MSNBC Lists Most Troubled Banks in U.S.
76
It's Not Just About the Bonuses
MSNBC is naming names and listing facts and figures.
A recent table published at MSNBC lists 400 of the largest banks in the U.S. with the greatest increase in troubled assets. The list gives information on the troubled asset ratio of 400 different banks. The first column shows the percentage of troubled assets on the books in 2007, the second column in 2008, and the final column shows the percentage of increase or decrease in troubled assets over that year's time. The list runs from largest to smallest (in size) with Chase, BOA, and Citi on top because they are largest (not necessarily because they have the most troubled assets).
The list gives a good quick snapshot of what percentage of each individual bank's assets are tied up troubled derivatives and securities.
When the first news of the most recent AIG bonuses hit the airwaves, I was as upset about it as anyone else. But I've been sounding the alarm for over a year now to no avail. The bank I used to work for, which failed in October of 2008 and was taken over in a forced sale (by the U.S. Treasury) by another huge midwest bank in January of 2009, paid out millions to its outgoing executives in bonuses and golden parachutes, even as it laid off thousands of employees.
That was typical. With regard to executive compensation and bonuses, there are no restraints on banks that fail if they have not been given TARP funds, no restraints on banks that get money from the Fed instead of TARP (as AIG did), and no restraints on banks that took the first wave of TARP funds under the Bush administration. So basically, all along it has been just fine for bank executives to be heavily rewarded for failure, but if there's one single auto worker making more than $14 an hour anywhere within the borders of the U.S., well, shoot that guy, he's bringing down the whole economy.
What is troubling me right now is that, as the MSNBC list shows, it isn't just about the bonuses. The bonuses give us all something to freak out about, something small and easy to understand, but if we all take a step back and just look at what is actually happening right now, the bonuses are the least of our problems.
The Bail Out Isn't Working, and Here's How I Know
Sunday March 15th Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was interviewed on "60 Minutes." He took us on a tour of the Federal Reserve bank, took us to his home town in North Carolina, talked about his humble beginnings and love of country, and assured the American public that the mess will start to look better by the end of this year and everyone should have complete and total confidence.
OMG we are so screwed.
No Chairman of the Federal Reserve has ever consented to a public interview since the Fed was first formed in 1913, and for good reason: Anything the Federal Reserve Chairman says can have such a dramatic impact on the stock market that they try and keep mum as much as possible. But beyond this simple fact, it is also true that no bank executive ever comes out and makes a big display about how fine everything is unless things are so FUBAR that a total meltdown is imminent and he knows it.
When I still worked at a major regional bank (last year), in the month before the end, we got daily memos from the CEO assuring us that the bank would never fail and that everything was under control. I said to my coworkers right then, "We are so screwed." Within a month the bank went down. No one believed me. I felt like Chicken Little's annoying kid sister.
Awhile back, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner gave a very wooden speech in which he told the American people that he was working on a plan whereby private capital backed by the government would buy up toxic assets that were tanking the banks, and while this private capital was being assembled, the banks would undergo 'stress tests' to see what kind of shape they are in and what exactly is on their books. Great, but it's been awhile now. Where are these private investors? Like Jerry McGuire said, "Show me the money!"
Since that stiff speech, Geithner has not even been able to assemble a Treasury team. The candidates he tries to recruit are either making more money on the outside, can't pass the vetting process, get booted out before they are confirmed, or head for the hills before the process is even over. So during the greatest economic crisis in U.S. history we still don't even have a fully staffed Treasury Department. Ask yourself why that might be.
Again on the private capital: Where is this money? I don't see people exactly lining up to buy the sludge on the books of the major banks, not with government backing, not on any terms whatsoever. Why not? I think its because the mess at the root of the problem, the tanking housing market and the skyrocketing foreclosure rate, has barely been touched. Remember, these are mortgage-backed securities. Until the housing market stabilizes, no one is going to buy this crap, it's just that simple. If the U.S. buys these mortgage-backed securities at a price that keeps the big banks solvent, then the U.S. is holding the toxic debt and the U.S. is not solvent. If the U.S. buys the stuff at a price that is low enough to make sense, the banks go down.
So while we are all freaking out about AIG and their stupid bonuses, it probably wouldn't hurt to take a minute and look at the bigger picture, which more and more is looking like, we are so screwed.
Does anyone think for one minute these executives don't know that? Fully 52 of the AIG execs who took the retention bonus money (which by definition is meant to keep them on staff) have already left AIG.
Meanwhile, my sweetie and everyone he works with will not be getting a bonus this year. They have all taken 5% pay cuts and given up paid vacation time and lost their 401K match (as if anyone is contributing anyway) and there is a really good chance the company will go under anyway.
So much for this crap about 'can't void a contract'. You can if it's a working guy. I guess it's only those rich guys who have the ironclad contracts.
Fix It At the Bottom, Screw the Top
I voted for Obama, and in general I think he is doing a good job.
However, the financial mess is still a mess and getting messier by the minute. I think it is possible, no, likely, that this mess can't be fixed by throwing money at the top. Imagine what a difference it would have made to the American people if all the money that has been pumped into huge banks that are still failing had been just handed out to taxpayers. I'm not saying that's what should have happened, I'm just saying we'd have seen a change if it did.
I think many of these banks will have to fail. Yes it will be painful. Yes it will hurt the U.S. badly. But then, once the dust clears, which will take many years, maybe (don't count on it) we will know not to let banks get "too big to fail" ever again. Maybe. The phrase that keeps running through my own mind lately is, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." And you can't make a shining monument to Capitalism out of a screwed up, failing piggy banking system simply by throwing taxpayer dollars at it until the whole country goes down.
Banking executives have been taking the money and heading for the hills for at least six months now, with our government's blessing.
Maybe they know something we don't.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Hi Amanda,
I do think it looks like the folks at the top are just grabbing what they can on the way out the door. As to why and how this happened, I know that in the U.S. it was the financial services lobby that helped to enrich Congresspeople who pushed through the deregulation that removed Depression era safeguards so the banks could gamble our money away many times over. I don't think it's any more complicated than plain old-fashioned political corruption.
As to Geithner and Bernanke, I think they simply can't fix it. I don't think they are part of any dark, ages old banking conspiracy, they just can't fix the problem because the mess is too big.
I'm writing some articles on the history of banking for a client, and it's astonishing: the history of banks is just one failure after another. They start out OK, get greedy, fail, start again... Throughout most of American history banks were so unstable they were always part of a national controversy. The founding fathers absolutely hated them (at least Jefferson did) and before the Federal Reserve was created we had a huge run on the banks in 1907 that finally got people behind a federal regulatory arm to keep bank runs from recurring.
So it isn't like this is new. The only new part of it is the sheer size--banks are global now, so it's on a giant scale instead of an individual one.
There's no question that capitalism has brought us many benefits. Just look at our standard of living. The problem with capitalism is that it is based on the doctrine of "more." Some might call it "greed." We're not satisfied with profit, we need to make more profit. We're not satisfied with being comfortable, we want to be more comfortable. We pay actors/actresses, sports figures and "bankers" millions of dollars. Are they worth it?
What really bugs me is that we're stuck and the everyday person can't do a thing about it. Frustration!
I think it's unreasonable to think that these Ivy League educated men did not know what would happen if they just printed money and tried to spend our way out of this mess, that they. According to a woman named Svali who was involved with the Illuminatti and then escaped, this was planned. Everything she said has come true, but more than that the worst part is still to come. She said that the dollar will fall, that interest rates will rise and that we will have a depression that makes the Great Depression look like a Sunday picnic. You can google her and see what she said...this was in the year 2000.
