Forum Post: Alan Greenspan - From his 1966 Essay
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 30, 2012, 1:03 p.m. EST by asauti
(-113)
from Port Orchard, WA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I wanted to post a few words from Alan Greenspan's essay that he wrote in 1966.
"...the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale."
Further, "...But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates."
Your thoughts?
If you would like to read the 4-page essay in its entirety, look up "Gold and Economic Freedom" by Alan Greenspan.
What I am reading here is that the wealthy will never want to share with the masses. They don't want to share their profits, nor do they want to pay taxes.
Capitalism means that the means of production are privatly owned by individuals who make a profit from other people´s work (cf exploitation /profit) In other words, the value of the worker´s pay is less than the value that was added thru his/her work in the payed hours. That creates a profit for the owner of the means of production who did not create the value, but still gets payed in the form of profit. This profit is hence the capital and future investments for more profits. So, the capitalist is making money simply by just owning, not adding or creating value. These are the core elements of capitalism.
In other words, the right wingers are totally wrong.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-ride-society/
Yup. It is basic economics.
Your making a common mistake IMHO. First off what you say is true if you accept that money is capitalism and capitalism is money.
The two are actually very distinct. Money is nothing more than another product or tool. Capitalism and communism use this same tool. both structures repeatedly fail. These structures are man made and the problems they both produce are man made.
Understand money as a separate distinct entity. Understand what it is and how it really works.(not what most understand it to be). Then you can begin to understand why capitalism is failing and why communism also fails.
Not everything of value can have a price tag. Not everything that we value is worth the money asked for it.
In either a communist or capitalist system value is always a concern.
All people, need to separate money and view it as an independent product - because that is what it is. It is essential to understanding where the problem resides. Once you do this, you can see how by the mechanisms that drive and create money; that money is neither socialist or capitalist. Its more like a parasite.
This products (money) structure intern causes everything that uses the product to act in a very predictable way - socialist or capitalist (the ideology means nothing if they are on the same boat on the same water. )
It is possible to profit without exploitation. But not with the current money product. Your criticism of capitalism really is more of a criticism of the product "money".
Money - once you view it correctly - you will soon see that it is responsible for the failure of capitalism. It is Ironic that the product that has become synonymous with capitalism is actually a product that will kill capitalism or a socialist society that uses it.At least in its current form.
That is the beauty of the money products marketing - a completely unnecessary product attaching to something of use to ensure survival.
How much is happiness worth? Seems to me if a man that wants little can and is happy - that's value. If someone wants to wear jewels and have more value than they need - I don't see a problem with this, so long as it doesn't cost the guy who wants little. Its called freedom.
Changing the money product would give us all a lot more value, opportunity and freedom.
Money is a not so modern slave system - the biggest corporation to the smallest business. Every person and every government regardless of ideology or belief are slaves to the money product.
Ask yourself this - if you could own slaves would you need a loan from a bank? (I'm not supporting slavery - just think a bit)
Americas civil war was fought over this crap and most don't quite understand this. The north adopted the new banking system to do business with Europe (the Europeans who brought slavery to America, decided that slavery was wrong - better to enslave everyone - more profit) In the south they wanted slaves (the way the Europeans did business before the modern money structure was established).
Americas north/ south divide was really at the heart - a battle between two slave systems - neither was an American innovation. And both sides got played and America is still hurting from this conflict - if this wasn't true there would be no 99%. and we would not be on this forum.
Just like slaves demanded their freedom then - the 99% are the modern slaves demanding theirs (most just don't view it as slavery because they have not been taught to think of it this way - but it very much is - debt is the chain, money the whip - we are all slaves even some of those 1% people are as screwed as the rest of the 99%)
We don't have many true capitalist or communists today. If we did China wouldn't hold so much money and the west would never allow for debt if we were true capitalists. (debt destroys capitalism - coincidentally money is the representation of debt)
New money products/ value systems would solve 99% of the problems. No matter what ideology socialist or otherwise.
Put the blame where it belongs or nothing will change.
Wow. NOT economic basics there beautiful world.
Capitalism is defined as: "an economic system based on private ownership of capital"
Capital is defined as: "wealth in the form of money or property owned by a person or business"
This means all of the money and/or property that you and I, and every other citizen of this country, be they rich or poor, have is our privately owned "capital". Almost everyone I know wants to privately "own" both their own money (even if there ain't much of it) and their own property (again, even if there's not much to keep) so we're capitalists.
The "value" of a product is assigned by what a given society is willing to pay for the end result produced. A worker can work long and hard all day to produce something that society does not need, want, or find important. (making it of no "value" to society)
In America, anyone that sells something that belongs to them, INCLUDING THEIR LABOR, earns a profit. Some people choose to make and sell a product wherein THEY were the "means of production" directly to the end customer themselves. (and collect their own profit from the sale) If that customer then takes that item, marks it up, and sells it to someone else, he/she also collects a profit off of the item. (even if they did not own the "means of production" themselves)
It is not necessary to own "the means of production" in this country to make a profit from something.
