Print
E-mail
Share
delicious
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
GOP’s capitalism unkind, irregular
Tue, Nov 4, 2008 (2:01 a.m.)
In recent history we can follow the result of naked greed: Charles Keating and the other owners of savings and loans who stole billions from their depositors; the executives of Enron and WorldCom, et al., who took all they could until their companies collapsed and their shareholders were left with nothing; and the chief executives and others managing the great financial institutions allowed to run wild, almost totally unregulated, until AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman etc. are destroyed, but this time also causing worldwide chaos and turmoil.
And who stands on the sidelines cheering on the so-called “free market” but the Republican Party, which does not admit its complicity in the financial meltdown.
Sen. John McCain is again asking people who have lost their homes, their nest eggs and their jobs to vote for the party mostly responsible for their condition. I cannot believe he will get them.
Now, I’m almost sure that in the canon of capitalism it does not state greed is good. We know that greed is bad. Also in that canon it probably does not say that entrepreneurship cannot have a more humanistic side, that it cannot help feed the hungry, house the homeless, preserve our waters, air, forests, provide health insurance for all and so on.
In fact, had they done so in the past, their bottom lines would have been even better than they were during the bubble they created and finally burst. Perhaps in the future they will, instead of emulating Croesus, act as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have and provide great resources to help humanity.
Discussion: 24 comments so far…
Post a comment
Email Edition
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Primm wins visitors with deep discounts
- Revenue slips at Las Vegas Sands’ Pa. casino
- Couple struggles to find work in Vegas at Pink’s Hot Dogs
- Path clears for federal support of fast train to California
- Matt Damon, Ben Affleck among A-list stars to play poker at Rio
- High-speed train option to Victorville advances
- Court filings shed light on Fontainebleau financing
- Love it or hate it, climate change bill heads to Senate
- Tropicana Las Vegas emerges from bankruptcy
- Thomas Kinkade paints Las Vegas light, not right
Blogs
The Bull's-Eye
Priestley bows to Ruthian effort by 'The Power' (UPDATED)
Elsewhere
Don't look for Vick to wear a Vegas UFL uniform
Business Notebook
News isn't all bad for Las Vegas companies
Now and Then
Let's see those spelling bee kids try this
Punchy Points: UFC 100
No. 8: The Cutman: Blood is 'Stitch's' trade and his bond
Elsewhere
UFC officials still have sights set on NYC, Boston
BYU's Dave Rose plans to return to sidelines for 2009-10 season
Calendar
- Bill Maher at the Orleans Showroom (8 p.m. to 10 p.m.)
- Jamie Foxx at the Joint (8 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
- Billy Gardell at Bonkerz Comedy Club (10 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.)
- LeBron James at Tao Beach and Lavo (11 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Jeff Dunham at The Colosseum (8 p.m. to 10 p.m.)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
The writer says only GOP Capitalistic pigs have ruined the U.S.
Apparently only Republicans are complicit and selfish.
Democrats do not work in the mortgage industry, banking industry or wall street?
Last time I looked Obama is getting the overwhelming percentage of contributions from Wall Street.
The question is do we destroy capitalism with a vote today for government control of the schools, Social Security, banks, health care, energy sources. Do we promote Nationalization and Welfare in the name of socialism
If only you would have said that when the Hoover Depression fuel by raising taxes and isolationism came on.
If only you would have said that when the Jimmy Carter Depression fuel by raising taxes and isolationism came on.
If only you would have said that when George Bush One recession fuel by raising taxes came on.
If only you would have said that when the Bill Clinton dot.com and 9-11 recession came on.
Yes, in recent history we can follow the result of naked greed. So do we get the bad guys and live for another day.
Or do we move to "bottom up" socialism and let the same greedy people who would now be government employees still do the same thing.
That's right; don't blame it on a political party. It's more the issue of millions of people who love the idea that they, too, could become piggishly rich, wallowing in wasteful spending and a feeling of superiority because of it, and who honestly think that they have a chance of doing so. They love the greed is good mantra.
