The economic situation in America is a complex thing. Trying to express it in simple terms is tricky, and almost always creates more confusion than understanding. That's because most people who seek to express the situation in simple terms do so by oversimplifying the complexities. What they should be doing is teasing out the few aspects of the situation which are simple in nature from the web of complexities in which they're trapped. I'm going to try a little of that right now.
First of all, in regard to the question of where the money all went... it's mostly gone. It can't be gotten back. Money has no value of its own, it's a representation of the value of other things.
A bunch of rich, smart people found a way to create financial instruments which appeared to have value but in reality did not. They bought and sold them as if they had great value, and they made obscene profits by doing so. They took those profits out of the total pool of money and pocketed them. By the time it was discovered that those financial instruments had little or no real value, it was too late. Enormous amounts of money had been drained out of the pool under false pretenses. A lot of the money that was drained out was sheltered from taxation and siphoned into private offshore accounts. For all practical purposes, it's gone.
When those phony financial instruments collapsed, their value went from huge to zero. Our economy decreased in size by the amount of all that lost value. If it ended there, things would not be nearly as bad as they are.
But the economy also decreased by the amount of profits which were made by buying and selling those phony financial instruments. Those profits are now private property. The whole scam was too big, and went on for too long, to ever track down who pocketed how much of the proceeds. You might wonder how the money can really be gone, since people who are taking in huge profits also spend huge amounts of money, effectively returning that money to the general economy. Normally, you'd be right. But in this case, the rich got richer on a scale and with a speed never before seen in American history. They couldn't possibly spend more than a small fraction of the money they were draining out of the system. So instead of spending it, they stashed it. No one can force them to spend it, and they're not likely to spend it willingly. That money has to get them through the years of hard times we're all facing, until the economy recovers from the damage they caused.
It seems crazy to think that anyone could haul in profits bigger than any ever seen in the history of this country, and somehow avoid paying their share of taxes on them. It's not really that hard, if you have a general understanding of how much of the way our financial system operates is fantasy-based. Money can be shuffled around, so that by the time it's taken out in the form of profit it's nearly all taken as capital gains. The maximum tax rate for capital gains is much lower than the tax rate the average American worker pays on wages earned. Speculators can sell financial instruments they haven't even bought yet and take the profits, then decide not to buy what they just sold. The broker who mediated the deal can be left on the hook for the failure to deliver, rather than person who profited.
There are lots of other examples of ways to take money out of the system without putting anything of value into it. The only requirement is that you have to not care about ethics or what the consequences for others will be. It also helps if you have a federal administration bent on dismantling the oversight and enforcement bodies which are supposed to catch things like this and nip them in the bud.
To make things worse, a lot of the money the federal government did manage to take in from taxing those enormous profits was funneled back into the pockets of the super-rich by privatization of governmental services. And to make things even worse yet, we started a phony war so we could hire private contractors to fight that war and pay them with the taxpayers' money. I'm at a loss to come up with a more efficient way to take money from the general population and divide it up among the rich, while looking as if you're doing the whole world a great big favor. How else can you rob people and convince them to give you a standing ovation while you're doing it?
At the risk of sounding like a broken record... if it ended there, things wouldn't be as bad as they are. The trouble is, everybody wanted to get in on the action. Everybody wanted to ride the wave. Real estate became the average American's phony financial instrument. People found out you could buy a house, put a few thousand dollars into improvements, then sell it a year later for a huge profit. Real estate values rose at a fantastic rate. That created new equity for homeowners who weren't buying or selling. That equity could be cashed out by refinancing or taking out an additional mortgage. All that profiting from rising real estate values drained more money out of the system in the form of (say it with me) profits from financial instruments whose value was mostly pretend.
Local and state governmental entities stood by and cheered as it was happening. Average Americans couldn't shelter their proceeds the way the super-rich do, so all that buying and selling, refinancing and second-mortgaging, was producing revenues for those governmental bodies. The crazy increases in property values produced correspondingly crazy increases in property taxes. As the money rolled in, our elected officials were too enchanted by the piles of cash to stop and ask whether or not it was even a good idea.
What I'm getting at is that too many people, at too many levels, were participating in the rush to drain money out of the pool in the form of profits on things which had value only on paper and only on a temporary basis. It broadened and accelerated, until it passed a tipping point and the whole thing came crashing down. When it did, it took the whole economy with it.
