(Serious) Rise of gang violence in the US

After watching the show on the History Channel "Gangland" I have become appalled at the number of gangs now spread across the US and the inability of the Law Enforcement departments to find a way to resolve this issue. When you look at these gangs and the way they recruit, some start as young as 5 0r 6, you wonder what has our society become.

What would be some of the soultions that you would put into effect to put a stop to this? I know what I would do, but I will post my solutions after reading some input from those of you interested in solving this trend.

Since the children are 5 to 6 years of age, it is hard to educate them. But you can certainly educate the parents not to leave their children unattended, and what could happen if they do. Also educate the parents to monitor their overall school activities and progress. If their progress is falling steadily, it is most likely that their children are in trouble in some other way if not this.

Allow beatings in school. It's the only way. None of this 'humanitarian' and 'politically correct' crap.

The things that would need to be done to solve the problem will never happen. The US has created an entire class of citizens (now third generation) who are uneducated, unemployable and live only for a monthly check from the government, and there are far too many political careers that depend on enabling this class of people to exist and be carried on the backs of the productive.

Dismantle the federal welfare and federal public housing systems.

Somehow reestablish the social stigma associated with having children out of wedlock - I have heard figures that say more than 70% of inner city kids have no father in the house.

Take back our public schools from the teachers' unions and somehow reestablish the social stigma associated with having little or no education and being unproductive - in most city schools these days academic success guarantees ridicule at best and violence at worst. Here in Cleveland fewer than 50% of 9th graders will graduate and many of them will still be unemployable because they were passed through without knowing basic reading and mathematics.

Like I said - it'll never happen unless those who vote in the inner cities, the politicians/professional grievance mongers that cater to them and the lapdog media that caters to politicians/professional grievance mongers radically change their points of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

The US has created an entire class of citizens (now third generation) who are uneducated

---

More than third generation, this class has existed far longer than the US has existed, and not just on this continent.

Quote:

---

Dismantle the federal welfare and federal public housing systems.

---

Change it, sure, but something else has changed...

Quote:

---

Somehow reestablish the social stigma associated with having children out of wedlock - I have heard figures that say more than 70% of inner city kids have no father in the house.

---

That would be nice. How do you do it?

Quote:

---

Take back our public schools from the teachers' unions and somehow reestablish the social stigma associated with having little or no education and being unproductive -

---

Something has changed here. For centuries, there were opportunities for low education groups. Where are the factories? Where are the mines? The lumber mills? The groups with little education have always been with us, but there has always been gainful employment for them. Is it still there?

Quote:

---

in most city schools these days academic success guarantees ridicule at best and violence at worst.

---

This is a serious problem. I'd say that it is cultural rather than institutional. Not every subgroup shares these values. How you change the values of a group within society is a question that has never been answered.


By any objective study, violence within this society is lower than it was in any previous decade. The violence that is there is splashed across the front pages, to be sure, but the violence itself is not greater. Right into the fifties and sixties, casual violence and murder were commonplace in many parts of this country. That's not to say that crime rates are moving in the same directions. The lynchings across the south during the first half of this century were not crimes under the accounting of the day, etc.

Gangs are huge, but they have their sources. One of the sources would be drugs and the fantastic amount of money that can be made from dealing drugs. Many gangs are basically unregulated capitalistic sub-cultures based around the combination of quick riches and short expected lifespans. These types are based on the same principles we would otherwise encourage: Capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit. People and groups seeing a market niche they can fill and aggressively pursuing their business strategies. Why would we condemn them? Only because of the techniques of competition that they are employing. After all, many are selling to middle and upper class purchasers. Other companies might employ the same strategies, but they are constrained by regulations and social contracts. There are plenty of examples of major US companies that acted in amoral ways once they were freed of those two constraints, so the drug gangs are not really doing anything novel.

Adding a social contract is nearly impossible on an illegal activity, though there are a couple strange examples where it was done. After the Godfather and similar mob movies, some of the mobs began acting like characters from the movies. We gave them a romantic model and they adhered to it, largely out of vanity, which is as good a motivation as any.