Then there are the religious fanatics to whom separation of church and state is anathema. They don't care about economics; they just care that the federal government will try to make it impossible for any woman to have an abortion for any reason. The party loves these voters. They just keep voting for them as long as they say they're anti-abortion, then they can ignore them until the next election, and the suckers will vote for them again when they say they're anti-abortion again, etc. These voters have had a profound effect on the direction of the economy - not to mention contributing to a war-mongering president (now that's Christian!) - because of their desire to see the government have more control over women.
Today the force of the greed lovers bonded with their sucker pals who want religion in government will finally come to an end. Better late than never.
Wow, Future; I think that post sets a record for "strawmen". Congratulations!
All bogus claims. Free market capitalism is attacked when it was government regulated capitalism that failed.
Read here: http://npri.org/blog/laissez-journalism
Come up with counter points or get out of the way.
And by the way, Savings and Loans were restricted on the types of investments they could make...thus the undiversified portfolios were high risk. On top of this the capital ratio required was set very high, so they could lend more out with very little capital backing it up.
If one small high risk investment fails it brings the system down.
And duh, duh, duh, that happend. Government regulation caused the Savings and Loans failure and government regulations caused this current failure.
http://npri.org/blog/the-anatomy-of-a-cr...
Free market capitalism doesn't exist anymore and quite frankly can't.
It's a question of how mixed you want your capitalism.
Basically, we can't go back to the 1800s and that style of an economy. The economy is too big and too diverse not to have some kind of hand in it/regulations.
OH that is not true, the economy back in 1800 was still regulated to some extent by the way.
The fact that the economy is more complex weakens your argument Red.
The more complex the economy becomes only means that people have more complex interests and wants that need to be fulfilled.
The more complex that gets the more impossible it becomes for government to regulate peoples wants without destroying liberty...let alone even satisfying peoples wants.
You know, KDR81, you're always bemoaning this "loss of liberty" and "loss of freedom" WRT to business regulations.
Tell us (in detail please) EXACTLY what "liberty" and "freedom" is lost due to regulations.
Oh and try not to cite NPRI please.
And how do you offset business "lost" freedoms with the lost freedoms of workers under such a brutal system. Capitalism without regs and rules holding it back leads to sweatshops, unliveable wages, and environmental destruction.
And any comment, well...people can use someone else isn't valid either. Such situations exist currently, because business has the "freedom" to export its business overseas where other governments aren't as keen as ours to infringe on those liberties. Hence why our clothes are made in filthy sweatshops in Bangladesh where workers' pay is miniscule, worker safety is a joke, and where environmental protections don't exist. I'm not a tree hugger, but I'm not exactly for industrial runoff in our water supply.
If you think that Hussein is going to re-write free-trade pacts or be agressive in WTO then I got some sub-prime mortgages to sell to you.
Your veiled racism is getting old. Go vote Sydney the Third.
ferret "veiled racism"
I'm sorry, did you say "veiled racism"? LMAO! You are a kind kind person. Must be because you know so much about Ferrets.
BTW, Mary Cheney (the ferret) voted for Barack. No surprise there. She thinks he's more likely to clean up the environment, which she supports. Plus she likes black & white dudes. Of course!
Red F and Patricia,
I want to be free to buy from whoever I want and sell to whoever I want.
You want to restrict that freedom via the force of government.
Let's say for example that you get the government to outlaw companies shifting jobs over seas (however unlikely it is to accomplish this).
So shirts are now made in the US. US workers formerly employed in making shirts can now have their old jobs back (lets assume they want them).
Lets say the American worker worked for $7 an hour whereas the Asian worker worked for $1. That is a large amount of money per shirt that needs to be made up in the price of the shirt.
So shirts now cost $40 in America instead of $25, lets say.
So now I have less money to spend on other things, just so you can give a job to someone.
You diminish my freedom to make someone else better off.
Further more you've really screwed that Asian. Where they previously had a relativly comfortable factory job making $1 an hour, that job is now gone. What is left is working in state factories for less or out in the hot sun baked fields (or prostitution if you are a woman).
Banning sweatshops doesnt magically make poor third world people into computer engineers. They're jobs go from sucky to really sucky.
On top of hurting the third world poor you've made everyone else financially worse off, just so a few people could have jobs making shirts.
And again, you've only made a few better off by restricting peoples liberty.
