Madoff is an entirely different story, he ran a straight Ponzi scheme. His accountants were required by law to report his doings to the SEC but he paid off the accountants and was buddy-buddy with guys at the SEC so he was never investigated until the very end. At least in this instance the band of people impacted by the fraud was much narrower than with Enron (and you of all people should appreciate that they're all Jewish ).Dilbert_X wrote:
Enron was hardly a once in a generation event, and what happens if an accountant is forced to take responsibility?
Arthur Andersen went bust, Madoff's accountant will struggle to get another gig - how does that stabilise the system?
It won't stop it being repeated by any stretch.
All economies are based on consumerism. A country like Norway is dependent on people needing oil, timber, and fish. A country like China is dependent on people buying it's cheap manufactured goods. Economies are the trading partnerships that take place within the system. By definition they are a series of buys and sells and trades.Varegg wrote:
Ok Jay, it seems you have some difficulties understanding exactly what I'm trying to portray here ...
So maybe the exact same as Enron won't happen again, maybe a case exactly the same as Madoff won't happen again ... etc etc, there are quite the bunch of examples displaying the case I'm arguing here ... personal and corporate greed!
And you see no problems what so ever with a economy nearly based entirely on consumerism at all? ... just asking ...
Last edited by Jay (2011-08-02 05:24:35)
Umm no, it's not relevant at all. If people stop consuming then the manufacturers shut down too. We have a 100% consumer based economy Varegg, so do you.Varegg wrote:
This is actually highly relevant and especially now when your unemployment rate is at 9.2% and you have a 70% consumer based economy.
When people stop consuming guess what happens then?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ … HH20110801HSBC will shed 30,000 jobs as it retreats from countries where it is struggling to compete, Europe's biggest bank said on Monday after it reported a surprise rise in first-half profit.
Shares in HSBC rose over 4 percent after it unveiled first-half pretax profits of $11.5 billion, up from $11.1 billion a year ago and better than the $10.8 billion average in a Reuters poll of analysts.
The bank also said it had cut 5,000 jobs following restructuring of operations in Latin America, the United States, Britain, France and the Middle East and that it would cut another 25,000 between now and 2013.
"There will be further job cuts," Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver told reporters on a conference call. "There will be something like 25,000 roles eliminated between now and the end of 2013."
Maybe they don't view it as sustainable, or those divisions operate at a loss. Tossing out a large number and invoking emotion does not a good argument make.Dilbert_X wrote:
OT: I propose HSBChttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ … HH20110801HSBC will shed 30,000 jobs as it retreats from countries where it is struggling to compete, Europe's biggest bank said on Monday after it reported a surprise rise in first-half profit.
Shares in HSBC rose over 4 percent after it unveiled first-half pretax profits of $11.5 billion, up from $11.1 billion a year ago and better than the $10.8 billion average in a Reuters poll of analysts.
The bank also said it had cut 5,000 jobs following restructuring of operations in Latin America, the United States, Britain, France and the Middle East and that it would cut another 25,000 between now and 2013.
"There will be further job cuts," Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver told reporters on a conference call. "There will be something like 25,000 roles eliminated between now and the end of 2013."
There's something wrong with the system if a company thinks its doing good business by firing people while its making a $10bn profit.
Pretty sure he meant 70% private consumption. Not sure why though, 70% doesn't seem too huge?Jay wrote:
Umm no, it's not relevant at all. If people stop consuming then the manufacturers shut down too. We have a 100% consumer based economy Varegg, so do you.Varegg wrote:
This is actually highly relevant and especially now when your unemployment rate is at 9.2% and you have a 70% consumer based economy.
When people stop consuming guess what happens then?
Then his argument still doesn't make snse. Why is government spending superior to private spending? If anything, it's even more wasteful and corrupt.Jenspm wrote:
Pretty sure he meant 70% private consumption. Not sure why though, 70% doesn't seem too huge?Jay wrote:
Umm no, it's not relevant at all. If people stop consuming then the manufacturers shut down too. We have a 100% consumer based economy Varegg, so do you.Varegg wrote:
This is actually highly relevant and especially now when your unemployment rate is at 9.2% and you have a 70% consumer based economy.
When people stop consuming guess what happens then?
No Varegg, you are the one that lacks understanding. You know buzzwords but don't understand what you are talking about. Consumerism is democratic market driven economics where the buyer dictates supply and demand. What you want is Marxist/Keynes government telling you what you require for life. I will tell you right now that you are a hypocrite. Do you live a Spartan lifestyle with nothing but the bare essentials necessary for survival? No, you don't.Varegg wrote:
I give up ... I find it strange you seem to lack knowledge about simple economic functions like supply, demand and the effect of a consumer based economy when large amounts of people are loosing their jobs.
This will sadly enough have effect on other countries than your own and you act like it's only your concern ... I start to agree with what Putin said yesterday if anyone caught that ...
