It's clear I know nothing about economics.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Oh. I guess until then we're just getting our butts kicked.

Since the Congress and the general public has chastised the corporate big wigs for flying around in a corporate jet guess what. Right, sales are way off and the local plant that builds corporate jets just announced a lay off.... 500 new people hit the ranks of the unemployed.

Who won that battle?

[cwtnospam]

Nice twist of logic: if we don't let themhave their way, we lose.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Nice twist of logic: if we don't let themhave their way, we lose.

No winners in a depression, some just lose more than others. Seems like a fair trade... they don't get to act big in their corporate jets, and 500 people (at this one plant) don't get to eat.

[cwtnospam]

You're missing the point.

Five hundred is a very small number of people to employ, especially when there is that much money involved. This actually shows how letting the Rich get richer makes things worse! Even when they spend money, it isn't enough to keep large numbers of people gainfully employed.

If we really wanted to stimulate the economy, we'd spread the 800 billion amongst the poorest Americans, who would go out and buy things they need (and yes, some they don't) which would stimulate every part of the economy dramatically and quickly. That would be a big difference from the 700 billion to 1.2 trillion going to the banks with little to show for it.

[tw]

well, I think you're both missing the bigger picture. why would a corporation need a corporate jet in the first place? Most business that's time pressured can be handled electronically, and for things that need face-to-face, CEO's can ride the big jets just like the rest of us. corporate jets are a luxury/perk, used to tickle the vanity of executives and clients. they're just like limos, expense accounts, and golden parachutes, and could be dispensed with entirely.

corporate jets (et al) are mainly intended to reinforce class distinctions; those people depend on them to draw the line between them and the rest of us. now ask yourself why that line needs to be there.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw well, I think you're both ... corporate jets are a luxury/perk, used to tickle the vanity of executives and clients. they're just like limos, expense accounts, and golden parachutes, and could be dispensed with entirely. .

Right. Just another way we keep score (as Woodsman pointed out).

The point was... a depression hurts everybody, rich or poor, and it spreads. And, it is not about class warfare as all classes suffer.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw now ask yourself why that line needs to be there.

My answer is that it's part of that One World Government. The one where people still think they're citizens of nations.

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst The point was... a depression hurts everybody, rich or poor, and it spreads. And, it is not about class warfare as all classes suffer.

Yeah, I'm sure that the CEOs who ran their companies into the ground are worried about how they'll pay their mortgages. If only those poor guys could get some sort of bonuses to help them out...

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Right. Just another way we keep score (as Woodsman pointed out). The point was... a depression hurts everybody, rich or poor, and it spreads. And, it is not about class warfare as all classes suffer.

you misunderstand the nature of class warfare (which is a poor term in any case). conflicts between classes (according to Marx) are over control of the means of production, because control of the means of production is what allows exploitation of other classes, and translates into privilege and wealth. it's not about suffering (the Kings of Yore could not have dreamed of the luxuries available to your average CEO, but they did not suffer because of that lack). at it's worst, this economic downturn might make someone like John McCain sell one or two of his many houses, or make him decide not to buy that new Lamborghini - that might seem like suffering to him, of course, but it hardly qualifies on any rational scale. I can't imagine how bad the economy would have to sink for the wealthy class to actually suffer in any meaningful way, but I know that before that would happen New York City would look like Calcutta, and less affluent cities like Pittsburgh would be festering holes of poverty.

the only time there's actual warfare in 'class warfare' is when one group is trying to seize the means of production away from another ('fake' class warfare, since the end result for the populace is no real change) or when a group that owns an out-dated means of production is trying to suppress the group that owns the newer means of production (real class warfare - this is the root of the English Civil War(s)). otherwise 'class warfare' just refers to the antagonistic relationship between classes and their respective interests.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam My answer is that it's part of that One World Government.

you say that like it's the Beast of Revelations.

[NovaScotian]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw conflicts between classes (according to Marx) are over control of the means of production, because control of the means of production is what allows exploitation of other classes, and translates into privilege and wealth.

While I'm certainly not qualified by education to interject here, it strikes me that there is an argument going on that the current economic catastrophe is the result of Capitalism, per se. In my view, that's not so; it's the result of unfettered greed (greed being a universal human trait, unfortunately, deadly sin or not). There are no surviving examples of Socialism that actually worked, because again, greed got in the way. Zimbabwe is a current example -- a country with a thriving economy and a net exporter of food has, in only 30 years, been reduced to poverty, starvation, disease, and ruin by the greed and incompetence of Mugabe.

Thirty years ago, he was thought to be the savior of Zimbabwe from its colonial oppression (by the British), forgetting that while Cecil Rhodes and his followers had been and were getting rich during the colonial era, so were the Zimbabweans enjoying prosperity, security, stability and reasonably honest good government. You can't have it both ways, unfortunately -- Capitalism will inevitably lead to a rich/poor dichotomy, but I would argue that the poor in a Capitalist society are better off than the poor in a Socialist one in all real examples with the possible exception of Cuba. I would further argue that in a Capitalist society, there are more "rich" than there are in a Socialist one -- it's the poor who have the majority in either.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian While I'm certainly not qualified by education to interject here...

to paraphrase Einstein, an ounce of insight is worth more than a pound of knowledge. in other words, book larnin' aint all that importnt.