Thanks jkfrancis & Brie,
I don't think we need the Illuminati to explain what's going on. It's gone on before, just not on this scale. Between 1940 and 2007 we had a fairly stable banking system in the United States. Actually, it was the longest most stable period in the history of U.S. banking. Before that, banking was a festival of creative craziness--we lurched from one ineffective system to another, and bank failures and bank runs were very common.
I see the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as the crack cocaine of banking deregulation that did us all in. Between 2001 and 2007 household debt in the U.S. rose by 102% and during the period between 1999 and 2007 the amount of debt held by financial institutions in the U.S. (aka 'leverage') roughly doubled. That's hardly coincidental, since the GBLA blew the lid off restrictions on banks that kept them from gambling in the stock market like they did in 1929.
I think that the mess with AIG is so bad that the bonuses are just symbolic--we should be more worried about the $160 billion that has disappeared down the rabbit home to no good effect than the $160 million that went for the bonuses. We can't fix AIG. It's too screwed up. Nobody is facing that.
Wow. Thanks for this excellent explanation -- you make it all so clear that even I can understand it (and anything vaguely financial usually gives me a case of the vapors). It certainly looks as if plenty of banks will indeed have to fail -- all we can do now is sit back and watch it all happen. I'm assuming that the letter I received from my bank informing customers that they are financially solid and insured to cover customers' assets means they are on the way out. . .
Hi Teresa,
Yeah I always wonder about those letters. I mean, if its true, why spend all that money sending out letters? Shouldn't the safety and security thing be assumed? If it can't be assumed then we already have a problem that's way too big to be fixed by a letter!
If anyone can turn the mess around, I believe Obama, can! No one knows better than he does what poor beginnings mean. Obama is smart, a visionary and (I have never said this about a politician) ethical. Hello, he can’t clean something up overnight that grew to fruition during the 8 year Bush and Chaney dynasty. So far, I feel he has kept his campaign promises, which, in itself says a lot. His concerns are for the poor and working class...After all, the rich don't need help. Let’s give him a chance; time will tell. At least he is trying to do more than just appease the lobbyist who line the pockets of the congress and house with $$$$$$!
Like you, I have seen this coming and I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of Bush, Chaney and all their cronies for no oversight or regulations in place to protect us from this devastation. Next in line--- the Wall Street group, GREEDY CEO’s, banks, credit card companies, and the inflated housing market. No, matter how you slice it---GREED HAS BEEN THE DRIVING FACTOR IN OUR FINANCIAL AND ECONOMICAL COLLAPSE!
Your article is right on and thanks for being brave enough to talk straight. Too many people sit back, with their head in the sand, and hope the issues/mess will go away. Gee, that would be nice…It took strong people who were willing to stand up and fight for the freedoms we enjoy? Smile and pat yourself on the back, you are one of them!
LOL Pam, and Ralph is telling me on forums this country is not bankrupt! LOL
BTW, giving money to people instead of banks would result in immediate hyper-inflation of paper money instead of a delayed one. Hardly an improvement if you ask me...
Hi Misha & Nancy,
Well, I personally think we are screwed. I've thought so for ever since just before I left the bank last year. I don't think most people have even the eensiest inkling of how badly these investment bankers have boogered up the world financial system. Plus, now our manufacturing sector is weak and what little remains of it is not competitive. So again I ask, where is the recovery going to come from? I like Obama too, a lot, but he can't just pull it out of his butt.
I think it's time to let some of these banks go down and take the consequences. That's what's going to happen anyway, only this way, a bunch of bankers get some meon out of the government on the way out the door. Just call me 'sucker' and pass the dum dum wrappers. They're playing us for fools.
I love the top photo/series! Couldn't have done better with that one. I am so in agreement with you on the last section especially. Fix at the bottom not at the top. Foundation first, then the rest falls into place. It's what I tell my kids all the time. (I used legos to demonstrate this time and again - maybe banks need to play with some legos?)
Hi Frieda,
Yes, a little basic financial education, especially about debt, would help too! Thanks for your thoughts. (I love that fat cat too!)
I skimmed down the entire list looking to see if my financial institution was on it. It wasn't. I noticed a conspicuous absence of credit unions on that list. Leads me to wonder whether credit unions even got involved in the housing bubble or if that's the type of banking that gets steadied by its diffuse shareholders.
Thank you for your effective, clear analysis of what went wrong and why. I never trusted banks. I had this general awareness that they were out to make a profit and never was on the receiving end of the profit. I didn't like how they treated me -- as if I was vermin. Back when I was working and earning the most I ever had in my life, the banks were treating me like animal poop they wanted to scrape off their shoes.
I loved credit unions whenever I could find one and use it. Their policies were the complete opposite. Credit unions sustain a modest interest rate over everyone's share accounts, shareholders and customers are the same people, the point of it is to keep your money safe and maybe keep ahead of inflation. It's not about making someone rich.
I agree with you that a bottom up solution could be the best one.
I have to wonder if the credit unions even need a bailout. My local one got bought out by a larger one based in Kansas City, but that was last year and their branches are still open, the phone number hasn't changed, their service is still excellent and the people who talk to me are still the same employees. They know me.
Great photo of the fat cat falling, I love that.
You ask a serious question -- and that is what would happen when these large banks fail, is there some way to use the federal funds to mitigate the damage to the 95% who are under $250,000 a year and just let it happen?
I think the more diffuse a banking system is, the less likely failures are going to create massive devastation. It seems as if my reaction to credit unions based on their policies in dealing with disabled and nonstandard people are borne out by what's going on when the big boys get stupid with money.
It was bound to happen too. I wonder how much the Madoff scheme had to do with how deep this is getting. The guy is going into history as what might be the biggest thief the country's ever had, and this may show what the real cost of thieving and fraud is to everyone else.
Hi Robert,
Funny you should bring up credit unions. I went to open an account at one this week and spent an hour in the office of the account representative while he combed every detail of my credit report and grilled me as if I was asking for a multimillion dollar business loan instead of an ordinary checking and savings account. Honestly I didn't appreciate it. At one point he said, "Now I think we should go over your credit score" and I said, "No I don't see why we should at all. Are you going to open the accounts or not?" When I told Bill he was so upset we will probably just cancel them right back out and stay at the bank, It was very tiresome and invasive and like I said, it's not like I wanted THEM to give ME money!
He had just come from a meeting of the CU staff and was visibly shaken. He said he was afraid about everything that was happening in finance and banking, and he said they are now, just in the past couple of months, having to grill people over these small accounts because there has been a rash of people changing from banks to credit unions and then running up lots of bad checks and disappearing before they can do anything about it. He said there has been so much fraud just in the last two months it is threatening their bottom line.
It was a weird, uncomfortable experience. Now I really don't know what to do. Part of me just wants to keep my money in box under the bed now.
Just not in a paper form Pam :)
I hear ya, Misha. I'm thinking of investing it all in canned beans. :0)
At let they ALWAYS have a value :) Until they rot away...
Pam: After working in banking, I don't really trust banks- I saw a lot of mismanagement of client's assets, so I am not surprised that my bank is also failing. Was thinking if one does not want to bank, how else does on function financially in society? Maybe a hub on this by you or someone knowledgable? :) I also had thought of a credit union, and just noticed your comments about being grilled. Read an article not long ago about this guy, I believe in India, whose cash life savings was eaten by bugs in the box he kept. Yikes!
