Bailout - Let's make a deal - another pork barrel

[smiller]

It will take the wisdom of Solomon and the a strong stomach to tell firms where the line ends.

Indeed. And what would appropriate conditions for a auto industry bailout be and how would they be enforced? Would the government be co-CEO? Hard to see how that would work even under the best of intentions. I'm not against limited government involvement in the financial markets in an effort to avert a catastrophe but propping up individual industries may well be a bridge too far.

 

But then again the Chrysler bailout worked out (for the governmemt, if not Daimler) so there is a precident for success. The real problem is that current profitability issues are endemic and are not easily addressed without some fundamental changes, and on that point we agree. We may not like government involvement in private industry but that is what we face in our competition... for example, only in the US do the automakers have to contend with the enormous cost of healthcare benefits. In most other countries this is addressed by a national health care system which in effect acts as a significant subsidy that the US automotive industry must do without. We may not favor the way other nations go about managing these issues (via a hybrid of capitalist values and government involvement) but one way or the other we will have to somehow sucessully compete or die. I'm not willing to die on an altar of unrestricted capitalist ideology, and rigid socialism is not the only other choice. Maintaining a balance will continue to be a struggle but success has never been anything but.

 

 

[David]

I just wonder what's worth saving in the US auto industry? The obvious retort is "jobs," of course, but jobs that are not tied to a business model need to be eliminated forthwith if we are indeed serious about stepping out of denial and facing the financial situation head on.

 

The US auto industry, in general, does not have a product people increasingly want to buy, is burdened with unrealistic labor costs, has made retiree promises it can't keep, and is rife with executives who--time and time again--have made bad decisions.

 

I'd be more in favor of writing the line employees a severance check for six months of wages rather than propping up the industry itself.

[StuGotz]

Lets change the title of this thread to " stand on your soapbox"...

 

and now....back to the oil thread section...

 

MB>

[smiller]

I just wonder what's worth saving in the US auto industry? The obvious retort is "jobs," of course, but jobs that are not tied to a business model need to be eliminated forthwith if we are indeed serious about stepping out of denial and facing the financial situation head on.

I understand (and in some ways agree with) the appeal in that argument, but the convulsions on the way to a rebirth of the industry would be enormously painful to the economy (and thus to everyone, not just the lowly, blood-sucking UAW.) The answer may well be that the industry's problems are so intractable that it's better to flush it away and start over, but let's not minimize the enormous difficulty in tearing down the infrastructure entirely and rebuilding from scratch. I find it difficult to agree on an acceptable price for that since we really don't know what that price might be.

 

 

[SeanC]

I just wonder what's worth saving in the US auto industry? The obvious retort is "jobs," of course, but jobs that are not tied to a business model need to be eliminated forthwith if we are indeed serious about stepping out of denial and facing the financial situation head on.

I understand (and in some ways agree with) the appeal in that argument, but the convulsions on the way to a rebirth of the industry would be enormously painful to the economy (and thus to everyone, not just the lowly, blood-sucking UAW.)

I wouldn't go so far as to characterize the UAW as lowly and blood-sucking, but they shoulder a large share of the blame for the collapse as well as pose an even larger obstacle to the industry's recovery. If you provide someone a regular diet of scrumptuous, high-fat meals, they're going to become accustomed to it and they're going to get fat. They're unlikely to willingly curb their calories and consume less. But if you stop providing the meals, they'll figure out how to adjust.

 

This is why I believe bankruptcy is so important to the long term health of the US auto industry. Bankruptcy will allow automakers to disentangle themselves from fat union contracts, thus making them more attractive to cash-rich investors (say, elements within the oil industry) who would expect a quicker return to profitability than would the US taxpayer. Sure, it would set unions back, but it wouldn't necessarily spell their ultimate demise. The 350,000 jobs that are purportedly directly tied to the industry wouldn't just vanish. A leaner UAW could still find a place at the table. It just wouldn't be a standing reservation.

 

The real loser could be the US Dep't of Dumping Money Into Holes, but their docket's full at the moment anyway. I'm sure they'll discover new holes if the automakers declare bankruptcy and rebuild themselves with investment capital.

[Dennis Andress]

Why are we going on and on about the demise of a couple of crummy cage manufacturers? Aren't we all here to talk about riding motorcycles?

[Dave McReynolds]

Governments should not promote or discourage private charity (or any other behaviors) through tax policy. The same tax code allows deductions for million dollar sky boxes at Yankee Stadium and country club dues. Allowing deductions for charitable contributions simply imposes a portion of the cost of giving upon other taxpayers.

 

It is disingenuous to suggest that government should not promote or discourage behavior through tax policy. The mere existence of a tax, any tax, be it income, excise, VAT, or estate tax, influences behavior because it is a significant expense for those who pay it. If those who impose a particular tax don't choose to analyze how it influences behavior, they are merely choosing to fly blind.

 

What would be more honest, in my view, would be to say that you don't like the way the current tax system influences behavior, and you would prefer a different tax system that would influence behavior in an entirely different way (which, by the way, a whole new group of people woudn't like).