Other people choose instead to work for the people who privately own "the means of producing something", so they offer to SELL only their "labor" to someone who owns a means of production for a specific amount. (The employee sells their physical labor/skills for PROFIT instead of a product.) The owner then PAYS the worker OUT OF THE PROFIT obtained from selling whatever it is produced. Saying the worker does NOT make a "profit" from the "sale" of his/her labor is ludicrous. Profit is defined as "gaining a financial benefit " or "excess of revenue over and above the cost of production". The worker gains a financial benefit from selling his/her labor as one of the ingredients that makes up the cost of production.
You also cannot say that all, or even most owners of the "means of production did not help create "the value" of the end product because clearly the means of production did not just drop out of the sky in the form of machinery and a factory and trucks etc. The owner used HIS "capital" to buy and bring together the means of production: the supplies required, and the permits and the utilities and basically EVERYTHING else involved in creating the end result including BUYING the labor of the worker.
The system you've described worked very well before the owners of that system realised that by buying themselves some lobbyists and congressmen, they could manipulate their market share, and profit margin.
What your equation fails to include is the greed factor. End of story.
No one owns the system. And anyone who sells something, even if it's handmade baskets, gets to manipulate their profit margin.
Greed is a fact of life. Always has been. Always will be. No matter WHAT "system" is established.
paying taxes would be sharing with the masses
Right. And, they don't want to do that either.
Paying wages is also sharing with the masses. And MANY business owners DO pay their taxes.
lol
Well the "welfare" system in this country operates out of SOMEONE's pocketbook and the 99%'s taxes simply don't cut it.
80% of the people have about 7% of the wealth
They also don't want to pay good salaries so that people don't need welfare.
There would be no billionaires if they paid their employees competitive and well earned wages.
Why would anyone want to "abuse" the welfare system like Greenspan is claiming here if an everyday job paid great wages?
With great pay comes great responsibility. Families would be able to help each other out with better pay for their work. They could house their family member down on their luck if they could afford it. With great pay we wouldn't really need a welfare system.
Exactly. Greed brings down civilizations.
You are so right, but what they also don't want to do is work for their profits. That's what their slaves are for.
A warning from 238 yrs ago ................................
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson
Cheers ;(
Yes. Agreed. I've been recently in heated debate with a few of our opponents over how the capitalist, the owner of the modes of production, does not actually have to work. He/she can be a freaking idiot or a mere 5 year old. Of course, they can work, but they don't necessarily have to.
They also don't fight the wars that they wage - But they do "work" hard to keep us in them.
During Vietnam, they kept the wealthy children out of the war by "excusing" college students. If you didn't have the money for college; you were the perfect nominee to go to war and die. Too many did.
True. That is why some people say we should have a draft.
Yes, but we are talking here about the SOCIOPATHIC RICH. More and more people in the 1% are actually in the process of awakening.
See, for example:
HIGHLY UNEXPECTED support for OWS from Canada's former Finance Minister and Prime Minister
"Paul Martin: Former PM Comes Out In Favour Of Occupy Wall Street And 'Redistribution Programs"
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/18/paul-martin-occupy-wall-street_n_1101886.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
True. Many wealthy people do support OWS.
It's so freaking great to have you back, Tiouaise!!!!
Well, thank you, it's great to be back...
SOLIDARNOSC!
Wal-Mart and other mega corps on the Fortune 500 by their practice of creating 'poverty jobs' are micro- welfare states. No company the size and profitability of those listed or not (due to being privately held) on the Fortune 500 should create jobs that compel adult employees from age 21 on up to rely on public or private subsidy programs. Perhaps these mega companies need to also become mega involved in awareness of local costs of living so that their lowest paid employees are able to afford the lowest cost readily available HUD compliant housing in their areas too. Currently poverty job creating employers do not realize that their poverty level employees frequently are compelled to live in less than habitable conditions including out of their cars or in vermin infested environments.
I'm not so sure they don't realize. I think they realize. They just don't care.
They don't care largely because those at the top don't see the reality and they are motivated by the profit. Look up 'Fortune 500' and Wal-Mart is at #1 position. I think the new name for the Fortune 500 should be for many on it 'The Socially Crass and Irresponsible Fortune 500.'
Surely many executives at those companies wouldn't really want their own kids to live vermin infested lives but that's what they're asking many of their employees and their families to do.
The majority of small business owners I have found refuse to hire because at ground level they know what fair hiring is about and seem to hire at higher salaries than these monstrous companies where the personal touch is eclipsed by the profit motive.
It is hard to swallow, but really, they just don't care.
