I decided to create a new thread for this topic, even though it is closely related to some of the other discussions we've had here so far.
The issue is, our aging infrastructure. What prompted this entry is a short article on the "Smartplanet" website, entitled "Five Percent of American's dams could fail". It's worth reading here:
Five-percent-of-Americas-dams-could-fail
Where is the money to maintain, let alone rebuild and create anew, our aging infrastructure, which I should point out, was created largely by the Federal Government.
The article in Smartplanet also references a recent article in the New York Times on the topic:
Science: Dams
Certainly if we listen to John (From the previous stream) and others who hold with the current simpletons ideological approach to economic progress, America will need to return to a candle burning horse and wagon society.
ReplyDeleteSince apparently it is a crime against current republican and libertarian ethics, to issue or borrow in the bond marketplace to maintain and plan the advance of society and to meet the nations needs for the future? Laughable ideological nonsense. Without the right to issue bonds, (Borrow in the market) no significant infrastructure will ever leave the drawing board! I gather that is the plan for the extreme right who seem to be in control of the debate in your government at present?...:-)
I woke up this morning and read this cover story in the Los Angeles times. I think it works into this post. It also has elements of the bond issue and the corporate and the union (this time private) influence issue. It is a rather long article and it is the first in a series of six.
ReplyDeleteThe titles of the six parts are:
1. Price of Poor planning, weak oversight
2. Failing grade for new science complex
3. Layers add millions to staffing costs
4. Sports facilities can’t get to the finish line
5. A family firm gets its share
6. A costly lesson in the limits of green energy
I would not expect that you would want to read it unless you want to verify my summary. It is at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-build1-20110227,0,1763444.story and the remaining parts will be on the latimes.com website if you want to read the series.
Let me state my position clearly so you do go off an attack me for being against public funding, the issuance of bonds in general or public spending in general. My concern is that we are not getting the most efficient use of the funds we entrust to our government. I don’t think we have any mechanism to verify this and we should.
The series is about a $5.7 billion bond measure to upgrade the Los Angeles Community College District infrastructure. The article does not mention the details of the bond measure except to mention that taxpayers will be paying them off well into the 2050’s. I venture to say that many of the projects constructed will be long gone by then.
The first article of the series details the mismanagement and waste in the project. It is will documented and was discussed with all parties involved. It is a good bit of journalism and not a partisan article.
This example and many others are why there is such frustration with increased public spending. Public spending should be as well managed as the private sector and there is good evidence that it is not. Politicians are great at getting elected and extracting money from the taxpayers but lousy managers of the public resources. This could be addressed by performance based budgeting and sun setting of agencies and major funding initiatives.
This is my third attempt to post this comment. My apologies if there is duplicate posts elsewere in this blog
ReplyDeleteI woke up this morning and read this cover story in the Los Angeles times. I think it works into this post. It also has elements of the bond issue and the corporate and the union (this time private) influence issue. It is a rather long article and it is the first in a series of six. The titles of the six parts are:
1. Price of Poor planning, weak oversight
2. Failing grade for new science complex
3. Layers add millions to staffing costs
4. Sports facilities can’t get to the finish line
5. A family firm gets its share
6. A costly lesson in the limits of green energy
If you want to read it the website is
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-build1-20110227,0,1763444.story
and the remaining parts will be on the latimes.com website if you want to read the series.
The series is about a $5.7 billion bond measure to upgrade the Los Angeles Community College District infrastructure. The article does not mention the details of the bond measure except to mention that taxpayers will be paying them off well into the 2050’s. I venture to say that many of the projects constructed will be long gone by then.
The first article of the series details the mismanagement and waste in the project. It is will documented and was discussed with all parties involved. It is a good bit of journalism and not a partisan article.
This example and many others are why there is such frustration with increased public spending. Public spending should be as well managed as the private sector and there is good evidence that it is not. Politicians are great at getting elected and extracting money from the taxpayers but lousy managers of the public resources. This could be addressed by performance based budgeting and sun setting of agencies and major funding initiatives. My concern is that we are not getting the most efficient use of the funds we entrust to our government. I don’t think we have any mechanism to verify this and we should.
I woke up this morning and read this cover story in the Los Angeles times. I think it works into this post. It also has elements of the bond issue and the corporate and the union (this time private) influence issue. It is a rather long article and it is the first in a series of six. The titles of the six parts are:
ReplyDelete1. Price of Poor planning, weak oversight
2. Failing grade for new science complex
3. Layers add millions to staffing costs
4. Sports facilities can’t get to the finish line
5. A family firm gets its share
6. A costly lesson in the limits of green energy
If you want to read it the website is latimes.com
The series is about a $5.7 billion bond measure to upgrade the Los Angeles Community College District infrastructure. The article does not mention the details of the bond measure except to mention that taxpayers will be paying them off well into the 2050’s. I venture to say that many of the projects constructed will be long gone by then.
The first article of the series details the mismanagement and waste in the project. It is will documented and was discussed with all parties involved. It is a good bit of journalism and not a partisan article.
This example and many others are why there is such frustration with increased public spending. Public spending should be as well managed as the private sector and there is good evidence that it is not. Politicians are great at getting elected and extracting money from the taxpayers but lousy managers of the public resources. This could be addressed by performance based budgeting and sun setting of agencies and major funding initiatives. My concern is that we are not getting the most efficient use of the funds we entrust to our government. I don’t think we have any mechanism to verify this and we should.
You of course assume that mega projects such as you are mentioning are better managed in the private sector? I can assure you that in my experience, mega projects of the infrastructure type referred to, inevitably surpass price estimates, whether they are private public or PP projects.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am missing something in your point as to the taxpayers paying off until 2050? That is the purpose of credit against future earnings? one borrows knowing that they are assuming a debt? The only concerning factors, are the cost of the borrowing and the fixed or malleable rates of interest?
All projects are also "long gone" by the time they are paid for? That is true in part but not if you mean they are defunct! The use of the projects inevitably stretch well into the future as with Dams and highways and stadiums etc etc . I am not sure what your point is, since almost all major mega projects are funded via a bond issue of some kind.
In Private and public works, the use of surety has been around for centuries and is a well accepted method to under support the financial risks of such ventures? The real truism is that only government has the capacity or need to plan for such mega projects, as they are usually for the benefit of society as a whole and not for simply profit production!
Private contractors are of course used and usually are awarded contracts on a bid basis and again must show bond accountability, as in a bid bond or a performance bond or labour and materials bond etc .
That layers and administration inefficiences have a deleterious effect on this process is without any doubt, and certainly an agreed and valid point. But it is not just simply a "government" cause? To unravel the intricacies of a major project and to eliminate what amounts to corrupt practices, would require the patience of a deity and would certainly cause an overall delaying effect, adding no doubt even more costs?
This is why even the private sector in so many jurisdictions, turns a "blind eye"to certain corruptions as they are considered part of the costs of doing business and inherent in any human transaction. To reduce these as much as possible is the very reason someone like me exists. I am a risk analyst as well as an economic analyst, the two activities being synonymous.
As an added point I have always preferred unionized labor for such projects, as it is easier to linear forecast my costs, based upon the performance and reliability of the workforce active on any of our projects. I think you will find this a common statement amongst experts Globally.
I have not yet read the LA times article as it is not available to me here in Canada and I don't subscribe to it. Perhaps you could post a link?
From the washington post today.
ReplyDeleteAn independent analysis that supports my theories about the GOP's voodoo economics.....:-)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline
John,
ReplyDeleteI did respond at some length to your posting, but it appears to have vanished? In short form; I again outlined for you the actual checks and balances we already have in place for mega projects. Corruption is an "allowed for" reality and is never completely controllable.
To claim that public spending is any better controlled than private spending in this regard is naive. As a risk analyst and economic analyst (both are synonymous)having worked in both domains, I can assure you that there is always an allowance for inefficiencies/corruptions, for either public or private projects. The fact that very few of these mega projects are undertaken in the private domain, is due to the very security requirements in place to protect the public purse. One can easily show "waste" as an after thought, but I cannot recall in my own experience, any mega project coming in, on either the exact timeline or cost line, as originally outlined. Reality is the opposite in most cases.