[ghaverkamp]

It is disingenuous to suggest that government should not promote or discourage behavior through tax policy. The mere existence of a tax, any tax, be it income, excise, VAT, or estate tax, influences behavior because it is a significant expense for those who pay it. If those who impose a particular tax don't choose to analyze how it influences behavior, they are merely choosing to fly blind.

 

In fact, it seems a reasonable argument that operation of a free market that still permits some form of governmental goals is better served by a government that encourages behavior and benefits through something like tax policy than by a government that mandates behavior or action by fiat.

[Dick]

I vote Chapter 11. The only person with the power to solve the problem is the bankruptcy trustee. How about it, E.B., does he have power, or what?

[steve.foote]

I was being a bit sarcastic I'm afraid, what I really meant that it seems unlikely that private lenders would be willing to fund a reorganization under the current economic and credit climate. One might say that this is just as well since if private lenders don't see the risk as being worth taking then it probably isn't, but that view ignores the potential fallout of a bankruptcy of the american auto industry, the result of which could be anything from a severe stress to an already weak economy to a tipping point that precipitates an economic collapse. The idea behind the government making the loan is that the government would be willing to assume more risk because it has a greater objective than simple profit.

 

I'm not necessarily in support of a bailout, in fact it seems inadvisable to me for many of the reasons you and other in the thread have been espousing. I'm only suggesting that the decision be made with careful analysis and consideration, and with respect given to the real-world consequences for the nation of an outright failure of a major industry vs. basing it on pure ideology. There just isn't a simple and unasailable answer to the dilemma and some compromise will be necessary to navigate our way through the next several years. I hope we are big enough as a nation to be able to accomplish that.

 

I'm going to have to agree with Seth here. No matter how much it costs, we simply cannot allow anything to disrupt our economy. Considering how much potential damage the failure of the US automotive industry could cause, $25 billion is a small price for our kids to pay. If we were really on top of things, we would double it immediately.

[Redbrick]

This kind of reminds me of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the hole in the dike........ ....It's a sad, sad situation.........

And we'll all just have to stand by and hope we have a viable financial future......

[Pilgrim]

I vote Chapter 11. The only person with the power to solve the problem is the bankruptcy trustee. How about it, E.B., does he have power, or what?

 

Are you talking about bankruptcy for the auto industry, the financial institutions, or the government?

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

It is disingenuous to suggest that government should not promote or discourage behavior through tax policy. The mere existence of a tax, any tax, be it income, excise, VAT, or estate tax, influences behavior because it is a significant expense for those who pay it. If those who impose a particular tax don't choose to analyze how it influences behavior, they are merely choosing to fly blind.

 

C'mon, Dave, you don't usually respond with a non sequitur like that.

 

The fact that taxes influence behavior does not mean they should be used as a tool to influence taxpayer behavior in support of social or political ends. Increase the gas tax to build more roads? That's fair. Increase the tax to make people drive less? That's cheating. It's also what we've come to expect from the government, social manipulations.

 

I don't care what we call it: socialism, capitalism, the betterment of the unwashed masses, or whatever, if people like me get squeezed out via policy, we're taking a step backward.

 

My business views are very simple: . . . etc.

 

David, I agree with you completely about protecting and encouraging the investment process and the investor.

 

But you slid by my point (perhaps by design; you're capable of that .) in your response to my question about how to affect corporate behavior. You see (above) how I view social manipulations through tax policy. And nonprofits are not the type of corporation that needs influencing for the public good (I say that without much thought; I might be wrong.)

 

Is there no way to encourage corporations, as a part of their overall corporate strategies, to pick up some of what the government tries to do now?

 

Thinking out loud, here.

We know that corporations write checks to the government, but they don't pay taxes, consumers ultimately do. So let's totally eliminate corporate taxation.

 

Instead, corporations are issued charters, as in the old days, and a condition of the charter is that they spend X percent of their gross on some sort of civic task of their own choosing and design.

 

This would allow the corporation to develop projects in their own interests, just as is the case (should be the case, anyway) for private persons, and the guiding hand would be at work. Focusing narrowly for the purpose of example, let's say Herbert's Bling Factory finds there is a shortage of bling designers. They could offer scholarships on a one plus one basis, one graduate to come to work for Herb and the other free to go where he will. There will be no eligibility for law studies under this plan until the number of lawyers in the U.S. is in balance with the population, as found in other societies - say, Uganda .

 

I can see a whole new industry develop out of that: specialists in corporate projects who find things that need doing and sell the project to the corporation.

 

That's not a proposal there, just an example of the sort of sea change in approach that I'd like to see. Rather that, than continue to allow the government to take the money and decide, in its inept, corrupt, self-serving way what they think should be done. And if you think those descriptors are knee-jerk conservative harsh, you haven't been paying attention lately. And you ain't seen nothing, yet. Wait until they get around to "immigration reform" again. Over fifteen million people out of work in the country now, and climbing, and they want to throw another ten million or so into the labor pool with an amnesty in addition to the guest workers the corporations (?!) of America demand.