Adding regulation is utterly impossible on an illegal activity. By the very nature of illegality, the activity denies regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

More than third generation, this class has existed far longer than the US has existed, and not just on this continent.

---

No argument there - may be I should rephrase that:

We have created an entire class of citizens who are willfully uneducated - there are a disturbing number of young people who honestly believe it's not worth it to succeed in school. And yes, it is more cultural than institutional. This must change. How? Smarter folks than me have tried and failed...

You're right about the illegal drugs - it's the gangs' cash cow and what keeps them going strong. Why sit around a boring classroom for years when you could be on the streets making thousands a week selling drugs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Something has changed here. For centuries, there were opportunities for low education groups. Where are the factories? Where are the mines? The lumber mills?

---

We know where they are. Places without environmental laws, child labor laws, minimum wages, etc... We can only argue as to why.

Many gangs are nothing more than surrogate families. What needs to happen is a "Back to Basics" shift in the economy and society in general. We need to bring back the single wage earner with one parent staying at home to raise the children. Doing this could solve alot of societies problems.

Quote:

---

Dismantle the federal welfare and federal public housing systems.

---

Getting rid of Welfare or Unemployment benefit as we call it in the UK, i cant see how this will fix the problem.

I mean i have been out of work before and for several months had to rely on this benefit to enable me to eat and get me to interviews and the like. And for anyone who has ever had to live on benefits it is a paltry some of money. I couldn't truly live on it. I had to move back home to my parents until i got a new job.

I don't know exactly how the system works in the US but i don't believe that people many people make a career decision to live on benefits.

Maybe you have more problems in the US with the Welfare system, do you see it as a bit of a free ride ?

I suspect that the problems with abuse of the system will also be linked heavily with Drugs.

Quote:

---

Something has changed here. For centuries, there were opportunities for low education groups. Where are the factories? Where are the mines? The lumber mills?

---

Now this make a lot of sense, We now outsource (in the UK just as much as the US) much of our manufacturing to places like China.

We don't make stuff anymore, not on the scale we used to we sell services. This is definitely an issue where the less educated are concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

We know where they are. Places without environmental laws, child labor laws, minimum wages, etc... We can only argue as to why.

---

Yeah, that's why I left it as a question. Heck, I don't even think that minimum wage factors into it. There are countries where people can live comfortably on far less than we can in the US. If they were paid the US minimum wage they'd be living very well indeed, whereas US citizens paid minimum wage are below the poverty line.

Once we opened manufacturing up to the global market, then we saw global competition, and some people can simply produce X for less than we can. I don't think we want to drop to the level where we are cost competitive, but losing the job sector has its own costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Getting rid of Welfare or Unemployment benefit as we call it in the UK, i cant see how this will fix the problem.

---

I never said we should get rid of unemployment benefits.

The welfare system and public housing ARE the problem. The system is designed so fathers/husbands are no longer needed nor are they wanted. An unwed mother dare not marry the father of her children lest she lose her government housing and benefits. Government now provides everything and the recipient is responsible for nothing. The welfare system has wrecked the inner city family, destroyed their work ethic, and helped make gangs so attractive to those who have no family of their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

I don't know exactly how the system works in the US but i don't believe that people many people make a career decision to live on benefits.

---

If you truly find this hard to believe come to Cleveland and I'll show you entire housing projects with 10,000+ people who ALL made the "career decision" to live on welfare. People who have spent their entire lives on the public dole, then had children who spent their entire lives on the public dole. And on and on...

Like I said, we are now on the third generation of unemployable folks living on the backs of those who still work and until major changes are made in the system it will only get worse.

And it's not just Cleveland... Just about every major US city has this same problem.

Quote:

---

An unwed mother dare not marry the father of her children lest she lose her government housing and benefits

---

Well that needs to be changed certainly, its ridiculous. But surely the system needs changing so it works properly rather than abandoning completely ?

