Markets and elections

[altivo]

At this rate, things are not looking good for the status quo in Washington. I'm inclined to agree that a shakeup is long overdue, and we may well get one at last.

There is a huge last minute rush of people registering to vote. Today is the deadline in Illinois, and at the library Holly has been registering people in their 50s and 60s who have never been registered and never voted before. This is definitely adding an unpredictable factor to the election results. The sleeping giant is awakening, and that may not bode well for anyone but I think it is especially bad news for those who have been in power in recent years.

In keeping with the continuing rout on Wall St., it has been gray and rainy all day. The presidential candidates are debating but I'm not sure anyone much cares what they say. They both have little credibility with me and with a lot of other people as well. Both of them stand for the same old garbage. I haven't heard a genuinely new idea from either of them yet.

As I predicted, our retirement savings are being stolen by fat cat corporate execs. The stuff coming out of the congressional hearings on the crisis is so appalling I can't stand it. Those wealthy hypocrites who can stand there and say "I can't sleep at night" because they've destroyed the pension funds and retirements of millions of people, yet when it's suggested they give up their golden parachute millions, oh no, then they smile sweetly and just say "No." Greedy f(*ing bastards. I say it's time for absolute caps on the compensation of all corporate executives. Furthermore, in cases like Lehman or AIG where the board members were obviously fiddling while Rome burned around them, they should be stripped of their ill gotten gains as a punitive measure and put to work at minimum wages for several years. Let them see how the majority of folks have to live because of their filthy greed. No? Fine, then, the alternative can be public stoning, after which their estates will be given to the poor.

Comments

[alexsious.livejournal.com]

oooo I like the public stoning.

When one makes 20 million, ten thousand people lose. If we could get those ten thousand people to fight back, then it could work out. But no... the greedy rich folk have the power in this abusive relationship and Definitely use it to their advantage. Its a sad world :(

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I'd suggest that more than ten thousand lose. We all lose in the end. I have never really been an advocate of capital punishment for the prevention of violent crimes. All evidence indicates that it doesn't work, and worse, misfires too often.

However, in cases of corporate greed, there can be little doubt of guilt. A CEO who can fake crocodile tears in front of a congressional committee and claims that he "can't sleep at night" because of the widows and orphans he has robbed, yet refuses to surrender the umpteen million dollar "severance pay" he received when his ruined corporation was seized by the government? No question of guilt there. I say public hanging is too good for him. Tie him alive to four horses and let them tear him to pieces. Even that won't let me feel satisfied. This outrageous behavior has got to stop.

[frith]

I understand that you are upset about the fact that the fat-cats at the top of the corporate food chain get compensated way out of proportion to their worth but really, you would tell private enterprise what to do with their money beyond establishing a universal minimum wage? I mean, wealth sharing like that was attempted in Russia for most of the previous century and it didn't turn out so well.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I'm not proposing communism. However, unbridled capitalism was the reason that communism even came to exist. It was a disaster then and it will be a disaster again.

I would set strict limits on profits. Excess beyond that level would be redistributed at some other level. The entire financial debacle that has come to a head this year has been the result of uncontrolled greed, without regulation, without oversight, in which the rich and powerful have been allowed to do as they please. What pleased them has been to move all productivity offshore where the labor is cheaper, while playing "company store" with our own population, lending the ill-gotten money recklessly and then screaming when it couldn't be paid back. At all levels of the economy it has been a feedback loop that operated on behavior about as intelligent as allowing a three year old child unlimited access to sugar.

I blame the constant deregulation of financial and corporate activity, the continuing interest rate cutting by the Federal Reserve, and the utter financial and ecological irresponsibility of government at all levels for this disaster. More deregulation and more interest rate cutting is NOT going to fix it. But those are the only ideas that seem to come out of those decayed minds that hold the reins of power.

We have seen the proof now that Reaganomics, or "trickle down" as it was called, does not work. Handing out money and perks to the wealthy does nothing, absolutely nothing, for the general population in the long run. All it does is further enrich the fat pigs at the top, while the poor are left to "eat cake" as Marie Antoinette so succinctly put it. Never mind that they don't have any cake left, who cares? That's the attitude from those corporate execs who have been called to testify in Washington yesterday and today. They are nothing more than pirates, and they deserve the treatment pirates used to get: drawing and quartering in a public venue.

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

Couldn't have put that better myself. There ARE shades of grey between the extremes of communism and anarcho-capitalism.

