Corporation vs Government: Who Do You Trust?

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80 continues to make the necessary case for regulated capitalism.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's called joining the dots Bern...

Dude either you want to have a debate or you don't. To most people reading it looks very much like you said people think capitalism is perfect. For whatever reason you won't confirm or deny this. Are you talking notes from the weasel?

Who is the weasel?

No, what I am saying is that for 9 years now I've been on messageboards mainly run by Yanks. Most of the time they are telling us they have the best country in the world. They have the best country in the world because of their constitution, their govt and their economic system. This has been told to me over and over again ad nauseum. I was just pointing out that this thread clearly shows that:1) a lot of Yanks are not happy with their govt. 2) your economic system (which, let's face it, is run by corporations) is far from perfect.

At least I will never have to hear from you or the fake Rabbi how great and perfect your country is. That's two out of a about 1000 people I can rely not to try and shove that shit down my throat...

Bern80 is right. There's a difference between "perfect" and "best". One that obviously eludes you.
Yes, the US is the best country on the planet. And we want it to be even better, which is why we oppose policies that have made counties socialist shit-holes filled with ignorant lazy people.
Like you.

 

[Bern80]

Carter and Clinton were the only ones who let regulations loosen? No, under GWB there were multiple bills passed that let banks give out loans much more easily. What was the purpose? To cater to big business and let the lobbyists run the show. The banks wanted to give out more loans to make more money. It wasn't because they were forced into giving out more loans. It was greed on the part of the banks and fiscal irresposibility. That's what happens when there is no safety net.

Did you learn nothing from our little role play? WHY WOULD I GIVE YOU MONEY IF I AM REASONABLY CERTAIN I AM NOT GOING TO GET IT BACK? Before I even think about how much money I am going to make on the deal I first am going to want to be relatively certain I'm at least going to get my principle back. This isn't politics. This is common fucking sense. Banks can't make money on people who can't pay loans back. So what would compel them to loan to those people anyway?

I believe in the free market but I think there has to be a safety net. Something has to be there to make sure everybody plays by the rules because it's only human nature to cheat the system and take advantage of other people. That's not what capitalism is all about. Capitalism is about equal opportunity and if people cheat the system then other people don't have a fighting chance to compete with them.

Then we'll have to disagree about the nature of human nature. In terms of a business it isn't in their best interest in the long run to cheat people, whether that be customers or employees. I don't really know what you mean by play by the rules. What I do know is part of the responsibility for this society working falls on YOU too. You (the consumer) have an obligation to educate yourself to some degree. This bullshit about "I didn't know my ARM mortgage meant I may have to pay a lot more when interest rates go up" is just that. BULL SHIT. It sounds to me essentially what you are saying is that someone needs to hold the hands of people who make bad decisions and refuse to educate themselves. that serves no one in the long run it just makes everyone that much dumber.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80 continues to make the necessary case for regulated capitalism.

And as usual you continue to make no case at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80 had trouble understanding that businesses are amoral, neither moral or immoral. However people will be one or a mixture of both. People will cheat one another all the time. People in charge of businesses will and often do exploit their workers, their customers, the system for profit.

Bern80 does not understand that the good health of the community is helped by regulated business in which all profit from good competition for good products.

Bern80 has made absolutely no good argument contradicting the above. Here is my pet just done feasting on one of Bern's silly comments.

 

[midcan5]

If you are so smart why is it you can not effectively articulate WHY we are wrong? Why can you not come up with an objectively logical counter argument? Just saying we are wrong is not much an argument.

You are wrong in your assumption businesses operate fairly and honestly without oversight which sadly comes mostly from government. We have no UN for corporate corruption. The counter argument is a return to strong regulatory rules, Glass Steagall for instance, you are wrong because you believe something that has never worked and will never work, no system can allow people freedom to do as they please in hopes of justice, equality, and peace.

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes

Have you noticed all the corporate failures, dishonesty, failed businesses requiring bailouts? Were you asleep during Enron? Were you alive when Reagan's policies brought a real estate bubble and S&L scandal that no one seemed to learn from? And repeated itself under Bush Jr. The poor go down the tubes, the rich get bailed out or golden parachutes after complete failure. Where you been?

The Corporate Scandal Sheet - Forbes.com

"The leveraged buyout of the RJR Nabisco Corporation for $25 billion is a landmark in American business history, a story of avarice on an epic scale."
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Barbarians-Gate-Fall-RJR-Nabisco/dp/0061655554/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco (9780061655555): Bryan Burrough, John Helyar: Books[/ame]


If I haven't answered enough ask again.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80 had trouble understanding that businesses are amoral, neither moral or immoral. However people will be one or a mixture of both. People will cheat one another all the time. People in charge of businesses will and often do exploit their workers, their customers, the system for profit.

