American Dream or Great Depression?

[seventhson]

Not to pick on you, but corporations, although enjoying legal personality, are controlled by directors for the benefit of their shareholders - corporations don't make decisions - people do. The point is, its not the "corporations" that have sold out, its the underlying shareholders or directors. Often, your fellow citizens (but more often now - overseas owners as well).

The goal of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value. This trumps all other considerations. The most vocal libertarians and conservatives will tell you this. They explain the corporation as the perfect money making machine. They will also concede that it is often times in conflict with the long term goals of the country, the welfare of its workers, etc.

It is the role of the government to establish viable long term policy for the country. Unfortunately, corporations can donate to and lobby our politicians. That's why we have the administration making concessions to Walmart regarding Chinese imports, etc. It's all about the money.

 

[jwbassman]

The goal of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value. This trumps all other considerations. The most vocal libertarians and conservatives will tell you this. They explain the corporation as the perfect money making machine. They will also concede that it is often times in conflict with the long term goals of the country, the welfare of its workers, etc.

It is the role of the government to establish viable long term policy for the country. Unfortunately, corporations can donate to and lobby our politicians. That's why we have the administration making concessions to Walmart regarding Chinese imports, etc. It's all about the money.

That about sums it up.

Capitalism, it's all about the bottom line.

 

[jive1]

Oh, I'm SO with you on those corporate tax breaks! These companies get soooo many tax breaks, and then when things get a bit down, they dump employees and relocate somewhere they can get better tax breaks.

Makes me sick.

Cherie

You want to be sick?

The tax breaks are one thing, but the bailouts are another.
I'm pretty disgusted with the last bailout of Bear and Stearns. Rampant specualtion by investors who are willing to give out loans to people who were high risk prospects resulted in the company becoming insolvent.

From talking to people in mortgage banking and reading articles in financial magazines, much of the subprime lending market was driven by investor demand. Investors were in a frenzy to get more subprime mortgage products out there, regardless of the risk involved with lending to people who may not be able to make payments. So folks who have been bitten by the sub-prime lenders are the ones who have made poor financial decisions that should live with them, while firms who made similar bad decisions get a bailout. Doesn't seem fair to me.

If the pharmaceutical companies released a product that caused excessive nausea, there would be a product recall. If an auto company released a car that didn't work properly and caused accidents, there would be a product recall. So what about banks that released a product that caused folks to lose their homes and created financial instability for a country?

But, like I said earlier, markets are cyclical and rampant speculation usually results in a crash or correction sooner or later. I guess such is life where some speculators come out smelling like a rose, while others are trying to get out from under a heap of crap.

 

[txbasschik]

You want to be sick?

The tax breaks are one thing, but the bailouts are another.
I'm pretty disgusted with the last bailout of Bear and Stearns. Rampant specualtion by investors who are willing to give out loans to people who were high risk prospects resulted in the company becoming insolvent.

From talking to people in mortgage banking and reading articles in financial magazines, much of the subprime lending market was driven by investor demand. Investors were in a frenzy to get more subprime mortgage products out there, regardless of the risk involved with lending to people who may not be able to make payments. So folks who have been bitten by the sub-prime lenders are the ones who have made poor financial decisions that should live with them, while firms who made similar bad decisions get a bailout. Doesn't seem fair to me.

If the pharmaceutical companies released a product that caused excessive nausea, there would be a product recall. If an auto company released a car that didn't work properly and caused accidents, there would be a product recall. So what about banks that released a product that caused folks to lose their homes and created financial instability for a country?

But, like I said earlier, markets are cyclical and rampant speculation usually results in a crash or correction sooner or later. I guess such is life where some speculators come out smelling like a rose, while others are trying to get out from under a heap of crap.

+1,000!!!

Yeah, we bail out the danged company, but we say to the home owners, "Too bad, its you're own fault". That's just wrong.

Cherie

 

[Marlat]

The goal of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value. This trumps all other considerations. The most vocal libertarians and conservatives will tell you this. They explain the corporation as the perfect money making machine. They will also concede that it is often times in conflict with the long term goals of the country, the welfare of its workers, etc.

It is the role of the government to establish viable long term policy for the country. Unfortunately, corporations can donate to and lobby our politicians. That's why we have the administration making concessions to Walmart regarding Chinese imports, etc. It's all about the money.

It appears you have found a longer way to make the same point I was making.

 

[ryco]

The bailout of B&S is sickening. Bailing out preditor lending institutions and no penalty for irresponsible lending practices.
Isn't this like the horrible S&L bailout in the 80s?

