Doesn't that often seem like the case? As Chris Rock said once, "Americans worship money. And we all go to the same church. The Church of ATM." And it's true. Money makes the world go around. Those who don't have it, want it; those who can manage it, spend it; and those who have it, keep it. An interesting economic system we have here. Now, this should be a tight squeeze as I segue our worship of money to our government, so I'll make it blunt.
If I were to label our political paradigm like I'll label this post, it would look like this "Democracy. Incompetent. Aristocratic." Now, hopefully you'll see that my big sell for this post is the last one. Aristocratic. An Aristocracy is a form of government that is ruled by the wealthy class. Now, I know when you think of Aristocracy, you think of nobles and peasants and the middle ages, so don't withdraw and don't become nervous or confused. All it takes is logic. Excluding money gained through fundraising, Barack Obama spent $30 million on his campaign, John McCain spent $33 million, Mitt Romney, who you forgot was running, spent over $800,000, Ralph Nader, for whatever reason that he's still running, spent $300,000.
Now, for the land of opportunity, I don't see much opportunity in a middle class American running for President or even coming close. Note, for all intents and purposes, I know Obama was born into the middle class, and I give him kudos for raising himself to the level that he is today. So, instead, let's treat Obama as the wealthy politician he is, instead of his roots. Let's focus on McCain as the politician he is, and not his nepotismic rise to political power. And let's not focus on Nader, because... well that should be self-explanatory.
So, let's back away from the American Dream and from nepotism. Don't you find it disengenuous to have anyone with a trust fund to comprehend what a middle class or lower class is going through? And you think they do? Then why is the division in classes growing more every year. Politicians have pollsters crunch numbers to find out what us folk are all about. Do they do anything about it? I heard that Dick Cheney uses approval rating polls to wipe his ass.
I'm the average American. I don't know anything about political process. I skim CNN or Fox News and I hear that a bill that I don't understand because of the legal jargon is making its wayward journey through Congress and when it passes it'll do something that I won't hear about. I hear politicians say that they understand what the middle and lower class goes through. Do they pay mortgage? If John McCain's toilet clugs up, he'll pick his second favorite. And if that's being renovated, he'll just go to his third. Why not? He's got seven more if anything goes wrong.
Realistically speaking, I want something to be done about the election process. I want caps on fundraising and out of pocket spending. I want a middle class citizen, making $45,000 a year to be able to run for Congress without having to put his house on another mortgage or have to moonlight at a bar while passing bills during the day.
Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
An informal discussion of Socialism vs Capitalism
This is something that was discussed via an MSN IM discussion. I'll leave the two involved anonymous
Socialism says:
People are against it because they don't understand what it means. They simply believe what their government has told them about it.
Capitalism says:
yeah, well socialism is something that never really got into the press cycle until these past few months. the fact is that nobody wants to give money to something that doesn't directly influence themselves, especially in the wake of our economic struggles. and there's no such thing as altruism in our society
Socialism says:
That's because we live in a capitalist society. It's based upon self-interest. You have to look at it from a point that, if we had a bit of socialism, we probably wouldn't have been in this economic crisis in the first place. Allowing banks to self-regulate and basically allowing a bit of unregulated capitalism is a danger to everyone. That's a part of this war we're having. While we're sitting here paying tax dollars to fuel it, the government is dishing out contracts to private companies to destroy and rebuild Iraq. Bechtel makes bombs to destroy and rebuild. Our tax dollars go to these companies. And what we're seeing is the transfer of the wealth of the middle class to the upper class because of this. And when we're in an economic crisis and don't help each other by using a bit of socialism, people become homeless and poor. Homelessness and poverty will increase the crime rate. In that way, it direct effects you. Capitalism is at fault for our current economic crisis. It creates its own problems and destroys itself. We need to cast off our societies Friedmanite vision. Solely driving for ourselves alone is destructive and evil. It can be changed.
Capitalism says:
i think we do have a slightly socialistic society anyway. After all we do pay taxes that pay for government programs. The fact that we pay taxes at all shows that we don't have a solely capitalistic society. i agree with your view of the self-regulating banks. We are having a seperation of middle and upper classes but that's lent to an inability to regulate taxes and allow upper class... citizens to by-pass the tax laws we have in place. Homelessness and poverty are not something that can be realistically fixed by socialism. What socialism would do is supposedly redistribute the wealth, but you have to look at the source of poverty in itself. We don't need to give people the money, we need to hire contracters to fix the ghetto. That one does lend itself to socialism, the... only problem is that you actually need a competant government to get that done, and based on every country ever, no government has been able to rid itself of poverty and homelessness. And the full circle leading from raising taxes to crime rate semantically speaking is definitely not a direct effect. Crime rate can otherwise be regulated. We've lived in a capitalistic country for 200 years and only 3 times in our history has there been economic struggle. the current problem is not capitalism, its incompetence in our government
Socialism says:
We have a slightly socialistic society, but only because it's necessary. The government could never get away without having social programs. But it isn't an efficient socialistic society. We pay taxes, but our taxes go towards the wrong things. And as for our companies paying taxes, those in Iraq don't. There's a bit of unregulated capitalism there, as we can't do that here. The existence of poverty is due to wealth inequality. There is no poverty if everyone makes the same wage. Homelessness can be aided with tax dollars. If we were to hire contractors to fix the ghetto, it would have to be an extremely regulated process. The rebuilding of New Orleans is an example of this situation, and it is by no means a success. Three times in our history have we had an economic struggle, because we've always had other people to exploit in order to make our own economy prosper.