Bern80 does not understand that the good health of the community is helped by regulated business in which all profit from good competition for good products.

Bern80 has made absolutely no good argument contradicting the above. Here is my pet just done feasting on one of Bern's silly comments.

You have made no good argument that it is the rule rather than the exception. All I have ever maintained is the opposite. There are always bad apples in every type of instiution, organization or system. Simple common sense says it is not in the best interest of a business, even from a profit making perspective, to exploit people. Reality does not support your position either. Again if what you say is true, and businesses will get away with whatever they legally can, they certanly can all legally get away with paying everyone minimum wage, but they don't. This is a contradiction to your position, as yet, you have failed to explain.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80 has lost this discussion.

 

[Liberty]

Bern80 has lost this discussion.

No, pretty sure you have.

Must be some good crack youre snorting.

 

[Bern80]

You are wrong in your assumption businesses operate fairly and honestly without oversight which sadly comes mostly from government. We have no UN for corporate corruption. The counter argument is a return to strong regulatory rules, Glass Steagall for instance, you are wrong because you believe something that has never worked and will never work, no system can allow people freedom to do as they please in hopes of justice, equality, and peace.

You are not getting it. You contend over and over that without regulation busienss will exploit people. Both its employees and its customers. I dont' know hwo more plain to make it. REALITY, YOU KNOW THE WORLD OUTSIIDE YOUR FUCKING WINDOW? Proves you are wrong. If business will get away with whatever it legally can it begs the question what can they legally get away with right now? The majority of businesses could legally get away with paying only minimum wage. They would be well within their legal rights to do that. NOW, is every job out there paying only mimimum wage?

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes

Unfortuantely the validity of his quote depends on his premise, which is false.

Have you noticed all the corporate failures, dishonesty, failed businesses requiring bailouts? Were you asleep during Enron? Were you alive when Reagan's policies brought a real estate bubble and S&L scandal that no one seemed to learn from? And repeated itself under Bush Jr. The poor go down the tubes, the rich get bailed out or golden parachutes after complete failure. Where you been?

Because some businesses are corrupt and some fail, that proves capitilism doesn't work? Of course it doesn't. In fact that those businesses fail proves it DOES work. That's what is suppossed to happen to businesses that aren't run well under capitlism. If capitlism had been allowed to run it's course instead of government intervening and bailing out those businesses are economy would be much stronger for it. Of course I am aware of those things, but what you lack is perspective. Bad news makes the news. Good news doesn't. I wish I could remember who said this quote but I found it rather insightful. "Know the news is not reality." It does not logically follow that because Enron or even a few businesses made the news for their bad practices, that all business is corrupt or exploitive. It should be noted though that Enron making the news shows that those problems can be solved without government intervention. They were being bad, the media caught them, they suffered for it. THAT is capitilism at work.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80 has lost this discussion.

And you are the defintion of a hypocrite. You demand of me what you will not do yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What? We are discussing the strengths and weaknesses of capitalism and Big Business in the modern age. You refuse to recognize that going back to the environment of the 1880s and 1890s would destroy this country economically and put it at the mercy of our enemies.

I trust government, the servant of We the People, serving our interests than big business, the servant of its stockholders.

History permits no other logical conclusion.

 

[Liberty]

What? We are discussing the strengths and weaknesses of capitalism and Big Business in the modern age. You refuse to recognize that going back to the environment of the 1880s and 1890s would destroy this country economically and put it at the mercy of our enemies.

I trust government, the servant of We the People, serving our interests than big business, the servant of its stockholders.

History permits no other logical conclusion.

That is why you fail. You bring up history but disregard the fact that your ideology have never worked in the history of mankind.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bern80 has lost this discussion.

And you are the defintion of a hypocrite. You demand of me what you will not do yourself.

Correction: WHat he CANNOT do himself.
Jake has never formulated an argument and succesfully defended it. It is beyond his ken.

But you are right here, of course. The few bad examples of businesses (and was Enron really totally unregulated? Really?) prove the axiom that good ones prosper.
In the 1960s GE was a terrible business with a bad record of corporate polluting etc. Jack Welch turned it around and made GE a powerhouse in every segment of its business. He enriched workers, managers, and investors a tremendous amount, and provided innovative products and services. This shows both the power of the marketplace to enforce good behavior and the rewards for doing so, especially for a talented manager like Welch.

