Walker Wins Wis Recall, Obama Wins Exit Poll

[RallySonsOfND]

If the US is becoming anything it is quickly moving towards being an oligarchy due to the extreme concentration of wealth and therefore power among a select few Americans. Personally I feel this is the biggest threat to the US being a Democratic State. Anyhow, telling someone to esentially "love it or leave it" is pretty lame.

The United States is NOT a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.


Get it right.

 

[Bluto]

You are right. The US is a Constitutional Republic with lots of democratic elements and it is quickly moving towards an oligarchy. Good for us.

 

[irishpat183]

Can anyone think of a system (Communist, Dictatorship, Democratic etc) that hasn't, over time, eventually failed?

We haven't failed. There are ups and downs.

But I'd rather fail free, than under a dictatorship/communist rule

 

[RDU Irish]

Funny how concentration of power to the federal government results in an oligarchy. Who exactly does stricter regulation benefit? Who exactly has power to negotiate with union labor? The innovative, growing small businesses are largely price takers in these oppressive situations and are much easier to intimidate. Rand Paul last night says Romney agrees that any regulation costing more than $100M should go to Congress for a vote. AS IF THAT IS NOTHING! So a $90 million regulation on a small growing $300 million industry can still be crammed through.

For the record, we would be better off if we hadn't bailed anyone out. Let the market figure it out and suffer the risk along with the reward. Government has created a financial system of socialized losses and privatized gains which runs completely counter to the premise of capitalism.

Regulations also create homogenous banks. They all do and offer the same stuff because they have to play within the same (increasingly) strict rules. This link shows a steady decline from 12,000 banks in 1990 to less than 8,000 in 2008. I saw an interview last night where the guy said there were 24,000 in 1980 (Stossel is a great show btw).

Starting a bank is harder than ever. The deck is increasingly stacked to the favor of the big dogs, as the chart shows the 100 largest banks taking up more and more market share. Used to be bankers started new banks all the time and used their relationships to build a client base, stealing away from the bigger banks. Now relationships mean nothing. Regulators decide how you value your portfolio of loans and they don't care if you have been through 5 business cycles with the borrower, you need to revalue the loan and foreclose on the borrower.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2009/articles/bankprofit/chart/fig4.gif

 

[RDU Irish]

So 1/3rd as many banks as there were thirty years ago with 80% of assets with the 100 biggest banks now. Time to send in Teddy Roosevelt to bust those suckers up and create a more competitive market place (which also requires less regulation and normalized interest rates).

 

[RallySonsOfND]

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-4-2012/polish-that-turd'>Polish That Turd - Jobs Report</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:414785' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Totally agreed RDU Irish.

With added regulation comes a higher price of doing business. A price that runs smaller businesses into the ground, and raises the cost of entry into a market, thus decreasing competition. The only staff my bank has added within the past few years are in the compliance department. Making sure the bank is following ever increasing regulations. They do not make the bank money but cost it.

 

[BobD]

We haven't failed. There are ups and downs.

But I'd rather fail free, than under a dictatorship/communist rule

No we haven't failed but we like most businesses that fail, have taken our success for granted, strayed far from our original business plan and the mission statement that got us here in the first place. I think the people (citizen or our founding fathers) from 1776 might look at us in disgust. The sense of entitlement and lack of involvement in America will be our downfall.

 

[irishpat183]

Totally agreed RDU Irish.

With added regulation comes a higher price of doing business. A price that runs smaller businesses into the ground, and raises the cost of entry into a market, thus decreasing competition. The only staff my bank has added within the past few years are in the compliance department. Making sure the bank is following ever increasing regulations. They do not make the bank money but cost it.

Agree with you both. To put it simply, big businesses can AFFORD to make the changes and either adapt to new regs or lobby their way around them. Small businesses can't.

They will claim they are helping small business with regulations that "level the playing field" but it's simply not true. Take the ACA. Claiming nationalized health care will "help" small businesses.....BS. It won't. It's gonna only cost them more. As a small business owner (soon to be former small business owner as we're selling) I can tell you that in most cases, the employees don't want health care! They don't want the pay cut. They want it for free. But as we all know, nothing is for free. So pass the buck to the small biz owner. Now the small biz owner has to shut down, because he can't afford to run his company with all the new costs and tax involved. Everyone loses....

 

[irishpat183]

No we haven't failed but we like most businesses that fail, have taken our success for granted, strayed far from our original business plan and the mission statement that got us here in the first place. I think the people (citizen or our founding fathers) from 1776 might look at us in disgust. The sense of entitlement and lack of involvement in America will be our downfall.

I 100% agree. Entitlement and laziness.

But that's a bigger indication of the growth of the "dependent" class. You wanna see the downfall of America up close and personal? Check out your local OWS members......

