Good article on Obamanomics. I think the writer may be wrong in that the percentage of households that are free loading on the rest of us that actually pay income taxes is 38% and not the "one-third" he noted but it's still a good article.

 

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...anomics?mode=PF

 

Seeing through Obamanomics

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | September 14, 2008

 

ALL THROUGH the spring and summer, opinion polls tracked a growing confidence that Barack Obama could handle the economy better than John McCain. Just before the Democratic convention in August, Gallup had Obama leading McCain on the economy, 54-38 - a 16-point margin. But now Obama's lead has nearly vanished. Gallup's latest numbers show the candidates nearly tied. Just 48 percent say Obama would be more adept at superintending the economy; 45 percent choose McCain.

 

Looks like voters have started paying attention to Obama's economics. On Sept. 8, Fox News broadcast an interview between Obama and Bill O'Reilly that focused on taxation and the economy. Obama repeated his pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on the tiny fraction who earn more than $250,000.

 

"That's class warfare," O'Reilly objected. "You're taking the wealthy in America, the big earners . . . you're taking money away from them and you're giving it to people who don't. That's called income redistribution. It's a socialist tenet. Come on, you know that."

 

"Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill," Obama replied. "Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax." He acknowledged that he doesn't enjoy paying taxes either - "you think I like writing the check?" - but that "there are certain things we've got to do." His tax proposal, he explained, was a matter of civility:

 

"If I am sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say, I'm going to pay a little bit more? That's neighborliness." If that is Obama's rationale for making the tax code even more steeply progressive than it already is, it's no wonder voters are having second thoughts about his economic aptitude.

 

"Neighborliness." Perhaps that word has a nonstandard meaning to someone whose home adjoins the property of convicted swindler Tony Rezko, but extracting money by force from someone who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't is not usually spoken of as neighborly. If Citizen Obama, "sitting pretty," reaches into his own pocket and helps out the waitress with a large tip, he has shown a neighborly spirit. But there is nothing neighborly about using the tax code to compel someone else to pay the waitress that tip.

 

Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint. Does Obama not understand the difference?

 

Perhaps he doesn't. Eager though he may be to compel "neighborliness" in others, he has not been nearly so avid about demonstrating it himself. Barack and Michelle Obama's tax returns show that from 2000 through 2004, when their adjusted gross income averaged nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year, their annual charitable donations amounted to just $2,154 - less than nine-tenths of 1 percent. Not until he entered the US Senate in 2005 and began to be spoken of as a presidential possibility did the Obamas' "neighborliness" become more evident. (In 2005-2007, they gave 5.5 percent of their income to charity.)

 

Obama claims his proposal would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans, but well over 43 million tax returns, one-third of all those filed, already reflect an income tax liability of zero. In fact, Obama says, his plan would eliminate income taxes for an additional 10 million taxpayers. What he is really proposing, therefore, is not tax relief but a bald transfer of cash - $1,000 per family, he pledges - from the wealthiest Americans to everyone else. In 1972, George McGovern advocated something similar - a $1,000 "demogrant" for every US citizen. Just last year, Hillary Clinton suggested that the government start off every new baby with a $5,000 savings account. Voters didn't take the bait when McGovern and Clinton offered it. Here's betting they won't take it now.

 

Why not? Because you don't have to be rich to be skeptical when a candidate argues that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, who already pay 40 percent of federal income taxes, aren't being taxed enough. You don't have to be an economist to wonder about the grasp of a nominee who tells 95 percent of the public that they can have something for nothing. Obamanomics may look pretty at first glance. But voters are focusing more closely now, and they can see beyond the lipstick.

It is fair to expect the more wealthy members of society to contribute more than the waitresses of this country. If you don't realize why it's a good idea not to tax someone making less than $25K per year trying to raise a family then you're completely out of touch with reality. It's not about income redistribution, it's about treating people fairly. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You can't compare someone making $6 million to someone making $25K. It would be ridiculous to do so.

 

And the point is to put the tax revenues to good use: money for college, money for job training, money for rebuilding America's infrastructure, money for investing in k-12 education, money for health care, etc. I don't call that income redistribution. I call that doing the government's job. Now, I am not in favor of people taking advantage of the system and receiving welfare benefits when they are perfectly capable of providing for themselves. But, the fact is that welfare benefits constitute less than 1 percent of the federal budget and less than 2 percent of state budgets. http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html You pound on this often, but it's just not grounded in reality. The fact is that we don't have much income redistribution in this country, nor should we. Let's focus on using the government's revenues to help people become self sufficient and to promote economic growth and development.