Capitalism says:
"We pay taxes, but our taxes go towards the wrong things." That statement is a pro-socialist fundamental point as to why we can't have a socialistic government. Our taxes will ALWAYS be spent improperly. Because poor want it to go to rebuilding the ghettos, the middle class want it to go towards something that they actually care about, and the upper class will still find a way to not pay taxes.
Socialism says:
That's the point of wealth redistribution. To end class struggle.
Capitalism says:
"There is no poverty if everyone makes the same wage." That is a very idealistic statement. And it will never happen. A bagger won't earn the same as a garbageman who won't earn the same as a clerk, who won't earn the same as a systems analyst who won't earn the same as a doctor who won't earn the same as a CEO because it requires skill, and skill has to be rewarded
otherwise no one will take the necessary prerequisites to having the skill. another thing that crumbles the foundation of socialism is the fact that people are greedy. if they do more than another, they want more. and i maintain that the incompetence of our government makes socialism an implausible ideal
Socialism says:
People are against it because they don't understand what it means. They simply believe what their government has told them about it.
Capitalism says:
yeah, well socialism is something that never really got into the press cycle until these past few months. the fact is that nobody wants to give money to something that doesn't directly influence themselves, especially in the wake of our economic struggles. and there's no such thing as altruism in our society
Socialism says:
That's because we live in a capitalist society. It's based upon self-interest. You have to look at it from a point that, if we had a bit of socialism, we probably wouldn't have been in this economic crisis in the first place. Allowing banks to self-regulate and basically allowing a bit of unregulated capitalism is a danger to everyone. That's a part of this war we're having. While we're sitting here paying tax dollars to fuel it, the government is dishing out contracts to private companies to destroy and rebuild Iraq. Bechtel makes bombs to destroy and rebuild. Our tax dollars go to these companies. And what we're seeing is the transfer of the wealth of the middle class to the upper class because of this. And when we're in an economic crisis and don't help each other by using a bit of socialism, people become homeless and poor. Homelessness and poverty will increase the crime rate. In that way, it direct effects you. Capitalism is at fault for our current economic crisis. It creates its own problems and destroys itself. We need to cast off our societies Friedmanite vision. Solely driving for ourselves alone is destructive and evil. It can be changed.
Capitalism says:
i think we do have a slightly socialistic society anyway. After all we do pay taxes that pay for government programs. The fact that we pay taxes at all shows that we don't have a solely capitalistic society. i agree with your view of the self-regulating banks. We are having a seperation of middle and upper classes but that's lent to an inability to regulate taxes and allow upper class... citizens to by-pass the tax laws we have in place. Homelessness and poverty are not something that can be realistically fixed by socialism. What socialism would do is supposedly redistribute the wealth, but you have to look at the source of poverty in itself. We don't need to give people the money, we need to hire contracters to fix the ghetto. That one does lend itself to socialism, the... only problem is that you actually need a competant government to get that done, and based on every country ever, no government has been able to rid itself of poverty and homelessness. And the full circle leading from raising taxes to crime rate semantically speaking is definitely not a direct effect. Crime rate can otherwise be regulated. We've lived in a capitalistic country for 200 years and only 3 times in our history has there been economic struggle. the current problem is not capitalism, its incompetence in our government
Socialism says:
We have a slightly socialistic society, but only because it's necessary. The government could never get away without having social programs. But it isn't an efficient socialistic society. We pay taxes, but our taxes go towards the wrong things. And as for our companies paying taxes, those in Iraq don't. There's a bit of unregulated capitalism there, as we can't do that here. The existence of poverty is due to wealth inequality. There is no poverty if everyone makes the same wage. Homelessness can be aided with tax dollars. If we were to hire contractors to fix the ghetto, it would have to be an extremely regulated process. The rebuilding of New Orleans is an example of this situation, and it is by no means a success. Three times in our history have we had an economic struggle, because we've always had other people to exploit in order to make our own economy prosper.