Maybe I should run up my cards and default. Maybe I should disregard what the gov't says I should pay in income tax this year, take the money and throw it in a bank in Burmuda or the UAE.

Let's see how long I stay out of jail or lose my property.
I have a goddamn bottom line, too.

 

[jive1]

+1,000!!!

Yeah, we bail out the danged company, but we say to the home owners, "Too bad, its you're own fault". That's just wrong.

Cherie

And the they bailed them out using tax money from homeowners. They all paid a ton in federal taxes, and we know it because they make you show a tax form when you apply for a mortgage.

It's like taking a dump on someone's front porch and then going in their house to use their favorite T-shirt to clean yourself off.

 

[jwbassman]

And the they bailed them out using tax money from homeowners. They all paid a ton in federal taxes, and we know it because they make you show a tax form when you apply for a mortgage.

It's like taking a dump on someone's front porch and then going in their house to use their favorite T-shirt to clean yourself off.

hehehe. Good analog.

Now there trying to put together a bill to help bailout the homeowners too!

 

[jomahu]

i guess my question would be: what should be done? as previously mentioned in the thread, corporations (and govt', for that matter) are made up of people. we're people too. so what can be done to stop this really pervy financial mess?

just asking because i'm clueless about economics - i don't even have a bank account

 

[Marlat]

Fed boss says recession possible

Federal Reserve boss Ben Bernanke has warned that US gross domestic product (GDP) could contract in the first six months of 2008.

"It now appears likely that real GDP will not grow much, if at all, over the first half of 2008 and could even contract slightly," he told Congress.

Two consecutive three-month periods of negative growth is generally accepted as the definition of a recession.

He did not say "recession", but it is the closest he has come to doing so.

Mr Bernanke is beginning two days of testimony to the US Congress, where he is likely to quizzed on the Fed's rescue of Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns, which got into trouble because of its exposure to sub-prime loans.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7326816.stm

 

[jwbassman]

i guess my question would be: what should be done? as previously mentioned in the thread, corporations (and govt', for that matter) are made up of people. we're people too. so what can be done to stop this really pervy financial mess?

just asking because i'm clueless about economics - i don't even have a bank account

The thing you can do:

If you can't beat 'em join 'em! Start investing and cash in as much as possible. The sooner you start the better.

Sad, but true.

 

[WRBass]

+1,000.

Speaking of rising fuel costs...

We all know that the oil companies receive beaucoup subsidies/tax breaks, and their profist for '07 were around 18 billion.

But drivers still have all these fuel taxes loaded on 'em. (Yeah, they pay for roads...how much you wanna bet they pay for oil subsidies, too?)

This is hitting our truckers...big companies, small ones, and independents, all...very hard. Small companies are closing, independents are having to sell their rigs, big companies are reducing their fleets, which means unemployed truckers.

In early May, the truckers are going to go on strike. Nothing will get shipped for five days or so. So...y'all go stock up now on whatever you are going to need.

I totally support a trucker's strike. They're being crippled by these fuel costs, and they need a break. I am happy to be inconvenienced for a few days so that the people who get ALL our products to us can get the gummy-mint to stand up and take notice.

Cherie

I say that the US Government is resposible for the high energy costs. I will use Exxon as an example. Exxon's before tax '07 earnings were 67.4 Billion, but they paid 30 billion in taxes. That's a tax rate of 41.1%. That's 30 billion that could have been spent on recovering more oil from domestic sources, increasing supply and lowering the cost of oil which is about 60% the cost of gasoline. And, when we buy the gas at the pump, we pay ~13% in state and federal taxes. Essentially, the government is taking money from us waisting it.

I need to verify this, but I'm almost certain that an executive from Exxon told the House Select Energy commitee yesterday that Exxon paid more in taxes over the last 5 years than they made in profits.

My solution: Part 1. Reduce the tax burden on the oil companies by giving more subsidies and tax breaks to those who spend more money developing alternative fuel and energy sources. Part 2. Immediately reduce the taxes that we pay at the pump.

 

[txbasschik]

And the they bailed them out using tax money from homeowners. They all paid a ton in federal taxes, and we know it because they make you show a tax form when you apply for a mortgage.

It's like taking a dump on someone's front porch and then going in their house to use their favorite T-shirt to clean yourself off.

Exactly. Our government is corrupt and sick. This is only one piece of supporting evidence.

Its like the S&L bailout, but worse. And I'd be willing to bet all my beer money that its a lot of the same bastages they bailed out back then, getting bailed out again now.