Thumbs up!
Violet Sun--I don't know! Right now I'm pretty bummed about it. We will probably just close out those CU accounts and stay at the bank, even though we don't want to. I just think it was really messed up to have to go through that just to open a checking and savings account. It felt like I was being considered for a job or had applied to an exclusive country club or had asked for another bowl of gruel or something.
Yesterday one of my teeth cracked in half during breakfast, and of course I have no insurance now.
I'm in the mood to just hide in my bedroom for a few years. :o)
I think that some of the Aussie banks are starting to wobble a bit too.
Buy gold and silver.
Bugs can't eat that!
((OMG we are so screwed. ))
I agree, I just can't see anything that can be done to help at this point.
Hi Eric & SirDent,
Yes I read this morning that the Treasury is pumping $1 trillion into the money supply by buying up its own notes. That just doesn't sound like it can be a bit good. I don't know, I just think we are right on the verge of a collapse--but then I've been crying wolf for so long, I might well be wrong. I hope so.
Gold is so expensive now. Aren't you supposed to buy when it's low?
Even silver and gold will tarnish. I just remember that we have some US savings bonds. I am wonrdering what they might be worth now.
If you know what you bought you can find out at this website:
There should be a calculator there.
Hey, every little bit helps. :o)
I should have said I am also wondering if I should go ahead and cash them in. I will check them out on the site you linked me to. Thanks.
400 of the largest banks in the U.S. with the greatest increase in troubled assets
Hi Pam,
Sounds like now is a good time to think about joining a LETS scheme. There's plenty around, even in the States. Here's the Wkipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Tradin
I wrote a hub about a local currency scheme operating in a nearby town some while ago, and I came across all sorts of interesting schemes whilst I was researching. Some of them are even sophisticated enough to operate on plastic. This just might be the pivotal point where they begin to really take off.
Hi Amanda,
I've heard of those too--You're right this would be a great time for that. Christoph Reilly wrote a recent hub too on 'freegans' that was kind of interesting. I think we might find ourselves doing all these things because we have to more than anything else! But that wouldn't be all bad. :)
I read Chris's hub. As ever, he succeeded in putting a humourous slant on it, but the whole issue has really serious undertones. No way in a modern, civilised country should people be forced to live in tents, or eat out of bins, or beg on the streets.
I agree Amanda. Weirdly, there's lots of hostility here in the U.S. to helping anyone. The attitude seems to be, "If you have problems, it's your own fault!" Nice. I honestly don't 'get' that. I can't handle the commentary on my socialism hub anymore, and in fact, if so many people weren't enjoying the discussion there I'd delete it--I've considered deleting the whole article and all the comments with it because it disgusts me. I'm just too angry and sick of people's selfish attitudes here. So many people have this 'not my problem' kind of selfishness about them in the U.S.--until something IS their problem. Then they want help of course. But before that time comes, if even one poor kid is eating Cream of Wheat on the public dime, better shoot that little commie.
I'm so sick of it.
Hi, Pam. Great Hub. Lots of food for thought. I, too, thought Bernanke's venture into prime time was an ominous sign. What’s that they say at Disneyland? Oh yeah, keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle at all times.
Pam, there are a few dissenting voices on your Socialism hub, but they're really only 'the usual suspects'. There's been a good debate on that Hub. Sometimes I think people get stuck in a groove of repeating the same tired old mantras, just because they learned this stuff at their mother's knee, and have never really held it up to the light to see if it has any merit.
Hi Moxie Trader--I like that, "hands and arms inside the vehicle," lol!
Amanda, You're probably right. My feeling about politics is that not too much good usually comes of discussion. I think people think what they think and are not easily persuaded, so once we all know what we all think, that's all there is to say.
I only write on political topics when something is bothering me (which is often, lately) because usually if it's bothering me its bothering others too. It makes me feel better---at least at first---just to get it out of my system. But then if the discussion turns mean, which it often does, I regret writing about it and I just want to chuck the whole mess. But you're right--for the most part it's been civil and lively and that's all to the good. :)
Hi Pam.
Hope that you keep writing the political hubs - always a good read! I noticed that the socialism hub has taken off again, with a new set of people repeating the same arguments.
Came to the conclusion that I cannot be arsed repeating myself - it is too much effort after a hard day of slavery. ;)
Same here Sufi, but I keep checking it out just to see if anything has changed LOL!
LOL we can move the discussion here if you want to :)
And Amanda, answering your remark about mother's knee and such - at least in my case it does not apply. It definitely used to be this way, but it is long gone, and if I have an opinion on something nowadays it is because I gave it some serious thought and reality check, as well as thorough checks for non-contradicting the rest of my opinions :)
To tell you the truth I think in Aya's case it does not apply, too.
But I definitely see how this applies to many others - in both camps though :)
wow pam, you gave a really good/scary explanation of the banking system and where we are today. I have so little cash, I'm not caught without, been there...so it's the suffering from others who have and then can't hire or pay that will hurt us... and how does one really prepare for this? I wonder if there is a way to store enough... no, of course not...
well, where do we go from here?
Agreed, Misha - I would rather a conservative/Misha (not sure what to label you, so I won't!) with a well thought out opinion than a dumb soundbite socialist.
The day that rational debate stops is the day that we are really screwed.
LOL! Sufi, Misha, Amanda--I probably will keep writing those hubs, just because it gives me a place to vent. I just will drop out of the comments early :)
The ironic thing is, I have friends who think all kinds of things--agreeing on politics doesn't seem to be all that important in terms of how likely I am to get along with someone. In fact, I know lots of people who agree with me completely about political issues and yet we are not friends because of some other reason and the reverse is true too. What a person is like in person doesn't seem to have one single thing to do with his or her politics.
As for me I definitely didn't get my ideas from my folks--they were both Repulbicans and fairly conservative. I think a lot of my left leaning thoughts are a reaction to the class distinctions in the neighborhood where I grew up. Maybe I will write about ti sometime. Also, I worked by way through school and no one gave me money really--I 'pulled myself up by my bootstraps' only to discover I was still living in a mudhole--just had some papers to hang on the mudhole wall. So basically, I guess I'm a seething mass of anger and resentments. LOL! (Not really!)I am bitter about all the wasted schooling, but I just try something new. Right now I am trying to put my energy into what I care about--writing, my kids, Bill, the garden. I'll be 56 Sunday, I'm going to do what I want dammit! lol!
Marisue--honestly I don't think anyone can prepare for what is coming. We don't really even know what is coming, but if it's as bad as I think it is going to be, no amount of preparation will help. My former father-in-law lived through the collapse of the Hungarian economy. My daughter asked him how we can prepare and he said, "You can't. Anything you store you will use up. Any money you save will become worthless. Anything you hoard people will steal. There's nothing you can do but try to live through it." Cheery, huh? He should know though. He thinks we are for sure heading for a total economic collapse--he kind of reminds me of Misha, only different Eastern block nation.
PGrundy, I agree. We should bail out no one. As for those golden parachutes, who do you think these people were negotiating with when they got their contracts? They were negotiating with themselves. Because stockholders have no liability for what a company does, they let it run itself. Management selects management. Management negotiates with management. Why? Because stockholders hand their proxy over to management. Why? Because they have nothing to lose -- or so they think.
Capitalism isn't free enterprise. If I repeat it often enough, maybe it'll sink in. Anyway, that's what I keep telling myself. I'm working on a hub about the corporate entity, but it's not ready yet.