You're on your way to that lounge suite

[frith]

If not communism, perhaps a good model for your proposal would be not-for-profit companies. I've worked at the same not-for-profit company for nearly 20 years and there are other ways to screw the proletariat. The first ten years it was the managers giving themselves fat paychecks and getting kickbacks from favored suppliers and sub-contractors, often those would be friends or family. Meanwhile the enterprise was in a down-spiral, there were reductions in the unionized staff and they took cuts in wages. Managers had no cut in wages. The next ten years there was a turn around in the company due to an improved product and media presence. The wage cuts were never reimbursed, the numbers amongst the unionized proletariat continued to slide as workers retired or quit and were not replaced. Only recently have numbers of workers begun to recover and climb but at the cost of wage concessions for new workers. Meanwhile, we have to remain ever vigilant lest we get replaced by sub-contractors and low-wage "volunteers". During this time, the number of managers has shot up from six 20 years ago to over thirty-five now, giving us a government-style level of second guessing, committees and micro-management. Wage increases amongst the proletariat has not reflected the company's new prosperity and there have been no "performance bonuses" ever.

So even if you cap salaries so that the CEO paycheck doesn't suck all the liquidity out of a company, the industrial bourgeoisie will still find ways to screw you, pad their pockets and waste money.

Re: You're on your way to that lounge suite

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I've worked for non-profits too, and they are just as corrupt as capitalist structures, I agree. The only way to improve these things though, is to come to a realization that no one, and I mean no one, needs or is entitled to hoard wealth like some dragon buried in a cave.

Re: You're on your way to that lounge suite

[frith]

But I'm hoarding wealth. Eventually I will retire, and nothing guarantees that I won't be without a source of income between now and my retirement or that I won't need a lot of money to pay for health or home repairs. Banks depend on people who hoard their money in order to lend it to other people starting businesses and buying homes. If I was obliged to spend money as fast as I made it I would feel quite insecure.

Re: You're on your way to that lounge suite

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The current policies of the Federal Reserve and US Government are encouraging you to spend that money and borrow more.

By "hoarding" I was referring to accumulations of millions and billions, far more than any individual or family could ever need. America has far too many individuals with wealth in those ranges, and an inexcusable number of individuals with "wealth" at levels lower than the average in some third world countries.

If you are sitting on several million dollars in debt-free assets, then yes, I include you among the enemy. If, on the other hoof, you mean retirement accounts in the range of say 200-300K and perhaps a house that is paid for or nearly so, then no, you are merely middle class, one of the people that the rich guys are busy trying to squeeze right out of existence.

Coventry City last won the FA cup in what year?

[frith]

If I had $300,000 in the bank (I have no debt) I would consider retiring right now. If I had a million dollars, I would quit my job, no if, ands or buts.

So, you agree that sport celebrities are massively overpaid as are big name Hollywood actors.

Re: Coventry City last won the FA cup in what year?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

So, you agree that sport celebrities are massively overpaid as are big name Hollywood actors.

Absolutely, yes. Not to mention most politicians, many upper level civil "servants" and many in medical professions.

My advice is not to try to retire on $300K. That's what my mate did ten years ago, when the $300K was worth a lot more. He is cautious, though not as cautious as I am about these things. All the advice he got told him he could do it. He converted his 401K into something else (I forget the numbers) that is, essentially, a fixed payment annuity invested in mutual funds and stocks. He can control where it is invested, but admits he doesn't know enough to micromanage, so mostly it's Fidelity that manages the money. Tax law requires him to withdraw a fixed amount of cash every year and pay income taxes on it. The amount was set when he made the conversion, and was supposed to be enough for modest living requirements. His investments have lost so much as a result of the 9/11 crash and now this year's ongoing fiasco, that he says soon he will have nothing left because the annual withdrawals are going to eat up the remaining principal.

$300K isn't enough, unless you are already qualified to receive Social Security as well. If the Repuglicans get their way in this election and go ahead with their desire to "privatize" Social Security into stock market investment accounts, then nothing will be enough, as proven by this year's bear market collapses.

A million would be more than enough, provided you don't get greedy and invest it in hot air (e.g., the stock market.) Spread it around in government guaranteed certificates of deposit at multiple institutions, buy land (not houses, land), t-bills, and insured bonds. Your rate of return may be only two or three percent, but you will be safe.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

I feel like a sucker that I thought for a moment that the bailout package would even be perceived as offering the slightest respite, short-term or long.

Back to reality.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Heh. I figured it wouldn't take you long to see the truth of matters. The bailout is nothing but pouring money down a rathole. It rescues the ultrawealthy who were in fear of losing their moneybags, and leaves the rest of us with the bill for their greedy behavior. The truth is, the general population is going to suffer the same consequences anyway. Why should the rich be spared? The rich were the cause of this problem, they deserve to suffer along with everyone else. Gosh, they might have to sell their fifth car and cancel their date with the plastic surgeon. How barbaric!