THEY don't have to. They are employers. Not parents. Not family. They have ZERO obligation to even use their money or resources or time to CREATE a business at all. Nowhere in historical data can I find evidence that the word "corporation" was ever universally understood to mean "CARE" or "SHARE" or even "Benevolent Overseers and Beloved Babysitters of Humanity in General".
You're acting as if "bosses" have suddenly stopped doing all these socially wonderful and completely expected things-like making sure employees can afford a mortgage and a car payment and a family-and turned into stone cold misers without giving ANY of us any warning or time to prepare for the sudden withdrawal of all their cash and tender mercies.
You're acting like our parents didn't realize that they would need to teach us how to take care of ourselves in a world that was completely foreign to the Disney World, lifesized Barbie Dream House/Fantasy Island that they were so blessed to grow up in. They just simply expected all that bright, shiny, perfection to just go on and on and on. After all, "corporations" have always provided for the every need of every citizen!
Until now. Until these evil, selfish, completely UNcaring "corporations" took over. And left us all high and dry. Completely vulnerable and at their mercy. How could we ever have known.........?
"No company.....should create jobs that compel adult employees from age 21 on up to rely on public or private subsidy programs."
How exactly does a job "force, constrain, or coerce" adults from age 21 on to do anything? I have never in my life seen a job "force" anyone to accept it. I've never seen a company force anyone to work for it either.
Employers do not, and cannot, "compel" (force or coerce) their employees to live in their cars or in vermin infested environments. Your employer is not responsible for ANY part of your life other than the part you choose to SELL to him/her in exchange for money. YOU are responsible for your life, both in AND outside of work. You can choose to live in your car, or in a vermin infested environment, or you can choose to SHARE a NON vermin infested environment with other people and share expenses (we call them roommates), or you can choose to learn some skills or take some classes or apply yourself in high school so you can attend college INSTEAD of choosing to start a life or support yourself for the rest of your life by working AT WALMART!!
When those mega corps have eliminated ALL of the CHOICES I listed above, and make it impossible for their employees to live anywhere OTHER THAN their cars or in a vermin infested environment, THEN you'll have an actual TRUE argument instead of having to build a fake, emotional, straw man one like you CHOSE to here.
Compel differs from force or coercion. What is at issue is breaking subsidy dependence by necessity of the poverty wage level earners when the company is more than profitable enough to compensate their lowest paid employees at 1% or more of the daily profit divided by the number of employees on the payroll over and above the poverty wages-sort of like a salary plus commission salesperson.
In closing lookup Wal-Mart subsidies or any other mega company and I think you'll quickly realize the truth that companies like this by their practices operate very much like welfare states. Do you enjoy a #1 retailer like Wal-Mart creating situations in your community that effectively suck the dollars out of the US taxpayer when it is completely unnecessary in light of their profitability?
WalMart also saves the dollars of the US taxpayer through lower prices and convenience.
The "welfare" state was created before WalMart ever existed. And the WalMart my 18 year old daughter worked in 3 years ago paid her $10 an hour. (More than the national minimum wage)
$10 per hour? OK, now go to your search engine and type in the name of your city, state and zip code with the phrase demographics or go to craigslist.com, apartments.com and calculate what 1/3 of your daughter's net monthly income after taxes- which in most cities would work out to about $1400 per month so an apartment should be readily available that with water,utilities and garbage calculated together should not equal more than $470 per month leaving $930 or sox $233 per week that she should be able to allocate towards food, gas, car insurance, reserve for car repairs, oil changes/air filter (if she knows how as I did at that age more power to her), reserve for dental and vision care, blue shield medical insurance with little deductible, personal care items and clothing-Yep, if she had no family she'd be S.O.L. (sh@t out of luck) because you and I both know that average rents for most cities start around $1500 per month not including utilities, water, garbage and renter's insurance. About the roommate thing: not always good for credit histories when for whatever reason 'Miss' or 'Mr' ideal roommate decides to inexplicably or suddenly move out, also, I had a friend who roomed with a nice nurse whom she later found out had hepatitis-C and luckily despite exposure through shared foods, bathroom and some toiletries so far her tests have come back negative.
Please know that the Wal-Mart type American companies float of profitability and the stinginess of their compensation to their non executive class staff is inexcusable when the costs through tax payer subsidies results in the very tax increases most homeowners,business owners and the consumer doesn't want or need and could be made unnecessary.
The idea that everyone in the United States lives in the same manner, pays the same amount in rent, utilities, food, etc is a false one. Where I live, a clean, furnished, 2 bedroom apartment with freshly painted walls, clean carpet, covered parking in a safe neighborhood with grass and plants out side and even access to a pool and other outdoor rec equipment is under $800 a month. Two people who BOTH worked at WalMart could have a great life, meet expenses, and actually be able to save up some money on the side.
Um, last time I checked $740 per month rent is a bit more than 1/2 of a single income earner's take home pay of $1400 per month and even with remaining savings there's no way he/she is going to be able to afford the remaining items without friends, family, public or private assistance.
