Stand With The Wall Street Protesters

[Andrew Gubb]

The free market works but it's not all there is. The government is supposed to do for the public good what private enterprise can't or won't.

It also seems to me that government can and should do things to level out the gap in wealth between the rich and the poor. The free market is a nice ideal, but when things work out quite the way things ideally "should" be then people should be helped out.

The obvious example is someone who is too old and weak to work. The government should help them out. It only makes sense. The "free market" would let them die.

Less extreme would be a worker who couldn't necessarily afford health care. If the economy in general is wealthy enough to support it, then I say they should get free health care, like in Western Europe.

Or when a worker loses his or her job. It makes sense they should get some money in the period where they are looking for a new job.

The market is mindless and treats everyone the same. Only humans can even out unfairness and imperfections to the system.

It's true that apples grow well. We can leave them in the wild and pick them. But if we want more apples, or want them in different places to where they grow wild, then we need to do something to modify nature, hopefully in the most gentle and harmonious way possible.

The same is true for the market. It works well. It's self regulating, like an apple forest. But if for some reason something isn't working, then humans need to step in and make it work.

People shouldn't need to lose their homes because they haven't had time or savings between jobs to find a new one. People shouldn't be unable to afford basic health care if the economy is large enough to provide this to everyone. What is life or death compared to a wealthy person's new car? (I am leaving out my personal issues with modern healthcare here for the sake of the point I'm making). Are we to be "every man for himself", just because the market is a good enough system for this to work most of the time, or should we (gasp) help out our fellow man when it's needed?

There are issues with institutions being dumb too of course. Many or most policies intended to "correct" the free market have just screwed it up more. But failures in the past doesn't mean that we have to aim for a different sort of failure. The best government, IMO, has the best of both worlds: socialism and capitalism.

Capitalism: a natural system, and socialism, human interventions on the natural.

In our own lives I don't see anyone saying we need be ONLY natural or ONLY artificial. I think it's pretty clear we need both. The same goes for an economy as a whole.

[russianrocket]

We need MOSTLY naturally. Socialism leans towards mosttly artificial.

The community is supposed to help people, where big business won't. Not the government. The government can only put out sweeping generalized reform and causes more problems then it solves. And, usually costs more in the long run.

[pjhaggerty]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

We need MOSTLY naturally. Socialism leans towards mosttly artificial.

The community is supposed to help people, where big business won't. Not the government. The government can only put out sweeping generalized reform and causes more problems then it solves. And, usually costs more in the long run.

Why should the community help people instead of the government? Larger governments are much more capable of helping people than a community, in the same way that a large insurance company can offer lower premiums than a small one. With more people to help and to share the costs of helping, specialization of labor and economies of scale can develop as opposed to local community help.

Also, the government is capable of putting out more than sweeping generalized reform- you just don't hear about it because it's not newsworthy. Most specialized small scale reform or programs are too small to warrant main stream news coverage. The news would not report it if the government started a program specifically targeted to help a small niche population, even if it was widely successful in helping them, because it is not newsworthy to most viewers.

That doesn't mean that such programs don't exist or can't exist.

Also, where do you get the statistics that government programs invariably, in all cases (or even a majority of cases), cause more problems than they solve or cost more in the long run?

In addition, those problems are not specific to the government. Even in private industry, many business initiatives cause unintended problems and cost more than projected.

Such failures are due to limited human predictive abilities. They're not specific to government.

[Andrew Gubb]

I saw RR's comment in the quote.

I agree the balance should be MOSTLY natural, with some artificial. I think this is a good idea for most things.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In case you didn't realise, most of the US banks already paid the government back the bailout money, quite some time back. Banks which have fully repaid their bailout money include:

It's good that they paid back their loans, but the real problem is that such banks can act very irresponsibly since they know they will receive bailouts if they ever go under. These banks engaged in risky lending that led to a housing bubble and burst, which caused major economic problems. All the individuals who made poor borrowing decisions with their homes got foreclosed on and paid the price for their poor judgment. The banks, on the other hand, were rewarded with public money for their bad judgment. This encourages banks to act without regard to the potential consequences of their behavior.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Gabo

It's good that they paid back their loans, but the real problem is that such banks can act very irresponsibly since they know they will receive bailouts if they ever go under. These banks engaged in risky lending that led to a housing bubble and burst, which caused major economic problems. All the individuals who made poor borrowing decisions with their homes got foreclosed on and paid the price for their poor judgment. The banks, on the other hand, were rewarded with public money for their bad judgment. This encourages banks to act without regard to the potential consequences of their behavior.