You write: "Imagine what a difference it would have made to the American people if all the money that has been pumped into huge banks that are still failing had been just handed out to taxpayers." Imagine what a difference it would have made if it had never been taken from the taxpayers in the first place!
I look forward to that hub, Aya. I confess I still do not understand the distinction you frequently make between free markets and capitalism. I hear your frustration, but I still don't understand your point--It has always seemed to me to be a very narrow point unconnected to any kind of reality that I can see in front of me. Perhaps if you write about the corporate entity and why it doesn't represent what you favor in terms of free markets, it will make more sense to me as well.
We are a democracy of capitalists and capitalistic systems. I recently penned the name as being a "capitalistocracy." It's a bit hard to say, but it hits the nail on the head. I disagree with so much that is occurring in our Congress, a bit disappointed in Obama, but still with him until and if he proves me wrong. The lines in the sand have been drawn for a long time - the rich protect the rich, the poor are protected by a thread relative to the few funding opportunities that are granted, and the middle class carries the weight of the system. Mother Justice is imbalanced, freedoms lacking and controls too many. It's all been said before, and it isn't looking any better at this moment in time. We dropped the ball big time on AIG. Yes, they were one of the biggest supporters of Obama but someone wasn't steering the ship to shore. It isn't rocket science, it is greed and reimbursement to the powerful donors - at our expense. We are indeed in deep doo-doo for many,many years to come - especially if China or other countries force payment. My children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will carry the burden - that is very sad. We all need to take a big breath and trust that the system can return to its basic and trusted premise. We must have faith in the underlying system - we must speak that faith, walk that faith yet continue to question everything. As you find the truth, write your congress-people, write your state representatives, write your local politicians, participate in grass-roots organizations, and reach out. It takes all of us to create change. (Off the soap box and into the fire...)
Sorry Misha
I didn't intend to offend you. As Sufi says, I'd rather debate with someone who can back up their arguments with solid thoughts and ideas than someone who just re-iterates the same old sound-bites, no matter what their political persuasion! And as Pam says, we don't choose our friends because of their politics (actually I think I've chosen most of my friends in spite of their politics!)
Debate is a good thing, and it helps us question our own beliefs more constructively.
LOL No need to be sorry, I was not offended, just wanted to clarify the point :)
"I voted for ... However ... " And so it goes with American politics, the emperor (Republican or Democrat) ultimately is found to be unclothed because it is impossible for them to keep all the promises they had to make to get elected.
I have no doubt that had McCain won, I'd be in the "...However..." category with him right now.
Pam, Your spot-on commentary and insight is so intact with how many of us hard-working, tax-paying (or should I say, benefactors to the irresponsible) feel, I can feel my gut shake. I feel you're accurate in saying we are so screwed--at least for the short-term. All we can do now is sit back (in our oh-so-cushy chairs), wait, hope, and allow for an intercession of supreme measure. I still remain optimistic; which is why I plan to retrain this fall for the health industry. I wish you all the luck and good fortune you deserve. Your writing is high on the upper shelf!
Thanks Rob! Good luck on your new health career too! I have often considered that myself. I think I would be good at it, but what I really want to do is write, and since I'm getting on in years I figure it's now or never. I'm really fortunate to live with a great guy who doesn't have a meltdown if I don't pull in six figures. Otherwise I think I'd be writing inside a tent or something. I too hope our country pulls through this, even though it looks pretty bad for the short term. I can make cornbread and biscuits from scratch though, so I'm ready. Growing up poor does teach a person survival skills. I've got those in spades. :o)
Ouch, this definately IS NOT good for the banks on that list.... they were trying to stay private for a very good reason - although I'm glad it's out.
I haven't read all the comments, so I don't know if someone's said this....
The banks on the line you illuminate are not community-centered banks. They are gargantuan suckers of money blood, whose success was fueled by lack of regulation, media hype, and their own advertising invasion. It took only Bush to Bush to put these monsters into play.
Just look around at savings banks anchored in communities. They lend based on the assets given by the community. Most of them are alive today and quite well to boot. In fact, they are the anchors in this mess. Philadelphia has a long history of neighborhood lending and saving, but we are not the only ones.
A small example...my mortgage, eleven years old, is with the same community bank that issued it in the first place. They never sold it to another bank. I have so many friends whose mortgages have been sold on the market, and although their interest rates haven't changed, their ability to make payments have. One friend is facing foreclosure only because the receiver of her paperwork can't find it.
It all starts at the community level. Banking, like gardening, like being good neighbors.
Thumbs up, need I say?
Thanks mvaldosta & Sally's Trove.
Sally--I agree. No business should be allowed to get "too big to fail" but especially no banks or financial systems should. Starting in the late 1990's the Reaganites started to gut regulation and now we have these behemoths that shouldn't exist in the first place. The bank regulations put in place after the Crash of 1929 were put there for good reason. So much for 'a free market is self-regulating.' And yet, remarkably, people are still passionately making the argument that it is. :0)
Well, I just read yesterday one interesting idea - it's all started back in 1800 something, with one British regulation that mandated savings banks to deal in lending, too - obviously for a lack of credit available. Other countries followed the suit...
Yes, before that saving/payment processing banks were different from lending banks...
Great hub Pam. I wrote about this a few months ago and the main problem I saw was throwing money at a situation without correcting the underlying problems. I learned this the very hard and expensive way by throwing alot of money at our own business without correcting the serious underlying issues. Gosh I wish I could have gotten paid a fat bonus check for our business failing! But that doesn't happen is the real small business world, and it shouldn't be happening for corporate America. If anyone wants to take a peek at my hub it's here. I've made some drastic life changes because of our business shutdown. Hindsight is certainly foresight, isn't it? And unfortunately I agree with you, we are so screwed, new president or not. Combine climate change with economic failure and we have a problem of such massive proportions that I don't know how we are going to get out of this mess now.
Hi Misha & Dorsi--
Yes, the country was so upset about banks in the 1800s that there was a long period there called 'the Free Banking Era' where national banks were not allowed in any form. It's been an up and down thing all along.
Dorsi--thanks for the link! I too wish someone would throw me a billion or so for failure! I'd have no trouble making money then. :0)
PGrundy, I agree with what Sally's Trove said about large, national banks versus small community based ones. Most Americans, I think, are not anti-business -- but they sense that Big Business is not answerable to anyone. There's a reason for this, and I've explained it on my hub The Corporate Entity. Responsibility and control have to go hand in hand. The profit motive divorced from the concern over possible loss doesn't work. It's got to be both the carrot and the stick. This means the owners of a business have to be answerable for what the business does. In other words -- no limited liability.
Small Business are being killed with Bank charges, peoples lives destroyed. Where I work we are being forced to push/sell Credit cards with rates of 30%. Everytime they, management, pushes us, we tell them we don't support financial terrorism! They have nothing to say and ignore there responsibility to shove Card sales down customers throats, because they agree with us. All companies that use Credit Cards, need to be proactive agoinst the banks like citizens! If a lot of companies protest enough about there customer rates, they will backdown. Or the will lose companies as there customers/ supporters. When your asked if you want a card, just say," No thank you, I don't support Financial terrrorism against America", and watch their faces retreat. Protest works folks, use it or lose it!
“But I've been sounding the alarm for over a year now to no avail.”
Damn pgrundy, I’ve been screaming bloody murder for years.
The first essays I posted upon joining Hub Pages were what? Condemnations of capitalism.
