The Unnanounced Class War

[Guest Derek L]

I'll give you a clue. The phrase you clumsily must have wrote yourself is based on a quotation from Francois Guizot. Look it up. Read. Learn. And feel like an idiot yourself.

Can you prove that he said that..........Or that Churchill (Or anyone else) never did later?

[sharkman]

No. I show you up, then move on.

Like you did with the trolling about my parental status? In a thread about a video? You may be right about Churchill on this occasion, but you mostly post very short sentences then move on.

[Guest Derek L]

It's a common courtesy to provide a source even when challenged on the basics, though. It should be easy if this is the case as you stated.

And I explained why the crux of the quote, the principle behind it was played out over his career..........

[Canuckistani]

I think you must have read through my post too fast, because you misrepresented almost everything I said and then disagreed with the misrepresentation that you constructed, or are you simply bored and looking for a reaction? I'll correct the first point but not bother with the rest. No I did not say that there would be no recessions with corporate America in control. I stated that a four year recession would not have happened. That means that I feel that the recession would have been shorter than 4 years. As for the rest, you are on your own. Try to read a little more carefully though.

You're right. The US govt should have removed even more banking regulations. And most importantly, the US govt should not have poured all that money into the economy after the collapse. That's the job of the corprations, and if they had been in control the collapse would have just been a little downturn in one quarter. When will we learn to let the smartest guys in the room run things?

[cybercoma]

You're right. The US govt should have removed even more banking regulations.

Are you really foolish enough to believe that the economic crisis that we're in now and the crash that happened in 2008 was a result of too many regulations?

[Guest Derek L]

He did provide a source - he referenced a book; and BubberMiley could have just as easily provided one backing up his claim:

According to this site, the quote is quite often mistakenly attributed to Churchill.

Charles Krauthammer [op-ed, May 25] quotes Winston Churchill as saying, "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head."

This quotation is frequently but mistakenly attributed to Churchill. It is anyway unlikely

that Churchill would subscribe to this philosophy: He was a swashbuckling soldier at 20, and a Conservative member of Parliament at 25. A couple of years later he switched to the Liberal Party (which was not liberal in the modern sense), and later went back to the Conservatives.

The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

http://www.washingto...8&notFound=true

Like I said above, his backings of public policy early in his career, when contrasted with the last several decades of his time in politics play out said quote..........

[Canuckistani]

Are you really foolish enough to believe that the economic crisis that we're in now and the crash that happened in 2008 was a result of too many regulations?

Ponder my last sentence and you will have your answer.

[sharkman]

You're right. The US govt should have removed even more banking regulations. And most importantly, the US govt should not have poured all that money into the economy after the collapse. That's the job of the corprations, and if they had been in control the collapse would have just been a little downturn in one quarter. When will we learn to let the smartest guys in the room run things?

No that's not what I said. I think part of the problem on the left is the insistence of misrepresenting posts they oppose.

[Canuckistani]

No that's not what I said. I think part of the problem on the left is the insistence of misrepresenting posts they oppose.

No, it's what I said after reading your post. So, how would the 2008 collapse have been mitigated by having "corporations in control?"

[Argus]

Yes, the corporate world can influence government, but to ignore crooked politicians and those with hidden agendas has one missing part of the picture.

There will always be crooked politicians. What I'm talking about are the legal ones who, if they intend re-election, MUST fund raise millions of dollars for their campaign. They MUST spend between 25%-50% of their time raising funds. The people who provide those funds are the tens of thousands of lobbyists working for the corporate world. And the more generous those corporations are, the more money it cost to get elected/re-elected, and the more fundraising politicians have to do.

If corporate America could drive policy, then there would have been no 4 year recession, plain and simple. How many corporations have gone bankrupt in that time? How many billions lost?

You assume the corporations are organized and are pressuring politicians to do things in an organized fashion. They're not. Each group lobbies for itself, and while there is a similarity of general views there is no united effort with a planned result. Each industry or trade groups lobbies to weaken taxes and regulations on itself. None of them have in mind some greater societal or economic target So, in fact, it was industry money which caused the recession, in particular, the financial industry lobbying which weakened regulation and caused the government to turn a blind eye to what they were doing.

Then there are the policies that actively hurt corporate America. The red tape, the triple regulations, the environmental protection that costs corporations so much. That doesn't mesh with your theory too well.

It reinforces it. Every time the corporate party (Republicans) get in power they immediately begin to weaken those regulations on behalf of their corporate paymasters.

