The Financial Market - Can I Scream Now?

[steveknapp]

But I'll through out one without naming names - Support the candidate in this fall's election that will put the highest priority on returning the education system in this country to the best in the world.

 

Ken, I agree schools should be better, they always can be better, but where we disagree is that the government can't be expected to raise kids for us. That's the parents but also the community.

 

More so, one's responsibility to solve the problem can't end with their vote. "Don't blame me, I voted for Bill and Opus."

 

Parents have as big a role to play as the teachers do. I can't speak for all, but growing up there were a number of adults that had a big impact in my life. Mentors or some such. Having a kid is the easiest way to get drafted into that role, but there are plenty of other ways to make an impact.

 

Mitch, I don't have the answers of what to do to solve the issue. To some extent I think just stepping back and watching people get their homes foreclosed upon is enough. I hope such an event is large enough to leave a mark and teach them a lesson. They aren't victims.

 

Beyond that, offering to teach or mentor seems like a good role. Contact with the local school somehow?

[steveknapp]

History is littered with societies/cultures that collapsed completely and are gone forever. What makes us so darn sure this one is impervious?

 

The human race, in some form or another is still around isn't it?

[Berkley]

I've got several suggestions, but most of them cross the, "no politics" line here.

 

But I'll through out one without naming names - Support the candidate in this fall's election that will put the highest priority on returning the education system in this country to the best in the world.

 

Because in my mind the poor education everyone receives in the USA these days is core to a lot of problems. Everything from not understanding how personal finances work ("Johnny can't add & subtract"), to poor communications skills ("Johnny can't read or write"), to poor understanding of the sciences & technology (Johnny can't... well, I can't think of a metaphor at the moment!).

 

Hmn...that SOUNDS good And I agree that the educational system should be a priority (especially since I'll be sending my own children in the coming years out into the educational world and right now the sight is pretty GRIM...)...

 

...but there's more than one way to skin a cat, and everyone has different ideas about what methods work better. IMHO, I don't think any of the candidates are actually proposing solutions to the educational problem

[DavidEBSmith]

Mitch, I don't have the answers of what to do to solve the issue. To some extent I think just stepping back and watching people get their homes foreclosed upon is enough. I hope such an event is large enough to leave a mark and teach them a lesson. They aren't victims.

 

Actually, many of them are victims - we're seeing increasing numbers of cases where people have signed one set of paperwork and their signatures are being forged on another set at different terms. Or where people sign up for a mortgage and somebody uses their ID to commit mortgage fraud somewhere else. Or where the meaning of documents full of legalese are misrepresented (and before you say they shouldn't sign anything they don't understand, did you read and understand every document you signed when you bought your house? Really?)

 

As for leaving a mark, yes it will. It will leave a mark on them and it will leave a mark on you and me. What happens when people walk away from their mortgages? What happens when the banks start collapsing under the weight of bad loans? You will have vast areas of the city, and a good part of Round Lake right next to you, looking like war zones. People walk away from their houses and the bad guys move in. They become crack houses, whorehouses, and raped and dead children start turning up in them. The vacant houses start burning and whole blocks go up in flames. You and I are gonna pay for the police and the fire and the cost of ripping these places down. And we're gonna pay for the people who are out on the street, one way or another.

 

I've been dealing with vacant properties for 10 years. In economic good times, in the midst of a housing bubble that made every building in the ghetto valuable, it was rough. Now that the boom is over, now that prices are crashing, now that developers and homeowners are walking away from buildings instead of fixing them up, the outlook is really, really grim. We're looking at large portions of our country being depopulated and destroyed, and it won't just be in the city, it will be in the suburbs, and in the country. And the only way it's not gonna leave a mark on you is if you find yourself a nice castle with a moat out in the wilderness somewhere.

 

This is gonna be a hard, hard lesson for everybody. And just like in school, the innocent will be punished along with the guilty. Teaching people a lesson is nice in theory, but as a practical matter, the price of this lesson is too high.

[steve.foote]

This is gonna be a hard, hard lesson for everybody. And just like in school, the innocent will be punished along with the guilty. Teaching people a lesson is nice in theory, but as a practical matter, the price of this lesson is too high.

 

Then what is the point of behaving one's self? What is the benefit of doing the right thing, of making smart decisions, of acting in a responsible manner?

 

If we're going to always be expected to pay for the misadventures of others, what is the point of sacrifice and dicipline?

[DavidEBSmith]

Then what is the point of behaving one's self? What is the benefit of doing the right thing, of making smart decisions, of acting in a responsible manner?

 

There are some that say that virtue is its own reward. Do you do the right thing because it benefits you or do you do the right thing because it's the right thing?

[Matts_12GS]

I've got several suggestions, but most of them cross the, "no politics" line here.

