quote:

ORIGINAL: Endivius

There were three primary factors that were the cause.

First, deregulation. As mentioned above. Basically when the lobyists managed to get bills passed that slowly pulled the threads of the safety net placed after the depression eventually it just fell apart. That and the banks lending to people who were clearly in no position to financially support the morgages they were taking out. So much legislation was passed that picked apart the housing market and the economics surrounding it; that there is really no one individual cause, but rather the sum of all of them combined that became a snowball of ever increasing damage. Now add in the bailouts on top of that and it just gets rediculous.

Second, the wars. The military industrial complex started spending and spending to support the war, and then we picked up another one in Afghanistan. Those are not cheap, and it's not just the war itself, but the creation of Deparment of Homeland Security as well as integration of several government agencies all cost inordinate amounts of money. The spending on the military industrial complex went out of control, largely based on fear after 9/11 and the lobyists and oil exects patted eachother on the backs. Oil prices sky rocketted and the fed is still subsidizing contracts to mercenearies in the middle east ten years later.

Finally, there were all the controllable variables that had far lasting impacts on the economy that were not controlled. Hurricane Katrina, for example. Even though we knew it was coming, and the levies were weak, nothing was done to reinforce them. The damage was far reaching, but Louissianna felt it the most. You combine all the elements together and it's no surprise the economy ended up where it is. It was totally preventable. Insurance companies went belly up over night, along with banks that held on to property deeds that were largely worthless. Ofcourse the people who got contracts for cleanup and rebuilding didn't suffer one bit.

There are really a lot of factors that went into it. Now that I think about it more, it's more like a house of cards, too many systems were relying on other economics to keep things balanced, and once one or two fell, everything came crashing down. The wealthiest beneficiaries were the oil companies and the reconstruction companies. I would say a lot of the hedge fund managers who have been speculating oil prices for the last decade had a lot to do with that gap as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Violetgray seems to forget, or leave out the fact that big unions have paid hundreds of millions to Obama and the democrats to get their way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
What entity is responsible for the deregulation?  What entity is responsible for participation in armed conflict?  What entity failed to take precautions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Violetgray seems to forget, or leave out the fact that big unions have paid hundreds of millions to Obama and the democrats to get their way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

It is big unions that are bankrupting states, munincipalities and companies like GM. They have demanded wages and benefit packages that can no longer be afforded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VioletGray

Think about what "getting their way" means for unions as opposed to corporations. I mention this specifically for all the deregulations and such that happened under Bush. How much has happened in last few years that had people protesting in the streets about how the unions are bleeding us dry? Sure, on one side is the corporations donating money and on the other side is unions, but I think the corporate agendas are what hurt the country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I'm personally leaning toward the opinion that the major problem lies with the government; it is too large and too powerful.  I take great issue with the access and influence that can be had to that great power with money.  That Corporations and the very wealthy take advantage of that, there is no doubt, but does the fault lie more with them or with the governmental system that allows it? 

You've got the problem exactly backward.

Money tends to concentrate. If you have more than enough money to pay for the neccessities and luxuries of life you will invest at least some of the extra. That invested surplus will tend to increase rather than decrease. The money supply is not unlimited so that concentration directly decreases the amount of money in the rest of the economy. Fairly obviously the scale of the investment directly affects the scale of the concentration of wealth, i.e. investing/saving a hundred dollars bring much smaller returns than investing/saving one million dollars.

Therefore if nothing external takes money from the wealthy they will tend to accumulate more money which directly impoverishes the rest of society. Which is exactly what we've seen in the last 30 odd years and we saw it in the Gilded Age as well ( a period when the wealthy became much more wealthy but the economy as a whole was stuck in a long term deflationary cycle).

The best solution found so far is progressive taxes and taxes on intergenerational wealth transfer. We can directly trace the acceleration of the concentration of this nations wealth in the top 1% to the last 30 years when the income tax was made less progressive and the estate tax was gutted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Dear Treasury.

Basically you are saying that the corporations are greedy, but this is not their fault because... it is natural.
And the Governemt is too powerful, and this is its fault because... ehm... it is not natural?
And beeing powerful is bad, but beeing greedy is ok?
And to stop the Corporations, the Governemt should be... less powerful?

These are the problems I see in your OP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I do not disagree that there needs to be State intervention.  But if a Government is given free reign and power to apply or withhold that intervention at their discretion, then their discretion is up for sale to the highest bidder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I do not disagree that there needs to be State intervention.  But if a Government is given free reign and power to apply or withhold that intervention at their discretion, then their discretion is up for sale to the highest bidder.