What’s happening now is what capitalism does. It’s built into the very essence of the concept. The word "enough" does not exist in the capitalist dictionary. The capitalist mindset can be distilled down to its pure essence, like crack cocaine. It comes to three words, Buy or Die.
Have you heard that China is calling for the dollar to be canned?
“BEIJING -- China called for the creation of a new currency to eventually replace the dollar as the world's standard, proposing a sweeping overhaul of global finance that reflects developing nations' growing unhappiness with the U.S. role in the world economy.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123780272456212885
These banks don’t need to be “allowed” to fail. They have failed. No one will admit it yet. Once all the fat cats have stuffed their pockets and sailed off into the sunset, then we’ll learn that, guess what, the banks have failed.
Sorry. We tried to save them but it was just too far-gone. Now we’ll have to go ahead with the North American Union and, guess what, we already have our new currency, the amero.
Isn’t that great? Since it’s backed by the combined power of amerika, kanada and mexiko, it’ll be the perfect replacement for the poor old dollar.
I voted for Obama. I now regret it greatly. I know McCain would have been a horror. I know a third party candidate could never have won. I would still feel better right now if I had written in Cynthia McKinney.
If nothing else, I can promise you, the future won’t be boring.
"These banks don’t need to be “allowed” to fail. They have failed. No one will admit it yet. Once all the fat cats have stuffed their pockets and sailed off into the sunset, then we’ll learn that, guess what, the banks have failed."
You said a mouthful there, CWB. And no, the future won't be boring--scary though.
Hi, Pam. Another great piece taking the ultra-complicated and making it understandable for shlubs like me. What constantly gets my goat, is while the fat cats at the top who got us into this mess in the first place, line their pockets, bail out to live at one of their luxury estates, and the government helps THEM out. But there is no help for the little guy. Maybe the little guy got suckered or maybe had visions of sugar plums dancing in his head or maybe he was just stupid - but no where near the level of the fat cats stupidity - and he gets no bailout. He must declare bankruptcy and lose his house and his car (as if it's not tough enough to get a job in the first place, forget about not having a car.) No Golden Parachute for you and me. Just an iron anvil strapped to our necks.
Thanks for another great hub!
Oh...and one more thing...I double posted.
Hi Christoph,
Yeah, that's pretty depressing. I have a house in Indiana that I will probably have to give back soon. It's worth a quarter of what it is mortgaged for but won't sell at any price--meanwhile the city is hiking the take rate because they are so starved for revenue (losing tax base at an alarming rate). So basically I have this house that won't sell for $9K, but is being taxed at $60K. It was on the market for two years with not one single person even looking at it. It makes me sick. Half the houses on the block are vacant, and there's an $8k house a block down that looks like a dog house that's being taxed at $3800 per year with the homeowner's exemption removed. This kind of thing is rampant and nothing, I mean NOTHING has been proposed to address the problem. But by all means let's take care of Wall Street. Thanks for your comment!
PGrundy, if the house you own in Indiana has got a negative value at the moment, you should file to have your local taxes reduced. In fact, the city should be paying you!
There's something fishy about property taxes that never go down, even when property values do.
Aya, it's way more than fishy. In Indiana, where I used to live, the houses with the highest tax rates are in the worst neighborhoods. My daughter went through the process of trying to change the taxes charged for a house she could not sell in the same neighborhood and got nowhere. Eventually the city billed her (and her husband) over $10,000 in back taxes and seized the property. It was sold to an investor at auction for $3,000 and is still vacant a year later. The investor is doing nothing, just waiting out the market most likely hoping to sell it for $6,000 or whatever he can get when things turn around. In the meantime, on the block where the house is located, only two homes are occupied now--the rest are vacant and in various stages of decay. It wasn't like that five years ago--it was bad, but not that bad.
The city is eating itself alive this way. The same thing happened to Detroit and Flint, and they never did recover. I will most likely never be able to sell that house. Either I will default on the mortgage or the city will discover I don't live there, charge me two years of back taxes at the ridiculous inflated rate, and I will have to let them seize the house.
Here in Michigan, the community in which we live adjusted the property taxes on most homes here between 15% and 25% to reflect the drop in values since last year. We got our assessment last week and our home here has gone down in value about 20%, but at least the taxes reflect that.
PGrundy, your daughter's story sounds like a nightmare. Her land was stolen by the city and then given to an investor. When governments (even local ones) behave like this, don't you think there should be some limits set to what government is allowed to do?
No. In a world without government, neither of us would have ever had an opportunity to own property. We'd probably both be indentured servants or something (we are anyway). I think government serves a legitimate purpose and I personally want to live in a place with a government that provides roads, schools, and other community services that I help to pay for through taxation. I do not resent that or think it is wrong. What happens in city governments (at least in the midwest) is that developers buy off the government. When the tax base erodes there's no kickbacks to be had, so the city shakes down who it can and eats who it can. But it's not unique to government--business plays a huge role in that. The way things are right now, it doesn't matter which one of us is right (you or me)--either way I come out on the bottom of the pile economically so it's hard to get too whipped up about it.
But Pam, that's all just a part of our wonderful system of kapitalism! Just be patient, it will self-correct and everyone will live happily ever after!
CWB, I know you are being sarcastic (and that's fine, you know I don't mind) but the irony of this situation is that I think Aya's vision of the world is more likely to come to fruition than mine. Why? Because, as you have said so many times, we are indeed living through the last days of this wretched excess. When it all falls down, what will remain? Something much simpler and more brutal, and not much in the way of government. At this point, I just hope my kids come out OK. I'm old, I've had my life. But I don't want them to come to harm.
PGrundy, I agree that government has a legitimate purpose to serve -- to protect our property and our lives and our liberty. But when a government ceases to do this and begins to plunder our property and steal our freedom, then that government should be overthrown -- and replaced by one that serves the legitimate purpose.
pgrundy, Aya Katz.
Sorry about the sarcasm. I can't help myself sometimes. I'm just a natural born cynic.
If as a society we choose governance, then it’s up to us to make sure we are in control of it rather than the converse. I for one have never been opposed to paying whatever taxes are required provided they are put to the proper uses. If our currency were properly controlled however, taxes would probably not be required.
When populations reach such high levels, it becomes virtually impossible for a nation to provide a truly representative government from an isolated, totally centralized body that is, by virtue of its isolation and esoteric nature, subject to all manner of corruption and immorality.
Add to this a system of commerce and finance that rewards the greediest, most unscrupulous, callous and unprincipled individuals and what you get is what we’ve gotten.
The only way our governing body could serve its people as intended would be through the use of the media we are presently employing for this discussion. It is conceivable, given an educated populace that a true democracy could function for a very large population by utilizing the World Wide Web.
Many people seem to be under the impression that it’s the government that has forced the kapitalists to commit all these criminal acts through regulations of some sort. This is putting the cart before the horse. It’s absurd, on its face, in the greatest possible extreme.
The government of amerika is becoming privatized. States will soon begin selling off what little infrastructure and few services they still control to private corporations because they can no longer afford the maintenance or administration. Said maintenance and administration will then be sourced to the cheapest possible labor just as has our manufacturing sector.
The Central Bank, in the guise of the Federal Reserve, and the system of usury that passes for our economy has brought us back to the condition that brought about the American Revolution in the first place.
I have posted historically accurate quotes of Jefferson, Jackson, Franklin, Paine et al several times. They fought the formation of a privatized central banking system fang and claw. They warned repeatedly what would transpire if the issuance and control of our currency was given over to private interests.
Nothing short of the abolition of the Fed, the private banking system and the elimination of usury/interest will even begin to restore a viable economy.