 

But I'll through out one without naming names - Support the candidate in this fall's election that will put the highest priority on returning the education system in this country to the best in the world.

 

Because in my mind the poor education everyone receives in the USA these days is core to a lot of problems. Everything from not understanding how personal finances work ("Johnny can't add & subtract"), to poor communications skills ("Johnny can't read or write"), to poor understanding of the sciences & technology (Johnny can't... well, I can't think of a metaphor at the moment!).

 

Ken, reforming education is easy...

First, get rid of the NEA and the teacher's unions.

Second, get rid of tenure

Third, implement proficiency pay (merit pay)

Fourth, make congress subject to ALL the laws it has passed...

 

Ok, #4 is just wishful thinking...

After that, it gets better all the time. We get teachers to quit teaching to a test (I know, other metrics will be needed for judging...) end social promotions, etc., the list goes on, but, this isn't completely the thread for it.

If you HONESTLY believe any of the 3 monkeys hoping to fill the oval office could really make effective changes to our education system, I really, really, really, really hope you'll let me sell you this bridge I own...

[steveknapp]

Or where the meaning of documents full of legalese are misrepresented (and before you say they shouldn't sign anything they don't understand, did you read and understand every document you signed when you bought your house? Really?)

 

I paid some lawyer I trusted to review it. No different than every lawyer that fires up their boats engine needs to understand everything I do in detail. "Just turn this key".

 

The issue of not being able to afford the mortgage is a very different one from having the banks do unethical things with your information.

 

What happens when the banks start collapsing under the weight of bad loans?...And the only way it's not gonna leave a mark on you is if you find yourself a nice castle with a moat out in the wilderness somewhere.

 

So you're saying I need another gun? :-D

 

I'll say it again. I don't have a solution. But I'm tired of hearing about the problem without answers. Can't fix it? Let nature take it's course on all of us. EB, you get some of my respect as you DO deal with this every day, and from what we've discussed you do your best to be fair and ethical within your role.

[DavidEBSmith]

I paid some lawyer I trusted to review it. No different than every lawyer that fires up their boats engine needs to understand everything I do in detail. "Just turn this key".

 

The issue of not being able to afford the mortgage is a very different one from having the banks do unethical things with your information.

 

One of the problems behind this is people trusting the wrong people. There's a lot of so-called "financial consultants" who prey on unsophisticated people and convince them that they can afford the mortgage, which they can until interest rates rise or the ARM comes due. Or they advise them to sign some papers and then find out they've signed away the house. Some of the scams are really blatant, some of them are very, very clever and take us months or years to unravel.

 

Is it the borrowers' fault? In most cases, their fault is that they're not real well educated, or not real smart, or not suspicious enough. If you were a Social Darwinian, you would just write it off to survival of the fittest, get smart or die. Personally, it's hard for me to call somebody morally culpable and write them off just because they're less smart than a con artist.

 

And if nothing else, out of naked self-interest, I don't want to see people getting kicked out into the street, because before evolution makes them starve to death, they might be bashing my head in or breaking into my house to steal my stuff.

 

I can tell you my solutions to a part of the financial crisis. Even though I think the banks and mortgage companies are among the bad guys, because they're supposed to be making a living off of being financially sophisticated and some of them abdicated all responsibility, the financial system is too fragile to let them crash and burn. We need government guarantees to get them through a soft landing - to get the really messed up banks through the panic, or absorbed into more stable institutions, until they can get the loans back into shape.

 

Part of the deal for getting help from the government should be that they have to do something with the loans at risk. Whether it's forbearance periods, lowering interest rates, converting ARMs into fixed mortgages, extending loan terms, whatever it takes. Neither the borrowers nor the lenders should get a bailout, but the pain needs to get spread around and made bearable.

 

Then, we need to undo some of the deregulation of the financial industry. No more CMOs upon CMOs and slicing and dicing derivatives and leveraging the crap out of everything. Is it a coincidence that the mortgage balloon started when Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 (blame Clinton!)?

 

Then, as the final piece, we need to crack down on mortgage and real estate fraud. We have virtually nobody to put the cases together, virtually nobody to prosecute them, and the fraud numbers are staggering and increasing. The feds are coughing up millions in insurance on fraudulent mortgages, and nobody wants to spend the money to put the bad guys out of business.

 

It may be a matter of principle that the people who screwed up should suffer, but none of us are better off if banks start failing and if we make a lot of people homeless and turn our towns into empty wastelands. We need to keep people in their houses, paying their mortgages so the banks can stay in business. If we can tweak the system and manage to keep it relatively stable and avoid another Depression, I really don't give a rat's a** who's at fault or not.

[steve.foote]

Then what is the point of behaving one's self? What is the benefit of doing the right thing, of making smart decisions, of acting in a responsible manner?

 

There are some that say that virtue is its own reward. Do you do the right thing because it benefits you or do you do the right thing because it's the right thing?

