Remind Me Again- Why in the Fuck Do We Need Wall St.?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

What exactly do they produce other than grinding poverty and taxpayer bailouts?

Any of these Wall St. hooligans actually know how to change their oil or mop the floor with anything other than their gravy spills?

People do everything.

Wall St. is a predatory entity. It should be completely eliminated. The sooner the better.

[PassingFair]

1. 'Cause some people can't afford Vegas or Atlantic City?

It's definitely a racket.

[blindpig]

67. Europeans rediscover Marx.

clipped from: www.guardian.co.uk
Karl Marx is back. That, at least, is the verdict of publishers and bookshops in Germany who say that his works are flying off the shelves.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rise in his popularity has of course, been put down to the current economic crisis. "Marx is in fashion again," said Jörn Schütrumpf, manager of the Berlin publishing house Karl- Dietz which publishes the works of Marx and Engels in German. "We're seeing a very distinct increase in demand for his books, a demand which we expect to rise even more steeply before the year's end."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most popular is the first volume of his signature work, Das Kapital. According to Schütrumpf, readers are typically "those of a young academic generation, who have come to recognise that the neoliberal promises of happiness have not proved to be true."

As usual, ahead of the curve.

Edit: Oops, posted in wrong place. Meant to post to OP.

[ColbertWatcher]

2. It's like day care for sociopaths. n/t

[sofa king]

66. I think you're on to something, there.

This new depression has affected me in an unusual way: I'm so poor that the only thing I've noticed is that it now costs me two bucks to putter up to the next town instead of four bucks. If my prosperity is measured by the distance I can travel away from home, my lot in life has improved by over a hundred percent since Obama moved ahead in the polls.

In other words, the sociopaths in Washington, New York, and Hollywood are having very little impact upon my life, now that I have nothing left to lose. Oh, I'm still gonna pay for it, because every time they screw up they manage to sign the bill over to my name--and yours. But the relationship is far from direct and the misery they visit upon me has a considerable delay.

The problem is that the big prize for the financiers is the savings that other, more responsible people carefully amass and put up like so much bait for the sociopaths. Why did the Resident Doofus want your Social Security? Because it was the largest, easiest pile of cash left to steal,. I won't be surprised at all to learn this Spring that it was in fact stolen despite our resistance to the plan.

[fascisthunter]

3. It is a Racket as Far as I can See

[rpannier]

4. It protects New Amsterdam from British Invasion

Everyone knows that

[BB1]

30. Hahaha!

"Quickly, get Peter Stuyvesant out of bed! They're coming to take away our guns!"

[leftstreet]

5. Definitely a racket

[amdezurik]

6. because they TELL us so

and they have lots of ink on pieces of paper that TELL us they are "masters" of business...

[CrispyQ]

7. To enable the rich to exploit the middle class & poor without liability.

Oh, my bad. That's why we need corporations! Wall St. is the tool corporations use to rape us all.

[Truth2Tell]

8. ...

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. Now THAT cartoon...

Is the clearest representation of reality I have seen since Ansel Adams.

[Odin2005]

53. LOL, that is hilarious!!! (because it's sadly, true)

:rofl:

[KT2000]

10. It's the tricke up economy

The regular people work and save their money for retirement and Wall Street takes that money and says they will make it increase but they actually blow it all on a pyramid scheme.
Then the regular people lose their retirement money so then the regular people have to bail out so Wall Street so they can do it all again.

[Greyhound]

27. More of a flood, but you got it. n/t

:kick: & R

[JackRiddler]

31. Yes, absolutely...

On the other hand, let's not pretend that a large chunk of the "regular people" weren't almost as radically taken up with the notion of getting something for nothing by playing as day traders or house-flippers or 401K managers. They played their indispensable and willing roles in the larger Ponzi scheme as small-time gamblers and willing patsies.

[Joe the Liberal]

11. So that the rich can get richer of course....

we would be far better off without it but I'm willing to bet it will live on for generations unfortunately.

[tama]

12. Yup.

It's nothing but parasitic slave-master. Temple of greed.

Let it burn.
Let it flood.
Let it crush.

[undergroundpanther]

13. KnR

Yeah ponzi scams help no one but the fuckers at the top.
The market has made us cold and mean,yelling shit about personal responsibility and individual 'choices' to fix large entrenched social problems.The market has taken us away from our true humanity.

[historian]

14. so we can have yuppies!!!

Can you imagine life without face, breast and stomach lifted morons grinding on and on about valuations, buy and hold, money, money and....oh yes, money. Be careful what you wish for; why we might end up with people who have actually read some good books, been inspired by them and can discuss them with the rest of us! Bring back Athens i say!