In case you missed it, the government forced banks to give out those risky loans. So, as I've said before, it always leads back to the governments incompetence forcing business to do something they don't want to

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Gabo

It's good that they paid back their loans, but the real problem is that such banks can act very irresponsibly since they know they will receive bailouts if they ever go under.

In case you didn't realize:

(1) many banks did not receive any bailout at all and have already died (Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns being two prominent examples, but certainly not the only examples)

(2) Basel 3 has already been rolled out, and will take effect by 1st January 2013, so how to act irresponsibly?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In case you didn't realise, most of the US banks already paid the government back the bailout money, quite some time back. Banks which have fully repaid their bailout money include:

Bank of America
JP Morgan
Wells Fargo
Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley
U.S Bancorp
American Express
Bank of New York Mellon
State Street Corporation

How do you know that?

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In case you didn't realize:

(1) many banks did not receive any bailout at all and have already died (Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns being two prominent examples, but certainly not the only examples)

Remember Enron and Arthur Andersen?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Reefs

How do you know that?

It's public knowledge. Try googling. Here, try this link:

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... and scroll down to the table which sets out the details on how much each bank was bailout, who has repaid, etc etc.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It's public knowledge.

That public knowledge is exactly what I'm questioning. Public knowledge is changing far too frequently.

[Acting Like Godot]

Well, if you want to stretch it that far - how do you know that the government ever bailed out any bank at all?

Soon we will get into conspiracy theories about the nature of mind and reality.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Remember Enron and Arthur Andersen?

Yup ... Never any bailout, for Enron.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Yup ... Never any bailout, for Enron.

That's right.

My point was that Andersen did play with the public knowledge about Enron.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Well, if you want to stretch it that far - how do you know that the government ever bailed out any bank at all?

Well, you don't. It's all based on hearsay. And everyone is taking it for fact, for real which in a sense makes it a fact and real.

Soon we will get into conspiracy theories about the nature of mind and reality.

Hehe, no we won't.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

It's true that apples grow well. We can leave them in the wild and pick them. But if we want more apples, or want them in different places to where they grow wild, then we need to do something to modify nature, hopefully in the most gentle and harmonious way possible.

Next, Andrew Gubb will buy fertile plots of land; train his farmers well; invest in the best technology; use only the best seed and fertilisers; grow the best apples at the lowest cost; set up a finance department; raise funds through an IPO; apply an effective marketing strategy; consult his tax advisers; harvest efficiently; acquire an apple-juice factory; diversify into orange juice and soy milk; export to Europe and Asia ...

And there we have it! Fortune 500's new brand member - the Andrew Gubb International Apple & Orange Corporation!!

Wait, corporations are evil. Mustn't eat his apples. Let's call in the Wall Street protestors.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Next, Andrew Gubb will buy fertile plots of land; train his farmers well; invest in the best technology; use only the best seed and fertilisers; grow the best apples at the lowest cost; set up a finance department; raise funds through an IPO; apply an effective marketing strategy; consult his tax advisers; harvest efficiently; acquire an apple-juice factory; diversify into orange juice and soy milk; export to Europe and Asia ...

And there we have it! Fortune 500's new brand member - the Andrew Gubb International Apple & Orange Corporation!!

Wait, corporations are evil. Mustn't eat his apples. Let's call in the Wall Street protestors.

Now that's sarcasm.

[Acting Like Godot]

Not at all.

The point of the post is that the only difference between big corporation and small business, is their relative size.