Quote:

---

If you truly find this hard to believe come to Cleveland and I'll show you entire housing projects with 10,000+ people who ALL made the "career decision" to live on welfare. People who have spent their entire lives on the public dole, then had children who spent their entire lives on the public dole. And on and on...

---

Like i said i have very little knowledge of the problem in the US so excuse my ignorance in this.

What i was trying to say was, given a choice a believe that most people would choose gainful employment if they are given opportunities early enough. You can lose people to Benefits certainly if they are left long enough, and as you say generations of people are left on the benefits system without offering a way out of it.

Maybe it's just me, but i am a believer that Humans generally are not born lazy it's learned behaviour, and if you grow up in poverty then often that's what you are going to expect. (obviously there are always exceptions to this)

We could argue for hours i am sure about the roots of the problem, but i certainly believe that if you want to fix this issue you have to target the kids, and actually change there behaviour and expectations.

My brother is a gang worker in Moss Side in Manchester, and i know that he says that there is a severe lack of funding in this country for anyone who is really trying to do something in the poorer communities.

The Government in this country doesn't really seem to be interested in fixing the problem but only to appear to be fixing it, i don't know if that is the same in the US but i would imagine form what you have said that it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

If you truly find this hard to believe come to Cleveland and I'll show you entire housing projects with 10,000+ people who ALL made the "career decision" to live on welfare. People who have spent their entire lives on the public dole, then had children who spent their entire lives on the public dole. And on and on...

Like I said, we are now on the third generation of unemployable folks living on the backs of those who still work and until major changes are made in the system it will only get worse.

And it's not just Cleveland... Just about every major US city has this same problem.

---

Come to downtown Detroit, MI too. If you're not a hard core {} then good luck passing through.

(Yes I said {}, this word does exist in a non-racial slandering manner, which is what I've used in this post)


Big Bad Moderator says: Show me where.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

The Government in this country doesn't really seem to be interested in fixing the problem but only to appear to be fixing it, i don't know if that is the same in the US but i would imagine form what you have said that it is.

---

That's the same here. Those with capital get things done, those without stay put (in the lower classes) and the education system is that way too, teaching everyone in the lower classes how to stay there.

The problem in the US is that success penalized. Legitimate success anyway.

If you get a good job making a decent living, the government puts their dirty hands in your pockets every paycheck to get "their share". The higher your income goes, the deeper the "gubmit" digs.

You also have to realize the mental state of a lot of people in these places where gangs are prominent. They look on tv and see things they want. They listen to music (generally rap) and hear about things they want. They look outside and who has those things? Gang members, drug dealers, etc. They come to understand that, where they are from, to get the things that they want, they must do what the others in their neighborhood do.

The reason America has been stripped of manufacturing is for one reason, and one reason only. The US is a bunch of lazy brats. We want cheap stuff, no matter what it takes. Investors want companies to make a profit 100% of the time, again, no matter what it takes. And of course, the CEO needs his millions in bonuses for doing nothing. The only way the company can achieve this is to make the product somewhere labor is dirt cheap.

The US is the worlds largest consumer, but only has a significantly smaller amount of the world's population (the exact figure escapes me). Here is the problem. The US depends on other countries to make cheap crap to sell to us. Other countries depend on the US (and Japan's) consumerism to continue making money (China & India don't have much internal consumerism, even with all those people). This was a disaster waiting to happen, and we saw it happen right before our eyes. You CANNOT have a sustainable economy without manufacturing. You have to make something the world wants to buy.

When the manufacturing started moving overseas, people were told that technology was the future and to train for that. Which was fine, until the greedy CEO's found out they could get the work done much cheaper (not necessarily better) in India. If that wasn't enough, they found ways to bring an ever-increasing amount of workers to the US (at a fraction of US wages of course) to get rid of the "over-paid" domestic workers.

