Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
firstly, regarding responsibility that lies in the banking industry, i'd highly recommend listening to the This American Life story "Inside Job" about what the hedge fund Magnetar did right before the bottom fell out of the CMBS market. Captain is kinda right about the government bailing out the banks, but that doesn't absolve the banks from responsibility for what they did.
and finally. i read a quote in this month's Fortune magazine that i think is gold:
"if you like small government, a relatively large military, low taxes, and limited regulation, why not move to a country that has these things. Take Pakistan, for example."
There are many reasons why the jobs may not be filled, including that they are not coming back in sectors that were hit hardest during the recession. However, there are a portion of those jobs that are not being filled do to the extension of unemployment benefits and other forms of a safety net. There are several threads where a few of us figured out that someone who became unemployed in 2009 could conceivably collect almost 2 years of unemployment benefits and receive 18 months of subsidized COBRA benefits. It was determined that someone receiving max benefits in NJ would need to land a job earning about $40k a year just to break even going to work versus staying home. The reason I could argue that unemployment wasn't high prior to the recession is that people could earn more by working.
If I paid you the equivalent of a $32k a year salary and provided you with subsidized healthcare to do nothing more than sit at home, would you take a job that paid say $15 an hour? I'm guessing you wouldn't.
No, this isn't everyone and it isn't true in all cases. However, the theory behind the argument does hold weight and there is anecdotal evidence that it is true. So to is it true for our welfare families that would need to work about 80 hours a week at minimum wage to earn what they earn on maximum welfare counting their healthcare and housing subsidies.
As for the job opening statistics, they come from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics:
On the topic of your Buffet quote, it may interest you to know that the opinion piece (it's not even fair to call that an article) took the quote from a NY Times article published in 2006. Buffett's direct comment was related to taxes. He is an advocate for the rich paying more taxes. Despite the fact the rich do pay the lions share of total taxes, as a percentage of their income, they pay less than everyone else when you factor in ALL taxes that are paid including property taxes, sales taxes, etc. He basically believes that the rich should bare more of the tax burden. NOTHING Buffett said had anything to do with the political dribble that article was referencing.
Here is the original article, written by a conservative arguing that we should raise taxes to close the budget gap and pay down the debt, which is what Buffett supports:
As to the article itself, quick question, who did the majority of major U.S. banks contribute campaign money to in 2008? The answer isn't McCain and the GOP. The answer is Obama and the Democratic party.
Here is the list of top contributors to Obama in 2008:
In fact some of the most generous contributors to Democrats are J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, UBS, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. With the exception of Goldman Sachs, the other groups tend to split their contributions about 55/45, D/R, playing both sides if you will. However, Goldman Sachs almost universally donates ONLY to the Democratic party. I love the line of thinking that the big bad GOP is in bed with megacorps and Wall Street while the Democrats are fighting the good fight for the unions and the average working Joe. If you want to know the truth, follow the money. Also, let's not forget that Rahm Emanuel and Tim Geithner were both former Goldman Sachs employees.
honestly though, have you ever lived off unemployement money, and add to that, the cost of (even subsidized) COBRA? it's not possible. that's not keeping people home out of work.
it's been clearly stated that many tech companies are looking to hire people but there simply aren't qualified Americans for the positions. i blame education for that piece of it.
i'd love to know what those 2.9 million job openings are. is there detailed data on that?
also, it's well known that some companies have listings for "openings" that they have zero intention on filling, for various reasons. my company does it. my friend's company has a posting for a job i was going to interview for 2 years ago. i submitted for it. never got an interview. it's still posted. is that a job opening?
as to your question on the banks and who they contribute to...you'll notice that:
1. they always contribute to both candidates' parties.
2. they almost always, if not always, contribute more to the one who ends up winning.
they hedge their bets, but double down on the guy who looks like he will win. cause they need favors too.
you are assigning blame on the banks and it doesnt belong there. clearly you are wrong because they didnt take a risk because you have fannie and freddie to package the mortgages and the government is basically backing them. the government caused the problem by supporting the loans and setting the standard of which fannie will securitize the mortgages.
its the government's fault, not the banks. the banks will maximize profits, if the government is going to "bail them out" or back the mortgages then thats to be factored into what the banks will do.
