PDA

View Full Version : TARP Strikes Back


Arcesious
10-21-2009, 09:22 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091021/bs_nm/us_financial_regulation_payczar

The government wants 90% pay cuts to the salaries of the top rich guys of the bailed out companies. Insane or Genius? Ridiculous or Brilliant?

Samuel Dravis
10-21-2009, 09:40 PM
Sounds like a good idea to me. The need to keep the pay competitive seems like an excuse to continue paying the extremely high amounts, nothing more. If you're motivated to make 14 million (IIRC, that's how much one CEO got), how much motivation do you lose if you "only" make 1.4 million? Even if it went down to 500 000, I'm certain someone competent would still be willing to get the job done. I'd so do it.

>_>

<_<

jrrtoken
10-21-2009, 09:49 PM
This pretty much reconfirms the century-old theorem that no matter what administration holds the reigns, there will always be corporate-federal "cooperation" in America. Although I don't want to be a bother and come-off as a conspiracy-theorist nut, it's quite unsettling to see actions of the like and to not consider the possibility of bribery for legislative authority, and other appendages and organs of government going to highest bidder. While I can understand the reason and logic behind the action, it's definitely suspicious, to say the least.

:conspire:

Ten-96
10-22-2009, 12:46 AM
Sounds like a good idea to me. The need to keep the pay competitive seems like an excuse to continue paying the extremely high amounts, nothing more. If you're motivated to make 14 million (IIRC, that's how much one CEO got), how much motivation do you lose if you "only" make 1.4 million? Even if it went down to 500 000, I'm certain someone competent would still be willing to get the job done. I'd so do it.

>_>

<_<

It's not one of Congress' enumerated powers to do any of those things. We are on a slippery slope with the advent of these ruling by Congress. Right now, there are those that think this is a good idea. Why? Would you want the government to tell you how much money you can make? Once you let the government start dictating how much anyone can make regardless of their profession, what's to stop them from branching out? I certainly don't hear anyone complaining about the salaries and bonuses of NFL, MLB and NBA players.

Samuel Dravis
10-22-2009, 01:09 AM
It's not one of Congress' enumerated powers to do any of those things. We are on a slippery slope with the advent of these ruling by Congress. Right now, there are those that think this is a good idea. Why? Would you want the government to tell you how much money you can make? Once you let the government start dictating how much anyone can make regardless of their profession, what's to stop them from branching out? I certainly don't hear anyone complaining about the salaries and bonuses of NFL, MLB and NBA players.As far as I know, no company that hadn't agreed to various types of restrictions (like this) to get bailout funds is being affected. In fact, those companies that have already paid off their bailout bill seem to be exempt in the article. I think it's perfectly reasonable that the American people are leery of funding someone's personal fortune when many of those "someones" are the same people that drove their companies into the ground and resulted in the bailout being sought.

My view: the government provided a contract (and let's be clear: the government is well within its rights to make contracts) that helped the business stay afloat. If the business signed it, then they decided to abide by the restrictions on the money. Kind of like scholarships where you can't legally spend it on video games. If you want to, too bad. Either abide by the agreement or don't accept the money.

It's actually somewhat galling that these companies are now complaining about this; they knew exactly what they were getting into.

Ten-96
10-22-2009, 01:23 AM
My view: the government provided a contract (and let's be clear: the government is well within its rights to make contracts) that helped the business stay afloat. If the business signed it, then they decided to abide by the restrictions on the money. Kind of like scholarships where you can't legally spend it on video games. If you want to, too bad. Either abide by the agreement or don't accept the money.

The problem is that the government is changing the rules after the game has already began. The recent ruling to restrict CEO pay came a little more than a year after TARP was adopted. These are new restrictions that are being imposed upon these companies. As I have written in other forums, I was against TARP and the bailouts of Chrysler and GM. It's not the government's job to make sure that giant corporations succeed. Nor is it the government's job to dictate how much money someone can make; not matter how much that person earns.

Darth Avlectus
10-22-2009, 01:32 AM
I don't mean to derail the thread but I just want to elaborate on Ten96's point.

It's not one of Congress' enumerated powers to do any of those things. We are on a slippery slope with the advent of these ruling by Congress. Right now, there are those that think this is a good idea. Why? Would you want the government to tell you how much money you can make? Once you let the government start dictating how much anyone can make regardless of their profession, what's to stop them from branching out? I certainly don't hear anyone complaining about the salaries and bonuses of NFL, MLB and NBA players.

I like your thinking in terms of cautiousness and awareness of the government intervening in salary. There is a difference between simply taxing like hell and actually dictating wages.

While, speaking of slippery slopes, it would be said that you are plotting on unknowns and using that fallacy regarding "if we let the government do this, what is to stop them from doing that?", the truth of the matter is that there are always opportunistic people who push the envelope.

So while others may chastise you and say "well, you don't *know* that allowing them to rule in just once will neccessarily lead to government control over wages in the long run", this has potential to cascade into it. Also that line of reasoning to refute your point cuts both ways--they don't *know* that it necessarily won't turn out that way. Once gone, hearing "sorry, my bad" is little consolation for losing your freedom; better safe than sorry. Cascading effect does happen--for example just look what happens when a case is ruled upon in uncharted territory when it concerns interpretation of the constitution or any of our rights.

Anyway, just thought I'd elaborate on that point. Carry on.

Samuel Dravis
10-22-2009, 01:45 AM
The problem is that the government is changing the rules after the game has already began. The recent ruling to restrict CEO pay came a little more than a year after TARP was adopted. These are new restrictions that are being imposed upon these companies. As I have written in other forums, I was against TARP and the bailouts of Chrysler and GM. It's not the government's job to make sure that giant corporations succeed. Nor is it the government's job to dictate how much money someone can make; not matter how much that person earns.Via this summary (http://financialservices.house.gov/essa/summary_of_the_eesa2.pdf) [PDF] of the bailout bill, it seems that limits to executive pay were already in the bill in October of 2008. Simply because enforcement of those clauses have been slow doesn't mean it was a new rule, unless I am missing something here.

The relevant portion of the bill:

SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.
(a) APPLICABILITY.—Any financial institution that sells troubled
assets to the Secretary under this Act shall be subject to the
executive compensation requirements of subsections (b) and (c) and
the provisions under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as provided
under the amendment by section 302, as applicable.
(b) DIRECT PURCHASES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Where the Secretary determines that the
purposes of this Act are best met through direct purchases
of troubled assets from an individual financial institution where
no bidding process or market prices are available, and the
Secretary receives a meaningful equity or debt position in the
financial institution as a result of the transaction, the Secretary
shall require that the financial institution meet appropriate
standards for executive compensation and corporate govern-
ance. The standards required under this subsection shall be
effective for the duration of the period that the Secretary holds
an equity or debt position in the financial institution.
(2) CRITERIA.—The standards required under this sub-
section shall include— H.R. 1424—13
(A) limits on compensation that exclude incentives for
senior executive officers of a financial institution to take
unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value
of the financial institution during the period that the Sec-
retary holds an equity or debt position in the financial
institution;
(B) a provision for the recovery by the financial institu-
tion of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a
senior executive officer based on statements of earnings,
gains, or other criteria that are later proven to be materi-
ally inaccurate; and
(C) a prohibition on the financial institution making
any golden parachute payment to its senior executive officer
during the period that the Secretary holds an equity or
debt position in the financial institution.
(3) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term
‘‘senior executive officer’’ means an individual who is one of
the top 5 highly paid executives of a public company, whose
compensation is required to be disclosed pursuant to the Securi-
ties Exchange Act of 1934, and any regulations issued there-
under, and non-public company counterparts.

Ten-96
10-22-2009, 02:06 AM
(B) a provision for the recovery by the financial institu-
tion of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a
senior executive officer based on statements of earnings,
gains, or other criteria that are later proven to be materi-
ally inaccurate; and
(C) a prohibition on the financial institution making
any golden parachute payment to its senior executive officer
during the period that the Secretary holds an equity or
debt position in the financial institution.

As you are well aware, there is nothing in the bill that states that 90% of the executives salaries are subject to recovery. It determines that bonuses or incentives are subject to recovery. That's the gist of the bill enacted a year ago. It prohibits "Golden Parachutes" and provides for a means to take back bonuses or incentives. Now, Congress has decided that they want to limit Executive's "Salaries", as in how much an Executive can earn from a company in a given year, which wasn't in the original bill.

I have an ever better idea:
How about we cut the salary of the members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives? Both sides of the political isle have been failing to follow the Constitution for decades. Both sides have been acting on behalf of Special Interest groups and not for the welfare of the citizens they are supposed to be representing. How about we remind those in Congress that they work for us; not the other way around?

Samuel Dravis
10-22-2009, 02:24 AM
(B) a provision for the recovery by the financial institu-
tion of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a
senior executive officer based on statements of earnings,
gains, or other criteria that are later proven to be materi-
ally inaccurate; and
(C) a prohibition on the financial institution making
any golden parachute payment to its senior executive officer
during the period that the Secretary holds an equity or
debt position in the financial institution.