 

Pilgrim

[Dave McReynolds]

The fact that taxes influence behavior does not mean they should be used as a tool to influence taxpayer behavior in support of social or political ends. Increase the gas tax to build more roads? That's fair. Increase the tax to make people drive less? That's cheating. It's also what we've come to expect from the government, social manipulations.

 

I guess whether you think it would be "cheating" or not depends on your philosophy of taxation.

 

Do you believe it's cheating that Nevada supports its schools with a tax on gambling, or that Texas and Alaska support their schools with a tax on oil? Where's the connection between gambling, oil, and schools? The only connection I can see is that gambling and oil have money and schools need money.

 

Do you believe it is cheating when taxes are reduced to stimulate the economy, as opposed to being set at a level necessary to pay for government expenditures, or when government programs are enacted, but taxes are not increased to pay for them?

 

Do you believe it is cheating when booze and cigarettes are taxed, just based on the belief that if people are going to engage in self-destructive behavior anyway, the public may as well get some money out of it? What if other drugs are legalized; how should they be taxed?

 

You and I would probably disagree on whether some of the above is cheating, and agree on others. It all depends on your philosophy of taxation.

 

This is my philosophy of taxation:

 

1. Taxes should be set at a level that is sufficient to pay for government programs. Government programs should not be passed without identifying a funding source sufficient to pay for them.

 

2. Taxes are inherently unfair. You can try to make them sound fair, by saying that my gas tax will pay for the roads I drive on, but we all benefit from the public roads, and to say that it is more "fair" for me to pay for the public roads by the gallon of gas I use is arguable (with the clear exception of BMWST members who are out using the public roads purely for their own enjoyment, and should be taxed twice). Being unfair, they should be collected in the least painful way possible, like filling a decayed tooth. I don't care if you tax net or gross income, corporations, dead people, property, or bad habits (which could include unnecessary burning of gasoline).

 

3. In determining what is the least painful way to collect taxes, you have to establish tax policy. The goal of that tax policy should be to collect taxes as efficiently as possible, with as little negative effect on our economy as possible.

[John Ranalletta]

Not sure from whence the word "cheating" came, but taxes sure lead to a lot of it.

 

In Indiana, we're wrestling with property taxes which (IMO) is the most immoral tax because it targets an immovable object and does not discriminate between those who are able to pay and those who can't.

 

Example: an 80 y/o retired couple owns a small home in a community that decides it "needs" natatoria in each of its high schools at a cost of $10 mil per. In Indiana, that cost is levied via property taxes; so, the young couple with 5 kids in school pays and our old couple is subject to a tax they cannot escape.

 

Taxes only derive from revenue; thus, all taxes should be levied on personal or corporate top line revenues. Take depreciation allowances, meal deductions, depletion allowances, etc. to the junk pile. That will change behaviors. Once a company's shareholders have to bear the full cost burden of operating a G5, it's more likely the CEO will fly without passing on the cost of the G5 to me. If the shareholders want to buy a G5 for the CEO, I've no argument, I just don't want to help pay for it; or I can make that value decision when I buy the company's products. I don't get that choice today.

[Dave McReynolds]

Not sure from whence the word "cheating" came, but taxes sure lead to a lot of it.

 

In Indiana, we're wrestling with property taxes which (IMO) is the most immoral tax because it targets an immovable object and does not discriminate between those who are able to pay and those who can't.

 

Example: an 80 y/o retired couple owns a small home in a community that decides it "needs" natatoria in each of its high schools at a cost of $10 mil per. In Indiana, that cost is levied via property taxes; so, the young couple with 5 kids in school pays and our old couple is subject to a tax they cannot escape.

 

Taxes only derive from revenue; thus, all taxes should be levied on personal or corporate top line revenues. Take depreciation allowances, meal deductions, depletion allowances, etc. to the junk pile. That will change behaviors. Once a company's shareholders have to bear the full cost burden of operating a G5, it's more likely the CEO will fly without passing on the cost of the G5 to me. If the shareholders want to buy a G5 for the CEO, I've no argument, I just don't want to help pay for it; or I can make that value decision when I buy the company's products. I don't get that choice today.

 

We had a similar problem in California in the '70's and passed proposition 13, which limited property taxes to 1% of the cost of real estate, with a 2%/year inflation factor. Property owners love it; people funding government programs hate it. So they are trying to divide and conquer, by setting up a split-roll, such that residences would still be subject to prop 13, but commercial properties would be re-assessed annually. So far, reception to that idea has been luke-warm, but could change if our state budget crisis isn't solved some other way. At least, if prop 13 were to be diluted, the people would have to vote on it, and it wouldn't be a slam-dunk like it would be if the legislature could pass it.

 

I have no objection to taxes being based on gross, rather than net, income. It would pass my test of increasing the efficiency of the tax system, and probably wouldn't have any more adverse effects on the economy than our present tax system does. However, just like I said in my earlier post, every tax policy has consequences. The consequences of your tax policy would be that the prices of low profit margin items, like groceries, would be increased more than the prices of high profit margin items, like tax returns, as the gross profit tax was added on to the prices of the items sold. Unless, of course, you came up with a different tax rate for groceries than for CPA fees, which would take away from the efficiency of the system. What do you think about that?