 

[Urkie]

Did you learn nothing from our little role play? WHY WOULD I GIVE YOU MONEY IF I AM REASONABLY CERTAIN I AM NOT GOING TO GET IT BACK? Before I even think about how much money I am going to make on the deal I first am going to want to be relatively certain I'm at least going to get my principle back. This isn't politics. This is common fucking sense. Banks can't make money on people who can't pay loans back. So what would compel them to loan to those people anyway?

Why would I give money to somebody who's not going to give it back? Because if I give out a loan then theoretically it helps the banks return on investment which in turn helps grow the bank. You see, banks didn't care about what would happen if someone didn't pay back their money. They cared about a profit at the time they gave out the loan.

I heard stories about people who told the bank that they didn't think they could pay back their mortgage but the bank convinced them it was alright, that they would still give out the loan anyway. Instead of a 20 year mortgage the guy said, well we'll give you a 30 year mortgage. That is exploiting people whether you want to admit it or not. Knowing full well that, that could put my customer in long term debt and financial trouble but I give the loan out anyway.

Then we'll have to disagree about the nature of human nature. In terms of a business it isn't in their best interest in the long run to cheat people, whether that be customers or employees. I don't really know what you mean by play by the rules. What I do know is part of the responsibility for this society working falls on YOU too. You (the consumer) have an obligation to educate yourself to some degree. This bullshit about "I didn't know my ARM mortgage meant I may have to pay a lot more when interest rates go up" is just that. BULL SHIT. It sounds to me essentially what you are saying is that someone needs to hold the hands of people who make bad decisions and refuse to educate themselves. that serves no one in the long run it just makes everyone that much dumber.

I never said I wanted somebody to hold my hand and make decisions for me. In fact, that's not the case at all. What I want is for companies to be honest with the consumer and educate them if they don't already know. You can run a good business and care about your consumers at the same time. That's how a good business in a capitalist system works. If you let the people loose and say "try to make as much money as you can" then people will always find a way to cheat.

 

[Urkie]

You have made no good argument that it is the rule rather than the exception. All I have ever maintained is the opposite. There are always bad apples in every type of instiution, organization or system. Simple common sense says it is not in the best interest of a business, even from a profit making perspective, to exploit people. Reality does not support your position either. Again if what you say is true, and businesses will get away with whatever they legally can, they certanly can all legally get away with paying everyone minimum wage, but they don't. This is a contradiction to your position, as yet, you have failed to explain.

So called "good businesses" don't exploit people? Sure they do. Look at Toyota, a very respected car company before their latest fiasco. They took short cuts in their development processes to make an extra buck knowing full well that some of their cars might turn out to be faulty.

Look at HP, Nike and pretty much any American company nowadays saying "lets outsource" and in turn say screw you American people. I don't care if thousands of people lose their job to make an extra buck for ourselves. This country used to actually make stuff, now we pretty much live in a country where everything is brought here from China or somewhere else. You see, companies care about profit only, not their employees or the country that gave them an opportunity to even become a business. They care about one thing and one thing only...profits and the people on top pocket most of that money rather then spreading it around to people who actually need it (ex. the people they just fired).

And what happens to a country that only buys stuff from other countries? They go into debt kind of like we are now....hmmmm

 

[Bern80]

Why would I give money to somebody who's not going to give it back? Because if I give out a loan then theoretically it helps the banks return on investment which in turn helps grow the bank. You see, banks didn't care about what would happen if someone didn't pay back their money. They cared about a profit at the time they gave out the loan.

Okay Urkie, educate me. If I have 50k and I 'loan' you 25k and I don't get it back where is my profit exactly?

I heard stories about people who told the bank that they didn't think they could pay back their mortgage but the bank convinced them it was alright, that they would still give out the loan anyway. Instead of a 20 year mortgage the guy said, well we'll give you a 30 year mortgage. That is exploiting people whether you want to admit it or not. Knowing full well that, that could put my customer in long term debt and financial trouble but I give the loan out anyway.

I dont' really see that as all that unreasonable. Part of how your mortgage is structured is going to be how much you can afford on a monthly basis. You can't change how much you owe, but you can change how much you have to pay per month by extending the lenght of the mortgage. Maybe your friend couldnt' afford 1000 a month (or whatever) but maybe they could afford $750. If that's what you can afford per month it wold stand to reason the payment time of your mortgage will be longer. That is something, as my Physics teacher used to say, that should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have made no good argument that it is the rule rather than the exception. All I have ever maintained is the opposite. There are always bad apples in every type of instiution, organization or system. Simple common sense says it is not in the best interest of a business, even from a profit making perspective, to exploit people. Reality does not support your position either. Again if what you say is true, and businesses will get away with whatever they legally can, they certanly can all legally get away with paying everyone minimum wage, but they don't. This is a contradiction to your position, as yet, you have failed to explain.