As you are well aware, there is nothing in the bill that states that 90% of the executives salaries are subject to recovery. It determines that bonuses or incentives are subject to recovery. That's the gist of the bill enacted a year ago. It prohibits "Golden Parachutes" and provides for a means to take back bonuses or incentives. Now, Congress has decided that they want to limit Executive's "Salaries", as in how much an Executive can earn from a company in a given year, which wasn't in the original bill.From what I can tell, they're using an interpretation of A) which includes salary AND explicitly cuts out golden parachutes, i.e., the Paycut Czar is able to determine how much a salary is cut - if at all - while he is forced by law to disallow parachutes.

I have an ever better idea:
How about we cut the salary of the members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives? Both sides of the political isle have been failing to follow the Constitution for decades. Both sides have been acting on behalf of Special Interest groups and not for the welfare of the citizens they are supposed to be representing. How about we remind those in Congress that they work for us; not the other way around?I'm afraid that probably wouldn't have the intended effect. As it is, most people in high level government are independently wealthy, partially because they have the finances to take off of their day job and campaign full time. If you cut their current pay, those people who are not already wealthy would lack much, if any sort of financial incentive to take off of their normal jobs in order to campaign for office, leaving government completely to the rich. I take it this would be undesirable.

I suggest removing the offenders from office. I have tried to do so ever since I was able to vote several years ago.

Ten-96
10-22-2009, 02:43 AM
From what I can tell, they're using an interpretation of A) which includes salary AND explicitly cuts out golden parachutes, i.e., the Paycut Czar is able to determine how much a salary is cut - if at all - while he is forced by law to disallow parachutes.

I see what you're saying and I agree that they are using the wording in Section A to justify their actions. However, 90%; and people think that's a good thing? If I gave you $10 for mowing the lawn, how happy would you be if you had to give $9 to the government? Not very, I'm sure. I'm not a financial wizard and could tell you the current buying trends of overseas markets well enough for you to risk an investment that may or may not pay big dividends. I can't do it but I'm sure there are people that can and have done it reasonably enough to earn those mega salaries. It's the same as professional sports, in a sense. You have those that can perform certain skills at a consistently high level of proficiency. What the government is doing is tantamount to class warfare.

Samuel Dravis
10-22-2009, 03:06 AM
I see what you're saying and I agree that they are using the wording in Section A to justify their actions. However, 90%; and people think that's a good thing? If I gave you $10 for mowing the lawn, how happy would you be if you had to give $9 to the government? Not very, I'm sure. I'm not a financial wizard and could tell you the current buying trends of overseas markets well enough for you to risk an investment that may or may not pay big dividends. I can't do it but I'm sure there are people that can and have done it reasonably enough to earn those mega salaries. It's the same as professional sports, in a sense. You have those that can perform certain skills at a consistently high level of proficiency. What the government is doing is tantamount to class warfare.I am certain there is an element of "getting back at those greedy people" involved in this. The Paycut Czar is doing his job, which is to show The People that he's serious about, well, making those white collar people pay for getting us into horrendous amounts of debt. And he's doing it admirably well. :p

I can't say I'm really sad about it, though. $200,000 (from the article in the OP) is far, far more than virtually everyone ever makes in their lives. While it may take an exceptional CEO to lead to huge leaps in company wealth (and the associated risks), it merely takes a competent one to keep the place running. If the $200,000 is enough to attract reasonably competent people to be executives, then it doesn't appear to create problems. If it isn't, then the pay rate can be raised until it does (and note the Czar is obligated to ensure to the best of his ability that the companies improve so that the stock can be resold to regain taxpayer monies). After the company has paid their debt back they can return to their more risky behaviors without any governmental oversight.

I tend to agree with your skepticism of the government. The bailout shouldn't have happened. However, now that we're stuck with it I'm not interested in having the corporations dictate the rules. They seem to be even less interested in my opinion than the government; at least the government has to read my "fan" mail. :p

Ten-96
10-22-2009, 04:05 AM
I am certain there is an element of "getting back at those greedy people" involved in this. The Paycut Czar is doing his job, which is to show The People that he's serious about, well, making those white collar people pay for getting us into horrendous amounts of debt. And he's doing it admirably well. :p

Therein lies the problem with this issue. The Execs weren't alone in getting us into the financial situation that we have now. High ranking members of the House and Senate were complicit in the events that resulted in the financial meltdown. Barney Frank refuted repeated attempts to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Chris Dodd vehemently opposed attempts to have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac audited by the GAO and CBO. Currently, House members are stalling on an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage.


I can't say I'm really sad about it, though. $200,000 (from the article in the OP) is far, far more than virtually everyone ever makes in their lives. While it may take an exceptional CEO to lead to huge leaps in company wealth (and the associated risks), it merely takes a competent one to keep the place running. If the $200,000 is enough to attract reasonably competent people to be executives, then it doesn't appear to create problems. If it isn't, then the pay rate can be raised until it does (and note the Czar is obligated to ensure to the best of his ability that the companies improve so that the stock can be resold to regain taxpayer monies). After the company has paid their debt back they can return to their more risky behaviors without any governmental oversight.

No government should be in the position to dictate how much someone should earn; regardless. By that logic, if you received a government backed student loan; then the government would have a say in what courses you are able to choose. After all, the government doesn't want you behaving irresponsibly by choosing to major in something the government doesn't condone.


I tend to agree with your skepticism of the government. The bailout shouldn't have happened. However, now that we're stuck with it I'm not interested in having the corporations dictate the rules. They seem to be even less interested in my opinion than the government; at least the government has to read my "fan" mail.

We just disagree on that point. The government hasn't shown thus far that it is capable of running a business effectively. Look at the Post Office. Look at what happened with the "Cash for Clunkers" debacle. There are still thousands of dealers still waiting on their government reimbursement. Social Security will accrue a debt of approximately $60 Billion this year alone. Medicare has to contend with $34 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, thus far. Just a few of the reasons I don't want the government dictating salaries, taking over companies or managing health insurance.

mur'phon
10-22-2009, 08:42 AM
No government should be in the position to dictate how much someone should earn; regardless.

While I agree in general (state employed being the exeption), they certainly can (and should) have a say in how said someone earn it, especially as the problem leading to the crisis was more about "how" than "how much". I also have little problem with the goverment influencing wages with for instance a steep progressive tax.

By that logic, if you received a government backed student loan; then the government would have a say in what courses you are able to choose. After all, the government doesn't want you behaving irresponsibly by choosing to major in something the government doesn't condone.

I don't see a terribly big issue with this as some courses are way more popular than they "should (how many can actually make use of said courses). Why should my taxes help fund for instance a glut of arts degrees?

Considering the bailout, I support the "bank" bit of it, though I think it was poorly managed, for instance I would have loved to see any bank recieving help having to give the govt a som shares). The car bailout on the other hand could use some creative destruction.

Totenkopf
10-22-2009, 10:16 AM
I don't see a terribly big issue with this as some courses are way more popular than they "should (how many can actually make use of said courses). Why should my taxes help fund for instance a glut of arts degrees?

While I agree w/you that some degrees are much more useless than others, if it's a loan, that means the student has to pay it back. Ergo, the goverment has no business telling you what to do just b/c they're lending you money. Now, when it gives out grants, that's different.

Parmenides
10-22-2009, 10:45 AM
One small good, at the expense of a greater evil. Kreia would not approve. Echos in the force WILL be felt.



Tyranny cannot come about by pure evil. Some good must accompany it. Secretly I have no care for execs and almost find this appealing. But this will come back to burn us all!

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-22-2009, 03:09 PM
We just disagree on that point. The government hasn't shown thus far that it is capable of running a business effectively. Look at the Post Office. Look at what happened with the "Cash for Clunkers" debacle. There are still thousands of dealers still waiting on their government reimbursement. Social Security will accrue a debt of approximately $60 Billion this year alone. Medicare has to contend with $34 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, thus far. Just a few of the reasons I don't want the government dictating salaries, taking over companies or managing health insurance.The Post Office delivers letters across the country for 44 cents. I can't get a soda from a vending machine for 44 cents. The Cash for Clunkers program's only problem was that it was too popular. Social Security has made sure millions of seniors are able to afford housing, medical care, or basic necessities they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Medicare has done the same. Almost everyone is in debt right now, so saying these programs are worse off than they would be if they were privatized isn't very persuasive, especially considering the number of private companies that have gone out of business or don't accomplish what these government programs do.

fake edit: nm none of the programs you mentioned turn a profit so they are inherently bad they can all go to hell and so can the people who work for them

Ten-96
10-23-2009, 01:18 PM
The Post Office delivers letters across the country for 44 cents. I can't get a soda from a vending machine for 44 cents. The Cash for Clunkers program's only problem was that it was too popular. Social Security has made sure millions of seniors are able to afford housing, medical care, or basic necessities they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Medicare has done the same. Almost everyone is in debt right now, so saying these programs are worse off than they would be if they were privatized isn't very persuasive, especially considering the number of private companies that have gone out of business or don't accomplish what these government programs do.

