Comments on: Wall Street is weird (big surprise?) http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2008/07/23/wall-street-is-weird-big-surprise/ Chrysler, car, and other discussions by Allpar contributors Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:02:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Allpar Weblogs » Pathmark and A&P http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2008/07/23/wall-street-is-weird-big-surprise/#comment-76502 Allpar Weblogs » Pathmark and A&P Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:25:00 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/?p=319#comment-76502 [...] there a moral? Perhaps… Wall Street is weird … and perhaps CEOs need to spend more time figuring out how to succeed by hitting the [...] [...] there a moral? Perhaps… Wall Street is weird … and perhaps CEOs need to spend more time figuring out how to succeed by hitting the [...]

]]> By: Curtis Redgap http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2008/07/23/wall-street-is-weird-big-surprise/#comment-76500 Curtis Redgap Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:28:36 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/?p=319#comment-76500 Enron, it is clear, was the tip of the iceberg. Way too much gone before far too little was done. The lack of morals along with a mind set that deliberately seeks to fleece the public, either in government or corporate think is the norm. Politics is a dirty game. Business that engages politicians is also a dirty business. Unfortunately, because of the politics, you can't tell who is who even IF you have a program, a tutor, several watch dog committees, and an insider that knows how things really work! Hollering "reform" is a slogan. How do you instill honesty, truth, justice, and the "real" American way in humans that wouldn't know any of it if it came up to them and slapped their collective faces? Set up a reform committee automatically nets you politicians that are angling their way into steering that group into meaningless mires of crap that stick to everything but cover up the real problems. If people like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Kennedy, Morgan, Rothschild, and other monopolistic opportunists were able to garner the WHOLE country as they cornered the ENTIRE market then somewhere there OUGHT to be someone of stature that could come to the fore to exude leadership. Unfortunately, we as a country have devolved into what we are today, as a shell of what the true potential could have been. A country of ideals that are only written on paper. A smiling shining light to the world that smokes up the glass while hiding hideous manipulations of the masses of people here. All the while, slowly, surely, unstoppable, ever increasing, far more taxing, manipulative regulations, rules, laws are piled higher and higher on an already far too regulated system that we call "freedom." The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES in our Bi-Carmel system is supposed to be where the WILL of the people come to fore. It doesn't. Like a bunch of kindergarten children, hooting, hollering, shouting at the current end of this session. While the Speaker declares that she, single handedly, is "going to save the planet," while the world she lives in fiddles on, as a former Speaker declares, "drill here, drill now," advocating drilling rigs in everyone's back yards, when there really ins't a shortage of oil. Only a shortage of leadership, that no amount of drilling or not drilling is going to resolve. Unbridled capitalism, like any other "ism" is a danger. Unbridled government is monumentally worse. Enron, it is clear, was the tip of the iceberg. Way too much gone before far too little was done. The lack of morals along with a mind set that deliberately seeks to fleece the public, either in government or corporate think is the norm. Politics is a dirty game. Business that engages politicians is also a dirty business. Unfortunately, because of the politics, you can’t tell who is who even IF you have a program, a tutor, several watch dog committees, and an insider that knows how things really work! Hollering “reform” is a slogan. How do you instill honesty, truth, justice, and the “real” American way in humans that wouldn’t know any of it if it came up to them and slapped their collective faces? Set up a reform committee automatically nets you politicians that are angling their way into steering that group into meaningless mires of crap that stick to everything but cover up the real problems. If people like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Kennedy, Morgan, Rothschild, and other monopolistic opportunists were able to garner the WHOLE country as they cornered the ENTIRE market then somewhere there OUGHT to be someone of stature that could come to the fore to exude leadership. Unfortunately, we as a country have devolved into what we are today, as a shell of what the true potential could have been. A country of ideals that are only written on paper. A smiling shining light to the world that smokes up the glass while hiding hideous manipulations of the masses of people here. All the while, slowly, surely, unstoppable, ever increasing, far more taxing, manipulative regulations, rules, laws are piled higher and higher on an already far too regulated system that we call “freedom.” The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES in our Bi-Carmel system is supposed to be where the WILL of the people come to fore. It doesn’t. Like a bunch of kindergarten children, hooting, hollering, shouting at the current end of this session. While the Speaker declares that she, single handedly, is “going to save the planet,” while the world she lives in fiddles on, as a former Speaker declares, “drill here, drill now,” advocating drilling rigs in everyone’s back yards, when there really ins’t a shortage of oil. Only a shortage of leadership, that no amount of drilling or not drilling is going to resolve. Unbridled capitalism, like any other “ism” is a danger. Unbridled government is monumentally worse.