-I want a job! (yet has tattoos covering 50% of their body and a worthless Art History degree)
-I want my loans repaid! (yet went to college only to major in said worthless degree)
-It's the 1%er's fault!! (yet the 1% is the guy that likely loaned them the money to go to college)

 

[Domina Nostra]

IMO, Corporations serve themselves, and are not pro-competitoion, free markets, or capitalism. If it were possible for a corporation to stifle all competition in a particular market and gain monopoly status it tries to do just that. No one should have the idea that being pro huge-corporations is being pro free market, etc. Corporations often function to serve mangement first and shareholders second, emplyees third, and no one else.

Similarly, unions are not pro-education, US industry, or competition. They are for themselves. They function to get what they can get and love to do it with as little competition as possible. They tend to serve union mangement first, their members second, and other unions third.

On the other topic, since everyone agrees that totally free markets are destructive, but that centrally-controlled markets don't work, the real question that everyone is actually working through is how much (and what kind of) regulation is good.

One side tends to say the bare mnimum that promotes fair competition, since too much power in regulators inevitably shifts resources to special interest groups and buerachrats and distorts markets in the image of polititians who don't understand them. In the end, the belief is that when the economy is chugging a long, their are plenty of taxes being generated on the backend to deal with the social issues.

The other side emphasizes that a free market system driven purely by profit tends to be very destructive and unstable. Markets need to serve social goods, like stable communities and worker welfare. Human happiness, liberty, and even health is not well-served by a pure profit model; other goods need to be taken into account. Regulators with knowledge of the system, but outside of the profit incentive, are necessary to curb its excesses

So basically, where you fall in the argument is based on whether you worry more about the evils of greedy individuals accumulating wealth and exercising influence unchecked, or ambitious polititians and officials taking power from the people and consolidating it for themselves.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Many guys do exist like him, it's just the draw to get into and stay in teaching is a lot less then it was 30 years ago. Considering what they get paid for all the hours that they put in and what they have to put up with in class and dealing with many unsupportive parents it's getting harder and harder to attract top notch talent into teaching.

^This

I'm a teacher, so many of you will dismiss what I have to say immediately. I'm also a darn good teacher who graduated in the top 1% of my collegiate class (see conversation about teachers being dumb).

I see teachers working constantly and enduring more scrutiny than nearly any other profession. There are bad ones. I'm open to conversation about how to fairly evaluate and get rid of bad teachers. Test scores, however, are not a barometer of teacher effectiveness. In my experience, the vast majority of teachers are extremely hard workers who care deeply about their students.

As a society, we have completely disincentivized teaching as a profession. The trade-off for a bad income used to be stability and decent benefits. Those are both being gutted in the name of balancing the budget. Many teachers, often very good ones, simply leave.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...since everyone agrees that totally free markets are destructive...

I don't agree that totally free markets are "destructive".

 

[Bluto]

I typed up a sweet response to all this talking about yin and yang and too much yinning and not enough yanging but then my iPhone went all weird. Anyhow, too much yin not enough yang right now in America. Good post Domina.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So basically, where you fall in the argument is based on whether you worry more about the evils of greedy individuals accumulating wealth and exercising influence unchecked, or ambitious polititians and officials taking power from the people and consolidating it for themselves.

This is a great post, but it presents a sort of false dichotomy. I can't recall ever reading an argument from the Right for complete and total deregulation; no one advocates returning to the corporate abuses of the Gilded Age. The alternatives on offer are actually: (1) some Federal deregulation (which could be picked up by states in many cases); or (2) ever increasing levels of regulation.

Take the bank bailout. Banking was one of the most heavily-regulated industries in America prior to the collapse, which homogenized them and encouraged mergers. Just as in biology, that lack of "biodiversity" among the banks (caused by heavy regulation) led to catastrophic failure when there was a shock to the system. And what was Congress' response? Even more misguided regulation; Dodd-Frank didn't solve "too big to fail", but it successfully added another 2,000 pages of legislative red-tape to an already over-regulated market.

The real problem is crony capitalism. The tax code is incomprehensibly complex and riddled with loopholes; the Feds regulate virtually everything under the sun; and transparency is at an all-time low. In today's economic environment, the benefits of the free market are mostly squandered. The government is picking winners, so corruption is the only way to succeed.

So it's not large corporations v. government; they're in bed together, and have been for many years. And I don't know why corporate greed keeps getting brought up as some sort of revealing counter-argument. Of course corporations are greedy; they are, by nature, relentlessly self-interested organizations... which can be a good thing! In an effectively regulated free market, that greed works for the benefit of the greater good; competition leads to a healthy economy, growing tax revenue for social programs, and an increased standard of living for everyone. Crony capitalism does just the opposite; only big business and the Feds benefit.