 

In your world, Poloa, you see welfare queens as black people. You've previously made very clear you view this through the lens of race, as your response to someone's suggestion that the Republican party reach out to black people was that "no one should be trying to win votes by increasing welfare." These were your words, not mine. I suggest you give yourself a gut check and figure out where your political positions come from. It is perfectly okay to try to change your prejudices and make amends by working against your gut instincts. I will not blame you for having those biases, but I will blame you for not trying to change them.

 

I am part of the class of people that will not get any tax benefits from Obama's tax plan, and if instituted, I may actually be paying more in taxes in a few years. I don't have a problem with that, so long as the revenues are used in such a way that promotes the growth of the middle class, helps to increase real wages for most Americans, and gives people the opportunity to succeed if they try.

 

Let me ask you something: were you against the government's involvement in the buyout of Bear Stearns, the bailout of freddie mac and fannie mae, and the apparent work out that will save Lehman Brothers?

It is fair to expect the more wealthy members of society to contribute more than the waitresses of this country. If you don't realize why it's a good idea not to tax someone making less than $25K per year trying to raise a family then you're completely out of touch with reality. It's not about income redistribution, it's about treating people fairly. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You can't compare someone making $6 million to someone making $25K. It would be ridiculous to do so.

 

Hypothetically, if there was a flat tax rate, the person making more, would pay more anyhow. The issue is that the person making more is not only paying more, but he's paying more per dollar AND that extra amount is coming out of the $25K waitress' pocket anyhow.

 

A national consumption tax is the only system that correct this.

I think tax rates should be slightly progressive but I think they are too progressive as they are. Almost everyone should pay income taxes. Under Obama it's estimated 50% of households would get a free ride. I also think we should eliminate the income tax credits which is another name for welfare. The tax code should not be used as a welfare tool.

I think the point of the earned income tax credit is to provide an incentive to work among the working poor and to avoid having to give them in-kind or direct welfare benefits when they could just earn that income themselves.

 

You really have extremist views. Even conservative Republicans are in favor of earned income tax credits, because they recognize that it is important to keep the working poor employed and making sure they have enough money to live on. There is a societal benefit in having people work, both in terms of what it does to communities and how it effects the children of such working class people.

 

It is also a tool to keep working families from living in poverty. I guess you don't care about that.

It is fair to expect the more wealthy members of society to contribute more than the waitresses of this country. If you don't realize why it's a good idea not to tax someone making less than $25K per year trying to raise a family then you're completely out of touch with reality. It's not about income redistribution, it's about treating people fairly. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You can't compare someone making $6 million to someone making $25K. It would be ridiculous to do so.

 

Hypothetically, if there was a flat tax rate, the person making more, would pay more anyhow. The issue is that the person making more is not only paying more, but he's paying more per dollar AND that extra amount is coming out of the $25K waitress' pocket anyhow.

 

A national consumption tax is the only system that correct this.

 

consumption rather than production would make a whole hell of a lot of sense but god forbid something like that ever happened.

It is fair to expect the more wealthy members of society to contribute more than the waitresses of this country. If you don't realize why it's a good idea not to tax someone making less than $25K per year trying to raise a family then you're completely out of touch with reality. It's not about income redistribution, it's about treating people fairly. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You can't compare someone making $6 million to someone making $25K. It would be ridiculous to do so.

 

Hypothetically, if there was a flat tax rate, the person making more, would pay more anyhow. The issue is that the person making more is not only paying more, but he's paying more per dollar AND that extra amount is coming out of the $25K waitress' pocket anyhow.

 

A national consumption tax is the only system that correct this.

 

A national consumption tax would be REGRESSIVE and not a flat tax. Working and middle class families spend a much larger proportion of their income to purchase basic goods and services, so you would be taxing them at a higher rate than rich people. I think that's a stupid idea.

