A cool thing that President Reagan said..

[Brian Moffet]

Thats the other one we fear.....Socialism  :o

Socialism has been described by a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.  In particular, depending on which version you look at, a nationalization of production, or a nationalization of key industries.  Neither of these would be anywhere near what the US has, has had, or will have.  It also cannot be applied to the progressive taxation system (where the more you have, the more you pay).  The  taxation system is more how one will pay for necessary components of the government functions.  Rarely is this used as a redistribution of income (there are some taxes that are like that in our government).

It has already been shown, historically, that a true large Capitalist society cannot survive.  Greed appears to play too much of a role in people's actions, preventing the "trickle-down" theory from working as hypothesized.  Rather, the more government has enforced a "free-market" system of economy, the national dept and spending has increased.  (based on a study looking at the national debt since 1980).  In addition, the disparity between highest income and lowest income has increased.  Inflation doesn't pay attention to the "lowest" income.  So while the wealthy can afford to deal with increases in inflation, unless there are increases in the lowest income levels, the poverty-stricken cannot.

The Star Trek universe appears to be a socialist system, where people work and do not get paid, but all of their needs are taken care of.  Moving to a true socialist system would require a major rewrite of the constitution, in my opinion, (based on unlawful seizure).

Brian

[YellowJacket!]

Dang Brian, I'm impressed.  Are you just very interested in the forms of government or do you have experience. (This is NOT at all intended to be a flame).  Your knowlege and understandng seems to be pretty well versed.

David

[Brian Moffet]

My wife is, and I can't ignore her all the time, she might notice :-)  (Well, that and wikipedia to refresh my memory on things)  I guess you could call us part of the educated elite, we both have college educations in the sciences, and we have quite a bit of post-college education of some sort or other (though no advanced degrees)

Brian

[h2olawyer]

Gee - we're nationalizing large chunks of the banking industry at this moment, the threat of nationalized healthcare looms & we're not gravitating toward socialism?!?  Could have fooled me.

Communism - as postulated by Marx & Engels - is another example of utopian societal thought which was so prevalent in the 19th century.  Nothing remotely resembling communism has ever been implemented on this planet.  If you read Marx closely, it cannot be implemented - it comes naturally, over time.  Lenin bastardized it and tried to force it through while skipping over the other forms of societal structure (industrialization & capitalism, to socialism).  All industry and agricultural production was nationalized.  Then when Stalin siezed control, it became a strong dictatorship and a cult of personality - still with a ruling class and then everyone else.  That is the model the other "Communist" nations have followed.  That said, I have absolutely no desire to live under Marx's vision of the 'utopian' communist society.  (From each according to his means - to each according to his needs. (yes, Marx was not 'politically correct' in pronoun usage)).  All incentive to achieve is eliminated & it will foster a huge class of do-nothings dependent on government hand-outs.  (Hmmm - sounds a little like what the 'war on poverty' has brought about.)

Communism & Star Trek have one thing in common - they are both spaced out fantasies.  However, at least Star Trek is entertaining!

My BA in Political Science emphasized comparative communist systems (with four additional courses in Russian / Soviet history) & I do have an advanced degree (Juris Doctor).  I was looking into a CIA analyst job while in college, but that was when the wall came down & effectively made my degree an Edsel.   ::)  Thus, on to law school.

H₂O

[Blake]

I highly recommend the book "The Measure of All Things", which is about the attempt to measure the globe (and thus the meter). 

I read it  One of the books we read from one of my sociology classes a few years ago.  :)  I think we spent a good 3 weeks talking about it.  ahaha..  once i read the title i immediately remembered it/the class.


I'm more or less playing devils advocate and just questioning him.  That's one of the few things i actually kept from college - most of my sociology books/notes.  pretty interesting stuff when you start breaking down societies to see how they really work with all the different theories people have.  I could even put up a good argument as to why anything in society is good/bad, give examples, why we need to keep the poor very poor, etc.  I love discussing politics/sociological theories/religion, etc.. but i HATE arguing them-as to why i rarely if ever get into political debates-especially with people who blindly believe in something and arent open to opposing views (not saying anyone here, just in general-i have a few friends that are like that).


like i said just asking questions, not trying to say what i think is right/wrong, etc.   I'm going to have to go search through my box of books i kept one of these days.  I forget the titles but there were a few that might be of interest.

[Brian Moffet]

Gee - we're nationalizing large chunks of the banking industry at this moment, the threat of nationalized healthcare looms & we're not gravitating toward socialism?!? 

These could be considered as necessary social requirements, as compared to nationalizing key industries (such as computer tech support, McDonalds, Metal-working, etc...)  In my opinion, these are more along the lines of the Muni system, rather than the Kmart system.  So, they do not necessarily indicate a move toward a socialist system.

Or in a more simple way of stating it, Socialism doesn't allow for the choice of competing industries. As DHL, FedEx, UPS have shown, people can offer competition to "nationalized" industries like the Post Office.