You just illuminated the quandary of today's youth faced with a plethora of lower wage employment that is incompatible with a good percentage of local costs of living and you now know why you may see folks with missing teeth or deteriorating health, loss of limbs, or worse, premature death, diseases of long standing malnutrition such as vascular diseases in early adulthood to age 35, people who drive without auto insurance and in vehicles with basics such as brakes going out leading to accidents and deaths and the list goes on!
The point is the biggest and most profitable companies because they are able to can make a huge expression of local, national and global community support by upgrading the compensation levels to those which allow for economic self sufficiency of their lowest paid and low skill employees. Part of what makes America great is the generousness of most people who are willing to help each other out and upwards. I for one do not like needs of the needy to be government sponsored-have you ever seen what is handed out at government subsidized food pantries? You got it: a lot of packaged vs. Fresh Whole foods and have you ever gone to apply for help at a county welfare office? If America's biggest companies stepped up to the plate and created in communities the type of things I've seen at privately run organizations such as Monument Crisis Center, Hands of Hope/Project Feedback, Wardrobe for Opportunity and Habitat for Humanity along with the living income scenario described for lowest skilled then we as a people would have NO NEED for government programs addressing basic needs for individuals in a technologically advanced society.
As I see it, the massive government presence that impinges American freedoms will continue to grow unabated as long as the biggest in corporate America continue to 'drop the proverbial ball.'
That's just it. The government should not be taking care of the needy. AMERICANS should be. And many of them do.
I'm not going to argue with you, because you are convinced that your view of the world and everyone in it is correct so there's no point. Meanwhile hundreds of millions of Americans make do, are thankful for what they have, and take care of their neighbors to the best of their ability. They don't view themselves as victims and they resent the hell out of you attempting to paint them as such.
Victim? Who me? Nope, that's not the point I wanted to make. It is the crass degradation of earning power for even the most basic of employment if any worker is to be self sufficient in the face of America's biggest corporations who are more than capable of paying more and in relation to the profitability occurring within their companies. Please re-read all that I've written before, it makes perfect sense to pay staff in charge of the sale of goods and services 'healthy' bonus and commission rates in addition to a wage that is at the lower end of economic self sufficiency.
You do agree that the biggest companies in corporate America could because they are capable as a business class raise the bar and compensate their entry level employees at levels where they are economically self sufficient and extend programs in local communities that eclipse government programs don't you? Or would you rather the bulk of the gross profits go to those at the very top where the reality is the gigantic compensation packages are simply part of the points system of competition for the best and brightest executives who push for the greatest drive for profit no matter the cost to human quality of life?
What has been happening in America, especially so among the biggest companies listed on the Fortune 500 and yes, even the Fortune 1000 is so far off the mark compared to what all levels of employment and company offered development was from the 1960's to the 1980's it's a wonder that the hue and cry is not greater from those honorably discharged from the military having served in the more recent wars and our recent college graduates who, even if they are engineering graduates for example find themselves unemployed and unable to find work in their field or, if they are more recently employed, continue to work outside of their intended field.
Just for the sake of example of the difference in the standards of compensation and ethics expressed when my husband got out of the service in 1973 gainful, economically self sufficient employment was readily available for him and he never worked anywhere for anyone past the age of 22 for less than $40K per year, bought two homes, supported family and was even put through many years of coursework at UC Berkeley and Stanford while working at IT Chemical and on top of that, IT Chemical paid him while they also paid for the coursework he was taking at the time, so how's that for comparison with today's obscene expressions of corporate greed including 'Dead Peasant' or COLI (Corporate Owned Life Insurance) taken out on employees (which is another discussion that you may have seen on these boards and which you can lookup online.) I also worked for a very nice family who own Brady Marketing, read Frank Brady's story at www.bradymarketing.com it was a great American company that put him through school and made him the executive he is today and many others of his caliber during the era he graduated-America's big companies that are 'in the black' need to step up to the plate again and if they are now, in much greater ways, WHY? Because they CAN (they CAN ALSO bring back manufacturing/industry too) and it's the responsible thing to do if we are to jump start our economy again.
In closing, I am glad Occupy Wall Street exists because many at the top of the executive ladder are taking note. If you've been following www.weforum.org you know now that there has been much talk about changes in compensation packages in the boardroom and among the rank and file.
PS:Husband is retired from IT Chemical and my background has been in real estate and mortgage brokerage for 20+ years in the San Francisco Bay Area which entrepreneurially speaking is not for the faint of heart or victim mentalities so, in the face of ever rising costs and the decimation of a company of over 200 associates and staff due to the real estate crash in 2007/08 we moved to Reno, NV which works out great with our pension.
Ok....the definition of "self sufficient" is :
able to provide for your own needs without help from others
Someone who relies on the wages from a job that depend on SOMEONE ELSE to provide everything related to that job EXCEPT their labor, is not, and cannot ever be, self-sufficient by definition of the term.