Here's another simple thing which is being intentionally obscured by those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo. When the federal government provides emergency funds to those industries which are teetering on the verge of collapse, that is not socialization of those industries. It is not socialism of any kind. Those who created this mess already altered the system so that the profits were overly privatized and the risks were overly socialized. They did all that socialization of risk before things fell apart. They did it because it made their rape of the system possible. We are stuck with the bill because of what has already been done. Refusal to pay the bill will help no one. It would only serve to further disable the already damaged system we're now trying to resuscitate. Whether or not that's fair is entirely a separate issue and is not directly related to the issue of dealing with the aftermath of all this financial ruin.
Now that all the phony value which made it possible for the rich to get incredi-rich, and for the average worker to live beyond their means for years has collapsed and disappeared, we have to replace it with real value. We have to create value the old-fashioned way, with hard work. We have to make things which are more valuable than the sum of their parts, and sell them. We have to provide services which offer real value to those who buy our services. We won't get back to where we were before this collapse until we've replaced all the now-missing phony value with real value. If we cheat on the creation of that value, we'll only end up just as screwed as we are now, if not more.
We need to get it through our heads: the money was fake, and now it's gone. The money that's left is the real money. If we want more money, we'll have to create things of value and increase the value of the things we have, because money itself has no value. It only represents other things which do have value. Healthy Americans are valuable. High-quality education is valuable. Renewable energy sources are valuable. Roads and bridges are valuable. Water, air and land are far more valuable when they're clean and can support living things.
And lest we forget... Justice is valuable. But that's another subject altogether.


Comments: 92 ( 5 removed by Time Heals )
Now.. the question mulling in my mind lately is where in the hell are we coming up with so much bail out money? We owe China money. Are the feds just rolling the bills off of a machine without any real value to support it? And now our children and grandchildren will be paying for this? How? How will they put value back into the economy.. or our monetary system?
It isn't our money. We're borrowing it from other countries. The very idea of borrowing that much money when we're already on the verge of financial ruin has a lot of people understandably freaked out. But the harsh reality is that we've run out of options. The Fed rate is effectively at zero. If we use that borrowed money wisely, we'll be okay—as impossible as it sounds, we can pay it back. If we squander the money on tax cuts for the rich, the rich will be the only ones left with any money at all. At that point, we'd no longer be a Democracy, but a Plutocracy. Funny thing is, capitalism can work in a Plutocracy. that's why some very powerful people want to push for exactly that result.
Do you think Obama's (along with the Dems who are throwing their pork in it) Stimulus package is going to work? (It's making me very nervous)
Sorry.
You really are. Thanks for putting this in terms that are easy to understand.
This line demanded my attention more than the others. "When those phony financial instruments collapsed, their value went from huge to zero." Until we are willing to get real, nothing can change and we remain vulnerable.
I need to read this again and give it more thought before I can say much more than thanks, and I'm passing this on to friends.
Nevertheless, I should mention that one of my favorite sources for plain English explanations of the various aspects of this whole mess is NPR's Planet Money.
I think Obama's stimulus bill is not perfect, but it's the closest thing we're likely to get. The trick, after getting it passed, will be to stomp on those who will try to undermine it for their own financial and political profit. It will be a neverending task.
I compare the point we're at to the guy who is almost broke, but knows that he can borrow money to start a business and turn things around. It's scary to make that loan, knowing that the ability to repay it depends entirely on the success of the business. A wise man would put his heart and soul, and every bit of his energy into running that business and making sure it succeeds. It will take all of us putting everything we have into learning what we need to know to make this work.
You have no idea how much I've come to admire you. Thank you for this article. I'll be back to read more responses.
I'm going to go check out your link.
It will take all of us putting everything we have into learning what we need to know to make this work.
Personally, I think it will take all of us who are willing and able to put everything we have into learning and doing, to overcome the drag of those who are ideologically incapable of acting to prevent their own—and everyone else's—demise.
Debra - Thanks... but promise me this article won't raise your expectations of me too much. I still have some stupid and offensive things lingering in my drafts folder.
Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism. (Das Kapital, 1867)
(what's called slavery ???)