If Steve Pavlina incorporated his business, hired 200 trainers to do workshops in 30 countries, and 500 staff to run his websites; market his workshops; manage his accounts; plan his logistics; print his materials; book his flights; set up his venues; and prepare his podcasts ...

... he would be on his way to being a "Big Corporation".

[Andrew Gubb]

Nothing wrong with big corporations in and of themselves, though power means that your actions have more impact, for better or worse.

I'm not sure if I communicated that I was against corporations? Or maybe you were just using the apple example without intending to make a statement about me?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Next, Andrew Gubb will buy fertile plots of land; train his farmers well; invest in the best technology; use only the best seed and fertilisers; grow the best apples at the lowest cost; set up a finance department; raise funds through an IPO; apply an effective marketing strategy; consult his tax advisers; harvest efficiently; acquire an apple-juice factory; diversify into orange juice and soy milk; export to Europe and Asia ...

And there we have it! Fortune 500's new brand member - the Andrew Gubb International Apple & Orange Corporation!!

Wait, corporations are evil. Mustn't eat his apples. Let's call in the Wall Street protestors.

Yeah, Andrew is evil. He is so selfish. And soon he will start manipulating the markets with the rumors of apple shortages he spread in different news papers. He will buy scientist that support his "Peak Apple" theory! Finite supply of apples, you know...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Or maybe you were just using the apple example without intending to make a statement about me?

Yes .... The "Corporations are Evil" point was made by some folks in another thread about the same Wall Street protests ......

[ar81]

I was named "socialist" and "antiamerican" and warned by moderators for "country bashing" in another american forum filled with educated adults, just 3 years ago, just for pointing out that unemployment was going to be a problem in US. Who is the "socialist" and "antiamerican" now?

[garentee]

There are some corporations which have done evil things in the name of profit..That much is true. In and of themselves they are not evil.. When plundering resources and displacing people or even killing them directly or indirectly is a business practice i would call that evil. Some corporations get tax breaks and get into high levels of government to insure that they are not penalized for their actions or can regulate the industry to suit THEIR needs.. That in general is what I find offensive about corporations.. not to mention quite a few of their products are made poorly never mind the fact that a lot of the products are made with sweatshop labor and or child labor.. Bottom line is there are a LOT of corporations that just plain suck at being human.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

In case you missed it, the government forced banks to give out those risky loans. So, as I've said before, it always leads back to the governments incompetence forcing business to do something they don't want to

Simplicity and clarity. Fox News figured it out! Look how effortlessly they spread their rhetoric.

[Brutha]

The point of the post is that the only difference between big corporation and small business, is their relative size.

That's false.
Small business increased the amount of people that it employs in the last years while big business reduced the number of people that they employed.
Small business doesn't have the power to lobby the government to write law that help the business.

MBA-run publically traded companies act differently than owner-run businesses.

[Acting Like Godot]

A small business that employs more and more and more people will become a big corporation.

A big corporation that employs less and less and less people will become a small business.

Most of us will remember, for instance, the stories of the days when Microsoft, Facebook and Kentucky Fried Chicken were small businesses.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Brutha

MBA-run publically traded companies act differently than owner-run businesses.

Yes, there is a difference between publicly listed companies, and private companies.

But this is not quite the same as the difference between small businesses and big corporations.

There are, for instance, some very large businesses which are NOT publicly listed. Trafigura, Vitoil, Glencore, Koch Industries, Deutsche Bahn are some examples.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by garentee

Bottom line is there are a LOT of corporations that just plain suck at being human.

Since it has been said by many psychologists for a while now, that a high percentage of people who have psychopathic personalities are in fact CEO's of many of the major corporations, is it little wonder?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

A big corporation that employs less and less and less people will become a small business.

That doesn't quite follow logically. If you can maintain the same profits with less people, you're still a big corporation.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

That doesn't quite follow logically. If you can maintain the same profits with less people, you're still a big corporation.

Who said anything about maintaining the same profits tho?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Who said anything about maintaining the same profits tho?

I did. To show that employing less people doesn't necessarily turn a big corporation into a small one, as ALG was arguing.