 

David, that may have sounded good when you wrote it, but you know as well as I do that's not how it works. Would you keep working at your job if you weren't paid, just out of satisfaction? Would you save money and pay down debt if you knew that you will be required to pay for someone else who wouldn't?

[bobbybob]

This is gonna be a hard, hard lesson for everybody. And just like in school, the innocent will be punished along with the guilty. Teaching people a lesson is nice in theory, but as a practical matter, the price of this lesson is too high.

 

Then what is the point of behaving one's self? What is the benefit of doing the right thing, of making smart decisions, of acting in a responsible manner?

 

If we're going to always be expected to pay for the misadventures of others, what is the point of sacrifice and dicipline?

 

+++ This pretty much sums it all up. If someone WAS actually clearly defrauded (i.e. personal info. stolen) then lets fix that. But many folks were afflicted by plain ole greed, wearing blinders while they signed off on a mortgage they *knew* (deep down inside) they could not afford. THOSE people are NOT victims, but the taxpayers that bail them out ARE victims of their greed.

[Ken H.]

If you HONESTLY believe any of the 3 monkeys hoping to fill the oval office could really make effective changes to our education system, I really, really, really, really hope you'll let me sell you this bridge I own...

The term "monkeys" aside (I think all three of the top candidates are intelligent well meaning people, I just happen to only agree with one of them), actually no, I don't think any of them can fix the education system, or much else for that matter. I think this particular western culture/society/economic system/form of government is doomed to collapse. It's core principles are fundamentally flawed in IMO and it cannot be repaired.

 

Not that I'm a cynic or anything!

[steveknapp]

I think this particular western culture/society/economic system/form of government is doomed to collapse. It's core principles are fundamentally flawed in IMO and it cannot be repaired.

 

Wander over to the gun thread for some ideas of how you can stop contributing to global warming.

 

If we're doomed anyways...

[smiller]

David, that may have sounded good when you wrote it, but you know as well as I do that's not how it works. Would you keep working at your job if you weren't paid, just out of satisfaction? Would you save money and pay down debt if you knew that you will be required to pay for someone else who wouldn't?

Sure, it can work. We'll just use some of the enormous storehouse of largesse that we're waiting to tap when we finally get rid of entitlement spending.

[DavidEBSmith]

Then what is the point of behaving one's self? What is the benefit of doing the right thing, of making smart decisions, of acting in a responsible manner?

 

There are some that say that virtue is its own reward. Do you do the right thing because it benefits you or do you do the right thing because it's the right thing?

 

David, that may have sounded good when you wrote it, but you know as well as I do that's not how it works. Would you keep working at your job if you weren't paid, just out of satisfaction? Would you save money and pay down debt if you knew that you will be required to pay for someone else who wouldn't?

 

Would I work at this job if I wasn't paid? I'd have to take the Fifth on that. But there are a lot of people who willingly trade money for job satisfaction.

 

Would I save money and pay down debt if I was required to pay for someone who didn't? Well, first of all, you're mixing a moral question ("behaving one's self") and a financial question (saving money and paying debt). If the question is, once I have incurred a debt and made a commitment to repay it, why should I repay my debts if others aren't, there are two answers. One is the utilitarian answer that paying your debts will mark you as a trustworthy borrower and you'll be able to borrow in the future, and if you don't pay your debts, it'll be harder or more expensive to borrow. I don't see how whether other people pay their debts affects that - my credit rating is mine. I control it to the extent that I can control it.

 

The second way of asking the question is, do I have a moral obligation to repay my debts? A lot of people get away without paying. A lot of people declare bankruptcy as a strategy for debt management. It's a matter of individual conscience whether you feel a moral compulsion to repay a debt. But again, whether other people pay their debts doesn't affect your moral responsibility.

 

It's like marriage vows. Other people break them all the time. (It seems to be a job qualification for being governor of New York). But I can rephrase your question, would you keep your wedding vows if you knew other people were having affairs and getting divorces? That other people are not doing the right thing doesn't provide you with an excuse for not doing the right thing.

 

I do what I believe to be the right thing because it's the right thing, not because other people are doing it. I may not like having to pay for somebody who didn't save, but it doesn't mean I abandon my standards just because somebody else did.

[Matts_12GS]

If you HONESTLY believe any of the 3 monkeys hoping to fill the oval office could really make effective changes to our education system, I really, really, really, really hope you'll let me sell you this bridge I own...

The term "monkeys" aside (I think all three of the top candidates are intelligent well meaning people, I just happen to only agree with one of them), actually no, I don't think any of them can fix the education system, or much else for that matter. I think this particular western culture/society/economic system/form of government is doomed to collapse. It's core principles are fundamentally flawed in IMO and it cannot be repaired.

