| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2011 03:29:58 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just don't want to head too far in the opposite direction. |
Concur. I know you are a football fan and I saw an analogy a while back where the players stood in for the corporations and other competitors in the market place, and the government was the referees who called the fouls and assessed the penalties.
The players are willing to compete under any version of a group of refs understanding of the rules, what is holding, how much contact a DB can make during a route, that sort of thing as long as they are consistent, then they can have a fair game. With the drive towards deregulation, the refs are calling fewer and fewer fouls, so all the players have to play up to the new version of the rule set, or get crushed. The fact is that the refs are there to make a safer more equitable game that allows players to show off their skills and have a good game. If the refs refuse to call fouls, cheap shot artist gain supremacy for a bit, then everyone ramps it up to that level, but more players get hurt, less skill can be expressed. Long term, if the refs just "let the players play" pretty soon the game devolves to the point where we are watching violence punctuated by committee meeting, and the game is not worth watching.
In corporate oversight right now, the players have been writing the rules, each making the case that they need more latitude to do what gives them advantage. Long term its bad for the game and bad for the players, and bad for those of us who have to watch it. I want to see the refs back on the field and get the rules enforced so we can have a fair match and have the better team win. Without a rule set, any economic transaction devolves to theft. |
That's one way to look at it. Another is that the refs are frequently giving free points to one team that has contributed to the refs re-employment campaign. Team Solyndra was given 500 million points and they still lost the game, but the refs don't care because those were the fans points anyway. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:34:45 PM · #102 |
...also, in terms of regulation, the refs head ref is implementing new rules on every down such as this: "During the 4th quarter, players are not allowed to advance the ball until they complete an environmental impact study and because there are endangered fleas living on the left side of mid-field, that area is out of bounds." |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:38:44 PM · #103 |
| It's a good analogy. The OWS people are a few fans sitting in one of the bathrooms in the stadium refusing to leave. The refs have gone home and the game is long over. The real policy changers will be the other fans who refuse to buy tickets to the game because it's not fun to watch anymore. No fans? The rules will change. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:54:10 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
During the Age of Reason ... |
In retrospect, I'm not sure it lasted ling enough to dignify it with the appellation "Age" ... :-(
*******
"Intelligent Life Has Visited Earth" says Russian Scientist
-- Newspaper headline
"Too bad they didn't stay."
-- My dad
*******
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... the second coming of Che Guevara. |
He'll be in the money in infringement royalties if he didn't sign a release for that Tshirt!
A hybrid of fettered capitalism balanced with fettered socialism would probably make sense. (c.f. Norway, Sweden, Germany, et al)
Right now we have largely unfettered capitalism combined with socialism for the wealthy.
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 15:55:03. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:01:38 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The real policy changers will be the other fans who refuse to buy tickets to the game because it's not fun to watch anymore. No fans? The rules will change. |
The problem is the stadium has no exits, unless you want to grow your own food and spin your clothes out of tree bark, you are in the game. Capitalism is the water we swim in, we can't just decide to grow wings and live in the air.
Uh oh, I think I have surpassed my daily allotted allowance of analogies. Time to stop before I go into an analogy spiral which traps me for all time like a........... |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:01:43 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...also, in terms of regulation, the refs head ref is implementing new rules on every down such as this: "During the 4th quarter, players are not allowed to advance the ball until they complete an environmental impact study and because there are endangered fleas living on the left side of mid-field, that area is out of bounds." |
What's your alternative to governmental environmental regulation?
Businesses have shown themselves to be more than willing to persistently pollute the public lands and waterways for profit, even with the wimpy regulations we have now.
Maybe you don't care how many mountaintops are blasted off and dumped into creeks, how many million tons of toxic coal slag is dumped into your lake, whether your tap water catches fire from the fracking chemicals seeping into your private well, how many square miles of forest are clearcut -- with the runoff from the denuded slops choking the rivers and the few salmon left trying to spawn in them ... but some of us do.
So, what's your alternative?
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 16:02:40. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:07:29 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...also, in terms of regulation, the refs head ref is implementing new rules on every down such as this: "During the 4th quarter, players are not allowed to advance the ball until they complete an environmental impact study and because there are endangered fleas living on the left side of mid-field, that area is out of bounds." |
What's your alternative to governmental environmental regulation?
Businesses have shown themselves to be more than willing to persistently pollute the public lands and waterways for profit, even with the wimpy regulations we have now.