 

The flat tax is equally regressive, because you have to view such tax schemes in the context of the proportion of a family's income going to different goods and services. A solidly middle class family (say total income of 70K) of four will spend about 30-35% of their income on housing and energy (and not fancy housing at that), about 13% on food, about 17 percent of their income on transportation, about 4-6% on health care, about 5-7% on childcare, and another 5-10% on miscellenanous but necessary items (clothing, school related stuff, supplies, etc). Just with those expenses, you're looking at about 75-80 percent of a solidly middle class family's income gone on basic necessities. If your flat tax is at 15 percent, you're leaving that family with nothing. Of course, if you make 600K per year, you will not spend 75-80 percent of your income on basic necessities. Probably closer to about 40 percent (and that's still stretching it, because then your "necessities" add up to 240K, which is a ridiculously high figure). A 15 percent flat tax on that family would have virtually no effect on their ability make ends meet, whereas it would make a huge difference for the solidly middle class families.

 

The truth is you all that advocate this nonsense either 1) really don't care about middle and working class families or 2) you're too out of touch to know how hard it is to make ends meet in this country.

 

In an ideal world, we would tax people as low as possible and we wouldn't be having this discussion, but we've got roads and bridges to build, airports to upgrade, science research to fun, build and improve schools, unemployed people (who lost their jobs because the company moved operations abroad) to train for the new global economy, and a military to fund and keep strong. All that stuff requires money, and a lot of it. So, until you propose a way to fund all of those obligations in such a way that we don't have to tax people much, we have to make decisions about who should pay a higher proportion of their income, because a flat tax is not going to cut it unless you start creating all these credits and exceptions for middle class families that basically take us back to the progressive tax system anyhow. If you do that, you just spent all this time reforming the tax system without really changing it.

 

Think.

That article is so slanted against raising taxes for any reason, it's incredible. I'm sorry this country can't afford to keep giving tax breaks to the people already pulling in $1 mil+ a year. Boo-hoo.

It is fair to expect the more wealthy members of society to contribute more than the waitresses of this country. If you don't realize why it's a good idea not to tax someone making less than $25K per year trying to raise a family then you're completely out of touch with reality. It's not about income redistribution, it's about treating people fairly. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You can't compare someone making $6 million to someone making $25K. It would be ridiculous to do so.

Who gives you or anyone else the right to determine what's 'fair' in terms of how much the government can demand from an individual?

 

And the point is to put the tax revenues to good use: money for college, money for job training, money for rebuilding America's infrastructure, money for investing in k-12 education, money for health care, etc. I don't call that income redistribution. I call that doing the government's job. Now, I am not in favor of people taking advantage of the system and receiving welfare benefits when they are perfectly capable of providing for themselves. But, the fact is that welfare benefits constitute less than 1 percent of the federal budget and less than 2 percent of state budgets. http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html You pound on this often, but it's just not grounded in reality. The fact is that we don't have much income redistribution in this country, nor should we. Let's focus on using the government's revenues to help people become self sufficient and to promote economic growth and development.

When you have some people paying over 30% of their income to the federal government for expenses out of their control, that's immoral and a re-distribution of wealth.

 

The government has no business in health care or federal oversight over education. In every instance of its presence it has led to inefficiency and mismanagement. To merely insinuate that 'the money is going to a good cause' is fairly shortsighted and ignorant. This is especially true when you look at the huge deficit, strain on the dollar, and the emptiness of the trust funds. We can't afford to be engaged in these activities any longer.

 

The simplest, most fair solution would be to cut spending radically, change our ideas of what the role of government ought to be and eliminate the income tax altogether. No fair tax. No flat tax. Just eliminate it. If we control our military spending and eliminate these wasteful government programs, it could be done.

 

Let me ask you something: were you against the government's involvement in the buyout of Bear Stearns, the bailout of freddie mac and fannie mae, and the apparent work out that will save Lehman Brothers?

Absolutely.

 

I expected these answers from you and even though I disagree with you I will give you this much, you are consistent. I respect that.

 

These questions were for the other posters in this group, not you. I pretty much know how you stand on all of this and can predict what you will say. I guess that's a compliment to you. Most people are hypocrites.

It is fair to expect the more wealthy members of society to contribute more than the waitresses of this country. If you don't realize why it's a good idea not to tax someone making less than $25K per year trying to raise a family then you're completely out of touch with reality. It's not about income redistribution, it's about treating people fairly. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You can't compare someone making $6 million to someone making $25K. It would be ridiculous to do so.

 

 

How is it 'fair' to tax people more money based on the fact that they make more and put in more work? I take it from some of your posts that you are a lawyer (correct me if I'm wrong) and would think you would have somewhat of an understanding of the sacrifice and hard work that went into you obtaining that higher paying position. But yet, you think it is is fair that someone who also put in that type of hard work should be taxed more and penalized compared to someone who isn't contributing much to society? I don't get this concept. Why punish people for their hard work? The ideas of this country were built on the philosphy that anyone who worked and sacrificed enough could raise themselves out of the lower classes and become someone.