Brian

[Rick G]

I don't have any advanced degree's , Actually , I'm a 9Th grade drop out, (my step father insisted I quit) I BS'd the junior collage, I studied thermal dynamics at.  (HVAC)
But I find Brian's writing , similar to my own observations .  Communism will never work , not in the "true " version, or the Stalinist version . Socialism isn't a whole lot better. capitalism isn't fair, it divides the classes. BUT, its far better that what's in  2nd place. As for me, I think that if this system provides a better than average level of monetary success, then perhaps you should , even want to, reward the system that provided that success.
The problem is, that the Government is becoming ever more corrupt. As far as I'm concerned anyone who tries to influence a legislator (read lobbyist, NOT a constituent writing a letter to his congressman) should be given 25 years in prison and stripped of all the wealth they accumulated  while doing this.

[YellowJacket!]

You hit the nail on the head Rick.

David

[h2olawyer]

The problem is that limiting lobbyists access to legislators would be termed a violation of political free speech and a restriction on the people's ability to redress grievances.  The ACLU should be first in line to defend the lobbyists in this scenario, but since it fits within their world view, they would likely sit on the sidelines for that fight.  The lobbyist's get their $$ from the interests they lobby for - not the government.  They have earned that money legally (though maybe not ethically).

You don't go after the lobbyists (unless they are actuallly performing illegal actions, (like Abrahmoff)), you go after the legislators who have become corrupted.  Expose them for the trash they are, expel them from Congress and prosecute if at all possible.  The RICO statutes could come in handy here.

The best way to get the lobbyist influence out of government is to get back to the idea of a citizen legislator, who goes for one or two terms, then comes home.  Get the career politicians out of government.  Then they would be less afraid to actually do their jobs and tackle the difficult issues.  Partisan rancor would probably be reduced as well.

What about the lobbyists trying to get things you may support?  Examples include stem cell research funding, AIDS reseearch funding, public lands protection (or use), environmental cleaning efforts, etc.  Like many professions, a few bad eggs have given the many involved a huge black eye.  (kind of like lawyers  ;) )

--------

As for shipping companies being able to "compete" with the Post Office - only partly true.  The Post Office maintains a monopoly on first class mail, and keeps raising the artificially high rate to subsidize the parcel side of the business.  It is the only way they can compete with the truly private shipping outfits.  Funny thing is, the Post Office is considered a 'quasi-government' agency.  There is very little budget money for the USPS - it has to operate on its own revenues (but need not make a profit).

H₂O

[Rick G]

As far as I'm concerned ,they ARE violating my right to an honest government. I agree that carrier politicians should be banned , but so should Representatives of large companies , who come with treats and bribes be banned. If they want to communicate with an office holder , let them write a letter , like the rest of us! 
I know , I don't have much right to expound , I'm not even a citizen , But my descendants are  and besides, I've lived here over twice as long here as in Canada.

[Brian Moffet]

we're nationalizing large chunks of the banking industry at this moment

Welcome to Mr. Toad's Wild Ride....   This will take years to sort out, and the investor lawsuits are going to be painful to watch.

Good time to invest in the market in a couple of months, if you have the cash to do so...

Brian

P.S. I hope all of you can weather this storm that we're in and come out on the other side unscathed.

[h2olawyer]

Good time to invest in the market in a couple of months, if you have the cash to do so...
Brian

;D

Could go into a tax diatribe here, but it would only make me mad.  (I make barely more than poverty level income, but have had effective tax rates in recent years of over 40% because of self employment & investment income.)

For some good info on who actually pays how much, this Wall Street Journal article might be very enlightening.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

H₂O

[YellowJacket!]

My 401k is now a 01.5f  Im sure my next quarterly statement will garner up some sort of comment about selling my Vision.

David

[inanecathode]

Well. In my publicly educated little mind, it just seems to me everyone is spending beyond their means. The jones down the street with their brand new toyota, the micheals across the block with their brand new house, the investment banks with their unsecured lones, and the gov'ment with their <everything>. Is that accurate?

[h2olawyer]

You've just about hit the nail squarely on the head, inane.   ;D  Nice to see public education hasn't totally failed in Colorado (yet).  Or is it that your parents managed to instill some good financial sense in your formative years?  (more likely)

Debt is the American way!  The more the better.  Other than emergencies, the only place debt makes any financial sense is for real property - and then, only if you can afford it.  It took two to make those bad mortgages - the lender & the borrower.  Caveat Emptor to the borrowers (it is up to them to become informed BEFORE signing the papers).  To the 'predatory lenders', I say YOU pay off those bad loans.  (Too bad they have already spent those commissions on fancy cars & big houses they couldn't have otherwise afforded and are probably defaulting on now.)  Hard to believe they were loaning money in such large sums without requiring proof of a certain income stream or 20% down payments!  That used to be standard lending practice.  I was wondering how some of these lower middle class hard working folks were able to buy $300,000 - $500,000 homes - even with two incomes.  I guess now we know that many of them couldn't!  Of course, they had to have all those other necessities like the new car, cell phone, cable TV, high speed internet, and, despite the nice large kitchen in their large home, the need to eat dinner out several times per week.  If they had actually budgeted in the first place, then saw the balloon payment looming in their mortgage, they could have been better prepared by either buying a house they could actually afford OR giving up some of those expensive luxuries.  (These are some of the life skills parents used to teach.)