If there's no demander (consumers) then no one would be willing to supply the product. DURRRRRRVaregg wrote:
I give up ... I find it strange you seem to lack knowledge about simple economic functions like supply, demand and the effect of a consumer based economy when large amounts of people are loosing their jobs.
This will sadly enough have effect on other countries than your own and you act like it's only your concern ... I start to agree with what Putin said yesterday if anyone caught that ...
No you don't have that problem in Norway. Norway also does not have the responsibilities taken on by the US either. Norway loves to sit back and reap the rewards for the security provided to it by everyone else, then has the nerve to talk down to other countries that we are spending too much money on military. Wonder what the European economy would look like if the US just pulled stakes and left you all to figure out how you will defend yourselves against, well, yourselves.Jenspm wrote:
We don't seem to have that problem in Norway, despite having one of the highest tax rates in the world. The maximum tax is around 54%, and a large portion of the population (around 20% I think) pay this. Norway is also the country with the highest average retirement age in Europe.lowing wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but people do not fall into line like this. First, even if they got rich through govt. programs, they are gunna wanna keep it, and if they know they got to give more than half of their earnings away 1 of 2 things will happen, they simply will not strive to earn it, or they pack up their shit and move. After all, they are rich and can afford to do that. No one is more than happy to work hard for someone elses benefit. People just are not wired like that.
right now, here in the US we have taxpayer covered education all the way through HS, plus govt. grants and loans for those that qualify, and middle class folks don't qualify, yet still, we are overwhelmed with those that "don't have the same opportunity" or the are "being kept down by the man". There is a plague of entitlement in our country and history has shown the more you give, the more they want and the more they demand and the more life is "unfair" for them. Notice how they are asking for entitlement and not a job? Think about that. Your system, in fantasyland, is great. It is not however, real world.
As Varegg said, people don't flee the country because they believe they are getting value for money with their taxes (in addition to a feeling of 'home' and whatnot, but yeah)
There are many, many things I'd change about the Norwegian system, mind, but it's more to show that high taxes doesn't have to mean people stop working or move.
lowing wrote:
No you don't have that problem in Norway. Norway also does not have the responsibilities taken on by the US either. Norway loves to sit back and reap the rewards for the security provided to it by everyone else, then has the nerve to talk down to other countries that we are spending too much money on military. Wonder what the European economy would look like if the US just pulled stakes and left you all to figure out how you will defend yourselves against, well, yourselves.
you, are not the voice of America. stop making pronouncements that speak on behalf of others who live in the United States.lowing wrote:
We have a country where half want to work for themselves, and the other half want to leech off of our work.
Hm ... you make some rather weired assumptions on my behalf in that post, I haven't been even close to saying I want a Marxist/Keynes government ... what hat did you drag that out of if I may ask?Jay wrote:
No Varegg, you are the one that lacks understanding. You know buzzwords but don't understand what you are talking about. Consumerism is democratic market driven economics where the buyer dictates supply and demand. What you want is Marxist/Keynes government telling you what you require for life. I will tell you right now that you are a hypocrite. Do you live a Spartan lifestyle with nothing but the bare essentials necessary for survival? No, you don't.Varegg wrote:
I give up ... I find it strange you seem to lack knowledge about simple economic functions like supply, demand and the effect of a consumer based economy when large amounts of people are loosing their jobs.
This will sadly enough have effect on other countries than your own and you act like it's only your concern ... I start to agree with what Putin said yesterday if anyone caught that ...
How does being a consumer driven economy hurt us more? It hurts the suppliers just as much. Loggers and miners lose their jobs too. So do factory workers. They don't keep working when people stop buying. Everything is interconnected.
Putin is a tool. They buy our bonds because we pay interest on them, not out of the kindness of their heart.
never claimed to be the voice of America burnzz, it is my opinion, if you don't want to read it, then don't.13urnzz wrote:
you, are not the voice of America. stop making pronouncements that speak on behalf of others who live in the United States.lowing wrote:
We have a country where half want to work for themselves, and the other half want to leech off of our work.
Arguing with you is pointless. You don't even know what consumerism is, nor do you seem capable of grasping the link between production and consumption. The argument against consumerism is the argument against democratic markets. People are too stupid to be responsible so some big brother has to step in. You may not understand the opinions you hold, but I do, and the argument is just another form of Proggressive nanny state elitism.Varegg wrote:
Hm ... you make some rather weired assumptions on my behalf in that post, I haven't been even close to saying I want a Marxist/Keynes government ... what hat did you drag that out of if I may ask?Jay wrote:
No Varegg, you are the one that lacks understanding. You know buzzwords but don't understand what you are talking about. Consumerism is democratic market driven economics where the buyer dictates supply and demand. What you want is Marxist/Keynes government telling you what you require for life. I will tell you right now that you are a hypocrite. Do you live a Spartan lifestyle with nothing but the bare essentials necessary for survival? No, you don't.Varegg wrote:
I give up ... I find it strange you seem to lack knowledge about simple economic functions like supply, demand and the effect of a consumer based economy when large amounts of people are loosing their jobs.