Maybe you don't care how many mountaintops are blasted off and dumped into creeks, how many million tons of toxic coal slag is dumped into your lake, whether your tap water catches fire from the fracking chemicals seeping into your private well, how many square miles of forest are clearcut -- with the runoff from the denuded slops choking the rivers and the few salmon left trying to spawn in them ... but some of us do.
So, what's your alternative? |
Yes, General, because I prefer jobs and economics over the lives of the endangered fleas (or frogs or spotted owls or whatever), that obviously means I believe corporations should be free to dump radioactive toxic waste right into the creek behind my house. That's the kind of rhetoric that cripples any progress towards viable solutions to our economic problems. Regulation is necessary to an extent. Currently regulations are helping to stifle business and much of it is unnecessary. I'm for reasonable compromise. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:12:23 PM · #108 |
...furthermore, what happens with regulation - at all levels of government - is that certain companies can get waivers and favors from elected officials in exchange for a little help with the campaign funding. Which means only those large corporations that can afford to grease the skids will be able to prosper AND CIRCUMVENT these regulations, while smaller businesses are screwed and can't even get off the ground.
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 16:12:42. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:12:44 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's a nice narrative, but I lean toward this article:
"The best way to affect(sic) change against corporations, whose sole purpose on the planet is to make money is quickly and efficiently as possible, is to simply take your business elsewhere. Of course, one person going across the street to do their banking isn̢۪t going to be cause for a CEO to make a public apology video, but we have seen recently that the sound of enough people voting with their wallets can resonate up to even the highest corner office.
Instead of risking hypothermia this winter in a never-ending sit-in without a stated goal or finish line, maybe the considerable financial backing, media attention, and (dare I say) brand recognition of the Occupy movement could be used to call out to consumers, (especially the vast majority of us 99% who might sympathize on some level, but can̢۪t camp out in the park every night) via the vast social and traditional media resources at the group̢۪s disposal, to take their hard earned dollars away from those companies/institutions that the movement finds to be the most objectionable, perhaps sending a wake up call all the way up the corporate flow chart.
The Occupy movement was born because some of the 99% didn’t think they were being heard by the 1%. It appears now that the 1% is listening, you just have to know which ear is the “good†ear, and which ear is the deaf ear."
Earlier in the article he noted the "good" ear is the one next to the wallet. |
Just not buying a company's product is fairly simple when you're talking about a consumer oriented company, but when it's not possible to take your business elsewhere because individuals aren't direct customers, then what? Many of these corporations sell to other corporations or to the government. How are you to know that RatBastard Inc. made some of the chips in the computer for your car? It's like saying "buy American". What does that even mean? If I buy a tractor, I should buy a John Deere because it's American, right? Well, maybe I should buy a Kubota tractor because more of the parts on it are American made and that purchase means more Americans have jobs than buying the "American" brand.
The 1% may be listening, but it remains to be seen if they're hearing and willing to act. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:14:23 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The 1% may be listening, but it remains to be seen if they're hearing and willing to act. |
Act how? What is it that OWS is demanding that they do?
eta: and what is OWS going to do if the 1% don't comply with these demands?
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 16:15:40. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:15:18 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...furthermore, what happens with regulation - at all levels of government - is that certain companies can get waivers and favors from elected officials in exchange for a little help with the campaign funding. Which means only those large corporations that can afford to grease the skids will be able to prosper AND CIRCUMVENT these regulations, while smaller businesses are screwed and can't even get off the ground. |
That's exactly the kind of BS that needs to stop.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:15:42 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Currently regulations are helping to stifle business and much of it is unnecessary. I'm for reasonable compromise. |
So am I, but the Republicans are for unreasonable non-compromise. I truly believe that an impartial analysis would find that the effect of regulations "stifling" anything are significantly hyped by the rhetoricians of the right.
In the meantime, the Bush tax cuts are still in effect and have been for years, so what's the problem with all those "job creators" creating some ******* jobs already?