 

I swear, if Obama is elected I will sell my business and start a blog called www.fundmylifegovt.com (similar to my fav. blog out there...www.fundmymutualfund.com, btw.) What's the point of me struggling to try to make more money? Why shouldn't I go back to my college days and just bartend, not declare the tips (I'll be a low wage worker making 3.15 an hour) and ask for money from you, the rich lawyer (hypothetically) to support my drinking binges? You don't mind how the government spends your money, right? So spend it on me Sugar Daddy!

 

 

And the point is to put the tax revenues to good use: money for college, money for job training, money for rebuilding America's infrastructure, money for investing in k-12 education, money for health care, etc. I don't call that income redistribution. I call that doing the government's job.

 

 

You have a lot more faith in D.C. than I do, that's for sure. Good for you though for being such a trusting person in politicians, I guess?

 

 

In your world, Poloa, you see welfare queens as black people. You've previously made very clear you view this through the lens of race, as your response to someone's suggestion that the Republican party reach out to black people was that "no one should be trying to win votes by increasing welfare." These were your words, not mine. I suggest you give yourself a gut check and figure out where your political positions come from. It is perfectly okay to try to change your prejudices and make amends by working against your gut instincts. I will not blame you for having those biases, but I will blame you for not trying to change them.

 

 

I think the problem is that in your world you see the government as giving welfare checks to only people who actually need them. You're living in a fairy tale land if you believe that though.

 

I am part of the class of people that will not get any tax benefits from Obama's tax plan, and if instituted, I may actually be paying more in taxes in a few years. I don't have a problem with that, so long as the revenues are used in such a way that promotes the growth of the middle class, helps to increase real wages for most Americans, and gives people the opportunity to succeed if they try.

 

I think you should just join my blog and live my much simpler life - fundmylifegovt.com! Let's take advantage of the other people willing to give us free money to drink too much and not try that hard. That's the new American way!

I swear, if Obama is elected I will sell my business and start a blog called www.fundmylifegovt.com (similar to my fav. blog out there...www.fundmymutualfund.com, btw.) What's the point of me struggling to try to make more money? Why shouldn't I go back to my college days and just bartend, not declare the tips (I'll be a low wage worker making 3.15 an hour) and ask for money from you, the rich lawyer (hypothetically) to support my drinking binges? You don't mind how the government spends your money, right? So spend it on me Sugar Daddy!

 

I've considered doing the same thing and i'm not kidding. If I quit my job and Obama gives me health care for free and I don't have to pay any taxes on my investment income then I'll probably quit my job and call it very early retirement. Obviousdly I would have to work out the numbers to see if I could maintain the standard of living I desire but this is a definite possibility.

 

prim, I think the foundation for an individual's success or failure are the choices he makes throughout his life and as such I don't think success (good choices) should be penalized or failure (poor choices) should be rewarded with the income redistribution policies you support.

I think an individual's success is predicated both on personal choices and the opportunities they are given in life. You can't say it's all on the individual, just like you can't say it's all on society or the community. It is simplistic to think there is no interaction between the two.

I think an individual's success is predicated both on personal choices and the opportunities they are given in life. You can't say it's all on the individual, just like you can't say it's all on society or the community. It is simplistic to think there is no interaction between the two.

because of government interference.... meritocracy, this is what this country was built on, let it exist.

I think an individual's success is predicated both on personal choices and the opportunities they are given in life. You can't say it's all on the individual, just like you can't say it's all on society or the community. It is simplistic to think there is no interaction between the two.

I don't think it's solely based on the personal choices. That's why I said choices are the foundation. There's more to it than that. Obviously the government needs to take care of the disabled. The particular circumstances in one's life will have an impact and there'll be some who don't "make it" because of circumstances beyond their control but these are the exceptions and you don't make policy based on the exceptions.

To be fair, I think a 30% consumption tax, flat tax, or fair tax are all terrible ideas. Just cut spending and we won't even need to have this discussion.

 

 

exactly

I think an individual's success is predicated both on personal choices and the opportunities they are given in life. You can't say it's all on the individual, just like you can't say it's all on society or the community. It is simplistic to think there is no interaction between the two.

because of government interference.... meritocracy, this is what this country was built on, let it exist.