[earth mom]

15. Wall St is nothing more than a scam-a pyramid scheme for the wealthy.

Kick it to the curb! :puke:

[Norrin Radd]

16. kr

[formercia]

17. Vegas on the Hudson

Common shares have no value but which one will give for them. They are nothing more than a bit of paper allowing you to bet on the future value of a stock issuer. The dividend, is just a teaser, like free drinks at the casino.

[ThomWV]

18. What aspect of "Wall Street" are you refering to?

Think about what you have asked. Is it the stock market that you are upset with? What's wrong with the stock market? What is wrong with anyone being able to buy a bit of the pie? What is wrong with you and I having a place where we can come to own, in partnership with millions of others, a part of one company or another? And what is wrong with doing that through a network of organized brokers?

Well, maybe its the banks of Wall Street that you are upset with. Is that it? Or maybe its the insurance industry that exists there, or maybe its the rating companies. Just what about Wall Street is it that you find so offensive? Explain yourself, an old photograph doesn't cut it.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

24. All of it

Wall St. is worse than worthless. I couldn't have been any clearer.

As for the piece of the pie myth how's that working so far?

[Two Americas]

48. doesn't work that way

That is an illusion. Why should we have to buy a piece of the pie we made, and let someone else control it?

No offense, Thom, and you certainly have a legitimate opinion and every right to express it, but that is the traditional conservative anti-labor view you are expressing.

If finance serves the people, the producers, no problem. When we are forced to serve finance....well, you can see the disastrous results all around you of that.

[Two Americas]

49. here is something that sheds light on this...

An Imaginary Conversation....

A modern fellow of genus Homo protests his innocence. "I don't work because I worked much harder before," says he. "I labored for ten years at a crap job earning $30,000 per year and that earned me the right to live in miserable conditions in which the loss of my job would have made me destitute in weeks. But, I was not content to labor as my fellows. I got a second job at $20,000 per year and I was so thrifty that I spent not a penny of it but banked it all so that at the end of my time I had $300,000, a princely sum. I invested it wisely at 10% and now I can live for the rest of my life, if modestly, off the proceeds of only my own sweat, my own thriftiness, and my own discipline. And, if there was any luck to it - in my not facing misfortune or ill health or any other calamity - that was the product of my own luck too. I owe nothing to anyone. What I have is due to myself alone, and those who have much more than I, it seems to me that they must have arrived at it the same as I, perhaps over generations. What is this social power you speak of when it is only individual labor and individual property that stems from it? It seems to me that you merely envy that which you are too lazy to earn for yourself."

"My dear independent fellow" says we, "let us understand the simple arithmetic of your claims. If your story is as you say and we ignore all else that you report, still at the end of ten years, we see only $200,000. And, if you continue to live at this admittedly low level, nevertheless, you will have run through your entire accumulated proceeds in only 6 years and eight months. More than this, by your accounting, it would take one and a third lifetimes to create a single lifetime without labor, and this at the exceedingly low standards and exceptionally favorable circumstances that you assume. How then are we to explain those who live without labor for generations, and this at a thousand or ten thousand times times the level that you report? How many generations of 'thrift' and 'hard work' would this require? What you claim is impossible for you and beyond impossibility for those who live above you. Where is this magic of 'individual labor and individual property' that you speak of?"

"But you forget interest," protests our friend. "My money makes money, and simply by the act of having some which is not consumed in day to day living, that which I save is augmented. It is this which grants me my independence."

"We forget as much as your money 'makes,'" answers we, "which is nothing at all. Set your money on the table and leave it there for as long as you like. Nothing happens to it. It remains the same. It is only by setting it in motion as capital that anything whatever is 'made' and that 'making' is the product of labor, the same as your own. Your interest comes from the command of the labor of others, just as your own was once commanded and after 6 years and eight months not a speck of 'hard work', 'thrift', 'good luck' or 'wisdom' is left. Neither is there any trace of 'independence' or 'personal property' You now live by the labor of others... by the transformation of your pitiful 'savings' into Capital, no matter how small the sum. It is your ability to command the labor of others as a social power that gives you your ability and that you have a poor man's caricature of that process changes nothing other than to lay fraudulent your claims to the right. You might as well claim innate superiority or the right of the sword as did the slave master or the god-given hierarchy of obligations of the lord or even the phases of the moon, if you like. You eat without working because you have maneuvered yourself into a position in which others work to feed you. You are the opposite of what you claim."

"You're just trying to make me feel bad," says our friend.

"We don't give a shit how you feel," says we. "It is modest enough what you do... just as you claim. It is your willingness to ignore what is closer to your face than your nose that we tire of. "

Our friend orders another beer and pretends to watch the hockey game though he would be hard pressed to name two players on either team.