In addition general contractors and their subs, via the bidding processes, go through rigorous demands, such as posting bid and performance bonds, and labor and material bonds etc etc. Infrastructure would never be built if our society depended solely upon the private market and private banking? Nor for that matter if it insisted upon double checking every financial transaction within the developing projects maturation!
I can also assure you, that to control the linear economics of any mega project, it is the preference of all involved to use union labor, as they can be more depended upon, to readily comply with contract payroll specs, agreed to up front.
Also to talk about projects as being "long gone" is a misnomer. They are always "long gone" as they are usually constructed upon a B.O.T basis as essential to the society, and are therefore treated as long term investment in the progressing needs of that society. Such as Roads and dams and schools etc, etc, etc. The profit/expense motive is not therefore the main deciding factor, nor should it be! One cannot possibly quantify the benefits in monetary terms, of Americas highways and Dams and power installations etc? The generation that built these projects are "long gone" but the benefits to American society remain constant, do they not?
On your "carte blanche" condemnation of public employees as "lousy managers" etc . I find this curious, considering the disaster dumped upon the American economy by the mediocre "wunderkinde" in the private corporate and banking sectors, over the last 25 years? And yet you single out public employees as being the scoundrels?
This would also make a lie out of your claims that." ....... Public spending should be as well managed as the private sector, and there is good evidence that it is not....." You will need to convince me with some real evidence in a comparative manner, public to private over the last 30 years. I believe you will find it to be the opposite of your posit!
The bottom line is John that hindsight is 20/20 and journalists make a living out of this reality. I am not saying there is no place for journalism, but at times, their desire to produce a story, overtakes the integrity that is the practical truth.....?
Lou, I trust you will forgive my posting this my latest entry for publishing to my own site. It did have it's origins in our debate, and with John etc. I also believe that labor strife may well play a singularly important and decisive role, in the planning of future new and renewed infrastructure projects. The current animosity does not auger well for what will be an essential need for labor stability going forward?
ReplyDeleteUNIONS IN AMERICA..........." The attack upon collective bargaining".
I believe that the original intent and the purposes of the American Union movement, became as an essential cog in the arising of the great industrial power that the US grew to realize after the great depression.
That this genesis has morphed over the last 30 years, and seemingly in particular states, into an abusive system of some "entitlement mentality" amongst its members, is simply another indication of the pendulum swings of extremism that occurs when equality is abused, regardless of the ideological sectors or beliefs within American society.
Right or wrong, that is the truth as I believe it is unfolding, in this latest furor over Unions "collective bargaining" rights. Beginning in Wisconsin. It seems it will sweep the entire industrial sector across the U.S.
Unfortunately the cure for this extremism, which should be sensible regulation and common sense adjustment to entitlements, during these new tougher times etc , through debate and discussion, has become instead a cause celebre' for disingenuous politicians from all sides? It may add spice to the debate, but very rarely offers sensible compromise solutions?
To reestablish protections for both the worker and the community, should after all not need such virulent animosity? The pathos of blame and search for 'scapegoats' has entered the debate!
It appears that the American political realities of today, are those of extremism and not common sense solutions? The 'moderate voice' as we all know is seldom heard, over this hate filled rhetoric from both sides. Common sense and peaceful debate frankly "doesn't sell papers", to use an old aphorism.
The polarization of the American community at present, is without doubt founded in very real and severe wealth disparities. Real fear has entered the dynamic of the American worker at all levels, allowing blame and ridicule to rule over any sensible solution seeking? And it will not easily allow for any significant change, that is not seen to be formulated from an apparent and open "worker friendly" dialogue.
The enemy in this dynamic is seen to be the right, and of course the right maintain their questionable and I believe extreme approaches to economics! Which also supports their continued impractical insistence, that the masses of American workers are too soft, non productive, overpaid, over entitled etc etc. In essence they attack the workers with excessive verbosity and blame. Hardly an issue solving environment?
Unfortunately there are those politicians in this dynamic, who have grown and matured under a system that permitted this great economic disparity to grow. Thus they seek to satisfy their corporate benefactors, that helped elect them, with this tenor of confrontational demand upon the poorer and middle class workers, in those various jurisdictions where they have the current political power.
They ignore the cries of the worker for a leveling of access to opportunity, and security for them and their futures. These are no less genuine in America, than those of young people and workers around the world. A fact lost upon these new extreme right ideologues?
It is fear that drives this issue and for any right wing American politician to use attack dog tactics for political expediency, is inviting severe repercussions, hopefully short of violence!....continued;
cont:...............All of this being written, it is still a fact that the average American individual has for 30 years, Union worker and otherwise, been the beneficiary of an unreal "excessively exuberant" (to quote Greenspan) economic boom, that has basically crashed, and impoverished the entire Global capitalist system, with a debt tsunami that has not yet fully run it's course!
ReplyDeleteThe new dynamics of the good old "trickle down" dynasty, now forced to admit to this greed, and to pay for this exuberance, will obviously only trickle down the 'culpability' for this disaster, to the lower levels! As the wealthy, although somewhat affected, are again protected by their superior positioning over the boom period, and of course their reliance upon their 'money well spent' control of the ideological theater, that is the American electoral circus.
While the average middle class and poorer American unit, is to bear the major brunt of the subsequent debt load. Curious outcome indeed, but nonetheless these are the apparent Economic facts!
The people, in this case representing the vast majority of Americans, will continue to see increasing costs, lower incomes, reduced buying power and a loss of leverage in the workplace. Whether they lose pension and other entitlements or not, the future is certainly bleak for organized labor.
All this will of course serve the corporate purpose and one can then more easily understand therefore, the reasons for the right wings surge of evident confidence going forward. After all what choice do the people really have? Starve or work? It will be argued that a new competitive Global dynamic requires such sacrifice.
This may or may not be true, but for me this is no time to use attack dog tactics, upon a nation of workers that are entering into such a fragile and unsure future. Easy does it should be the motto! Otherwise real extremism may well raise it's ugly and violent head!
John, (I believe this compliments my positions and my (perhaps too) many commentaries on the need for sensible non divisive fiscal planning.)
ReplyDeleteComments from Reuters source: Bernanke's concerns.
"............... The Fed chairman’s message is a mix of the two: Draw up a rigorous deficit-reduction program, but delay its implementation until the economy is comfortably on track.
This also is the approach advocated by neutral observers of the U.S. situation, such as the International Monetary Fund and President Barack Obama’s debt-and-deficit commission.
The idea is to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. If investors are reasonably confident that U.S. politicians are serious about the country’s fiscal problems, they will continue to lend the government money at reasonable rates..............."
How does starting a war with labor follow this concept John?
I have great respect for Ben Bernanke and not much use for people that second guess him. The quote that you post makes quite a bit of sense. It also concerns me a great deal because I have trouble believing that U.S. politicians are serious about a “rigorous” deficit reduction plan.
ReplyDeleteI interpret Mr. Bernanke’s comments to mean that the deficit-reduction program should be in place soon – possibly before his QE2 program runs out so we have someone to buy our debt at reasonable rates when the Fed stops doing so. I will trust his judgment on when the economy is on track enough to implement it.
I see no possibility that this will happen. The only politicians serious about deficit reduction are the new ones that were elected in November -- the ones that are demonized by the left. The older ones are masters at “running out the clock”, giving it lip service until it fades from the public consciousness. There is just no public will to do this -- it takes leadership to do it -- and there is none in the US congress or in the White House for that matter. Look at the circus at finding $60 billion to cut this fiscal year. That is 4.6% of the deficit and 1.7% of the total spending. That is chump change compared to what needs to be done.
I have a question for you – how does starting a war with corporations fit into Mr. Bernanke’s comments or the job at hand?
To John C. You phrased your question as "how does starting a war with corporations. . "
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with the premise that the war was started against corporations. It's the opposite. Corporations have been waring against the individual worker for many years.
They have come to understand that, in order to better win the war (not that they ever were losing), they need laws in place that support their cause. They have, in some respects - taken a page from the public union concept of electing officials that will in tern give unions a better contract.
Corporation are spending considerable sums of money to influence the outcome of elections, which in tern influences the politicians they help elect. This of course allows the corporations to affect legislation and give themselves the advantage.
