Saturday, October 22, 2011

WAILING OR WHINING ON WALL STREET??

So, how are you feeling about the "Wall Street Occupiers"??   A little torn, or ambiguous?  It's probably the biggest news out there right now, and perhaps the one with the most potential for important consequences----but nobody seems to know whether to cheer them  on, or wish they'd go away. In fact, it seems un-American to say anything negative about a group of people who are coming up against the behemoth giant of our capitalistic society----like David and Goliath of the Bible. Who doesn't want to root for the little guys, and who doesn't still have a bad taste in their mouth over the behavior of some of Wall Street's finest institutions?  In our hour of desperation, they continued to dole out obscene amounts of money in the form of bonuses, as if we who had bailed them out in their hour of need, wouldn't notice.  And weren't they partly responsible for the current economic meltdown, in the first place?? Yes, some, not all, were complicit and guilty as sin for agreeing to the mandates of the federal govt., namely Fannie and Freddy to supply homes for people who could not afford them, then bundling those unreliable loans, and selling them off to unsuspecting clients. The house of cards came tumbling down when those mortgages could not be met by people who could not afford them in the first place. A well intentioned idea---or a way to line the pockets of those involved in the transactions??

But don't forget the word, complicit---which implies a partnership in wrongdoing or a crime.  A major wrongdoing and huge reason for our economic problems is due to the housing collapse, and was instigated by the government mortgage institutions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at that time led by Chris Dodd and Bernie Frank, who insisted, in a moment of excessive left wing entitlement ideology, in which almost everyone deserved to own a home, and mandated it so to the banks.  Ironically, these two gentlemen were the same designers of the new regulatory reforms now crippling many of the financial institutions with their over reaching rules and infringement against a free market flow. The housing collapse and ensuing failure of the banks and auto industry was a crime against all of us, the tax payers who would eventually have to pay for all the wrongdoing, in the form of a stimulation that failed as well.  The sin of greed was certainly committed---but not only by some Wall Street folks, but by those involved in the faulty loans.  Interesting that Fannie and Freddie, who also were bailed out by the tax payers, were never slapped with regulatory reforms----and to this day continue operating without much change.

So, let's be clear here.  Wall Street financial institutions, or huge corps. are not angels, they are in business to make a profit--- they are greedy sometimes, even law breakers sometimes, but they are not all devils, nor the ones who concocted our poisonous brew of economic woes.  To be sure, it's no secret , or shouldn't be that Wall Street and the United States government work together all the time via special interest groups, unions, etc., and the financing of all manner of programs. They have a love/hate relationship at times----- they need each other, and they know it. Big government needs big money, and the corporations, love them or hate them, generate that money.  The Democrats, and especially this administration are fond of  referring to them as  enemies of the people, the "fat cats", when in fact many within the Wall Street businesses supported Obama's candidacy and continue to do so, though their numbers are fading as they see their world crumbling around them. According to N.Y.'s comptrolling office, 20,000. Wall Street jobs have been lost and another 10,000 layoffs are expected by the end of this year.

It would seem an odd thing, even a dangerous thing for the president of the United States to take sides and align himself and his party against Wall Street and encourage the demonstrators---but that is what Obama appears to be doing. For a man who promised to be a president for all of us, to rally against devision, he is looking less and less credible, and more and more the common politician.bent on morphing himself into whatever will garner the most votes in 2012 .  How disappointing.  And how refreshing it would be for him to, instead of cheering on the Wall Street people, many of whom are misinformed, to tell it like it is---that the blame for our financial difficulties are not to be pinned on any one culprit. The government and those who ran it prior to President Obama, and now he and the mis-management of both parties, were partly to blame and continue to bear that burden of overspending and not being vigilant enough to see the wave of crushing debt coming towards us, or courageous enough to stop it.  Even all of us are to be held partially to blame for living beyond our means. Our economic house was a bubble bound to burst, but there were many factors leading up to it, not just one.

 Like so many mobs, the mentality gets focused and warped by a sort of group-think---without logic or the desire to look at the whole picture. In this case, it seems a good excuse to go after the popular demon of the left wing, big business----or sometimes just an invitation to party at a park. Burn the evil witch of  corporations, or at least make them the scapegoat----but then what?  Will that create more jobs?  Will it make us all well again?  No, but it could be another step towards the dismantlement of  capitalism.  But what will take its place?? Is this another "Arab Spring", American style? If so, perhaps it should be called, as someone suggested,  "The American Fall"---at least, as we have known her to be. Keep a leery, careful eye on those who scream for "justice" ----is their target a just one, and what do they offer as a better solution?

The state of our union is in deep trouble.  The people are angry and scared, and have a right to be.  They also have a right to object, to try to change things, even to demonstrate against that which they feel are counter to their way of thinking. Large groups of activists can often shine a spotlight on areas needing attention.  But unruly mobs in general, are not the best way to effect good change. They are emotionally charged,  fueled by artificial numbers, sometimes populated by those who do not necessarily have any agenda, save being against whatever.  If we are to change the direction of this country, we must do it in an orderly, wise fashion, as we always have--- or leave ourselves vulnerable to the whims of a noisy few, not the majority, otherwise known as anarchy.

 Some have likened the Wall Street Occupiers to the Tea Party  folks.  There are stark dissimilarities, but they are alike, in that they are both grass roots movements and are exercising a very American right to free speech---but there is one very huge difference. The Tea Party target is big government.  The Wall Street group's target is big business.  Pick your poison.  Big business will always have a few bad apples, but they can be routed out, and they are the cornerstone of our financial system.  Big government can get so big that even the bad apples get to stay in way beyond their welcome, and they live off of the financial success of business and those who work in the private sector.

 Memo to the Wall Street Occupiers----careful what you ask for, and that you are not being exploited.  The same people who uphold you now, could also ridicule and possibly shut you down, if your agenda doesn't fit theirs.  Accountability regulations are already in place, perhaps to the extreme.  Less profit and fewer bonuses? Those may be opinions, but not  the peoples' right to govern such things in a free market.  Ah, but wait--- higher taxes would  seem to be a way to soothe the disparities between those who enjoy the haves and the have- nots.  Life just isn't fair, and class warfare is so tempting--- and for some, so much easier to whine, than to work.   It has stirred many a revolution, but--- in reality, our corporations already pay a much higher tax rate, at 35%, second highest in the world.  And the top 1% of top wage earners in this country pay 38% of all federal taxes, while the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 3% of all federal taxes, and 49% of our population pay no federal taxes at all..  That sounds pretty progressive already. How much is enough,  and why should we punish those who are successful? Don't we all want to be successful?   One young man at the Wall Street gathering said he thought he was entitled to free education health benefits, and even free housing and a car if possible---he knew that probably wasn't going to happen, but he said he could ask for it anyway.  Entitlement gone awry?  Success at the expense of others' hard work?  Here's the fear---that young man may get what he wants, or close to it---a short cut to "success", or at least a free distribution of the perks, but at whose expense, and at what detriment to our democratic soul?  In  the meantime, however, we are losing more and more of our businesses to other countries  with fewer stringent laws and harsh regulations. Business thrives on profit, and a free  country thrives on hard work and a people willing to pull themselves through the hard times, without dragging everyone down to a common denominator.

 Occupy and shame the bogey men of Wall Street, many of whom are hard working employees?  Take over public parks and make the public pay for the mess left behind?  Exercise our right to voice our opinions, even in a disorderly way that prompts police/tax paid action?  You bet'cha----this is America!!  And that's just the way we roll.  Love it, or leave it---just don't kill the golden goose that lays the golden eggs, that fuels the whole engine called-----  capitalism..  Listen to it roar---or is it whimpering the last sighs of a system beseiged by too many who would burn it down, rather than find a way to rebuild it?




        .          
        

17 comments:

  1. Very well written piece! However your tax
    information is misleading. No corporation actually pays 35%--rather somewhere between 17% and zero. If your figures about the amount paid by ordinary folk are accurate they only demonstrate the accelerating disparity between the have-nots and the haves. The have-nots pay less because they don't have enough money! Wages are too low and sinking more all the time while income at the top continues to grow exponentially. If they in fact contribute 38%, that only demonstrates what a huge bulge in their pocketbooks they have. It is not the stasis that people are demonstrating against, but the trend which continues at an ever faster pace to eat away at the middle class. Look ahead, Kellee! Where is this leading us? Do we already bend under the oppression of a plutocracy? Is it already too late to return to representative government of the people? "Occupy Wall Street" may at least help voters think twice before taking expensive ad programs at face value and stop voting against their own self interest. With more money in their pockets, wage earners may once again be able to afford pianos and such minor luxuries to the benefit of the entire economy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Afford pianos" sounds good to me, but people didn't stop buying them and other luxury items until the recession, which was caused by many other factors than the rich vs. the poor---mainly loss of millions of jobs, housing crises, and stagnant economy. You seem to be laying all that's wrong at the feet of the rich-an incorrect an misleading assumption. If there is too large a disparity of income between the rich and middle class and the poor, and there probably is, it's because of all of the above---the rich didn't cause it, they are just able to insulate themselves better from it. Not fair? Is it fair to punish them, make them pay for that which is not their fault? What would you suggest? A forced market price, or a mandatory minimum salary raise across the board, regardless of skill levels?? I'm serious---what would you propose to level the playing field?? I do agree, as I think many of us do, that loopholes need to be looked into---but some are there for justifiable reasons---to encourage more investments, spending, expanding etc. "The bulge in the pocket" you refer to should not be thought of as something wrong or distasteful---they earned it, and the income tax system is designed to accomodate all different levels---not perfect or always fair---but neither is taking more from Peter to pay Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wages must go up substantially. In the past unions agitated and got better wages and benefits for not only their members but set the standards for non-members as well, but they've dwindled to a mere 8% (from over 30%)of the working force. Now no one can live on a single income and even with two working it's hard to make ends meet. Yes, higher wages would cut into the incredibly high compensation at the top (over 300 to 1), but that's the only just way to address income disparity. The so called "right to work" (Taft/Hartly) legislation must be repealed, and collective bargaining reinstated as the tradition of this capitalistic democracy. Don't bother bringing up the labor scandles since the business scandles have been just as egregious. Research labor's history and the impact it had on our economy. Do we really want to sink to a pre-union standard of living? Yes, lets make it possible for working people to afford small luxuries again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kellee:
    Nice article.
    Who are the “fat cats” complained about by those “occupying wall street”? It seems the first thing to de-humanize someone is to call him/her a name, then bash them as sub or non human. What seems missing in the illogic of those protesting is, fortunately, or not, most of the “fat cats” of wall Street are us; we being the owners of most corporations. We owner of corporations are ordinary people who have invested in shares of stock of most public corporations. We are retirees who are vested in pension funds that, in turn, have huge interests in investment portfolios of, guess what, corporations. We are union members who have paid into our pension plans individually as have our employers and those plans have, in turn invested in portfolios of, guess what, corporations. In fact, many unions have a majority of the stock, which, in fact, gives them controlling interest in those corporations they publically are so prone to bash. We are charitable institutions like hospitals, cancer centers, children’s acute care facilities whose donors have endowed us with their hard earned money in trust. These funds we invest in those same corporations, relying on earnings to carry on our purposes. We who are, in aggregate, owners of these public corporations expect our companies to hire the most talented people available to manage our corporate interest. Yes, we pay these talented people high salaries but, in fact so do sports franchises, like baseball, basketball, football and hockey or coaches of these teams who are well paid for their talents?
    While they are charged with using their talent to win games, our managers are charged by us owners for efficiently running our corporations making us a return on our investment that increases the value of our interest (shares) and/or returns dividends which, in turn, fund our retirement or other purposes.
    This author is not the originator of the phrase “Corporations do not pay taxes . . . people pay taxes”. It is a truism. Corporate profits can be retained for future use, reinvested in research and development, confiscated by taxes, and/or paid out in dividends. We investors demand a return on our investment and our board of directors and management are charged with that responsibility. It follows that since all activities of a corporation are funded by sales, funds confiscated by taxes on corporate income are simply added to the prices for the goods or services produced by the corporations. All other expenditures remain the same including ROI (Return on Investment).
    It makes little sense, therefore, to tax corporations since all their costs are simply passed on. Corporate profits are, of course, taxed as income to the recipient.
    At this point, I have yet to hear any indication that those protesting whatever it is they’re protesting have any understanding either of history or business. I know our president, most distrusting of business, seems to be doing everything possible to cripple this most important segment of our economy and with his negative attitude toward this segment, it would seem only natural he would support these protestors.