 

[RDU Irish]

Whiskey - You have just won the internet.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Labor Warning: who will protect the public interest?

The above is a short, insightful article which touches on many of the subjects we've discussed in this thread. As a side note, Will Wilkinson is my favorite political commentator.

 

[irishpat183]

Wonderful read. Whiskey, that was awesome.

I'll have to start reading him.


What many on the left forget is that Unions have become corporations themselves. Except they hide behind the guise of the "for the working man" theme.

 

[Bluto]

Good post Whiskey. I disagree however, on the causes of bank consolidation. In my opinion it was the deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry in the 80's that caused the first collapse that lead to a massive ammount of consolidation. Then we have te financial industry deregulation under Clinton followed by further consolidation and yet another massive industry failure. Anyhow, I think Joseph Stiglitz makes some good points in this piece.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Good post Whiskey. I disagree however, on the causes of bank consolidation. In my opinion it was the deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry in the 80's that caused the first collapse that lead to a massive ammount of consolidation. Then we have te financial industry deregulation under Clinton followed by further consolidation and yet another massive industry failure. Anyhow, I think Joseph Stiglitz makes some good points in this piece.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

That article brings up Rockefeller. Rockefeller 1) saved the wales, 2) lead the way in innovation and used what his competition was throwing away, that was the reason he was so successful, 3) Standard Oil was already declining when the government broke it up, 4) Standard Oil had way lower transportation costs than its competition because if its size, and lastly 5) Price of oil went UP after the break up!

 

[Buster Bluth]

This is a great post, but it presents a sort of false dichotomy. I can't recall ever reading an argument from the Right for complete and total deregulation; no one advocates returning to the corporate abuses of the Gilded Age. The alternatives on offer are actually: (1) some Federal deregulation (which could be picked up by states in many cases); or (2) ever increasing levels of regulation.

Take the bank bailout. Banking was one of the most heavily-regulated industries in America prior to the collapse, which homogenized them and encouraged mergers. Just as in biology, that lack of "biodiversity" among the banks (caused by heavy regulation) led to catastrophic failure when there was a shock to the system. And what was Congress' response? Even more misguided regulation; Dodd-Frank didn't solve "too big to fail", but it successfully added another 2,000 pages of legislative red-tape to an already over-regulated market.

The real problem is crony capitalism. The tax code is incomprehensibly complex and riddled with loopholes; the Feds regulate virtually everything under the sun; and transparency is at an all-time low. In today's economic environment, the benefits of the free market are mostly squandered. The government is picking winners, so corruption is the only way to succeed.

So it's not large corporations v. government; they're in bed together, and have been for many years. And I don't know why corporate greed keeps getting brought up as some sort of revealing counter-argument. Of course corporations are greedy; they are, by nature, relentlessly self-interested organizations... which can be a good thing! In an effectively regulated free market, that greed works for the benefit of the greater good; competition leads to a healthy economy, growing tax revenue for social programs, and an increased standard of living for everyone. Crony capitalism does just the opposite; only big business and the Feds benefit.

 

[Buster Bluth]

My family owns three businesses. My great-grandfather founded a road construction company in 1912, which we operate to this day. My sister founded an organic farm in 2008, which again is still operational. Small businesses, but huge regulations. It's not even that regulations are inherent nonsensical, it's the amount and the different departments running around like fools.

My great-aunt had an orchard for fifty-some years across the field, until about 2002 when the state said that if you're going to sell apple cider that it must be pasteurized. Well, such a machine cost ~$250,000. So what did she (and many other small operations) do? Closed up shop and/or retired and plowed the trees under and sold the land. Two years later, the state changed the law but the damage was done and huge corporate farms increased their marketshare.

Granted, that is a tiny instance. But people can go on and on with small stories, and they add up. Big corporations use laws to "protect people," but also/really to increase the cost of entering the marketplace, which helps protect them.

For instance my sister sells field-raised/organic chickens, but the only chicken slaughterhouse is wayyyyy over in Holgate (hours away), so the ability for small-scale NW Ohio farmers to enter the market is harder--designed by law.

It's all a damn game, and big companies are winning big time. Regulations are, more times than not, drawn up via lobbyists from huge corporations with laws in mind that fit their model.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

My family owns three businesses. My great-grandfather founded a road construction company in 1912, which we operate to this day. My sister founded an organic farm in 2008, which again is still operational. Small businesses, but huge regulations. It's not even that regulations are inherent nonsensical, it's the amount and the different departments running around like fools.