[Dave McReynolds]

In case I wasn't clear in my previous post, if I bill out $250,000 and net $200,000 in my CPA practice, I pay about $44,000 in federal income taxes, plus some Social Security taxes. If someone who owns a grocery store has sales of $2,000,000 and nets $200,000, he pays the same federal income tax.

 

If we replace that $88,000 of income tax with a tax on gross income, my tax would be about $10,000 and the grocery store owner's tax would be about $78,000. He would presumably have to add the increase to the price of his groceries, if he wanted to maintain the same after-tax profit.

[motoguy128]

In case I wasn't clear in my previous post, if I bill out $250,000 and net $200,000 in my CPA practice, I pay about $44,000 in federal income taxes, plus some Social Security taxes. If someone who owns a grocery store has sales of $2,000,000 and nets $200,000, he pays the same federal income tax.

 

If we replace that $88,000 of income tax with a tax on gross income, my tax would be about $10,000 and the grocery store owner's tax would be about $78,000. He would presumably have to add the increase to the price of his groceries, if he wanted to maintain the same after-tax profit.

 

 

But then would you drop your billing rates accordingly? Or rather would you be forced to drop them assuming there is direct competition for your services?

[Matts_12GS]

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too." --W. Somerset Maugham

[Dave McReynolds]

But then would you drop your billing rates accordingly? Or rather would you be forced to drop them assuming there is direct competition for your services?

 

That is not just a theoretical question. One of the ways proposed to solve the CA budget crisis is to make services subject to the sales tax, which could include CPA fees (and prostitutes, I would imagine). I've wondered whether just to add it on to whatever I already charge, or to absorb some of it myself. In my case, since I feel overworked and want to reduce my client load some in the next few years in preparation for retirement, I'll probably just add it on and hope that the clients I lose are the ones I didn't like anyway.

[John Ranalletta]

Are there many prostitutes who are also CPAs? I'll bet there are a bunch of CPAs who...

[Ken H.]

Sean,

 

No, what I implied (state actually) was that people (people, not those cows) require a successful collective society to exist.

 

I read into (perhaps incorrectly) your statement that you would rather be a bison than a one of those cows, to mean you felt you would be more likely to be able to survive solo, what I called “bison mode,” than as part of a successful society. A society, however it my be constructed and dependent.

 

 

I am not trying or intending to use the words "Society" and "Government" interchangeably! I do think they are co-dependent however.

 

Going back to Craig’s quoted definition of a Society:

 

Society:

3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

 

By this definition a group of people who come together to manufacture something is most certainly (albeit a small one) a “society.” A Bushmaster with a 10x scope that offers Progressive View, whatever, is a product of society IMHO. All things around us are. If people hadn’t come together and engaged in collective activates such as, to site only one directly applicable example – to engage in the mining of iron ore (need to make the Bushmaster with a 10x scope that offers Progressive View, right?), there would be no Bushmaster with a 10x scope that offers Progressive View. Indeed there would be nothing. Not even food to eat.

 

I will maintain that IMHO a successful government is a necessary part of a successful society however. How much involvement a government should have in the society is of course the sticky point. But I would think/hope even the most adamant opposer to ‘government” would recognize that at least some form of government is a necessity for a successful society.

 

[philbytx]

Yeah! VAT Baby! Let's do VAT....but without ANY income taxes

[John Ranalletta]

A Bushmaster with a 10x scope that offers Progressive View, whatever, is a product of society IMHO

The issue is finally distilled to its essence. The group producing the rifle is not a society, but a business entity wherein each member voluntarily contributes his/her labor and ingenuity in return for what s/he perceives is fair value. Every member of this entity is free to stay, accepting its rules; or, go, rejecting them. They get to determine what level of "good" they desire.

 

IMO, one would not have the freedom do that in what I understand your definition of a "society" to be; rather, the value of one's labor and the "common good" would be determined by governmental (society's) fiat.

[chrisolson]

"society -> government" is equivelent to "member of business entity -> business owner"

 

Although one may have the freedom to go or stay with any business entity, it is the business ownership who ultimately determines the definition of "fair value" for participating in their venture.

 

Its best to be either a King or an Owner

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...it is the business ownership who ultimately determines the definition of "fair value" for participating in their venture.

 

You've never heard of the law of supply and demand? The value is set by mutual agreement.

[John Ranalletta]

Its best to be either a King or an Owner

Nothing stands in the way of anyone who desires to be an owner except oneself.

 

I'd guess that everyone on this board who is an owner was a pauper at one time or more.

[russell_bynum]

...it is the business ownership who ultimately determines the definition of "fair value" for participating in their venture.

 

You've never heard of the law of supply and demand? The value is set by mutual agreement.

 

There was a time when entry-level IT people doing basic desktop support with no formal experience could easily pull down $50K per year. The reason: We were going through a huge tech expansion...partly fueled by Y2K and partly by the dot com boom. Everyone was hiring tech people and there weren't very many tech people to be had. So...wages went up to entice more people to get into the tech field, and job requirements were relaxed. In other words: High demand and low supply = high price.