Our situation, and the prospects for our future, are so dire that we can only hope to deal with them if we can resist the lures of ideologies. We have to focus on facts and results. Anything less, and we're all totally screwed.
The irony is that if Obama's programs succeed, they'll benefit everyone, including those who are too blinded by ideology (or just plain too stupid) to do anything but complain, obstruct and point fingers. They'll even benefit those who didn't bother to vote, those who couldn't care less about the struggles of their fellow human beings, and those who burn crosses on the lawns of dark-skinned people.
Peter, that quote sounds fishy. In Marxist theory, communism would be brought about by a self-conscious movement of the working class that would take over the means of production from the bourgeoisie, and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. Note the emphases. It's not something the state does, and it's not about credits and banks. That whole bit sounds very anachronistic.
In any case, virtually every prediction Marx made has turned out to be wrong. (Communism was supposed to first triumph is the most industrialized countries, since they had the strongest working class; instead, the Soviet Revolution happened, and the Communist block formed around it was made up of semi-feudal, mostly agricultural countries with a weak working class and lots of uneducated peasants.) But then Marx never claimed to be infallible, and he's not nearly vague enough to be used as Nostradamus.
In short, there are a lot of things to worry about at this point, but I seriously don't think Communism is one of them.
We tried investing in false promises and they led us here. We either invest in the real value of this country - it's citizens - or we fail. It means something that Obama understands this.
I will go post that link to Faux Marx to a few places !!!!
And now they own everything, average people can't afford housing, and the people they trambled can't afford to rent from them.
I am refusing to sell off any of my stocks just on principle.
I just love this conclusion in your article, TH. And, I find it curious that you say that "justice" is another subject. I think justice is a principle that was sorely lacking with the excesses of the past ten years. It takes laws to keep people honest. People do not police themselves. People need to know that the law is not on their side when they choose to rape the public of their money.
I think that real estate is still a good buy, even in this economy. The problem that you saliently point out is the people who turned over houses for profit. Those profits were at the expense of sound communities. Laws need to be in place to prevent that from ever happening again. I think that you agree with me that the problem is directly related to the deregulation of the financial industry. That deregulation mentality can finally be put to rest so that this country can rebuild and gain something that means something.
Finally, I agree with Sandy whose comment appeared on my feed. When housing became a commodity rather than the building block of sound family investment, things started going south.
is NOT right.. every stinking dollar is trackable.. if the gubbermint had any guts and wasn't colluding they could VOID those tranactions as FRAUD and reclaim (even if they had to seize assets onshore) a goodly portion of it..
BUT... they are hand in till with the ponzi's and the scammers.. both parties, all walks of ideology.
I say it can be brought back. The guilty can fill the prisons. The price of housing can fall into a more realistic range instead of trying to prop up those inflated prices. People who own a house financially "under water" can have it revalued and that mortgage revalued. Those who ripped us off are trying to just wring out the last drop of blood.
When Wall Street devalues it is a good thing. We were stable when Wall Street was around 5000 and houses were a tenth of that they are now. Personally I think there is more planning at the top to this mess than this article would indicate but it did do a good job of clarifying this mess.
In my defense, I did mention at the outset that the situation is so complex that trying to wrap one's mind around it all usually leads to confusion. The only thing I really hoped to accomplish with this little essay was to sneak a few things which can be identified as true out from under the mountain of things which are much harder to pin down. These few simple truths are far from the whole story.
Once my brain is up and running for the day, I'll try to respond to each of the points raised in the comments here. I'm not a financial expert. I just try to pay attention, and to sort things out in a way which shuns ideology in favor of pragmatism to the extent it's humanly possible. It isn't that I don't have any ideological leanings of my own. It's just that I believe we can't come together and find a way out of this mess—an effort which will require nearly all of us working together—unless we set those leanings aside. I'm trying to do my part, as best I can.
I agree completely. But I'm going to tie a rope to that simple truth, hold tight to that rope, and venture out a bit.
There is more than one way to invest in the citizens of this country, the sole source of its value. There's the way you and I prefer—a system in which everyone who participates receives a reasonable share of the benefits, and the more one gives of oneself, the more rewards one reaps. The other option is one in which a small caste of rich and powerful people reserve most of the benefits and rewards for themselves, doling out just enough rewards to the masses to keep them alive and working (mostly). As much as I despise the latter, and feel in my heart that it can't last indefinitely, I honestly believe that such a system can be put into place. It can be supported and protected for generations, before the masses find the strength, the will and the unity to rise up and remove the elite class. The fact that such a system will inevitably fail after a few decades, perhaps a century at the outside, gives me no comfort whatsoever.
