Isn’t it interesting that once the snowball starts rolling bad news and things that happen as a matter or course year after year are now blamed on the economy, on other people and on the system?
It would be great if everyone in the US were well educated and motivated in their working life, it would be wonderful if people never lost a job due to a layoff because there was plenty of work for everyone all the time (and not made up work as in Europe, but real productive work). It would also be stupendous if people managed their money well and lived within their means, but none of that has ever happened and likely never will. Bad things and just plain bad luck happen to good people and sadly a great deal of the time people help along that bad luck by making bad decisions and putting themselves at risk.
Today, however it is popular to simply blame the economy, the financial crisis if you will. It matters little about the actions people have taken in the past several years that are now acerbated by the economy but not caused by it.
Consider this quote from a recent issue of Time ® in a story about people losing their homes because they are out of work. Regardless of when this happened, the result would have been the same, but personal behavior is now secondary to our collective circumstances.
“And if she sometimes spent too freely on clothes and gear for her girls, she was able to balance the books by drawing on her equity in the home she bought in 1995.
The story focuses not on her spending too freely or the fact she remortgaged the home three times and used home equity but rather on the consequences of that action. When was it ever a good idea to “balancing the books with home equity?
The following is a summary from the same article and “Stevens is a former fireman who was disabled, tried his best to run a new business but overextended his borrowing using his home as the security, a very unfortunate situation to be sure. This guy played by the rules and tried his best.
“Their bitterness stems from a feeling that they've held up their end of the social contract, but now the terms of the deal have been rewritten by malign forces. It’s a different world and a different time," Stevens said ruefully. "Even if you work hard you get laid off." Zachery put it this way: "It's not the United States anymore. Those at the top have sold out the bottom for money." :rolleyes:
Malign forces? What is most telling is the quote in bold, yes even if you work hard, sometimes you get laid off¦like if the job you are doing is no longer needed, or technology has replaced your work, or someone else can do the job better and more efficiently and in the end would society be better if the system did not work that way? I seriously doubt it or we would still have buggy whip makers sitting around for the next whip to be made. And, yes, unless we give into the populism and victimization being spewed by many of our politicians, it is still the United States, a place where over the long term risk taking, hard work and prudence in your personal life and financial life do pay off for the vast majority of people.
And, no the top have not sold out the bottom for money or anything else, the top I assume being Wall Street and the banks that met the demands (foolishly in many cases) of segments of our population seeking to live and sustain an unrealistic standard of living fostered in part by politicians who believe that simply changing a law or encouraging personal behavior that should be left to the market is a good thing.
Bad luck and bad things do happen to good people, sadly we can’t change that. But people can minimize their risk by making prudent and long term decisions and by not living for today or taking an “I’ll worry about that when the time comes attitude because you see when the time comes, it’s too late to worry. :-1
Now the cry in the press is “why didn’t the experts see this all coming? Experts you say? I had no clue what the banks were doing with mortgages and I couldn’t explain a credit default swap, but who didn’t know this was coming when they saw friends and neighbors in debt up to their eyeballs, a negative savings rate in the US, with leased luxury cars and SUVs clogging the roads and homes the size of the left wing of Buckingham Palace popping like Levittown in the 40s?
Give me a break, we all knew this was coming. :-5:-5
Who Knew This Was Coming?
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Who Knew This Was Coming?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Who Knew This Was Coming?
I agree that there is a collective myopia about the reality of living beyond ones means. However, there is also a very valid point to be made about the concept of society and accountability as well, and this is well borne out by the actions of executives and their own personal belief that they are fully entitled to absolutely gob-smacking levels of wealth, and to be financially protected at all costs, while those who for whatever reason do not hold such economically privilidged positions can go que for food.
On one level, the economics behind the free market are sound, and the concept of creative destruction leading to a more efficient use of resouces and capital works well, however, there is also a politcal and social aspect to human organization that economics does not cover. The United States is not just a large collection of economic units, its a republic of citizens and people, and if the system destorys enough of them economically, then woe betide the system itself, as the French Aristocracy found to its cost in 1789.
Thats the fundamental deliquency behind Corporate America and its cheerleaders, in that they have tried to break down human existence to a monolithic system based on a series of economic exchanges, but thats just as unrealistic as the marxists thinking that "dialectical scientific marxism" (or whatever ideological twaddle they were peddling) was capable of ridgidly organizing the lives of people without taking account of human needs other than strictly material or political ones.
Those lucky enough to be in charge, and wise enough to understand human nature for what it is, realize that in the end, things that the centre cannot hold will tend to fall apart, and in this very febrile and confusing time, people need to feel a sense of collective, as well as individual destiny.
In Europe we haven't quite gone down the road of allowing the social fabric to be ripped up in the name of economic "progress" and often we have been attacked for that, as being outmoded or misguided, but having a cohesive society in a difficult time, is far more important than having gold and silver, so perhaps you will find that those sneering attitudes around the concept of "social equity" may be something of which you will one day repent.
On one level, the economics behind the free market are sound, and the concept of creative destruction leading to a more efficient use of resouces and capital works well, however, there is also a politcal and social aspect to human organization that economics does not cover. The United States is not just a large collection of economic units, its a republic of citizens and people, and if the system destorys enough of them economically, then woe betide the system itself, as the French Aristocracy found to its cost in 1789.
Thats the fundamental deliquency behind Corporate America and its cheerleaders, in that they have tried to break down human existence to a monolithic system based on a series of economic exchanges, but thats just as unrealistic as the marxists thinking that "dialectical scientific marxism" (or whatever ideological twaddle they were peddling) was capable of ridgidly organizing the lives of people without taking account of human needs other than strictly material or political ones.
Those lucky enough to be in charge, and wise enough to understand human nature for what it is, realize that in the end, things that the centre cannot hold will tend to fall apart, and in this very febrile and confusing time, people need to feel a sense of collective, as well as individual destiny.
In Europe we haven't quite gone down the road of allowing the social fabric to be ripped up in the name of economic "progress" and often we have been attacked for that, as being outmoded or misguided, but having a cohesive society in a difficult time, is far more important than having gold and silver, so perhaps you will find that those sneering attitudes around the concept of "social equity" may be something of which you will one day repent.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Who Knew This Was Coming?
Malign forces? What is most telling is the quote in bold, yes even if you work hard, sometimes you get laid off¦like if the job you are doing is no longer needed, or technology has replaced your work, or someone else can do the job better and more efficiently and in the end would society be better if the system did not work that way?
So long GM then. Using your philosophy only the strong survive, why bother saving any of the banks or companies then? Doesn't a smaller percentage of the population posses a higher percent of the wealth now than ever before? Rather than creating real wealth among everyone we seem to be concentrating it among fewer and fewer, okay if you are one of the few otherwise tough luck then........
Is it true that 90% of Americas wealth is controlled by 1% of Americas population? - Yahoo! Answers
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
So long GM then. Using your philosophy only the strong survive, why bother saving any of the banks or companies then? Doesn't a smaller percentage of the population posses a higher percent of the wealth now than ever before? Rather than creating real wealth among everyone we seem to be concentrating it among fewer and fewer, okay if you are one of the few otherwise tough luck then........
Is it true that 90% of Americas wealth is controlled by 1% of Americas population? - Yahoo! Answers
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Who Knew This Was Coming?
Galbally;1159354 wrote: I agree that there is a collective myopia about the reality of living beyond ones means. However, there is also a very valid point to be made about the concept of society and accountability as well, and this is well borne out by the actions of executives and their own personal belief that they are fully entitled to absolutely gob-smacking levels of wealth, and to be financially protected at all costs, while those who for whatever reason do not hold such economically privileged positions can go que for food.
On one level, the economics behind the free market are sound, and the concept of creative destruction leading to a more efficient use of resources and capital works well, however, there is also a political and social aspect to human organization that economics does not cover. The United States is not just a large collection of economic units, its a republic of citizens and people, and if the system destroys enough of them economically, then woe betide the system itself, as the French Aristocracy found to its cost in 1789.
That's the fundamental delinquency behind Corporate America and its cheerleaders, in that they have tried to break down human existence to a monolithic system based on a series of economic exchanges, but that's just as unrealistic as the marxists thinking that "dialectical scientific marxism" (or whatever ideological twaddle they were peddling) was capable of ridgidly organizing the lives of people without taking account of human needs other than strictly material or political ones.
Those lucky enough to be in charge, and wise enough to understand human nature for what it is, realize that in the end, things that the centre cannot hold will tend to fall apart, and in this very febrile and confusing time, people need to feel a sense of collective, as well as individual destiny.
In Europe we haven't quite gone down the road of allowing the social fabric to be ripped up in the name of economic "progress" and often we have been attacked for that, as being outmoded or misguided, but having a cohesive society in a difficult time, is far more important than having gold and silver, so perhaps you will find that those sneering attitudes around the concept of "social equity" may be something of which you will one day repent.
Having been one of those people who designed and administered executive compensation, I know the pitfalls and absurdity of some of them. A few are pure greed, others have too easy goals to achieve and some do not have sufficient controls over payouts when the results for the company are not good.
However, there are 500 large employers in the US, really large. That translates to a few thousand people out of 300 plus million who are in a position to reap underserved rewards. Many of those are deserved however at least in some years.
Today's press is simply using the outstanding examples and making broad generalizations as if the bonuses of these people have adversely affected average people. That is not true, period. Even in the now famous AIG case the average bonus was $22,000 and much of the total was going to people who by some definitions were solidly middle class but you would never know that from the press who only use the word "executives." Of course, given the state of AIG no bonus plan should have paid out to anyone.
I do agree that every society needs a strong middle class and will fall eventually if the elite take too much of the wealth. But the way to solve that is not to take from those who have succeeded, many if not most who have started businesses, created jobs and built new industries and who do not work for the Fortune 500. The way is to create opportunity for all and assure that it not subverted in any way and then to continuously support those people.
Last year in the US 40% of all births were to unwed mothers, strike one for them. Those women in large measure have an uphill battle ahead of them and many will be a burden on society and their chances of not being in the lower middle class at best is slim. Those are the types of problems we need to address.
On one level, the economics behind the free market are sound, and the concept of creative destruction leading to a more efficient use of resources and capital works well, however, there is also a political and social aspect to human organization that economics does not cover. The United States is not just a large collection of economic units, its a republic of citizens and people, and if the system destroys enough of them economically, then woe betide the system itself, as the French Aristocracy found to its cost in 1789.
That's the fundamental delinquency behind Corporate America and its cheerleaders, in that they have tried to break down human existence to a monolithic system based on a series of economic exchanges, but that's just as unrealistic as the marxists thinking that "dialectical scientific marxism" (or whatever ideological twaddle they were peddling) was capable of ridgidly organizing the lives of people without taking account of human needs other than strictly material or political ones.
Those lucky enough to be in charge, and wise enough to understand human nature for what it is, realize that in the end, things that the centre cannot hold will tend to fall apart, and in this very febrile and confusing time, people need to feel a sense of collective, as well as individual destiny.
In Europe we haven't quite gone down the road of allowing the social fabric to be ripped up in the name of economic "progress" and often we have been attacked for that, as being outmoded or misguided, but having a cohesive society in a difficult time, is far more important than having gold and silver, so perhaps you will find that those sneering attitudes around the concept of "social equity" may be something of which you will one day repent.
Having been one of those people who designed and administered executive compensation, I know the pitfalls and absurdity of some of them. A few are pure greed, others have too easy goals to achieve and some do not have sufficient controls over payouts when the results for the company are not good.
However, there are 500 large employers in the US, really large. That translates to a few thousand people out of 300 plus million who are in a position to reap underserved rewards. Many of those are deserved however at least in some years.
Today's press is simply using the outstanding examples and making broad generalizations as if the bonuses of these people have adversely affected average people. That is not true, period. Even in the now famous AIG case the average bonus was $22,000 and much of the total was going to people who by some definitions were solidly middle class but you would never know that from the press who only use the word "executives." Of course, given the state of AIG no bonus plan should have paid out to anyone.
I do agree that every society needs a strong middle class and will fall eventually if the elite take too much of the wealth. But the way to solve that is not to take from those who have succeeded, many if not most who have started businesses, created jobs and built new industries and who do not work for the Fortune 500. The way is to create opportunity for all and assure that it not subverted in any way and then to continuously support those people.
Last year in the US 40% of all births were to unwed mothers, strike one for them. Those women in large measure have an uphill battle ahead of them and many will be a burden on society and their chances of not being in the lower middle class at best is slim. Those are the types of problems we need to address.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Who Knew This Was Coming?
FUBAR;1159608 wrote: So long GM then. Using your philosophy only the strong survive, why bother saving any of the banks or companies then? Doesn't a smaller percentage of the population posses a higher percent of the wealth now than ever before? Rather than creating real wealth among everyone we seem to be concentrating it among fewer and fewer, okay if you are one of the few otherwise tough luck then........
Is it true that 90% of Americas wealth is controlled by 1% of Americas population? - Yahoo! Answers
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
So long GM, perhaps if GM cannot deliver a product people want to buy. If Americans were so worried about GM, Ford and Chrysler and the jobs they represent they would be buying American made cars. I am looking at a parking lot as I write this of the 11 cars in my view only one is American made, a Ford Mustang. Do you have any trouble buying stuff made in China, not that you have much of a choice? Would you willingly pay more at Walmart if they only bought American? I doubt it.
Yes, average Americans have not gained much ground because in part of foreign competition, but what is the alternative? The reality is that we now have a global economy and Americans who do not find ways of adjusting (better education, better life decisions, etc.) are going to see their standard of living gradually decline regardless of the current economic situation. Taking from the rich, spreading the wealth if you will does not change the fundamentals of the situation in any way. Giving the middle class a tax break does not make them better prepared for a new workforce requiring different skills, strengthening unions does not get more for workers, rather in the long run ie; GM it may get them less to the extent strong unions make companies less flexible and less competitive.
The politicians are good at pitting one group against another with high minded sounding platitudes and setting up scapegoats, the reality is quite different.
Is it true that 90% of Americas wealth is controlled by 1% of Americas population? - Yahoo! Answers
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
So long GM, perhaps if GM cannot deliver a product people want to buy. If Americans were so worried about GM, Ford and Chrysler and the jobs they represent they would be buying American made cars. I am looking at a parking lot as I write this of the 11 cars in my view only one is American made, a Ford Mustang. Do you have any trouble buying stuff made in China, not that you have much of a choice? Would you willingly pay more at Walmart if they only bought American? I doubt it.
Yes, average Americans have not gained much ground because in part of foreign competition, but what is the alternative? The reality is that we now have a global economy and Americans who do not find ways of adjusting (better education, better life decisions, etc.) are going to see their standard of living gradually decline regardless of the current economic situation. Taking from the rich, spreading the wealth if you will does not change the fundamentals of the situation in any way. Giving the middle class a tax break does not make them better prepared for a new workforce requiring different skills, strengthening unions does not get more for workers, rather in the long run ie; GM it may get them less to the extent strong unions make companies less flexible and less competitive.
The politicians are good at pitting one group against another with high minded sounding platitudes and setting up scapegoats, the reality is quite different.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Who Knew This Was Coming?
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1159916 wrote: Having been one of those people who designed and administered executive compensation, I know the pitfalls and absurdity of some of them. A few are pure greed, others have too easy goals to achieve and some do not have sufficient controls over payouts when the results for the company are not good.
However, there are 500 large employers in the US, really large. That translates to a few thousand people out of 300 plus million who are in a position to reap underserved rewards. Many of those are deserved however at least in some years.
Today's press is simply using the outstanding examples and making broad generalizations as if the bonuses of these people have adversely affected average peoploe. That is not true, period. Even in the now famous AIG case the average bonus was $22,000 and much of the total was going to people who by some definitions were solidly middle class but you would never know that from the press who only use the word "executives." Of course, given the state of AIG no bonus plan should have paid out to anyone.
I do agree that every society needs a strong middle class and will fall eventually if the elite take too much of the wealth. But the way to solve that is not to take from those who have succeeded, many if not most who have started businesses, created jobs and built new industries and who do not work for the Fortune 500. The way is to create opportunity for all and assure that it not subverted in any way and then to continuously support those people.