    Jerry

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jerry, I think the dynamic protested by the "Occupiers" is the accelerating disparity between the income of 98% of us (including yourself?) and the 2% who are increasingly scarfing up for themselves wealth that could be paid out in American wages. Yes, we are complicit in the injustice, but they are actually in charge. You may be surprised at how well these protesters are informed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are naive in your assumption that somehow we are all complicit in the evil workings of corporations, big business, the free market place. Your solution that the unions hold the magic wand of fairness is shot with holes---artificial increases in wages, based not on merit, but force fed to employers, ends up with employers hiring fewer employees, or increasing the cost of products to cover the expense of higher wages, the superior skilled workers crossing over to private jobs where they are appreciated and can advance without being crowded out by union employees insisting on their "rights"---all of which ultimately hurts the consumer and the economy. Business is not just BIG business and corporations, they are all sizes and all are dwindling rapidly under the weight of this poor economy---higher taxes, coupled with higher wages will further speed their demise. The unions, while originally a noble cause, have become an autocracy within themselves--making demands for wages and pensions beyond reasonability, and collecting money, almost like the mafia in their insistence that everyone must be union member. Much of the money collected by the unions is then funneled through the govt., to support their special interests, once again torque-ing the system in favor of the left wing idealogues, who seem hell bent on destroying what's left of the American dream---work hard and get some place? Not so much, anymore---blame the fat cats, join the union, and the mobs who scream for jobs, more benefits, more, more, more---until there is no more. Businesses, those who can, will retreat and/or move to wherever there is protection against extreme regulation and over reaching unions. Income disparity? Yes, but the gap is not necessarily due to the villianized, wicked people at the top and cannot be solved by artificially stimulating higher wages. Like it or not, when the market place becomes healthy again, jobs will happen, and wages will go up, because there will once again be demand for product, which then allow for more prosperity for everyone. Don't like it? It's called capitalism, and nothing else has ever worked as well. That's a fact. Love it or leave it---improve it, keep it as fair and honest as possible, but don't choke it to death with the yoke of an idealism and unrealistic expectations that promote class warfare and ultimately gives power not to the people, but to those weilding the stick of group co-operation and to a mediocre system of entitlement without merit---European style, which is collapsing before our eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fair wages, paid holidays, the 40 hour week, paid vacations, child labor laws: All were initiated by unions. Were there bad apples? Of course! Was most of the bad press contrived? Of course! There will be demand when people have discretionary income again, and capitalism will work as you say.

    The other fly in the ointment is globalization. Why are we content to buy products from countries where the prices are artificially depressed by what amounts to slave labor, child labor and environmental desecration? And these are the places where multi-national corporations outsource jobs that once were done by Americans.

    Meanwhile, the income of the top one or two percent has more than doubled since 1979 and rising every year, while yours and mine has been stagnant and worse. Why is this good enough for the 98%? At least "Occupy Wall Street" is raising the question.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re outsourcing---aren't we doing the same thing when we keep allowing immigrants in to do labor that Americans could do, given they were paid a fair wage----globalization right here?? And yes, the Unions may have done some very good things, but much of the upgrading of employees wages and other benefits were also due to a robust economy which in turn could afford better things for everybody. Unions, like everything else, need to be brought back into balance. When times are bad, they need to step down a little--or be forced to, as in Wisc. and other states.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Doing some research, If those occupying Wall Street are doing so to protest 2% of Americans (4.5 million of us), accusing them/us of somehow performing some obscene act like earning or retaining wealth, the protest seems to go beyond what society deems an individual’s prerogative. it seems there are disparities among the protestors making categorizing difficulty and, I suspect, the same apply to the hypothetical 2%. I have to wonder, is it the income that bothers some protestors, the accumulated wealth or both? Or, is it the perception of simply hoarding when the wealth could be used to hire employees. Among the eleven hundred or so billionaires in the world, roughly 30% are residents of the United States. A cursory study of them reveals that most of these do, in fact, hire millions of people. I.e. Microsoft 90 thousand, Walmart 1.9 Million etc., etc..
    Of the wealthy (billionaires) from the United States, the vast majority would have to be considered “new rich”, meaning they have acquired their wealth “the old fashioned way”, they have earned it, and many within the last 40 years, because they had the freedom ( and infrastructure) to do so. The statements from the protesters interviewed in the media (paraphrased) are “They (the fat cats (billionaires)) are not entitled to their wealth because they used the infrastructure belonging to the people and therefore so does their wealth and they should be used more fairly (in their judgment) like to hire people . Taking their own statements, again to paraphrase, “society (they) have the right to dictate matters of wealth rather than those who acquired it ”. This concept strikes at the very heart of an ideological framework. Isn’t this ideology really the root issue of their protest.