This will sadly enough have effect on other countries than your own and you act like it's only your concern ... I start to agree with what Putin said yesterday if anyone caught that ...
How does being a consumer driven economy hurt us more? It hurts the suppliers just as much. Loggers and miners lose their jobs too. So do factory workers. They don't keep working when people stop buying. Everything is interconnected.
Putin is a tool. They buy our bonds because we pay interest on them, not out of the kindness of their heart.
I'm merely expressing concerns about the few (yes, the few) mechanisms that doesn't work very well in the American economy ... how you can possibly turn that into government decided life requirements is beyond me ... just coming up with such Utopian an argument kinda proves me right when I argue your lack of knowledge about simple economic functions.
You simply have no clue what I'm talking about are you? Followed any economic news and or debates lately? It sure doesn't sound like you have!
You know what a bear/bull market is? (Most usually used about the stock market but also as a term to define the direction of the economy)
So with all your rabble rabble about my posts I must assume you believe everything is in order, or is it because it comes from someone not American that you dismiss it entirely?
I'm sure you get if any very few news about Norway, I can assure you we get lots of news about the US ... why? ... because we have close relations and whatever you guys do have an impact on us.
nope, but how many beggars you see begging for a job and not a handout?Varegg wrote:
What are your thoughts about the ca 30 million people in the US that don't have work lowing?
Leeches that don't work because they only want easy handsouts?
yes, you claimed it.lowing wrote:
never claimed to be the voice of America burnzz,13urnzz wrote:
you, are not the voice of America. stop making pronouncements that speak on behalf of others who live in the United States.lowing wrote:
We have a country where half want to work for themselves, and the other half want to leech off of our work.
what a cop out. i was following the thread, and you wrote in the thread.lowing wrote:
it is my opinion, if you don't want to read it, then don't.
I said, I speak for all Americans? Sorry burnzz, I am not as arrogant as you jay or varegg.13urnzz wrote:
yes, you claimed it.lowing wrote:
never claimed to be the voice of America burnzz,13urnzz wrote:
you, are not the voice of America. stop making pronouncements that speak on behalf of others who live in the United States.what a cop out. i was following the thread, and you wrote in the thread.lowing wrote:
it is my opinion, if you don't want to read it, then don't.
this is why i don't want you speaking for Americans.
Yeah, sorry for not making it clear - I am fully aware that some economic systems are better suited to some countries than others. I can't really imagine implementing a socialist/progressivist system in the US - it seems too big, too diverse, and there is an underlying culture that just doesn't line up with it.lowing wrote:
No you don't have that problem in Norway. Norway also does not have the responsibilities taken on by the US either. Norway loves to sit back and reap the rewards for the security provided to it by everyone else, then has the nerve to talk down to other countries that we are spending too much money on military. Wonder what the European economy would look like if the US just pulled stakes and left you all to figure out how you will defend yourselves against, well, yourselves.Jenspm wrote:
We don't seem to have that problem in Norway, despite having one of the highest tax rates in the world. The maximum tax is around 54%, and a large portion of the population (around 20% I think) pay this. Norway is also the country with the highest average retirement age in Europe.lowing wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but people do not fall into line like this. First, even if they got rich through govt. programs, they are gunna wanna keep it, and if they know they got to give more than half of their earnings away 1 of 2 things will happen, they simply will not strive to earn it, or they pack up their shit and move. After all, they are rich and can afford to do that. No one is more than happy to work hard for someone elses benefit. People just are not wired like that.
right now, here in the US we have taxpayer covered education all the way through HS, plus govt. grants and loans for those that qualify, and middle class folks don't qualify, yet still, we are overwhelmed with those that "don't have the same opportunity" or the are "being kept down by the man". There is a plague of entitlement in our country and history has shown the more you give, the more they want and the more they demand and the more life is "unfair" for them. Notice how they are asking for entitlement and not a job? Think about that. Your system, in fantasyland, is great. It is not however, real world.
As Varegg said, people don't flee the country because they believe they are getting value for money with their taxes (in addition to a feeling of 'home' and whatnot, but yeah)
There are many, many things I'd change about the Norwegian system, mind, but it's more to show that high taxes doesn't have to mean people stop working or move.
I have not been to Norway, but I have been to Germany and though I was only there for a month I was left with a positive impression on the attitudes the German people have for their communities. I didn't see beggars on the corners. I saw clean communities with friendly people. We simply do not have that here in the states. We have workers and producers, then we have people who want to thrive on entitlement and handouts. These people are mostly liberals who will vote for anyone that will ensure those entitlements on the backs of the rest of us. Democrats cater to them for their votes.
We have a country where half want to work for themselves, and the other half want to leech off of our work. When you have half the people that have the rewards of hard work taken away for someone elses benefit and the other half that does not want to work for their own benefit, you are doomed as a society.
Last edited by Jenspm (2011-08-02 13:26:21)