Whether we could then move forward with an electronically enhanced central government or resort instead to more localized state-by-state bodies would be a matter for the people to decide.
Hi Aya and CWB,
I think it will all end in some kind of revolution, though not a pretty one and I doubt at this point anything better will emerge quickly. We are very close to violence right now IMO. Usually though, when it comes to that, whatever takes over is even worse than what comes before.
I don't really think it's the Federal Reserve that's the problem. It's the corporate ethic that has taken over not just the U.S. but the world. When banks become such huge corporate entities that they can dictate to government instead of the other way around, things have gotten badly out of control.
I've thought of writing about the Fed and the evolution of banks in the U.S. but the truth is, I'm tired of writing hubs that get hate mail. It's not like anyone is listening to anything I say--I just make a target of myself for no good reason when I write on such topics. I turn myself into some kind of troll magnet and I'm not enjoying it at this point.
Besides, I get the impression no one really cares. People have their biases, which they defend to the death. Never mind history. Never mind facts.
It's often impossible to cut through willful ignorance. So, the wheel keeps turning and crushing all in its path.
PGrundy, you already know my answer to "The Corporate Giant" problem, so I won't repeat it.
But on the issue of property taxes, I do think there's something to be said about the way excessive taxation leads to urbanization and even more of the corporate mentality. If you keep the taxes low, small farmers can afford to use the land. If you make the taxes very high, only industrial uses will be able to offset the tax loss each year. The higher the taxes, the more exploited the land will be, and the more the economy looks like Capitalism! That is: money in the hands of a few. Control in the hands of a few. A pooling of collective resources, with most people working for a giant corporation.
I have observed that the reason people who favor government backed social services also favor high property taxes is because they know that without a very high tax base, those social services aren't possible. Capitalism and social programs are inextricably intertwined.
Going back to a simpler economy means losing the tax base socialism depends on.
Yes, round and round.
Aya, you can't fuse capitalism and socialism into one unit and then blame both of them on people who pay property taxes--not if you expect to be taken seriously. That isn't even rational. You don't live in a city, you don't know what it means to live in a city, especially a rough city like the one I grew up in, yet you construct this blanket judgment of city dwellers and the property taxes they pay to suit your own ideology. No one is forcing you to live in a rust belt city, so why don't you just give it a rest? Your relentless judgment of situations you know nothing about and people you don't understand doesn't win me over to your view of things--in fact I find it obnoxious and unnecessary. But if it makes you feel better then I guess you must continue.
PGrundy, the city is spreading. Soon it will be impossible not to live in a city. My state is forcing my county to raise its taxes to match city taxes, because they are afraid people will flee the cities if it pays to do so.
When I talk about raising taxes on farmland, I'm not talking about a rustbelt -- I'm talking about how the cities spread.
Look, if you must know, I'm probably part of the problem here. I --and many others from outside this area -- arrived here within the last ten years. We thought the property prices were unusually low and the real estate prices were low -- compared to other places. So when we bid on land for sale, we bid too high. This created a temporary rise in property values that made it harder for locals to hold onto their land, because their taxes went up. Now new waves of embattled city people are moving out here and doing it again.
It's more complicated than that. In fact, most people can't sell their land at all and there is no local market. But when a house does finally sell, after being on the market for a very long time, it is bought by an outsider who can afford a higher purchase price. This creates the illusion that property values are going up.
You misunderstand me if you think I'm trying to tell you what to do about taxes in your city. But you were the one who brought up some practices that both of us didn't like.
The matter of how socialism depends on a high population density is dealt with in Liberty & Justice; Why, How & For Whom. Capitalism and socialism both depend on special breaks for people doing things collectively -- they have a long history of symbiosis. You yourself mentioned this in your hub on socialism. At the time you praised the combination of the two. You called it a mixed economy. I don't think there's anything mixed about it.
I have trouble following many of your arguments. I said socialist programs have been a part of our own government and a successful one for some time now, and that some socialist countries, like Sweden, are friendly decent places to live, not totalitarian nightmares.
I look at history and my experience and form opinions. I get the impression that you look at your opinions and try to make history and experience fit them. There's nothing wrong with that I suppose, but I think we take a fundamentally different approach to life. I think I understand you somewhat, and I do respect your right to have whatever opinions and ideals you have. But much of what you say and profess strikes me as impractical and unreal. For example, I've asked you on several occasions to name one society structured in the free market way you favor (not capitalist, free market) and you come up with the U.S. between 1776 and the mid-19th century, a period when the country was being torn apart by the issue of slavery. It all seems imaginary to me, your vision of things.
But certainly it is your right to have that vision.
Hi Ladies - another interesting debate. I have a backlogue of work, so will have to be brief - might just keep me from my usual rambling.
I liked Aya's point about outsiders and houseprices - we took my brother-in-law to see some houses today, as he is thinking of moving over here. There is one subtle difference, though - people moving to an area and living, working and making money are beneficial. The houses that we buy would otherwise fall into ruin!
The other side of the coin is a few miles down the road, on the coast. Foreigners buy holiday homes and use them for only a few weeks of the year. Prices rise and local shops fail, because they do not have all year round custom. A double edged sword.
Still not sure about the free market thing. We have a lot of freedom here, but are more than happy to contribute to social heath and education programs. The US may be different - I have never been there - but the mixture of the two works well here. :)
PGrundy, I've noticed that every time I bring up that period, people mention slavery. I always assumed slavery -- I mean the kidnapping of people and enslaving them and their children and their descendants-- was just some kind of fluke. Are you saying it wasn't a fluke? Are you saying that the freedom white people had was dependent on slavery -- even in the North? Are you saying for instance, that the Ingalls family from the Little House Books (which were set after the Civil War) somehow benefited from slavery?
There was another kind of slavery -- the indentured servitude that people entered consensually -- that I'm not opposed to, and that I think maybe would be a good substitute for the college loan. I think apprenticeships are okay -- again, if entered into consensually.
I've been accused of not living in reality before, but I never understand the nature of the accusation. How could I help living in reality? Where else could I find refuge?
You've never lived in Sweden, have you?
I've lived some in Israel and some in Taiwan. In both places I had free health care. It's pleasant enough, if you just have a cold. But if you're really sick and in need of serious help, then you always shell out for the private stuff.
Most of my experiences with socialism occurred in the U.S. Just like yours. We live in the same country. We draw on the same experiences.
Umm, Israel does not surprise me a tiny bit, it's pretty much a small version of USSR, but Taiwan definitely does. Are you implying Aya that government healthcare is corrupt in all countries? You mentioned Sweden, too...
Sufi, how about healthcare corruption both in UK and Greece, are they there? In other words, is it habitual to tip doctors and medical stuff so they treat you better?
No arguing, I just want to know :)
Aya Katz.
Historically capitalism and slavery go hand in glove. The concept of other "races", of which there are actually none, being “sub-human” or “inferior” was contrived and promoted by early capitalism in order to justify human enslavement. Slavery was certainly anything but a "fluke".
"The first clear evidence of racism occurred at the end of the 16th century with the start of the slave trade from Africa to Britain and to America." "Racism is a product of capitalism. It grew out of early capitalism's use of slaves for the plantations of the New World, it was consolidated in order to justify western and white domination of the rest of the world and it flourishes today as a means of dividing the working class between white and Muslim or black, and native and immigrants or asylum seekers."
http://libcom.org/history/800bc-today-a-very-brief
From an old hub "The Family Tree Revisited".