[Two Americas]

50. and this...

A Rendezvous With Destiny
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
June 27, 1936

Philadelphia is a good city in which to write American history. This is fitting ground on which to reaffirm the faith of our fathers; to pledge ourselves to restore to the people a wider freedom; to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776 - an American way of life.

That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy - from the eighteenth-century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution - all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small-businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

http://www2.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/fdr36acceptancespeech.htm

[Odin2005]

54. The FDR quote in my sig line comes from that famous DNC speech.

The period from 1934 to 1936 encompased a profound change in FDR's thinking as a result of business leaders criticizing him as a "traitor to his class" for, in his words "saving capitalists from themselves." Before then he positioned himself as a centrist, after that he was forced to burn his bridges with the business community, giving him the added benifit of being able to turn hard left and neutralizing the danger coming from Huey Long-type wannabe populist dictattors.

[Hannah Bell]

62. do you have other possessions which you supposedly "own" but have

absolutely no say in where they are, how they're managed, who manages them, the insider info, etc.?

you don't "own" anything but some electronic ticks. sometimes you can make some money off the ticks, but don't confuse it with "owning" part of the company.

[onenote]

19. I'm not sure what you're saying: get rid of private investment or get rid of private ownership?

They kind of go hand in hand.

[Two Americas]

58. that is not the question

Advocacy for the rights of Labor, or criticism of the dominance of Capital, does not have to mean abolition of private property nor private investment. It is not all or nothing, and it is a classic anti-Labor argument to suggest that the only possible alternative to domination of the economy by the finance industry is the abolition of private property.

At issue is what the relationship between Capital and Labor should be.

We do not need to get all radical and Marxist, either, to reign in Capital and place it on the service of Labor. We can listen to Lincoln, for example.

From Lincoln's First Annual Address to Congress, December 3, 1861 -

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29502

[MindMatter]

20. Seriously, in the 21st century, we should be able to deliver capital more efficiently

They had their day, but this system no longer makes any sense. Far from serving any useful purpose, what we have now is noting but con artists and grifters. We put two fucking TRILLION dollars into that black hole and what comes out the other end? NOTHING.

There must be a more efficient system of getting capital to the businesses and communities that need it. Surely in the world of supercomputers, universal networks, and vast data warehouses, there must be a way to bypass these assholes and crooks.

[jeffrey_X]

21. it's the biggest pyramid scheme in the history of the world

eom

[mopinko]

22. eat the rich!

yeah, that'll fix everything. :eyes:

[MindMatter]

29. No, but make them earn their money just like anybody else

Our banking system is an anachronism that is essentially unchanged for 300 years.

NASDAQ proved that you don't have to pay a bunch of rich guys to take a big cut out of ever stock transaction. The companies that are powering the 21st century economy are mostly not on the NYSE. And to underscore that point, look at the entrails of companies that are in the Dow index today, or had to be removed for various reasons. This is yesterday's economy, and as long as we allow the super rich to keep sucking the life out of our economy, we will never get back on rack.

Just as the NASDAQ is to the NYSE, we need a whole new model for our banking system. Certainly the banks that operate in our communities serving the needs of individuals and companies are essential and valuable. But it is all the rich bankers in between OUR MONEY and the local banking office that have things fouled up.

In 2008, there is absolutely no justification for the money supply to be controlled by private bankers. If ever there was an essential role of government, this is it. There must be a way to come up with a system that, when we authorize 2 trillion dollars to go to banks, the money actually shows up on the streets of America.

Think about that. Since September, we have given the bankers something like $2,000,000,000,000, which is roughly $13,000 for every family in this country. Where did it go?

For that money, we could have bought a new Chevy Malibu for every family in this country -- or any of many other things that would produce immediate economic stimulation. Instead, we gave the money to the bankers with no strings attached, and they are simply hoarding it.

[mopinko]

36. people who own stock are not the crooks.

i agree that this whole thing was a case of backing the truck up and emptying the place out while they still had the keys. but that doesn't mean the the head of every company that is a part of the dow is a crook.
these people are criminals. they are not a part of the system. they are robbing the system, but that is not what it is meant to do, what it has done, or what it will necessarily continue to be. everything about this country is infested with criminals, but burning the whole thing down won't fix it. throwing the criminals in jail will fix it.

[MindMatter]

41. That is not my point. I never said that.

The reference to the Dow is that this is the old economy, and these companies were part of the earlier system where the stock transactions all passed through the privileged hand of the NYSE elite. There was a time when this was the state of the art and that was a good system for 1910. It is not a good system for 2008.