If you think this is just evening things out, I point you to any of the many posts I've made here that outlines how the rich have become richer over the past decade or three, while the majority of people have at best - stagnated living standards, and for many - lower living standards. How could that possibly happen if unions had so much control?
Follow the money my friend.
It may be a pipe dream, but I would love for James, you and I, to sit down and converse over a few beers sometime. :)
James, you are forgiven. :) Please continue to post to your hearts delight. (I hope you read my question to you in the other thread.)
ReplyDeleteI'd like to point you all to another good article from Fareed Zakaria, this time in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602924.html
In this blog, we are trying to spur reasonable debates and generate sound ideas that subscribe to relatively moderate positions. I think we are doing that.
It seems to be the opposite of what is mostly going on in the U.S. political theater. This idea is expressed in the book "Winner Take All Politics" by Jacob Hacker. I have not read this book yet, but it is on my list for summer reading, along with Robert Reich's "Aftershock".
I saw an interview with the author on Charlie Rose when the book was first published. Along with reading the comments about the book on Amazon, I have a pretty good idea of what it's about. The title itself is a direct hit on what is happening today. The far right is driving the arguments and defining a bogus concept: If you don't agree with their agenda, you must therefore believe in the exact opposite position, which they label as being socialist, communist, terrorist, etc.
That is logically incorrect; but worse, it is creating a lot of flawed arguments by forcing people (who are not thinking clearly) to get wrapped up in emotional debates rather than thoughtful discussions.
This results in a lot of misdirected energy, focused on the wrong issues. It's a mistake to fall into that trap. We must keep the dialog restrained, our comments respectful, our thoughts reasoned, and our facts referenced.
Hopefully we will be able to get more people involved on this and other similar blogs, and start a movement to bring the conversations back to the middle, which is where most people live and where most solutions will be found.
Lou,
ReplyDeleteObama started a “war” against corporations when he started running for office. When he got elected he quickly found that he was completely unprepared to fight it. He is now is trying to become best buddies because he realizes these are the people that create the jobs that he sorely needs to get reelected. I think he will continue his war either leading up to the next election or shortly thereafter – depending how the economy is doing.
You can go on and on about how corporations control things, the top 2% the top 1% etc. but the bottom line is that they create the jobs. Building a society on public sector employment does not work. Think the Middle East – where they despise corporations more than the Democrats here.
The reason that our standard of living is slipping has more to do with globalization and debt finally catching up to us that the inequality issue. The inequality issue is just a “talking point” that keeps Robert Reich wealthy. I digress but do you think that Robert Reich is one of the 2% -- the 1%? Oh that right -- he doesn’t run a corporation so he is OK.
Corporations own no duty to the US public – just like the public is not obligated to buy American. You always hear the drumbeat to “buy American” until the next sale at Walmart. Oh sure there are those few people that do “buy American” they just can’t afford to buy enough. I know this is a simple explination but you just cannot expect corporations to be good citizens and it is very difficult to force them to be good citizens either.
Now what I would like you to do is substitute the word “public sector unions” with the word “corporation” and “tax payer” where you mention ‘worker’ or ‘people’ in your post above. You will understand how I feel about what is happening in my wonderful State of California.
Follow the money indeed.
John,
ReplyDeleteYour commentary is a little fractious and a little weak. "Corporations owe no duty to the US public".. Really? Then what was their original purpose? Are not the vast majority of original shareholders in American corporations, Americans? How can you disconnect the society from its base of commerce? Are not the constructs of society the main protector of the capitalist free market system?
I believe you are falling into the usual defensive talking points espoused by the extreme right when the Noun "Corporate" is used. Please understand that modern "Corporatism" is not free market capitalism! As I have remarked upon in several of my articles and essays, and on this blog.They are a completely different animal than the progressive entrepreneurial driven corporation.
I refer you to the phrase " ....... mediocre men meeting behind closed doors and using socialist tactics, to dissemble the purity of the supply and demand dynamic of the capitalist system to their own selfish ends......." Paraphrased from several of my commentaries on the subject.
I believe I also addressed this in response to your query as to Obama meeting with the silicon set?
Also should you choose to investigate the issue further, I would steer you toward the history of the M&A sector over the last 30 years. With special emphasis upon the effects of major mergers on the societies within which they implemented their takeovers etc. In almost every case, there has been a resultant decrease in employment and a subsequent reduction in support for the social structures of the the community involved. This also has resulted in higher pricing for products originating from these corporations, with minor or no real significant increases in benefits to shareholders.
All healthy competition has been essentially eliminated from great sectors of the economy, as a result of this "accumulate at all costs" form of socialist corporatism! It is the epitome of the " too big to fail" dynamic. A phrase incidentally quite strongly used by the right, when tax payers funds where used to bail out these behemoths.I agreed then and still do with this principle.
One cannot now turn around and defend the very institutions that continue to threaten the security of the social order, and maintain their mantra of bigger is better! In other words nothing has changed and the right wing have now fallen (for 30 pieces of silver)in lockstep with this ideal of a Corporate America controlling everything, even the ideological rights of the voter to free and fair elections! I think your gun is out of bullets John......:-)
John and Lou, Here is some additional references that I hope you will find add to our ongoing debates.....;-)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/bhp_potash_attempt.pdf
http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/irelandeconomicwoes.pdf
".........So every one of these massive corporations is lead by a Socialist pod of self-interested management, enriching themselves with unlimited wages disconnected from performance, at the expense of everyone else,
including the company, the economy and overall society. Unless there is direct benefit to management, there will be no hiring. Unless there is a direct benefit to the management of banks, there will be no lending. Obama miscalculated when he tampered with the Pod's unlimited wage
entitlement. Extraordinary wages are a symptom of a problem, where a small socialist pod of mediocre men wield extraordinary power by hijacking the concentrating effects of the corporate structure.........."
John and Lou,
ReplyDeleteHere is an excellent article from the NY Times, and an American commentator, which goes to my overall theory, as to socialist style cadres at the highest levels of corporations and banks. I leave it to you to delve into the credibility of the American author. You may also need to access the Times' on line archives? Google Louise Story for access.
BUSINESS DAY | December 12, 2010
A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives
By LOUISE STORY
In theory, clearinghouses exist to safeguard the integrity of the multitrillion-dollar derivatives market. In practice, they also defend big banks' dominance...................
sorry but I am testing something here
ReplyDeleteCorporations owe no duty to the US public".. Really? Then what was their original purpose? Are not the vast majority of original shareholders in American corporations, Americans? How can you disconnect the society from its base of commerce? Are not the constructs of society the main protector of the capitalist free market system?
James,
ReplyDeleteLet me try to answer your questions and comments one by one
///"Corporations owe no duty to the US public".. Really? Then what was their original purpose? ///
The original purpose of is to generate a profit for their shareholders.
///Are not the vast majority of original shareholders in American corporations, Americans? ///
This is irrelevant and may or may not be true. If the shareholders were not Americans would you then agree with my statement? This could happen in the future.
///How can you disconnect the society from its base of commerce? Are not the constructs of society the main protector of the capitalist free market system?///
What in the h** are you saying here????
///I believe you are falling into the usual defensive talking points espoused by the extreme right when the Noun "Corporate" is used. Please understand that modern "Corporatism" is not free market capitalism!///
When I speak of corporations I mean businesses. Are we having a discussion on semantics here?
///As I have remarked upon in several of my articles and essays, and on this blog. They are a completely different animal than the progressive entrepreneurial driven corporation.///
I don’t have the time to pick thru all your writings. What is the term you use to define “entrepreneurial driven corporation” if it is not “Corporation”. I ask because this is what I mean when I use the term “Corporation”. Lets get our terms in sync.
////I refer you to the phrase " ....... mediocre men meeting behind closed doors and using socialist tactics, to dissemble the purity of the supply and demand dynamic of the capitalist system to their own selfish ends......." Paraphrased from several of my commentaries on the subject.////
This paragraph concerns me. It is starting to sound like you are describing some sort of conspiracy theory. These are the types of descriptions I read written by whacos when they discuss the trilateral commission, the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations. You know guys like Alex Jones….