Oil would have drilling in Alaska, and far more everywhere else. They've got the deepest pockets, have they not

If corporations could influence policy as you say, then the keystone pipeline, a no-brainer for the oil industry, would have been built by now

But the corporatist party hasn't been in power these last four years.

How do you take money out of the equation? The only way I can think of is communism.

Canada has actually done a decent job of taking money out of the equation.

[Guest American Woman]

Nothing inconsistent about that.....political parties can be polarizing for groups but not necessarily for individual core values. JFK was a Democrat too.

I think, too, it's not so much that my views have changed, but more that my focus has changed.

[Canuckistani]

You assume the corporations are organized and are pressuring politicians to do things in an organized fashion. They're not. Each group lobbies for itself, and while there is a similarity of general views there is no united effort with a planned result. Each industry or trade groups lobbies to weaken taxes and regulations on itself. None of them have in mind some greater societal or economic target So, in fact, it was industry money which caused the recession, in particular, the financial industry lobbying which weakened regulation and caused the government to turn a blind eye to what they were doing.

This was really brought home to me in a dramatization of the crash - forget the name of it, but it had actors portraying all the real life figures in the event. As banks start teetering, money to lend dries up. The chairman of GE calles up Bernake or some such offical to say " we make dishwashers for God's sake, we have nothing to do with this meltdown. But if I can't get credit I can't meet my payroll, and I go bankrupt too." Letting the banks go bankrupt might have been an option, but not all the businesses that would be affected by it. Also discussed in the film was the fear of "socialism" that prevented the govt from just taking over the banks and creating order. Instead the govt just handed over about a trillion dollars to the banks and said 'we trust you to do the right thing." They didn't.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Canada has actually done a decent job of taking money out of the equation.

Sure...there isn't much politically motivated corruption in Canada.

[dre]

If corporate America could drive policy, then there would have been no 4 year recession, plain and simple.

The recession had both winners and losers. Corporations made a gigantic ammount of money inflating the realestate bubble, and they most certainly were drivers of the policies that lead to the recession.

But more importantly you are trying to create an imaginary distinction between corporations in the financial sector and government that does not exist. These are not two separate entities they are in fact the same bunch of people. The governments financial apparatus is almost completely controlled by wallstreet, and monetary policy is driven by the federal reserve which is comprised of 12 private corporations. Up until recently the government was not even allowed to ask them what they were up to.

[sharkman]

I think what the elitists want is also an economy that hasn't been on life support for 4 years now. This Powell memo sounds something like a conspiracy theory. Just because the business sector evolved in their behavior towards government and an obscure memo exists, is it really an "aha" moment?

Money makes the world go round, it always has.

Edited December 30, 2012 by sharkman

[WIP]

To be fair, he wasn't talking about the rich. He was talking about the wealthy. And while I don't entirely agree with him there is some truth in his words.

Thanks for that! Yes, I was focusing on something higher than the 1%....specifically looking at that Forbes 400. And bullshit and bafflegab about how they are "entrepreneurs" can't hide the fact that these gluttons who mostly start off with inherited wealth, have gotten richer at everyone else's expense. Not just here in North America or Europe, but including the profits from third world outsourcing....which have only reduced prices on things like clothing marginally...as most of the profits go to the top of the corporations that run the garment industries.....this is in large part how the Walmart heirs have increased their earnings from the family business. It's certainly not going to Walmart employees or the third world manufacturers set up to supply products at arms length from the mother corporation. It's a matter of using money to earn more money, and that's why they hire lobbyists to push for reducing capital gains taxes and other taxes on investment income. No sign I am aware of that these "entreprenurs" are creating jobs (as if jobs are something that is "created" in the first place) or investing most of the profits in their companies.

In 1992, the 400th richest person in America made $24 million.

In 2007, the 400th richest person in America made $138 million (or $87 million, inflation-adjusted).

Now, that almost certainly wasn't the same guy. There's a lot of churn at the top of the money pyramid. In all of the 1990s, only 25% of the Fortunate 400 made more than one appearance. But the overall message is the same. The rich keep get much richer.

According to the

IRS

, which recently released 2009 data from the 400 richest individual income tax returns, the real runaway growth in wealth has come from capital gains. In the last years of the bubble, the "Fortunate 400" made nearly half their income from capital gains (a.k.a.: profit from the rising value of an

investment

, such as stocks or property) and less than 10% of their income from old-fashioned wages.

The average income of a top-400 earner

grew by 650% between 1992 and 2007 to a whopping $344 million

. Over that time, the average salary barely doubled. But the average capital gains haul increased by 1,200%. How do the richest get richer?

