I don't want.. or need bailed out.. I wouldn't take it if it was offered.. that's the difference.

I have ambition.. If I am poor now.. so be it.. in a free market.. in a capitlistic society the sky is the limit.

You don't think I plan to always be poor do you... I have a plan, a goal and I'm well on my way to reaching it.

I will reach it... so long as its not stolen out from underneath me by my govt.

Damn right I have

Capitalism is greed. Not necessarily.

Socialism is good. Not necessarily. It depends...for whom and when.

Whether we like it or not there is a social contract that binds humanity. We do not abandon the ill and infirmed, we care for widows, orphans and handicapped. Would that all did it willingly. Because there are those who would not do those things voluntarily laws are put in place to insure compliance.

Incentive is not limited to capitalist systems. Nor is it missing from socialist ones. To believe otherwise is to become a knee jerk thinker: Not all motivations are financial. If they were, I would have quit Medicine long ago, people would not become nurses and teachers, fathers and mothers and spiritual leaders. Not all business leaders are greedy. Unhealthy greed is a disease of the spirit. It should not be allowed to exist unchecked. Oversight of all human activity is necessary because people are by nature imperfect.

The world at present is unbalanced in the extreme. The US and western countries consume and pllute far more than others except China (pollution) while the third world countries  remain in poverty, ignorance and illness. This, among other causes is the seed of violence as that is what has been perpetrated indeed upon them. The world has enough resources, but population must be limited.

A more balanced, less polluting, healthier and smarter world must come about. It cannot occur by violence of any form, physical, mental or economic.

Fear causes greed, hatred and violence. There are many forms of fear, but the fear of hunger, illness and vulnerability causes much, if not all of the violence we see.

We must ensure everyone's right to decent food, clothing, protection from the elements, education and healthcare if you wish peace and life without the fear of being murdered for a crust of bread.

Will there be madmen? Certainly. Will there be greed and injustice? Certainly. But, with those basic needs supplied, there will be much less. There will be fewer angry people and far less rage.

And, in order to achieve these things, "systems" take second place to people. Capitalism doesn't work in emerging countries and in truth a healthy balance of both systems is needed. The oscillations of the pendulum swings in the economy will dampen out and a self sustaining, dynamic equilibrium will eventually come about. If we limit ourselves.

Money does a lot of strange things to people, unfortunately it happens all the time, but to me personally there are more important things than it, i would give everything i own for my wifes MS to go away, all these greedy people(should say criminals) that are ripping people off on a daily basis, the greediness has even infected the healthcare industry, with the insurance companies telling physicians and hospitals what they will or will not cover, essentially tying the dr's hands behind his back, weird but we get letters from our prescription provider, with just a "friendly" note recommending another medication at a lower cost that does the same job, of course a trip to the dr, and he/she response is most of the time what they recommend is even close to doing the job,fortunately these are just suggestive letters, sorry if i was long winded but needed to get that out there, and off my chest, thanks for listening and reading

Neither economic model works in its purest form because they are either too much one way or the other.  What is needed is a balance between the two, leaning neither too much one way or the other.

The thing wrong with pure Capitalism is that it is too concerned with profit, money and more money, that it neglects (other than low paid jobs) to support the community that supports it with its time, effort and expertise.  On the other hand, we have Socialism which, in its purest form, leans too far the other way and stifles business incentive, thus production, employment and the economy in general. 

The thing is, Socialism and Capitalism can co-exist, and it does!  For example, here in Australia we have a model based on the British system, with a government that leans towards Socialism and helps its people, yet supports capitalist ventures, etc... and it works quite well.  Is it perfect?  Hell no, and people will fall through the cracks, but for the most part, businesses can thrive while the average bloke is looked after by government, if and when required. 

Nothing wrong with that, but for some reason Americans believe that accepting government welfare payments is taking 'other peoples' money:ie, taxes.  Really?  So, what, they never paid any taxes themselves... and still continue to in the form of sales and fuel taxes, etc, etc???  Bloody stupid if you ask me!  The whole idea of taxes in the first place is to enable government to provide various services to those they govern... those that elected them to office.  So in effect, given that everyone (in one way or another) is a taxpayer, that money IS yours as much as anyone elses. 