To be fair, the NYSE has evolved to where isn't as inefficient and corrupt as before. But none of that streamlining would have happened without the NASDAQ coming in with a completely different way of doing business.

What I'm saying is that our banking system is essentially unchanged for 300 years and a revolutionary change is long overdue. We need a new system that disintermediates the Federal Reserve and all its hangers-on that suck a big percentage out of everything that moves in America. We don't need them. They don't add any value in today's world. They, quite literally, can be replaced by a computer, just as NASDAQ did for stock transaction.

[TankLV]

23. Aside from all the astute and vary valid comparisons to Vegas and a craps game...

the stock market is a way for business to raise capitol to start/expand businesses...at least that's what THEY say...

it brings together groups of entities/persons with cash to bundle the smaller sum of money together into even bigger bundles to "give" to corporate entities that they see as worthy of having an ownership stake in...

aside from the overwhelming instances of gaming the system to RUIN an otherwise valid corporate entity for greed that has occured at the same time as the previous statements...

[Hannah Bell]

63. no, it's not an important part of raising capital. 95% (roughly) is just

trading paper.

[TankLV]

82. are you an expert? are you 100% sure?

I think not...

[Hannah Bell]

90. You're not raising new capital for the corp when you buy a share of stock,

in 95% of the cases. You're buying the share from the previous private owner, who bought it from the previous owner, who bought it from the previous owner....not from the corporate entity, but from Joe Jones.

IPO's & some other deals are the 5% exceptions.

I think you're the one who's misinformed.

[threadkillaz]

25. Fall St.

No more public companies.

Take it all private with current investors.

[Greyhound]

26. To connect Broadway to the FDR.

But you are right, the misnamed "financial industry" is nothing but a huge drain on our economy.

The legitimate purposes it originally served can now be carried out far more efficiently through other, less taxing, means.

The Stock market once served as a central market place where company owners could sell part of the company to raise capital for growth and was, in itself, generally beneficial. What has grown in it's place is nothing more than a casino, an abomination, that should be banned.

The other parts of "Wall Street" are equally detrimental. The quasi-private Central Banking System is a Ponzi scheme that, not only does not carry out it's primary function of currency creation and circulation well, but has become a black hole of both national and private assets through the crime of interest (usury in the Bible).

From raising capital to banking to insurance, all the functions of this beast are social necessities in their nature stolen by the parasite class and used as a gun to be put at our heads to extort our wealth from us.

[cliffordu]

72. Precisely.

You are exactly right.

[Greyhound]

88. Thank you for the reply, it is nice to know that people read the replies. n/t

:fistbump:


:kick:

[cliffordu]

89. I try to, but there can be a lot of noise-to-signal ratio here......

:fistbump:

[wartrace]

28. To facilitate the capital needs of business.

It takes capital to run a business. You have to purchase the plants, the machinery & raw materials in order to produce a product. To raise that capital businesses sell stock and bonds. Investors will not buy stocks or bonds if they do not have any liquidity so an exchange must be in place for buying & selling those securities.

Unless you are going to operate a lemonade stand it takes capital to start & sustain a business.

[JackRiddler]

32. And where does this "capital" come from ultimately?

As we've learned in the last few weeks, it gets printed by a central bank and dispensed to other banks who get to decide how they'll lend it, if at all, and have confused economic investment with the miracle of eternal money flowing from compound interest.

I say, get rid of the middle man and create a central bank with democratic and transparent control.

[Selatius]

34. Capital is nothing without labor.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 3 December 1861, State of the Union Address

Your suggestion of setting up a public bank is the lynch pin of market socialism. In market socialism, the bank would exist to capitalize the start-up of labor co-op firms, capitalize pre-existing co-ops, and buy out failed or failing firms to be reorganized into co-ops. As opposed to the Soviet model, firms would be free to bring their products to market, and the competition between them will generate a price that approximates supply and demand. There would be an economy with two sectors, basically: The co-op sector, and the private sector. Workers would have a true choice between the two. As it stands, they don't.

[kentuck]

43. That quote by Lincoln......

has always puzzled me. Wasn't he a Republican??

And what circumstances would bring him to say such a thing? Labor is "independent" of capital?? And "prior to"?? "Labor is the superior of capital"? And "deserves the higher consideration"?

Lack of appreciation for labor seemed to be a problem way back then, during the Civil War? We can all appreciate that it appears that only the "capitalists" are advising our new President at this time? Anyway, what could he do? We are screwn. :shrug:

[Two Americas]

45. have researched that extensively

First, kentuck, you should know that the Republican party was the more "liberal" party in those days. The Republicans stood for arresting slavery, and making internal improvements (infrastructure and social programs,) public research, and public education.