The United States Postal Service will run a $7 Billion deficit this fiscal year. While it's true that you can't buy a soda for 44 cents, there aren't many things that you can buy for 44 cents. However, the lost cost of postage doesn't justify the billions in debt; UPS and FedEx seemed to have figured that out. Social Security does provide benefits to seniors - right now. What about those of us who are still working? I don't have an issue with the program, I have an issue with the bureaucrats who have ruined the program. Medicare is the same, needed but managed poorly. There are numerous example of private industry out performing the government. I gave the examples UPS and FedEx because those businesses have to make money in order to operate. The government doesn't have that burden, the government fines or increases taxes on businesses and individuals to generate revenue.


fake edit: nm none of the programs you mentioned turn a profit so they are inherently bad they can all go to hell and so can the people who work for them


It's true that none of the government agencies I mentioned turn a profit. Those agencies are accumulating tons of debt at the expense of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. It's not about the people who work for these companies, either. My mother worked for the SSA for over 20 years. You misunderstand the focus of my argument. I don't want these programs abolished, I want them managed responsibly so that future generations aren't saddled with crippling debt.

Totenkopf
10-23-2009, 04:50 PM
One can only wonder how much more nonexistent $$ congress and the administration want to spend before they completely derail the country. Moody's is close to stripping the USA of its AAA credit rating w/in the next 3-5 years. 6 months ago they estimated it might be as soon as only a decade. Roehmer is out there lying about the stimulus effect claiming a savings of 600K-1.5 million jobs this year. Too bad she can't prove any of that. Even the CBO write-up on the the proposed HC legislation (that even Pelosi argues isn't relevant anymore b/c that bill no longer exists) was based on an outline, not the details. As always, the devil is in the details. It's really funny that many people have savaged the previous administration for increasing the debt by >$3 trillion in 8 years, but think nothing of this administration's plans to 2X or 3X that in as much or less time. If govt were a business, they'd all be doing 20-life for fraud and grand theft (and numerous other charges, no doubt).

ForeverNight
10-23-2009, 05:40 PM
Eh, sorry Tot, but that's only if we don't return to a downward trajectory on our debt once the recession is once and truly over.

So, knowing who we have in office.... :giveup:

Source (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55M1SV20090623?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)

Totenkopf
10-24-2009, 04:36 AM
I think that's the point, though. This administration and Congress are doing nothing to eradicate the debt or even to seriously counter the current downward spiral of the US economy except blame everyone else for their inability and general unwillingness to actually solve the situation in a constructive manner. The rating is "safe for now" doesn't mean that it will be in 3-10 years time. As you note, with this group, that is dicey at absolute best. No doubt, though, if rhetoric actually changed anything, we'd be in economic heaven right now. :dev9:

ForeverNight
10-24-2009, 11:09 AM
If rhetoric actually solved things, the Soviet Union would've won.

But, yeah, just pointing out that it would happen if we don't clear up that debt.

But, again, with who's in office..... I can't say that's a likely occurrence.... clearing the debt that is.

Jae Onasi
10-24-2009, 03:25 PM
The banks who signed on for the bailouts knew what they were getting in to with executive compensation. I have no doubt their lawyers went over the legalese with a fine tooth comb before they signed on. So, this ruling on exec pay should have come as no surprise--caveat emptor. My view is that if the execs' performance was so bad that they needed a bailout for their banks, they did not earn or deserve 10 million of my tax dollars to pay their salaries. I'm glad the gov't is actually doing something to help recoup some of my tax dollars.

Totenkopf
10-25-2009, 04:05 AM
In so far as the meddling in salaries is confined strictly to those 7 or so companies, I agree w/the caveat emptor sentiment. I also agree w/Sam that you could probably have little problem finding people who could do those jobs competently for less money. Of course it might not be bad to apply that logic to govt as well. They may not officially make millions like their private enterprise counterparts, but they appear to be equally overcompensated given their gross negligence and awe-inducing incompetence.

El Sitherino
10-26-2009, 12:28 AM
Considering in the last 20 years CEO's earnings have risen nearly 304%, 90% cuts sound perfectly reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, it's unreasonable how much they'll still make.

Eventually we'll get back to a point where the profit of the corporations will go back to the workers like it did when capitalism was, well, capitalism. One small step closer toward fixing this bull**** economy.

Ten-96
10-26-2009, 02:30 AM
Considering in the last 20 years CEO's earnings have risen nearly 304%, 90% cuts sound perfectly reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, it's unreasonable how much they'll still make.
Eventually we'll get back to a point where the profit of the corporations will go back to the workers like it did when capitalism was, well, capitalism. One small step closer toward fixing this bull**** economy.

Capitalism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


The bolded portion of your quote is almost the textbook definition of socialism. Here's the thing that makes this argument about CEO pay interesting: How does the amount of money someone earns affect you? Answer: It doesn't. These companies did take taxpayer money. These companies didn't come groveling to the government asking for help. It was Congress, Bush and Bernanke who decided that these companies needed the governement's assistance. Now, we have Congress, Obama and Feinberg telling us that since these companies took tax payer money, these companies need to have their top execs pay regulated so as not to offend traditional American values.

Which is worse, though? Bank CEO's and Exec's getting paid millions in contractual bonuses or our representatives in Congress wasting billions on pork-barrel projects designed to get them reelected? Or, our representatives in Congress getting paid their current salaries for the rest of their lives along with the best health care benefits for the rest of their lives after serving at least one full term?

Once again, I point to professional sports for an example. The lowest salary for an NFL rookie is $285,000. The lowest salary for an NBA rookie is $473,604 (for the 2010-2011 season). Just imagine what the elite professional players are making. Then, factor in their product endorsements and the sky is literally the limit. My point? Have you ever bought tickets to a professional sporting event? Have you ever purchased professional team apparel/merchandise of any kind? If so, you have spent your money (tax payer money) to support these organizations. I know I have but I also don't complain about Wall Street/Bank CEO's/Execs getting paid a lot of money. The amount they're (CEO's/Execs) being paid has no effect on me whatsoever.

Lastly, the one sure fire way to fix the economy is to cut taxes across the board. The less money that we (my wife and I) pay in taxes, the more we have to spend on things for our home and our children; driving the economy. The less money someone who owns a business has to spend in taxes, the more they can expand their business; thereby creating more jobs.

El Sitherino
10-26-2009, 03:14 AM
So I guess that good old American capitalism we used to find the communists was really socialist, eh?

Clearly you don't know as much as you think you do if you think profit isn't what is used to make employee payments. What's been a common trend of businesses in the last 20 years under the model of Reaganomics and has exploded exponentially in the last 9 is CEO's and shareholders cut employee pay, deny previously afforded and generally required amenities, they cut costs by using inferior production materials, and deprive consumers of quality customer service. All for short term payoff, hence the golden age of Wall Street. What we're seeing now is a consequence of destroying the middle class and removing jobs from the American citizen.

So you can say that exploiting workers is Capitalism all you want, but you will find that you are incorrect. You also clearly don't know how to form an argument as your definitions in no way refute what I'm saying since they fail to address the means in which pay is distributed within business. Cost of production is simply that, cost of production, things like power, water, materials, etc. All other earnings are considered profit and go into a collective pot that is distributed as employee pay. When a CEO denies an employee their due pay to keep it as a bonus for themselves, they aren't acting on the foundations of capitalism, they are acting on the foundations of slave labor. I'm sure you're aware of the term indentured servant, but if you're not I'm sure you can look that definition up as well. The only difference here is there is no time table, instead it's an illusion that the bull**** work you're doing will be for only so long.

Which is worse, though? Bank CEO's and Exec's getting paid millions in contractual bonuses or our representatives in Congress wasting billions on pork-barrel projects designed to get them reelected? Or, our representatives in Congress getting paid their current salaries for the rest of their lives along with the best health care benefits for the rest of their lives after serving at least one full term?

Once again, I point to professional sports for an example. The lowest salary for an NFL rookie is $285,000. The lowest salary for an NBA rookie is $473,604 (for the 2010-2011 season). Just imagine what the elite professional players are making. Then, factor in their product endorsements and the sky is literally the limit. My point? Have you ever bought tickets to a professional sporting event? Have you ever purchased professional team apparel/merchandise of any kind? If so, you have spent your money (tax payer money) to support these organizations. I know I have but I also don't complain about Wall Street/Bank CEO's/Execs getting paid a lot of money. The amount they're (CEO's/Execs) being paid has no effect on me whatsoever.


This is in no way an argument, it's a bunch of mush about people being saps.

Lastly, the one sure fire way to fix the economy is to cut taxes across the board. The less money that we (my wife and I) pay in taxes, the more we have to spend on things for our home and our children; driving the economy. The less money someone who owns a business has to spend in taxes, the more they can expand their business; thereby creating more jobs.

Wow, do you even know what taxes are for? Or how an economy works?

True there needs to be wiser spending of tax money, but less taxes being taken in does not in anyway mean wiser use of the money. It's simply ignoring the problem.

Ten-96
10-26-2009, 03:32 AM
So I guess that good old American capitalism we used to find the communists was really socialist, eh?
Clearly you don't know as much as you think you do if you think profit isn't what is used to make employee payments. What's been a common trend of businesses in the last 20 years under the model of Reaganomics and has exploded exponentially in the last 9 is CEO's and shareholders cut employee pay, deny previously afforded and generally required amenities, they cut costs by using inferior production materials, and deprive consumers of quality customer service. All for short term payoff, hence the golden age of Wall Street. What we're seeing now is a consequence of destroying the middle class and removing jobs from the American citizen.

You sound really angry, Sitherino. I know that company profits are used to pay employees. I also know that no compnay uses 100% of it's profits to pay employees. Your previous post sounded to me as if you think that's the way companies should operate.