If it was up to me, I'd show them barbarism. I'm not kidding when I say I think they should be torn limb from limb and fed to the coyotes. These people who sit in corporate boardrooms when they aren't stuffing their faces with thousand dollar luncheons or being driven around the golfcourse by a virtual slave have never acted in the interest of the rest of us. Their only goal has been self-enrichment, from the beginning to the end. They are parasites, the lowest scum of the earth, and deserve no better treatment than to be crushed like the worms they actually are.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Very BIG parasites, and now getting bigger.

My immediate concern with the whole thing, now that I see it unfolding, is that the failure of large corporations is a phenomenon that is going to spread to other sectors of the economy besides banking. But the US government has probably already exhausted its ability to help anyone ELSE out with this so-called bailout or "rescue" package. Only the banks will get or even have money, and their behaviour so far only shows they will just hold onto it tightly.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Absolutely it will spread. The truth is, the cancer has been there for a while and is metastasizing. Bailouts are not the surgery that is required to treat it, either. Hard, painful cuts and belt tightening are going to be necessary.

Watch for the retail industry to start screeching next, because the holidays are upon us and believe me, no one (other than those execs who just ran off with millions) will be spending money this year. It's already in the papers: Walmart is complaining about declining sales, retail shopping malls are standing nearly devoid of shoppers.

[loriana.livejournal.com]

I agree ... Here is the thing I keep wondering... You see, I think that as long as the politicians think they can get away with they will continue to do so. This even extends to the newly elected... So the R turns to a D... they will still pander to special interests, still pander to big money.. and so long as big money means big business... then nothing will _really_ change......

But then there is the stoning thing...

I see this as an actual possibility. There have been a number of people recently theorize that there is even a possibility that the united states as we know it, may become the untied states. There are a lot of simultaneous pressures that I see as coming to a single dwell point. The politicians talk about solving the economy....

I take strong exception to the notion they can. Obama _is_ right about one thing.. a strong economy is built from the bottom up... But in the 90's we became a debter nation - people these days have an average credit card debt in excess of 4k dollars. But I would be willing to bet that if youf focus on house debt, car debt... just general debt... you'd find people have a huge amount of debt.

The debt cant be paid on if people begin to lose jobs... the whole ball a wax fell off a cliff when the sub prime mortgages were defaulting... sudenly you have a snoball effect.

So tonight when the candidates were asked if they thought the economy will get worse before it gets better, they both said they didnt think so... I never heard so much bs.

*sigh* I am rambling... :P

*hugs*

But I know... it probably will get worse, and I am expecting it may very well get depression-magnitude-worse.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I have read somewhere that credit card debt is much higher than that overall, and yes, that's a major concern. Of course the borrowers are every bit as much to blame as the lenders. Borrowing at 23% interest for non-essential luxuries? Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that such behavior doesn't even work to pay for life saving medicine, let alone wide screen televisions and vacation trips. The US economy has been running on nothing but hot air for a couple of decades now, with debt increasing and production declining steadily.

Is a suburban house on at most a quarter acre of land and built from recycled woodchips and plastic really worth half a million dollars? No, it isn't, and it never was. So who is the guilty party when the buyer signs papers promising to pay back that half million dollar loan (with money he doesn't have and never will have) to a lender who doesn't care whether it will be paid back because the loan will be "sold" to someone else who gets to take responsibility for it? They told us that there was no inflation for the last decade, while the "value" of real estate was skyrocketing? That was a lie, built on manipulated numbers. There has been tremendous inflation, or a decline in the purchasing value of our money, however you choose to define it, not an increase in actual value of real properties, food, or energy.

So what do they propose to do to fix it? Why, print more money, of course. That's what the so called "bailout" and the "monetary policy adjustments" of the Federal Reserve do. History has shown again and again that this approach doesn't work. Remember the phrase "not worth a continental?" It goes back to the Continental Congress and the useless paper money that was printed at that time. Eventually it became so devalued that a whole wheelbarrow full of it wouldn't buy a loaf of bread. Unless we kick the idiots out of congress and the federal reserve, that's where we're headed. Savings become worthless because they are counted in yesterday's dollars. Loans become meaningless. Why worry about borrowing half a million if five years from now the inflation bubble turns it to five thousand dollars in real value? That was the real thinking behind sub-prime borrowing, if you can call it thinking.

[alexsious.livejournal.com]

I have read somewhere that credit card debt is much higher than that overall, and yes, that's a major concern. Of course the borrowers are every bit as much to blame as the lenders. Borrowing at 23% interest for non-essential luxuries? Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that such behavior doesn't even work to pay for life saving medicine, let alone wide screen televisions and vacation trips. The US economy has been running on nothing but hot air for a couple of decades now, with debt increasing and production declining steadily.