]]> By: The Machine http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2008/07/23/wall-street-is-weird-big-surprise/#comment-76493 The Machine Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:48:57 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/?p=319#comment-76493 I don't think Enron is a "lousy" example--perhaps less than stellar--but the point I was trying to get across is that corporations are not completely insulated and enjoy impunity. This is especially true if government performed one of the few Constitutionally mandated jobs entrusted to it--namely, Amendment 14, Section 1--known as the equal protection clause. This is where anti-trust, child labor, and other market-specific laws originated. It is also why these "bailouts" are unconstitutional! In my view, the problem with our current government and socialist economies is the inefficiency and inequality that is brought into markets and society. Why do you think China and Russia have moved toward a capitalist economy? Corporations are more efficient, innovative, and can economize better than central planning; because they specialize and focus on a narrow range of product(s) and/or service(s). The market acts as an equalizer if government only plays referee, instead of manager. "Why should capital gains be taxed at a minimal level, while my actual wages are taxed at a high level?" Looking at this relatively, they shouldn't, in my opinion. I would prefer to see zero taxes on personal income or a flat tax. This could only happen if government was downsized to the founders' original blueprint. What's the chance of that happening? "Why should people who make money by playing with paper pay less tax than those who do work with their hands?" I think you're eluding to wealth redistribution. Playing with money is nothing more than gambling and it usually results in a net loss. People that work and invest in financial sectors still accept risk, but hopefully through education and training, the risk is minimized to create a net profit. Certainly, if anyone has money entrusted to banks, mutual funds, IRAs, pension funds, etc.; they don't have expectations of paper being played with! "I don’t see any central planning, and don’t know where you got that idea, unless you’re talking about..." In economic speak, central planning is a method to allocate resources by command. Examples: Our military, postal rates, the FED, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, government bail-outs of private industry...to name a few. This leads into this statement you made: "We tried pure capitalism. It stunk, to put it mildly." Neither the US, nor any country, has practiced "pure" capitalism--refer to first sentence. I sense you're frustration, and you have the compassion of many others, including myself. I think we can all agree that there is an uneasiness and stench to the atmosphere in our country right now. Which path leads to economic and social nirvana? I don't know, but I will hedge my bets on the side of capitalism instead of socialism. I am optimistic over the awareness and citizen mobilization that this election cycle has facilitated. I agree with the statement: "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." I also love this historical quote by Thomas Jefferson: "That government is best which governs least" I don’t think Enron is a “lousy” example–perhaps less than stellar–but the point I was trying to get across is that corporations are not completely insulated and enjoy impunity. This is especially true if government performed one of the few Constitutionally mandated jobs entrusted to it–namely, Amendment 14, Section 1–known as the equal protection clause. This is where anti-trust, child labor, and other market-specific laws originated. It is also why these “bailouts” are unconstitutional!

In my view, the problem with our current government and socialist economies is the inefficiency and inequality that is brought into markets and society. Why do you think China and Russia have moved toward a capitalist economy? Corporations are more efficient, innovative, and can economize better than central planning; because they specialize and focus on a narrow range of product(s) and/or service(s). The market acts as an equalizer if government only plays referee, instead of manager.

“Why should capital gains be taxed at a minimal level, while my actual wages are taxed at a high level?”

Looking at this relatively, they shouldn’t, in my opinion. I would prefer to see zero taxes on personal income or a flat tax. This could only happen if government was downsized to the founders’ original blueprint. What’s the chance of that happening?

“Why should people who make money by playing with paper pay less tax than those who do work with their hands?”

I think you’re eluding to wealth redistribution. Playing with money is nothing more than gambling and it usually results in a net loss. People that work and invest in financial sectors still accept risk, but hopefully through education and training, the risk is minimized to create a net profit. Certainly, if anyone has money entrusted to banks, mutual funds, IRAs, pension funds, etc.; they don’t have expectations of paper being played with!

“I don’t see any central planning, and don’t know where you got that idea, unless you’re talking about…”

In economic speak, central planning is a method to allocate resources by command. Examples: Our military, postal rates, the FED, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, government bail-outs of private industry…to name a few. This leads into this statement you made: “We tried pure capitalism. It stunk, to put it mildly.” Neither the US, nor any country, has practiced “pure” capitalism–refer to first sentence.