So you can say that exploiting workers is Capitalism all you want, but you will find that you are incorrect. You also clearly don't know how to form an argument as your definitions in no way refute what I'm saying since they fail to address the means in which pay is distributed within business. Cost of production is simply that, cost of production, things like power, water, materials, etc. All other earnings are considered profit and go into a collective pot that is distributed as employee pay. When a CEO denies an employee their due pay to keep it as a bonus for themselves, they aren't acting on the foundations of capitalism, they are acting on the foundations of slave labor. I'm sure you're aware of the term indentured servant, but if you're not I'm sure you can look that definition up as well. The only difference here is there is no time table, instead it's an illusion that the bull**** work you're doing will be for only so long.

So, you're saying that CEO's are denying workers their pay? Workers aren't being paid or workers aren't being paid as much as you think they should be paid? I don't remember saying anything about exploiting workers being capitalism. I also don't know any successful corporation that dumps all profits into a "collective pot" and distributes it to it's employees. I guess I don't know anything about economy. I always assumed that companies used profits to pay employees (all of them), invest in better technology, invest in advertising and other means to help grow their business.



This is in no way an argument, it's a bunch of mush about people being saps.


It's my take on the argument. I was never under the impression that everyone had to agree with it.


Wow, do you even know what taxes are for? Or how an economy works?

True there needs to be wiser spending of tax money, but less taxes being taken in does not in anyway mean wiser use of the money. It's simply ignoring the problem.

I guess I don't in your eyes. I was under the impression that taxes went to fund the federal, state and local governments to provide services on our behalf as deemed necessary by the Constitution. As far as the economy, I usually hold to a couple of basic beliefs: 1. the more money one keeps from ones pay, the more one can spend; which helps drive the economy. 2. The more money that a business has to spend, the more employees they can hire. I had no idea I was so far off the mark.

Q
10-26-2009, 06:00 AM
TWO Ten 96's?

I'm so confused. :confused:

Totenkopf
10-26-2009, 06:19 AM
@Q---yeah, that is odd. Apparently one has a hyphen between Ten and 96. Must be some weird system problem.

Considering in the last 20 years CEO's earnings have risen nearly 304%, 90% cuts sound perfectly reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, it's unreasonable how much they'll still make.

Eventually we'll get back to a point where the profit of the corporations will go back to the workers like it did when capitalism was, well, capitalism. One small step closer toward fixing this bull**** economy.

Raises the question of just how much you think either party is entitled to, and entitled is the right word under the circumstances. Company profits also go to shareholders, R&D and other areas, not just "a common pot to split with the workers". Or are you contending that shareholders and R&D are also part of the "costs of production"? Still, I wonder if you take this same expansive attitude with regard to entertainment. Ten-96 is correct that people in sports and entertainment are subject to the same wild variations in compensation you complain about with "industry" (be it manufacturing, financial, etc....). Do you find that equally offensive?

I agree that compensation is lopsided. So, who should be able to decide fair compensation? Bureaucrats with no real clue about how to run a business? Eggheaded academics who live in ivory towers and are insulated from the idiocy of some of their own notions? Unions, who are often as corrupt as the management they rail about? A big part of the problem seems to be that company boards are little more than rubber stamps. That and congressmen and women who are bought and paid for by many in the business community (whether that biz is manufacturing, activists, etc...). Fact is, no matter what system you live in there will be a gap between the top and bottom in pay. So, what specifically is your solution to addressing that issue? How much should the CEO get and how much the middle manager or the "lowly" janitor as a % of company profits? How do you determine your own answer (assuming you have one beyond "take the bums $$ away")?

Ten-96
10-26-2009, 06:28 AM
TWO Ten 96's?

I'm so confused. :confused:

I was confused too until I looked at my tag. I joined the Lucas Forums back in 2004 under Ten-96. I revisited but forgot the password for Ten-96 so I registered as Ten 96. I'll PM one of the mods and ask if they can merge the two, if possible.

Q
10-26-2009, 06:38 AM
I would do that right away. We've had problems here lately with people who have been perma-banned re-registering under an alt account, and the staff doesn't take too kindly to it, for obvious reasons. Your explanation sounds pretty innocent, though, so there shouldn't be a problem. :)

Jae Onasi
10-26-2009, 01:49 PM
Sports salaries are irrelevent to this issue. The banks signed the contract with the government for the bailout funds, including the clause that the government can dictate the CEO salaries. The feds have the legal right to dictate salaries as a result, and they've decided to exercise that right. I don't want my tax dollars to pay the salaries of abject failures and/or outright crooks, so I'm fine with the cuts within the legal limits.

Parmenides
10-26-2009, 04:46 PM
I DO want my tax payer dollars to help contribute to pay the salaries and bonus's of abject failures and/or outright crooks. Who else is with me? :devscare:

Of course I'm joking. The businesses went to bed with the snake. They are going to be bit by the snake. It's a small good they are getting jacked.

..but tyranny is on the rise. Every tyrant started with perceived good intentions. I'm not calling our leaders future tyrants, but bad precedents are set and tyranny can be subtle. A complete take-over doesn't have to happen overnight, nor within these 4 years, nor within these 8 years... but it IS gaining momentum. No doubt. And even if a takeover doesn't happen, our freedoms are still dwindling.

This is one of those things where you're doomed either way. This whole bailout was a big government scheme. Now here's the scary part.... our tax payer dollars are still going towards executives to certain companies. Some CEO's from SOME bailed-out companies are exempt. :confused: I wonder what these guys did differently. I guess the pay czar likes them for some reason.

Politics in action folks!

Ten-96
10-26-2009, 05:19 PM
I used professional sports player's salaries as an example to contrast the amount of money pro athletes make as opposed to corporate CEO's. I disagree with you that it doesn't make a difference, though; Jae. We're supposed to be so incensed with the amount of money these CEO's are making because they took money from the government. I contend that none of these companies came to the government asking for help. The government called them all in.

I still contend that it is not the government's place nor is it in their enumerated powers to be involved in private industry. Best case scenario, the companies pay the money back and call it a learning experience. Worst case scenario, the government decides that this is a great idea and branches out into other areas they deem to be "vital to the nations economic stability." So far, the government has intruded into banks and car manufacturing companies. Who's to say the retail industry isn't next?

I also understand that the majority of people who support the pay czar cutting the salaries do so because these companies are paying bonuses to these people while their company is still losing money. Obama made a speech in which he said that what these companies are paying their CEO's offends American's values. Government waste (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm2642.cfm) is far more offensive to me than what anyone on Wall Street gets paid. (link from The Heritage Foundation)

Totenkopf
10-26-2009, 06:22 PM
...I don't want my tax dollars to pay the salaries of abject failures and/or outright crooks....

You mean you want to see a rollback or cessation of Congressional salaries? :xp:

jrrtoken
10-26-2009, 07:22 PM
I contend that none of these companies came to the government asking for help. The government called them all in.Not exactly. While I will say that giving megacorporations like banking firms loans is a rather unnerving practice that has questionable integrity, I will say asked by their own volition. Whether or not the deal was entirely honest is another matter, however.So far, the government has intruded into banks and car manufacturing companies. Who's to say the retail industry isn't next?Seeing as both of aforementioned industries got us into this situation by their own mismanagement and greed, as well as immense government deregulation to the point of gross incompetence, I'd that it definitely is acceptable for the government to put these industries in-question under massive oversight, if only temporarily.

Ten-96
10-26-2009, 08:44 PM
Not exactly. While I will say that giving megacorporations like banking firms loans is a rather unnerving practice that has questionable integrity, I will say asked by their own volition. Whether or not the deal was entirely honest is another matter, however.

From news reports of that meeting, it seems to me; that these institutions were asked to come to Washington to help find a solution to the problem, not to ask the government for money or help.


Seeing as both of aforementioned industries got us into this situation by their own mismanagement and greed, as well as immense government deregulation to the point of gross incompetence, I'd that it definitely is acceptable for the government to put these industries in-question under massive oversight, if only temporarily.

The financial implosion was largely the result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Congress created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac specifically to lower the costs of home borrowing by encouraging the development of the securitized mortgage market. Congress also pushed these government-sponsored entities (GSEs) to expand lending to low-quality borrowers and thereby raise the homeownership rate in America. The key to their financial success, aside from their support in Congress, was an implicit guarantee that the federal government would not let the institutions go bankrupt. This implicit guarantee eliminated a source of risk to GSE bondholders, thus reducing the interest rate markets charged on GSE debt.(link (http://www.heritage.org/Research/economy/bg2331.cfm))

By forcing financial institutions to loan to people who were high-risk/low quality, Congress was as complicit in the financial meltdown as the execs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Attempts to reign in Fannie and Freddie were vehemently opposed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Jae Onasi
10-27-2009, 01:16 AM
You mean you want to see a rollback or cessation of Congressional salaries? :xp:Yes, and anyone associated with the problems with my hubby's pay.... ;P

The banks had 2 options--take the government's offer, or go bankrupt. Now, there are a lot of issues involved in the cause of the bank meltdowns, FM/FM being part of it, high oil prices and overpriced housing being another part, among many other factors. However, the banks still had a choice, however unpalatable. No one held a gun to their heads as they signed the contract with the gov't, and apparently any number of the execs thought they could continue on their merry ways with their overblown salaries that could hardly be justified considering the atrocious performance of their banks.

mur'phon
10-27-2009, 02:21 PM
Large post ahead, if your name isn't Ten-96, just skip it.

First of all profits are what you are left with after production costs (including wages) have been paid, and is the property of the shareholders. If they want to reinvest it is their business, though asuming the market is competetive, most of it will have to be reinvested to remain competetive.

Originally posted by Ten
There are numerous example of private industry out performing the government. I gave the examples UPS and FedEx because those businesses have to make money in order to operate. The government doesn't have that burden, the government fines or increases taxes on businesses and individuals to generate revenue.

At the same time, private companies usually don't have a responsibility to provide unproffitable services. For example the USP have to mantain postal services in sparsely populated areas where it isn't profitable (or have to deal with a maximum price on their services). If that's reason enough to support state owned companies, depends on the person.

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

This is known as communism, take a look at socialist countries if you are unsure of the distinction.

Capitalism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

This is not a good enough distinction for Capitalism (it ironically could also be used to describe a social-democratic state). Capitalism is built uppon the acumulation of vapitall by the capitalists and the asumption that they will be forced to reinvest this due to competition making this the only way to earn a profitt (and thus earn more).

How does the amount of money someone earns affect you? Answer: It doesn't.

Usually it doesen't, however the bonusses afect "me" in two ways. First of all since the companies wouldn't have survived without the bailout, they are taking my tax money (money spent to keep cash flowing, unlike money spent on a sporting event which I spend to get a spesific product/service that I then promptly recieve) to do something which hampers their ability to provide what I paid for. Secondly, the bonuses are part of a system of incentives that is partly to blame for the crisis, thus rejigging the incentives seems to be a perfectly reasonable response by the government.

our representatives in Congress wasting billions on pork-barrel projects designed to get them reelected?

Last time I checked, pork makes up a tiny percentage of money spent, not defending it, only saying it might not need to be our highest priority.

Or, our representatives in Congress getting paid their current salaries for the rest of their lives along with the best health care benefits for the rest of their lives after serving at least one full term?

I actually think this is a good thing, heck I might be in favor of increasing their pay. The reason being I want some of the nations best and brightest stuck in congress, which seems easier to do if the pay is good.

Lastly, the one sure fire way to fix the economy is to cut taxes across the board. The less money that we (my wife and I) pay in taxes, the more we have to spend on things for our home and our children; driving the economy. The less money someone who owns a business has to spend in taxes, the more they can expand their business; thereby creating more jobs.

This is all nice and good, however in a reccession, this tend to work a lot worse than it should. Reason being, what do most people do when times are/look tough? They spend less and save more, which is the opposite of what you want in a reccession. Not saying it can't have its uses (you get the effect fast, even if it isn't terribly large, it's relatively easy to roll back), but during reccessions, I prefer increased government spending (as long as it's easy to roll back).

I still contend that it is not the government's place nor is it in their enumerated powers to be involved in private industry.

Define private industry. While I agree with you in general, I'd argue that there are cases where the macroeconomic gain from goverment involvement outweigts microeconomic pain.

Best case scenario, the companies pay the money back and call it a learning experience.

Best case scenario? Best case scenario in my mind either involves the banks splitting into "not-too-big-to-fail" entities, or having them pay for "bailout insurance", either way they should e coupled with shareholders stopping their insanity and device a bonus system that actually benefits them. Of course, this is all just a dream that'll never come to pass, but I can dream can't I?

Worst case scenario, the government decides that this is a great idea and branches out into other areas they deem to be "vital to the nations economic stability." So far, the government has intruded into banks and car manufacturing companies. Who's to say the retail industry isn't next?

Because there is no macroeconomic justification for doing so? Or maybe because it would be political suicide for anyone doing it.

Ten-96
10-28-2009, 01:16 AM
Another long post. Mainly to respond to Mur'phon.

First of all profits are what you are left with after production costs (including wages) have been paid, and is the property of the shareholders. If they want to reinvest it is their business, though assuming the market is competetive, most of it will have to be reinvested to remain competetive.

I agree with most of that and in theory I assume a lot of businesses operate in that manner. The shareholders who receive dividends aren't usually the ones who make the decisions for the company. It's the small group of controlling interest shareholders (the ones who own more than 50% of controlling interest) who decide the company's direction.



At the same time, private companies usually don't have a responsibility to provide unproffitable services. For example the USP have to mantain postal services in sparsely populated areas where it isn't profitable (or have to deal with a maximum price on their services). If that's reason enough to support state owned companies, depends on the person.

True, but the USPS could be run more efficiently. Would they have to raise the price of postage? Sure, otherwise they'll continue to hemorrhage revenue trying to deliver letters and packages at outdated prices.


This is known as communism, take a look at socialist countries if you are unsure of the distinction.

I just copied the dictionary definition of socialism and used that to draw a correlation to the comment posted by El Sitherino.



This is not a good enough distinction for Capitalism (it ironically could also be used to describe a social-democratic state). Capitalism is built uppon the acumulation of vapitall by the capitalists and the asumption that they will be forced to reinvest this due to competition making this the only way to earn a profitt (and thus earn more).

I did the same thing here with capitalism. I copied the dictionary definition to contrast the comment made my ES.



Usually it doesen't, however the bonusses afect "me" in two ways. First of all since the companies wouldn't have survived without the bailout, they are taking my tax money (money spent to keep cash flowing, unlike money spent on a sporting event which I spend to get a spesific product/service that I then promptly recieve) to do something which hampers their ability to provide what I paid for. Secondly, the bonuses are part of a system of incentives that is partly to blame for the crisis, thus rejigging the incentives seems to be a perfectly reasonable response by the government.

Here, we just disagree. I respect your point of view of the situation. My point of view is that the government has no business deciding which companies should succeed or fail. If those companies had been allowed to fail, there would have been other companies to step up and try to replace them. If the issue is using taxes, my point of view is that Congress shouldn't have made the move in the fist place. I know that Bush initiated the whole mess, but Congress had to agree to it and make it happen. My ire is still directed at the members of Congress because CEO's and Exec's have been taking risks for years. Some are successful and others aren't, but that's been a part of capitalism in America - risk vs. reward.

As far as the crisis with the financial institutions, my views have been the same since it happened. Everyone is blaming the CEO's and Exec's for the meltdown caused by the housing market finance bubble. What most are ignoring is Congress' complicity in the housing market collapse. At the center of that collapse stands Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I post a link in an earlier post.



Last time I checked, pork makes up a tiny percentage of money spent, not defending it, only saying it might not need to be our highest priority.

I believe that since we're supposed to incensed with the bonuses being paid to CEO's and Exec's in bailed out companies (which total in the millions), we should be just as incensed with the amount of waste Congress engages in regulary (which totals in the hundreds of millions - even billions).



I actually think this is a good thing, heck I might be in favor of increasing their pay. The reason being I want some of the nations best and brightest stuck in congress, which seems easier to do if the pay is good.

I don't remember who said it (either Tot, Evil Q, GTA or Pastramix) but one of them mentioned that the level of ineptitude displayed by Congress is underwhelming at best (something to that effect). It seems that the majority of the members of Congress (both parties) have lost touch with the real problems that are facing average citizens.



This is all nice and good, however in a reccession, this tend to work a lot worse than it should. Reason being, what do most people do when times are/look tough? They spend less and save more, which is the opposite of what you want in a reccession. Not saying it can't have its uses (you get the effect fast, even if it isn't terribly large, it's relatively easy to roll back), but during reccessions, I prefer increased government spending (as long as it's easy to roll back).

It worked for Reagan after the years of recession brought on by Carter. As far as increased government spending, I use your comment in my answer. If citizens usually hold onto their money (save/conserve) during a recession, shouldn't our government do the same? If your source of income gets, do you cut back on your spending or do you keep spending and spending hoping that things will turn around?



Define private industry. While I agree with you in general, I'd argue that there are cases where the macroeconomic gain from goverment involvement outweigts microeconomic pain.

Again, we are in disagreement here. If you have examples of government getting involved in private industry and making things more efficient and cheaper, please share them.



Best case scenario? Best case scenario in my mind either involves the banks splitting into "not-too-big-to-fail" entities, or having them pay for "bailout insurance", either way they should e coupled with shareholders stopping their insanity and device a bonus system that actually benefits them. Of course, this is all just a dream that'll never come to pass, but I can dream can't I?

I just don't believe that it's the government's job to determine that a company is "too big to fail." Nor is it Congress' duty to "bail out" a failing company. If a company fails, there are others to step in to take up the slack. Stop the insanity of all CEO bonus pay or just those that are involved with the government? There are still a lot of CEO's making tons of bonuses and they're still successful.


Because there is no macroeconomic justification for doing so? Or maybe because it would be political suicide for anyone doing it.

Both. It's not amongst the enumerated powers defined in the Constitution for the federal government to intrude into private industry. It's not about the justification or political suicide, it's not Constitutional.

Totenkopf
10-28-2009, 10:30 AM
I don't remember who said it (either Tot, Evil Q, GTA or Pastramix) but one of them mentioned that the level of ineptitude displayed by Congress is overwhelming (something to that effect). It seems that the majority of the members of Congress (both parties) have lost touch with the real problems that are facing average citizens.

fixed. "Underwhelming at best" is either far too generous or exaggerated understatement. ;)

mur'phon
10-28-2009, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Ten
Here, we just disagree. I respect your point of view of the situation.