That's why in my family, we don't buy anything on credit. We pay cash or use or bank card because it goes straight to the bank. no interest anywhere. Even our cars we buy straight up no loans. the only loan we have is for our house.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

That has been my policy for many years now.

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

never been registered and never voted before

I am confused. Do you need to register every election? Here you add yourself to the electoral roll and that's it, unless you move house.

I am totally appalled to learn that there are 50 something who have never voted in their lives.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

No, you don't have to register every election. Each state makes their own rules, but generally, registration remains valid as long as you actually vote. It does expire when you haven't voted for a long enough time. (Otherwise, dead people would never clear from the voter rolls.)

Apathy about the electoral process has been running high in the US for my entire lifetime. I myself gave up on it for a while, not when I was in my twenties which is fairly common, but in my thirties after I first moved to Chicago and saw just how deeply rooted political corruption can be. While the mechanisms of so-called democracy vary, I suspect you see the same thing we do. Sure, you can go vote, but the choices presented are very narrow and limiting, and often misrepresented to the point that you can't be at all sure what you are voting for. People get tired of choosing "the lesser of evils" instead of something with which they can really agree. They become apathetic, decide it doesn't matter, and ignore the whole thing. Cynicism like our own abounds, in various forms.

I'm not so much surprised to learn that people in their 50s have never voted before, as I am to learn that the issues even now are enough to stir them out to register and vote for the first time in their lives. While these are important issues that have been ignored for 30 years or more, they are so underplayed and concealed by politicians and the media that most people have remained utterly and blissfully unaware of their very existence.

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

Sure, you can go vote, but the choices presented are very narrow and limiting

I fully understand where you are coming from there. We have three main parties. They used to be Conservative (centre-right), Labour (centre-left), Liberal (centre). Now they are Conservative (centre-right), Labour (centre-right), Liberal Democrat (centre-right).

Tony Blair once famously said that politics is no longer a case of left or right, but progressive and regressive. He urged us to think of voting as selecting whether you want cappuccino, espresso, or latte. That's all very well, but I prefer tea.

The real choice dissepared from British politics in the scamble to form some kind of homogenised mess in the "centre." Far from pleasing all the people all the time (as was no doubt intended), this has had the effect of pleasing none of the people at ANY time.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Heh. Here it has gone in the other direction, no doubt influenced by the historically stupid idea that there can only be two parties in the US. The two parties have polarized and moved farther and farther apart, until to many people, one looks like NAZIs and huns, and the other appears to be made up of Stalinists and Marxists.

What has actually happened, though, is that they have backed away from each other on the political spectrum without realizing that it is a circle rather than a line, and now their arses are rubbing together as they arrive at the same point from opposite directions, screaming hysterically at each other to create a distraction from what is really going on.

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that's true that the parties have become more polarized. There are extreme right Republicans and extreme left Democrats -- but it seems that the further left you go the more compelled you are to pretty much leave the Democrats. The party should be a lot closer to Kucinich's end of the spectrum than they are. The leadership of that party has just been so middle-ground that the overall effect has been that our national politics is shifting rightward -- we have no effective left at this time. That's why Congress has been so disappointing to the left; we thought we won the 2006 elections, so why are we still in Iraq, why is the economy still collapsing, why is our government still flauting the Constitution? The mainstream Democratic party has been complicit in all of this..

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Technically you may be right, but whether the Demoblats arrived where they are by moving clockwise or counterclockwise doesn't matter a whole lot in the end. The result is pretty much as Avon describes it. Repuglican, Demoblat, Republicrat, a rotten fish by any other name still stinks.

But as long as American voters continue to view elections in the same light as a football game, where voting for a "loser" is equivalent to cheering for the wrong side, things will never improve. I say the entire lot of them need to be kicked out. Every single congresstwerp who voted for that bailout should be voted out of office in November. No exceptions. No matter which party. It won't happen, but it would be better than they deserve.

[deffox]

Speaking of public stoning...

Now that AIG got back from their week long vacation that cost 440k, they are hitting the fed for 37.8 billion more. Guess 85 billion isn't enough.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/08/news/companies/aig/index.htm?cnn=yes

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I certainly didn't need to know that, I'm mad enough already. Stoning is too easy for them. I already decided today that public evisceration is more appropriate.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

Well if it took this to stir people out of their lethargy then maybe change is on the way.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I sincerely hope so, but I'm also concerned that the stir is actually people rushing to vote only because they are horrified at the idea of a "black" president.