I think President Obama gets this, and it means a lot to me too.
When I brought up the issue of escalating real-estate values, house-flipping and the cashing out of equity, I risked sounding like I think everyone is equally guilty. I don't really believe that, but in trying to keep this simple I didn't really make that clear. The single largest driving force behind the whole real estate collapse was the lenders. They needed properties to keep turning over at a faster and faster rate, with the values increasing with each turnover, in order to feed their greed. That doesn't mean everyone else is an innocent pawn, but it does mean that the majority of Americans participated in one way or another. And there are varying levels of culpability across the spectrum of participants.
At the bottom of the pyramid are the hard-working families who simply wanted to improve their lot a little bit over time. They are the least guilty of wrongdoing. They saw a system which had evolved to the point where most of their options for increasing their means had disappeared, but this one remained. They could increase the value of their homes by making improvements, sell them, and use the proceeds to give their children a college education, get a car that doesn't break down once a week, take a long-postponed vacation, put something away for retirement, etc... .
The productivity of American workers has been rising at a remarkable rate for decades, but wages have remained static. Working harder would no longer get you anywhere. The essentials, like health care, education, commodities such as food and energy, and much more all became more expensive out of proportion to Americans' ability to pay for them. We were left with only one asset which the markets considered to hold any value—our homes. So we used them for leverage.
Now, we are losing our homes at a fantastic rate. The last thing we own of value is slipping away. I don't believe for a moment that this is just a coincidence. I'm not one for vast conspiracy theories, but there is some intentionality behind this. For a small number of very powerful people, it is unacceptable to have anything of value held outside of their control. When they see anything valuable, and realize that someone else owns it, they have to take it away. That's because things of value hold power, and they cannot accept anyone but themselves holding any power. The very idea frightens them, and their fears rule their philosophy.
It's an extreme, and in my opinion very sick, extension of more mainstream conservative thinking. To be fair, there is some pretty sick thinking on both extreme ends of the political spectrum. For a good primer on the roots of liberal and conservative philosophies, I highly recommend this short talk by Johnathan Haidt.
Yeah, it's complicated. Some of the money has filtered down the economic pyramid. It's been taken, then spent, many times over. There are so many levels to how this thing worked, and at many of those levels there are people who were just doing what they were being paid to do. They didn't make corporate policy, they just followed orders. That much of the money is untrackable, but it's still in the system. It isn't worth as much now, because the real value it used to represent has disappeared. But the money itself hasn't disappeared.
Then there's the people who did make corporate policy. They designed the financial instruments which created this mess. They actively and purposefully worked to disable and circumvent the system's built-in fail-safes so they could profit from their phony financial instruments. They bought politicians, manipulated public policy and lied to the American public. As their reward, the made more money in less time than anyone ever has in the history of this country. They couldn't possibly spend all that money, so they hid it. They still have it. I believe they have plans for that money, and those plans don't include funding the restoration of the middle class.
I actually do believe that the worst offenders at the top of the pyramid could be identified. Their roles in this mess could be tracked in detail. They could be held accountable, and forced to fund the rebuilding of what they have destroyed. But it isn't going to happen. For one thing, there weren't any laws specifically making what they did illegal. To prosecute them under the law, in a fair and open manner, would require some creative interpretation of the laws against usury and theft. Our legal system has never been big on interpreting the laws in ways which make getting stinking rich illegal, regardless of how it's done. People are generally only found guilty of a crime in the pursuit of wealth when the laws are so clear that a conviction is absolutely unavoidable.
In addition, they executed their schemes with the knowledge and assistance of many of our elected officials (to varying degrees). That means there is little political will to drag all the details of what they did into the light of day. A lot of the people in charge of deciding whether or not to pursue prosecutions would come out of that process looking like corrupt hypocrites. If we took an extreme stand against corruption and hypocrisy in government, we'd have to remove at least half our elected officials from office. The anarchy that would result would be worse than the status quo. More corrupt hypocrites would maneuver their way into the power vacuum. If we let most (but not the worst) of the corrupt hypocrites who ran things stay in office, at least we have a chance of scaring them into being less corrupt and hypocritical in the future. And we wouldn't have to endure a complete breakdown of society in order to get where we want to be—with more honest and transparent leadership.