The 800 lb. gorilla in the room for the US is this: We have allowed greedy corporations to completely GUT our country. I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the States, we have allowed our lust for cheap goods and easy credit to spiral us into the recession (depression) we have before us. However, unlike the last one, the whole world is involved this time.

The sad thing, to me anyway, is that the boneheaded administration seems hell-bent on recreating the same credit bubble that got us in this mess. You can not spend your way out of a recession, point blank. Printing all this funny money (because it stopped being backed by real gold a long time ago) is only going to make the problem worse. America has to make something, be the best at it, and sell it to the rest of the world. What that is, I haven't a clue.

Our money is not backed by anything, but you would prefer that it be backed by a useless metal that people happen to covet. Does that give it some inherent worth? Ultimately, money is backed by a common agreement as to its worth and nothing else. Backing it by gold is transferring that agreement to the gold that backs the dollar, but gold is mostly worthless as a metal (except for a few modern uses, such as electronics). If you want an exchange medium with real value, you have to switch to a barter system in which each party gives the other party something that the other party values as much as what they are giving up. No modern society can be built on that without using money, because it is relatively rare for two parties to each hold something that the other values more than what they are currently holding. Money is a means of adding a surrogate with an agreed value that can be redeemed for other goods. Nothing more than that. Backing the surrogate with a second surrogate and thinking that it makes the first surrogate more stable is just silly.

You miss the point.

Gold is finite yes? I mean real gold, not lab created metals. You cannot print gold.

What worth is money, if it can just be printed at will?

The simple logic is that the more of something there is, the less valuable a single unit is. What do you think is going to happen if all of a sudden the world is flooded with TRILLIONS more dollars? More money in circulation = inflation. This is inevitable. It's the same reason you can't buy a can of coke for a nickel, or a hot dog for a dime.

Lab created metal? You're thinking of diamonds there. Only a reactor could create gold, and even that would be pretty tough.

You're right that you can't print gold. You are also right that the amount of gold is pretty nearly finite. We find more, at times, but the easy gold has been found. Would you also like to cap the total number of dollars at the total amount of gold. even though the total amount of gold grows at a fraction of the rate of GDP worldwide, not to mention the rate of growth of population? Does that really sound like a good idea? A country would have X number of dollars, and that's all it would have no matter what happened to the economy. Growth? Forget it, you can't grow, because the number of dollars were capped at 1950s amounts (we may have added enough gold to reach the 1960s by now). Governments can't tax, companies can't buy. Dollars will have to stretch farther and farther, as the same number of dollars has to suffice for a steadily increasing population in a steadily increasing economy (though that would end right quick), which will make the dollar stronger and stronger and stronger. If your wages remain stagnant, your company will quickly become bankrupt, since an increasing proportion of its profit, in real value, would go to salaries so your wages would have to keep falling to keep pace with the steadily increasing value of the dollar. This would be deflation, and economists are FAR more freaked out about that than they are about inflation, even though they really don't like inflation. Inflation is a problem. Deflation can end our economy.

I am not a US citizen, though I lived in the country for 9 years of my life, before coming to Singapore. This point about gang violence, however, is worrying. Before discussing methods with which to tackle it, we should ask a few questions.

Is there actually more gang violence, or has technological evolution simply increased our awareness? Just like a light shined into a dark room, we may simply be garnering new awareness of a problem that was always there. This doesn't mean that it is any less important to solve it, but it may have a bearing on how we tackle the issue.

Chances are that the perceived acceleration of gang violence is a mix of both actual acceleration as well as the acceleration of information regarding the issue. Quite a number of possible causes have been raised, though most are incomplete or narrow:

Quote:

---

Somehow reestablish the social stigma associated with having children out of wedlock - I have heard figures that say more than 70% of inner city kids have no father in the house.

---

This is unfair to those who have been raised in single-parent houses, or have been forced one way or another to raise children on their own. A social stigma is a clumsy solution, which does nothing to tackle the real issues present.