///Also should you choose to investigate the issue further, I would steer you toward the history of the M&A sector over the last 30 years. ///
Two points on this. Do you have any evidence at all that M&A activity was a grand scheme developed by “Corporations”. Why could it not have been just a normal evolutional development in business activity?
Secondly, I noticed your reference to 30 years. In thinking back to your and other commentary on these issues, 30 years is the timeframe usually referenced in statistical arguments against inequality and “Corporations”. Ronald Regan was elected 30 years ago. Is there any relation?
///It is the epitome of the " too big to fail" dynamic. A phrase incidentally quite strongly used by the right, when tax payers funds where used to bail out these behemoths.I agreed then and still do with this principle.///
So you agree with bailing out “Corporations” and the “too big to fail” concept or not?
/// In other words nothing has changed and the right wing have now fallen (for 30 pieces of silver)in lockstep with this ideal of a Corporate America controlling everything, even the ideological rights of the voter to free and fair elections!///
Again what are you saying??? More conspiracy theory???
James, I hear a lot of demagoguery from you but very little evidence aside from some very general statistics with little detailed cause and effect analysis. I am not going to dig thru all your writings so if you have given some detailed cause and effect analysis please copy and paste them here. I am sure you are much better equipped to find them than I.
John,
ReplyDeleteI have commented quite often and very clearly to you in past portions of this blog as to the definitions of entrepreneurial free market capitalism and the current socialist corporatism? And since you and I and lou are the only participants, I cannot understand your not being willing to refer back. The Blogsite is not that old...:-)
I do take some exception to your attempts to now pigeon hole me as some sort of Whacko conspiracy theorist? At the very least I would have expected you to have visited my site and viewed my bio? I am a pure capitalist of the old school. I am a trained economic and risk analyst and for 44 years have been watching economic history develop.
Now to some of your points:
1.
A business is established to create value for it's founders. economics 101. A public corporation however, is established to expand that value and through share issuance, spread the ability to create further value, amongst a broader base of like minded investors/stockholders. It was also the chosen "best medium" originally, to offer an exit scenario for the capital requirements of the founders.
Today the public market is a speculators paradise and stockholders of corporations have little real say in the business of business!
2.
:The "constructs of society" refers to our plurality decision methods of establishing rules of order, (Laws constitutions etc) for all matters pertaining to any activity permitted by these constructs, for the benefit of society in general. Capitalism is a tool of society and was originally divined from our ancestral basic barter trade, for the benefit of the whole of a society!
3.
"30 year time frame".... This coincides with the fall of the soviet empire and the rise of the American "stand alone power" dynastic historical model. Basically regardless of which ideologue was in the White house, the whole period stands as the significant period that free market capitalism became an out of control (by any constructs of society) "excessively exuberant corporatism" to quote Greenspan. That corporations grew and expanded their power, was not in any deliberate "conspiratorial design" but was in essence, simply in the failure of our laws and the constructs of any decent society to rein in this "excessive exuberance".
They therefore achieved power beyond any original intent or desire by the majority of the society. In essence out of control capitalism is as dangerous to the health of society as any out of control entity or institution (e.g; militarism) that can no longer be controlled by the basic constructs of a society.......... There is no evidence of some evil conspiracy as you put it, but certainly I do not need to expound upon the corruptive effects of excessive power do I?
The evidence of corporate malfeasance is all around us, and you would need to be very blind to not be aware of it's insidious effects upon your own economy and your own neighborhoods.
4.
I do NOT believe in the bail out mentality. "Too big to fail" is a nonsense perpetrated upon the unwitting citizens of the United states by the powers in control...."corporatists!" "Small groups of mediocre power hungry men making socialist style decisions in the boardrooms of the nation" as I have said so many times to you already............! cont;
cont;.........
ReplyDelete5.
The right wing republican party of today is not even a conservative political entity. At least NOT any conservatism I am familiar with? For you to accuse me of demagoguery is astounding! I believe you are ignoring history and the evidence which is all around you, if you are willing to do a little work to investigate. I am not going to do it for you.
I am on the record, and all of my writings and evidences and references and statistics, are drawn from a life time of experience and are freely available to you or anyone on my website. It would be a full time job for me to begin to teach you economics and the laws of "cause and effect". If you are unable to see the obvious evidence of this law upon your own community, then I fear it wold be a waste of time.
You must first set aside your rigid ideological positions and beliefs and begin to see the practical reality of the dissembling of your democratic societal constructs by perhaps even well meaning, UBER rich, who feel that the masses cannot be left to decide the fate of a nation!....Sound familiar at all?
All sides of the story need to be viewed without the prejudices of ideology.
John, Here is a piece from my website which clearly outlines my positions on conspiracy theorists..... By the way how old are you? Do you have a professional designation? BIO C.V etc?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/bilderbergconspiracy.pdf
John,
ReplyDeleteHere is a small essay, again from my site. Hardly makes me a demagogue but perhaps with age I have become who I am. An honest critic of the waste and terrible consequences of excessive greed and accumulation at all costs!
http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/poverty_vs_capitalism_an_essay.pdf
James,
ReplyDeleteYou asked a couple of personal questions and for my bio. I am 54 years old. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering. I have been working since graduation at 23 yrs old. I have spent most of my career in the Property Insurance Industry. I worked overseas for a short while early in my career and enjoy travelling overseas with my wife when we get the opportunity. I enjoy donating to Kiva. If you are not familiar with this website you should investigate it. If you join please become a member of the “stuff you should know” team.
I have read five of the essays that you have posted in this blog. These are:
The conspiracy of the corporations
The Bilderberg Conspiracy …. Commentary
Irelands’s economic woes: December 7th, 2010
A response to the articles in the Globe and Mail, regarding the BHP attempts to acquire the Canadian Potash giant.
Poverty vs. Capitalism – An Essay
All seem to be your observations and theories of the corporate world and its involvement in the troubles we are currently facing. In all of these writing and words I could find only one reference to a solution. This was in your Poverty vs. Capitalism essay. The excerpt is below:
////How to do this? it is simple. Become actively involved in your community affairs! Everybody needs to be sure they vote for instance! Imagine what 100% voter turnout would look like, and if everyone voted only for those people that understand these realities. A new groundswell of "people power" if you like. It seems simple, and it really is the only power left to avoid enslavement to corporate idealism, or "Predatory accumulation!"///
This is your solution to corporatism? -- 100% voter turnout.
This leads me to the definition of demagogue.
////A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.////
Which part of this definition do you disagree with? Would populist or a supporter of populism be a better definition?
I am not disputing your observations so much as your inability or unwillingness to discuss a solution to the problem.
A couple of other comments.
///I do take some exception to your attempts to now pigeon hole me as some sort of Whacko conspiracy theorist?///
It never entered my mind that you were a whacko conspiracy theorist. The paragraph that I referenced and one further on sounded like conspiracy theory but I am clearer on you position now.
///"30 year time frame".... This coincides with the fall of the soviet empire and the rise of the American "stand alone power" dynastic historical model.///
The fall of the soviet empire was in 1991 20 years ago. The fall of the Berlin wall was in 1989 22 years ago. So why do your theories rely on statistics that precede this by 10 years?
////"excessively exuberant corporatism" to quote Greenspan.///
Did Greenspan actually say this? When?
This comment:
///I do NOT believe in the bail out mentality. "Too big to fail" is a nonsense perpetrated upon the unwitting citizens of the United states by the powers in control..../////
Last Comment
///It is the epitome of the " too big to fail" dynamic. A phrase incidentally quite strongly used by the right, when tax payers funds where used to bail out these behemoths. I agreed then and still do with this principle.///
Now you are really confusing the issue. What principal do you agree with here?
////I believe you are ignoring history and the evidence which is all around you, if you are willing to do a little work to investigate.////
No solutions?
////If you are unable to see the obvious evidence of this law upon your own community, then I fear it would be a waste of time.///
No solutions
///You must first set aside your rigid ideological positions and beliefs///
This is an interesting comment. And what is my rigid ideological position and belief? -- Other than challenging your rigid ideological
John C, I'd like to respond to your statement "The reason that our standard of living is slipping has more to do with globalization and debt finally catching up to us that the inequality issue. The inequality issue is just a “talking point” that keeps Robert Reich wealthy."
ReplyDeleteI very much agree that is the reason why our standard of living is slipping. I have stated the exact same thing several times on this blog.
However, the "inequality" issue is real, and what is important is the details behind why it is happening. To restate something Ross Perot used to say, it's important to understand the cause of a problem before you can fix it. Otherwise, you risk spending time and energy (i.e., money) on the wrong things.
First off, assuming our shared premise is generally correct, then it is inaccurate to say that government is primarily responsible, isn't it? It is not government regulation per say, that is the primary cause of job loss. If you disagree with that statement, then you are contradicting yourself. I welcome your comments to clarify your position.
Lou, It would be even more fair to say;
ReplyDelete....." it has been the failure and eradication of proper government regulatory oversight per se', that has been the proximate cause of the dissembling of the employment dynamic and the fraying of the societal fabric of the American middle and working class..."
The ideological trauma originating with the trickle down theories of the early Reagan years. People lionize Reagan, but once again his iconic status as a great fiscal conservative president, is not really accurate nor earned?
courtesy wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteReagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[14] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[15] As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 [16] and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.[17] In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion,[18] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[20]..........
James,
ReplyDeleteRe your question
/// First off, assuming our shared premise is generally correct, then it is inaccurate to say that government is primarily responsible, isn't it? It is not government regulation per say, that is the primary cause of job loss. If you disagree with that statement, then you are contradicting yourself. I welcome your comments to clarify your position.///
I am not sure if I am interpreting your statement correctly. I believe I am in agreement with what you say. Government regulation is not the cause of job loss. In fact lack of enforcement of the rules is what caused the massive recession that we just experienced. However, I do believe that government is responsible for the massive debt that is catching up with us and their failure to deal with it will be our undoing. Talk about “mediocre men”. There are plenty "medicore men" in the public sector too?
I am afraid that I am going to have to reduce my participation in this discussion for a little while. My wife has some aging parents and it is taking quite a bit of our time to sort out their arrangements.
Before I leave I wanted to answer the personal questions you asked and give a little of my bio per your request. I am 54 years old. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering. I have been working steadily since graduation at 23 yrs old. I have spent most of my career in the Property Insurance Industry. I worked overseas for a short while early in my career and enjoy travelling overseas with my wife when we get the opportunity. I enjoy donating to Kiva. If you are not familiar with this website you should investigate it. If you join please become a member of the “stuff you should know” team.
I am also a great admirer of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Its goals for combating poverty, hunger and improving education are much more important than the “inequality” issue. I have no doubt that this foundation will do more to improve the situation in these areas than any government entity. Please support their efforts.
First off, assuming our shared premises is generally correct, then it is inaccurate to say that government is primarily responsible, isn’t it? It is not government regulation per say that is the primary cause of job loss. If you disagree with this statement, then you are contradicting yourself. I welcome your comments to clarify your position
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that I am interpreting your statement correctly. I believe I am in agreement with what you say. Government regulation is not the cause of job loss. In fact lack of enforcement of the rules is what caused the massive recession that we just experienced. However, I do believe that government is responsible for the massive debt that is catching up with us and their failure to deal with it will be our undoing. Talk about “mediocre men”. Are you sure there are not a few of them that escaped from the board room into the public sector?
I am afraid that I am going to have to reduce my participation in this discussion for a little while. My wife has some aging parents and it is taking quite a bit of our time to sort out their arrangements.
Before I leave I wanted to answer the personal questions and give a little of my bio per your request. I am 54 years old. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering. I have been working steadily since graduation at 23 yrs old. I have spent most of my career in the Property Insurance Industry. I worked overseas for a short while early in my career and enjoy travelling overseas with my wife when we get the opportunity. I enjoy donating to Kiva. If you are not familiar with this website you should investigate it. If you join please become a member of the “stuff you should know” team.
I am also a great admirer of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. His goals for combating poverty, hunger and improving education are much more important than the “inequality” issue. I have no doubt that this foundation will do more to improve the situation in these areas than any government entity. Please support his efforts.
Why can't I post?
ReplyDeleteI am afraid that I am going to have to reduce my participation in this discussion for a little while. My wife has some aging parents and it is taking quite a bit of our time to sort out their arrangements.
ReplyDeleteBefore I leave I wanted to answer the personal questions and give a little of my bio per your request. I am 54 years old. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering. I have been working steadily since graduation at 23 yrs old. I have spent most of my career in the Property Insurance Industry. I worked overseas for a short while early in my career and enjoy travelling overseas with my wife when we get the opportunity. I enjoy donating to Kiva. If you are not familiar with this website you should investigate it. If you join please become a member of the “stuff you should know” team.
I am also a great admirer of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. His goals for combating poverty, hunger and improving education are much more important than the “inequality” issue. I have no doubt that this foundation will do more to improve the situation in these areas than any government entity. Please support his efforts.
I am not sure that I am interpreting your statement correctly. I believe I am in agreement with what you say. Government regulation is not the cause of job loss. In fact lack of enforcement of the rules is what caused the massive recession that we just experienced. However, I do believe that government is responsible for the massive debt that is catching up with us and their failure to deal with it will be our undoing. Talk about “mediocre men”. Are you sure there are not a few of them that escaped from the board room into the public sector?
ReplyDeleteThe "inequality" issue is a set of statistical observations used to create a populist position to get the Democratic Party elected/reelected. People that discuss this subject are long on rhetoric and short on solutions
ReplyDeleteJohn C, sorry to hear abour your wife's parents. I wish her and you all the best possible outcome. I have been down that road with both of my parents and my wife, so I understand.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information about Kiva. I will look it up.
We in agreement about job loss, and also mostly in agreeent about the debt. Yes, government is responsible for it, per say. But the underlying reasons for it are complex and not easily assigned "blame".
I look forward to your continued participation in our blog when you have the time.
@John,"
ReplyDelete....This is an interesting comment. And what is my rigid ideological position and belief? -- Other than challenging your rigid ideological...."
I can hold no "ideological" position on American politics? I am after all not a voter? My views are as an economist and as Global analyst. You have on the other hand stated on numerous occasions, that you believe strongly in the new rights economic views, (in the last elections in your country), at least as it refers to this stream? I call this "rigid" as it is hardly a Global perspective? It is definitely, an ideologically much narrower viewpoint in this regard, than my own views?
@John
ReplyDelete".....The "inequality" issue is a set of statistical observations used to create a populist position to get the Democratic Party elected/reelected. People that discuss this subject are long on rhetoric and short on solutions....."
There are no such things as "statistical observations"! In economics, mathematics being as pure a form of science as can be applied, statistics are held to account as accurate truths by equations, that are either valid or invalid. The "widening Gap" as you and Lou call it, refers to the increasing accumulation of wealth, by an ever decreasing % of the Global population. This, as any economist will verify, is a fact of modern economics, as it applies to our current anglo saxon capitalist model. It refers to economic disparity. The great transfer of wealth in your own country began effectively during the early Reagan years, (as i pointed out on this stream.) As a Global phenomenon it has it's origins in empirical economics, common to the older servile state systems of Europe. I recommend an interesting article to help explain this concept.http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/thepostmodernfinancialcrisis.pdf
@ John,
ReplyDeleteOn "too big to fail".. I thought I was clear on this. It is my contention that corporations should not have the unfettered right to grow exponentially or any right to survive simply because of their size! To be able to grow as the sole motive toward control, accumulation and/or increasing their bottom lines without an awareness as to the effects upon Global dynamics, is unsustainable madness!
I have postulated that the effects of such growth upon the social structure and the populace, should have a more significant effect on this dynamic. I am not the only economist or analyst that holds this view.
For reference as to the last comment; see the writings of J Stiglitz PHD econ. Paul Volcker.Phd econ, Roy Mundell PhD econ, (Nobelists) and many others.
ReplyDelete@John,
ReplyDeleteYour definition of demagogue. ////A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.////
Which part of this definition do you disagree with? Would populist or a supporter of populism be a better definition?........ (No definitley not!)
I do not disagree with the definition..... All politicians fit this definition. I am at a loss as to why you applied it to me in the context of our ongoing debate. I consider it a bit of a low blow....:-)
@John, Yours
ReplyDelete........The "inequality" issue is a set of statistical observations used to create a populist position to get the Democratic Party elected/reelected. People that discuss this subject are long on rhetoric and short on solutions.......
John this is indeed a very "party talking point" comment and equally disingenuous as it shows little knowledge of the issue. Firstly "statistical observations"is a misnomer, at least as it refers to the economic issues of factual mathematics.
Wealth inequality as an issue, has been around for centuries and owes it's origins to the old empirical servile models of the early European class based societies. When America began to apply, via tax policies of the early Reagan era, this form of old style economic tradition, under the new name of "trickledown economics" or later "Reaganomics" there was an immediate backlash and many economists warned of the ultimate catastrophe this would bring.
They were of course not listened to and the party line became, that anything opposite to the "new" economics of the Reagan era, was paramount to communism and simply empty leftist rhetoric!
This is still the empty logic that you are employing here John? You accuse me of not offering solutions, when everything I write is to show that the solution is obvious.
A redistribution of wealth and more equitable application of capital distribution across a broader base of the economic model is what is required. There is no other solution to the endless deficits and what will become levels of poverty not seen since the previously mentioned empire states of old.
Even Reagan understood that his economic model was flawed in that it created a deficit dynamic. He virtually apologized for this. Greenspan has also said he was wrong! How many mea culpas does it take until sensible economic models return to the US economy?
@John.... Yours //"excessively exuberant corporatism" to quote Greenspan
ReplyDeleteGreenspan used this phraseology on numerous occasions, quite famously in 96 when his comments rocked the global markets. Perhaps I should have said "paraphrasing Greenspan." Nonetheless his senate appearance in 2009 clearly indicated his belief and "shock" that the financial industry in particular had functioned in an excessively exuberant manner, as did the mortgage industry, when it came to the valuation of assets and securities.
@ John, Yours "...........The fall of the soviet empire was in 1991 20 years ago. The fall of the Berlin wall was in 1989 22 years ago. So why do your theories rely on statistics that precede this by 10 years?......."
ReplyDeleteDo not these events "coincide" with the arrival of the "shining house on the hill" era of Reagan and his evil empire approach to the soviet state at the time? It was also the beginning of Trickle down economics and the great reliance by Greenspan and Paul Roberts and others, upon Ayn Rands philosophies of a totally free unregulated and unfettered marketplace? You disagree?
John Thank you for your testings. You are a pistol and i trust I have been up to the task and have answered you adequately. I wish you and your family well and all the best.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, at 19 (1966) I first began working as a young trainee property and casualty underwriter with the old Phoenix of london Group.... You see we could have much in common.....:-)
Lou & James,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your best wishes and belated Happy St. Paddys day to you James.
I am sorry about all the duplicate and triplicate postings. I was having trouble posting then all of a sudden everything posted. Not sure what happened.
I will continue to check in but am afraid I will not be posting in detail for a little while.
To John C, I went into the "spam" folder and found a bunch of messages from you and James in there. I have no idea why that happened; I don't know how it determines when to put a comment into the spam folder and when to just publish it. So, when I saw them there, I published them.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't gone into the spam folder in a while because I thought that issue had resolved itself; but, apparently not. I'll try to look there more often and make sure any of your comments that get sent there (for whatever reason) get published in a more timely fashion.
As to your comments that I offer no solutions? I believe my march 3rd steam did so as follows.
ReplyDeleteJohn, It is all about perception and practical reality!
Other nations do not attack their citizens rights, to collective bargaining, or access to healthcare, or rights to pensions. America is viewed as being an anti people and pro corporation, pro war and American Global Corporate interests only "manifest destiny" nation, in it's interactions with the rest of the planet. In this century in particular.
Perhaps you misunderstood my comment as to "the ill timed and divisive focus of the republicans on the deficit". Their voodoo economic proposals to solve the deficit problems, are at present making American economic leaders appear as idiots on the Global scene! Everyone in my discipline agrees, that their narrow minded focus upon what are really minor social ideological issues, and not upon economic fixes for the real issues confronting America, is a "dead wrong" policy approach!
Those real issues,...... " are the reenergizing of the most conspicuous consumer society in the world today. The rebuilding of the industrial heart of the nation, through research and development and stimulation of free enterprise and the entrepreneurial sector. Job growth through a renewal program, that upgrades the entire society's infrastructure and prepares it's educational segment to produce well educated youth to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Massive correction of it's out of control banking and financial services sector. Free trade with it's neighbors and the forming of a trade bloc that can compete for the future, with the Euro zone and the burgeoning Asian bloc dynamos of India and China et al. DO this and the deficit will look after itself!......"
This mean spirited same old republican plan to divide the nations peoples against each other and break unionism, is counter productive to growth and a healthy community. Their ideologically side driven issues of illegal immigration, Gun control, healthcare, medicare and medicaid and birth control, pension entitlements and God knows what else, may all be legitimate issues for debate, but not at this crucial time when America teeters on the brink of financial disaster. Now is not the time to be initiating internal confrontation! Now is the time for cooperative planning and sensible connection to practical reality. Your nation and it's general populace is going broke, while the top 1% are still laughing........... all the way to the banks. Who are also still laughing!
Their neglect of the true fiscal reality and abuse of power by the top 1% of the nation is seen as ludicrous by most external commentators. This left right nonsense in the body politic, is also unnerving the financial markets all over the world and American credibility is suffering accordingly. Investors are racing into Asia and Europe at an incredible pace. Meanwhile the republican party, the so called party of business is focused upon dismantling those very social systems and structures, that made America the most admired country on the planet in the last century. While they ignore the real problems that need immediate attention!
Watching their agenda unfold is like watching history repeat itself. They have no new ideas. Everything they have in their plans is the same ideological nonsense they have been spewing forever. At least in my living memory. It didn't work in the past and it is doomed to failure again! This time America cannot afford it however! The pettiness has to stop and the real work of building a nation must be the priority for all of them in Washington!...continued
March 3, 2011 10:31 AM
James,
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean to ask is how would you change things?
For instance you and Lou seem to be very angry at the 1%. So what, specifically, do you do about it? Tax the hell out of them? Confiscate their wealth? Regulate salaries? It will help me understand your position if you could be as specific as possible?
I have another question for you guys too. Do you invest in stocks or mutual funds? If so, and given your distaste for corporations, how do you decide which corporations are worthy of your investment? If you don't then maybe I can see why you are so angry at corpations and the 1%.
John, Your question is in two parts I shall address the second first. As the query about the top 1% is more of a fiscal matter that does involve economic modeling and some common sense.
ReplyDeleteI am not 'angry' at corporations that do business and compete every day for their "daily bread"? I invest in them, to answer your question and so does Warren Buffet! I thought I was explicitly clear that my anger is at what the oh so many large bilious US corporations have become! Bloated socialist behemoths that have wrapped themselves around your nations throat, and bled the wealth of the country dry from gerrymandering, mismanagement and criminal financial practices! There environs are not the purity of the competitive free enterprise marketplace, but rather to focus on achieving control of the state, in order to better protect their dominion over all national industry and the state itself.
Your national Chamber of commerce is now soliciting donations from outside the US to add to this new power dynamic. I can assure you this is true as I have witnessed it myself.
As I said before they are no longer businesses that simply focus on business, but spend more time plotting and manipulating, through lobbyists and direct interventions, in assuring themselves of control of your entire political and social dynamic, regardless of party. They are attempting this same plan Globally. Although it seems the U.S Republicans have the inside track in most cases, as their policies seem now directly designed to negate the human equation entirely! The pendulum of power in your nation has swung decidedly to the corporate state and mark my words, this is the death knell for your free democracy!
Unless of course you can vote in men and women, that understand the dangers. The democratic process is still fortunately the only real salvation and that is why I believe a 100% well informed voter turnout/participation is essential.
Your supreme court has even now added to their already excessive economic power by granting them, what I consider to be, a "special status" not available to them anywhere else in the world! They are now considered as important as the individual. Which to me amounts to sacrilege! In my opinion it is against everything your founding fathers intended and included into your constitution.
I help to administer a multi national corporation (please see my bio) We are not involved in any direct way, nor do we focus any energy in the political machinations of any country. We do no business in or with the United states, other than buying heavy mining equipment on occasion.
