Stock MarketPosted by Marc on October 14, 2004 at 13:24:01:
Demographics, baby. It drives it all. You see, all those boomers who had survived the '87 crash said, "You see, it always comes back." And all those boomers who survived the late eighties, early nineties housing "correction" said, "You see, it always comes back." The same thinking that lead to the stock-market mania (that it always comes back) has lead to a housing mania.
Re: Stock MarketPosted by Chris Moore on October 14, 2004 at 14:16:37: In Reply to: Stock Market posted by Marc on October 14, 2004 at 13:24:01: Sort of on the subject, "class warfare" hasnt worked for the Dems over the course of US history except maybe to some extent during the Great Depression. Americans in the big middle have always been more into aspiring to those above than making common cause with those below, and also regretably sometime the race card was played to help keep things this way but all and all more of an economic situation than a civils rights issue. Anyway now the middle class is squeezed so much with the high housing and health care and college costs there might be a link up with the poor to demand a fairer cutting up of the pie - I sure hope this happens. Re: Stock MarketPosted by Doug W on October 14, 2004 at 23:14:31: In Reply to: Re: Stock Market posted by Chris Moore on October 14, 2004 at 14:16:37: Chris, who decides how to "cut the pie" up more fairly? Vote whores in DC? How does one "demand" a piece of the pie? Trashing MacDonalds in the vicinity of a WTO meeting? Shooting up Republican campaign offices? You do realize that everybody can vote their interests. Is this not “demand” enough for you? This IS already available to everybody right now after all. High housing - Do you realize that the "poor" in this country have the highest home ownership ever today? Nobody is denied health care in this country. Anybody, even illegal invaders, can walk into any hospital and cannot be denied care RIGHT AWAY! This is totally unlike countries with politician-run healthcare where EVERYBODY has to wait months for shitty care. What would you change? More people are attending college than ever before. You say, you “sure hope this happens.” Please tell me what exactly it is that you wish to transpire.
Or, you can treat everybody differently. You can have different laws and standards for every individual depending on their group identity, birth status, skin color, disability, sex, age, IQ, national origin, genetics etc. etc. in an effort to ensure equality and justice. No one would be allowed to succeed wildly and no one would be allowed to be at the bottom. The ideal would be for all to have an equal outcome. Which system would foster corruption? Which system would give unlimited power to government to dispense favors? Which system would be simple and easy to administer? Which one would require an immense bureaucracy of meddling public servants to administer? Which one would be more likely to create a ruling class? Which one is easier to maintain? Which one would require constant adjustment and inspire lobbyists to buy politicians? Which one would be more likely to foster hate and resentment? Which one is “fair?” Which one do the Kerrys of the world support? Which one do the Bush’s of the world lean toward? Granted that this is black and white and there are many shades between these two extremes. But, I believe it illustrates two diametrically opposed philosophies of the role of government in our lives.
Re: Stock MarketPosted by Chris Moore on October 15, 2004 at 11:26:29: In Reply to: Re: Stock Market posted by Doug W on October 14, 2004 at 23:14:31: Kozlowski, Ebbers, Ken Lay. Do these names mean anything to you? Most CEOs make obscene salaries these day, multiples of industrial wages unheard of in the rest of the industrialized world. And why is this? Because their talents and performance warrants such compensation? Yea, right. It's because of compliant boards of directors and crony capitalism. This allows these characters to fill their pockets with share holder's money. And anyone who complains they grab too much or should pay more than 39% on this largess is just as bad as those wackos attacking Starbucks. Man the right is great at PR I must admit. It's like this. Though deteriorating our great country has an transportation infrastructure, a defense establishment that provides for civil peace, rule of law enforced in business, availability of good education and these things allow an environment where corporations can thrive and CEO and entrepenuers can grow rich. But this isnt enough for many of them, 100X a factory worker's salary isnt enough, the guys on top need 1000X or more. Not to be low brow but screw them I say. Let more of the bounty from the enabling system I just described flow to the people, through more money to shareholders not executives and through higher taxes on the rich and or greedy. "Freedon isnt Free" I think I heard this somewhere, where was it? Doug W I must say I find some common ground between us even though we disagree on many issues. At least you're not a Bushie GW can do no wrong drone. I agree with your past criticism of GW's expansion of entitlements and Federal spending without any plan to pay for it. I say big government? small government? which is best? Each side has its arguments. But which ever one it is I want leaders who have the guts to say OK this is what you want, now pay for it else you cant have it! You want drugs for the elderly, OK pay for it. You want to keep more of your money in the form of lower taxes, OK here are the services which will be cut. I'm searching for guts that no one currently has I guess.
Re: Stock MarketPosted by Doug W on October 15, 2004 at 20:20:46: In Reply to: Re: Stock Market posted by Chris Moore on October 15, 2004 at 11:26:29: How about others "on top" who make obscene money? I'm talking sports stars, actors, musicians. Should we take their money and give it to "the people?"
|