Quote: it strikes me that there is an argument going on that the current economic catastrophe is the result of Capitalism, per se. In my view, that's not so; it's the result of unfettered greed (greed being a universal human trait, unfortunately, deadly sin or not). There are no surviving examples of Socialism that actually worked, because again, greed got in the way.

two objections:
(1) the common justification for capitalism (with respect to socialism, at least) is that capitalism systematizes and utilizes greed, whereas socialism (and before socialism, moral philosophy) assumes that people can be virtuous if they choose. capitalism and greed are not really separable. now if you wanted to say that the current economic crisis is a result of unfettered capitalism (or what I prefer to call rabid capitalism), then I'd agree with you. Marx - at least in his more philosophical moments - wasn't actually anti-capitalist, but mostly wanted to point out capitalism's inherent weaknesses and inhumanities. I suspect he expected people to read his work and become more 'enlightened' about how they did business.

we love it when people compete at games and sports, but we get annoyed when people get so obsessed with winning that they'll cheat. who was that figure skater who tried to kneecap one of her opponents? so why don't we apply that same insistence on correct behavior to the business world?

(2) there have actually never been any major examples of socialism, anywhere, period (not socialism as it relates to Marxist theory at any rate). Mgabe and his ilk are actually somewhere between national socialist and totalitarian regimes (systems designed to suppress collective behaviors of all sort, not construct collective action the way that Marxist theory would dictate). note that the first thing the National Socialist movement in Germany and the fascist movement in Italy did was to criminalize the communist and socialist parties, and the second thing they did was cut deals with the capitalist industrialists in order to start building their economies. there were a few attempts here and there to build true communist/socialist communities (in Russia prior to WWII, early Maoist China, I think, in Cuba and a few South American nations) but they were all destroyed fairly quickly by the rise of totalitarian states, or by the interference of one or both of the superpowers

Quote: You can't have it both ways, unfortunately -- Capitalism will inevitably lead to a rich/poor dichotomy...

I'm not worried about that; different strokes for different folks. most people are content to live their lives with mild to moderate wealth - enough to raise a family, live in health, retire in modest comfort. some people have more ambition than that, and that's a good thing, because ambitious people drive progress and the economy. problems only occur when the latter group gets so ambitious that they start cutting into the modest needs of the former group. you can have capitalism without that problem occurring, I think.

[NovaScotian]

As I understand it (somewhat vaguely, I admit), the socialist "idea" is embodied in the phase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Unfortunately, that's in blinding contrast with human nature which in most of us embeds the notion of getting ahead. The Marxian notion usually applies within a family where non-productive children are nurtured and supported, but does not really apply among unrelated adults.

Getting ahead, on the other hand, is typically founded on ability, motivation, education, and effort. Sure there are (and always will be) cheaters, but most folks are honest to some degree (excluding taxes, of course) and cheaters are usually at the margins eventually.

No society anywhere can operate without rules, however; even the most primitive societies have rules, and it has been shown that very small children have an innate sense of fairness. Isn't some form of fairness inevitably embedded in the notion of "society"? Ayn Rand was proposing a sort of apartheid of merit -- not cheating. The failure in our current crisis was a failure to impose rules at the top; to exclude the elite from the normal rules for the rest of us with a mistaken belief that corporations would behave both competently and ethically. Competence insures that a thing is done right and ethics that the right thing is done and our trust was misplaced -- Wall Street was neither competent nor ethical.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian While I'm certainly not qualified by education to interject here, it strikes me that there is an argument going on that the current economic catastrophe is the result of Capitalism, per se. In my view, that's not so; it's the result of unfettered greed (greed being a universal human trait, unfortunately, deadly sin or not).

I think that is the argument that the extreme right wing would prefer to have: Capitalism vs Socialism. It's an easy one for them to win: Socialism is a failure on a scale that Capitalism can't reach.

The problem is that like any system, Capitalism needs rules and the extreme right wing believes that having free markets means that anything goes: the market will sort it all out. That's obviously not true. Drugs, prostitution, murder for hire, and other street level crimes are the most obvious examples where markets cannot produce the desired outcome. Fraud is another huge area that ranges from small con jobs through Madoff level Ponzi schemes.

Beyond crime, there's the problem that there isn't one market, and large organizations that span markets have an unfair advantage over small businesses and individuals. Large organizations aren't easily affected by changes in regional markets, and so they're able to manipulate those markets, effectively eliminating the free market system.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw .... you misunderstand the nature of class warfare (which is a poor term in any case). conflicts between classes (according to Marx) are over control of the means of production, because control of the means of production is what allows exploitation of other classes, and translates into privilege and wealth.

