The discussion revolves around the state of the economy, particularly focusing on issues related to debt, personal responsibility, and the role of government oversight. Participants explore the implications of rising debt levels, the impact of credit practices, and the perceived need for systemic reform.
Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the causes of economic issues, the role of personal responsibility, and the effectiveness of potential reforms.
Participants express various assumptions about the nature of debt, personal responsibility, and systemic corruption, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion reflects differing perspectives on the interplay between individual choices and systemic factors in economic challenges.
tchitt said:People have learned that you can rack up all the debt you can imagine, then tell your creditors you can't pay... file bankruptcy and all is forgiven. I think it's just an overall death of the idea of personal responsibility and duty.
What's sad is that our system is set up so that the only duty you have is to yourself... and everybody wins that way. Until, that is, people start to see that everyone else will take care of them anyway. Complacency born from the amazing standard of living capitalism has given us. It's a cycle and very well may be the death of our economy. Perhaps a (painful) restart is just what people need to wake up.
OH don't get me wrong, there are millions of people out there who live well beyond their means and they should face the consequence.tchitt said:I understand what you're saying and you're correct to a point. What the credit card companies are getting away with right now by raising people's interest rates to ridiculous levels all of the sudden makes me sick. At the same time, I'm sure you can concede this to me; a large percentage of outstanding credit card debt is unnecessary... the product of peoples greed and inability to wait a few more months to splurge on that new flat-screen TV. And you can't tell me there aren't a LOT of people out there who don't push their income levels to the limits... like accepting new car payments of $600 monthly when they know full well that they only have $700 of disposable income every month. (My mom financed my car for me and it was about $400 dollars monthly over what she could actually afford... hence if I screw up my parents are in a bad way.) Fortunately, unless I can't find a larger source of income than a minimum wage job I can make the payments very comfortably. I only make large purchases when I have a coushin of at least a month's worth of bills AFTER the purchase. I receive medical benefits from my employer and always have. I've never worked a minimum wage job and I didn't go to college... just did enough to get by in high school. I didn't get anybody pregnant because I understood the consequences and took the necessary precautions. I make decent money for my skill level, and yes, I had to relocate in order to do so... but thems the breaks. I don't have a credit card and I don't want one. In my opinion they're nothing more than a clever scam people fall into by going for that big juicy carrot dangling in front of their faces. You might feel sorry for these people... I think they're just stupid and shortsighted.
It's not ALL the fault of corruption and greed on the part of the corporations... just everyone being equally idiotic.
Edit: I'm only calling it like I see it. Every single person I know first hand, without exception, that is in some sort of serious financial trouble bought a new truck or a nice house they could never afford. Paid sixty dollars a month for cable TV when broadcast television or doing something else to occupy their time could have sufficed. You know what I'm saying. Poverty happens when people make bad decisions and they have to live with them.
Now I have to ask why we need the corporate entity, by the same token.tchitt said:I'm just sayin' this is an extremely multi-dimensional issue and it bothers me how people have the tendency to attack the "big guy" all the time. I fear that sort of militant "DEATH TO CORPORATIONS" attitude is going to cause more problems than it's going to solve.
tchitt said:Why do we need the corporation? A corporation is nothing like a labor union... you're comparing apples and oranges.
The Case corporation employs 1,300+ people in my city. Considering there are only 40,000 people in my city I'd say that's a pretty significant contribution. The benefits and pay are unmatched for hundreds of miles in any direction for that type of work. They build 28 combines per day, every day, and ship them all over the world where they're used to FEED THE WORLD. There are 12 other businesses (many of which are corporations themselves ...albeit much smaller corporations, but they survive because Case survives) of varying sizes that do a lot of work for Case-IH (who subcontracts parts to be built outside the factory because they don't have the capacity to do it all themselves) which employ thousands more people and pay wages and bennies MUCH higher than they'd earn for working at Starbucks or Wal-Mart
Oh, and last year they donated $1,000,000 to the United Way. This year the goal is $1,200,000.
But yeah, screw them. They pull in five hundred million dollars a year selling 28 combines per day for $350,000 dollars a piece. (Roughly a 13.5% profit) Pure evil, I tell you.
Ford is really a stock trading business who incidently make cars on the side, Chrysler is entirely owned by a investment company since being sold by Merc. GE is basically a bank, GE Capital being much larger than any of it's engineering business.gravenewworld said:Don't they solely exist to make as much profit as possible and keep their stock holders happy?
There are good businesses out there as well as greedy ones. The greedy ones simply get all of the press.
Corporations were invented to protect the community.OAQfirst said:Now I have to ask why we need the corporate entity, by the same token.
mgb_phys said:Ford is really a stock trading business who incidently make cars on the side, Chrysler is entirely owned by a investment company since being sold by Merc. GE is basically a bank, GE Capital being much larger than any of it's engineering business.
Under the current system a greedy company is a good one - companies have only one moral obligation 'to enhance shareholder value'. This is because you are putting your savings into these companies and you need to trust that they will do the best thing for your money.