Last year in the US 40% of all births were to unwed mothers, strike one for them. Those women in large measure have an uphill battle ahead of them and many will be a burden on society and their chances of not being in the lower middle class at best is slim. Those are the types of problems we need to address.
We do agree on a lot of things quinn, and yes there is scapegoating going on, and also the real picture is yet to emerge, obviously governments are not going to take the blame, and bankers and financial people are making themselves very convinient lightening rods for public anger by their foolish greed. However, if I was in government I would be very worried, as their is a lot more pain to come, and people are so pampered and have such a sense of entitlement nowadays, that the reality is going to be shocking and will produce a lot of anger and denial (as its already done), no one want's to take the hit, neither the State, the Business Community, or the people themselves, but of course it will be the people, as the people are the ones who actually fund everything, including the economy with their labour and money (and more recently with their credit cards and personal loans).
Its also true that people at the top realize that there is a limit to the tolerance of those less fortunate when they (rightly or wrongly) feel that enough is enough, which is why its so unwise that the prevailing attitude among people who benefit most from the economic system, is to shatter trust in it, by playing into every greedy banker, or corrupt politician stereotype that there is. Its unwise and they should know better, these people are not stupid by any means.
I actually support free-market capitalism, as do most Europeans, which is why what is happening is very depressing, as the people who should be leading by personal example are, in many cases, turning out to be men and women of straw, and that's not just in the United States, but right across the world. Where we go next will be interesting, I just hope that the free world can keep some sort of cohesion right now, everyone in every country is angry and confused, but hopefully after a process of acceptance, wiser and more level council will prevail as to how to deal with the short term economic disaster, while in the long term have a more sober, and more responsible system of Western Capitalism.
However, there are 500 large employers in the US, really large. That translates to a few thousand people out of 300 plus million who are in a position to reap underserved rewards. Many of those are deserved however at least in some years.
Today's press is simply using the outstanding examples and making broad generalizations as if the bonuses of these people have adversely affected average peoploe. That is not true, period. Even in the now famous AIG case the average bonus was $22,000 and much of the total was going to people who by some definitions were solidly middle class but you would never know that from the press who only use the word "executives." Of course, given the state of AIG no bonus plan should have paid out to anyone.
I do agree that every society needs a strong middle class and will fall eventually if the elite take too much of the wealth. But the way to solve that is not to take from those who have succeeded, many if not most who have started businesses, created jobs and built new industries and who do not work for the Fortune 500. The way is to create opportunity for all and assure that it not subverted in any way and then to continuously support those people.
Last year in the US 40% of all births were to unwed mothers, strike one for them. Those women in large measure have an uphill battle ahead of them and many will be a burden on society and their chances of not being in the lower middle class at best is slim. Those are the types of problems we need to address.
We do agree on a lot of things quinn, and yes there is scapegoating going on, and also the real picture is yet to emerge, obviously governments are not going to take the blame, and bankers and financial people are making themselves very convinient lightening rods for public anger by their foolish greed. However, if I was in government I would be very worried, as their is a lot more pain to come, and people are so pampered and have such a sense of entitlement nowadays, that the reality is going to be shocking and will produce a lot of anger and denial (as its already done), no one want's to take the hit, neither the State, the Business Community, or the people themselves, but of course it will be the people, as the people are the ones who actually fund everything, including the economy with their labour and money (and more recently with their credit cards and personal loans).
Its also true that people at the top realize that there is a limit to the tolerance of those less fortunate when they (rightly or wrongly) feel that enough is enough, which is why its so unwise that the prevailing attitude among people who benefit most from the economic system, is to shatter trust in it, by playing into every greedy banker, or corrupt politician stereotype that there is. Its unwise and they should know better, these people are not stupid by any means.
I actually support free-market capitalism, as do most Europeans, which is why what is happening is very depressing, as the people who should be leading by personal example are, in many cases, turning out to be men and women of straw, and that's not just in the United States, but right across the world. Where we go next will be interesting, I just hope that the free world can keep some sort of cohesion right now, everyone in every country is angry and confused, but hopefully after a process of acceptance, wiser and more level council will prevail as to how to deal with the short term economic disaster, while in the long term have a more sober, and more responsible system of Western Capitalism.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.