In a broader sense, however, I would agree that the breakdown of the family unit has definitely contributed to increase in gang membership. The real question is, why? Why is the idea of a happy family crumbling? Here is an interesting quote from a study on divorce and marriages:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Barna

“There no longer seems to be much of a stigma attached to divorce; it is now seen as an unavoidable rite of passage,” the researcher indicated. “Interviews with young adults suggest that they want their initial marriage to last, but are not particularly optimistic about that possibility. There is also evidence that many young people are moving toward embracing the idea of serial marriage, in which a person gets married two or three times, seeking a different partner for each phase of their adult life.”

---

This study, done in 2008, revealed that statistically 4 in 5 of us will get married at least once but that 1 in 3 will divorce. Society is constantly evolving, and so many good things have come about as a result; abolition of slavery, acceptance of homosexuality, equality for women. But I wonder whether the family unit can survive this evolution. People are more independent and self-realising than ever before.

In the past, people made an effort to fix problem marriages because their roles made it necessary. A mother often had no career and required her husband to take care of the family. A father often had no real domestic skills and required his wife to take care of the household. People don't really need each other like that anymore. And it seems we often don't have the moral dedication to try when things get difficult. We just move on.

Welfare systems exacerbate the issue. If you are a mother and you decide you don't like your husband anymore you can leave, and even if you have no plans to get a job you can make it, because the government just subsidizes you. I accept that sometimes husbands can be abusive or unfaithful and I don't condemn single mothers, but the system is imperfect and people abuse it all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Would you also like to cap the total number of dollars at the total amount of gold. even though the total amount of gold grows at a fraction of the rate of GDP worldwide, not to mention the rate of growth of population? Does that really sound like a good idea?

---

I will answer this question by posing another. Are we better off issuing fiat currency that is pretty much an I.O.U?

I want to make my point clear. America has no collateral to back up all these notes being flushed into the system. We have a lot of land though, so make sure you start learning to speak Chinese and teaching your children the same. Hispanics may have the population advantage, but China has us by the *you know what* financially, and if Big Red ever calls in that debt, it's game over for the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

If your wages remain stagnant, your company will quickly become bankrupt, since an increasing proportion of its profit, in real value, would go to salaries so your wages would have to keep falling to keep pace with the steadily increasing value of the dollar.

---

The problem is that while companies have been getting rich off the "credit frenzy", wages have not kept up with inflation. If I would have graduated college 15 years ago, same field I'm in now, I would be making more money THEN than I am now. Wages have been stagnant for some time, but in the past few years this stagnation has accelerated into full-on wage deflation thanks to the combined outsourcing and importing of cheaper labor.

Make no mistake, the dollar's ONLY strength lies in it's preference as the world's reserve currency. Once it loses that status, you'd probably be better off with Zimbabwe dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Inflation is a problem. Deflation can end our economy.

---

The only reason the inflation hasn't hit us like a runaway train is because most of the money is concentrated within a select few financial institutions and credit is FROZEN unless you are in the upper echelon of borrowers (credit score greater than 750). Even people with excellent credit are having a rough time getting approved for loans and some individuals that have not had a single late payment in years are seeing the lines on their credit cards SLASHED by 50% or more.

I am by no means against growth, as long as the growth is sustainable. Building your growth on debt is by no means sustainable, and is the biggest reason we are in the mess we are in right now. The desire of Americans to feed their wants has come at the price of future generations being able to have that which they actually need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaximilianMayrhofer

Welfare systems exacerbate the issue. If you are a mother and you decide you don't like your husband anymore you can leave, and even if you have no plans to get a job you can make it, because the government just subsidizes you.

---

Let's also remember that the scale is tipped HEAVILY in favor of the woman in the marriage. In most cases, the woman gets the children, house, car, and a paycheck every month from the husband in the form of child support. Even if the couple didn't have kids, she can still get alimony, and the husband must pay this until the ex-wife gets remarried. These things occur even if the man wasn't unfaithful or abusive.