I think they're sitting on those billions in cash in order to sabotage any chance of significant economic recovery before the election, in line with the House Speaker's professed Number One Priority of defeating the president for re-election ... THEY are still collecting their bonuses. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:16:26 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Currently regulations are helping to stifle business and much of it is unnecessary. I'm for reasonable compromise. |
Has there ever been a regulation which did not stifle some business? Is that not the intent of regulation? |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:20:48 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
eta: and what is OWS going to do if the 1% don't comply with these demands? |
Perhaps it's time to remember that the original "Tea Party" was what would now be considered an act of terrorism against exploitive corporate interests and their governement cronies ... |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:21:16 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...furthermore, what happens with regulation - at all levels of government - is that certain companies can get waivers and favors from elected officials in exchange for a little help with the campaign funding. Which means only those large corporations that can afford to grease the skids will be able to prosper AND CIRCUMVENT these regulations, while smaller businesses are screwed and can't even get off the ground. |
That's exactly the kind of BS that needs to stop. |
Absolutely agreed. Problem is that most of us little people can agree on what truly are the problems with our system, but we are very polarized as to what the solutions are. My opinion is that more, bigger government breeds more opportunities for corruption. It may sound good to "establish an oversight committee" or appoint a "Corruption Czar" but it still comes down to who greases who. I haven't heard any realistic solutions to the fundamental problem of public officials being indebted to their corporate crony campaign contributors. I did hear it suggested that candidates ONLY be allowed to take public funding for elections. Sounds like an ok idea on the surface, but like many things, I'm sure there's either a downside or an easy way around it. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:23:15 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The 1% may be listening, but it remains to be seen if they're hearing and willing to act. |
Act how? What is it that OWS is demanding that they do?
eta: and what is OWS going to do if the 1% don't comply with these demands? |
Revoke corporate personhood.
No political donations from corporations to candidates, PACs etc.
No more tax loopholes
Revised taxation for the 1% (Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest in the past 50 years. Those that reap the most benefit should pay at a higher rate to continue reaping)
Regulation of the banking/finance sector - no more derivatives (like the mortgage backed securities) that are so complex no one really knows what they're buying and selling.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:26:49 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Revoke corporate personhood. |
I don't know ... perhaps if, when the corporation is found guilty of criminal conduct, all of the officers, executives, and shareholders must serve hard prison time, we might see a marked improvement in regulatory compliance rates ... |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:28:21 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...furthermore, what happens with regulation - at all levels of government - is that certain companies can get waivers and favors from elected officials in exchange for a little help with the campaign funding. Which means only those large corporations that can afford to grease the skids will be able to prosper AND CIRCUMVENT these regulations, while smaller businesses are screwed and can't even get off the ground. |
That's exactly the kind of BS that needs to stop. |
Absolutely agreed. Problem is that most of us little people can agree on what truly are the problems with our system, but we are very polarized as to what the solutions are. My opinion is that more, bigger government breeds more opportunities for corruption. It may sound good to "establish an oversight committee" or appoint a "Corruption Czar" but it still comes down to who greases who. I haven't heard any realistic solutions to the fundamental problem of public officials being indebted to their corporate crony campaign contributors. I did hear it suggested that candidates ONLY be allowed to take public funding for elections. Sounds like an ok idea on the surface, but like many things, I'm sure there's either a downside or an easy way around it. |
And less, smaller government just stands by while it happens.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:31:47 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Revoke corporate personhood. |
I don't know ... perhaps if, when the corporation is found guilty of criminal conduct, all of the officers, executives, and shareholders must serve hard prison time, we might see a marked improvement in regulatory compliance rates ... |
Well, you have to understand that corporate personhood isn't like being a regular person...a corporation can't go to jail and their income (profits) is taxed at a much lower rate. Now if they were willing to pay the personal income tax rate on their profits and the CEO, board and top execs could be imprisoned for wrongdoing it might be more palatable. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 04:45:08 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The 1% may be listening, but it remains to be seen if they're hearing and willing to act. |
Act how? What is it that OWS is demanding that they do?
eta: and what is OWS going to do if the 1% don't comply with these demands? |
Revoke corporate personhood. - Uh, hellooo, how can corporations revoke corporate personhood? Take it up with the SCOTUS.
No political donations from corporations to candidates, PACs etc. - Ok. Also no donations from unions.
No more tax loopholes - I'm ok with this.
Revised taxation for the 1% (Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest in the past 50 years. Those that reap the most benefit should pay at a higher rate to continue reaping) - I'm ok with this as long as we remove the tools used by the uber-rich to avoid taxes altogether. (i.e. aforementioned loopholes)
Regulation of the banking/finance sector - no more derivatives (like the mortgage backed securities) that are so complex no one really knows what they're buying and selling. - I'm fine with this, but would include a provision to keep the government from forcing private financial institutions to give loans (or guarantee loans) to underqualified people - or any people for that matter. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 05:01:37 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The 1% may be listening, but it remains to be seen if they're hearing and willing to act. |
Act how? What is it that OWS is demanding that they do?
eta: and what is OWS going to do if the 1% don't comply with these demands? |
Revoke corporate personhood. - Uh, hellooo, how can corporations revoke corporate personhood? Take it up with the SCOTUS.