You asked how somebodys pay affects me, I answered that, unless you still want to argue it doesen't, I sugest you concede the point before bringing in a new one, which brings us to.

My point of view is that the government has no business deciding which companies should succeed or fail.

And here we agree most of the time, however.

If those companies had been allowed to fail, there would have been other companies to step up and try to replace them.

Partly, the car companies could have failed without much incident (reason why I HATE the car bailout. The banks on the other hand, if those had been alowed to fail we would have gotten a domino effect from hell, where your "replacers" would fall due to forces way out of their controll. Once that happens, you'd most likely be looking at a vicious depression.

As far as the crisis with the financial institutions, my views have been the same since it happened. Everyone is blaming the CEO's and Exec's for the meltdown caused by the housing market finance bubble. What most are ignoring is Congress' complicity in the housing market collapse. At the center of that collapse stands Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I post a link in an earlier post.

People aren't ignoring the two FM's, however, it is not as if the housing market collapse was the only reason, and it's not as if the other banks didn't gleefully use subprimes to make a fortune.

I don't remember who said it (either Tot, Evil Q, GTA or Pastramix) but one of them mentioned that the level of ineptitude displayed by Congress is underwhelming at best (something to that effect). It seems that the majority of the members of Congress (both parties) have lost touch with the real problems that are facing average citizens.

I fail to see how this is an argument against providing more incentives for people to become members of congress.

As far as increased government spending, I use your comment in my answer. If citizens usually hold onto their money (save/conserve) during a recession, shouldn't our government do the same?

Don't pretend to be stupid here, after all you said:
The less money that we (my wife and I) pay in taxes, the more we have to spend on things for our home and our children; driving the economy.

Simply put, once in a reccession, you want to boost demand to get out of it. During boom years, you want to reduce demand in order to have the resources to fight back a downturn.

Again, we are in disagreement here. If you have examples of government getting involved in private industry and making things more efficient and cheaper, please share them.

Goverment will rarely make a business (restricting to industry seems pointless, as there are hardly any reason att all for the goverment to be involved there) more effective (a possible exception being health care). What I argued was that macro economic gain by having the government do something can in several cases outweight micro economic pain. Usually this is because the state often can't externalize the same way private companies can.

It's not amongst the enumerated powers defined in the Constitution for the federal government to intrude into private industry. It's not about the justification or political suicide, it's not Constitutional.

Not sure if I agree here, if my two reasons where not present (f.e if there actually was a net macro economic gain by having the state controll retail), I'd hope (and think) congress would do what it could to amend the constitution.

Ten-96
10-28-2009, 11:56 PM
You asked how somebodys pay affects me, I answered that, unless you still want to argue it doesen't, I sugest you concede the point before bringing in a new one, which brings us to.

Concede? How does the amount of money someone else earns, affect someone else? If I make $400K a year, how does that affect Joe Schmoe? Conceding the point is out of the question because the amount of money someone earns does not have a direct effect on you. We can argue cost associated with production, interests and other factors but it won't change my reasoning.


Partly, the car companies could have failed without much incident (reason why I HATE the car bailout. The banks on the other hand, if those had been allowed to fail we would have gotten a domino effect from hell, where your "replacers" would fall due to forces way out of their control. Once that happens, you'd most likely be looking at a vicious depression.

That may have happened but it wasn't an inevitability. As of this date, we are looking at an inflation spike never seen in this country before. So far, this administration has printed 10X the amount of money Carter's administration printed.


People aren't ignoring the two FM's, however, it is not as if the housing market collapse was the only reason, and it's not as if the other banks didn't gleefully use subprimes to make a fortune.

The 2 FM's while not the only reason of the collapse, they were the largest contributor to the collapse.


Don't pretend to be stupid here, after all you said:


As I wrote in the previous post, it worked wonderfully for Reagan. I know there are those that dispute that but the facts are there to support his actions.


Simply put, once in a reccession, you want to boost demand to get out of it. During boom years, you want to reduce demand in order to have the resources to fight back a downturn.

Hence the reason that the government needs to be fiscally responsible.



Goverment will rarely make a business (restricting to industry seems pointless, as there are hardly any reason att all for the goverment to be involved there) more effective (a possible exception being health care). What I argued was that macro economic gain by having the government do something can in several cases outweight micro economic pain. Usually this is because the state often can't externalize the same way private companies can.

Health care and the government? The government runs Social Security which will have $34 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. Medicare is also run by the government. Medicare will accrue $60 Billion in debt this year alone. Based on those two examples, I seriously doubt that the government will take over health care and make things better. Once again it begs the question: What private industry has ever been improved, become more efficient or it's costs been lowered when the government has gotten involved?



Not sure if I agree here, if my two reasons where not present (f.e if there actually was a net macro economic gain by having the state control retail), I'd hope (and think) congress would do what it could to amend the constitution.

Thankfully, they don't have the votes in order to amend the Constitution. The Constitution is there to protect individual liberty and freedom. We don't need the government taking over anything on our behalf. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why do some people think that the government is the answer to all problems?

mur'phon
10-29-2009, 04:28 AM
That may have happened but it wasn't an inevitability.

Then please tell me who would have stepped up. In the case of the car cmpanies it was simple enough, the industry needed to be downsized anyway, plenty of companiesand where ready to step up, the macro economic pain would be minimal, and not saving for instance GM wouldn't affect for instance Toyota much. When it commes to the banks, there wasn't any likely to fill the gap (especially after the domino effect from not saving them had run its course), and the macro economic pain of letting them fail would be devastating (try recovering with minimal access to credit).
Note: I'm not in favor of saving companies as a rule, which is why I want to see the banks splitt up or having to pay bailout insurance (so the next time they need one, we'll save them with their own tax money).

As I wrote in the previous post, it worked wonderfully for Reagan.

i'd argue it didn't work "wonderfully" (and his method involved the defecits you hate) however that's a subject massive enough for its own thread, so if you want to discuss it, feel free to start one.

Hence the reason that the government needs to be fiscally responsible.

And obviously we agree here, I'm merely arguing in favor of saving during boom years to use during bust years.

Health care and the government? The government runs Social Security which will have $34 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. Medicare is also run by the government. Medicare will accrue $60 Billion in debt this year alone. Based on those two examples, I seriously doubt that the government will take over health care and make things better.

I said government canrun health care better, the US system is one of the least effective in the world, though that also applies to the private parts of it.

Once again it begs the question: What private industry has ever been improved, become more efficient or it's costs been lowered when the government has gotten involved?

My main point is macro economic gain, in other words, it doesen't need to benefit the company directly. For instance a railway line might very well be loss-making for a company, but the amount saved by society by for instance less trafic jams, less wearing down of roads, cleaner air, fewer trafic accidents, etc is likely to be far higher than the loss the company makes. Now, a private company would never run a loss making line, unlike the government who has an incentive to run it because far less of the effects of not doing so is externalized.

Ten-96
10-29-2009, 05:04 AM
No more quoting for me, takes up too much space.

In regards to the banking/financial situation, there are numerous mega banking/financial corporations. Take Wells Fargo Financial for instance. One of the many banks that fought to pay back the TARP money, immediately. There are others but I can't name them off the top of my head.

As far as Reagan, there are numerous economists who agree that Reagan did the right thing to fix the economy when he took office. However, there are some economists who argue the opposite. My viewpoint is that Reagan did the right thing at the right time that had lasting effects far after his terms in office.

I concur, there's nothing wrong with the government putting some away to combat a downturn. I still disagree that during a downturn, the government should be spending and printing money like there's no tomorrow. In just the first nine months, Obama has managed to triple the fiscal year deficit. I like to explain it like this: If you have a hole in your wall, do you patch the hole or do you make the hole three times the size it was and call it improved air flow?

There's nothing I can reply to "the government can run health care better." Your claim is that ours is the least effective/efficient in the world. My question: Why do people from around the globe come here for health care if our system is so bad? If you're referring to the infant mortality rate, not every country reports every infant death like we do. We include in that number, all of those infants that are neglected, abandoned, left in garbage cans, dumpster and those that are just killed by the parent.

Finally, government loss means an increase in taxes and/or inflation at some point sooner or later.

Darth Avlectus
10-29-2009, 08:58 PM
Random side note of some relation: How about banks rejecting baiolout money?

http://amateurassetallocator.com/2008/11/04/some-banks-are-rejecting-bailout-money/

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/03/markets/thebuzz/index.htm?postversion=2008110317


I posed this question: Why, if a potential borrower looks like a high chance liability, would you decide to go through with loaning money to them where they in your best estimation might not and likely would not be able to pay it back? The common sense answer says you wouldn't.

Someone (murphs I think you) replied "unless it looked like a better deal somehow".

I have also heard from Clark Howard that on the full economic scale of looking at things simply paying debt back does not ensure avoiding catastrophe. While, no it may not *absolutely* avoid the pitfalls of economic turbulence I should think it would reduce the likelihood of this happening.

If regulations forcing a bank to take a bad loan deal were not in play as a major factor for this economic crisis then how otherwise could it be that potential and likely *bad* loan deals would look like a good deal to profit from (especially if the assets seized in such defaults weren't enough to be "worth it")?