Grrrrrrr...

I want my money back.

Cherie

 

[txbasschik]

I say that the US Government is resposible for the high energy costs. I will use Exxon as an example. Exxon's before tax '07 earnings were 67.4 Billion, but they paid 30 billion in taxes. That's a tax rate of 41.1%. That's 30 billion that could have been spent on recovering more oil from domestic sources, increasing supply and lowering the cost of oil which is about 60% the cost of gasoline. And, when we buy the gas at the pump, we pay ~13% in state and federal taxes. Essentially, the government is taking money from us waisting it.

I need to verify this, but I'm almost certain that an executive from Exxon told the House Select Energy commitee yesterday that Exxon paid more in taxes over the last 5 years than they made in profits.

My solution: Part 1. Reduce the tax burden on the oil companies by giving more subsidies and tax breaks to those who spend more money developing alternative fuel and energy sources. Part 2. Immediately reduce the taxes that we pay at the pump.

I would certainly rather the subsidies be given only to those companies who will develop other fuel sources. And yes...reduce our taxes at the pump, and reduce the trucker's pump tax *right now*.

But they won't do it.

I'm very, very pessimistic about our "leadership" these days. And not real excited about the new "leadership" to come, either.

Cherie

 

[budman]

I need to verify this, but I'm almost certain that an executive from Exxon told the House Select Energy commitee yesterday that Exxon paid more in taxes over the last 5 years than they made in profits.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Bingo! Follow the money. Here's my theory...Anyone notice how we've basically been uncontested in Iraq?...minus the insurgants...Nobody has messed with us. Why? They're getting paid to stay out of the way. How are they getting paid? Most of those surrounding countries are members of OPEC and we're buying crude from them at record prices, that's how they're getting paid. The oil companies in turn are making record profits and that means a lot of taxes and what's paying for the war? Taxes.

This is just a theory and has no bearing on my personal opinions about the war or the current state of the US economy. It's just what I think is happening.

 

[txbasschik]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Bingo! Follow the money. Here's my theory...Anyone notice how we've basically been uncontested in Iraq?...minus the insurgants...Nobody has messed with us. Why? They're getting paid to stay out of the way. How are they getting paid? Most of those surrounding countries are members of OPEC and we're buying crude from them at record prices, that's how they're getting paid. The oil companies in turn are making record profits and that means a lot of taxes and what's paying for the war? Taxes.

This is just a theory and has no bearing on my personal opinions about the war or the current state of the US economy. It's just what I think is happening.

I think you've hit the nail squre on the head and knocked it all the way in.

Cherie

 

[jwbassman]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Bingo! Follow the money. Here's my theory...Anyone notice how we've basically been uncontested in Iraq?...minus the insurgants...Nobody has messed with us. Why? They're getting paid to stay out of the way. How are they getting paid? Most of those surrounding countries are members of OPEC and we're buying crude from them at record prices, that's how they're getting paid. The oil companies in turn are making record profits and that means a lot of taxes and what's paying for the war? Taxes.

This is just a theory and has no bearing on my personal opinions about the war or the current state of the US economy. It's just what I think is happening.

I would agree with that theory. The company I work for sells pressure and temperature instruments for industrial applications, and since the start of the war we've taken numerous orders for products going to oil related projects being built in Iraq.

 

[BassyBill]

...Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns, which got into trouble because of its exposure to sub-prime loans.

I'll fix it:

... Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns, which got into trouble because of its directors' and shareholders' unrestrained greed.

 

[69nites]

Shenanigans. Not what there are people fighting for the work in a declining economy, and having to compete with illegals who don't pay taxes, and have 14 people living per home.

My former trade pays less now than it did when I entered the trade in 1995. It got to a point, where they can just have it. Major metro areas are MUCH worse than my own case.

please....

you live in ohio I KNOW your unions are good.

maybe if you were trying to be independent the illegal thing would be an issue....

 

[Brad Johnson]

Yes, but not near as much as the Stereotypical AARP member, the US government gives on the average, 27,000$ worth of benefits to every senior citizen. Or the average Farmer, The US Government just passed a 280 Billion dollars in farm subsidies. If anyone detects a pattern here please let me know. For the record the two segments of society that are currently seeing INCREASES in income are Farmers and Senior Citizens.

It was a very simple question: Does the stereotypical food stamp receipient even vote?

You answered "yes". What is that based on? And do you ever miss an opportunity to go off on an unrelated tangent? I didn't ask about AARP... I already know they are a powerful voting block.

Focus.