I'm glad you brought up the "standards of compensation and ethics" that existed in 1973 when your husband got of the service.
In 1973-the minimum wage was $1.60 an hour. In today's dollars, that would be $5.63. A person earning minimum wage in 1973, working 40 hours a week, would have earned $3,328 A YEAR-without any taxes taken out. (Equal to $11,710 a year today without taking out any taxes)
Obviously your husband did NOT enter a "minimum wage job" when he left the service. If he was making at LEAST $40k in 1970 dollars he was making at least $19 an hour. That is 1200% MORE in wages than the lowest economic earners at the time. Indeed, you and your husband WERE way up there in the "evil rich" category of earners in 1973. And the same inequality and "crass degradation" of the earning power of those at the lower end of the economic chain was happening then to.
Could some corporations pay their entry level employees more? Sure. But many corporations, just like IT Chemical did for your husband, ALREADY DO pay their entry level employees more than entry level cashiers make. It all depends on what those entry level employees are doing.
The market/society's demand/need/ etc for the end result product produced by any "job" is what sets the a "value" of those jobs. Most people pay LESS for services which involve things that the customer could do themselves and MORE for services which involve things the customer could not do themselves. I can lift a can of beans off of a belt, run it over a scanner, and place it in a bag myself. (And our WalMart has "self service" registers). I cannot lift my car up over my head, run an engine scan on it, and repair it myself. (yet) But once I learn to, because restoring a classic car has always been a dream of mine, I WON'T be paying a mechanic to do for me what I can do myself.
I never said that YOU were/are acting like a victim. I said you are acting like the rest of the 99% SHOULD open their eyes and realize they are "victims" when most of us-regardless of how little we make-do not view ourselves as victims now, and most likely never will. So it irritates us to no end when you or OWS or anyone else attempts to paint us as such.
Touché and thanks for the discourse.
Paraphrased quote of the day from Cisco CEO John Chambers: 'American business should be ashamed to have allowed the crisis to happen and the government too.'
Do you have a link to his full comment?
And I truly believe that those businesses who "allowed" it or "caused" it should be investigated and held accountable if proven guilty. I do not hold ALL businesses accountable simply by association.
at or around the .57 second mark/the last 1/4 or so part in this video you will see John Chambers make his statement:
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012/01/30/n_99_mashup.cnnmoney/
and some more commentary from him et al here concerning challenges facing industry:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/01/07/cisco-ge-and-xerox-ceos-4-challenges-facing-u-s-industry-and-how-to-fix-them/
Ahhh, now you are only something. You might be the first person on here to actually read his words and to think about exactly what he is saying. Not only do the elite bankers of the world want to not share their own profits, they want to take yours, too.
It is economic tyranny allowed by a faulty capitalist system.
It is economic tyranny, yes. But our original "capitalist system", under the Constitution, is arguably not faulty.
Consider this: The definition of "capital" is "the means of production". Your hands are therefore "capital" because they are a tool, enabling you to produce something. Property is also capital. Therefore, all countries in this world practice Capitalism. The question then becomes: Who Owns the Capital?
In Communist China, for example, the government owns the capital. They do not practice "Free Market Capitalism". We in the United States, under our Constitution are free as individuals to participate in the "free market".
The world bankers and the modern day U.S. government are slowly trying to take our capital away from us.
No. Your hands represent labor, not capital. Capital is land, equipment and other durable goods already produced that are used in the production process along with labor (your hands).
Land, Equipment and your hands all enable you to produce something. And yes, sometimes already having something (that was previously produced) allows you to produce more.
I stand on my definition: Capital is "the means of production".
Your reply proves that you understand this, only maybe from a slightly different perspective.
That's fine. You're not quite right, but you're close. You can read the wikipedia page or if you really want to sink your teeth in, read "Capital."
Tsk Tsk, There are a million "capital gains" tax discussions on this forum. So we all know that "capital" also means CASH/MONEY/PROFIT too. (I could be wrong. How many people here believe that billionaires receive their profits from investing in the form of "land, equipment, and other durable goods" instead of MONEY?)
Your hands, body, mind represent your own personal property-with YOU determining how and when they are used for any reason. If you use your hands to create or assist in the creation of something that produces MONEY, or INCOME, they are indeed part of the "means" that produced it. They can be part of the means that produce love, violence, products or silly shadow puppets.
If you "sell" your labor for money, or land, or equipment, or some other item of value-you "profited" financially, or realized a "capital gain" from that sale.
:::::::: Fair-value accounting, derivatives increase global debt deflation ::::::::
http://blogs.reuters.com/christopher-whalen/2011/10/07/fair-value-accounting-derivatives-increase-global-debt-deflation/
-October 7, 2011-
where in the constitution ?
The instances of it, being many, are scattered throughout the document.
For starters, the Fifth Amendment states "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Note, for example, the declaration that the government is not to deprive an individual of their property. Property=Capital.