I agree with most of your other assessments, but how can you get people to basically "go back" to the values which made marriages last decades?

Quote:

---

They listen to music (generally rap)

---

Please, don't infer that the music people listen to makes them into a certain type of person. That's like saying that Video Games make people want to shoot people and Violent Films are to blame when idiots copy scenes from them during a murder. The evidence just doesn't stack up !!!

Quote:

---

The US depends on other countries to make cheap crap to sell to us.

---

Your not alone, this is capitalist model in much of the western World.

Quote:

---

Building your growth on debt is by no means sustainable

---

But this is a key part of the current Capitalist model, with out it the whole system would break down. The problem is nobody has come up with an alternative.

What i would say also is for a long time now regulation has been minimal, the Banks and Hedge Funds and those with really silly money investing in the Financial markets have just been allowed to do whatever they want, on the basis that we should trust them because they know what they are doing.

Basically "Greed is Good" has been the mantra for some time now.

The goalposts need to be shifted. Companies should not be just liable to there shareholders, but also to there Employees. They should have a duty to them, Companies should be about providing stable jobs as much as about making money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik

I will answer this question by posing another. Are we better off issuing fiat currency that is pretty much an I.O.U?

---

That's exactly what the gold backed dollar is: A certificate redeemable by a set weight of gold. You are then making gold the fiat currency with a paper front on it.

Quote:

---

I want to make my point clear. America has no collateral to back up all these notes being flushed into the system. We have a lot of land though, so make sure you start learning to speak Chinese and teaching your children the same. Hispanics may have the population advantage, but China has us by the *you know what* financially, and if Big Red ever calls in that debt, it's game over for the US.

---

I don't disagree with you about the troubling China debt, but I was amused by the bit about "learning to speak Chinese." I'm not sure how old you are, but the exact same quote was tossed around in the early 80's with Chinese replaced by Japanese.

Quote:

---

The problem is that while companies have been getting rich off the "credit frenzy", wages have not kept up with inflation. If I would have graduated college 15 years ago, same field I'm in now, I would be making more money THEN than I am now. Wages have been stagnant for some time, but in the past few years this stagnation has accelerated into full-on wage deflation thanks to the combined outsourcing and importing of cheaper labor.

---

Other factors were involved, as well, and the wage deflation has not been true for all fields. Programmers are in a post-gold rush situation, and manufacturing is stagnant, but others are not so. I've been a Biologist most of my life and would say that wages have never been great, but have maintained relative to similar fields.

Quote:

---

Make no mistake, the dollar's ONLY strength lies in it's preference as the world's reserve currency. Once it loses that status, you'd probably be better off with Zimbabwe dollars.

---

True enough. Our prosperity depends on others. If you'd like to circle the wagons, fill up the moat, and raise the drawbridge, then go ahead. You won't see the standard of living that we see today, but you will be more secure. At some point, the world will realize that it is out on the wire without a net below it. What will happen then is hard to say. Perhaps we will find a way to advance. Perhaps we will make a slow retreat to sustainability. Most likely we'll have a drunken panic attack.

Quote:

---

and credit is FROZEN unless you are in the upper echelon of borrowers (credit score greater than 750).

---

Yeah, that's me.

Quote:

---

Even people with excellent credit are having a rough time getting approved for loans and some individuals that have not had a single late payment in years are seeing the lines on their credit cards SLASHED by 50% or more.

---

Wouldn't know, wouldn't care. Which is why the credit score is well above 800.

Quote:

---

I am by no means against growth, as long as the growth is sustainable. Building your growth on debt is by no means sustainable, and is the biggest reason we are in the mess we are in right now. The desire of Americans to feed their wants has come at the price of future generations being able to have that which they actually need.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

I agree with most of your other assessments, but how can you get people to basically "go back" to the values which made marriages last decades?

