Comments on: Solving the Economic Crisis in One Easy Step

By: Chad Phillips

Chad Phillips — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 03:39:51 +0000

DAVE:
Well said buddy. Part of the problem with corporate America is that they have no moral center governing their capitalism. Their ethos is just pure, “unadulterated” capitalism. Now, we’re reaping what that kind of credo produces. It’s a bit like Darwinism. Darwinism has one essential characteristic. That is, whatever gives a species the advantage in surviving and thus passing on their genetic material is considered “good.” Similarly, pure capitalism operates under the sole characteristic of what is profitable. Therefore, what is profitable is deemed “good,” and therein lies the problem. When corporate America fixates on the bottom line to the detriment of everything else, we end up in the mess we have today. We’re dealing with people and entities whose only reason for being is keeping it in the black and they don’t give a damn who they have to hurt in the process.

By: Chad Phillips

Chad Phillips — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 03:26:40 +0000

I agree with you John. As a culture, we’ve become much too dependent.

As for your work and plans for your education, sounds like your goals are laudable. Best of luck in your endeavors.

See you next time.

By: John

John — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:32:07 +0000

It is consumer greed as much as corporate greed, that I will agree to. The biggest thing though is that who puts their products in advertisement? The corporations have spent a substantial amount time convincing us as the consumer that we need to buy their luxuries. Sure we might fall for it, and that doesn’t make us blameless, but there were many generations before us that made it on just what they needed.

In case you wanted your what I do question answered, I will do that. I am a student studying secondary education. I am working for a construction company in a foreign country next year both to learn how to build a house, like my father and grandfather before him, and to make money towards my education. I am studying this summer before I leave at a small farming school. The fact that very few consumers today are even slightly self sustaining is the main problem. When we can only get our basic necessities through money, and so the line starts to blur between what we need, and what we want.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:31:00 +0000

Watching this debate continue is almost agonizing. For Trog, yes the greed of Corp America is at times unbearable. Does that mean they are not entitled to earn whatever they wish to earn ? NO !!! The problem lies in seeing some Corp A exec “earn” ump-teen gazillion dollars and turn to the US Gov’t and whine about bailout funds. It lies in seeing Corp B exec “earn” ump-teen gazillion dollars and then turn to the public and say “we need to raise prices to stay afloat”. Especially now, this is taboo in an ailing market when the so-called average family is stressed financially. None of those families wish for the price to go up when the Exec is making 100x the avg. family income. It’s like a guy pulls up to you in a Porsche and begs for change to buy gas.
For Chad, you are right too, and yes the greedy consumer creates the damage caused by Corp America. Just say, “X” music is an “immoral form of music” (just say) ……and yet…..that is the market, that’s what sells. If people can’t buy enough of it, then they will produce more.
Joe Schmo athlete just signed a 2-year contract for $45MIL , so is that “greed” ? To me …yes. But, he can only get that because all those idiot consumers continue to pay the price to provide that ability of income. If I don’t want my hog to get fatter, I stop feeding it all that grain.
I think the general public are pure idiots. Feed them a little junk, they’re addicted in the cause of “greed”…….I want more.
When the consumer stops demanding the fortune, the Execs will have to cut themselves off. They are only greedy because consumers allow them to be. But, who would dare go without the luxuries of life ……..oops, is that greed on the consumer’s part ? Surely not.
A friend of mine stopped to offer shelter, food, and farm work for extra cash to one of those hobo guys on the corner of the Interstate holding a sign that said “work for food”. Long story short, the guy said “no thanks, I can make more money standing here with this sign”. Now, morally speaking………what’s wrong with that? But, legally and morally are two mighty different causes.

By: Troglodad

Troglodad — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:40:57 +0000

Then all regulation should be done away with. And we already know where that will lead. It isn’t unregulated roofers, and loan sharks that have tanked the economy. It’s greedy, unregulated corporations.

You say that consumers are to blame. That’s true as well. But government exists to serve the public interest. We don’t let consumers purchase narcotics on street corners. Why shouldn’t we enact maximum profit limitations to protect consumers from rampant, unchecked supply and demand?

By: Chad Phillips

Chad Phillips — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:36:24 +0000

It’s not price gouging if people are will to pay for it, Trog.

Price gouging is based on a moral imperative of “what is considered fair.” Capitalism’s imperative has no such moral constraint. The only thing considered fair in capitalism is “fair market price,” and the consumer is the one who determines that.

By: Chad Phillips

Chad Phillips — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:30:32 +0000

The reason for the obscene prices, Trog, is a supply and demand issue. As I said, I appreciate what your after here. But your overlooking consumer greed in your scenario. Consumers create demand. Producers create supply. In large measure, consumers set the price of goods and services. They do so based on their purchasing preferences. That is the free market. Sellers are getting those prices because consumers are willing to pay them. When consumers stop paying those prices, supply will go up, effectively driving prices down. Those who don’t give the public what it wants will go under. Okay…I’m overstating my case here. I know that. Free trade has complicated the scenario. It’s really not as simply as I let on. But my original assertion of consumer greed stands. In a nutshell, it’s supply and demand. Consumers share the responsibility for continuing to gobble up those high priced items.

By: Troglodad

Troglodad — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:24:14 +0000

Chad, you’re right that people can change jobs if they want. But what if EVERYONE wanted, and had the drive, to go to law school for example. COuld society function with nothing but lawyers? No, all jobs are important. Someone has to pick up the garbage. Someone has to deliver the mail. Someone even has to run those annoying kiosks at the Mall.

I disagree about it being liberalism. Liberals like to believe themselves better than others. My system makes it very clear that everyone is equal. No one gets an exception. No business gets to gouge consumers while others are regulated.

You tell me, Chad- why should any group be allowed to price gouge?

By: Chad Phillips

Chad Phillips — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:19:34 +0000

Uh, I don’t wear glasses…hmmmmm…Oh! I get it, yer saying I need some:)LOL

Look, I appreciate your little Utopian vision here. I really do. But it is fatally flawed because it is based on the assumption that all are essentially equal. It also removes personal responsibility from the working class, of which I am a member, BTW. If people don’t like what they’re making, then it’s THEIR responsibility to get proactive. Don’t like what you’re earning? Think you’re being screwed by The Man? Then exercise your free job market nuclear option.

I hate corporate greed as much as the next guy. But what you’re advocating is sounding like (I can’t believe I’m going to put this in print) neoliberalism…Yech!

And minimum wage laws actually hurt the economy. They don’t help it.

By: Troglodad

Troglodad — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:13:30 +0000

Okay Chad, here’s a scenario for you, taken from the law of our great State of Indiana.

Let’s say you’re a roofer. And you want to get your kid braces. Times have been tough and you have just the one roofing job this month. You could charge your normal rate of $2000, but man, you need some extra money. Aw heck, just charge $10,000.00.

Under Indiana Law (Indiana Code 35-43-6) you’ve committed Home Improvement Fraud by entering into an “unconscionable contract”- providing a service that an unreasonable difference exists between the fair market value of the services.

So as a roofer, you can’t hit people up for 5x what you should be charging, or you go to jail. Yet how many other companies do this on a daily basis? Clothing has an obscene mark up, when compared to other products. Texting is in the news this month as people proclaim that it too is unconscionable, as the amount of data being sent for each text is miniscule compared to downloading a song, yet the cost per kilobyte of data is not the same for each action- texts are billed at a significantly, astronomically higher rate per kilobyte than songs.

If you want to go back to a lawless, no regulation Old West economy, then let’s do it. But as long as one company is regulated as to how much profit they make, then ALL companies should be.