 

Not that I'm a cynic or anything!

 

I'll change it to clowns, is that better Ken? Perhaps Jesters?

 

They're pretty much all acting like paid buffoons trying to distract people from what's really wrong if you ask me.

 

You know Ken, you sure are putting a lot of pressure yourself and others to minimize your impact on the planet if you really believe we're doomed.

 

If you really think that's the case come on over to the dark side, buy a HUMMER, open a factory, encourage people to do burnouts and burn down forests....

 

It's done me no end of good as Douglas Adams used to say~

Oh, and I'm about 99% sure who you're voting for too!

[Ken H.]

if you really believe we're doomed.

I never said the human race was doomed (despite Mr. Knapp trying to say I did), what I said was, "I think this particular western culture/society/economic system/form of government is doomed to collapse." Specifically the pure capitalism, primary goal of accumulating wealth at all cost, winner take all, callus disregard for the plight of other's, model that we are following in the USA (and to a lesser extent many other westernized countries) is doomed to failure.

 

Nobody thinks a culture/society/economic system/form of government can fail? How short of a memory we have... How about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Or to go back just a little farther the Maya civilization, the Aztecs, or the Roman Empire, or 100s of other ones. Now all little more than a study of the great things they did, little understanding of how they ever could have possibly done them, and even less understanding of why they failed and appear to have simply vanished.

 

I suspect humans as a species, in some greatly diminished form and planetary role, will probably be on the planet for many more 10s of 1000s of years. There are already emerging signs of what will be the next dominant species on earth IMO - the viruses.

[russell_bynum]

I never said the human race was doomed (despite Mr. Knapp trying to say I did), what I said was, "I think this particular western culture/society/economic system/form of government is doomed to collapse." Specifically the pure capitalism, primary goal of accumulating wealth at all cost, winner take all, callus disregard for the plight of other's, model that we are following in the USA (and to a lesser extent many other westernized countries) is doomed to failure.

 

'Scuse pardon, but isn't the US always among the top of the pile WRT humanitarian aid? How does that fit into your "callus disregard for the plight of other's" story?

[steveknapp]

Nobody thinks a culture/society/economic system/form of government can fail? How short of a memory we have... How about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

 

Who's goals and ideals seemed to match yours...right? It already failed. China did a bit better, but even they are moving away from it.. That's a huge country, billions of people, adopting a dieing way of life? And is our system that far off what western Europe has been working with? Did I miss King Fred the first who gave all his wealth away and made England a giant co-op?

 

I'd gleefully agree that there won't be as much to go around. Oil, wealth, whatever... the world 10, 20, or 50 years from now is going to be a VERY different place. As it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago.

 

And Ken, where are all these "winner take all" A-holes you're talking about? I thought my view on my fellow man was a bit dark and pessimistic..

 

I don't need to look far to see good being done. The IT guy who manages the PCs for the local church. The general contractor who helps fix up a needy families house for free. The lawyer who's wife and he host a big party to raise money for kids to get gifts from Santa during the holidays, like food and clothing. Any parent working hard to raise the next generation.

 

The world is going to live up to whatever expectation you place upon it. Focus on the bad if you wish, but man, you're missing out on a TON of insanely good stuff going on.

[Joel]

... callus disregard for the plight of other's, model that we are following in the USA

 

 

Americans give more than $260 billion (that's right, with a "b") annually to charities. The annual growth in the total amount given has been increasing, by increments greater than the rate of inflation. There will always be unmet needs somewhere, but there's not much wrong with that part of the "model."

[steve.foote]

Would I work at this job if I wasn't paid? I'd have to take the Fifth on that.

 

I appreciate your candor.

 

But there are a lot of people who willingly trade money for job satisfaction.

 

There are probably a few, but I doubt it would be a lot.

 

Would I save money and pay down debt if I was required to pay for someone who didn't? Well, first of all, you're mixing a moral question ("behaving one's self") and a financial question (saving money and paying debt). If the question is, once I have incurred a debt and made a commitment to repay it, why should I repay my debts if others aren't, there are two answers. One is the utilitarian answer that paying your debts will mark you as a trustworthy borrower and you'll be able to borrow in the future, and if you don't pay your debts, it'll be harder or more expensive to borrow. I don't see how whether other people pay their debts affects that - my credit rating is mine. I control it to the extent that I can control it.

 

The second way of asking the question is, do I have a moral obligation to repay my debts? A lot of people get away without paying. A lot of people declare bankruptcy as a strategy for debt management. It's a matter of individual conscience whether you feel a moral compulsion to repay a debt. But again, whether other people pay their debts doesn't affect your moral responsibility.

 

It's like marriage vows. Other people break them all the time. (It seems to be a job qualification for being governor of New York). But I can rephrase your question, would you keep your wedding vows if you knew other people were having affairs and getting divorces? That other people are not doing the right thing doesn't provide you with an excuse for not doing the right thing.