Now, am I the first one telling you this? Did you take Civics class in Middle School?
thank you
I guess those Japanese citizens in the forty's never saw it coming
Read his Essay long ago. Do you have any facts to explain why Grrenspan crossed over to the dark side later in his life?
If he got that position, he was there for a very long time before this came out.
greenspan was proven an idiot long ago by his failure to recognize what was going on in the economy, and particularly the housing market. he admitted it was an error publicly before congress.
"Proven an idiot" by who?
Whoever it is that you are referring to, I am not in that group of people. I happen to consider him to be a very intelligent individual.
apparently you do not understand the origins of this great depression II, and i do not mean to be offensive to you in saying that. but, it is well accepted among economists and financiers, including greenspan himself, that his policies implemented since the early 80s were wrong and misguided, although he used very massaged language in conveying that fact when he met with congress about it. PBS did a documentary on it, i think its called "inside the meltdown," if you want to expand your knowledge and it's pretty neutral politically... it's not trying to point fingers but makes apparent that greenspan was in over his head. and frankly, i started thinking that perhaps our economy is really too sophisticated to be managed, and certainly for one person to be so unchecked with certain responsibilities. i for one, predicted this outcome as the result and saw it coming a mile away... and i am on record with my investors for that, who are very appreciative and richer for it. likewise john paulson and dr. burry and many other managers foresaw this outcome too. it's the problem i think that gov't has in recruiting talent.
First of all, if you desire to be "taken seriously", please write "proper English" by capitalizing the first word in each your sentences.
Greenspan, cribbing Ayn Rand?
Who would have thunk.
No wonder things crashed, you can't make an omelet out of egg shells.
shooz: How do you understand what Greenspan is saying? Please rephrase his words, with your own.
Greenspan's basically arguing that the only way for a government to "do it all" (i.e. provide a social support system and a reasonably comfortable lifestyle for the poor, avoid creating an undue burden on the middle and professional classes, and still provide for things like the army) is through continuous deficit spending financed through bonds, and that the longer that debt rolls over (and the more of it is accumulated) the more the servicing costs will increase.
I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Greenspan's ideology, having watched him publicly recant those parts of it involving deregulation after the housing market imploded, and while I agree that at some point we will need to get both our debt and our borrowing costs under control, "taxation is theft" is bullshit at best and dangerous bullshit at worst.
Do you, yourself, enjoy paying Federal Income Tax?
Lemme put it to you like this: I don't like paying taxes, but I like the alternative a lot less. The alternative is to privatize ALL the things (yes, that was deliberate), and as far as I'm concerned that will give us something far more dysfunctional than anything the US government could get away with.
Ok, so you "do not like paying taxes".
But I like the peace of mind that comes with knowing there's some sort of safety net available should I fall on hard times a lot more than I dislike paying taxes. I consider taxes to be a net positive even if I'm not fond of them, and to claim that I said anything else amounts to intellectual dishonesty.
I am letting you answer the question freely. I'm not here to put words in other people's mouths.
He lost me in libe(R)tarian goobledegook, at the term welfare state.
Libe(R)tards get so lost in mis-definitions.
It's like they write their own dictionary, and history along with it.
His is the ideology that crashed the Wolds economy.
I did not ask whether or not he "lost" you in his writing. And now that you didn't answer my first question, I must resort to asking another: Are you capable of answering my question?
Your question, "how do I understand", was answered, as best I could.
The "how" was done by brain synapse.
Is that more clear, as the question wasn't.
If you think you answered the question, then I will just leave it at that.
Perhaps you should rephrase your question.
Or was it meant to be leading?
Straight from the pen of the chief architect of the current recession.
A "Recession" for a large group of people, yes. However, not a recession for a select few - rather, I would call it a period of "great distribution of wealth, to the top".
In 1966, Greenspan was idealistic and writing about what he saw as "truth".
Have you read his entire essay? It is only 4 pages long. It's titled "Gold & Economic Freedom".
I encourage you to read it. I've read it more than 10 times and I learn a little something new, nearly every time.
It is interesting that Greenspan has, in the last year or two, recanted virtually everything he once stood for.
He was not "idealist" back in '66. He was forcefully corporate right wing Libertarian and anti-poor people, as opposed to anti-poverty. His advocacy of the gold standard rests on assumptions that have been completely debunked, and is viewed as dangerous by most non-partisan, non-aligned economists.
Having read the article, I did learn something: I do understand more about how this idiot was so willing to kill the futures of so many millions of people at the behest of Wall Street and unsupported ideology.
For Greenspan as an individual, do you truly believe him to be "unintelligent"? Or, as you say: "an idiot"?
I just want to make sure I understand "your language".
I really do believe him to be unintelligent. When ideology trumps all facts and evidence, whatever native intelligence might be available to the brain is rendered moot.
