How Every American Seeking Work Can be Employed: Redistribution of Wealth from the 1%

reply to post by milominderbinder

Why is it we just assume "regulation" should be applied across the board?

It's the idea of "fairness", and you raise an excellent point.

I can think of little more dangerous than allowing an authority to target individuals (or companies by extension). If BP is required to submit to regulations, Mom & Pop, assuming similar circumstances, are also required to submit to those same regulations. Otherwise, there is no assurance that Mom & Pop will not be targeted while BP is allowed to run free. I believe history has clearly shown that no authority can be trusted to act in the people's best interests unless that same authority is bound itself by regulations (which we in the USA call the "Constitution").

The correct action in the Deepwater Horizon disaster (IMHO) would have been for the drilling rig to have been immediately seized by the US once the leak was detected and plugged by whatever means were necessary, with the total cost borne by BP. Would that have caused less damage than requiring BP to install new components instead of surplus? No, but it would have lessened the damage finally caused, without introducing excessive regulations on business. Had Mom & Pop been keeping a private zoo and their wild animals escaped, the local police would rightly take immediate control of the situation and destroy the animals as soon as possible to prevent harm to society, fining Mom & Pop in the process.

There is a role for government - anti-monopoly to encourage competition, protection against fraudulent business practices, and protection of the citizenry when bad things happen. I agree with you that government should not be in the business of enforcing 'what-if' regulations that try to prevent any possibility of problems in the future... such has been shown to be restrictive and inefficient. But the downside is that such applies to BP as much as it does to Mom & Pop.

Ideally, BP would have been fined so much on top of losing their well (along with denial to drill offshore in the future without accepting restrictions voluntarily) they would be financially unable to cause more problems. The threat of such dire consequences should be enough to ensure good faith attempts to prevent accidents. But that's not what happened. BP was left in control, BP kept their well, and BP paid only a small portion of the actual cleanup costs... especially considering the cleanup was not completed.

Why? Because BP is too big to fail. BP is needed desperately by the economy. It cannot be replaced, because it is financially impossible due to regulations for anyone else to step in and take over their share of the industry. So BP pays what it can afford, keeps its well, and continues to drill offshore. Were it possible for smaller oil companies to start up and grow, it would be no problem for BP to cease to exist.

That is what our continual regulation of business has done for us: we cannot enforce the regulations that make sense, because to do so causes major damage to the economy. The businesses which already exist become essentially above the law, precious beyond measure, irreplaceable; new businesses become an endangered species. Actual competition becomes a mere memory.

Unemployment rises, inflation rises, income drops, debt rises, foreclosures and defaults rise, and the standard of living drops. Tax revenues drop and more higher fees are required to make up the shortage. As more and more people cannot survive on their own due to the economic mayhem, the country begins to sink deeply into debt to placate the people with the barest meager survival income. Look around you; it's happening as we type. Food Stamp recipients are at an all-time high. Unemployment is huge, even given artificially adjusted numbers used by the government. Revenues are down, while national debt is skyrocketing. Fees are being added or raised for governmental services. People cannot afford health care. Home foreclosures are rampant. Tent cities are popping up across the landscape. Prices are rising.

As with most things the government does, regulations designed to safeguard the country do the opposite they were supposed to do - they destroy it from within. And as people typically do, they scream for more water in the pool while the ship sinks below them.



TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by milominderbinder

As with most things the government does, regulations designed to safeguard the country do the opposite they were supposed to do - they destroy it from within. And as people typically do, they scream for more water in the pool while the ship sinks below them.

You bet. I think what we (as a nation) need to start recognizing is that GROUPS of people are not the same thing as INDIVIDUAL people.

We have this idea now that "corporations are people" with the logic being that the organization is a construct of society and composed of people...therefore "it's a person".

However...isn't a foreign country ALSO just a big group of people? All those political boundaries on the map are totally imaginary...there is not really a dotted red line on the ground at our borders. The Constitution expressly FORBIDS our government officials from ALSO holding positions of governance in other countries. You can't be a US Senator and in the British Parliament...it's called treason and it's punishable by death.

Yet...we have no problem letting a single individual sit on the Board of Directors for both Exxon-Mobile and General Motors simultaneously. Should we REALLY be that surprised GM didn't have a whole lot of fuel efficient vehicles when we hit $4/gallon the first time when we turn a blind eye to this??

Standard-issue right-wing rhetoric is normally against unionization....but still in favor of lobbying groups, think tanks, and trade associations. What the hell is the difference between an electrical workers union and The National Dairy Farmers Association? Aren't both just a group of indivduals pooling resources, clout, votes, etc for a common interest?

Secondly, let's look at that BP situation. I think most Americans agree that the "perfect world" scenario is that the US government stepped in at the first sign of BP failure and then made BP responsible for the entire cost and reparations to those whose livelihood's they destroyed. However, we all know that BP simply isn't going to pay for it. Even if suit was filed and BP lost, they would just file bankruptcy and proceed on as if nothing happened.

Realistically, the only way to "make" BP cough up the dough for the American Peasants it harmed is more or less at "gunpoint", proverbial or otherwise. You are almost bordering on what could be construed as being a pretty similar nationalization of BP U.S. assets as what Hugo Chavez did w/ the oil companies in Venezuela.

However, that recent Obama provision giving the executive branch the right to arbitrarily nationalize any private property it wants quite frankly scares the hell out of me. Should we ACTUALLY allow the government to do this? It makes perfect sense in the case of BP...but only a damn fool doesn't see how easy it would be to abuse this power.

So what's the solution? Why don't we come up with a legal and fair set of provisions which allow for the TEMPORARY AND PARTIAL nationalization of company assets of PUBLICLY TRADED/FUNDED companies when necessary to remediate their irresponsibility. In short, a "corporate" equivalent of good ol' wage garnishment.

Why not? If you or I as peasants don't pay our damn bills that's EXACTLY what happens. A certain portion of our wages are in essence "nationalized" until the debt is paid. It seems pretty reasonable to me, really. Sure, there are lots and lots of questions/details to work out....but it just seems like a WAY better solution than telling a couple million people they are screwed while the BP CEO gets a $20 million dollar bonus that year.

Now here's the REAL tricky part. In order to realistically make the rules FAIR between BP and all of us serfs...we will have to ACTUALLY think for ourselves and not immediately dismiss or exclude certain economic tools in the toolbox just because they are either "left" OR "right" in an ideological sense.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? I believe that. A gun is an inanimate object incapable of doing ANYTHING except for rusting until put to use by humans. It can provide food and defense...or be used to mug little old ladies. The choice is OURS.

I just REALLY think we need to start treating the ways in which we manage our legal, economic, and tax system the same way. In the end, a "good" solution is an ELEGANT one that has a tendency to SELF-CORRECT itself. Supply and Demand works because being lopsided on either end affects the other in proportionate ways.

So...when it comes to things like farmer subsidies...why don't we do the same thing? Why are subsidies based upon "acres not planted" instead of targeting a certain market ratio so that they KICK IN when needed and TURN OFF when not needed?

It would solve SO MANY problems...and the ideology comes from NEITHER the right NOR the left, but encompasses both.

reply to post by milominderbinder

Right and left are simply ideologies used by those in power to attempt to contain free thinking. I think of myself as conservative, which in most people's minds means "right wing", but I have no desire to wipe out all social assistance programs; on the contrary, I would like to see them expanded in a method that would help more people when they need help, allow these people to get off them and back into some sort of lifestyle when they can, and not break the economic back of the country in the process. And this is do-able, but only if we quit thinking inside those "left-wing" and "right-wing" boxes so conveniently placed for us.

Corporations are not people, as you say. They are businesses, run by a Board of Directors and then by the various CxOs. They cannot vote, nor should they. They can conduct business as an individual can, for without this power they would be unable to enter into contracts. However, if we are to agree that corporations are not people, then why should corporations be allowed to continue operation after filing bankruptcy? The reorganization bankruptcies are there for individuals to try and recover. Corporate bankruptcy should be finish, end of story, liquidate and pay creditors off, you no longer exist.

But here's the hard part when dealing with corporations: since they are not people, why are they paying income taxes at all? Corporate tax is double taxation, because the profits made belong to a group of people, and that group of people is paying taxes on that income as well. Imagine if you watched the IRS take taxes out of your paycheck all year and then on April 15th demand that you now pay your taxes as though nothing was paid in. You would be incensed! But we do that to corporations all the time. First the corporation pays tax, then when the money actually goes to the rightful owner, little old lady Ethel who is using it to live on, she has to pay tax on it again. Either remove the corporate tax or remove individual taxation on stock distributions.

Bottom line is we can't have it both ways. We either have to recognize that a corporation is a conglomerate of individuals or we have to not recognize that fact and treat them like individuals.

Realistically, the only way to "make" BP cough up the dough for the American Peasants it harmed is more or less at "gunpoint", proverbial or otherwise. You are almost bordering on what could be construed as being a pretty similar nationalization of BP U.S. assets as what Hugo Chavez did w/ the oil companies in Venezuela.

There is a difference between nationalization and seizing of assets; nationalization occurs when the government takes over the operation of a company (as in the GM/AIG/whoever bailouts), while seizure occurs when the government takes over the assets of a company. I'm talking about seizure; as lousy as business is at governing, I believe the government is worse at conducting business.

if your corporate responsibility exceeds your corporate liabilities, you are operating in the red, at the mercy of your creditors. That means that if your creditors do not wish to allow you to exist as a corporation, they can close you down and demand payment. That's common sense. If BP owed more due to the cleanup than they had the ability to pay to the government for the cleanup, then their operation would be solely at the discretion of the government... and at that point, the government could bargain: "You just paid the CEO that allowed that surplus valve to be installed $10 million? Fine, then we want our $100 billion now." Or, "OK, we see you fired that CEO along with a bunch of engineers responsible, and you are willing to let us inspect your operation before you drill again. You still owe us $100 billion, but we can talk payment arrangements."

That's good business. It reimburses the people for costs incurred due to their errors, while it also ensures that BP will either shape up or be gone forever. It violates no one's rights and imposes regulations on no one other than simple personal responsibility. It protects the ecology and the people living in the area as much as possible. And finally, it doesn't punish the guy at the corner gas station for something he had nothing to do with.

So what's the solution? Why don't we come up with a legal and fair set of provisions which allow for the TEMPORARY AND PARTIAL nationalization of company assets of PUBLICLY TRADED/FUNDED companies when necessary to remediate their irresponsibility. In short, a "corporate" equivalent of good ol' wage garnishment.

I do believe we are in total agreement.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by milominderbinder

I do believe we are in total agreement.

TheRedneck

I believe we are, indeed.

I'm currently a Ron Paul supporter, although historically I would have been what is considered a bit more to the left in terms of the old Right vs. Left paradigm. I agree. What was once simply a way to refer to certain political leanings has morphed into nothing short of a flat-out culture war of extremism perpetuated solely to keep us divided. It's easier to carve us all up that way when we bicker with ourselves.

It feels good to run into another pretty reasonable individual from what used to be the "other side of the fence" in days of The Old Republic.. There certainly are still a HELL of a lot of us out there who consider ourselves Americans first...but all too often I run into people in these threads that have their own self-identity so wrapped up in the "Right vs. Left" marketing scam that they wouldn't know sound thinking if it bit them in the ass.

You bring up a very, VERY good point about the differences between nationalization and seizing of assets. I agree...the only thing I see the government being able to do reliably right now is to create a clusterf*&^k out of an otherwise relatively simple set of solutions. They are currently batting a .1000 on their ability to do that at least...too bad we can't harness that innate ability for good, somehow.

I used to own a construction company before the '08 collapse. Every now and then I would hire a guy (usually the one's in their early 20's) who seemed almost incapable of not breaking everything they touched or otherwise causing a swath of generalized destruction, despite their best intentions.The remedy was usually pretty simple. I would have them trade in their nail guns and saws and swap them out for sledgehammers and pry bars...they became the "demo crew" for any tear-outs or otherwise imprecise tasks. What the hell...just let them do what they are good at right? If only we could figure out an equivalent for our legislators.

Yes....we would BP to still manage the day-to-day transactions, management, etc. We would ABSOLUTELY want them to be fully operational and restore full autonomy to them upon satisfaction of the debt. In terms of seizing assets...I suppose I generally think of this more or in terms of freezing accounts and foreclosing on property. My only concern would be the enumerable ways BP could cook the books and/or funnel money around the "garnishment" system to evade their responsibilities.

It occurred to me that what I am sort of envisioning may not even really have a word to describe it accurately. It's almost like a recievership...sans bankruptcy or permanent status change of any kind. Hmmm. I'm sure the attorney's have probably come up with something like this already...it may be that I am just not knowledgeable enough.

The other big concern would be in the corporate structure itself. We talk about casually about "BP" as being a single company. In reality, it's a dizzying maze of companies, subsidiaries, trusts, etc. I know for a fact that every airline in the world incorporates each airplane as an individual LLC and which is then owned by two or three other tiers of LLC's. The idea being that if a plane crashes...all the lawsuits, insurance claims, etc. stop dead AT THAT PLANE and do not exceed the policy for it. Most companies do the same thing. As of 2009 Ford Motor company had 700+ LLC's underneath it.

Thus, if BP did the same and the oil rig was simply one of many...there simply would not be enough assets to go around. Again...that's why I just don't think that it's the same when Plumber Joe puts his vehicles in a separate LLC from his business in the event of an auto wreck.

Logically, the scenarios are positively IDENTICAL. However...the RAMIFICATIONS are world's apart. Even if Plumber Joe is the biggest plumber in the state and crashes all 100 vehicles he has directly in to the Gulf of Mexico it won't affect the ecosystem has a whole. It might wreck a local beach...but not all X,000 miles of coastline and 30% of the united states sea-protein supply.

The scope and scale are different, thus I think it warrants different rules. Same as the Right to Bare Arms. The Constitution just talks about "arms" there is a lot of back and forth as to whether this ought to mean just rifles and shotguns or include fully automatic weapons...however only the most extreme nutcases out there think that everybody in the US ought to also be able to build nuclear weapons or develop exotic forms of smallpox in their garages. The odds of somebody letting that smallpox loose in an uncontrolled environment is damn near a certainty. The difference being the scale and scope, of course.

Good to talk to a reasonable guy on here.

Later.

reply to post by milominderbinder

As it is good to talk to another reasonable guy.

When I say "seizure", what I am speaking of is freezing of assets and ceasing all operations until the debt is either paid or an agreement for payment can be resolved. It is akin to personal bankruptcy: filing of bankruptcy disallows any additional debt or any additional expenditures not authorized by the courts as necessary. If, for example, BP were to be seized, then I envision all assets of BP to be frozen and unavailable, with a court overseeing "necessary" expenses (payroll, etc.) until the situation is resolved. Other wells could continue to operate, but only under court oversight, and bankruptcy would cease all operations company-wide.

The LLC has a lot of advantages for the small businessman: liability limitations as well as tax advantages. It is somewhat of a compromise between the old 'C' corporation (which I owned once) for businesses which want to grow beyond close ownership limitations and the 'S' corporation used for businesses which only want the liability limitations. But I don't think it was ever intended to be used as you mention. Perhaps we need laws disallowing ownership of stock by other corporations except for holding companies... which could then be tightly regulated a'la the stock exchanges.

Here again, it's not that I am against all regulations... I am against those regulations that impede competition.

But the sad fact is that despite all the great ideas I have seen floated around ATS, the chances of getting them implemented are on par with the chances of winning the lottery and having the winning ticket struck by lightning on the way to collect. It just ain't gonna happen as long as the powers in control of this country are in control.