 

I don't see this as a moral issue at all. By my saying, "behaving one's self," I'm not referring to obeying the Ten Commandments but rather acting in a responsible manner, in this case, a responsible fiscal manner.

 

And, though I understand the point you are making, I wouldn't equate my views on the current topic with marriage.

 

I do what I believe to be the right thing because it's the right thing, not because other people are doing it. I may not like having to pay for somebody who didn't save, but it doesn't mean I abandon my standards just because somebody else did.

 

No disagreements here. But, I do have a say in how the second part of your last quote plays out. Which is why I'm still here vigorously contesting the apparent consensus that we SHOULD be bailing out those involved. I simply do not agree and feel that we are setting a terrible precedent. If we keep rewarding failure, more and more people will grow to believe that failure is an acceptable outcome.

[smiller]

'Scuse pardon, but isn't the US always among the top of the pile WRT humanitarian aid?

In terms of raw dollars, yes. In terms of aid as a percentage of GDP, no.

[DavidEBSmith]

Which is why I'm still here vigorously contesting the apparent consensus that we SHOULD be bailing out those involved. I simply do not agree and feel that we are setting a terrible precedent. If we keep rewarding failure, more and more people will grow to believe that failure is an acceptable outcome.

 

Well, I think I pretty clearly said that in my solution, nobody gets off the hook, everybody involved shares the pain. We don't want bankruptcy to be free of any downside, because if you're just as well off or better ('cause you're debt-free) to go BK, why not?

 

I just think the downside for the rest of us is too great if we let people and banks crash and burn, even if they "deserve" it. It's in our best interest to give them a way to dig themselves out, but they have to do some digging. (How many metaphors can we mix?) If it means a longer repayment schedule, or a more gradually increasing pay schedule for borrowers, and if it means the bankers have to make do with a $1 million bonus instead of a $3 million bonus and the au pair has to settle for a Jetta instead of a BMW, that's their price.

 

In theory they may deserve to crash and burn, in practice we don't really want to see that.

[steve.foote]

'Scuse pardon, but isn't the US always among the top of the pile WRT humanitarian aid?

In terms of raw dollars, yes. In terms of aid as a percentage of GDP, no.

 

Hmmm, I might be inclined to ask for some evidence here.

[smiller]

Hmmm, I might be inclined to ask for some evidence here.

That particular tidbit show up all over, one example, scroll down a ways. Try to ignore the political commentary, I'm only referring to the data itself.

[steve.foote]

Well, I think I pretty clearly said that in my solution, nobody gets off the hook, everybody involved shares the pain.

 

Actually, you originally said: This is gonna be a hard, hard lesson for everybody. And just like in school, the innocent will be punished along with the guilty. Teaching people a lesson is nice in theory, but as a practical matter, the price of this lesson is too high.

 

But, that is quibbling on my part, and I accept and agree with your restatement that everybody involved should share in the pain.

 

We don't want bankruptcy to be free of any downside, because if you're just as well off or better ('cause you're debt-free) to go BK, why not?

 

I just think the downside for the rest of us is too great if we let people and banks crash and burn, even if they "deserve" it. It's in our best interest to give them a way to dig themselves out, but they have to do some digging. (How many metaphors can we mix?) If it means a longer repayment schedule, or a more gradually increasing pay schedule for borrowers, and if it means the bankers have to make do with a $1 million bonus instead of a $3 million bonus and the au pair has to settle for a Jetta instead of a BMW, that's their price.

 

In theory they may deserve to crash and burn, in practice we don't really want to see that.

 

Here we agree quite a bit. I suspect that I may be being lumped in with the 'screw-em' posse based on a misunderstanding of my own position. I don't advocate a scorched-earth, burn them to the ground reaction. I too think we should find a way to provide relief to both parties (lendors and borrowers) which will allow all of them the opportunity to successfully meet their obligations. Just not at the public's expense.

 

There are plenty of people and companies who have a lot to gain from a soft landing here. Investment firms, banks, insurance companies, construction companies, investors, contractors, home buyers, basically anyone who benefitted from the housing boom has a vested interest. I'm sure that collectively, they can work most of this out without having to burden the taxpayers. There will be a certain amount of pain, and some participants will probably fail, but as a whole, the market will recover on its own and end up being even stronger and more resilient than before.

[steve.foote]

That particular tidbit show up all over, one example, scroll down a ways. Try to ignore the political commentary, I'm only referring to the data itself.

 

I see their claims and charts, but I can't see where they pull that data from. I don't know enough about GlobalIssues.org to know whether they are a knowledgeable source or not. I did find the following quote interesting though:

 

While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”. Hence these numbers and claims may be taken with caution, but even then, these are high numbers.