Unfortunately the system of reporting and share trading mean that it is only possible to do this a quarter at a time. A director of Ford could legitimately be sued for any investment such as R+D which isn't likely to pay off in an immediate rise in share price. Bonuses and promotions also follow this short term view - which also leads to more fraud, after all you only have to get away with it for long enough for tomorrows opening price to rise.
Most restrictions just try and keep up with the latest trick, you need a more fundamental change of attitude to stock.gravenewworld said:what happens when you let capitalism run wild with no restrictions.
Why the focus on financial corporations and CEOs? Do not the government and, say, major league baseball players warrant the same description - greedy? What about their ethics? California alone took in http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=xlblt7pmk2pult" (good seats for four - $1,248). How's that for predatory.gravenewworld said:No one is saying do away with corporations. But should corporations abide by business ethics? Why should a corporation have any obligation to the community and country? Don't they solely exist to make as much profit as possible and keep their stock holders happy?
There are good businesses out there as well as greedy ones. The greedy ones simply get all of the press.
How much profit is too much? Does there exist such a thing as too much profit? Is it really ethical that credit banks for years preyed upon people with poor credit histories because they knew they could give them high interest loans and make a killing in profit off of them?
...
That ended, if it ever occurred, in the 1800s/1920s.gravenewworld said:I completely concur.
The era of unfettered capitalism is over.
No restrictions? Where does that occur? Anyway, a big part of the news this week is that government can not police itself.It is obvious now that the corporate world can not police themselves. We are now seeing the true social cost of what happens when you let capitalism run wild with no restrictions.
gravenewworld said:No one is saying do away with corporations. But should corporations abide by business ethics? Why should a corporation have any obligation to the community and country? Don't they solely exist to make as much profit as possible and keep their stock holders happy?
There are good businesses out there as well as greedy ones. The greedy ones simply get all of the press.
How much profit is too much? Does there exist such a thing as too much profit? Is it really ethical that credit banks for years preyed upon people with poor credit histories because they knew they could give them high interest loans and make a killing in profit off of them?
I'll try to find the one WSJ article that I read that was about how credit card banks now almost make 35% of their entire profit from interest rate hikes and penalty fees.
WheelsRCool said:To fix the economy, I think they should do the following:
Cut the corporate tax rate
Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and cut the income tax rates down, making the top rate 28%
Eliminate Sarbannes-Oxley, maybe replace it with something more light and efficient.
Clamp down on government expenditures as much as possible, basically work to bring fiscal conservatism back to the government.
The tax cuts they will run a deficit of course at first, but they are running a larger deficit anyhow with these so-called stimulus programs and planned infrastructure spending.
But the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates as is, so cutting it, in theory, should allow business activity to increase to create more jobs.
For small businesses that file as individuals, they can create more jobs by benefitting from a tax cut as well, as small business is the engine of the U.S. economy.
The 250 largest corporations paid on average 2.5%, Toys “R” Us, AT&T, Boeing, Eli Lilly, Merrill Lynch paid no tax at.WheelsRCool said:Cut the corporate tax rate
What about all the unemployed accountants.Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and cut the income tax rates down, making the top rate 28%
So international investors will stay out of the US market - since they have no way of knowing if the financial statements of the companies they are investing in are fake.Eliminate Sarbannes-Oxley, maybe replace it with something more light and efficient.
Except military of course - people who say this never want to cut spending on wars.Clamp down on government expenditures as much as possible, basically work to bring fiscal conservatism back to the government.
Most of the 'so-called stimulus programs' are to banks where the fed is backing the savings anyway. You could stop fed deposit insurance but then nobody would put their money in banks - so a totally cash economy - so no taxes for anyone.The tax cuts they will run a deficit of course at first, but they are running a larger deficit anyhow with these so-called stimulus programs and planned infrastructure spending.
The US has one of the lowest corporate tax rates, especially when you take into account that nobody pays it.But the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates as is, so cutting it, in theory, should allow business activity to increase to create more jobs.
A reference to the Keynesian multiplier? What do you reckon is the real size of the multiplier when making this statement? There are certain temporary conditions that must be present for that to hold true. Do you believe they are in effect (i.e. liquidity traps)?gravenewworld said:Dollar for dollar, government spending has a more potent effect than tax cutting.
There are certainly some contrary views:The biggest reason we got out of the Great Depression was because of a massive increases in government spending, not tax cuts.
Henry Morganthau, FDR's Treasury Secretary, 1939Morganthau said:"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"
Without some qualifiers on that statement, I am not aware of any Economists that have made such a statement?In fact, there are economists out there that will argue that tax cuts simply have no effects at all.
mgb_phys said:Except military of course - people who say this never want to cut spending on wars.Clamp down on government expenditures as much as possible, basically work to bring fiscal conservatism back to the government.
tchitt said:I think of asking the government to cut DoD spending as sort of a lost cause. We The People don't matter anymore. Our representatives shoot down the bail-out bill... the President turns around and does it anyway with a different pile of our money.
Sorry wasn't meant personally! Anyone who hasn't been involved in building military kit wouldn't believe the amount of waste of time and money involved.I want to clamp down on government expenditures, especially military spending -- I think the DoD is extremely wasteful.