My position within the company permits me to steer us toward what I consider to be a socially responsible organization. We do not attempt ever to avoid regulation as it effects the social order. Equally we hold our employees worldwide as essential to our health and security. We view them as partners to our development. We also do not donate to political parties as a matter of policy. We do donate to our workers chosen charities and associations.
Our chosen home base is Germany. I am Canadian Irish, and my partners are Israeli, German and Mexican. Our industry is a dangerous industry (mining primarily). To date we have not one single fatality in our operations.(10 years) Perhaps we have been lucky but I believe our attitude toward risk management is the key to our record. That and the fact that we value the human equation, above the profit margin!
John.......As to your query about the 1%.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid you tend to " "personalize" this issue as if we are talking about thousands of hardworking diligent and industrious persons. For the record, I have no problem with wealthy people! If you would but do a little study however, as to how few people hold this vast wealth, it would "scare the bejasus" out of you.(Pardon my Irish)
Some individuals certainly, through guile and intellect, have no doubt "earned" vast wealth in their own lifetime. These are very few and far between. That most inherited the beginnings of their vast fortunes is the more accurate truth.
The problem is not that so much wealth is concentrated to this small percentile, but that the levels of poverty and starvation and degradation of the human spirit is on the increase, around the world. That so many wealthy and indeed perhaps even not so wealthy, feel no direct responsibility to aid their fellow man, or to battle this pending Global pandemic of poverty and starvation and illness, is the conundrum. Charitable donations that may serve to assuage guilt aside, they are but a pittance against the massive efforts required. We need a Global effort to solve this problem.
That states are not willing to advance, nor even it seems to debate the equations of a leveling of opportunity and access to health and welfare for all humanity is the issue. For instance that 400 individuals in the U.S. hold the same value in financial terms, as 1/3 of the total population (110 million plus) of the country, should be a little disconcerting, given the Global expansion of disease, poverty and hunger as well as this same dynamic becoming increasingly now more prevalent domestically?
Interesting that the 400 will continue to increase their wealth while the 1/3 will become closer to 1/2 over the next decade. What we are looking at is a dynamic that will result in revolutionary upheaval within the next 25 years if something is not done to arrest this trend. In many countries the civil commotion has already begun!
How to fix it. Obviously each nation and state must begin by recognizing that the problem exists and that it is a problem. In America it is very difficult to achieve this recognition. Tax policy reform is a first initial solution to an immediate attack on the problem, but the entire economic model of Global capitalism requires a redesign. I touched upon this in my piece "A new economic format is required" available at my site. Joseph Stiglitz and many other prominent economists, also believe as I do and I urge you to investigate the subject for yourself.
I stress that this is not a problem that is about a few wealthy people. The 1% factor is about the inability of people to recognize the debilitating effects of the continuance of this "conspicuous consumerism" model that has been inflicted upon mankind for so long, and is so blatantly unsustainable, if mankind and his democratic societies are to survive. Otherwise we are looking at servile states not seen since the dark ages.
John
ReplyDeleteHere is a definition of "demagogue" with which I can agree wholeheartedly, and which I believe applies more readily to your American electioneering dynamic, than to my humble attempts to expose the real truth.
"......20th-century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots......"
Lou I posted a rather lengthy second part to Johns queries. It has not appeared?
ReplyDeleteLou. It says at the top of this that there are 49 comments yet on the cover seion listing all it shows 55 comments for tis topic? I believe you still have some locked in a spam file? cheers james
ReplyDeleteJohn,(and Lou) Here is an excellent piece from Forbes back in 2009. Regarding the factors of the potential effects upon democracy of the top 1%
ReplyDeleteetc etc .
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/03/rich-sat-income-inequality-opinions-columnists-middle-class.html?partner=email
James,
ReplyDeleteI hope there is some specific suggestions on how to correct things in your lost message. I am quickly getting quite bored of the same rhetoric post after post.
I do understand that you think that many corporations are too big so I presume that these are the ones you don't invest in. Can you name a couple that you think are socially irresponsible and why. As always, specifics are much more enlightnening to me if this is possible.
James,
ReplyDeleteI liked the forbes article. This guy is not afraid to offer solutions and I respect that. One of the suggestions I liked was to separate health insurance from employment. You do know why this happened in the USA don’t you? Anyway it is silly to tie health insurance to employment. The problem with replacing it with a public option is that our government has been so poor at managing its money we cannot afford to fund a public option now.
The other suggestion that deserves discussion is education availability for lower income people. Statistics show that less educated people are the ones most hurt by economic downturns. It this last recession College Educated people were hardly effected. The ones without education were creamed.
The problem is that our current education systems, as it currently stands, is so bad. Bill Gates has some really good ideas on the education subject.
JOHN C yours (somewhat impolite if I may say) " ..... . I am quickly getting quite bored of the same rhetoric post after post........"
ReplyDeleteI am a also becoming a little tired of offering solutions and your not either understanding them, or you are not reading my material? Might I suggest you do a little research on my points as well. I have always answered your specific questions one after the other. Which takes a great deal of time and effort and for which you appear to be unappreciative? You insist on accusing me of producing nothing more than rhetoric? Not once have you produced any counterpoints that are valid or will stand up to my "rhetoric"...?
As for corporations that fit the socialist model: There are many many more than this, but frankly I haven't the ambition to try to convince you any longer.
Goldman sachs
Koch Brothers
B.P Petroleum
Chevron
US Chamber of commerce
G.M
The Murdoch group
John....... Is this not offering a solution? From a previous post!
ReplyDelete.......the reenergizing of the most conspicuous consumer society in the world today. The rebuilding of the industrial heart of the nation, through research and development and stimulation of free enterprise and the entrepreneurial sector. Job growth through a renewal program, that upgrades the entire society's infrastructure and prepares it's educational segment to produce well educated youth to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Massive correction of it's out of control banking and financial services sector. Free trade with it's neighbors and the forming of a trade bloc that can compete for the future, with the Euro zone and the burgeoning Asian bloc dynamos of India and China et al. DO this and the deficit will look after itself!......" OR HOW ABOUT THIS?
.......How to fix it. Obviously each nation and state must begin by recognizing that the problem exists and that it is a problem. In America it is very difficult to achieve this recognition. Tax policy reform is a first initial solution to an immediate attack on the problem, but the entire economic model of Global capitalism requires a redesign. I touched upon this in my piece "A new economic format is required" available at my site. Joseph Stiglitz and many other prominent economists, also believe as I do and I urge you to investigate the subject for yourself......... CONT;
CONT; Again from this same stream. (Another "solution" you missed?)
ReplyDelete"............. You accuse me of not offering solutions, when everything I write is to show that the solution is obvious.
A redistribution of wealth and more equitable application of capital distribution across a broader base of the economic model is what is required. There is no other solution to the endless deficits and what will become levels of poverty not seen since the previously mentioned empire states of old.
Even Reagan understood that his economic model was flawed in that it created a deficit dynamic. He virtually apologized for this. Greenspan has also said he was wrong! How many mea culpas does it take until sensible economic models return to the US economy?.............
Not to mention that I listed on several occasions answers to your specific points and you continue to respond that i am simply positing rhetoric. It would seem John, that you do not know how to read or to interpret the english language? I tried an obviously failed to inspire you to think.
James,
ReplyDeleteMy appologies for being an annoyance to you. I am slowly realizing that we have different view of things. My thought process involves details yours involves a higher level of thinking.
For instance when you say you want a redistribution of wealth I want to know more specifically what income level are you suggesting to take from, how much do you take and who do you give it to. When you talk of more equitable application of capital distribution I want to know who's capital are distributing (corporations and uber rich I presme), how you would do it (are you talking about something that will take another 30 yrs to implement or immediately) and what you expect the end result to look like (broader tax base I presume).
That's the way I think. If you want to say that that I can't interpret the english language or that I don't think that's fine. But understand that is what is going on.
Would it be fair to ask what you think of the Deficit Commission recommendations? I'm just curious and it really does not have to be a lenghty answer.