Not from their wages. From their investments.

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/how-the-richest-400-people-in-america-got-so-rich/259520/#ixzz2GZGPNJxI

And yes,

the 400 richest Americans own as much wealth as the poorest half of the U.S. population! I don't make these things up! It's just not something reported often in MSM which is dependent on the benevolence of the wealthy more and more for their own survival, and the big news media stars working for the networks do not have much of an audience to support their high salaries (David Gregory is reportedly in the 10 mil a year range). The Sunday 'news' shows are manipulators who work for the purpose of trying to generate some public interest in the stories their sponsors want the press to focus on during the week.....and many of the other news outlets on TV and in print, just run with the bullshit on Meet The Press! Otherwise, the phony drama behind these Fiscal Cliff reports would not have been crowding out a lot of real news in the last two months that isn't brought to public attention.

[WIP]

The recession had both winners and losers. Corporations made a gigantic ammount of money inflating the realestate bubble, and they most certainly were drivers of the policies that lead to the recession.

But more importantly you are trying to create an imaginary distinction between corporations in the financial sector and government that does not exist. These are not two separate entities they are in fact the same bunch of people. The governments financial apparatus is almost completely controlled by wallstreet, and monetary policy is driven by the federal reserve which is comprised of 12 private corporations. Up until recently the government was not even allowed to ask them what they were up to.

Yes, especially Wall Street! It has been noted a couple of times in recent years that the decline in the middle class in the U.S., and the growth of the wealthier classes has tracked closely with a demographic change in the U.S. economy, which has seen manufacturing decline almost in half, while financial services - including banking, insurance and stock and bond trading, has grown to where manufacturing used to be -- about 30% of annual GDP.

A lot of the growth in income of the international banks and traders in derivative investments, is coming from the fact that they are the ones who are creating money and squeezing the real economies to pay in real assets as they drive citizens and their governments into debt bondage. The game being played in the Eurozone for example, makes no sense as a story if German and other bankers actually intend bankrupt nations they are loaning more money, to be able to pay off their debts. There is no plan....even the most optimistic estimates...that can envision these countries paying off their debts. The game is disaster capitalism, and the end game is the seizing of land and public assets by authorized corporate raiders who pay the banks for the rights to cannibalize entire nations of their assets. The phony drama going on behind the scenes in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, sounds little more than a drama concocted to justify raiding the U.S. Economy....starting with Medicare and Social Security!

[Argus]

Thanks for that! Yes, I was focusing on something higher than the 1%....specifically looking at that Forbes 400. And bullshit and bafflegab about how they are "entrepreneurs" can't hide the fact that these gluttons who mostly start off with inherited wealth,

A large proportion, yes, but you can never say all, or it gives ammunition to the other side. That's especially so with a broad statement about how none of them contributed anything (think Steve Jobs and Bill Gates).

According to the IRS, which recently released 2009 data from the 400 richest individual income tax returns, the real runaway growth in wealth has come from capital gains. In the last years of the bubble, the "Fortunate 400" made nearly half their income from capital gains (a.k.a.: profit from the rising value of an investment, such as stocks or property) and less than 10% of their income from old-fashioned wages.

Don't forget dividends. And how is it they're making so much more now? Because business has been so good? Well... no. First, let's look at the move to cut business taxes. That's been extremely successful in many places. The theory is you cut business taxes, business is more profitable, and it expands, creates more jobs. After all, that money either has to go into expansion, which is great for the economy, or payouts to the end owners, the shareholders, where it can then be taxed anyway.

In theory.

But then the capital gains tax was lowered to 15%, and then the dividend tax credit was lowered, eventually to 15% also.

Oh, and all sorts of measures were inserted in the tax code to allow even those rates to be played with, deferred indefinitely or eliminated.

So in the end, the government wound up with WAY less money, and those who owned most of the stock, that would be the wealthy, wound up with WAY more money.

[Argus]

This was really brought home to me in a dramatization of the crash - forget the name of it, but it had actors portraying all the real life figures in the event. As banks start teetering, money to lend dries up. The chairman of GE calles up Bernake or some such offical to say " we make dishwashers for God's sake, we have nothing to do with this meltdown. But if I can't get credit I can't meet my payroll, and I go bankrupt too." Letting the banks go bankrupt might have been an option, but not all the businesses that would be affected by it.