The problem there is that the US government for far too long has spent gazillions of taxpayers money on warfare and defense... um, like what friggin' defense?  Apart from Pearl Harbor and a sporadic Japanese plane or two during WWII, the US has not been attacked... and nobody in the World has big enough balls to launch an attack on the US.  So why the need, then, to spend trillions of dollars annually on defense?  Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the US has assumed the role of the World's policemen and spends taxpayers money on sticking its nose into others' domestic affairs.  Yes, YOUR tax dollars... and you're telling me that you'd rather the US gov't spent your money on killing people than help you when the arse is falling out of your pants and there's NO food in the larder?  Come on, that's insane!

Worse still, instead of apportioning the money to those who need it most, the US Government is spending trillions bailing out banks and auto makers, both of whom have misappropriated the funds by taking out expensive 'thank you' ads, and paying huge bonuses to already wealthy bankers.  Yup, that's your Capitalist model for you!  The rich continue to get richer while the poor remain homeless, starving and even dying.  Yes, dying... because impoverished societies become violent and people become so desperate in the struggle to survive they start killing each other.

Yup, that's your pure Capitalist economic model for ya!  The greater proportion of wealth and resources remain in the hands of very few, while the masses are left to fight over what little remains to be had.  You know, the Australian Government initiated a 'stimulus package as well, but instead of giving it to the large corporations and banks, the government here gave pensioners and low income families, etc a cash payment of around $1400 to stimulate the ecomomy through higher spending, thus stimulating jobs, manufacturing and industries in general.  And you know what else?  It was so successful that Prime Minister Rudd is in favour of implementing another stimulus package along those lines around March.  So yeah, we have a Socialist government, while helping the most disadvantaged, still working to stimulate Capitalism as well.

Also, two of the most powerful capitalists in the World, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, have strong Socialist values while still operating in a Capitalist world.  Both men see poverty and need and try to address it with huge charitable donations.  Now that is Capitalism and Socialism working hand in hand... and more people in the US need to see that it can and does work well when given the chance.  They need to get this 'commie bastards' mentality the capitalists have been sprouting for decades out of their heads and start moving towards a more equitable society that WILL look after its own impoverished and disadvantaged people.

GinneMae and Fannie May were the beginning of the 'No Collateral/No Income' loans.  Connect that with other gov't internevtion (penalties for not having a sufficient % of low income loan in their portfolios) in the banking industry and you have a primary causation for the problem....

Many actually did (whether they had a slight, or moreso, push is immaterial) convince themselves.  And those were, unfortunately, the ones that got burned the worst -- because they were the ones that got in the game late.  Here in FL we've had many boom/bust cycles in real estate, but there are always those that either forget the past, or are ignorant of it, and end up going bust along with the real estate values.  We all know ponzi schemes are for suckers (just like any casino is), but like the casinos there's always a long line formed to get in on them...

Spot on, Karen, spot on.  And you know, it's US Capitalism that makes the US so unpopular overseas, particularly with such organisations as Al Qaeda, because they see Capitalism marching in and taking over, depleting resources and putting little or nothing back, then leaving will all the goods and chattels worth taking. The Arab nations, with all that oil, should be among the wealthiest on Earth, yet most live in abject poverty while their sheiks and other leaders live in luxury under the Capitalist system introduced by the US.

Oh, and for the record, those are not purely my thoughts, but rather they echo the sentiments of people like Osama bin Laden and other Arab people who say they are prepared to die to end US Capitalism.  Makes you think, doesn't it, what else the US can do to counter terrorism, other than spend taxpayer dollars to send soldiers to kill and be killed.  What's that old but very wise saying, prevention is better than the cure!

Yeah, I know, much of what I'm saying will make me unpopular with some around here, but frankly, I don't give a stuff.  If it sows a seed of hope and helps implement change for the better, being unpopular is the least of my concerns

@jpmurph1:

I'm so glad someone has seen fit to mention this! Thank you.

Insurance companies did this for a simple reason: Share holder votes. If profits could be maximized, then the ceo's/boards-of-trustees could self perpetuate by happy share holder votes. Sound familiar? It should. Politicians work on the same principle.

Consumer/stockholder drivenmedicine works only because it's the only game in town: The same reason Las Vegas casinos profit by 'the odds', ie actuarial analysis. Thus, different people are treated differently: Young, well people pay less while older, worn out and sicker people pay more, if they can get insurance at all for as prices go up and fixed incomes change the choice devolves to the heart pill vs. the rent vs. the food, etc.

I believe that Socialism isn't necessarily the answer since it causes a two tiered system to occur: Lesser, subsidized health care with choices bound to deprive some (forcing doctors to sit in judgment about who lives and who doesn't - a violation of our ethics) and the second tier for those who can afford whatever care they need.