CWB, I think you are giving capitalism too much credit here, Slavery was a norm long before anybody even heard of the word capital :)
If anything, slavery subsided under capitalism...
Misha, please read what I posted more carefully before you jump in with both feet.
I do not credit capitalism with the "creation" of slavery. Capitalism pushed the concept of racism in order to justify slavery.
Read the quotes. It's recorded history, not my opinion. My point is simply that slavery played a very significant role in the growth and ultimate dominance of capitalism, it still does, and by no stretch of the imagination can be considered a "fluke".
Here's a little more for your edification.
Slavery
"However, historical references indicate that class society before capitalism was able, on the whole, to do without this particular form of oppression (racism). Bad as the society of classical Greece and Rome were it is historically reasonably well documented that the ancient Greeks and Romans knew nothing about race. Slaves were both black and white and in fact the majority of slaves were white.”
Let's not mix slavery and racism, those things are different :)
Also, you restrict your "research" only to America, where black slavery was a norm - but Europe being capitalist land did not have it...
Me? I thought it was you :)
I am just uneducated plantation owner, you know, and can't stand you revealing my crimes to the world :D
If seriously, you missed my point - I was paying your attention to the absence of BLACK (or otherwise racial) slavery in capitalist Europe. If you want to generalize, you better get your facts straight. :)
Firefox really messed up the post above. I hope pgrundy will delete it.
Misha.
You’re absolutely incorrect on every point.
Modern racism is a direct counterpart of slavery. The false concept and junk science of racism was a specific development of early capitalism used to justify the slave trade.
Contemporary racism, slavery and capitalism are absolutely historically inseparable.
As far as Europe is concerned, I think you might want to reconsider your statement. Slavery had existed in Europe from Classical times and did not disappear with the collapse of the Roman Empire. Slaves remained common in Europe throughout the early medieval period. http://www.brycchancarey.com/slavery/chrono2.htm
Why is it that you seem so anxious to be argumentative?
You imply criticism of my "research" when in fact you have no idea to what lengths I go to confirm what I post before I post it. I do not base what I write on what I think I know from my experience but rather devote a great deal of time and effort looking for FACTS to support what I say. I do NOT generalize but make great efforts at being very specific.
Please be courteous enough to do the same before gratuitously attempting to refute my attempt to be informative.
We just have to wait and see what happens. But that is greed in its purest form!
And I'm just an uneducated, high school dropout, blue collar laborer Misha. What's your point, other than to be contentious?
thanx for sharing this information....i think city bank is the most affected among all this what you say?
Hi Misha and Aya
Will try to condense two points into one - Four countries in which I have lived:
Sweden - excellent healthcare system with absolutely no corruption.
UK - Very good healthcare system with no corruption. My mother is ill and the family would be bankrupt without universal healthcare.
Ireland - Very good healthcare system, no corruption.
Greece - Good healthcare system. In some areas, there is still general corruption - I could imagine that healthcare is not exempt from that.
"PGrundy, I've noticed that every time I bring up that period, people mention slavery. I always assumed slavery -- I mean the kidnapping of people and enslaving them and their children and their descendants-- was just some kind of fluke. Are you saying it wasn't a fluke? Are you saying that the freedom white people had was dependent on slavery -- even in the North?"
Yes. The cotton and tobacco plantations in the South could not have succeeded without the cheap labor provided by slaves. In the North the first factories ran on cheap labor provided by immigrants who were treated like subhuman chattel by many, many factory owners. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Read the history of labor unions in the U.S.
Little House on the Prairie is a TV show. It's not a realistic historical depiction of the westward expansion. Read Elizabeth Warren's work on the history of consumer debt--Many of those people were fleeing debts they could never pay. While you are reading, read what happened the the Indians in the course of that westward expansion so white people could have a piece of land.
Capitalism and free markets are entertwined. Teasing them apart as a central tenet of an argument is specious. Calling slavery 'a fluke' is just incredible. There's a good reason people always bring up slavery to you in this context. If you read even one or two good histories of the U.S. you won't make that claim again without shame.
Also, when I say your ideas seem like fantasy to me or that they seem imaginary, I mean that you do not give examples that adequately support them. You have not been able to produce even one society that operates under the system you espouse. Again "Little House on the Prairie" is a fantasy TV show, it's not a historical example. Choosing the pre-Civil war period in the U.S. is an atrocious example, especially if you label that pesky slavery part of it "a fluke."
When you wrote about the corporate entity you put up a piece of fiction instead of a thoughtful essay. It's nice that you wrote fiction and shared it--that's impressive--but if you want to persuade people to a point of view you must make reasoned arguments with good historical facts to back them up, and this I have not seen you do. We all pick and choose our facts to some degree, but the matter of degree is very important. For instance, I will naturally lean towards historians who interpret events in ways that make sense to me and be less enamored of ones who interpret them in ways I think are wrong. That's picking and choosing at a much, much milder level than saying, "oh that slavery thing--that's a fluke, pay no attention to that--let's talk 70s TV shows instead."
LOL You got a spammer Pam :)
BTW, I forgot to mention your hub stayed at 100 score for quite some time lest night. :)
Sufi, thanks for clarification. :)
Richard, I hope you feel better today :)
As for the topic - Pam, Aya can't give you an example of the country that runs (or ran) pure free markets, because nobody even attempted it. The closest attempt was 19th century USA - see Tom Mullen. Yet plenty of countries attempted pure socialism - with devastating results.
I am still on the fence about northern Europe, and waiting to see how they weather this crisis, but recent Iceland crash does not promote much optimism. If they follow the suit, it will prove to me with some degree of certainty that capitalism per se is not the cause of it...
PGrundy, just a short clarification. Little House on the Prairie is not just a TV show and it is not a fantasy. Laura Ingalls Wilder was a real woman. She finished off her days in Missouri, and I have been to her historical home. The books she wrote were based on true experiences of her pioneer family. The conditions were harsh, and she describes them in great detail.
Have you ever read the Little House books? Have you ever read anything by Rose Wilder Lane, her daughter?
Misha, about Taiwan's health care system: I was a guest worker there, and I am not trying to badmouth it. They offered me a job and benefits and all sorts of things that I very much needed at the time and could not get in the U.S.
The clinics in Taiwan look like little storefronts, and they dispense medicine in the same places as you see the doctor. That's very convenient. My daughter, who was an infant then, was issued a little booklet for her vaccines and checkups. The average visit cost me about $3.00 US, which is practically nothing. However, every once in a while the doctor would tell me: "The government will pay for the cheaper version of this vaccine your child needs. The safer version is more expensive. It's up to you."
When a doctor tells you something like that, of course you end up shelling out real money for the one that is safer. What parent wouldn't? So when all the dust settles, it's not really free. Only unimportant things are free -- like getting your child weighed, which you could do at home.
I'm not saying that Taiwan owed me free health care. They didn't. I was grateful for what I got. But I definitely don't think the free stuff can be relied on if anything real is at stake.
LOL! Misha that guy spammed a couple of these hubs. There must be some kinda program that'll spam tons of 'em all at once.
Aya, of course I've heard of Laura Ingalls Wilder. You are missing the point entirely, but that's OK. I really don't want to debate this with you anymore and I won't. You are always welcome to post anything you like here, but you can be fairly certain I won't agree with much of it. I'm glad you have found a lifestyle and a philosophy that suits you and I wish you nothing but good things. It isn't important that we reach any kind of agreement and good thing too, because we never will. Rather than beat it into the ground I'm bowing out. Thanks for stopping by. :0)
PGrundy, you recommended that I read Upton Sinclair's novel "The Jungle". That is fiction. Then you say that anything even remotely resembling fiction shouldn't be brought up in a logical debate of the issues. You want historical grounding and facts. So I mention a series of books based on the author's life. You call it a fantasy TV show. When I point out that it was a series of books based on historical facts, you say that you knew that all along, and that wasn't the point. Well, what was the point? That we should read novels written by Socialists and not those written by Libertarians?