Lincoln not only took what we think of today as the left wing position on economics and the relationship between capital and labor, but he saw the battle for labor, and the battle for emancipation, as part of the eternal struggle against tyranny and for freedom and self government. That quote is not some isolated instance with no comprehensive context behind it, but is a distillation of Lincoln's ideas about freedom and justice, democracy and self-government.

It is interesting to me that people have difficulty understanding that passage today - certainly our grandparents would have understood it perfectly - and that is no doubt a result of 30n years of successful propaganda from the right wingers, which has removed any consideration of power and economics from our political discussion and promoted capital over labor.

[Odin2005]

56. Back in Lincoln's time the GOP was the party of the era's radical left.

In 1860 the GOP was the Left and the Dems were the Right. Over the century from 1868 to 1968 that completely reversed itself.

[Two Americas]

76. and it could happen again

There are many signs that a shift of that kind could occur again. If the big money continues to move to the Democratic party, it could become the conservative party, the way the Republican party did in the early 20th century. If the party continues to straddle the fence and does not take up the cause of the working people, and with the Republican party is such disarray now, the Republican party could be hijacked by populists. Or a new party could emerge and the Democratic party could go the way of the Whigs. Or, maybe wee are sliding into neo-feudalism, where political parties don't matter any more and we have a de facto one party state that is supposedly all things to all people, while really being a sophisticated front for a new aristocracy and that never challenges the ruling class. All of the talk of "post partisanship" and "pragmatism" suggest that possibility. The most domineering voices within the party and the activist community are sounding more and more like the aristocracy, the apologists and shills for the ruling class in Latin America.

[Odin2005]

78. A possibillity is that socially-conservative economic populists could start such a realignment.

It was that same type of same socially conservative populist, like William Jennings Bryan, that started to move the Democratic Party the the left in the 1890s. The more middle class "Progressives" ( like "fighting Bob" LaFollette) were in the GOP at that time and in many cases didn't go to the Dems until the New Deal coallition took shape

[Two Americas]

84. I was surprised

I was surprised at how quickly and aggressively the conservatives within the party moved after the election. One would think that the election was some sort of repudiation of the Left to listen to them. There is a massive move to the Left happening with the general public, and I doubt the genie can be out back into the bottle, especially with the deteriorating conditions for so many working people. Should the conservatives succeed, those people will go somewhere - unless the conservatives succeed in crushing any and all options and alternatives. We see the genesis of that in the frantic assaults on any hints of "disloyalty." Unless, of course, politics is over and 90% of the people are now consigned to peasant status. The attacks of the Left are causing the controversy and uproar, although of course the leftists are being blamed for it, as always. But the attacks are now going beyond merely attacking the Left, to attacking politics itself. People are saying we need competent and pragmatic and intelligent management of the machinery and that politics is obsolete. That is a sign that we are moving toward some sort of neo-feudalism - a government that represents a new aristocracy, 10% or so of the population, those who are still living in a way that could be called "middle class." I don't see how we can have broad prosperity with an economy based on information and services, nor how we can all become IT workers, professionals, or "creatives." That means that a few will prosper, and millions will be crushed or left behind.

[Odin2005]

55. Gee, that Lincoln fellow sure sounds like a socialist! :-)

I always like to bring up that quote when a puke calls his/her party the "party of Lincoln." Now days Republicans would condemn Lincoln as a "radical socialist pinko." The early GOP used to be America's radical left. Since the "Radical Repiblicans" were purged from the party in 1868 it became more and more the party of Big Money, though folks like Bob LaFollette carried on the Progressive spirit the GOP was originally founded on.

[wartrace]

35. What has happened over the past few weeks is not capital.

It is a government printing its way to insolvency. Just when I thought we were done with Bush & that he had done EVERYTHING possible to destroy our country he pulls off this final "masterpiece" of a "plan" to seal the deal. I just LOVE the "deal" we made with Citi Bank. 25 billion of cash for seven billion worth of prefered stock? Uh, the crack must be good on Pennsylvania avenue...........

My fear is that Bush has so thoroughly screwed up this country & its economy that Nobody will be able to save it.

[AZ Criminal JD]

37. This isn't just Bush

Obama has endorsed everything so far and his new Treasury picks are Wall Street insiders.

[wartrace]

39. Bush is in office, he has veto power.

It is his watch.

[AZ Criminal JD]

81. Of course it is his watch

But by focusing in on Bush you are implying that something will change in the next administration. As head of the NY Fed Obama's new Treasure pick has participated and signed off on all of the major 'bailout' decisions.

