Wouldnt this make more sence than a Tax break for the wealthy?

[twacowfca]

Do you mind linking the article. I would like to read it, though the premise sounds way off base from what I have seen. The fact that you see a bit of value in it has peaked my interest.

 

 

Simply google How Obama Thinks  and then click on the Forbes.com article.  :)

 

Links don't always work for subscription publications.

[Myth465]

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_5.html

 

Honestly the first 2 pages are awful. Piss poor. Bailouts, unemployment, mortgage controls, gee those have nothing to do with the economy. Its a hodgepodge of crap thrown together in an illogical way. Its every headline over the last year taken out of context, or mismanagled.

 

Past that just about every African, Member of the African Diaspora, and Native American kind of believes that they were raped historically and the US / UK was built of their backs / land. Its part of being a minority, and basically part of history. I am sure the Aboriginals are anti colonial as well. Arent they entitled to be?

 

The article is a jumbled mess. Just days prior to the deep water spill, Obama supported expanded drilling. I think there are far easier ways to explain his actions then this far reaching mess. I could respond to each bit of the article but its not worth the time.

 

I have read his second book, but not the first so, that may be the missing link for me, but this article is a mess.

 

---

 

Here is the Paul Article in Audio Format, I have some issues with Paul but feel he is a bit closer to the reality here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDGs9HKFY_M

 

I dont really know how people can really argue against it. Here is a Frontline Video which shows how the healthcare debate went down - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

[Sea Island]

Myth, I appreciate the time that you have taken to explain the genesis of Corporatism. A question that nags me though is that the majority of us don't work for large corporations. In the U.S. 51% of working Americans in the 2004 census worked for firms with under 500 employees. So when we talk about corporatism I feel that we aren't talking about nameless, faceless monopolistic entities but about our neighbors, friends and family who chose to strike out on their own start a business and hire some people. Based on the size of these entities, I don't think you can separate the individual from the corporate entity; a typical business owner of this type is as concerned with the well being of his family and community as his with manipulating the market place to deliver to political constituencies. Perhaps much more concerned with the former. I find a pervasive attitude in media is one that lumps all business and employers together when in fact it is the small businesses with under 500 employees that drive the U.S. economy. I also find that many of the economic "experts" in the media and in the current government are academics who have never sullied their hands with running a business. They exhibit a more than mild disdain for those of us that would get involved in business as opposed to government or academia. Why is it obvious to so many of us that Keynesian economic theories are ineffectual but so highly regarded by those in academia and current government?

[Myth465]

Thanks Sea Island, hopefully I can answer some of your questions below. I think the Key is Big Business, not all businesses. You help those who help you, by writing the big checks.

 

I like politics and bounce between left, far left, free market, and right wing circles. I tend to know a bit about each group. One theme I see is Big Corporations, working with Big Government to screw everyone and profit. Whether its BP, Financials, Health-care, Monsato with seed lawsuits, factory farming (most small farmers are screwed, they are dominated by Monsato or Tyson, or the Beef people)...

 

To me its simple. Big Business pays big Government to look the other way. When bills are passed, they are give aways to these corporations, and when the public demands bloods its pretty much a show trial. Compare financial reform to the 1933 and 1934 Securities acts. There is no comparison. The finance lobby wrote the bill and got 85% of what they wanted. Healthcare wrote the bill and got what they wanted. Things are shifted around but Big Phrama, Insurance, and other industries were ring fenced and now have a Government mandate to help juice sales. Where is the socialism. Public money was simple given to Private Enterprise. Real socialist actually want a UK / Canada system where the middle man is cut out. Our system sucks its the worst of all plans ever implemented.

 

Typically you want Big Government providing smart regulation for Big Business and providing access for small businesses to compete. Big business now even uses regulation to stifle competition.

 

Basically cash goes from Business to Government to buy votes, and favors go back to business. If you cant afford to play you get nothing. Realistically Obama cant bit the hand that feeds him (despite the rhetoric, he talks a good game but what has he really done (The GM bailout was needed, and pronounced a success)). The Corporate sector is doing amazingly well for a socialist president, just like they did well under Bush, and will do well under ....

 

----

 

Keynes was one of the greatest Economist who ever existed but the last thing he would be doing is sticking to ancient econ theory. I was shocked that Munger said he would do what Pimco said, and what others have said. Push Green technology.

 

I think its respected because taking your medicine and suffering 24% unemployment while the economy magically heals itself doesnt sit well for a Siting President or Congress. Supply side econ has been dis proven but its still quite popular in some circles.