 

As the market flooded with people trying to take advantage of that, wages started to come down and requirements went up.

[chrisolson]

...it is the business ownership who ultimately determines the definition of "fair value" for participating in their venture.

 

You've never heard of the law of supply and demand? The value is set by mutual agreement.

 

Of course ... high demand, high value. Low demand, low value. But regarless of how much you negotiate the market (business entitiies) still determine the ultimate value. Heck, I think I'm worth at least $1.2 m per year, but there's no business owner who'd pay that ... Oh, wait .... Whip, can we talk? :smile:

[chrisolson]

Its best to be either a King or an Owner

Nothing stands in the way of anyone who desires to be an owner except oneself.

 

I'd guess that everyone on this board who is an owner was a pauper at one time or more.

 

True on both counts! But I think I'd rather be King ... lot less work.

[Whip]

"wait .... Whip, can we talk?"

 

...after our last political discussion your value to me has dropped so much you may have to pay me.

 

 

 

 

[SeanC]

No, what I implied (state actually) was that people (people, not those cows) require a successful collective society to exist.

It still seems vague what you mean by 'successful,' 'collective,' 'society,' 'require' and even 'existence,' and just around the corner from Vague lurks the shadow of what you feel government's role should be vis a vis these supposed requirements... For example, when you state that society provides these needs/requirements, are you using the term 'provide' literally, as in directly doles out the required products according to need, or in a loose, general sense, as in the way people's needs for products like guns, tents, toothpaste, etc. are currently made available?

 

The former is where my cow/bison analogy applies. In it, cows comprise society in the general sense, i.e., a big happy collective of bovines whose needs are all provided, but the rancher is the agent of society, the entity responsible for the literal providing of food, shelter, medicine, etc., and of course the final authority that makes and carries out all decisions regarding who gets what, when and how much.

 

From what I've inferred about your view of society, it sounds like some type of formalized agent/authority would be required to oversee the distribution of products, as well as enforce the collection thereof, round up the strays and keep them in line with the rest of the herd, um, society. I could be totally wrong about that.

 

I read into (perhaps incorrectly) your statement that you would rather be a bison than a one of those cows, to mean you felt you would be more likely to be able to survive solo, what I called “bison mode,” than as part of a successful society. A society, however it my be constructed and dependent.

I did state that bison depend on their relationships with one another for their survival. Such relationships require cooperation and thus can be termed 'society,' right? Bison society, however, neither recognizes nor requires a structured agent to provide their basic needs and yet -- voila! -- they nonetheless fulfill their basic needs. I guess you could say their society follows natural law rather than an artificially imposed order. Anyway, yes, you did read that incorrectly. I'm not talking about solo survival or advocating anything of the sort (e.g., anarchy, syndicalism, etc.). I have a clear understanding of what society is, my role in it, as well as what government's role is and should be regarding its relationship to both.

[russell_bynum]

There was a time when entry-level IT people doing basic desktop support with no formal experience could easily pull down $50K per year. The reason: We were going through a huge tech expansion...partly fueled by Y2K and partly by the dot com boom. Everyone was hiring tech people and there weren't very many tech people to be had. So...wages went up to entice more people to get into the tech field, and job requirements were relaxed. In other words: High demand and low supply = high price.

Those were sweet times my friend...sweet times.

 

I suppose. Wages were good and jobs were easy to come by. But most of the people you wound up working with were complete buffoons who were flipping houses 1 month earlier and who's only IT experience consisted of installing AOL on their home computer. It made people like me look like frickin' heros...but the downside was I was always doing 3x as much work as necessary...my work, fixing what the guy next to me screwed up, and then re-doing what he was supposed to do correctly.

 

As things returned to "normal" (if there is such a thing), most of the "get rich quick" people left (mostly to go back to flipping houses...I wonder how that's working out for them right about now?) and the people left are the ones who actually earn their keep.

[chrisolson]

"wait .... Whip, can we talk?"

 

...after our last political discussion your value to me has dropped so much you may have to pay me.

 

Lets negotiate ...

[John Ranalletta]

In it, cows comprise society in the general sense, i.e., a big happy collective of bovines whose needs are all provided,

There is a difference however. Cows don't know they're cows; so they don't yearn to be and they don't covet what the bison has.

 

OTOH, herds of people know they're people and though they value the comforts of the herd, they understand and suffer the limitations of herd life. They ruminate over the what they perceive is the unfairness of it all, i.e. that others enjoy a life they are either unable to achieve or consciously reject; so, the only solution is to bring everyone inside the barbed wire.

[Matts_12GS]

I will maintain that IMHO a successful government is a necessary part of a successful society however. How much involvement a government should have in the society is of course the sticky point. But I would think/hope even the most adamant opposer to ‘government” would recognize that at least some form of government is a necessity for a successful society.

 

How much government? I'll let "the other Barry" answer that question for me...