[EffBee]

Nobody thinks a culture/society/economic system/form of government can fail? How short of a memory we have... How about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

 

Who's goals and ideals seemed to match yours...right?

 

Gentlemen, let's keep the name calling and insults out of this. Steve, your points would have been made just as powerfully without that first sentence.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

if you really believe we're doomed.

I never said the human race was doomed (despite Mr. Knapp trying to say I did), what I said was, "I think this particular western culture/society/economic system/form of government is doomed to collapse." Specifically the pure capitalism, primary goal of accumulating wealth at all cost, winner take all, callus disregard for the plight of other's, model that we are following in the USA (and to a lesser extent many other westernized countries) is doomed to failure.

 

Ken, I can't remember the last time you've said anything positive about this country.

 

You object to our economic system, calling it "pure capitalism;" with marginal tax rates of up to 35 percent, and lots of government activity to fight monopolies and regulate the sale of businesses, I'd hardly call what we have "pure capitalism," whatever "pure" means.

 

"primary goal of accumulating wealth at all cost?" certainly there are some cut-throat moneymakers out there, but if you ask the average Joe out there what he wants out of life, I expect he would NOT tell you he wants to dedicate his life to the amassment of obscene wealth; rather, I think he'd tell you he wants to raise a family and not have to worry too much about money. The news channnels are all screaming about skyrocketing foreclosure rates, but it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of houses are NOT in foreclosure; the vast majority of homeowners made prudent decisions about how much house they could afford and how best to finance it. Most folks out there do not hold as their primary goal the accumulation of wealth at all cost.

 

"callous disregard for the plight of others?" How many charitable organizations are there out there? Where is their money coming from? I'd also point out that one of the richest, Bill Gates, along with his wife, has invested billions of dollars into their Foundation; earlier this month Warren Buffet similarly donated billions of his own money. On a national scale, if the numbers Seth referred to are accurate, then America's charitable output in terms of percent of GDP does not put us at the top of the list; but to describe the good that we do as "callous diregard for the plight of others" is a pretty big slap in the face to the great many people in this country who are concerned with the plight of others.

 

If you're talking about the debate over whether "we" (folks who made conservative choices when purchasing/financing a home) should help "them" (folks who bought way more house than they could afford with an ARM that they now can't refinance their way out of), well, I'm not feeling incredibly charitable toward them. They're not "down on their luck," they didn't get permamently crippled by a drunk driver, or lose their job due to an economic downturn, they just got greedy. REALLY greedy. The best reason I can see to help them is to avoid serious economic hardship for the country as a whole.

[Ken H.]

'Scuse pardon, but isn't the US always among the top of the pile WRT humanitarian aid?

In terms of raw dollars, yes. In terms of aid as a percentage of GDP, no.

True. As a percentage of our wealth, the true definition of making a personal sacrifice for others, the USA is near the bottom in giving to humanitarian causes. What's more, by some organizations who track these sort of things, only 40% of the aid we pledge, usually with great fanfare in the early stages of a catastrophe, is ever actually delivered in the end. To put it another way; we are famous for making promises we don't keep, then patting ourselves on the back for having made them in the first place.

[steveknapp]

Nobody thinks a culture/society/economic system/form of government can fail? How short of a memory we have... How about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

 

Who's goals and ideals seemed to match yours...right?

 

Gentlemen, let's keep the name calling and insults out of this. Steve, your points would have been made just as powerfully without that first sentence.

 

Fernando, sorry about that, I didn't intend to be calling any names here. Honestly I don't see it either, but I'll take your word for it. For what it's worth my grandmother always claimed to vote communist. Ken's in good company if you thought I implied that as his political view.

 

My point was simply that Ken's comments have been clearly against some of the basic constructs of capitalism, the wealth and greed, or in some others views the incentives to work hard and prosper.

 

He said that our current path was unsustainable, and used as an example that economic systems can indeed fail the USSR. I see parallels between Ken's comments and the communist manifesto. Not intending this as an insult, but if we're going to look back into history for guidance in the future it should be valid to note that a document drafted in 1848 spells out a similar message of doom as what is presented today.

 

Take a look..

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

 

It seems worth noting that :

- The USSR's economic system was trying to resolve the issues he believes dooms us today.

- It failed at that.

- The people all survived, as did much of what I'd consider to be the traditions and culture. Not just survive, they are thriving. At least the folks I know who live in Russia paint that picture. The same picture is painted by good friends with strong family ties back to the Czech Republic.

- They are adopting our "doomed" western ways as part of that thriving.

 

My history isn't great, but didn't the Aztecs and Mayans fall when they were defeated by the Spaniards? Not because of their own greed. The parallel that our society is going to fall because some other group of people takes us by force is an interesting one, I'd agree.

 

The Roman empire survived almost 2000 years, and you can still see the impact it's had on our society today, almost 500 years later. Is that a failure?