I would think it wouldn't be good in the long run. Events that unfolded thus far are evidence of this. I'll listen but understand that I think lack of common sense in dealings is a folly and recipe for disaster.

El Sitherino
10-29-2009, 11:49 PM
Once again it begs the question: What private industry has ever been improved, become more efficient or it's costs been lowered when the government has gotten involved?

Alcohol, letter and parcel delivery service, emergency services to name a few.
While many like to bring up the downfall of the USPS, I would like to note that people conveniently forget the impact e-mail has made on the USPS, which is directly attributable to it's falling. The reason UPS and FedEx do very well is because they're very specifically package delivery, something that is very much tied to the boom of online interaction, especially considering they have contracts with online shopping groups like amazon and ebay's many hosted shops. As most products we purchase in this country actually come from overseas, the USPS is unlikely to be used as often as these two. Still, we can't forget that it's existence allows for UPS and FedEx to work at the level it does.



Thankfully, they don't have the votes in order to amend the Constitution. The Constitution is there to protect individual liberty and freedom.

You're forgetting that it's also to protect the welfare of the union.

We don't need the government taking over anything on our behalf. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why do some people think that the government is the answer to all problems?
We don't have personal responsibility in this country. I agree there needs to be more done to support the idea in people, but that doesn't mean we just leave our children out in the street for them to learn self-defense through trial and error. I don't think the government is the answer to all of our problems, but in turn I also do not believe they bring about all of our problems. Let us also remember which individuals in the government have actually brought about more strife for our nation. While you seem to love him like a grandpa, Reagan has factually done more to harm and divide this nation than any other President. His economic strategy was atrocious and we're still facing the repercussions of it. I'm sure you complain plenty about the lack of jobs in America, like many fail to recognize Reagan is to blame for this, as he eliminated America as an Industry nation. Stocks are nothing more than cheating a quick profit, a profit that does not get paid back into the system, therefore causing many issues with the stability of the economic structure.

As well it's his Administration that created the crime wave we still experience and polarized the poor and rich, eliminating the middle class. Granted you won't believe me, but it's your right to ignore fact.

PS: No anger here, perhaps confusion, but not anger.

Tommycat
10-30-2009, 12:42 AM
As well it's his Administration that created the crime wave we still experience and polarized the poor and rich, eliminating the middle class. Granted you won't believe me, but it's your right to ignore fact.


You're really going to try to pin the crime rate on REAGAN? REALLY

Ok well per capita murders are DOWN since 1980 actually all crimes are down since 80. So you are essentially saying that Reagan caused this down turn in crime. I'm sure he would be pleased.


oops SOURCE (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

Totenkopf
10-30-2009, 06:58 AM
Alcohol, letter and parcel delivery service, emergency services to name a few.
While many like to bring up the downfall of the USPS, I would like to note that people conveniently forget the impact e-mail has made on the USPS, which is directly attributable to it's falling. The reason UPS and FedEx do very well is because they're very specifically package delivery, something that is very much tied to the boom of online interaction, especially considering they have contracts with online shopping groups like amazon and ebay's many hosted shops. As most products we purchase in this country actually come from overseas, the USPS is unlikely to be used as often as these two. Still, we can't forget that it's existence allows for UPS and FedEx to work at the level it does.

Yes, the USPS delivers all kinds of mail and packages. Doesn't take away from the fact that it's poorly run. If the USPS were private, or properly funded by the govt, it wouldn't run (nor would it be able to) such huge deficits. The fact that you have state stores doesn't mean that the govt is better than the private sector, just that the govt has seen it as a source of revenue stream. And you know that $$ is like crack for the govt.


You're forgetting that it's also to protect the welfare of the union.

The territorial integrity of the Union and the people from a potential tyranny, either foreign OR domestic. Just what is "the welfare of the union"? That's a slippery slope kind of concept......VERY elastic.


We don't have personal responsibility in this country. I agree there needs to be more done to support the idea in people, but that doesn't mean we just leave our children out in the street for them to learn self-defense through trial and error. I don't think the government is the answer to all of our problems, but in turn I also do not believe they bring about all of our problems. Let us also remember which individuals in the government have actually brought about more strife for our nation. While you seem to love him like a grandpa, Reagan has factually done more to harm and divide this nation than any other President. His economic strategy was atrocious and we're still facing the repercussions of it. I'm sure you complain plenty about the lack of jobs in America, like many fail to recognize Reagan is to blame for this, as he eliminated America as an Industry nation. Stocks are nothing more than cheating a quick profit, a profit that does not get paid back into the system, therefore causing many issues with the stability of the economic structure.

We don't have a sense of personal responsibility b/c it's not pc enough of a concept. Between pop culture and education pushing concepts like collective responsibility and the culture of victimization, why would anyone expect people to take responsibility for anything when it's easier to blame everyone else. As to the Reagan hating, sithy, give it a rest. Johnson's great society programs went a long way toward ghettofication of the black communities in the US. Unions are no less responsible for making American goods uncompetitively priced. Industries like steel and the automobile made bad decisions long before Reagan got into office that reduced their competitiveness.

As you said, granted you won't believe me, but it's your right to ignore fact.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-30-2009, 02:30 PM
There's nothing I can reply to "the government can run health care better." Your claim is that ours is the least effective/efficient in the world. My question: Why do people from around the globe come here for health care if our system is so bad? If you're referring to the infant mortality rate, not every country reports every infant death like we do. We include in that number, all of those infants that are neglected, abandoned, left in garbage cans, dumpster and those that are just killed by the parent.Our healthcare is the best in the world (which may have something to do with the US being the the richest country in the world and not a result of our healthcare system), but our healthcare system is terrible. What you're essentially saying with is that we should judge our healthcare system by the standard of care provided for the richest among us, even though those with insurance are not always afforded care.

jonathan7
10-30-2009, 03:50 PM
I shall leave the debate over internal medi-care to the Americans, however I did wish to comment on the international aspects of the below;

There's nothing I can reply to "the government can run health care better." Your claim is that ours is the least effective/efficient in the world.

You are the only "Western Nation" on the planet who doesn't have provision of health care for all it's citizens. Indeed the best health care in the world is universal; Norway! Though all of the EU's states work varying universal health care systems; nor has it bankrupted the EU; and I dare no European would want the American health care system, which I think tells its own story.

My question: Why do people from around the globe come here for health care if our system is so bad?

Because compared to the majority of the World the U.S. Healthcare system is better; for example would you rather be treated in Mexico or the US? But in reality, such a thought is just misleading as all it shows is your health care is better than Mexico's. Especially when you consider that your Healthcare provision lags well behind the rest of the western world. Additionally to supplement my argument; proportionally more people try to come to the UK for healthcare than the U.S.

Jae Onasi
10-30-2009, 04:33 PM
Your claim is that ours is the least effective/efficient in the world. My question: Why do people from around the globe come here for health care if our system is so bad?There's a big difference between 'effectiveness of care' and 'access to effective care', particularly in the US.
If you live in a large metro area near a university hospital, you're likely to get first-rate care. Some of the best medical research in the world is being done in the US, but some of the best is also being done in Japan and the UK, to name a few other top-notch research areas. Japan and the UK have universal health care systems.

If you live in a rural area and you don't have enough money for medical care, the best you can get is federal-mandated ER care. Once your condition is no longer an emergency, the hospital will discharge you and you'll be on your own. That happened to a good friend of mine who had a heart attack. He was working so he wasn't eligible for Medicaid. He wasn't old enough for Medicare. He couldn't afford the extremely high insurance premiums. He got treated on an emergency basis for his heart attack, but he couldn't afford the follow-up care and medications that he needed. What could he do? Not a whole lot until he had another heart attack that was so bad it disabled him, and _then_ he could get Medicaid/Medicare disability to get the health care he needed. That's the insanity that needs to stop in the US, and why we need to switch over to universal care. Insurance costs are rising far faster than inflation or the tax rate. Yes, we'll have to pay more taxes in a universal system, that's a no-brainer. However, we'll get rid of insurance companies that are ripping Americans off by jacking up rates, taking premiums, and then dropping people when they come down with any kind of illness that could put a dent into shareholder profits.

We pay a lot more in private costs than people in other countries do in taxes for the same care. There's something wrong with that picture.

If Norway has the best medical care in the world, then we should look at not only what they're doing for research, but how they're able to deliver that care in a less costly and more efficient manner than the US does.

El Sitherino
10-30-2009, 06:39 PM
Yes, the USPS delivers all kinds of mail and packages. Doesn't take away from the fact that it's poorly run. If the USPS were private, or properly funded by the govt, it wouldn't run (nor would it be able to) such huge deficits. The fact that you have state stores doesn't mean that the govt is better than the private sector, just that the govt has seen it as a source of revenue stream. And you know that $$ is like crack for the govt.

All this really says to me is that the majority of citizens aren't doing their job to make their government run effectively. It's not really an argument against anything I've stated.


The territorial integrity of the Union and the people from a potential tyranny, either foreign OR domestic. Just what is "the welfare of the union"? That's a slippery slope kind of concept......VERY elastic.

Not really a slippery slope concept at all, at least no more so than anything you hear conservatives running their gums about. Clearly you're out of arguments to claim that running the nation with better productivity is liberal horse-hockey.