Nobody is saying "intervention without control". But we need more intervention and regulation.
And the banks did the mess, and prevented the Government to stop them. So they have much more guilt.
Tell me one power the Government has and should not have...

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
The answer - according to historic American political theory - is as little as absolutely necessary, and as enumerated in our Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Someone gonna clue him in?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
The answer - according to historic American political theory - is as little as absolutely necessary, and as enumerated in our Constitution.

TreasureKY  can judge by herself it is the wrong question or not, it is to her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
The answer - according to historic American political theory - is as little as absolutely necessary, and as enumerated in our Constitution.

TreasureKY  can judge by herself it is the wrong question or not, it is to her. Your second assert is not American political theory (that these must be the only powers), and in first I agree, does not change my points, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

I also believe, that money will travel to where it makes the most return. If it is not in the US, then money will travel thru the world to where it does make the best returns. The 1% has homes all over the world, does anyone really think that the rich give a shit if they live in the US or Paris or the Bahamas to protect the money they have? Imo, that is why the US govt wont over tax them, cuz they will move their money offshore as many have already. The US govt can’t stop money from leaving.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


Just why is it "fair" for one man to pay so much, when others pay nothing at all? 

Of course he has a larger income and can afford it, but why does that matter? 

Would you consider it fair if the price for every purchase you made was based not on the value of the item, but on how much money you have?  Would it be fair for the regular guy in front of you in the grocery store line to get milk for $3.60 a gallon, but because you have a larger bank account, you have to pay $154 a gallon?

Other than taxation, where else is this considered "fair"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Kinda like who do you hold more responsible... the parent who leaves cookies on the counter where the child can sneak off with some, or the child?  True, the child has done the sneaking... but who is responsible for watching the child?

The child is as wise and intelligent as the adult, and has a key with which it can lock the parents out of the house if he dislikes what the parents do. Or... so do the parents believe.
If the Government didn't allow it it wouln't have happened. Sure. And if the politician would not allow it, the corporations would try to care that he never gets to the office. Think about lobbies, money for campaign, and pressure over congresspeople and media. So... how is not the culprit, the one who tries to force (succesfully) the other to NOT preventing him to make evil, and then makes evil? How is the blackmailed one, the forced one, the one suffering all the pressure from the one who actually makes the evil, more to blame?
Well, I hope this message is not too much, I wrote you already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

But, as to your question about should the protest be on governments door, or on the bankers door. I would venture to say the banks weren't telling government about their illegal practices for government to be held accountable for this crime. And to this day, despite the bad investments they intentionally sold and the damage it did to this country and places abroad, I think they should pay for their nasty little secret, once it blew up in everyone's face.

Crimes were committed and no one paid the price. And you think gov't should pay the price for them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I'm personally leaning toward the opinion that the major problem lies with the government; it is too large and too powerful.  I take great issue with the access and influence that can be had to that great power with money.  That Corporations and the very wealthy take advantage of that, there is no doubt, but does the fault lie more with them or with the governmental system that allows it? 

You've got the problem exactly backward.

Money tends to concentrate. If you have more than enough money to pay for the neccessities and luxuries of life you will invest at least some of the extra. That invested surplus will tend to increase rather than decrease. The money supply is not unlimited so that concentration directly decreases the amount of money in the rest of the economy. Fairly obviously the scale of the investment directly affects the scale of the concentration of wealth, i.e. investing/saving a hundred dollars bring much smaller returns than investing/saving one million dollars.

Therefore if nothing external takes money from the wealthy they will tend to accumulate more money which directly impoverishes the rest of society. Which is exactly what we've seen in the last 30 odd years and we saw it in the Gilded Age as well ( a period when the wealthy became much more wealthy but the economy as a whole was stuck in a long term deflationary cycle).

The best solution found so far is progressive taxes and taxes on intergenerational wealth transfer. We can directly trace the acceleration of the concentration of this nations wealth in the top 1% to the last 30 years when the income tax was made less progressive and the estate tax was gutted.

I'm not sure where you believe I have things backwards.  It seems to me that what you've said here supports my assertion that Government holds responsibility.

quote:

I say the lion's share belongs to the government. Which in some respects, leads me to feel that the OWS movement is a bit misplaced. I think a few of their demands address the government problem, and they have the right idea of making their voices heard... but I believe they are focusing on the wrong entity.