 

I think Keynes theory has been misapplied and doesn't work in its current form. I would set a goal, a grand goal and rely on business to implement it and Government to finance it (not pay for it). The Economist talked about Siemens being a conglomerate and how it helped get deals done.

 

Siemens Energy can analysis a power plant, design and sell some efficiencies, and Siemens Finance will finance them, Siemens Corporate grantees a return making it a no brainier. Thats ingenious to me. There are no risks or costs for the power plant and Siemens books a profit if they execute. Why cant the Government put aside $1 billion, get the banks to put in $9 billion, and do the same thing for every federal building in the US. It would create hundreds of companies, jobs, and skills, and ideally would all be paid back. Then you could expand it to private buildings.

 

Government connected the entire US via Highway, and that investment yielded returns for decades. I see spending, but no investment. Little hodgepodge things arent going to do anything for anyone. We can sit around arguing for free market while China, Sinapore, Brazil, and others manage there market right past us. Either way I hope I will do fine.

[Sea Island]

US Chamber of Commerce $651,035,680

American Medical Assn  $236,012,500

General Electric $214,234,000

Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $185,063,920

AARP $183,922,064

 

Above are the top five lobbying spenders from 1998 to 2010. Only one of them is an actual "big business". 96% of US Chamber of Commerce members have fewer than 100 employees.

 

Source of Funds

Individual contributions $656,357,572 88%

PAC contributions $1,830 0%

Candidate self-financing $0 0%

Federal Funds $0 0%

Other $88,626,223 12%

 

Above is the source of funds for President Obama's 2008 campaign. Obviously campaign finance laws being what they were at that time limited corporate contributions but and now by organization:

 

University of California  $1,591,395

Goldman Sachs  $994,795

Harvard University  $854,747

Microsoft Corp  $833,617

Google Inc  $803,436

 

To the extent that big governement exists to serve big business can be limited by the size of the governement. In the past 2 years the size of the US govt. has exlpoded well beyond what is sustainable or desirable and I would much rather be at the mercy of corporate titans than governement bureaucrat. Not to be over simplistic but most of us would rather interface with the worst customer service department of corporation than the best of a governement agency.

 

As for socialism, does anybody remember Joe the Plumber? Remember Obama said he was going to "spread the wealth around". That is using redistributionary forces to achieve social and political justice, that is socialism. That is what the whole health care debate was about. Destroy a system, albeit imperfect, that is serving 280mm reasonably well, to cover 10mm "uninsured" without stopping to ask what right the US government has to compel citizens to purchase health care? Socialism makes everybody equally miserable, that is the objective and that is what is happening.

 

What is 98 weeks of unemployment benefits? Corporatism? Captilism? Redistributive socialism.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Bronco]

myth - big corporations have an obligation to legally maximize profits for shareholders (this is simplified).

 

Unfortunatley, there is a big disconnect between shareholders ---->  boards of directors ------> management teams. 

 

So in many cases, big corporations run my management teams feel the obligation to maximize the profits for the management teams.

 

I feel there is things we can do about this.  Different topic.  But government shouldn't really enter the equation here, except for making sure products don't harm consumers.

 

There is zero doubt in my mind - and we have witnessed this repeatedly, that when corporations do great, the weatlh effect goes up and the economy buzzes.  Spending goes up, tax receipts go up, etc...

 

We want profits in this country.  Obama is really a neophyte - throwing some bones to corporations at the last minute.  But for such a leftist, I am disappointed he has done nothing on owner (shareholder) rights - other than a token vote for pay clause in the health care bill with no teeth.

[Guest broxburnboy]

All this OBama bashing is simply finding a scapegoat for the obvious financial difficulties the country is facing. We hear the word Socialism and Marxism bandied about but only by those who want to preserve their own socialist entitlements.

The biggest corporate bailout is of course defense spending. It is socialism in its purest form and it is the most wasteful... it produces nothing except the demand for more wars by those who profit. This form of socialism is extremely popular with those who decry the useful, productive types such as public education, health, well thought out, wealth enhancing infrastructure projects.

Obama is a latecomer to the borrow and subsidize corporate profits game. He has arrived just in time to take the blame for the accumullated debt and the malinvestment of the last 30 years (post Reagan/ Greenspan era), although so far he hasn't shown any indication that he can fix the problems.

The airwaves (including, unfortunately, this board) are full of name calling and labelling, these are of course insincere, they are meant to slander and distract from meaningful discourse, and perpetuate the corrupt corporate socialist state America has so obviously become.

By the way, how is it possible to be a doctrinaire Marxist and a fundamentalist Muslim Jihadist at the same time?