Unregulated and 'Adam Smith' capitalism causes the same: one tier gets care and the other doesn't.

A single payor system won't do any better. I will say that health care had zero inflation until medicare and medicaid got signed into law. When that happened the Gov't. fixed prices (and over regulation) and cost shifting to insurance companies started. The current situation is a direct result of that.

Insurance companies, Pharmaceutical companies. They're much the same. They're run by people who have learned the principles of business and are doing just that. "It isn't personal, it's just business". Well, no matter how their PR folks try to spin that, it doesn't work: Where the rubber meets the road, it's damn personal...at least to me. Care cannot be denied nor second rated because "It's just business."

This by no means should be read as "hands off" works. This Wall St. - Main St. mess proves it doesn't. People are people and do need oversight where money comes into it.

I don't know what the answer is. G-d didn't give me enough to do that. It wasn't given to any one person.

Maybe that was meant to tell us: "You should all do it together."   Maybe not.

I don't know if you guys 'n' gals would consider this relevant, I know I do.

I have a non-biological daughter who moved out when she was 18,
and went, without my knowledge for two years long,
straight into the buisness-end of the... 'erotic branch'.
After two years she confessed, and now we communicate regularly,
and although I tried, I can't talk her out of it.
According to her, she's an adult now,
and can do what she wants, when and where she wants.

Now, the reason I told you that, is that through her,
I hear a lot about what goes on in the branch.
And one story, that sprang straight to mind when I saw this Thread, is as follows:

A South-American Branch Manager of a large German car manufacturing company,
said company already sending people home in order to save money,
with a shorter working week in discussion,
came to Germany for some meeting, and after that went on to Spain for a couple of days 'holiday'.
Through contacts was looking for some 'company' while he was there.

My daughter turned down the offer, but here's the kicker:
to fly there for a day, that is, fly over in the morning, and back in the evening,
the price offered was 50.000 Euro (64,922 Dollars, I just checked).

Where do you suppose that 50.000 was coming from?

I'm pretty certain it wasn't to come out of his own pocket...

This offer she got, was also supposed to be one of three days,
meaning said Manager wanted a different girl for each of three days.

That would make a grand total of 150.000 Euro (194,767 Dollars).
For that price according to my daughter, he could have had...
well, I won't go any further into that.

So anyway, that chunk of money I'm quite sure would be coming out of an expence account.
Which could be translated to: people are being sent home from work to finance a Managers sex holiday.
And this would then be blamed on the Financial Crisis.......

I'm also quite sure, the incident I've described above, is NOT a one-off thing,
and happens with different 'personell' quite often around the world.

I've always said, the only people that don't have to worry about recessions are Politicians, Bank Managers,
Managers of large international corporations, the Oil people and Brothel owners.
This last one is because, as can be seen, there is ALWAYS enough money for people to 'buy some company'.

OK, let's put it another way.  What about the family on combined income of $70,000 pa and they take out an affordable $200k mortgage on modest home over 30 years because rents keep going up and it's dead money anyhow, and for the first two years this family is doing well, with repayments as well as a few home improvements, etc.  Yup, everything is going well, but suddenly the wife's capitalist employer lays her off to maximise profit through reduced production/labour costs, leaving just the husband working on 35,000 pa.   It's a struggle but they're still managing their repayments and keeping their heads above water... then the husband is told he has to take a pay cut if he wants to keep his job, and this happens just about the same time as interest rates start to rise sharply. Uh, oh, look out, they have fallen behind in their mortgage repayments and now the bank is foreclosing... they're going to be homeless with two young children.

Yes, that was a hypothetical situation, but there were thousands upon thousands of situations just like it happening all over the US... and other countries, too.  The point is, not everyone was gullible and/or got conned into a larger mortgage than they could afford.  Many good intentioned people with decent incomes fell victim to the greed ridden capitalists who kept hiking up interest rates and prices on living essentials... and as their spending power diminished greatly over a relatively short period of time, so did their propensity to make their repayments.

As for the 'gullible' who borrowed bigger than they could manage.  OK, so a young couple with a family walk into what they understand is a reputable bank to borrow $100k to add to their $90k to buy a home.  Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?  However, unbeknown to them, the 3 piece suited loans manager is as great a thief, liar and cheat as a balaclava wearing burglar who steals from poor peoples homes.  Still, they do not know this and trust him to do the right thing by them... after all, it is a reputable bank - and who can you trust if you can't trust a bank - and it has always looked after their $90k savings, so why not trust the bank....