 

If we're going to use history to guide us, at least the examples cited it seems we're not far off the right path. If anything the history I remember tells me that our doom is more likely to come from infighting and civil war or being attacked/overthrown by others. I'll avoid the political tangent, but my eyes "civil war" could be two armies fighting on a battlefield, or two parties fighting in congress.

 

I'm not saying what we have is perfect. I do think societies self correct, and I'm all for people speaking their minds. My family has a strong heritage of being thorns in the system when they believe something is right.

 

But I don't get how one could take that to the extreme of having such a negative view of ones fellow man/person.

[Ken H.]

Mitch,

 

Of course there are good guys, both on the local ‘one-on-one’ scale, the neighbor who helps the neighbor, and on the large scale, the referenced Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation. I also believe a lot of the big names in Hollywood have the right mindset, Angelina Jolie, Clooney, Brad Pitts, just to name a couple. (Although I wonder about their true motives at times.)

 

And I know that on any block in US America at any time someone is doing something for someone else out of nothing more than the goodness of their heart. But the trend is the other way; more and more toward ‘screw the other guy I’m going to get mine.’ And that’s what’s discerning. The subject that started this (now totally hijacked!) thread is massive evidence of that IMO.

 

But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m criticizing a system, a social economic model, and saying in the long run it is doomed to fail, that is structured to put the gains of the individual above that of the collective whole. I used the term, “primary goal of accumulation of wealth” because I think that is the foundation on which our capitalistic model is based. Or at least has evolved into. ‘How to get more than the other guy’ is our national motto.

 

It’s no secret that I do believe a more (but not absolute) socialistic model that puts more emphasis on the gains of all members of its society and less on the gains of the individual, can/will/is more successful. Because at the most basic levels humans are virtually helpless as individuals. From the very beginnings of humanity millions of years ago (or 1000s depending on your beliefs) we have had to gather together and cooperate with each other to survive and prosper. Social economic models that are counter to that basic principle are in the end; self-defeating.

[steveknapp]

But the trend is the other way; more and more toward ‘screw the other guy I’m going to get mine.’ And that’s what’s discerning.

 

I'm not seeing the trend? I'm not going looking for it maybe? The more wealthy people I know would offer the shirt off their backs to strangers.

 

I do perceive that those who don't have, but want people to believe they do, are often the ones who make noise and have the "Screw you" attitude. Ironically they never seem to get that far with it. Karma's a bitch.

 

No facts to back that up, just my perception.

[tobyzusa]

I too am looking for government to solve all that is wrong with my life and within the collective citizenry. Since the government itself generates so much revenue, this should be a snap. I appreciate you enlightening me to this concept and I eagerly await its implementation. Life will then be swell.

[steve.foote]

It’s no secret that I do believe a more (but not absolute) socialistic model that puts more emphasis on the gains of all members of its society and less on the gains of the individual, can/will/is more successful.

 

Ken, can you give us some examples of successful, enduring socialist countries?

[Whip]

'Scuse pardon, but isn't the US always among the top of the pile WRT humanitarian aid?

In terms of raw dollars, yes. In terms of aid as a percentage of GDP, no.

True. As a percentage of our wealth, the true definition of making a personal sacrifice for others, the USA is near the bottom in giving to humanitarian causes. What's more, by some organizations who track these sort of things, only 40% of the aid we pledge, usually with great fanfare in the early stages of a catastrophe, is ever actually delivered in the end. To put it another way; we are famous for making promises we don't keep, then patting ourselves on the back for having made them in the first place.

 

When you say the USA....are your referring to what the government doles out in aid or what the private sector gives??????

[Boffin]

It’s no secret that I do believe a more (but not absolute) socialistic model that puts more emphasis on the gains of all members of its society and less on the gains of the individual, can/will/is more successful.

 

Ken, can you give us some examples of successful, enduring socialist countries?

 

 

Andy

[steveknapp]

Andy,

 

My experience with the UK is that there no lack of status associated with wealth. And maybe it's the US influence, but no lack of people working hard to obtain that wealth.

 

Some differences in how the government operates, but the average bloke didn't seem that different in the UK than the USA. Nor was the motivations any different. If anything, perception of status (dress, job title etc..) was more important in the UK than the US.

 

This was a few years back, I did live there only ~6mo. There may also be some bias given a few friends of mine are UK ex-pats and quite successful here in the US.

 

Take away the national pride and the queen and I don't see what's so different...

[steve.foote]

 

Andy, I don't think England is quite up to the standards that Ken is talking about.

[Francois_Dumas]

Interesting discussion......