 

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." Barry Goldwater

[motoguy128]

 

Of course ... high demand, high value. Low demand, low value. But regarless of how much you negotiate the market (business entitiies) still determine the ultimate value. Heck, I think I'm worth at least $1.2 m per year, but there's no business owner who'd pay that ... Oh, wait .... Whip, can we talk? :smile:

 

I think some examples of wage manipulation have been ignored. Unions are one and government employees are another. I alos thing corporate CEO's are another because the those "in the pool" that are "allowed" to be CEO, artificailly restrict the supply and serve on each others boards and vote in their over inflated salaries. A "good" CEO IMO would want to be paid primarily on profit sharing based on short AND long term results which would reflect their impact on the organization over short term and the long term.

[Ken H.]

…are you using the term 'provide' literally, as in directly doles out the required products according to need, or in a loose, general sense, as in the way people's needs for products like guns, tents, toothpaste, etc. are currently made available?

I’m not using the term in the sense that everyone/anyone should sit back and wait for some nebulous thing called “society” to ring the door bell and hand them every/anything they need/want. Rather, I’m trying to use the term, “a successful society is required…” in the sense that we seem to more and more fail to recognize that without one we wouldn’t, indeed couldn’t, have guns, tents, toothpaste, etc. The recognition that all products, however we define a “product” (even knowledge) can only exist in, and as a result of, group efforts to create/produce them. And that “group effort” is, in a very real sense, a “socity.”

 

I did state that bison depend on their relationships with one another for their survival. Such relationships require cooperation and thus can be termed 'society,' right?

Yes, exactly.

 

It seems clear to me that I have failed miserably here at communicating the point/opinion I’m trying to communicate. Perhaps the word “society” has too much preconceived connotations attached to it, and I should come up with a better word (or hopefully someone will), but alas, so far I have not.

 

What concerns me is the general trend that seems to have become more prevalent over the last couple of decades of, ‘every man for himself.’ In a whole lot of areas. Everything from purchasing decisions (I want a model brand xyz vehicle and I don’t care about how much gas it uses or pollution it creates, the impact it has on others), to political decisions (I’m going to vote for who brings the most ‘pork’ to my precinct, what effect it has on the overall federal budget deficit be damned), to monetary policies (abolish the regulations that prevent abuse), to increasing Caveat Emptor in goods and services (diminished consumer protections), to lawlessness (increasing rights to execute personal justice). These trends, and more, are all driven by the underlying concept of put in the individual singular above individuals plural. Or to put it another way, “The wants of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” Instead of, “The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the one.”

 

And that, IMHO, is a recipe for disaster for societies. (There I go with that word again – damn!) Because a group of people, big or small, of any definition, cannot continue to progress, accomplish, create, prosper, etc. unless each member agrees to make a contribution to the goal of the group. And making a contribution to a group often, maybe always in at least some sense, requires a sacrifice on the part of the individual. If in no other way than in a commitment of time. If each member instead decides to ‘go his/her own way’ the goal(s) will fail. It is only by the cooperation with others that the whatever is accomplished. Even basic survival, i.e. - not starving to death, requires some group cooperation of people, requires a functioning “society.”

 

Bison society, however, neither recognizes nor requires a structured agent to provide their basic needs and yet -- voila! -- they nonetheless fulfill their basic needs. I guess you could say their society follows natural law rather than an artificially imposed order.

Yes indeed. But humans are fragile beings. We are not “bison-capable” by any stretch. We have no ability to survive singularly (even if you ignore the reproductive issue for the moment), let alone prosper.

 

I’m not clear about the distinction you make between natural law vs. artificially imposed order. It seems to me all things follow some natural order in the sense that over time they are determined to be to the benefit or not, and are retained or discarded. Even an imposed order. Or ‘imposed’ (I’m reading “imposed” = forced) anything. Ultimately if it’s not to the benefit of the species (humans) its only lasting characteristic will be that it was temporary.

 

When I talk about (what I feel is) the need for a more socialistic society (notice I’ve always said “socialistic” not “socialism”) I’m trying to say, IMHO, we’ve swung too much toward a pure capitalistic, every man for himself, don’t just crawl your way to the top, trample your way there, model. We’ve thrown out (most) of the mechanisms designed to help the overall populous prosper in favor of mechanism that allows, even encourages a select few to stellarly prosper at the expense of all else.

 

The irony is that the current collapse is showing just how well the latter model doesn’t work. Even just within the microcosm of the mortgage mess, we are now seeing how the few ‘big guys’ (the investment bankers, etc.) ultimately can’t survive without the many little guys – the masses of the common man that can make their house payment month after month.

 

To me, that’s what a successful socialistic society is. Not pure socialism that attempts to re-distribute the benefits of the society equally without regard for individual contribution differences. Of course that pure socialist model can’t work; the incentive for the individual to ‘do better’ is removed. Such as the incentive for risk taking David sited. Rather, a successful society is one that recognizes the value of the success of the masses and prioritizes that over the success of the few. While still allowing for individuals that make contributions to its success over and above the norm; to benefit over and above the norm.