I mean idiot exactly in the way most people do. It would perhaps be more accurate, however, to use the word "psychotic," since it is an illness characterized by the inability to distinguish between internal and external reality, of coordinating thoughts in one's head with facts in the world.
You say: "When ideology trumps all facts and evidence".
What "facts" and "evidence" are you referring to?
The fact that the market cannot and never has regulated itself. The fact that economies with currencies fixed to a commodity (like gold) have always suffered greater upheaval that those with fiat money. that the poor are NOT a dependent class. That liberty and social spending are not in conflict, and no evidence support the contention that it is. The list goes on and on and on.
But does he have a sexual infatuation?
Nobody is "anti-poor people".
Any individual (now matter how rich they might be today) knows that they, too, could be "poor" someday.
Not as true as one would hope. The right wing has consistently demonstrated open contempt for the poor. If one thinks of oneself as being inherently superior to them, that their condition is based on lack of character or laziness, if it is based on racism (as much of the anti-welfare state rhetoric veils, thinly) then one doesn't believe one could ever be poor.
Most of this discussion is attempting to find a blame for failure...there is no single blame...
Answers lay in the expansion or elevation of what we consider "wealth"...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/an-occupation-on-the-edge-of-prosperity-draft/
The failure is ultimately on the individual level, and thus the complaint from individuals.
And the failure is the inability to protect their own wealth.
Did you read Greenspan's entire essay?
well said, and 100% right, nobody forced them to leverage up beyond their means. that said, we still need a rule that says "nobody can borrow more than 30% of AGI to acquire a house"--that's the fix, and we don't have that rule. that would have kept housing in line with incomes, and we'd, frankly, be sailing in nice productive calm waters... instead the FED catered to the banks and believed in the markets (hahaha!!) and self-regulation of risk. so banks lent a median of 52% AGI between 2003-2007. may i also suggest you check out the PBS "the warning." what we've learned is that people do need some level of paternalism to check unfettered greed and other impulses that they simply can't control. but like any addict (even if it is debt addiction), we needed to hit bottom before something is done.
no.. not yet... but I will.. later tonight.. ;)
The worst FRB Chairman ever. Why not quote George W....the worst President ever...while you are at it..
My thoughts: Greenspan was the worst Federal Reserve Chairman EVER. Why not quote George W. Bush, while you're at it...the worst President EVER....
I'm actually not too worried about head-hunting a puppet.
Instead, I'd like go after the organization behind it. I would like to see Congress be able to "audit" the Federal Reserve, at the very least.
I support H.R. 1207, otherwise known as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act.
Capitalism means that the means of production are privatly owned by individuals who make a profit from other people´s work (cf exploitation /profit) In other words, the value of the worker´s pay is less than the value that was added thru his/her work in the payed hours. That creates a profit for the owner of the means of production who did not create the value, but still gets payed in the form of profit. This profit is hence the capital and future investments for more profits. So, the capitalist is making money simply by just owning, not adding or creating value. These are the core elements of capitalism.
In other words, the right wingers are totally wrong. It´s the other way around.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-ride-society/
"Capitalism" at its very root definition is simply this: "the practice of using capital".
So, did you use your hands to produce something today? If you did, you used "capital".
I´m not the issue here, so lets leave personal activities out. I explained how the system Capitalism works in practical life. Its based on exploitation of workers. Study before you make comments; Capitalism doesnt mean just using cash.
I am making very succinct statements, as I usually try to do.
Do you disagree with my root definition of "capitalism"?
Capitalism is what I explained above. Everyone, all across the board in fact, from libertarian socialists and socal democrats to hardcore supporters of tyrannical laissez-f capitalism, agrees that at least private ownership of the means of production others are using has to be part of the definition of Capitalism.
And with that phenomenon, private ownership of means of production others are using, exploitation naturally becomes a part of what capitalism is in action.
Odd. I can't find ONE libertarian, socialist, socal democrat or hardcore supporter of laissez-f capitalism that agrees that OTHERS must be using a "means of production" that is privately owned in order for something to be defined as Capitalism.
Please provide some evidence from "everyone" to support your claim.
Also please provide evidence that exploitation ALWAYS "naturally" results from capitalism in action.
x profitting on y´s work is the whole point of capitalism.
According to you.
Just so I am clear, you disagree that "the practice of using capital" is called Capitalism?
Standing alone like that it´s not a definition of capitalism.
The definition I used does have a source, my unabridged dictionary. In comparing my definition to it, I find that I was slightly different in my usage when I said "the practice of using capital".
The Dictionary's definition below:
"condition of having capital;" from capital + -ism.
It's of little bother to me if you choose to not agree with the book. To each their own.
Capitalism is an economic system , and is in reality all encompassing in society, so in other words far from just "having capital". And again, everyone agrees that that at least private ownership of the means of production others are using has to be part of the definition of Capitalism.