[Two Americas]

47. of course it is

It is the ultimate expression of valuing, favoring and coddling capital over labor, if ever there were an example any time in history.

Bush isn't destroying "the country," he is destroying the working class. He didn't screw up. He did what he set out to do, and was extremely effective.

[Le Taz Hot]

74. Don't look now but

there were plenty of Democrats that were "urged" by Pelosi and Reid to sign off on the world's greatest boondoggle. People need to stop looking solely at Bush and start making their own accountable.

[Two Americas]

91. of course

Imagine if we used the same logic in the rest of our lives. "Well sure, honey, I was unfaithful. But your ex-boyfriend was worse! Take it up with him. Are you loyal to me, or do you want to go back to him?" Imagine how domineering, abusive and arrogant that would be. One's spouse might well say, with justification - "at least with him I knew what to expect. You betray me and tell me I have to like it and can't leave and have no other choice."

When we say "at least they are better than Republicans" that is all we are asking from them, and it is the very least we could possibly ask of them. Why do we complain when they scrupulously follow our instructions?

Republicans and Democrats are charged with different jobs, they represent the best interests of different groups of people. The Republicans fight for the wealthy and powerful few - 10% or less of the population (they make no secret of this, and never stray from their commitment to the best interests of the wealthy and powerful few or relent in their efforts) - Democrats are supposed to fight for the rest of us.

Saying that "at least they are better than Republicans" is as if say that "firefighters are better than arsonists." No they aren't. Not when the town is burning down and the firefighters repeatedly fail to answer the alarms, and tell us we may make no efforts independent of them or we are being disloyal to the cause of the "we are against fire" people. "We are the only practical choice for fighting fires. These things take time. Once we have more equipment, more firefighters, then maybe we can start putting fires out. So keep paying us and supporting us. What are you in favor of fires? You are helping the arsonists if you criticize the firefighters."

"Don't get me wrong, I am against fires, too, BUT..."

[MindMatter]

42. Exactly. Literally replace them with computers.

We don't need a dozen mega-sized banks that do nothing other than suck a percentage out of our system. With a straightforward network, a central bank can allocate funds to thousands of community banks and simply bypass these unproductive monoliths.

[Greyhound]

65. How Constitutional of you. n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

57. What about a big lemonade stand?

[NashVegas]

71. No, To Facilitate Investment Needs for People Who Don't Want To Have to Labor For a Living

Capital is raised in IPOs. That's something like 1% of Wall St. business.

[Jack Sprat]

33. I agree with you.

I would close the greed market tomorrow if I could.

[tama]

38. On the positive side

From what I hear Iceland no more has stock market. It dropped c. 95 % from the top, whined for a week and then went silent. :)

[gravity]

40. To help businesses raise capital to produce goods and services

If you wanted to grow a business but didn't have the money to do so, you would go to Wall Street and find someone who would provide you that capital. There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept. The problem is with the excesses.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Go take an econ 101 class and then come back

until you do, only showing your ignorance...

[Orwellian_Ghost]

51. Geez

and to think I passed not only Econ 101 but also international finance and all those "advanced" business classes with flying colors. Perhaps that's why I can see the fraud so clearly. But please remind once more how Wall St. benefits the working class. I await your erudition.

[Occam Bandage]

80. Then I am ashamed of whatever college you attended,

and dearly hope it was not UChicago, or else I would have to burn my degree.

[sohndrsmith]

46. to keep the high priced escorts from unemployment? (sarcasm) n/t

[Odin2005]

52. Private capital investment, IMO, has become a relic of back when governments didn't...

...have as much wealth and spending power they have today. Today governments are much better able to capitalize economic enterprises compared to, say, 200 years ago. Unfortunately these relics of a byegone age have a significant influence over governments, they bribe governments and fund think-tanks to protect their personal investment fiefdoms. If I was made the benevolent dictator of the world I would replace corporations with co-ops and private capital with a system of governemnt-owned local, regional, national, and supra-national investment banks.

I call myself a socialist, but my views are quite distinct from the Marxist-dominated centralized state socialist views typical of most socialists.

[Two Americas]

59. a source of wonder and amazement

The modern Republican party so unambiguously supports the ascendancy of Capital (the few with the wealth) over Labor (the many doing the work) - with their trickle down, deregulate, supply side, privatization and on and on. Everything they do is to place Capital above Labor, to value and favor investors over producers, profits over people, oligarchy over democracy. They disguise that, and trick people into supporting them with the culture war nonsense. Otherwise, since their policies only benefit 10% of the population, with severe and horrendous consequences for the rest of us, they would never poll more than 10% of the population. Is there anyone here who can not now see those consequences?