 

lack of government interference brings you "black monday" and a growing financial, credit, and liquidity crisis...

 

i have not heard the word "SEC" uttered in this financial debacle, mostly because the Bush Administration has let these fools do what they want. In the end, those robber barrons give themselves $50 million bonuses and the shareholders, pension funds, retirees are left to deal with the financial consequences, not to mention the effect on the economy.

 

ah, pure capitalism at work!!! gotta love it!!!

I'm sure McCain's good buddy Phil Gramm is happy today. After all, he passed laws deregulating the financial sector, many of which have directly led to the Enron/WorldCom fiascos, and our current group of crises.

 

Thanks for this great 'free-market', guys. It's really worked out so well for this nation.

I think an individual's success is predicated both on personal choices and the opportunities they are given in life. You can't say it's all on the individual, just like you can't say it's all on society or the community. It is simplistic to think there is no interaction between the two.

because of government interference.... meritocracy, this is what this country was built on, let it exist.

 

lack of government interference brings you "black monday" and a growing financial, credit, and liquidity crisis...

 

i have not heard the word "SEC" uttered in this financial debacle, mostly because the Bush Administration has let these fools do what they want. In the end, those robber barrons give themselves $50 million bonuses and the shareholders, pension funds, retirees are left to deal with the financial consequences, not to mention the effect on the economy.

 

ah, pure capitalism at work!!! gotta love it!!!

Actually this black monday is the fault of the government! for stepping in. I actual work in finance, and the financial field. I know how banks are being affected. I work for AIG. We are about to go down. This all happened because the US interfered with the takeover of Bear's and this then put Fannie and Freddie in a lot of presure to continue to pay back all these mortgage backed securities. By the government buying preferred stock and giving companies like Bears a PIC-in excess of par/stated value it continued to cripple the market.

 

They should of allowed these companies to buy back treasury stock and then resell to recoup assets. There are ways to fix this. This is the main reason Lehman brothers fell was because of things that the government did and central bank did with bears. In this latest quarter, Lehman brothers reported a net loss of almost $4 billion after more than $5 billion of new write-downs, mostly on soured mortgage exposures. Their problems can be traced back to the credit events that caused a government take over of Fannie and Freddie.

 

so show me where government intervention has really helped this. If you ever took an economics class you would learn about how markets adjust and what equilibrium is. Governments can not control it and can only make it worse. case in point --- YOUR BLACK MONDAY

I'm sure McCain's good buddy Phil Gramm is happy today. After all, he passed laws deregulating the financial sector, many of which have directly led to the Enron/WorldCom fiascos, and our current group of crises.

 

Thanks for this great 'free-market', guys. It's really worked out so well for this nation.

Free-MArket trading has saved countries. The world's strongest country -- China has enacted free market trade to help boost its economy. Even though they are a communist country they have a very capitalistic society as far as trade is concerned.

 

Free-Market has saved a lot of countries from nationalism and oppressive acts by other countries. Look at the free market effect that helped free the Anglo-Iranian oil company, or look at about every central/south american country. Why do you think Chile, Panama, Nicaragua etc... have survived. Some hide free-market capitalism behind socialism, communism, and dictatorships but they are all practicing things that actually help ADVANCE their countries.

Free-Market has saved a lot of countries from nationalism and oppressive acts by other countries. Look at the free market effect that helped free the Anglo-Iranian oil company, or look at about every central/south american country. Why do you think Chile, Panama, Nicaragua etc... have survived. Some hide free-market capitalism behind socialism, communism, and dictatorships but they are all practicing things that actually help ADVANCE their countries.

You are way off on this one. WE were the ones who forced the free-market system by using entities such as the World Bank to pressure mostly South American nations, to either accept massive free-market changes (to the detriment of the nation) or wallow in debt. In addition, we were the ones who overthrew democratically elected governments throughout South and Central America throughout the '60s, '70s, and '80s. We have once again begun to try and overthrow elected governments in Bolivia and Venezuela, at the very least. As much as I don't like Chavez, he was still elected by his people. We need to let South America chart its own course and stop telling it what to do.

 

The Pinochet regime was not only supported, but FUNDED and advised by free-market leaders such as Milton Friedman and other Chicago School economists. Friedman died with a lot of blood on his hands, almost as much as Pinochet himself.