So called "good businesses" don't exploit people? Sure they do. Look at Toyota, a very respected car company before their latest fiasco. They took short cuts in their development processes to make an extra buck knowing full well that some of their cars might turn out to be faulty.

Look at HP, Nike and pretty much any American company nowadays saying "lets outsource" and in turn say screw you American people. I don't care if thousands of people lose their job to make an extra buck for ourselves. This country used to actually make stuff, now we pretty much live in a country where everything is brought here from China or somewhere else. You see, companies care about profit only, not their employees or the country that gave them an opportunity to even become a business. They care about one thing and one thing only...profits and the people on top pocket most of that money rather then spreading it around to people who actually need it (ex. the people they just fired).

And what happens to a country that only buys stuff from other countries? They go into debt kind of like we are now....hmmmm

Ford certainly practiced welfare capitalism in the 1920s that predated on their workers.

Citigrp heavily influenced its work force to invest in the stock even when it was going down.

First, last, always: companies are concerned about the profit line and keeping stockholders and owners happy, period.

Here is my pet just done feasting on one of Bern's silly comments.

 

[Urkie]

Okay Urkie, educate me. If I have 50k and I 'loan' you 25k and I don't get it back where is my profit exactly?

Issuing loans to "unqualified" people was immensely profitable, partly because the mortgage lending companies could earn higher fees on the riskier mortgages.

There also is evidence that the mortgage lenders steered "qualified" people to bad mortgage loans that were likely to blow up -- e.g. reset at enormously higher interest rates -- because again the lenders earned higher fees on these mortgages than they would have on "non-toxic" 30 year fixed rate mortgages.

Another factor that promoted the writing of bad loans was the "securitization" process, which partly was a product of government and partly a clever invention by smart traders in the private financial industry.

"Securitization" of mortgage loans meant that bad mortgages could be combined in large numbers in "mortgage backed obligations," which were then chopped up in countless little pieces and the pieces sold to investors. The idea was that if the financial industry could combine hundreds or thousands of individual mortgages into one pot, the risk of any one mortgage going bad wouldn't be so serious, because the average risk of the entire pot going bad would be low. Then the pot could be "securitized" or chopped up into pieces that the average Wall Street investor could buy.

It isn't black and white my friend. Banks came up with these elaborate schemes.

I dont' really see that as all that unreasonable. Part of how your mortgage is structured is going to be how much you can afford on a monthly basis. You can't change how much you owe, but you can change how much you have to pay per month by extending the lenght of the mortgage. Maybe your friend couldnt' afford 1000 a month (or whatever) but maybe they could afford $750. If that's what you can afford per month it wold stand to reason the payment time of your mortgage will be longer. That is something, as my Physics teacher used to say, that should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

No shit Sherlock. I'm well aware of that fact.

 

[Bern80]

So called "good businesses" don't exploit people? Sure they do. Look at Toyota, a very respected car company before their latest fiasco. They took short cuts in their development processes to make an extra buck knowing full well that some of their cars might turn out to be faulty.

And our now paying the price of bad PR. They took a risk and lost. And now they and other companies are learning that. That's how the system works. I don't expect perfection out of it. I don't expect each and every company is headed by an altruistic angel. There will be corrupt people. Short cuts will get taken. My argument is those instances are the exception, not the rule.

Look at HP, Nike and pretty much any American company nowadays saying "lets outsource" and in turn say screw you American people. I don't care if thousands of people lose their job to make an extra buck for ourselves. This country used to actually make stuff, now we pretty much live in a country where everything is brought here from China or somewhere else. You see, companies care about profit only, not their employees or the country that gave them an opportunity to even become a business. They care about one thing and one thing only...profits and the people on top pocket most of that money rather then spreading it around to people who actually need it (ex. the people they just fired).

I would say you don't understand the variables companies face when deciding to outsource things. It's a matter of trade offs. There are two things in the basic rules of economics that can't happen at the same time. Compensation can not go up and at the same time have the cost of goods and services fall. So tell
me which you would rather have. Everything cost more and and save a few jobs. Or everything cost less for everyone and outsource some jobs.

And what happens to a country that only buys stuff from other countries? They go into debt kind of like we are now....hmmmm

See above and pick your poison.