I think I'll take my chances in staking my knowledge of the root definition of words with this dictionary here. And this is not your average dictionary. It's big, it is heavy and it cost more than $80 back in about 1996.
You´re free to do so, of course, but that doesn´t change tha fact that the definition is extremely inadequate. When we talk about capitalism we have to look at it as the all-encompassing economic system that it is.
the the proper words should be used
Again, it is simply a "root" definition. Root definitions, by their nature, are broad in scope. In addition, words often cite more than one example of how the word is to be interpreted. I provided just one of those citations.
Whether or not you agree?... Well, it's good to hear that you have an opinion. I would rather be surrounded by people with the desire to stand up and fight for their freedom of speech than to have the opposite.
And just like I did in 2008, I'll be voting for Ron Paul in 2012.
Such an inadequate definition is not interesting at all.
Ron Paul wants private tyranny: http://occupywallst.org/forum/noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul-and-libertarians/
What we need is real democracy: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
You say "private tyranny". Would this be the opposite of "public tyranny"?
There are many hours time difference between USA and Norway. I was sleeping at that point.
I´m apposed to all kinds of tyranny. Monarchy, stalinism, leninism, nazism, capitalism. They´re all awful. I want the oposite of tyranny: democracy
Read and watch: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
Looks like I will have to continue to wait on "struggleforfreedom80" for an answer to my question above.
I agree with you using credible sources rather than personal opinions to determine what something means in the most general sense, rather than according to personal preference.
Farlex Financial Dictionary (2011)
Capitalism
"The economic system in which the means of production is privately held. In capitalism, the most important means of production is money rather than land (as in feudalism) or labor (as in socialism). That is, the ability to raise and use money for the production of goods and services is more important than owning the land from which goods come, or the ability to work in order to create a good or service. As a result, government policies generally target the regulation (or not) of money and its uses rather than those of property and/or labor.
While capitalism is often associated with laissez-faire policies, governments often involve themselves in capitalist countries. The appropriate amount of government intervention in a capitalist system remains hotly debated."
Capitalism-(Babylon)
"A form of economic order characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties."
Greenspan´s thoughts dont have much credibility after this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAH-o7oEiyY
Would you like to "stop the discussion" between you and I?
Or would you like to "crush the discussion" among everybody?
You wrote: "provide for the common defence".
That is how they spell the word in England.
In America, we spell it "Defense".
that was from wiki
the constitution was written a long time ago
so the English spelling may have been employed by the writers
Yes, the Constitution was written quite a while ago. I would like to take the opportunity to say that I believe it to be a highly cherished document - possibly the greatest ever written - in terms of protecting Individual Liberty against Tyranny.
That document is why the USA has the Supreme Court.
Greenspan was a sell out. He went from advocating a gold standard & free markets to economic & monetary fascism when he went to work for the Fed.
Ahh, yes. I completely agree with you.
We can still find truth in his earlier writings. It was at that time when he was speaking from a point of examination. Now he speaks in terms of how to perpetuate and protect the very system that he had previously critiqued.
Just as I said in the original post, I recommend that everyone read his essay. I needed to read it more than four times to understand the magnitude of his points. Each time I read it, I feel I understand a bit more.
You might hate him now, but back in 1966 he was idealistic - he was still interested in the pursuit of truth.
Well the interest rates on T-bonds and biils dont increase that fast. they have been at 4% for quite sometime
There is good reason for that. As Greenspan points out: "government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues". Since "the people" are fighting for lower taxes, the government has less money to pay interest on a Treasury Bond. What is even more interesting is the fact that a Treasury Bond is ultimately a loaning of money to people that was theirs in the first place.
With all due respect sir, that's not the reason why interest rates on T bills are low.
Then, please explain. I'm curious to hear your perspective.
Well Treasury bills are short term loans(less than a year) issued by the govt while Treasury bonds are long terms loans (more than a year). Their interest rates (also known as the risk free interest rate) is usually just above the rate of inflation (or expected rate of inflation). These are 'risk free' investments because the US govt is not expected to go broke. At any rate, the treasury can simply print more money to pay back it's interests (which it does all the time). The interest rates on Tbills and bonds aren't determined at all on govt tax revenue.
You previously disputed me in saying "that's not the reason why interest rates are low".
I then asked for an explanation on why you disagree.
Yet, nowhere in your response did you actually provide an explanation to your counter-argument. You simply told me general definitions on something I'm already aware of.
From your comment what I understood was that you think the rates on US sovereign debt are low because the govt earns less tax revenue. That is not the reason for rates being low and that is what I tried to explain.
You mentioned "the rate of inflation" in your post.
"Printing more money is the primary cause of inflation". Do you disagree with that statement?
Depends. If money supply>real output then inflation.
Ok, I can agree with that.
Back to my original point:
Quote: "government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues".
Yet, you say that, and I quote: "The interest rates on Tbills and bonds aren't determined at all on govt tax revenue."