    Jerry

    ReplyDelete
  10. The two previous posts indicate the problems are more complex than anyone can put into slogans
    . But the process of correcting the present course can still be accomplished with the political will to do it. It is unfair to expect corporations or the very rich to regulate themselves. That's the government's job. This isn't a matter of some people being morally deficient. It's a matter of doling out society's tasks to the proper institutions. Occupy Wall Street isn't populated by articulate economists, but they still must be taken seriously. Extreme income disparity in a country is a disaster. They are right about that. They also sense that it's getting worse faster every day we continue to allow it. Now, let's hear some practical suggestions from the right.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr. Charles Brack, a neuropsychologist graphically presents the correlation between lobel hemispherical dominance of our brain and political bent. Each side processes information differently. One side is focused on the level of ideas and vision, the other analytical and sequential.
    Just as we need both sides of our brain working together in our everyday lives to give us balance, we need each other’s political views to give us national balance. We cannot afford the commissurotomy our leaders have inflicted, it is tearing us apart.

    While I would not presume to speak for the right, there are lots of suggestions on both sides. But, I think there should be three immediate goals. Of course, we need full employment. We also need work and pay for the current unemployed. And,we must re-connect our brains. Each is oversimplified here for brevity.

    One idea is to eliminate all corporate income tax but place a heavy tax on excess retained earnings and those earnings leaving the country. Almost immediately, private investment would substantially expand, growing our economy and thus increase employment. Prices would fall precipitiously and unneeded capital would return to (and be taxed at) the personal level and subsequently recycled into new investments. It would take just one business cycle (one year) for the change to have an impact.

    In the interim, public sector infrastructure jobs, should be fast-tracked (eliminating the procedural requirements that can take up to two years to place a single yard of concrete); funded by the government both as to material and wages to the benefit of those currently unemployed (including medical premiums). Those opting training instead should be similarly compensated.

    The third goal can only realistically be achieved by the personal initiative. A good start would be for each of us to change our reading and listening habbits for at least six months, exposing ourselves to the ideas of what heretofore we considered “the other side” of the political spectrum. Examples include engaging those who are protesting with the idea of listening and not arguing. Another, read three books authored by leaders of “the other side”, another, tune in and listen to talk radio stations hosted by those we love to hate. Still, another, subscribe to the email of those with whom we do not agree.

    Another idea, respecting the mortgage dabacle is the recognition that housing values probably never will return to their former value and thereby allow the loans to be re-cast to the existing owners for an amount equal to the appraised value minus the principal payments applied to their existing loan with the current interest rate prevailing. A great deal for most home buyers, a great deal for the banks . The rules mandated by the Federal Government that make a home loan, even to a credit worthy buyer, nearly impossible would have to be suspended. Banks are willing, the government is not.

    In the six months since March 2011, the house has passed nearly twenty bills related to jobs, some more; some less. These bills had bi-partisan support in the house but are now stalled in the senate, not even allowed to come to a vote. Many on the left found these bills both practical and worthy of their vote. If memory serves, there are more but these will do for now. For a wide assortment of other suggestions made by the right, one has only to look at “Save America” by Newt Gingrich, “An American Life” by Ronald Reagan and for balance I would include “Stupid White Men” by Michael Moore. The left side of our brains really have a lot to offer. Now lets see, do the political left operate from the right side or left ... Hmmm...

    Jerry

    ReplyDelete
  12. Exceptional post, Jerry! It seems you're sincerely trying to be constructive. In addition to reading/listening to two opposite extremes, I would suggest some study of serious contributions by thinkers who can't be so categorized (more on the lines of your own words), who can use both sides of the brain simultaneously or alternately. Read about the Founders, especially Benjamin Franklin (biography by Edmund Morgan), several of whom had this gift and a sincere wish for the common good.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't see Dr. Charles Brack at Amazon.com. If he's written no books, where did you get the reference?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kellee, tell us what you think of Obama's jobs bill?

    ReplyDelete
  15. From what I understand, this was a bill that was never expected to pass---put out there just as a political manuever, and to make the Republicans look bad for not passing it whole. The house in the meantime has had the same luck with the Senate, having passed 20 some jobs bills, only to have them stonewalled at the Senate gate. This congress is hopeless---maybe the "super committee" will come up with something, but I'm not holding my breath. Even Bernanke offered very little hope yesterday---meanwhile, people continue to suffer. A man we both know used to say, "Enjoy the good times, but don't complain too much about the bad times---they always come back around and more the norm than the good times." I presume you know who I'm referring to, is this is you, Roger. Kellee

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've tried, but I can't understand the comment above. Please re-word. --Roger

    ReplyDelete