The loans manager introduces himself and rolls off a list of BA's in economics, math and social planning, etc, before explaining that, with their savings and combines income they can afford a $150k loan, which would buy them a bigger/better house and thus save them a bundle on extensions, etc, when they have and addtion to the family.  Sure, they want more kids, so why not... after all, it is a reputable bank and the loans manager IS an economist and really knows his stuff... and to compound the travesty, they're sent off to a 'friendly' property settlement lawyer who OK's the purchase of a $220k house instead of the $150k one they went there for... and why not, they're both working and finances are pretty good....

Next thing, the wife falls pregnant (remember, they wanted more kids) and she has to give up working due to complications.  That's a blow but they're still alright, what with his income and their $90k equity in the home, but then his income drops, interest rates soar and the cost of living rises sharply.... now (6 years later) they're in trouble.  Not only does the bank foreclose, they also lose their $90k equity to unpaid 'higher' interest.

Again, a hypothetical, but that was happening all over as well, people going for smaller mortgages but being tricked into much larger ones by so-called 'reputable banks' with 'conmen economists' as frontmen!  It was as if the banks knew the arse was going to fall out of the market/banking sector, and so went on a crusade to sign up whoever they could before the total collapse came.  So!  Were these people gullible or trusting... and not so much trusting of the conmen, they didn't know they were going to see one, but rather of the institutions that had faithfully served the public for generations before them?

Throws a different light on it, doesn't it?

This OT but I needed to say it.

@starkers:

It's easy to see why I like you so much. You are a "mensch" (def Leo Rosten, "The Joys of Yiddish" - "someone to admire and emulate, someone of noble character. The key to being “a real mensch” is nothing less than character, rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right, responsible, decorous").

You engage the situation at the human level. I can only hope that people in this current trouble meet someone with your approach to them.

Thank you for being my friend. You and Ed personify what Leo Rosten wrote. There are others, too numerous to mention here and that wasn't my purpose. It was to thank you.

Yes, m-203, I do consider it relevant.  It's another example of Capitalist greed, selfishness, wastlefulness and absolute  disregard for others.... excesses to excess, and then cry broke as they lay off workers who can ill-afford to lose their jobs.

All I can say is... hope the capitalist pig dies/died on the 'job'.

Myself being one of those laid off, as of last week, after 13 years, due to our company being 'broke'.

Never did like that poxy number anyways...

The thing that gets me about it is this:
we produced aluminium piping for car air-conditioners, amongst other things,
and back when our section started with it, I observed the sheer amount of piping going through our hands,
20 Tons in 1 shift was a normal day,
I went directly to the boss one day, and said to him:
"Sooner or later, the car companies are going to have more than enough air-conditioners, what then?"
In one ear, out the other, and here I sit 10 or 11 years later,
no job exactly for that reason I went to the boss for...

Your reply #51 might hold some water but thats not the real culprit.  What went wrong is back in the late 90's( pre Bush) they wanted the minorities to beable to get loans to buy homes.  So the Government ordered Freddie and Fannie to loosen up the criteria so they could get loans.  So everyone else say what was happening so they did it too and sold a portion of the loans to Freddie and Fannie.  Bush tried to stop it but Barney Frank blocked him in congress.  Now thats not the only reason where in deep crap, just one.

Thanks Doc, that means a lot to me and says a lot about you as a friend.  So yeah, it's easy to see why I like you so much, too.

As for engaging the situation at a human level, well that's because I know no other way.  I see and feel human suffering for what it really is... human, and deal with it accordingly, with compassion and from a grass roots level human perspective... as a person who care much less about money than I do about people.

Same thing that happened in 2000 with the computer industry. When will "Sustainable Production" ever enter the vocabulary?

When will industry realize that people aren't in the "Use and Dispose" category?

That's because having known suffering we relate to others with an open heart. Fear (of every kind) is a weapon of violence and is used that way. It should be eschewed.

People should be treated as people, not cogs or tools to be used. "Gotcha" only engenders more violence of the physical, mental and economic variety (there are others).

People should be treated on a one to one basis as people. There is no alternative as the alternatives will only engender more violence.

Someone just push the lever and flush it already! It's never going to change...we'll just watch one documentary after the other on how it's going down the toilet...and the last thing you will hear is the giant sucking sound! 

@WG: There always has to be one unbridled optimist.