Capitalism says:
"We pay taxes, but our taxes go towards the wrong things." That statement is a pro-socialist fundamental point as to why we can't have a socialistic government. Our taxes will ALWAYS be spent improperly. Because poor want it to go to rebuilding the ghettos, the middle class want it to go towards something that they actually care about, and the upper class will still find a way to not pay taxes.
Socialism says:
That's the point of wealth redistribution. To end class struggle.
Capitalism says:
"There is no poverty if everyone makes the same wage." That is a very idealistic statement. And it will never happen. A bagger won't earn the same as a garbageman who won't earn the same as a clerk, who won't earn the same as a systems analyst who won't earn the same as a doctor who won't earn the same as a CEO because it requires skill, and skill has to be rewarded
otherwise no one will take the necessary prerequisites to having the skill. another thing that crumbles the foundation of socialism is the fact that people are greedy. if they do more than another, they want more. and i maintain that the incompetence of our government makes socialism an implausible ideal
Friday, December 5, 2008
A Common Sense Appeal to Why the Bail-Out is a Bad Idea
For those who do not know about this bail-out, or for those who need a little refresher, the U.S. Government allocated $700 billion to be spent by the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson however he wanted. I have a problem with this. First, I don't know who Henry Paulson is, and by the media's reaction, they didn't even really know who he was. That's like the President saying, "Trust me, I know a guy". Ideally speaking, we should have faith in our government to choose who does what because they have to know it better than we do. Oh wait, this is a government who hasn't really done a great job for us or themselves anyway.
Also, according to this bailout, "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency". Why do they get away with this? Its the kind of thing that makes me want to go on a Lewis Black-esque rant. I'll ask, where's the accountability if this fails? If the economy continues to fail, will we see $700 billion out the window and have to hold our tongue from asking "where'd it go?"
Now, besides the whole Henry Paulson thing, I have another big problem with this. The key term in this bail-out is that the money was ALLOCATED by the government to many national corporations that are struggling. The problem with allocating is that the people who you give the money to have no accountability towards it. If the money dries out and the businesses and banks are still failing, who do they answer to? The people who gave them the money? Who, then, will the government answer to? Nobody. The government hasn't had to answer to anyone but their tri-fecta of similar interests for decades. (But thats for another day).
However, what you find is this: $32.4 million of the $159 billion of the money given to the banks is being re-invested by the banks to lobby in Washington. Now, logistically speaking, that is a very small percentage, but when you take into account where that $32.4 million can go instead of back to the government, it is just plain disappointing. And it really goes to show you the priorities of these companies. And maybe, just maybe you get a hint of how they got into this trouble to begin with. You can't blame it on the recession. The economy is not a mystical force. It goes up and down because of businesses and consumers. Recessions come about because one of the two previously mentioned aren't holding up their end of the bargain.
I suppose it would be fair to give my own option instead of just bashing the occurring one. What I believe they should have done was loan the money out. First, this forces the businesses to actually own up to their problems and work to solve it so that they pay the money back. And second, the money will be spent concisely to fit the businesses needs. Also, and pretty importantly, this will give the money back to the government with interest. And a business or bank fails again, then maybe it was just its time. Companies go out of business, new ones arise, its a free market, those things are bound to happen.
Also, according to this bailout, "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency". Why do they get away with this? Its the kind of thing that makes me want to go on a Lewis Black-esque rant. I'll ask, where's the accountability if this fails? If the economy continues to fail, will we see $700 billion out the window and have to hold our tongue from asking "where'd it go?"
Now, besides the whole Henry Paulson thing, I have another big problem with this. The key term in this bail-out is that the money was ALLOCATED by the government to many national corporations that are struggling. The problem with allocating is that the people who you give the money to have no accountability towards it. If the money dries out and the businesses and banks are still failing, who do they answer to? The people who gave them the money? Who, then, will the government answer to? Nobody. The government hasn't had to answer to anyone but their tri-fecta of similar interests for decades. (But thats for another day).
However, what you find is this: $32.4 million of the $159 billion of the money given to the banks is being re-invested by the banks to lobby in Washington. Now, logistically speaking, that is a very small percentage, but when you take into account where that $32.4 million can go instead of back to the government, it is just plain disappointing. And it really goes to show you the priorities of these companies. And maybe, just maybe you get a hint of how they got into this trouble to begin with. You can't blame it on the recession. The economy is not a mystical force. It goes up and down because of businesses and consumers. Recessions come about because one of the two previously mentioned aren't holding up their end of the bargain.
I suppose it would be fair to give my own option instead of just bashing the occurring one. What I believe they should have done was loan the money out. First, this forces the businesses to actually own up to their problems and work to solve it so that they pay the money back. And second, the money will be spent concisely to fit the businesses needs. Also, and pretty importantly, this will give the money back to the government with interest. And a business or bank fails again, then maybe it was just its time. Companies go out of business, new ones arise, its a free market, those things are bound to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