Still, it's nice to be able to discuss it intelligently. At least we still have that right... for now...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by milominderbinder

As it is good to talk to another reasonable guy.

When I say "seizure", what I am speaking of is freezing of assets and ceasing all operations until the debt is either paid or an agreement for payment can be resolved. It is akin to personal bankruptcy: filing of bankruptcy disallows any additional debt or any additional expenditures not authorized by the courts as necessary. If, for example, BP were to be seized, then I envision all assets of BP to be frozen and unavailable, with a court overseeing "necessary" expenses (payroll, etc.) until the situation is resolved. Other wells could continue to operate, but only under court oversight, and bankruptcy would cease all operations company-wide.

The LLC has a lot of advantages for the small businessman: liability limitations as well as tax advantages. It is somewhat of a compromise between the old 'C' corporation (which I owned once) for businesses which want to grow beyond close ownership limitations and the 'S' corporation used for businesses which only want the liability limitations. But I don't think it was ever intended to be used as you mention. Perhaps we need laws disallowing ownership of stock by other corporations except for holding companies... which could then be tightly regulated a'la the stock exchanges.

Here again, it's not that I am against all regulations... I am against those regulations that impede competition.

But the sad fact is that despite all the great ideas I have seen floated around ATS, the chances of getting them implemented are on par with the chances of winning the lottery and having the winning ticket struck by lightning on the way to collect. It just ain't gonna happen as long as the powers in control of this country are in control.

Still, it's nice to be able to discuss it intelligently. At least we still have that right... for now...

TheRedneck

Of course. While these are all pretty reasonable solutions there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of ANY of them actually happening. Let's face it...the powers that be have been very visibly screwing with elections and subverting the right to demonstrate peacefully. All of us peasants really have absolutely zero power in the direction of the country.

The only thing that could possibly change our course now is some type of massive cathartic event that would absolutely FORCE everyone to wake up. I really can't imagine what an event of that magnitude might even be...but it would HAVE to be a REAL game-changer to really change the course of the ship.

Aliens landing on the White House lawn maybe? Saber-rattling turns into an UNPLANNED nuke or two going off where even the various intelligence agencies of the world would have to sit back and realize that this game of saber-rattling and warfare isn't ALWAYS so manageable? Disease pandemic? Solar storm sends the whole planet back into the stone age? Widespread dissemination of schematics for a DIY cold fusion reactor the size of a coffee can to break the energy cartels?

I'm not sure...but at this point it will have to be a TRULY monumental event of some kind. Anything even approaching the level of "business as usual" or events that we have already experienced before or all we are going to get is an extra couple of humorous episodes of Saturday Night Live before we are all implanted with chips without even being aware that we are.

It's a sad, sad, day my friend.

reply to post by milominderbinder


LOL - I believe that we are just simply screwed. No one can agree on anything, and even if we did, no one knows how to properly regulate anything.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

LOL - I believe that we are just simply screwed. No one can agree on anything, and even if we did, no one knows how to properly regulate anything.

Yep.

It's pretty much a lost cause now.

Don't get all defeatist now. Until you are rotting in the ground, there is always hope

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by sting130u

 

So you support forced slavery?

Community service for a check?

What is wrong with people on this site?

Why don't some of you come out and admit that you're nationalists?

No, I don't support people sitting around doing nothing and getting a check. What's wrong with keeping peoples minds busy, hands busy, and keeping them in a routine of working, even at the benefit of the local level.

Nowhere in my post died I mention I support forced slavery, this was an assumption on your part.

reply to post by Wolf321


More often than not they are paid minimum wage or wages that aren't up for debate. Or that they will not allow you to avoid signing the W-4 so you can avoid paying taxes.

I suggest flipping the tax code around...

Abolish all income tax on the first $50,000 every person makes, then start
taxing money beyond that point at various intervals (including extreme amounts
which is not even considered today). This would put more money in everybody's
pocket, which would be injected back into the economy. The incidentals of life
would be virtually covered and less people would need assistance.