 

 

The problem with the discussion of so many of these subjects here, it seems to me is that the positions taken seem to always be so black & white. One extreme or the other. Perhaps that’s just part of the nature of this written open forum medium. People feel the need to present the extreme ends of the spectrum to make their point. On this particular subject, IMHO, somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism lies the answer. Which is one element of why I brought up China going forward. They are at least talking about, and I believe even beyond that acting on, a recognition that a pure socialist social/economic model can’t work, total abandonment of it in favor of a pure capitalist social/economic mode can’t work either, and recognizing the need to find a workable balance between those two extremes. Will we (western society in general, the USA specifically) find a similar workable balance, or collapse first? Who knows?

 

[Ken H.]

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." Barry Goldwater

But see, I disagree in general with the principle that the US Constitution is the final authority on all things/anything. I think doing so is putting it on a pedestal beyond reason. It was a document created by a group of men at a particular point in time. Albeit a damn good document, but never-the-less, just like any creation of man, an imperfect one.

 

To assume that somehow that particular group of men has such insight to be able to construct a framework that is the ultimate answer to all of mankind’s challenges for all of time forward, is totally unrealistic and flawed. IMHO. To do so, is in some sense, in some very real sense, promoting that particular group of people who wrote the US Constitution to the title of Gods. They did a damn good job admittedly, but it, as all things, needs to change/evolve over time to accommodate the changes of time. IMHO.

[Lawman]

What part needs to be changed?

[ghaverkamp]

But see, I disagree in general with the principle that the US Constitution is the final authority on all things/anything.

 

Who knew you had so much in common with Todd Palin?

[Harry_Wilshusen]

They did a damn good job admittedly, but it, as all things, needs to change/evolve over time to accommodate the changes of time. IMHO.

 

Article. V

 

Harry Wilshusen

Bridgeton, MO

[Matts_12GS]

But see, I disagree in general with the principle that the US Constitution is the final authority on all things/anything. I think doing so is putting it on a pedestal beyond reason.

 

Yeah Ken, I'm pretty sure you do see it that way. I'm not even shocked, shocked I say, or awed that you would feel that way.

 

There are so many on the political fringes who feel that because something is old it has to be bad. That the constitution has be able to more or less predict human nature and seek to avoid the creation of a more despotic branch (the federal judiciary) in the maintenance of the checks and balances of government for lo these 230 or so years is amazing. I don't know if these men were chosen by an almighty entity, but it certainly seems like it. None of them were such gods (small g...) as you reference. If they were, they'd not have lost all that they did. See here.

 

They were men, men with faith that what they were doing was right for this nation. What we in the US are doing now is living out the organic program of tremendous experiment. It could be likened to the great organic computer called Earth that Douglas Adams wrote about. Maybe the answer to it all is 42.

 

I see such great danger to the nation that I offered 1/4 of my life for that I am physically saddened by this election cycle and the recent events and the actions of a pampered class of elitists who seek only to maintain their own power. When the supremes ruled that term limits were a suppression of free speech in the early 90s the death knell for America sounded. We've seen political ideologues and demagogues rage with an righteously impotent rage about whatever has befallen them at this point in time. Right now, we see an unelected bureaucrat, chosen by a lame duck running the economy of a superpower into the ground with no oversight while a group of lawyers strategize on the sideline waiting to see who they can either sue or bill for suing someone else.

 

This bailout of the investment houses is complete and utter bovine scat that should not have been allowed to happen. Bailing out the auto industry will do nothing more than create a "super duper" majority in congress elected by hoardes of of sycophants come the mid terms.

 

RIP America, we hardley knew ye...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In before the lock!

[ghaverkamp]

When the supremes ruled that term limits were a suppression of free speech in the early 90s the death knell for America sounded.

 

They ruled no such thing.

[Ken H.]

[There are so many on the political fringes who feel that because something is old it has to be bad.

Well I for one never said "bad." I said imperfect.

[Ken H.]

hijack

 

What we in the US are doing now is living out the organic program of tremendous experiment. It could be likened to the great organic computer called Earth that Douglas Adams wrote about. Maybe the answer to it all is 42.

Actually I think Douglas Adams was a tremendous visionary in communicating in the HGTTG series that nothing is necessary as it seems in the universe. And how pompous humans can be to think even for a second that we have eventhe slightest clue.

 

/hijack

[TyTass]

But see, I disagree in general with the principle that the US Constitution is the final authority on all things/anything. I think doing so is putting it on a pedestal beyond reason. It was a document created by a group of men at a particular point in time. Albeit a damn good document, but never-the-less, just like any creation of man, an imperfect one.

 

To assume that somehow that particular group of men has such insight to be able to construct a framework that is the ultimate answer to all of mankind’s challenges for all of time forward, is totally unrealistic and flawed. IMHO. To do so, is in some sense, in some very real sense, promoting that particular group of people who wrote the US Constitution to the title of Gods. They did a damn good job admittedly, but it, as all things, needs to change/evolve over time to accommodate the changes of time. IMHO.