My freedom to buy from whoever and sell to whoever.
I hope that makes sense.
Another good NPRI column: http://npri.org/publications/old-myths-a...
The fact that no one ever addresses these points probably means they don't have any good counterpoints.
Ignoring facts doesn't make your beliefs true.
So to get this straight,
you would do away with our labor laws, so those sweatshops come back here?
You want labor laws repealed, and the possibility of starvation wages for Americans and American child labor to come back?
You want to repeal basic clean water acts that will allow companies to dump into our water supplies?
So you want business to do whatever it wants, because business will have our best interests at heart? Believe me, they will do WHATEVER to make a buck. If that means putting 13 year olds to work for pennies, so be it.
What do you believe in Bioshock's Great Chain of Industry?
A hypothetical example that, by your own admission is "unlikely", is your response?
Seriously?
You state outright that regulation restricts "liberty" and "freedom". The implication is that you have concrete examples, not hypothetical examples.
Oh just as an FYI .... while I do not believe companies who send jobs overseas should be banned (or however you put it), I certainly believe they should be penalized in some form. If that means a complete boycott by the consumer, so be it. If it means a heavier tax burden BECAUSE they've decided that the almighty dollar takes precedence over their US roots, so be it.
But that's also "unlikely" now, isn't it? Too bad.
Obama from one side of his mouth was saying that WTO and the trade pacts were evil....evil.
Obama from the other side of his mouth was telling foreign leaders...do not worry...all that stuff is my political speech to get votes. I am favor very much in the WTO and trade pacts.
If you think that Obama is going to stop outsourcing or re-location of jobs then you are drunk off his koolaid. It ain't going to happen. He is going to be just like Clinton and go full blasts on free trade pacts and they are going to look just like the ones Bush was pushing for.
Gee, Nance. I didn't know you were privy to Obama's Communications with world leaders.....
Give up, grow up and get a life.
cMom you do not read the newspapers.
I guess you just get your "news" from MSNBC or the DailyKos.
I guess the NY Times is just way above your head.
NY Times article says, "According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama's protectionist stand on the trail was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy."
If we did away with labor laws, worker saftey or minimum wages here is what we would see.
Laborers working in unsafe enviornments would see a higher wage. Work saftey equipement comes out of their salaries. They could choose saftey equipement or higher salaries.
"Sweatshops" as you call them would be around for low skilled people to take jobs. But there just wouldnt be very many in America. There arent enough really really low skilled people in this country anymore that would be willing to take such jobs.
Even the "Sweatshops" overseas have higher standards than the state run jobs or local jobs available in those communities.
These arent hypotheticals either, these are real life examples.
By the way Patricia, the segregation was declared legal because it was more moral than letting the almighty dollar force blacks and whites into the same train cars.
KDR, you seem bent on ignoring the fact that all the conditions I listed existed in America before regulation stepped in, often brought to the fore by a popular groundswell.
You are naive in thinking business cares about its workers. They really don't. That's why we the people through the government made business comply with these issues.
The fact that you think business would splurge on safety gear when they wouldn't have to is amusing to say the least. Additionally it's quite insulting that you think workers would rather have a little higher pay than a safe job. Because if they fall (example) and are killed or maimed, in your no-regulations world, business would just drop them from the payrolls. That even used to be the joke in a lot of construction. If you fall, you're fired before you hit the ground.
Business needs certain basic regulations in order to protect consumers, investors, and workers. Again, if you really think business is all mighty and will honestly look out for the people, go to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean to Rapture and hang out with Andrew Ryan.
Otherwise business will always cut corners to make a buck, even at the expense of lives, health, and safety.
And you seem to be ignoring the following facts.
1) Government regulations didn't come into effect until the changes were already well underway. Workplace saftey was already drastically improving, working conditions were already improving, wages were already rising, child labor was already decreasing.
2) You think that government regulations do not impose costs. A company may not care about their workers but a regulation imposes a cost that is often past down to the worker. Some companies offer better working conditions as a bonus, others say take a higher wage. Regulation eliminates that option.
3) If companies didn't buy saftey gear then workers could command a higher wage. The saftey gear is a benefit that is taken directly from their paycheck.