I think President Obama gets this too. And I'm grateful.
So what can we do about those puppet masters and their huge stores of cash? I don't know. We may not be able to take back the money, but we can take away a lot of their power. We can innovate our way to a new order in which we aren't slaves to the giant multinationals. We can give the next generation a better education than we had. We can keep people and the planet they live on in better condition. Anything which increases our options also reduces our dependence on the plutocrats, and takes away some of their power over us.
Amen to that !!!
The value of the few stocks that we own, inherited from my dad when he died ten years ago, has sunk from around 50,000 to 30,000. meanwhile, Lenders uses bailot money to buy a private jet and to decorate offices. The golden rule: the guy with the gold makes the rules. Deregulation has not thrilled me.
Lisa - Thank you. Your comment means more than a Gather rating ever could.
Ron - Without question, the Bush/Cheney administration enabled the forces which created our economic collapse. I don't think it was just a happy coincidence, either. They partnered with their counterparts in private industry to remake the system, intentionally. The only reason they didn't succeed is that their own greed made them stupid. They pushed too hard, too quickly, and without much concern for covering their tracks. They felt so entitled, and they saw their cause as so much a part of the natural order of things, that they bungled it badly. They underestimated opposition to their vision of a new world order. They overestimated their own ability to control the opposition with lies and ideological manipulation.
Sounds a lot like how they handled the Iraq war, I'd say.
I think you did a great job explaining how all of this works and how it's all come about. We're in a pickle.
Regressive wealth redistribution is built into the Federal Reserve System; as with all institutionalized fractional-reserve/fiat money/central-banking systems.
Paper money is inherently conducive to plunder and fraud. Artificial expansion of money and credit confers no benefits upon society; it serves only to benefit a select few, at the expense of everyone else. When you lose purchasing power during periods of inflation; when the exchange value of the fruits of your labor diminishes, as the money which is the medium, measure and storehouse of that value depreciates; that purchasing power does not just vanish into the ether. It is merely reallocated to Wall St. and Washington DC.
And the regressive wealth redistribution isn't the end of the artificially-induced hardship and suffering that the people are forced to endure on account of this insidious legalized plunder operation. Artificial credit expansion necessarily leads to an inherently unsustainable condition; every artificially-induced, illusory "boom" must necessarily be followed by a recessionary "bust." The manipulation of interest rates by the central-planners at the Fed (price-fixing which never seems to be referred as what it is by politicians and mainstream media pundits) effectively distorts the vital market signals that people rely on to guide the structure of production; it constitutes a sabotaging of the market's ability to function properly. Just like any other form of government price-fixing, the manipulation of the interest rate sets in motion a train of inevitable, undesirable (and at times disasterous) consequences. The inevitable result is systematic clusters of malinvestment, followed by uncomfortable jolts of economic reality as these clusters of errors are revealed, and then a necessary period of liquidation (what is known as "recession") as markets begin the process of correction.
The period of correction can be quite painful, but it is absolutely essential that it be allowed to run its course as quickly, and as unobstructed, as possible. The quicker all the malinvestment is liquidated, the faster markets are able to clear, then the sooner society can begin rebuilding the economy on a firm, stable foundation based on reality.
But, as history has shown -- and, unfortunately, as we are now witnessing again -- politicians (and the interested corporate rent-seekers who rely on them as a means of siphoning and expropriating unearned wealth to themselves) are loathe to allow this to happen. The sentiment always emanating from Washington DC is "We have to do something", it's never -- as it ought to be -- "We have to un-do something." It's always a matter of imposing ever more state intervention upon markets, as a means of attempting to solve or mitigate the undesirable consequences of previous state interventions.
Time Heals, Jan 31, 2009, 6:59pm EST
Excellent! (As was this; I've been lurking.)
Lainie - I don't think we can put an upper limit on how much we're willing to give in order to have a system based on justice. If we did, I think we'd render everything we were unwilling to give up essentially worthless. It'd be like having to choose between selling your car to buy food or keeping it and starving. If you chose the latter, you'd be a dead guy who thankfully never had to stoop to riding the bus.