No political donations from corporations to candidates, PACs etc. - Ok. Also no donations from unions.
No more tax loopholes - I'm ok with this.
Revised taxation for the 1% (Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest in the past 50 years. Those that reap the most benefit should pay at a higher rate to continue reaping) - I'm ok with this as long as we remove the tools used by the uber-rich to avoid taxes altogether. (i.e. aforementioned loopholes)
Regulation of the banking/finance sector - no more derivatives (like the mortgage backed securities) that are so complex no one really knows what they're buying and selling. - I'm fine with this, but would include a provision to keep the government from forcing private financial institutions to give loans (or guarantee loans) to underqualified people - or any people for that matter. |
I'm OK with most of this. How about verification of income/credit for government guaranteed loans. The banks had no requirement or incentive to check. That's how the most toxic loans or the "self-verified" loans came to pass. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 05:07:25 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I'm OK with most of this. How about verification of income/credit for government guaranteed loans. The banks had no requirement or incentive to check. That's how the most toxic loans or the "self-verified" loans came to pass. |
I think Art will tell you in his opinion a large amount of the foreclosure SNAFU were born during the Clinton years when he directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their credit standards in an effort to allow a wider range of people buy a home. See this 1999 NYT article. Of course the reality is both issues bear some blame.
EDIT: It's always fun to look in the wayback machine. Check out this paragraph from that article, again, written in 1999:
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 17:09:27. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 07:04:02 PM · #123 |
Greatest quote from this thread..
Originally posted by Spork99:
Just because it's a law, it doesn't require enforcement... |
LOVE IT!! The laws are there for a reason, and all should be enforced, no matter the circumstances. If they seem wrong...change em.
I have read this whole thread and the last little bit is starting to make sense. What needs fixed is the government, FIRST. Don't allow them to be persuaded. Especially this type of thing...
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
No political donations from corporations to candidates, PACs etc. - "Ok. Also no donations from unions." |
I would add in NO MORE LOBBYISTS! also. Fix those things and I am sure things will get a little better.
But if we go back to the beginning , with the "greatest quote" it won't matter, because, the government officials will just pick and choose which laws they live by, if laws aren't enforced. Not that some of them don't live this way already. And are not prosecuted or brought to justice.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 08:21:07 PM · #124 |
FWIW, I blame both sides of the political spectrum for the overall mess we are in, but I blame partisan voters for not holding "their side" accountable and thus perpetuating the problems.
Even in all the debates on DPC, 99% (if I may borrow what is probably a trademarked name now) of the participants are coming from an entrenched position and/or ideology and will only dig up arguments that support their current position from sources they cherry pick. And the rebuttals are usually just dismissive of facts because the sources are biased. Debaters rarely, if ever, take a look at the opposing evidence or argument or concede ANY points because then the other side will think they've won.
I try to listen to all points of view and take each point and evaluate it on it's merits and/or basis in fact and come to my own conclusions. Even though I know every partisan has an agenda and will present information that only supports their view, but to me that does not detract from the truth of a fact if it is, in fact, true. It is our individual responsibility to seek the truth from ALL sources and not dismiss facts out of hand, but carefully consider the subjective or philosophical issues in how we interpret those facts. And it would also help if everyone who engages in these partisan debates, came in with the assumption or understanding that people with the opposing viewpoint ultimately want what's best for everybody - the disagreement is on the means to get there.
Regarding Lobbyists, I'm not sure how to eliminate them without an amendment to the constitution, but certainly there could/should be constraints on them. But they are just tools of corporations - only one means by which they exert their influence on our government. We need to find and fix all of them, but we also need to be very concerned about unintended consequences. Any time we make laws or regs to handle things, someone always finds a way to use those new rules to gain an unfair advantage. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 08:27:09 PM · #125 |
| i don't think you would have to amend the constitution to get rid of the lobbyists, since they are taking money to benifit themselves but they are hurting the country by selling out then wouldn't you be able to have that fall under the catagory of treason against the country and then you could just lock them up in levinworth. |
|