I sense you’re frustration, and you have the compassion of many others, including myself. I think we can all agree that there is an uneasiness and stench to the atmosphere in our country right now. Which path leads to economic and social nirvana? I don’t know, but I will hedge my bets on the side of capitalism instead of socialism.

I am optimistic over the awareness and citizen mobilization that this election cycle has facilitated. I agree with the statement: “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” I also love this historical quote by Thomas Jefferson: “That government is best which governs least”

]]> By: curtis redgap http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2008/07/23/wall-street-is-weird-big-surprise/#comment-76471 curtis redgap Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:00:54 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/?p=319#comment-76471 That history repeats itself is my line. I concur. Pure capitalism has failed. Just look around. Time for some to think about doing what is right FOR THE PEOPLE. Socialism? So, what is wrong with a little socialism, some income distribution, a far fairer tax system, an increase in the SOCIAL SECURITY allotments, bending to the care of the needy, where the system is at the behest of the person, rather than the will of the government? Something wrong with reverence of the old? The "America For Sale" syndrome recently endorsed by an ICON of America, Anheuser-Busch to In-Bev, smacks of the so called "merger of equals." The same applies to Miller Brewing Company, which sold out to another out of country brewer. For just a few instances. I don't use beer very much, however, I think I will stick to a different more domestic brand for awhile. It isn't that this country doesn't have the money. The down and dirty underside is that Government lies to its citizens all the time. The Social Security Administration, has NEVER been broke, and has never come CLOSE to being broke. FDR created it, supposedly, to keep people from going completely into a poor house in the depression era of the 1930s. In reality, it was the Federal Gov'ts little honey pot, with millions pouring in, with a far lesser amount going out. Last year, the SSA returned 2.2 BILLION surplus into Treasury Bonds. Essentially selling them to itself! Imagine that! Why do we, as the electorate, allow this to occur. Oh, BTW, other years, going back to it's inception have all done the same thing. It was just sort of convenient, when you wanted to build a couple extra say, aircraft carriers, or develop a new form of war plane, or build some pork barrel project, like Alaska's "bridge to nowhere," you could just dip into the Treasury Bonds, and viola, there was all this cash. That way, no one could say you were deep tilling the Social Security Administration. Cute. So, I contend that a "lot" more Social wouldn't hurt this fat, bloated, overweight, lackadaisical, all focused on itself, bureaucratic irresponsible, unaccountable, deadlocked, cost intensive without benefit government any at all. While the citizens, the money payers might find a little faith restored in it. That might involve leadership though, and THAT sure isn't out there. That history repeats itself is my line. I concur. Pure capitalism has failed. Just look around. Time for some to think about doing what is right FOR THE PEOPLE. Socialism? So, what is wrong with a little socialism, some income distribution, a far fairer tax system, an increase in the SOCIAL SECURITY allotments, bending to the care of the needy, where the system is at the behest of the person, rather than the will of the government? Something wrong with reverence of the old? The “America For Sale” syndrome recently endorsed by an ICON of America, Anheuser-Busch to In-Bev, smacks of the so called “merger of equals.” The same applies to Miller Brewing Company, which sold out to another out of country brewer. For just a few instances. I don’t use beer very much, however, I think I will stick to a different more domestic brand for awhile. It isn’t that this country doesn’t have the money. The down and dirty underside is that Government lies to its citizens all the time. The Social Security Administration, has NEVER been broke, and has never come CLOSE to being broke. FDR created it, supposedly, to keep people from going completely into a poor house in the depression era of the 1930s. In reality, it was the Federal Gov’ts little honey pot, with millions pouring in, with a far lesser amount going out. Last year, the SSA returned 2.2 BILLION surplus into Treasury Bonds. Essentially selling them to itself! Imagine that! Why do we, as the electorate, allow this to occur. Oh, BTW, other years, going back to it’s inception have all done the same thing. It was just sort of convenient, when you wanted to build a couple extra say, aircraft carriers, or develop a new form of war plane, or build some pork barrel project, like Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere,” you could just dip into the Treasury Bonds, and viola, there was all this cash. That way, no one could say you were deep tilling the Social Security Administration. Cute. So, I contend that a “lot” more Social wouldn’t hurt this fat, bloated, overweight, lackadaisical, all focused on itself, bureaucratic irresponsible, unaccountable, deadlocked, cost intensive without benefit government any at all. While the citizens, the money payers might find a little faith restored in it. That might involve leadership though, and THAT sure isn’t out there.

]]>