I really appreciate your stopping by and adding to the discussion here. I highly recommend that everyone follow that link and read Steve's article. I'm trying to remember where I've heard that lurching-train analogy in reference to the way the Fed's attempts to provide much-needed regulation often end up causing more harm than good. It's one of the arguments free-market capitalists use to support deregulation. But I'm sure I've also heard it used as an argument for better, smarter regulations, which work in tandem with the markets' natural abilities to self-regulate (such as they are) instead of working at cross-purposes with them.
No.
"So what can we do about those puppet masters and their huge stores of cash? I don't know. We may not be able to take back the money, but we can take away a lot of their power."
I believe that there is a form of illusion underlying your reasoning in much of what you speak of here, and that this is what led you to conclude "the money is gone". It is "gone" from an illusory uncorrupted economic/governmental superstructure, which remains in a hypothetical sense, regardless of how corrupt the actual economic/governmental superstructure becomes in reality-land. It is that illusory source of power, which you are essentially counting on to save the day, so to speak.
But if control of wealth and law, have fallen into the hands of unethical people, then wealth and law will be used to protect, not overpower the unethical. Whatever degree of such control lay in the hands of those that are not in fact intent on serving the people, but rather exploiting them, which allowed the most recent plundering to occur, has been increased substantially by that plundering. Whatever remained of ethical control of wealth and law making, has been diminished, an equal amount.
In short, the IDEA of ethical governance, is being counted on to overcome the REALITY of corrupt governance. Ain't gonna happen.
The debate is over. The money ain't gone.
You can dig around if you wish, but you better bring an army ; )
You catch on fast TM. Been there, done that.....endlessly, with the guy.
Slowly now; THIS is the money being discussed, as "gone", or not;
"They took those profits out of the total pool of money and pocketed them. By the time it was discovered that those financial instruments had little or no real value, it was too late. Enormous amounts of money had been drained out of the pool under false pretenses."
[from this article]
danger
danger!
Do not engage a straw man!
Again, dogmatic thinkers and ideological purists are the problem, not the solution. They don't establish the rightness of their positions independently, with real-world results. They do it by redefining the positions of those who disagree, so their perceived adversaries look ridiculously deluded. They, of course, come out looking like the Sole Keepers Of The Truth, by comparison. I will not be cast in the role of someone else's fantasy adversary, created specifically to fail so the fantasizer can claim a victory.
You wrote: "Then there's the people who did make corporate policy. They designed the financial instruments which created this mess. They actively and purposefully worked to disable and circumvent the system's built-in fail-safes so they could profit from their phony financial instruments."
Jeff Skilling of Enron infamy (remember Enron?) knows and is guilty of precisely that. Enron made a business model of "commoditizing" everything. Creating financial instruments out of other financial instruments and marketing them as "products" ended up destroying what had been a viable energy provider. But the financial/home mortgage industry started the same scheme with an advantage that Enron didn't have: almost universal approval of home ownership and mortgages, compared to almost universal despisal of energy companies.
"I actually do believe that the worst offenders at the top of the pyramid could be identified. Their roles in this mess could be tracked in detail. They could be held accountable, and forced to fund the rebuilding of what they have destroyed."
I believe it's crucial to find a few of those worst offenders to make examples of them. Even if it's only to ridicule them in the press, as has happened to the clueless bastard who spent $1 million redecorating his office. At least it gives hope that somehow, sometime, the system can be made a little more fair.
One comment by another member has also been removed, because it was entirely a response to John Knight's comments. Any future comments addressing John Knight directly on this thread will be removed.
If anyone wants to debate with John Knight on this topic, or any other, they are free to post an article of their own and have at it.
*It is such a relief to trust my President enough that I don't feel the need to sit glued to C-span any more. I'm on a short vacation but promise I will not be lazy or stupid.
I'm with you on identifying and publicly humiliating the worst of those who created and nurtured the fraudulent 'commodities' markets. Even if we never get a solid conviction, it'd be good to see their roles in this mess exposed to the light of day for all to see.
Thanks for stopping by and pitching in.
"John Knight has attempted to re-post the comment I removed, and I have removed it again."