Free-Market has saved a lot of countries from nationalism and oppressive acts by other countries. Look at the free market effect that helped free the Anglo-Iranian oil company, or look at about every central/south american country. Why do you think Chile, Panama, Nicaragua etc... have survived. Some hide free-market capitalism behind socialism, communism, and dictatorships but they are all practicing things that actually help ADVANCE their countries.

You are way off on this one. WE were the ones who forced the free-market system by using entities such as the World Bank to pressure mostly South American nations, to either accept massive free-market changes (to the detriment of the nation) or wallow in debt. In addition, we were the ones who overthrew democratically elected governments throughout South and Central America throughout the '60s, '70s, and '80s. We have once again begun to try and overthrow elected governments in Bolivia and Venezuela, at the very least. As much as I don't like Chavez, he was still elected by his people. We need to let South America chart its own course and stop telling it what to do.

 

The Pinochet regime was not only supported, but FUNDED and advised by free-market leaders such as Milton Friedman and other Chicago School economists. Friedman died with a lot of blood on his hands, almost as much as Pinochet himself.

 

 

Ask any Bolivian or Venezulian if they like Chavez or Morales? THEY DON'T that is why they come here. These people were falsely elected. Read Hugo Boss or any other article about either of these guys. they are new fascists. They create VOTES to get them in instead of make them disappear. The onyl people who live Chavez are the poor who are getting free health care. That is what our country will come to.

 

I never said we didn't overthrow nations, in another thread I said we did a lot of that. It doesn't discredit the fact that a more enabled free market benefits countries. I agree with penguino about how it is basically a false hope that we actually have a free market, but the minimal amount we do have or see in other parts of the countries is what is actually keeping them a float.

I've never taken an economics course in my life. I'm merely self-taught but I'm literally laughing at much of the nonsense written in this thread.

 

The Congress and the Federal Reserve essentially work in a unified apparatus that brings about the devaluation of the dollar (this is not a free-market creation). Of course the Federal Reserve is unaccountable and is an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority. These artificial boom/bust cycles created by this fiat monetary cycle leads to malinvestment. This "Enron fiasco" was the result of loosened credit and loans with no collateral due to malinvestment. In a society dominated by a free-market, risk is a major contributing factor whereas burdensome SEC regulations only provide false security due to stifled risk. This leads to malinvestment and a credit crisis. In other words, the artificial bubbles created by the Federal Reserve are entirely accountable. The Fed was pumping money into the system all throughout the 90s, causing interest rates to fall and inducing looser credit. Bankrupt entities like Enron are also at the receiving end of what Jim Rogers calls "socialism for the rich" at the expense of the American taxpayer. We also need to remove taxpayer subsidizes to corporations such as Enron, which most definitely aren't a creation of the free-market.

 

Essentially what you are calling for are market distortions which are precisely why we are in this mess. In a truly free-market, individuals are held accountable for their mistakes. What you are perceiving as "free-market capitalism" is much more closer to socialism.

 

I mentioned this in one of the other threads, but when you have expanded bureaucracy such as the SEC you are more or less inviting corruption. This is not the fault of the market.

 

I hope this wasn't written to me :mis2 We essentially said the same thing, except you completely think its false and I have a little belief there is a little bit of it alive

I was referring to these winners:

 

ah, pure capitalism at work!!! gotta love it!!!

 

 

Thanks for this great 'free-market', guys. It's really worked out so well for this nation.

 

By the way, what is "completely false?" I don't follow.

 

 

false in the sense that our current system is not free-market driven but still has to much government control. As much as I agree I think they go hand in hand a little. This is one of the few things I think should be governed nationally rather than governned locally or individually.

 

I think we have too much control and intervention now, but I think there needs to be some sort of regulation or have some sort of michel foucaultian type all seeing eye. the SEC is a joke, but there needs to be something. I think a straight market-value society would help that. Essentially a trading stock market both public and private would really control and help a lot of the system.

How is our system free-market driven when we have artificial interest rates and the almost absolute elimination of risk in investment? It's not straight socialism, certainly, but it's one ugly beast that I can't even begin to identify.

 

 

I agree with what you are saying, but what Iam saying is if the system was pure it would work perfectly. I think you could say it needs reform more than it needs change or to start fresh.

 

In its core before the government gets involved on the individual level we still see a decent amount of free market. I mean the people still control the market for the most part. Simple as supply and demand. I just think that like we have said the government sticks its head in a few too many times.

The dollar comes back up and most of the problems will clear themselves up. US real estate will appreciate against foreign capital, oil will drop, etc.