Pretty much every economic ill ever attributed to greedy capitalists, including the Great Depression, is directly attributable to government involvement, and usually related to a collectivist power grab. The government should not be involved in the economy. It is not a producer, it is a leech. Its invariably negative effects should be minimized by keeping its functions and its funding minimal.
Less is more. Way more, when it comes to government involvement in the lives of its citizens.
Pretty much every economic ill ever attributed to greedy capitalists, including the Great Depression, is directly attributable to government involvement, and usually related to a collectivist power grab. The government should not be involved in the economy. It is not a producer, it is a leech. Its invariably negative effects should be minimized by keeping its functions and its funding minimal.
Less is more. Way more, when it comes to government involvement in the lives of its citizens.
do you have any imperical evidence of a system in the world where very low government intervention has produced an economy that comes close to how great ours has been?
firstly, regarding responsibility that lies in the banking industry, i'd highly recommend listening to the This American Life story "Inside Job" about what the hedge fund Magnetar did right before the bottom fell out of the CMBS market. Captain is kinda right about the government bailing out the banks, but that doesn't absolve the banks from responsibility for what they did.
and finally. i read a quote in this month's Fortune magazine that i think is gold:
"if you like small government, a relatively large military, low taxes, and limited regulation, why not move to a country that has these things. Take Pakistan, for example."
see how you like it there...
Pakistan is an irrational mystical tribal theocratic mess. It is not to be confused with a civilized country. However I do like a small government, a large military, low taxes, and limited regulation. And I want that right here in my country. Let's try it, we never have.
do you have any imperical evidence of a system in the world where very low government intervention has produced an economy that comes close to how great ours has been?
i believe in the earlier years of america this would be the case. its probably true of other countries also. i remember listening to the radio the host read a quote for some european visiting america and he was marveling at the lack of government involvement in day to day life.
all the taxes, regulations and obtrusive government comes after the success. then people (like yourself) forget that the country was built with this freedom and the government's growth happened afterwards.
Simple solution. Make it so that if someone goes on welfare, they have get their tubes tied. To make it gender fair, they'll hunt down the father and give him a snipping as well. Trading freedom for security. Less kids being born into poverty = less kids in poverty. The wonders of Fascism.
i believe in the earlier years of america this would be the case. its probably true of other countries also. i remember listening to the radio the host read a quote for some european visiting america and he was marveling at the lack of government involvement in day to day life.
all the taxes, regulations and obtrusive government comes after the success. then people (like yourself) forget that the country was built with this freedom and the government's growth happened afterwards.
and people like yourself forget the the interstate highway system was put in by the government, and helped open us up to transport goods and people across the country, and the world. you conveniently discount everything good the government has done to make this country the economic superpower it has become, and you want to hand the power back to corporations, which when they reigned, few people were prosperous and many were poor. it doesn't work. it hasn't worked.
you don't want too much power in government, but you don't want very little either. somewhere in the middle, with high voter participation to kick out the guys that need to be kicked out...is the ideal.
the country was not built on the freedom you describe. you imagine that. like i said...name me a time period when we prospered under the freedom you yearn for. it never existed, because the government has always been involved in the shaping of this great country.
do you have any imperical evidence of a system in the world where very low government intervention has produced an economy that comes close to how great ours has been?
Our dedication to some measure of freedom has allowed us to become great DESPITE the efforts of mediocre collectivists who seek to punish and curtail those whom they envy. The fact that we remain number one shows how powerful freedom can be, even in small doses. If we'd up the freedom, we'd up the greatness.
There is no reason that the deplorable mixed economies of the Far East should come close to us. We have allowed it by imitating the worst elements of their system. They are now approaching us by trying to imitate the best elements of our system. It's an utter disgrace, and we are doing it to ourselves.
Let's live up to our own formerly shining example and remove the oppressive governor that is hobbling our economic engine. Freedom isn't an option if we want to move forward as the economic and moral leader of the world. We need to embrace it and remove the tyranny of collectivism from all aspects of governance. Less taxation, less regulation, less social programs, less environmental control, less public education. Move it all to the free sector and let the people with the brains and the knowhow do what they do best: make us magnificent.
Let's try freedom, it could not do a worse job than the collectivist garbage system that we now live under and that has grown like a malignant cancer to all aspects of our society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