But if the glass-steagal act hadn't been revoked, by Clinton, btw, though congress was unanimous, I believe, the banks never could have gotten involved in the risky ventures they did. They wouldn't have grown as gigantic either, because the law kept banks from investing directly in the market the way they now do. And without all that money flowing into politicians' pockets, in this case Bush and the Republicans, the oversight agencies wouldn't have turned a blind eye. The banks got the freedom they wanted, and an orgy of profit ensued. But, of course, it couldn't last.

[Argus]

Sure...there isn't much politically motivated corruption in Canada.

There's some small-time stuff in Quebec, involving construction, sure, highly illegal. The problem in the United States is the money is a million times bigger, and entirely legal... sort of.

That is, as long as none of the big lobby groups or corporations or billionaires openly admits "Yeah, I'm giving him money so he'll vote the way I want" and as long as the politicians don't openly admit "Yeah, I'm voting for this because they give me so much money" then it's "legal". But everyone knows damned well what's going on. As long as it's not written down anywhere a cop can see it, though, it carries on "wink-wink, nudge-nudge. KnowwhatImean".

[bush_cheney2004]

But if the glass-steagal act hadn't been revoked, by Clinton, btw, though congress was unanimous, I believe....

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did not revoke all of Glass-Steagal, as some provisions were left intact. The vote in Congress was not "unanimous", as very few things ever are:

• Passed the Senate on May 6, 1999 (54-44)
  
• Passed the House as the Financial Services Act of 1999 on Jul 30, 1999 (241-132)
  

[bush_cheney2004]

There's some small-time stuff in Quebec, involving construction, sure, highly illegal. The problem in the United States is the money is a million times bigger, and entirely legal... sort of.

Yeah...just small stuff in a much smaller country. Just average run-of-the-mill Canadian corruption that nobody really cares about, except for maybe AdScam that turfed the "natural" ruling party of the nation.

Hell, the Canadians with any real money spend it lobbying in Washington instead. Can't make any serious coin building substandard roadways and bridges in Quebec.

[Canuckistani]

But if the glass-steagal act hadn't been revoked, by Clinton, btw, though congress was unanimous, I believe, the banks never could have gotten involved in the risky ventures they did. They wouldn't have grown as gigantic either, because the law kept banks from investing directly in the market the way they now do. And without all that money flowing into politicians' pockets, in this case Bush and the Republicans, the oversight agencies wouldn't have turned a blind eye. The banks got the freedom they wanted, and an orgy of profit ensued. But, of course, it couldn't last.

I don't know why you say but, as if you are disputing me - we're on the same page here. Clinton is also responsible for pushing the banks to make loans to shaky creditors in order to encourage homeownership by minorities. A nice idea in theory, a disaster in practice. The main drivers of this mess tho were the banks themselves - with their derivatives and such, marketing garbage as AAA securities.

We also agree on corporate taxation. The case has been made to have no corporate taxes at all. it would prevent corps from playing games with tax deductions. Instead tax dividends and capital gains as income, same as earned income. That would pressure the corps to re-invest the money the make instead of paying ti out to share holders.

Once the mess hit the fan, the US banks should have been nationalized and restructured so none are too big to fail, and a new version of Glass-Stegal introduced. Then re-privatize them. And go after the Wall St crooks criminally. What was that story we jut had here, where HSBC was not charged with criminal money laundering because it would have set off another round of bank crises. Because they're certainly not the only one.

[sharkman]

Yeah...just small stuff in a much smaller country. Just average run-of-the-mill Canadian corruption that nobody really cares about, except for maybe AdScam that turfed the "natural" ruling party of the nation.

Hell, the Canadians with any real money spend it lobbying in Washington instead. Can't make any serious coin building substandard roadways and bridges in Quebec.

I've heard rumours about corruption in Ontario too, but since I live in BC, I can attest to the corruption that keeps cropping up here as well so I really don't see how Canada can be held up as an example of taking money out of the equation though maybe we have less as we have a smaller population.

[Canuckistani]

Sure...there isn't much politically motivated corruption in Canada.

Argus isn't talking about corruption, but the legal influence of lobbying money. Much greater, even relative to population in the US. Our guys just don't spend that much money on getting re-elected as the US pols.

Our corruption score of 8.7 which puts us in 10th place. The US is 7.1 in 24th place. We're closer to NZ in 1st at 9.5 than we are to the US. Take Quebec out of the equation, and I'm sure we'd move right up the ladder.

Top 5 countries: 1. New Zealand 9.5 2. Denmark 9.4 2. Finland 9.4 4. Sweden 9.3 5. Singapore 9.2

Those damn socialists beating us again.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Canuckistani