It is all those bad mortgages that have brought the financial institutions to their current state.  Not quite as bad as the media and the politicians are portraying it, but not good, either.  The economy will recover just fine.  Remember the S&L crisis of the late 80s?  This will cost more to fix, but the economy has expanded quite a bit in the past 20 years.  The projected $500 billion to buy all those bad loans - as a percentage of GNP is not much more than the $120 billion spent with the Resolution Trust Corporation that bailed out the S&L mess.

The thing about 401Ks, IRAs and other long term investments is that you need to just keep a watch on them from time to time.  If you examine their values on a daily basis, you get too many emotional highs & lows.  If you have a number of years before you plan to retire, your investments will still grow well.  We are just witnessing another serious market correction.  The dot com bust of the late 90s was another correction - just at a smaller scale.  What makes this one more serious is that it has dried up nearly ALL credit - even the overnight bank to bank loans are hard to get.

Look at what's happened overseas if you think we've got it rough.  After the mega financial institutions Merril - Lynch, Bear Stearns, etc went belly up, our market dropped a whopping 4.5%.  Russia's stock market lost 25% in value at the same time!  We can make that up - and then some - in a few months.  In fact, after the proposal was announced to bail out AIG and plans to do something to take the bad mortgages off the hands of the lenders / underwriters, the market made up nearly all that loss in one day!  The Russian government spent years telling their people that they were well insulated from international market downturns.  HA!  It is still true - if the US economy sneezes, most of the rest of the industrialized world's economies get the flu.

It will be a bumpy few months, but things will work out fine as long as there is no widespread panic.  The markets don't like uncertainty and until the final actions are taken, we're apt to see some more wild fluctuations in the markets.  That said, this is NOT the time to raise taxes on capital gains as those are the fuel for job creation in small business - where the vast majority of jobs in this country are created.  Drying up capital - even by 5% - especially with much tighter restrictions on credit - will slow the engine of job creation and increase the time it takes for us to get out of the current economic woes.

We've got both Presidential candidates saying what needs to be done to solve the problem.  The thing is, that many of the solutions will likely be in place before the November elections - or at least before the new President takes office - unless the plans are blocked for purely partisan reasons in the House & Senate (which is entirely likely).

H₂O

[inanecathode]

All I know about financial wellness is if you cant afford it, you cant have it. The only exception being real property, even then you have to use moderation. I bought all of my vehicles with cash, and i own every one of them outright. They have real value that will never go down.

[Rick G]

I have observed for years , that the type and cost of new homes was too grand . lots of people could afford new homes , IF the home offered, were much closer to the home my folks bought in 1952.
3 bed room , 1 bath , no garage . (that was in Stamford Ont. Canada)
homes built in LA. suburbs were similar , 3 bed room, 1 bathroom , carport , no basement )
Houses built in the early seventies , had more amenities ( 3 bedroom , 2 bathroom , two car garage and a patio) and didn't cost all that much more.
Of course  inflation enters into it , but the large growth in square footage and cathedral ceilings , plus 3 car garages, and  pre-installed landscaping, all acted to drive the median price of houses through the roof. As a HVAC tech I was involved in building lots of those houses. I wouldn't have  ever considered buying those over size cracker boxes on postage stamp lots!

I was told that the cost of land , dictated that the most expensive house possible be built , to that I say Horse pucky!!! Tell that to someone who will believe it. It was to maximize profits!

When I finally bought a house (other than the one I inherited)  it was in MN. not CA. and it was 80 years old . It had been up graded and I upgraded it even more . It also had a garage , which was built when the house was over 40 years old.  I installed the AC ,to go along with the nearly new furnace , the previous owner had installed. It cost $69,251.00 (HUD house)  and after I was done with it , we sold it, 3 years later for $135,000.00.  It was a little too small , but all the same , we enjoyed it very much. But mostly, we could afford it.

Unfortunately , the "American Way" has degenerated to, "If a little is good and a lot is better, then too much is enough"

[kwells]

well said rick

[h2olawyer]

Totally agree, Rick - except that too much still isn't enough for some - that's what got the shady lenders in trouble to begin with!

H₂O

[Aelwulf]

I'm guilty of the debt bit, but by the same token my debt *overall* isn't all that much.  On the assumption that my income stays the same (be it staying in or as a contractor) I could pay off nearly all my debts by New Year's of 2010, and that's perhaps being a smidge leisurely in doing so.  I believe the only thing not paid would be the loan I had to get when I sold the house in Colorado at an overall loss.  Once the rest is done that could be paid off in about three years versus fifteen.  So compared to the average American I don't believ eI'm too bad off, but I do believe I'm worse off than I should be and hope to correct it in the relatively near future.

Until proper financial management is not only properly taught in schools & universities to the general student populace but also advertised/practiced by the general population things will likely continue to go downhill regardless of who/what bails out who/what.  History will continue to repeat itself.  IE, get out of this credit/debt-based societal mindset.  It'll never disappear, true, and perhaps that's a good thing.  As with about anything else it'd likely be good in moderation.  It just needs to go away as a base ideal, which will be a hard sell with so many companies/people making so much off said ideal.