4) No, businesses will try to screw people when they can. Competition keeps them more honest. Government regulation is abused to protect them and to santify their screwing over consumers and workers by law.
5) Under competition but no regulations like you call for a company that cuts corners and screws the people won't last long. His competition will eat him for lunch with a better product. People still vote with their wallets even with our current regulations (which don't protect us anyway) and we see companies go down when they don't produce the product quality they claim to produce.
You are still delusional. The company that most hurts its workers through unfair wages/hours, the one with the worst environmental track record, the one that actively exports jobs/money overseas to companies that use sweatshop labor, is the top/one of the top retailers in the US/world.
And the winner is.... WALMART.
Even with regulation they still commit some of the most horrendous and egregious breaches of ethics and law... And people still go to them for everything.
Having a conscience only caries the average consumer so far, the convenience and ease on the wallet carries the rest.
And it's a bogus flat LIE to say that safety equipment comes out of employees paychecks. Fact of the matter is you are describing trickle down economics. Fact is that employers would just pocket the money and keep it, not hand it down the line. Fact is that under your brutal and vicious system the worker would be trampled on in the quest for ever higher profits.
Fact is that people would still go to that company just because they offer a cheaper product. You live in a fantasy world where business leaders care about their workforce and are ethical. Fact is that they are not ethical, and without some sort of minimal boundary between their greed and our safety they would be in big trouble. Seriously if you want to live in a society with minimal restrictions on industry go to India. Seriously go there. And enjoy the country that had the worst industrial catastrophe other than Chernobyl to ever happen in human history, the Union Carbide explosion that killed thousands, even tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Sure Carbide probably tanked after that and paid out a lot of money..., but are you the type of person who feels that a few duffle bags of paper is worth more than the health and lives of tens of thousands of people?
Maybe to put it in perspective for you here's a quote from Way of the Gun,
"Money is what is in your wallet, what you get out of an ATM, what you pay at the supermarket. $5,000,000 is not just money, it's a motive."
that's not it to a T, but you get the jist. Lots of money is a motive for a lot of businesses to cut corners.
Redferret,
1) Wallmart owns 0 sweatshops and btw it owns 0 factories.
2) Before the minimum wage was increased to over $7 an hour, not one Wallmart worker in the country made minimum wage.
3) Wallmart supported the minimum wage increase (because not one walmart worker was paid at minimum wage - but their competition paid minimum wage).
4) Even if Wallmart did pay minimum wage why would you want to artificially increase the wage. Wallmart's existence allows low skilled people to get a job. If the minimum wage at Wallmart was increased to $16 an hour, no low skilled people would be working there. There would be lots of unemployment in America among the poor...especially young African American males.
5) Yes, workplace safety gear and better working conditions come out of the workers paycheck. Do you think profits materialize out of thin air or something?
6) Your concept of profits is limited at best. You assume profits can only be made by making cheap crap and paying people as little as possible. People are paid based on how much they can produce and how well they can produce it. Low skilled people don't work as fast and don't produce as highly quality of goods (in time many well and thus will command higher wages).
7) Companies can increase profits by simply becoming more efficient. Using better machinery. More profits and more productivity, btw, end up increasing the workers wage (again since the machine can make them more productive and they are skilled enough to use said machine).
8) Using a company in India as an example is probably the worst you can do. That country is well known for its socialist red tape and over regulation. Did you know it takes a dozen trips to the capital, several hundred dollars in bribes, and hundreds of pages of paper work to be filled out just to import 1 computer?
9) No paper is not worth more than peoples lives, but you believe someone's life today is worth more than someone's life tomorrow. Or that someone's visible life is worth more than someone you don't know whose life is threatened. You see, you don't look for the hidden costs or the unintended consequences. I do.
10) Money is also a great motivator to do great things. Under competition companies are motivated to provide you with better and better products at a cheaper price. If they don't, there competition will. With too much government regulation and market interference they can interrupt if not stop that competition leaving you with over priced shoddy goods.
11) Socialism and government regulation harm the poor and enrich the wealthy. Free market limited government capitalism is the true friend of the poor, the middle class, and a true creator of wealth, justice in equality. All other ideologies are pretenders that do far more harm than good.