[Sea Island]

bronxburnboy: I would like to respond to your comments at length and I will do so at a later date. I just want to say that I have found the overwhelming majority of discourse on this board, political, social, investment etc. to be very thorough and well researched. To imply that this discussion is a "bashing" of Obama, that terms are being "bandied" about or that posters have only their own self interests in mind, is not constructive or factual.  :D

[Myth465]

I tend to agree with broxburnboy, though the quality of this board is higher then most. Obama is doing what everyone else did but getting killed because we arent in a bubble economy.

 

Sea Island - I think you are only looking at one side of the coin. Obama is actually quite powerless. Its his friends in Congress, that write and pass laws. With regard to unemployment extensions, you guys are talking about nickels and missing dollars. First its peanuts. Second you have to do something for everyday people, given that we have had the longest recession since WW2. I didn’t say Obama was a far right radical Economic / Social Darwinist. I said he was a Corporatist, with great speaking skills. A pragmatic one who knows you have to throw your base some kibble from time to time.

 

4 out of those 5 groups posted, are big business inmo. Big is determined by the size of the Checkbook, not the entity. Brake down the chamber of commerce by who contributes what to it, then let me know how big or small they are. Also perform the same analysis on Congress. Corporations can now advertise directly to voters so this doesnt even matter much going forward.

 

Also our healthcare system sucks, you forgot to include (our healthcare system works perfectly fine for ME) It works well for me too but not for 1/6 (and growing) of the population. The world will agree with that analysis. It costs to much and insures too few. We have 46.6 million uninsured Americans out of $300 million. I don’t think that’s a roaring success. We are also at or near the bottom in most stats for developed countries. A socialist would have adopted the UK, Canada, or Oz system instead of the hodgepodge of crap we went with. What does our system do. Well it mandates and socializes hospitals, doctors, pharma, and insurance. Also every tax system in place in just about every developed and developing country basically redistributes or "spreads around the wealth".

 

Bronco - Businesses have a legal right / mandate to maximize profits, and lobbying for what they want and should play a big part in that, but at this point they basically buy what they need.

 

With regard to shareholders and big companies, its a broken system. The ownership society really only works when you have a manager with a large stake or shareholders with large stacks. What we have is Managers who own as little as possible and run the company for their benefit (Empire Building) and Shareholders who are part time renters of stock. As Joseph Siglitz would say - We have a Principle / Agency problem with modern markets. I don’t know how you fix that, but votes wont matter when people hold stock for seconds to days. I don’t know one person who really cares about voting for the companies they own. I don’t care about voting, and I am a value investor. I know my less than $100k of a billion dollar company means literally nothing.

 

---

 

Please hold your noise and listen to this link, I understand the source will present you with issues but I think its very useful in terms of explaining the Corporatist label, the first 5 min will do. This is what the left thinks and I agree with them. Bush and Obama pretty much have the same policies, Obama presents it better though. He even features the same economics team.  Judge Obama by what He does, ignore what he says.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/21/tariq_ali_on_the_obama_syndrome

 

TARIQ ALI: I know some of his supporters might feel it’s a little harsh, but I think that we’ve had two years of him now, Amy, and the contours of this administration are now visible. And essentially, it is a conservative administration which has changed the mood music. So the talk is better. The images of the administration are better, the reasonable looks. But in terms of what they do—in foreign policy, we’ve seen a continuation of the Bush-Cheney policies, and worse, in AfPak, as they call it, and at home, we’ve seen a total capitulation to the lobbyists, to the corporations. The fact that the healthcare bill was actually drafted by someone who used to be an insurance lobbyist says it all.

 

[Smazz]

no matter which side of the debate you're on, this is pretty funny stuff.

 

The guys blog with the "boohoo me and my wife make $250,000 and we are hurting" is in the link within the article- -he had to take it down because of the bombardment but you know what happens once something is on the interweb????.... it never dies! :D

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110801/advice-for-the-poor-rich?mod=bb-budgeting

[Myth465]

We could just as easily call this guy - Bronco. Lol

 

To be fair a guy making $250k is a poor rich guy. Im a poverty stricken rich guy, or a middle class non rich guy. Where is John Edwards, we really are living in 2 Americas.

 

Thanks for that link, its pretty funny.

[Smazz]

We could just as easily call this guy - Bronco. Lol

 

To be fair a guy making $250k is a poor rich guy. Im a poverty stricken rich guy, or a middle class non rich guy. Where is John Edwards, we really are living in 2 Americas.

 

Thanks for that link, its pretty funny.

Im not 100% sure but i think, the guy in the blog, both he AND his wife were making $250K ea.