We - Democrats - support the opposing view, we vote for the opposition party. There can be and are many different points of view on a variety of subjects within the Democratic party, but if people agree with Republicans on the most important issue, on the most important difference between the two parties side with the Republicans, what else matters?

Yet again and again the most rudimentary and fundamental principles and ideals of the party and the Labor movement have to be explained and defended here against free market and pro-Capital arguments that come right out of the right wing propaganda think tanks and are part of what should now be a thoroughly discredited and rejected dogma by anyone supporting the Democratic party or fancying themselves to be in even the mildest sort of resistance to the Republicans and the political right wing.

I posted above the words of FDR and of Lincoln. These ideas are not some wild-eyed Marxist fringe extremist ideas, they are centrist, right down the middle of the pipe mainstream Democratic party ideas (and in Lincoln's day of the Republican party). Yet they are under continual assault here, and one is insulted and told they are not wanted or are disloyal or being destructive by merely expressing these time-honored principles and ideals, which have been shared and embraced by the majority of the working people in the country throughout our history.

Am I the only one that finds this state of affairs extremely odd?

It is a continual source of wonder and amazement to me that support for the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party requires such aggressive and continual defense and is met with such vehement and persistent opposition - here, among Democrats.

I don't expect everyone in the country to be a Democrat. But is it too much to ask that Democrats actually be Democrats? How can we expect our Democratic politicians to "grow a spine" when we won't?

[bemildred]

60. No, I find it extremely odd too, in the way no doubt that news coverage in N. Korea is odd.

Or behind the Iron Curtain back in the day ...

[Two Americas]

61. thanks bemildred

That was fast! I added a little more after you responded.

[bemildred]

64. Well, there are taboos.

We make a fuss about objectivity and evidence and questioning everything, but then you try to question an accepted opinion or a current political taboo people feel threatened and go ballistic and call you names. I mean what the hell is the "free market" but a simple-minded reification of a theoretical extreme state, there IS NO SUCH THING and never has been. All real markets are normal economic entities subject to the usual pressures and interests and con-games and manipulations. But that is just a convenient example. We loves us our utopian fantasies, and that is not just a weakness of lefty-liberals.

[datasuspect]

68. there is no opposition party in this country

the marketing has been THAT effective.

[blindpig]

69. Engels about the Market:

So it is too with the money market. As soon as trading in money becomes separate from trade in commodities it has (under certain conditions imposed by production and commodity trade and within these limits) a development of its own, special laws and separate phases determined by its own nature. If, in this further development, trade in money extends in addition to trade in securities and these securities are not only government securities but also industrial and transport stocks and shares, so that money trade conquers the direct control over a portion of the production by which, taken as a whole, it is itself controlled, then the reaction of money trading on production becomes still stronger and more complicated. The money traders have become the owners of railways, mines, iron works, etc. These means of production take on a double aspect if their working has to be directed sometimes in the immediate interests of production but sometimes also according to the requirements of the shareholders, in so far as they are money traders. The most striking example of this is the American railways, whose working is entirely dependent on the stock exchange operations of a Jay Gould or a Vanderbilt, etc., these having nothing whatever to do with the particular railway concerned and its interests as a means of communication. And even here in England we have seen struggles lasting for tens of years between different railway companies over the boundaries of their respective territories - struggles in which an enormous amount of money was thrown away, not in the interests of production and communications but simply because of a rivalry which usually only had the object of facilitating the stock exchange dealings of the shareholding money traders.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_10_27.htm

[moondust]

70. I have no use for it.

However, I don't know what, if anything, would happen to the local banks and credit unions if Wall Street disappeared.

[NashVegas]

73. So Masters of the Universe Have Something to Do On Weekdays

Between weekends in the Hamptons.

[blindpig]

75. Marx was right!

So, what caused this world financial crisis?

According to many world leaders, business leaders, bankers, and their mouthpieces in the corporate-owned media, the current crisis is a result of “excesses" or “bad management.”

The truth is that recessions are endemic to capitalism, the form of society in which we live. In the last forty-one years alone there have been five recessions (1967, 1974, 1981, 1991, 2001). Before that, there were many, many more, including the Great Depression.

Roughly every ten years, capitalism goes through a cyclical crisis or “business cycle” of “boom and bust.”

While capitalism is in a “boom phase,” or period of expansion, products are regularly bought up because a lot people have money. But because a lot of people have it, the value of money goes down, causing prices to simultaneously rise. This is called inflation.

In the boom phase, labor is needed to meet the increased demands for goods and services. As workers rush to fill the newly opened positions, unemployment falls.

Businesses see profit being made and want to increase their involvement, causing them to seek funding through credit. The bankers want to get in on the action too, so they raise the interest rates on loans they give out.