---

The same way that it was enforced before: Women = slaves. Even a casual study of marriage prior to the 60's will show that women had so few alternatives that they nearly HAD to stay in marriages, no matter how bad they were. They had no legal rights in the workplace, and had no legal right to any portion of their husbands earnings. The only obligation the man had to support his wife or children was a moral one, not a legal one. Most did, but many did not, and there was nothing the woman could do about it. You can still find communities living under these rules in some rural parts of the US. I drew crews from such a community. The society was based on the expectation that the men would work and the women would marry the best guy they could find right out of HS (or in HS, as needed). The women had no expectation of self sufficiency, and expected to be largely dependent. The only expectations they seemed to have for men is whether the guy was a good provider, and whether he wouldn't beat them too often. When I was there, the collapse of the sole industry in the area (lumber) was destabilizing the social structure, since men couldn't be providers, but neither could the women. The youngest generation was torn between following the traditional path and getting an education that allowed them to be independent. The older generation generally voiced regrets about not getting an education of their own so that they had choices. It was an odd world filled with latent violence, but there were few divorces.

If you want to end divorce you just need to remove alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

But this is a key part of the current Capitalist model, with out it the whole system would break down.

---

That is what's happening right now, is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

What i would say also is for a long time now regulation has been minimal, the Banks and Hedge Funds and those with really silly money investing in the Financial markets have just been allowed to do whatever they want, on the basis that we should trust them because they know what they are doing.

---

Glass-Steagall needs to be reinstated to the absolute letter.
However, equal blame needs to be shared between both investors and "banksters". Too many people were investing in things they knew nothing about, and too many people were creating financial instruments which were (and still are) impossible to properly value. Simply put, if you don't know what the company is selling, you shouldn't have your money in the company. It is a responsiblity of any NORMAL investor to evaluate the risk associated with the company. If you are not familiar with the business the company is in, how can you evaluate the risks of investing in said company? Credit-default swaps don't exist without a market to buy them.

A couple of other points I'd like to make regarding "fiscal policy through the ages":

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Although they are not redeemable for gold or silver, all Federal Reserve Notes in circulation must be collateralized by assets of the Federal Reserve.

---

Do you honestly think the Fed has the collateral (hard assets) to back up the sheer volume of dollars in the system (as well as the amount forthcoming)?

Also, another interesting note about the Great Depression:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

While many economic historians attribute the collapse to the economic problems which followed the Stock Market Crash of 1929, some economists attribute the collapse to gold-backed currency withdrawals by foreigners who had lost confidence in the dollar and by domestic depositors who feared that the United States would go off the gold standard[5], which it did when President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102, The Gold Confiscation Act of April 5, 1933.

---

So if the loss of confidence in the US dollar can contribute to one of the worst economic disasters in history, you can't even begin to imagine the reprecussions if something similar happens today. At least back then, there was at least a considerable amount of gold to trade the paper currency in for. These days, it's nowhere near close. If the rest of the world loses confidence in the dollar (China and Russia already are), what will you trade your dollars for then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I don't disagree with you about the troubling China debt, but I was amused by the bit about "learning to speak Chinese." I'm not sure how old you are, but the exact same quote was tossed around in the early 80's with Chinese replaced by Japanese.

---

We had nowhere near the trade deficit with the Japanese as we do with the Chinese. And hey, at least "Made in Japan" meant quality. The sad part is that nowadays, the Japanese outsource to China just as much as we do.

I'm glad you found my statement amusing, but the debt we are in with China is not the least bit funny. And what really made me ashamed to be a US citizen was Hilary going over there and practically BEGGING the big red wolf to continue purchasing our debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

True enough. Our prosperity depends on others.

---

Therein lies the problem with all this globalization crap. The prosperity of one nation cannot rely on another. That's part of the reason for this cluster****. America is greedy, but it costs us too much to make our own stuff, so we let China make it cheap. China is happy to do this, since they cannot support consumption from within (which is ironic to me, considering the amount of people that live there). We want cheap software, so India, Romania, etc. are happy to provide this service for much less than America can do it.