Allow me to state this one last, then I will give up. I did not say class warfare/class struggle does not exist. I said the depression is not part of that because neither side will act in a way that is devastating to their best interest. TW & CWT... do you disagree with this?

I remember my first class (all those many years ago) that dealt with dialectic materialism. My initial reaction was Marx is very smart, but completely out of touch with reality. It is one thing to view and describe the world and its problems, but quite another to predict where the world will go. I marked (no pun intended) Marx off as a utopian dreamer and left it at that. My opinion hasn't changed.

As for greed, it is the cornerstone of all economic analysis. If you define the world as a place where nobody acts in their own best interest, then economic analysis is impossible and the world is irrational and chaotic. I would not define greed that way, but any other definition is a distinction without much of a difference.

[NovaScotian]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst As for greed, it is the cornerstone of all economic analysis. If you define the world as a place where nobody acts in their own best interest, then economic analysis is impossible and the world is irrational and chaotic. I would not define greed that way, but any other definition is a distinction without much of a difference.

I agree; greed has survival value up to a point. The trick is to define that point.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst CWT... do you disagree with this?

Of course I do! The depression is part of it because the rich will not act in a way that is in their long term interests but has short term costs. One of the biggest problems with our system is that there is very little long term thinking. When you combine that with the fact that most of the wealth is controlled by relatively few (read: oligopoly) hands, you're going to have trouble.

As long as everything is moving, the system is fine. As soon as there's a slow down, the only people who can afford to get it moving again by investing in their employees, won't do it. Instead, they're laying off the people who produce the wealth. They're focussed on maintaining their wealth in the short term, and that will be devastating to their wealth in the long run!

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Of course I do! The depression is part of it because the rich will not act in a way that is in their long term interests but has short term costs. One of the biggest problems with our system is that there is very little long term thinking. When you combine that with the fact that most of the wealth is controlled by relatively few (read: oligopoly) hands, you're going to have trouble......

When corporations (industrialists, etc.) hold down wages and benefits to maximize their profits, that action might be defined as part of a class struggle... the one in power abusing the other for fun and profit. The same would apply, I think, to those who profit from the exploitation of natural resources and leave their mess for society to clean up. And of course, a tax policy that benefits one income group at the expense of the other is classic.

Corporations have for many years been accused of seeking short term profit at the expense of long term well being. I think that accusation is spot on.

But, I do not understand how a depression is a long term or short term benefit to corporations, the wealthy, or anybody else. They may have caused it, but they did not do so with the intent of taking advantage of others or to obtain any benefit for themselves.... they simply screwed up and shot themselves (and everybody else) in the foot.... or maybe a little higher up.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst But, I do not understand how a depression is a long term or short term benefit to corporations, the wealthy, or anybody else.

It isn't.

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst They may have caused it, but they did not do so with the intent of taking advantage of others or to obtain any benefit for themselves

Yes, they did.

It's the manipulation of markets (for their own profit) that is the cause of many problems, including recession/depression. In a free market system, you're supposed to make profits by making better mouse traps. That's not what's been going on. Instead, many corporations make profits by moving high paying jobs to low wage markets and pocketing the difference. That can only end badly, and it is done with the intent of taking advantage of both markets: buying cheap labor from one market while selling in the higher wage market at the higher prices of that market.

It's how they've destroyed the free market!

[NovaScotian]

The part of your "free market" concept I don't get, CWT, is how, if corporations are supposed to be free, they can't choose where to send their wages. From their perspective, if they're forced to use a local labor force, then everyone else must too or it's not a level playing field. Another difficulty is "better mousetraps". Better is not only a matter of form and function; it's a matter of economics and perception of value for money. The huge boom of manufacturing on the Pacific rim is a response to folks choosing those things in the marketplace when they're on offer.

Most of us, understanding that no coffee maker seems to last more than 2 years goes for the expensive one -- we buy one for $19.95 and discard it when it craps out. Unfortunately, it's not possible to build one for that sales price in the USA, Europe, or Canada.

[Woodsman]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian As I understand it (somewhat vaguely, I admit), the socialist "idea" is embodied in the phase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I believe that slogan belongs to communism instead. Socialism is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution". For more than a century American conservatives have, for their own ends, systematically confused communism, socialism and social democracy. The Soviet Union never claimed that it had achieved communism, and AFAIK no one else did either, it was always a mirage beckoning in the future. I agree that communism ("to each according to his need") cannot work on any kind of macro scale, we simply aren't wired for it. That is, you can and do have small voluntary communist communities; look at the Hutterites in the North American wheatbelt, and the early kibbutzim. As for there being no working examples of "socialism", that is certainly false when, as often happens for polemical purposes, social democracies or mixed economies are labelled "socialist". I know someone who claims to be living the American Dream in Norway. Well, we and the Canadians usually occupy the two top slots on the UN Human Development Index, no?