 

In terms of 'systems' I think there are 4:

- the former communists system (also called 'socialist' at the other side of the Curtain)

- the (pretty much) 'free-for-all' capitalist system of the US

- the 'western socialist' systems we've seen in many European countries

- and the no-system-at-all in 3rd world countries, banana republics and the likes

 

I've been pondering over this, but frankly I haven't seen ANY of these 'systems' being successful without (sometimes major) glitches.

 

I see major swells in all these systems and areas of influence.... the Soviets crumbled and China is making headway towards the other extreme too now.... India got out of the colonial burden, grew its economy like mad and is now in trouble, Japan the same. Most European countries 'went socialist' in some form or other.... only to find out now that they can't sustain their 'pampered public care', or pay for people's hard-earned retirements. And the US is now feeling the heat of un-checked lending and subsequent economic panic.

 

NO system seems to be doing that well over time... and each one breaks down, only to pick itself up over time again.

 

I think the main problem is not which system is good or not, but how long it takes between the various downturns to make us prosperous again... sometimes entire generations miss out on those upturns, and THAT is the sad part of it

[Boffin]

I think we are a much more "socialist" society. We have socialised medicine, socialised education, socialised pensions and a generous (some would say over-generous) social care system for the unemployed. Unlike some similar systems, all of the above can be supplemented or replaced with private versions but at the end of the day there there is an effective catch net for the disadvantaged, unlucky or lazy.

The big difference between the European socialised systems and communist systems is that they depend upon the capitalist backbone to generate the wealth to distribute. I see us as a happy medium, between the two extremes of left and right. We do have some serious issues, especially with regard to privacy and surveillance, but the system has worked for a fair while now.

 

Andy

[smiller]

As long as you don't mind the tax burden...

[steveknapp]

We have socialised medicine, socialised education, socialised pensions and a generous (some would say over-generous) social care system for the unemployed. Unlike some similar systems, all of the above can be supplemented or replaced with private versions but at the end of the day there there is an effective catch net for the disadvantaged, unlucky or lazy.

 

We don't have the above things here in the US? Or just not to the same extent?

 

But my paychecks get deducted for unemployment (which I've never used to day, knock on wood).

 

We've got public education, tax paid depending on where I live and the value of my home. I pay about 10% of my yearly wages to property tax, a good majority of which is school tax.

 

Public retirement benefits (Social Security), tax is ~8% capped per year at 8000USD.

 

Unemployment, for those down on their luck (employer paid).

Welfare for those really down on their luck (federal and state taxes.

 

Health care is something of an issue. We've got medicare for those too old to work. Veteran benefits for those who were in the military. Most others have some private care via their employer. From talking to my brother, who lived in the UK for a few years, his take was that the public healthcare offerings weren't good, and most affluent jobs included private coverage, similar to the US.

 

But at the core of it, take away the system. Are the people that different? Ken's issue at the core is that his fellow Americans are greedy bad people. I disagree, there are always some bad eggs. But in general I didn't think the UK was too different in that regard.

[Boffin]

As long as you don't mind the tax burden...

 

 

I didn't say it was a perfect system...

 

Andy

[Boffin]

My take on the American people is that as individuals they are amongst the most hospitable and generous people I have ever met. Oh, and from a brief look at Extreme Makeover - Home Edition somewhat prone to over-emotional display.

 

The UK public healthcare system is not as bad as it is painted, sure there are issues, but I have always had good, prompt treatment when needed. That said, I now have provte healthcare from work, provided of course it is for a condition that can be cured - no long-term palliative care, just operations and so-forth.

 

Andy

[Francois_Dumas]

My take on the American people is that as individuals they are amongst the most hospitable and generous people I have ever met. Oh, and from a brief look at Extreme Makeover - Home Edition somewhat prone to over-emotional display.

 

Andy

 

Couldn't agree more...

[steve.foote]

My take on the American people is that as individuals they are amongst the most hospitable and generous people I have ever met.

 

Alright! Who's got the net. We have him right where we want him.

[EffBee]

Nobody thinks a culture/society/economic system/form of government can fail? How short of a memory we have... How about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

 

Who's goals and ideals seemed to match yours...right?

 

Gentlemen, let's keep the name calling and insults out of this. Steve, your points would have been made just as powerfully without that first sentence.

 

Fernando, sorry about that, I didn't intend to be calling any names . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Steve, I'm not discussing it here. I'll send you a PM. Anyone else who doesn't see what I was talking about, PM me and I'll respond likewise.

[steveknapp]

 

Aw nevermind.

[Lets_Play_Two]

"I also believe a lot of the big names in Hollywood have the right mindset, Angelina Jolie, Clooney, Brad Pitts, just to name a couple. (Although I wonder about their true motives at times.)"

 

I can't tell how reassured I feel now that the big names in Hollywood "have the right mindset." Do you have any idea how much the chairman of GM contributes to charity? You are quick to condemn their salaries, but have no idea what they do with the money...not the right "mindset", maybe?