 

Clearly you don't understand or agree that the US Constitution communicates the means by which the US Government (and more and more the state governments) can wield power over the American People. Whether you fail to do so intentionally or not, I can't tell. But to put it in your terms, Ken, that document is the contract our society has with those we give power to. It is a precious thing that. Too many have taken it for granted (as I think you do now), abused it, and/or been responsible for horrific and repugnant events despite having had the most altrustic intentions. There is a cause and effect in all that IMHO. I hope that is the change we see in the next and subsequent administrations for that matter. But I've learned not to hold my breathe.

 

Above you speak as though the Constitution hasn't changed since those men (well, at least we all agree there - they were men) first put it together. John Adams watched with chagrin as his fellow Federalists narrowly defined their positions to simply increase their power for personal benefit. That has not stopped occuring since. IMHO, I think the likes of Hamilton would revel in what we have eveolved into.

 

But we have indeed had Amendments, Ken and of course you know that. But were all the changes since the original Bill of Rights as carefully considered? IMHO the majority changes have more to do with consolidation of power of the Federal Government, justified creating a larger "empire", and have in the end created a self-perpetuating ruling class. Not too from from what "those men" were trying to prevent. So, it could be argued reasonably that posterity failed their best attempts.

 

That said, I agree that changes probably should occur. I also acknowledge that over time interpretations of words do change and perhaps we should update some old notions. But the manner in which some of the Amendments have been passed and the unfortunate consequences of others lead me to conclude that change should have been and should in the future be approached with far greater skepticism ... and passed only after careful deliberation. The problem with change is we have nearly always gotten far more than we bargained for (more on the negative side). Kind of like the perscription drug ads ... to cure a runny nose we'll risk anal leakage and/or death.

 

And in the end we fail to take measure of what we're losing in order to gain some hoped for change ... and that right now! Why? Because generally Americans are an impatient people. "We want change and we want it now" is our standard protest cry, and I think it clearly sums up how far too many of the American Pulic deliberates issues and it unfortunately belies our sense of entitlement.

 

Those men (i.e., not gods) who risked "their sacred honor", not to mention being hanged for treason, did at least have a sense of honor to risk. And they did so to create a system of government to ensure you and I could enjoy the blessings of liberty - and you chose to view your freedom/liberty as relatively unimportant and view "those guys" simply as a group of men at a particular point in time who did indeed do a pretty good document?

 

Given your views, I can only hope that you have either served in public office, volunteer for social services, give extremely generously to charities, served in the military or something ... because if not ... then all I can say is ... Huevos grandes, amigo!

[Matts_12GS]

When the supremes ruled that term limits were a suppression of free speech in the early 90s the death knell for America sounded.

 

They ruled no such thing.

 

There was a ruling handed down, I believe by the supremes, if not then perhaps it was that area's circus court (circuit...) which claimed that Florida's term limits for federal office holders (and thus all elected federal representatives/senators) was a suppression of the people's free speech in that they couldn't vote for who they wished, despite the provision for a write in vote.

 

That was the first step. Couple that with the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act and the threat of accountability to the electorate was almost completely removed.

 

I'll look into the ruling more when I get back from our club track day.

[Ken H.]

Too many have taken it for granted (as I think you do now), abused it, and/or been responsible for horrific and repugnant events despite having had the most altrustic intentions.

I do agree that it is a wonderful, brilliant document/principle that laid out the principles and set the foundation for the USA to rise to what arguably is the most prosperous nation ever. (Or at least was until the last couple of decades.) And I don’t mean to short-change it or it’s creators for a second.

 

And of course there have been changes/amendments to it over history. But none significant of recent. A lot has changed in the world since 1971. (I tend to discount the 27th amendment as mostly insignificant.)

 

My only point was that I don’t agree with the view held by strict constitutionalist that it is the end all, be all, document for the correct charter of humanity.

 

That view, IMHO, ultimately is rooted in US American arrogance. This belief widely held by US Americans that their nation is unique and special, literally called by something greater to be blessed and to be a blessing to people around the globe. To which I call BS. US America, and its constitution, doesn’t have the answer to everything. If it did we wouldn’t be in this global fincial mess we are at the moment for example.

 

Now I expect the next words out of someone’s mouth will be that had we just stuck to the principles of the constitution we wouldn’t be. The mess is due not to its flaws but to our deviation from it. But to that I ask, if those deviations were possible, doesn’t that in itself prove it was flawed?

 

[ghaverkamp]

There was a ruling handed down, I believe by the supremes, if not then perhaps it was that area's circus court (circuit...) which claimed that Florida's term limits for federal office holders (and thus all elected federal representatives/senators) was a suppression of the people's free speech in that they couldn't vote for who they wished, despite the provision for a write in vote.

 

If you're referring to the United States Supreme Court, you're presumably thinking of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, which was challenging an Arkansas term limits law, not a Florida term limits law. (Florida appears to have had one, but it didn't go to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

 

The Supreme Court ruling had nothing to do with the First Amendment. Framing it as being about the First Amendment, in my mind, only serves to support a contention that there's some sort of "despotic" judiciary run amok.

 

Kennedy summed up the issue in his concurring opinion: "The majority and dissenting opinions demonstrate the intricacy of the question whether or not the Qualifications Clauses are exclusive."