James,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your list of irresponsible corporations. All very slimy in my opinion. Again, at the risk of being a further annoyance, are there coprorations that you feel do not fit the socialist model. A couple would be fine -- I'm asking because I'm not sure if your theory is that all corporations now fit the socialist model or just a vast majority. A few "good" corporation examples would clairify my thinking.
Again, my regrets for not seeming to be appreciated of our time. I do realize that you spend a lot of time here, and probably have much better things to do. Your willingness to engage me on these subjects is appreciated.
Let me restate the last paragraph above because it is important.
ReplyDeleteAgain, my regrets for not seeming to be appreciative of your time. I do realize that you spend a lot of time here, and probably have much better things to do. Your willingness to engage me on these subjects IS appreciated
You seem insistent on me commenting on your American economy with specific rec's or opinions on fixes? My training, expertise and experience is to overview from an analysis standpoint on a Global economic basis. This makes any specific solution recommendations very difficult, due to the varying complexities of the problems within the American dynamic?
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would be easier to say that corporations, born in the older model of American expansionism, seem to more readily fit the mold of non social entities that I refer to. Specific definition therefore, could be " any corporations that have grown and become used to directing their efforts and energies, as part of their raison detre', toward a control of the ideological and political debates of any nation". Rather than participating in its sustenance and renewal or revival!
The solution would be therefore logically, to bar any corporations from such activities. I agree that Unions should be equally barred from influencing directly the same dynamic. This alone becomes a very complex issue, just based upon the historical realities of the American electoral system, and of course your recent supreme court ruling on the issue which leaves a lot of us "outsiders" dumbfounded?
What would be the best solution? Perhaps a publicly funded electoral process with a cap on maximum expenditures? Hope this is a little more understandable.
I have always avoided positing exact recommendations, as this can appear to be an arrogance from someone (Foreigner) with no "skin in the game".
The American electoral processes are entirely too complicated and seemingly never ending from this outsiders viewpoint!
As to your comments and queries as to "my solutions" for a more equitable distribution of capital across a broader spectrum of society etc.etc.
ReplyDeleteObviously again this is an extremely complex issue. Certainly tax policy is a part of the solution but only a small part. The solutions involve the entirety of the capitalist system, of which tax is only one issue.
Your query itself would appear to be simplistic, as to the "ownership" of wealth? That is the base view, that some have it and some don't! This is hardly my issue as an economic analyst. I spend more energy on the defining of the ownership of the productive wealth of the entire community. Money is printed by the state and in fact at it's origin, belongs to the entire community.
Accumulation factors today are therefore and obviously askew, whereby a small group can accumulate so much of these "promissory notes" of the community, at the expense of the majority? This is socially a very dangerous dynamic and history has shown that this imbalance always results in civil commotion, riots and ultimately revolutions and wars!
Thinking in these terms, one can see that the argument that someone is losing in order for someone else to benefit, is a little disingenuous, since it is the entire community that should be benefiting from the wealth of that communities combined efforts? This is and always has been the purpose of capitalism....To benefit the entirety of the populace and to assure the individual's security, health and welfare as well as that of the state.
That economists and philosophers, have for centuries debated proper structures for this purpose, is the little "big" debate. Aristotle and plato set the stage for this debate centuries ago.
In my opinion and those of many other economists. American economic realities since the end of WW2 have brought your nation to the point it is at present. The pendulum of power and wealth has indeed gone out of balance and needs correction to avoid a disaster. No "sensible" person disagrees with this premise....... The question you ask "How to do it"?
That those with great wealth would hinder any effort to realign the balance is understandable, given human nature. That the trickle down economics of the last 30 years has been the culprit is without doubt. Yet there are still many that want to continue the status quo, and they now have, due to their great wealth, the ideological and political power in their control as well.
I have no solution to offer to this dynamic, as it is squarely in the hands of the American voter. Who to believe? Who is telling the truth? This is the story of your entire nations current debate. I only offer you an outsiders view and opinion.
I believe that the American economy is held captive by the excesses of corporatism, excessive wealth and their pervasive influences on the entirety of the functions of your 3 branches of government, including the 4th estate (Free press) in its dissemination of information to the public!
The solutions are therefore obvious, but not easy to implement. Public opinion being what it is in your nation. I would and have been called a "socialist or communist or leftie libtard" When I propose the obvious.
This is the tenor of your American debate and I therefore respectfully decline from offering "specific solutions" for fear of my life! I am happy to offer opinions.....:-)
P.S. If you consider my efforts nothing more than "Rhetorical meanderings" then you are not seeing past the wprds.
ReplyDeleteYou as an American citizen must educate yourself more, in order to understand the depth and breadth of the complexities of the issues your questions to me raise.
@John, As to suggested solutions...how about VAT. Here is a small piece from a debate on the subject; Just to appease your constant search for solutions. Note that Bruce Bartlett was an economist under the Reagan
ReplyDeleteAdministration..... Wow a republican proposing VAT...??
http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/valueaddedtaxes_forbesarticle.pdf
James,
ReplyDeleteI really like the Deficit Commission suggestion on tax reform. A gross paraphrase is that they basically want to blow it up and start over with vastly fewer deductions. I don't think it would be wise to add another tax structure on a vastly disfunctional one. The discussion starts about page 28.
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
What is even more revealing is their reference to changing to systems of taxations that other countries have already found to be more equitable and efficient. ...It is the healthcare debate all over again in essence!
ReplyDeleteWill American stubborn ideological pride allow for an acceptance, that the principles of sound economic management are no great secret, and are already at play in most of the western economies already.
There is no doubt that the Global economic stresses in place today originated, and some say would never otherwise have occurred, in an unregulated and wildly inefficient American financial marketplace. I am not suggesting that America needs to copy 'carte blanche' other nations systems, but for heavens sake when the answer is staring them straight in the face why the reticence to change?
Why has it been so easy for this "deficit commission" to write this report in such a short period of time? Because the answers to the problems are not that difficult to identify. It becomes difficult only when the "talking heads" begin to do their spin and turn the heads of the people away from the focus on reality.This is the biggest fault of the extremism of the Teaparty idiocy and the excessive corporate influences on state and federal finances.
Source "The Deficit commission report"
ReplyDelete"..........Since the last time our budget was balanced in 2001, the federal debt has increased dramatically, rising from 33 percent of GDP to 62 percent of GDP in 2010. 'The escalation was driven in large part by two wars and a slew of fiscally irresponsible policies', along with a deep
economic downturn. We have arrived at the moment of truth, and neither political party is without blame.........."
Even with this truth staring everybody in the face, they all still want to play the blame game and the "left right jig". That is one of the biggest complexities I refer to in my commentaries, when viewing the American economic dynamic......It makes no sense to sensible men!
Rome burns while Nero fiddles
@John and Lou,
ReplyDeleteI remember being 'schooled' by an old mentor as to the reasons for your founding fathers insistence of structuring your administrative branches of government as they did, and also the insistence on a "free" press and on the separation of church and state. It was enlightening.
Today I believe these courageous principles have been betrayed, in that the separations of the various sectors of the American power structure, have been allowed to "bleed" into each other, and are too closely aligned with your "corpus politica". Control appears not to be in the hands of the people, but in many varied special interest groups.
So much so, that decisions are almost impossible to make, as the leaders face such complex issues, as church and corporate and press ideologies at their supporter bases. This "hamstrings" the process of honest debate and common sense solutions, and creates a government ruled from the extreme edges of society, both left and right.
Obviously stalemates, and ultimately civil commotion must result. The vitriolic atmosphere within the US at present at the political level is evidence of this frightening dynamics rise.
The only solution I see and as I have proferred before, is for a 100% voter turnout with the emphasis on taking back public control of your nation! The declawing of special interest groups including corporations and the churches, regardless of their religiousity.( And for heavens sake a shorter electoral period. We just had a call for a national election in Canada. The vote is on May 2nd....41Days for campaigning!)
A reemphasis on the individual as the key figure in your nation and as was intended by your founders........ equality of rights for all citizens and equal access to opportunity for all.
A though to ponder "..........Until ones general focus and striving effort to succeed, is also upon the health and welfare of our chosen leaders, our neighbors, our community, and the entirety of all of the peoples of the world, then nothing of real worth can come from any striving whatsoever........"