The rise in interest rates slows down the demand for credit. The debts of those who borrowed to take part in the expansion begin to build up. Production starts to slow down. Unemployment rises. As a combination of job losses and inflation, people can no longer afford to buy things as they did before. The boom phase draws to a close and the crisis begins.

As production and incomes decline, the bankers get nervous and call in their loans, but because of declining sales the business owners cannot afford to pay them. This leads to bankruptcies and loan defaults. Businesses cannot afford to take out new loans at the current interest rates, so the bankers are forced to lower their interest rates. Increased unemployment and desperation among working people leads them to take lower paying jobs.

After a while, lower prices lead overstocked shelves to begin to empty and bad debts are written off. Businesses see the low wages and prices that have come about as new profit-making opportunities, and the whole cycle starts over again.

Of course the scope and impact of each crisis depends on the scope of the credit system. The more credit is extended, the bigger the crisis.

The current crisis is so serious for precisely this reason.

http://marxwasright.com/

[blindpig]

77. a succinct sentiment..

[Occam Bandage]

79. Yes. We should abolish the concepts of public ownership, credit, and insurance.

Better to have no economy whatsoever than to have an unfair economy.

[Two Americas]

85. that is "the economy?"

You think that stock ownership (hardly "public ownership" in any world other than Bush's "ownership society") credit and insurance are "the economy?"

The economy is the working people producing things of real value. The measurement of "how well the economy is doing" is how well the wroking people are doing. That is the economy for 90% of the people. The economy you are talking about is the economy of the few.

You would disagree with Lincoln, then. Here is an excerpt from his first annual message to Congress:

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

[Occam Bandage]

86. And the economy of main street cannot and does not exist

without credit, or without stock investments fueling real-world investment. The belief otherwise is a relic of the societal struggles of the industrial revolution. We're not going to be returning to a Utopian version of a 19th-century economy any time soon.

[Two Americas]

87. that is funny

Of course main street can exist without Wall Street. It once did. The farmers came first, then the bankers, and people built their own homes and tools and clothes and were perfectly able to survive and build communities together.

Let's not make this more complicated than it is to confuse and distract people. We are not talking about some high and mighty economic theories or philosophies here, nor arcane and esoteric knowledge available only to the few.

The political right wing says that nothing gets produced without those with capital inducing people to labor, by one device or another. The political left wing says that capital is the fruit of labor, and that there would be no capital without there first being labor, and that people work without being forced or induced to by capital.

This is not a matter if eliminating capital, it is a matter of which we give higher consideration to, and how we organize government and society.

we have just survived an experiment in placing capital above labor, and we can see the horrendous results all around us now. That philosophy - that capital rives labor rather than labor driving capital - the the core and foundational tenet of the modern Republican party. The people have rejected that now, and I would suggest - recommend, really - that all Democrats heed the people and follow suit if we expect to be able to effectively lead the people.

[leftofthedial]

83. they are here to provide a conduit for our wealth to pass

efficiently into the hands of the oligarchs.

[Two Americas]

92. no, no, no

That is just an accident, we are being told. "Oops I have your money. How did THAT happen??? Isn't this odd? I am fabulously wealthy and you are getting more and more poor. That isn't how this is suppose to work. I got into the investment business to be charitable. Trust me, honestly I did. Can't imagine what went wrong. Give me a few billion and I will straighten this mess out for you. Trust me."

Oops the treasury in bankrupt. How did THAT happen? Can't imagine. I guess "mistakes were made."

Oops, your wages have collapsed. I don't want you to think that has any relationship to stock prices going up, up, up every time wages are reduced. Just an accident, not the way it is supposed to happen. Nothing to do with my relentless advocacy for reducing your wages to "improve the economy." No connection there.

Oops, you job has been outsourced. Well these things happen I guess. Market forces beyond anyone's control. No one is actually making these decisions and profiting from them. Nope.

Oops, my salary, bonuses and perks are going up, up, up every time I eliminate jobs, reduce wages and benefits to you, move jobs overseas, and get the politicians to deregulate my industry. Isn't that strange? Who could have predicted any of that? Might as well try to predict an earthquake. I sure didn't expect any of that to happen, so don't blame me.

[ebayfool]

93. I always wonder where the women & children are in those soup line pix.

They always seem to only have men in them - where did the women & children go for their 'soup lines' I wonder?

Wall Street? They are so far beyond my ken that they are like aliens to me ... I have no clue what they're useful for, other than they seem to sop up all the gravy before anyone else knows dinner is being served.

[L0oniX]

94. You need Wal-street to get to Wal-mart.

:evilgrin: