wage war on the poor because they desire the acquisition of poverty.

... first it was slavery, now it's the new slavery (not enough wages to live). Only in america can you find people dumb enough to protect the rich because they believe (naively) that these people earned their income, rather then it being an artifact of the imperfect nature of the system itself.

Many rich have earned their wealth. It is also true that some have not. I myself wouldn't mind being rich someday, and I do object to the those who would choose to use government as a hammer to forge chains for those who are willing and able to produce, at the behest of those who are either unwilling or unable to produce on their own.

If you have a better idea for the allocation of resources than capitalism, then please feel free to post it here, along with your evidence that it is a superior system.

[dissent]

Of course Obama is going to use the class warfare argument against the RepubliCons. RepuliCons have been waging war against unions and entitlements since they were created. They're the bullies blaming the victims. They're creating resentment against the very people that are already downtrodden. They're blaming the people as thieves while they're stealing from them blind right and left! Same old saw they throw into the Dems faces every time the greed mongers get carried away and trash our nation's economy. There was a reason that they called shanty towns during the Depression 'Hoovervilles', HOOVER!

http://depts.washington.edu/depress/hooverville.shtml

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck." - Robert Heinlein

[callmeslick]

Many rich have earned their wealth. It is also true that some have not.

depend on what your cutoff definition of 'rich' is, I would urge you to exchange the words 'many' and 'some' in those two sentences.

I myself wouldn't mind being rich someday

please, share with us your proposed path to achieve this? Selling the above sentiment to large numbers of American citizens who have no more chance of joining the ranks of the 'rich' than MC Hammer has of career comeback is one the the great ruses of all time. It's been going on since the old Horatio Alger fables and persists. Why, I have no idea. What the benefit of the ruse is for the wealth of America is that these same fools will go forth and proclaim things like:

I do object to the those who would choose to use government as a hammer to forge chains for those who are willing and able to produce, at the behest of those who are either unwilling or unable to produce on their own.

because the upshot of this is, and has been since the dawn of the Industrial Age, infighting amongst various levels of the have-nots keeps pressure off the wealthy. And, as the old saying says, "the Rich get Richer". Put another way, a quick search will show you that several years ago, the US personal financial picture got to the point where more money is transferred via inheritance than by wages. Ponder that.

If you have a better idea for the allocation of resources than capitalism, then please feel free to post it here, along with your evidence that it is a superior system.

capitalism works just fine, with a robust set of regulations and strong labor organization. The problem becomes, in this global economy, will capitalism under any system prevent the eventual levelling of the playing field, in which you have the rich, and you have workers in Somalia and workers in the US compensated equally?

[woodchip]

Well I would have to ask the capitalist haters when they would rather have been around? Now with so many regulations and restrictions on corporations that they flee to foreign shores and it takes both parents needing to work just to get by? Or back in the 50's and 60's when only the father need work, and industrial jobs were found aplenty even tho the corporate owners were getting rich and no one cared?

[dissent]

please, share with us your proposed path to achieve this? Selling the above sentiment to large numbers of American citizens who have no more chance of joining the ranks of the 'rich' than MC Hammer has of career comeback is one the the great ruses of all time.

depends on your definition of "rich" ...

The problem becomes, in this global economy, will capitalism under any system prevent the eventual levelling of the playing field, in which you have the rich, and you have workers in Somalia and workers in the US compensated equally?

If workers in Somalia received a US wage, I think they would consider themselves to be fabulously wealthy.

[Zuruck]

Your argument is flawed as usual dissent. Yes, workers IN Somalia would love an American wage, but if that same Somali was here in America, they'd be starving the same as the rest of us. We've all stood idly by as corporations have continued to freeze pay, cut benefits, and eeked us all out of everything we should get and what do we do about it? We feel lucky that we even have a job in the first place. We think our two weeks vacation is a blessing, that only the mother gets leave when a child is born, that perhaps greedy hedge fund managers won't take our hard-earned pensions and make stupid gambles so they can get that extra five or six million at the end of the year. We all sit and hope that perhaps one day we will make enough money to have a retirement and not have to die slowly and eat peanuts. What does a guy like John Mack do? He flies around the world in a private jet, spending millions upon millions that he made screwing every single one of us. What does his wife do? She gets TALF loans. Do you know what those are? Look them up. For 15 million dollars, she was able to procure over 220 million in student loan and various other securities where the Fed (us) eats any losses and she takes any profits. Sound fair? Those are the rich my friend. The rest of us are just trying to eat.

Your side sits there and blames programs like Headstart. You blame programs like Planned Parenthood. You blame agencies like the FDA and the EPA. That's all your side ever does; blame the liberals but never bring anything of value to the table. I disliked Paul Ryan's budget plan, but I'll give the guy kudos for being one the first Republicans to actually DO something instead of just blaming the other side. Do the Dems do it as well? Of course.

woodchip, companies flee to foreign shores because they make more money. it has nothing to do with regulations. they can pay a worker 99% less than an American. If anyone here that works for a corporation believes that their company wouldn't send their job overseas if it saved a dollar an hour, then you're just an idiot. That is the world we live in. Unemployment will never go down in this country. We no longer make anything, we sell services. And we don't even do that well anymore.

[dissent]

As I was merely making a comment, not an argument, on what slick posted, it seems I am merely serving a springboard for your diatribe-du-jour. You're welcome.

Your argument is flawed as usual dissent. Yes, workers IN Somalia would love an American wage, but if that same Somali was here in America, they'd be starving the same as the rest of us.

Your point, such as it is, is obvious; a tautology. Thanks for clearing that up.

We've all stood idly by as corporations have continued to freeze pay, cut benefits, and eeked us all out of everything we should get and what do we do about it? We feel lucky that we even have a job in the first place. We think our two weeks vacation is a blessing, that only the mother gets leave when a child is born, that perhaps greedy hedge fund managers won't take our hard-earned pensions and make stupid gambles so they can get that extra five or six million at the end of the year. We all sit and hope that perhaps one day we will make enough money to have a retirement and not have to die slowly and eat peanuts.

newsflash to Zuruck - "corporations" do not owe "you" (the general public) anything; the economy does not owe you anything. If you have a job, corporate or otherwise, you trade labor for wages and benefits. That's the contract - what you "should" get. Businesses exist to provide goods and services that people (the market) desire and are willing to pay for. When business is bad, wages and benefits shrink. This is as elementary as gravity.

What does a guy like John Mack do? He flies around the world in a private jet, spending millions upon millions that he made screwing every single one of us. What does his wife do? She gets TALF loans. Do you know what those are? Look them up. For 15 million dollars, she was able to procure over 220 million in student loan and various other securities where the Fed (us) eats any losses and she takes any profits. Sound fair? Those are the rich my friend. The rest of us are just trying to eat.

This seems to be the John Mack that you are referring to, the current Chairman of Morgan Stanley. For those of you seeking to follow along, Zuruck is repeating the talking points of this Matt Taibbi article in Rolling Stone. Fine; read it through. Then have a go at this WSJ article by Ari Weinberg, which put considerable context around the misleading assertions made in the Taibbi article.

And if you want to whine about TALF, then go talk to Tim Geithner, the current Treasury Secretary.

Oh, and as far as John Mack goes, this is exactly the kind of American immigrant-to-riches story that slick claims we should no longer "selling to large numbers of American citizens". I know a number of such people, as well, among my circle of acquaintances. It's not common in our society, because it takes a combination of drive, desire, focus, knowledge and good luck to be really successful. People with less of the qualities tend to be less successful. The point is not that it is common; the point is that it is possible at all.

woodchip, companies flee to foreign shores because they make more money. it has nothing to do with regulations. they can pay a worker 99% less than an American. If anyone here that works for a corporation believes that their company wouldn't send their job overseas if it saved a dollar an hour, then you're just an idiot. That is the world we live in. Unemployment will never go down in this country. We no longer make anything, we sell services. And we don't even do that well anymore.

"Nothing" to do with regulations? This is ridiculous on its face. Regulations that change business operations are always going to cost money, and some more or less than others. If it was really only as simple as sending the jobs overseas to save some bucks, then there shouldn't be any jobs left in America right now. There's plenty of cheaper labor in Chindia. The fact that jobs remain here mean that there are numerous other factors that go into a decision about where to locate jobs.

[Zuruck]

There are no other factors than feasiblity. And the corporations have clearly won you over, even you deserve more dissent. Am I to believe that some schmuck that crunches numbers and comes up with a new way to cheat the system works harder than you or I? Why do people feel that plumbers, or electricians, or teachers don't deserve a livable wage? Sure there is plenty of corruption in unions, any place that has power and money will inevitably have some form of corruption, that's the human element. I guess this is where our ideology differs dissent. I believe that people have the right to a decent life if they work hard. You say business is bad? Corporate profits are at their highest levels right now than ever before! Where is all that damn pie going!

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nationa ... 10_3rd.htm

And yes my boy, I do not exclude Tim Geithner from any kind of guilt. He was involved in Bush's bank bailout then and still manages to screw everything up now. I'll have to read Taibbi's article, didn't realize there was something about TALF loans in existence. But I'm sure the WSJ, which defended News Corps hacking, is completely unbiased, so I'll read that as well.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Last I checked plumbers and electricians make a killing, and teachers aren't that bad off either (plus they get summers off with pay!).

Nobody deserves a livable wage, you have to go out and you have to earn one. Down though the history of our country that has been the case, and it has shaped industry, our culture, and people's lives. Apparently we've reached perfection and the rule no longer applies, but everything masquerading as "business" magically deserves a living wage? It's true there are abuses, but that's nothing new either... you go work for someone else who will pay you what you need to make, doing what you need to do to earn it.

Am I to believe that some schmuck that crunches numbers and comes up with a new way to cheat the system works harder than you or I?

You mis-framed the debate. A lot of these people simply work smarter than you or I.

[flip]

That was then this is now. Capitalism has taken on a whole new form never seen before but I still have yet to see a better alternative. I'm gonna label myself a reconstructionist for a few years. This is the problem I see. Wealth carries over many generations. I see the poor working like hell for money, but I see the rich making the money work for them. I see the children of the poor suffering for mistakes their ancestors made and the children of the rich taking more and more advantage from their ancestors good fortune and timing. In a wide open frontier, capitalism makes the most sense as it adds motivation, but now what happens when everything is owned by someone? It's unjust. I'll just leave it at that. I think the best thing that could happen right now is what Andrew Jackson and the crash of '29 brought us. Capitalism reigned back in for awhile and let the chips fall where they may.

EDIT: Nothing irks me worse than this "Thank your Sir, may I have another" attitude that reeks in the US. Capitalism only works fair and just when both parties are at an equal bargaining table. We are not. Game is rigged and those in place realize exactly that. Corporations owe you exactly what you bargain for, the problem is most the US has a slave mentality and basically come begging.

[Spidey]

The idea that people go through all of the hassle & expense moving their business overseas, risking being nationized, learning a new language, teaching many people new skills, etc…just to save a buck…seems kind of silly to me.

I know many business people, and I can tell you for a fact, that they would rather operate right here in the good ole USA.

Companies go overseas to survive…the long trail of companies, that went out of business because they couldn’t compete, is proof of that.

I’m sure there are some greedy shmucks that do anything to make profit…

Now go get in your Toyota…drive to Walmart…complain about those greedy Republicans, on the way…buy your Samsung air conditioner…then while you are installing it with your nice new Chinese hardware, you get a text from your brother Joe, saying he just lose his job at Carrier. Damn Republicans!

[Top Gun]

Considering Toyota does a great deal of its manufacturing and assembly in this country, I think you need a better example.

[callmeslick]

Well I would have to ask the capitalist haters when they would rather have been around? Now with so many regulations and restrictions on corporations that they flee to foreign shores and it takes both parents needing to work just to get by? Or back in the 50's and 60's when only the father need work, and industrial jobs were found aplenty even tho the corporate owners were getting rich and no one cared?

interesting example, insofar as the 1950s had a HIGHLY regulated capitalist economy, especially in financial and investment businesses. They also taxed all personal income over $200,000 per year at 90%.

[woodchip]

Well I would have to ask the capitalist haters when they would rather have been around? Now with so many regulations and restrictions on corporations that they flee to foreign shores and it takes both parents needing to work just to get by? Or back in the 50's and 60's when only the father need work, and industrial jobs were found aplenty even tho the corporate owners were getting rich and no one cared?

interesting example, insofar as the 1950s had a HIGHLY regulated capitalist economy, especially in financial and investment businesses. They also taxed all personal income over $200,000 per year at 90%.

Yes, back then Glass Steagall act was in effect and the affordable housing act was not even dreamed up yet. Back then 200k was worth quite a bit more than it is today and NAFTA would of been laughed at.

[callmeslick]

all true, Woodchip, but to return to my original point, you certainly did not have naked capitalism.
As you point out in a couple of examples, you also had anything but a global economy, as well.

[Will Robinson]

Well I would have to ask the capitalist haters when they would rather have been around? Now with so many regulations and restrictions on corporations that they flee to foreign shores and it takes both parents needing to work just to get by? Or back in the 50's and 60's when only the father need work, and industrial jobs were found aplenty even tho the corporate owners were getting rich and no one cared?

interesting example, insofar as the 1950s had a HIGHLY regulated capitalist economy, especially in financial and investment businesses. They also taxed all personal income over $200,000 per year at 90%.

It wasn't the average voter/investor that sold Wall Street and banks all these opportunities to get rich off of peoples savings and home values it was politicians from BOTH parties that did that.
As to the tax thing, $200000 back then is like 2 million today so go get the politicians to repeal all the favors they sold to the fat cats on Wall Street and their banker friends...then go get them to put in a cap on all taxes as they are with the exception of incomes higher than 2 million per year. Of course people who take in millions per year don't do it in the form of wages, taxable earnings do they? So you'll have to go after all those loop holes in the hundreds of thousands of pages of Tax Code that politicians have been getting rich and powerful from authoring, again BOTH parties do it so don't go all TC on us with your DNC talking points.

Do that and you'll have something to talk about.
Or you could just outlaw lobbiests and pass the Fair Tax and you acomplish all those things plus many more!

[callmeslick]

I'd respond, Will, but once you mention the DNC, in regard to me, you stamp yourself as an idiot, so I refuse to dignify idiocy any further.

[Tunnelcat]

Well I would have to ask the capitalist haters when they would rather have been around? Now with so many regulations and restrictions on corporations that they flee to foreign shores and it takes both parents needing to work just to get by? Or back in the 50's and 60's when only the father need work, and industrial jobs were found aplenty even tho the corporate owners were getting rich and no one cared?

You're forgetting one thing woody. Back in those good ole days, around 1955, when a family could live off of only the husband's income, there were plenty of those onerous regulations you seem to hate, which, as you claim, must have interfered with corporate profits, but alas, didn't seem to at all back then. Also, corporate tax rates were much higher than in the present as well. So what gives?

http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2011/04 ... -2010.html

If you look at the graphs, you'll notice how much individual tax rates have climbed and corporate tax rates have tanked since 1955, as a percentage of GDP and Federal Revenue. So who has the burden now? Although individual tax rates have been reduced ever since Reagan, they are higher, as a percentage of Federal Revenue. And you will notice that since most of those regulations were eliminated during Clinton's time, "cough", "Glass Steagall", (yes CUDA, I haven't forgiven Clinton for that one) those grateful corporations should have made MORE jobs since, by your reasoning. But alas, the U.S. has been continually hemorrhaging jobs overseas despite that gift from Clinton and a Republican Congress. Kinda counters your arguments. And right now, the remaining regulations we have, in The Dodd Frank Bill, are STILL under assault as "onerous", when it's been shown that giving these corporations free reign was the reason our economy was wrecked in 2008! Greed is greed.

Oh, but many are still trying to get around Dodd Frank in any way possible. Lobbying for loopholes still works, I see, for Walmart. Coming to you, the new Walmart Bank. Gadzooks!

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/ba ... 12011.html

[CUDA]

(yes CUDA, I haven't forgiven Clinton for that one)

just keeping you on your toes TC

[Will Robinson]

I'd respond, Will, but once you mention the DNC, in regard to me, you stamp yourself as an idiot, so I refuse to dignify idiocy any further.

You can dodge the point anyway you want. Note I said don't use DNC talking points' in a response, that is a far cry from attributing anything too you. A far cry from calling you idiotic too...
If my saying that has ruffled your feathers then you are probably far too sensitive to discuss politics even among friends anyway.

[callmeslick]

I'd respond, Will, but once you mention the DNC, in regard to me, you stamp yourself as an idiot, so I refuse to dignify idiocy any further.

You can dodge the point anyway you want. Note I said don't use DNC talking points' in a response, that is a far cry from attributing anything too you. A far cry from calling you idiotic too...
If my saying that has ruffled your feathers then you are probably far too sensitive to discuss politics even among friends anyway.

by implying that I am using ANYONE'S talking points, you infer that I am not reaching conclusions of my own accord, based on my own reasoning and fact-gathering. In doing so, you insult me. My skin is thick enough to discuss politics, but really, I get tired of conservatives always yelling about "the DNC" when they clearly have neither any connection to, or understanding of, the Democratic Party. A less monolithic organization could never be created, short of complete anarchy. Make your observations and share your opinions, then let me and others do likewise, and leave the DNC part out of it. It really only diminishes your argument. Note that few, if any, moderates or liberals talk about GOP 'talking points', that I've noticed.

[Will Robinson]

I'd respond, Will, but once you mention the DNC, in regard to me, you stamp yourself as an idiot, so I refuse to dignify idiocy any further.

You can dodge the point anyway you want. Note I said don't use DNC talking points' in a response, that is a far cry from attributing anything too you. A far cry from calling you idiotic too...
If my saying that has ruffled your feathers then you are probably far too sensitive to discuss politics even among friends anyway.

by implying that I am using ANYONE'S talking points, you infer that I am not reaching conclusions of my own accord, based on my own reasoning and fact-gathering. In doing so, you insult me. My skin is thick enough to discuss politics, but really, I get tired of conservatives always yelling about "the DNC" when they clearly have neither any connection to, or understanding of, the Democratic Party. A less monolithic organization could never be created, short of complete anarchy. Make your observations and share your opinions, then let me and others do likewise, and leave the DNC part out of it. It really only diminishes your argument. Note that few, if any, moderates or liberals talk about GOP 'talking points', that I've noticed.

You jumped to the false conclusion that I was implying you were using their talking points. I said please DON'T use them (it was a dig at TC not you). And, as loose as they may be, they sure do issue talking points and you sure do carry their water for them in many of these discussions so don't get too high and mighty. You could simply share your own thoughts on my point or choose to detour at the red herring you tossed out. No big deal.