We don't have a sense of personal responsibility b/c it's not pc enough of a concept.

No it's because we have a culture of "Give me what I want but I don't want to pay for it".

Between pop culture and education pushing concepts like collective responsibility and the culture of victimization, why would anyone expect people to take responsibility for anything when it's easier to blame everyone else.

Why would you expect your way of life to change that, as it's clearly a large part of the breeding of such feelings?


As to the Reagan hating, sithy, give it a rest.

I will when people stop talking about him.

Johnson's great society programs went a long way toward ghettofication of the black communities in the US.

Not as far as Reagan with the introduction of crack-cocaine and the removal of community centers. Not to mention taking everyone's job in the area.

Unions are no less responsible for making American goods uncompetitively priced. Industries like steel and the automobile made bad decisions long before Reagan got into office that reduced their competitiveness.

True, but shutting down factories and sending them overseas was hardly the solution to the problem. Well, maybe it was a solution for the people who could sit back and just collect the quick money to deposit and invest in foreign automakers and various other lines.

Tommycat
10-30-2009, 09:46 PM
No it's because we have a culture of "Give me what I want but I don't want to pay for it".
That sounds strangely like... "I want the best health care in the world, but I don't want to pay for it"

Not as far as Reagan with the introduction of crack-cocaine and the removal of community centers. Not to mention taking everyone's job in the area.


True, but shutting down factories and sending them overseas was hardly the solution to the problem. Well, maybe it was a solution for the people who could sit back and just collect the quick money to deposit and invest in foreign automakers and various other lines.

Yeah Reagan introduced Crack ::

Too bad that shift of factories also had the effect of creating the technology boom of the 90s.

El Sitherino
10-30-2009, 11:08 PM
That sounds strangely like... "I want the best health care in the world, but I don't want to pay for it"

Which is what the Republican party is yelling.


Yeah Reagan introduced Crack :¬:

The CIA released the papers to prove it, as well as the Freeway Ricky Ross biography in which he talks about all his meetings with CIA and DEA agents, where they showed him means to quickly cultivate and spread crack-cocaine.


Too bad that shift of factories also had the effect of creating the technology boom of the 90s.
Slightly, but still doesn't change the fact that it was coming regardless. We actually probably could have had even more benefit had we maintained factories inside the US. Honestly the only argument here is one that shows support of slave labor and child labor, as that's what allowed for the profitable boom which you're alluding to. Either way, it's a weak argument and anything it argues for is questionable in nature.

Totenkopf
10-30-2009, 11:13 PM
All this really says to me is that the majority of citizens aren't doing their job to make their government run effectively. It's not really an argument against anything I've stated.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. You replied that the USPS was an example of where govt involvement made things more efficient, cost less., etc..

Originally Posted by Ten-96
Once again it begs the question: What private industry has ever been improved, become more efficient or it's costs been lowered when the government has gotten involved?

Originally Posted by El Sitherino
Alcohol, letter and parcel delivery service, emergency services to name a few.

Govt involvement in the mortgage industry, mail delivery and healthcare have done nothing but introduce inefficiencies into the system. They only seem to cost less to the end user b/c the govt covers the shortfalls with tax monies.




Not really a slippery slope concept at all, at least no more so than anything you hear conservatives running their gums about. Clearly you're out of arguments to claim that running the nation with better productivity is liberal horse-hockey.

Your assumption that govt involvement has made things more efficient is the only horse-hockey in question.



No it's because we have a culture of "Give me what I want but I don't want to pay for it".

No, that's merely another problem all by itself. A companion piece as it were.


Why would you expect your way of life to change that, as it's clearly a large part of the breeding of such feelings?

:confused:


I will when people stop talking about him.

I've noticed it's people like you who usually get that ball rolling by blaming Reagan for all the problems of the world.


Not as far as Reagan with the introduction of crack-cocaine and the removal of community centers. Not to mention taking everyone's job in the area.

:rolleyes:


True, but shutting down factories and sending them overseas was hardly the solution to the problem. Well, maybe it was a solution for the people who could sit back and just collect the quick money to deposit and invest in foreign automakers and various other lines.

Point is that you can't blame Reagan for things that had nothing to do with him specifically and predated his terms in office. The problems that plagued those industries were there under Carter as well. Things didn't change much or at all under Clinton.

El Sitherino
10-30-2009, 11:24 PM
Unfortunately, you're wrong. You replied that the USPS was an example of where govt involvement made things more efficient, cost less., etc..

Which you didn't refute, in fact if you noticed you supported it by explaining how their ineptitude allows for the private sector to flourish, more so than it did before the USPS existed.




Govt involvement in the mortgage industry, mail delivery and healthcare have done nothing but introduce inefficiencies into the system. They only seem to cost less to the end user b/c the govt covers the shortfalls with tax monies.

And yet with all of this you still miss the point that we are responsible for making our government run efficiently. That's what elections are for as well as writing to our representatives. The fact that people don't do this does not automatically lead to the idea that governments are incapable of working for benefit.




Your assumption that govt involvement has made things more efficient is the only horse-hockey in question.

Really? Because so far the things I've listed have improved due to government intervention, regardless of whether the government programs themselves currently operate correctly.

I also ask do you feel we should no longer have a national Army and should break back down to state run militia?

No, that's merely another problem all by itself. A companion piece as it were.

Not entirely, but I have a feeling at this point any further argument would really just be destructive to the debate.




Point is that you can't blame Reagan for things that had nothing to do with him specifically and predated his terms in office. The problems that plagued those industries were there under Carter as well. Things didn't change much or at all under Clinton.
Actually I'm pretty sure I can blame Reagan, but if you wish to falsify information and claim Carter as the starter of transferring America's industry overseas you're free to do so, as this is the internet and people have plenty of fanfiction all over the place.

Totenkopf
10-30-2009, 11:48 PM
Which you didn't refute, in fact if you noticed you supported it by explaining how their ineptitude allows for the private sector to flourish, more so than it did before the USPS existed.
And yet with all of this you still miss the point that we are responsible for making our government run efficiently. That's what elections are for as well as writing to our representatives. The fact that people don't do this does not automatically lead to the idea that governments are incapable of working for benefit.
Really? Because so far the things I've listed have improved due to government intervention, regardless of whether the government programs themselves currently operate correctly.
I also ask do you feel we should no longer have a national Army and should break back down to state run militia?
Not entirely, but I have a feeling at this point any further argument would really just be destructive to the debate.
Actually I'm pretty sure I can blame Reagan, but if you wish to falsify information and claim Carter as the starter of transferring America's industry overseas you're free to do so, as this is the internet and people have plenty of fanfiction all over the place.


Didn't know whether to answer this or just continue :rofl:

First, I didn't agree with anything you said on the first point. If you can assume, as you clearly do, that it's people's fault collectively for govt failure, then you can't criticize anyone for assuming/believing/asserting that the only problem with the private sector is that people have failed there too. So, maybe you should write your own fanfic about how government will brighten our lives if only we cared enough to make it work. :rolleyes:

Also, you don't read very closely, b/c I never asserted that Carter did anything but be in office, like Reagan, while industry made mistakes that hurt their futures. Same for Clinton. But to claim that Reagan was the "starter of transferring America's industry overseas" is a form of fanfic itself. Industry did that, not the politicians. But if you're going to play that fast and loose with facts, this discussion probably can't go anywhere but downhill.

As far as your argument about the army/military goes, they have a more legitimate constitutional claim to federal govt funding than all the myriad social programs that you appear to favor.

And as far as the argument about personal responsibility goes, both observations are fair about modern society. We've devolved into a culture of victimization and people have developed an entitlement mentality, from the individual to the corporation.

Tommycat
11-04-2009, 10:56 PM
Which is what the Republican party is yelling.
No, Republicans are yelling that we want to pay for ourselves, not for everyone else. Dems are the ones saying it should be free.

The CIA released the papers to prove it, as well as the Freeway Ricky Ross biography in which he talks about all his meetings with CIA and DEA agents, where they showed him means to quickly cultivate and spread crack-cocaine.
Source?

Slightly, but still doesn't change the fact that it was coming regardless. We actually probably could have had even more benefit had we maintained factories inside the US. Honestly the only argument here is one that shows support of slave labor and child labor, as that's what allowed for the profitable boom which you're alluding to. Either way, it's a weak argument and anything it argues for is questionable in nature.

Did you even live through that time? US companies HAD to shift to manufacturing overseas as they couldn't compete and remain profitable with other foreign companies. Overseas manufacturing would have happened regardless. Reagan made it possible for that manufacturing to be done for American interests. Which also had the effect of having R&D done in the States as companies were terrified of leaving their secrets overseas.

Darth Avlectus
11-05-2009, 09:22 PM
Interesting. I have noticed this:

"Government will brighten our lives, if only everyone cared enough to make it work."

"Capitalism wouldn't be so corrupt if people took responsibility and did the right thing."

The one factor in both of these is the human element. The world would be a better place if only people cared. If only.

I know there are some who still believe in ethical conduct. But yet there are at least just as many who argue there is no right and wrong; no good and evil, whom beset those with noble intentions.

If anyone is going to argue the ethics card, maybe you ought to be an example of it yourself or at least give an example and be willing to stand corrected. Hmm?

Carry on.