I'm dense. I understand you to say that I missed what you were getting at. Please clarify.
No, I'm tired of it. The "slavery is a fluke" thing put me over the edge. Think whatever you want about me. I really don't care.
PGrundy, it's good to learn what people are thinking. I had no idea that many people think that we could not have had freedom here if not for slavery. It's not what I believe, but it helps me to understand the viewpoints of others. I always keep an eye out for anything you publish, because I know that you speak for a lot of people.
About Native Americans, you ought to know by now how I feel about the taking of their land. They lived the lifestyle that I would like to emulate. In order to do so, they needed a large range of open land not claimed by anyone else. Their lifestyle and the urban lifestyle are not compatible, and the expansion of densely populated areas is what destroys native habitats everywhere.
Chimpanzees are facing a similar threat today.
I will tell you quite honestly that although I took you quite seriously at first, your arguments are so slippery and you so deliberately sidestep all the major issues that relate to your purported political views, that lately I find myself suspecting you of being a creation of someone who just likes to pull people's legs online.
Perhaps you really do live in the wilds of Arkansas with a chimpanzee and a child and love Laura Ingalls Wilder books. But I really am getting to the point where I don't enjoy discussing politics with you anymore. I wish you well but, again, stick a fork in me, I'm done.
what did I miss? LOL
I liked this hub!!!! Don't trip potato chip- PGrundy...YOUR HUB WAS GOOD!!!
I see things are worse down the road when alt a and option arms kick in.
jjrobio--I like that, "don't trip potato chip!" I'm gonna remember that one and post it on my mirror or something. :)
hi bgamall--Yeah, I don't see it getting easier anytime soon. It would be nice to be proven wrong though.
The US Financial crisis is a complete disaster, and while you would hope that those in charge would be more sensible than printing out money left right and centre they actually did it anyway, god knows what goes through their minds.
pgrundy you did so much work and produced a really useful and informative hub again. CWB pgrundy myself and many others have been on this subject for a while now yet I think it is all worthwhile. People are reading, (especially this hub) and we must try to get it all said. You have got tons of guts and can write really well, so I appreciate all your hubs.
By the way the daily reckoning, a little online financial paper has had it right for some time. Maybe they read your hubs?
thanks earnest!
thisissoil, thank you also. :)
PGrundy, I think that a big part of the "slipperiness" that you attribute to my viewpoints is based on the fact that I don't fit into your pre-conceived categories of liberal and conservative. I care about the environment. That in your book ought to make me liberal. I care about free enterprise. That in your book ought to make me conservative. I want to reform the corporate entity. This confuses you, because people who are pro-business shouldn't care about a fair playing field. Well, here's where you are wrong. Free enterprise depends on fairness. Without it, it can't work.
You are a feminist and I am not. But you have a mate who supports you, and I have no mate. This is confusing. I understand. You like strong women who come from working class backgrounds. Well, Laura Ingalls Wilder was such a woman. She was no Dagny Taggart, she was not a glamorous businesswoman, but she faced real hardship with courage and determination.
I do live alone with a child, a chimp, two dogs, and a parrot. My lifestyle is currently being threatened not only by increases in property taxes, the de-valuation of my retirement dollars, but also by new Federal laws in the works concerning primates. I have no natural allies in any of these struggles.
My position on most issues is classical libertarian. It wouldn't seem slippery to you, if you considered that point of view as a possibility. It is internally consistent and has fewer contradictions than any other view I am familiar with.
Thanks for the article. I wish there was more mention of the banks which did not take the tarp money. Also, is anyone aware of the news that Washington Mutual is suing the FDIC for many things but the bottom line is illegal seizure. Why is there no mention of this on the news? Anyone?
As far as bonus's go...I do have to say I am a firm believer in keeping regulations out of business as much as possible. Do I think these exec's deserved bonuses? Not sure it's my call or the governements. Personally these are contractual obligations these companies have to fulfill if they don't want to achieve massive losses within the hierachy of their organizations. I am sure many execs who had to "give their money back" are handing in the resignations.
I personally don't think tarp money should have been issued, banks and other mismanaged organizations should have to fail or succeed as they will (just as my business will or will not). Just my opinion though...to allow the free market and private sector to bounce back on it's own. It would if it wasn't meddled with to the nth degree!
Dagny, thanks for pointing out the illegal seizure issue. It's true, no one has covered that.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z
Interesting stuff though the media is keeping fairly quiet about the whole thing.
We had a VERY modest 401K, miniscule really, that's gone. We also have a home that's ours, free and clear that we bought in a private deal, contract for deed. The seller charged us 10% interest at a time when mortgages and loans were going for 15-18%. We had a fixed house payment of $232/mo for 18 years and paid the puppy off last May. Our house was an extreme fixer upper, but we made it work for us. It's not lavish in any way but it keeps the weather off.
Maybe you can try for a contract for deed with the same stipulation that was in ours. Miss 2 payments and the house reverts back to you. Our deal also made the taxes and insurance payments out of the amount we paid, (escrow account) so the original home owner paid nothing as long as we kept up our end of the deal. It worked well for all involved.
I'm thinking about hunting up my mom's canning recipe's and investing in Mason jars and lids for the next few years. I'd think any investment in DIY tpye supplies would be a good one since a lot of us who have vestiges of that knowlege running around from our childhoods are doing our best to dredge it back up and dust it off.
Hi Silver Freak,
Sounds like you found a good solution. Paying off a house is really the only good option in the long run. Even then, it can be taken away if you don't pay your property taxes, so in a sense you never really own the thing, but if it at least is not mortgaged that sure helps. :)
Last summer I canned peaches, applesauce, jam, and it went so well I plan to do a lot more of it this year. Not sure I saved all that much over canned food from the store, but it tastes so much better there is no comparison. Plus, I know exactly what's in every jar. Once our apple trees start producing more the canning will definitely pay off.
PGrundy: "In a sense you never really own a thing." How true! This is part of what bothers me. Once you pay for something fully, it ought to be yours. We shouldn't have to keep paying over and over again to hold onto what is already ours. Why? Because it's a way to enslave us. Property taxes ensure that people have to go out and work for other people. But work, in a free society, should be voluntary.
Wow this is a really interesting discussion. I have to take a few hours to read through all the comments and maybe learn something new.
Nathan
Economic crysis in united states have effect to the world. I think it cause from banking and finance crysis.
Hello Amanda,
Thanks for breaking it down. I watched a video recently called the Obama Deception and it's basically saying that the president is really a puppet. That the whole economic crisis was cause and controlled by an overarching group of wall street people. They want to start an international world bank. Scary stuff...
Amanda Severn says:
8 months ago
"Maybe they know something we don't."
I'm begininning to wonder Pam, whether this might just be so, as we have had a few similar tales emerge this side of the Atlantic. Are we to believe that our respective governments have a total disregard for the voters who are financing this, or worse, that the guys in charge are so woefully inept that they don't know how to ensure the crooks' fingers are kept out of the national till?
Assuming that world government has thrown up their collective hands and rolled over, which is how it appears, then we need to know why.