My great-aunt had an orchard for fifty-some years across the field, until about 2002 when the state said that if you're going to sell apple cider that it must be pasteurized. Well, such a machine cost ~$250,000. So what did she (and many other small operations) do? Closed up shop and/or retired and plowed the trees under and sold the land. Two years later, the state changed the law but the damage was done and huge corporate farms increased their marketshare.

Granted, that is a tiny instance. But people can go on and on with small stories, and they add up. Big corporations use laws to "protect people," but also/really to increase the cost of entering the marketplace, which helps protect them.

For instance my sister sells field-raised/organic chickens, but the only chicken slaughterhouse is wayyyyy over in Holgate (hours away), so the ability for small-scale NW Ohio farmers to enter the market is harder--designed by law.

It's all a damn game, and big companies are winning big time. Regulations are, more times than not, drawn up via lobbyists from huge corporations with laws in mind that fit their model.

Boom. Reps Buster

 

[RDU Irish]

Labor Warning: who will protect the public interest?

The above is a short, insightful article which touches on many of the subjects we've discussed in this thread. As a side note, Will Wilkinson is my favorite political commentator.

I think this quote from the article sums it up pretty well.

-as Walter Russell Mead puts it, "the power of public sector unions among Democrats is a power that inhibits Democrats from putting forward innovative, future-facing ideas (about schools, health care, and so on) and keeps them focused firmly on the defense of the past."

 

[RDU Irish]

re:Buster - Death by a thousand paper cuts.

re: Bluto - that article was emotional fluff. Where are the stats? If you want to talk about relative wealth (since everything is about 1% being richer than the 99%) why not look at how our poorest of poor enjoy a better standard of living than 75% of the world population and better than 99% of all humans ever to live on this earth.

Ben Franklin said "A penny saved is a penny earned." Those who fault savers for accumulating wealth might want to trade in the Xbox and cable TV for a better financial future. Saving means living below your means and sacrificing today for benefit tomorrow.

Money will always buy power and influence. Today's problem is synonmous with that of Hank Reardon. He is eaten alive because he does not engage in the game of public perception and lobbying despite being a superior businessman. Government is the problem, not the answer. Fewer regulations, better enforced and reversion to "Buyer Beware" as a core mantra.

 

[Bluto]

Hey RDU here's another link with more info. I'm sure his recent book gives much more detail to support this view.

The ‘American Dream’ Is a Myth: Joseph Stiglitz on ‘The Price of Inequality’ | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

 

[Bluto]

So it sounds like some of you all want to have your cake and eat it too. Coporations are bad but unions (a natural counter balance to that) should be done away with? Again I feel pretty strongly that you need both to help keep a balance of power with the economy and society. I don't think it's a coincidence that as union power has declined corporate power has begun to run increasingly amok and wealth has become increasingly concentrated upward. Anyhow, I'm not pro democratic or pro republican party. I'm pro good public policy. It just seems to me that the GOP has become the masters of bad public policy on the national level. I think the climate change debate and the citizens united ruling are clear examples of this.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Good post Whiskey. I disagree however, on the causes of bank consolidation. In my opinion it was the deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry in the 80's that caused the first collapse that lead to a massive ammount of consolidation. Then we have te financial industry deregulation under Clinton followed by further consolidation and yet another massive industry failure.

Take a look at the "Background" and "Causes" sections in this wikipedia article on the Savings and Loan Crisis. You're correct that deregulation played a part in the collapse, but that deregulation came in response to problems which the Feds had already created.

Ham-fisted deregulation would probably cause similar problems today. What we really need is a return to federalism-- a realization that the Feds frequently cause more harm than good when they try to regulate an industry. So much of this would be done better by the states.

So it sounds like some of you all want to have your cake and eat it too. Coporations are bad but unions (a natural counter balance to that) should be done away with?

Neither are bad, per se, but both are in bed with the Federal government, which is what causes all the problems. If the Feds stopped allowing unions and big business the lobby their way to success against their competitors, we'd be in much better shape.

Again I feel pretty strongly that you need both to help keep a balance of power with the economy and society. I don't think it's a coincidence that as union power has declined corporate power has begun to run increasingly amok and wealth has become increasingly concentrated upward.

Did you read that article I posted earlier in the thread? The interests of corporations and unions may frequently be in opposition, but the interests of corporations just as frequently collide with the interests of other corporations, just like the interests of unions oppose those of parents with school-aged children, etc. It's not nearly as black and white as the media likes to portray it.

 

[Bluto]

I watched this video and couldn't stop laughing. Anyhow, this seemed like a good place to post this. If you can't laugh at yourself.

AFSCME - YouTube

 

[scUM Hater]

I am a proud Union member and anything I try to retort to most of you will be lost. Everyone has their own opinion and I believe Unions are great. Just do me a favor, stop and think of what your wages and conditions would be like without Unions. Seriously, stop and think.