"John Knight re-posted the comment I removed again."
I guess he's not getting it through his head that the comment is gone.
As always, anyone who wants to respond to the content of this post or its thread is free to write and post their thoughts on Gather in a manner which does not require the hijacking of this thread.
I find myself caught in the same spot - wanting to support local but disappointed when the prices are so much higher. In the past, when we still had a few local grocers left, I made a point of stopping in occasionally to pick up a few things, and asked my neighbors to do the same, even though I couldn't afford to do all my shopping there. I have also split purchases with someone else, to do the same. If not on this thread, maybe in the future we could look into ways that we might work around this lose/lose situation, where the locals can't afford to sell at the prices we can afford, unless we can afford to buy at their prices and help them out.
"Commenters, regardless of age, are not welcome to assign an incorrect interpretation of their choice to my words, then demand that I defend myself on that basis."
Well said.
Great thread! Lots to learn here.
I've always tried to buy locally, from owner-operators or small chains, whenever it's reasonable for me to do so. The trouble is, a lot of the small businesses here have chosen to position themselves as the local alternative to bigger stores which I can't afford either. You know... buy your $100 jeans and your $5 cup of coffee from someone you know, not some big chain store. To my amusement, the nearby enclave where rich people have long gated themselves off from the rabble has, in the last few years, acquired a Wal-Mart and a Goodwill store. Funny thing, that.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I want to think this is what the "buy American" message in the bill is about.
And yes, I DO wonder at the source of these huge buckets of bucks.
Based on the way my eyes glaze over when I hear the talking heads people yammering about billions--much less TRILLIONS--of dollars, I think we have to look at this from a simpler platform. During the superbowl (which I actually watched) I wondered how full the stadium would be if we were to fill it with "change." Quarters, nickels, dimes and pennies, to show folks how big are the numbers we're talking about with the bail out.
Listening to Meet the Press, they offered up a economist who writes for some Dollars-R-Us money mag, and she said they SHOULD be able to pay out bonuses to the financial execs. Said that the bonuses were earned by bringing in new business for the company--and the employees that did that should nt be penalized for the companies failures. Well, that's where she lost me. How many companies "take out loans" to pay bonuses to account execs. If you don't have the money to run your company--yes, you should not pay bonuses. (Pretty simple, really.) She actually made it sound like a good thing. Otherwise these excellent performers, without millions in incentive based compensation, would not continue to do their jobs.
Here's the link to the conference call going down tonight, from The Prez's People, regarding the economic recovery plan; if you're interested, please copy & paste the link. There's still time to sign up. It's just a phone call, and should only last 15-30 minutes, probably.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/economicrecovery
Again, thanks for the great article.
Wilka
Isn't that in the job description? How many regular people get million dollar bonuses at the end of the year for performing their jobs? And how many regular people lose their jobs if they totally fail at it?
"Keep Louisville Weird" on the front, and
"Pay Sandy Knauer's Rent" on the back.
It's a vicious circle, really. It works because that's the way it's done, and that's the way it's done because it works. I'd like to see corporations begin moving away from the superstar CEO model, toward a results-based reputational model. If any CEOs storm off for greener pastures in response to that change, I'm sure someone who is willing to accept the new model and is just as capable as the diva who left will come along pretty quickly.
I have to say I love the simplicity of this post. You somehow have managed to speak and effectively say what I have been trying to say for years, which somehow came out of my mouth as a silent scream. BUT...I can tell you from working retail, far to many people are still hanging hard onto their blinders and that carrot dangling just out of their reach....complaining hard while charging ahead...not on needs...but on wants....H&R cards have come out of the woodwork...it scares me to see a cart with 100 dollars worth of dollar items of disposable junk and then an EBT card for 40 dollars worth of candy.
I have worked hard for the last three years to learn to say...."I don't want this"" I already have this".....
I will honestly say I do not support the bail out. It is nonsense to me in the manner in which it is being used at the moment. It is not stopping the momentum of this real reality....
since October of 2008 there are now 3 unemployed in my family of 4. The most recent....my oldest son, a college student, who's education is not being paid for by grants or scholarships, who just moved into a lesser expensive living arrangement to cut costs....got permanently laid off one week later. Maybe someone could arrange for him to be sent a care package of those little soaps and shampoos from La Vegas.