I remember back when I was in high school (15 years old), the manufacturing had already started leaving the US. I asked one of my high school Econ teachers, how does America make money if we only buy from other countries and don't sell to other countries? He gave me a blank stare for about a second, then started going on about the US becoming a service economy, to which my reply was, "I don't think that's sustainable". He didn't even ask me why, he just brushed it off like I said nothing.

You see, the reason why the US can't sell anything to other countries is because we don't sell products, we've sold our knowledge. If you make good fried chicken and you want to sell it in your restaurant, you sell the chicken, not the friggin recipe. America decided to sell the recipe so they could make the chicken cheaper.

Quote:

---

It is a responsiblity of any NORMAL investor to evaluate the risk associated with the company.

---

I agree but the problem with the system is that after these products had been sold 3 or 4 times it was difficult for the investors to see the Risk. The products were virtually all insured by AIG or the Insurance company that was insuring the product was then insured by AIG which had a triple A Star rating which meant the Product had a triple A star rating.

The lack of regulation which let AIG insure so many products that were many many times more than the value of the whole company was ridiculous. The fact that a risky product, through a complex structure of Insurance, could be turned into something that on the face of it looked like a safe product to invest in is also ludicrous.

The system though lack of regulation had become corrupt, and was basically a vehicle for Investors and Banks to make humongous profits that were unsustainable.

Globalization in it self is not the big baddy in this recession, it may contribute the the depth of it and to the fact that it is global, but it is not the cause.

Anyway the Cat is out of the Bag now you can't go back to a non-global market.

I still believe that there needs to be another focus in the Market other than just profits, I am not saying Companies need to give employees a free ride, but it is too easy to treat the average employee badly.

Ok, so what do you want to do about it? It would be nice if the country became less materialistic. It would be nice if we all demanded higher quality food regardless of the cost. I don't think either will happen, and history is on my side. People talk about being willing to pay more for some reward (quality, local manufacture, etc.), but time after time they go for cheap, regardless of what they say.

If all the manufacturing moved back to the US, and prices rose as well, would you buy the same amount of stuff? I certainly wouldn't. It has nothing to do with patriotic pride, I just wouldn't have the money. Do we gain by moving the manufacturing back into this country if everybody stops buying so that the manufacturing isn't needed?

I don't have an answer.

By the way, Japanese = crap until somewhere in the 80's. In fact, even up into the early 90's, industries were complaining about Japan making cheap knockoffs of US products such as computer memory. This was happening even at a time when Japan was making memory that was better than anything made by the US. They were a generation ahead of our technological innovators in that field, yet the US companies were still complaining about them stealing our ideas. Japanese products didn't gain a reputation for quality until the 80's and 90's, and different industries were acknowledged at different times during those decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

I still believe that there needs to be another focus in the Market other than just profits, I am not saying Companies need to give employees a free ride, but it is too easy to treat the average employee badly.

---

I am in complete agreement with this. Soon as profit slips a little, companies begin mass layoffs. They want YOU to be loyal to THEM, but they'll kick you out the door as soon as they miss the numbers, no matter how little they missed it by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

If all the manufacturing moved back to the US, and prices rose as well, would you buy the same amount of stuff? I certainly wouldn't. It has nothing to do with patriotic pride, I just wouldn't have the money.

---

I'm a pretty fickle consumer. I don't have a great desire to "consume" more than I really need, so I wasn't really into the big "consumption junction" frenzy we've been having the past 20 or so years. I doubt my buying habits would change very much. In fact, I always look for "Made in USA" first and have done so for years and years now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Do we gain by moving the manufacturing back into this country if everybody stops buying so that the manufacturing isn't needed?

---

I think people would warm up to it eventually. As long as the employees are making good wages for making good quality products, and the prices aren't unnecessarily high because of stupid unions (a topic which deserves it's own thread).

Would as much manufacturing be needed? Probably not, but once people begin a sustainable consumption pattern, it will be fine. And remember, we wouldn't just be making things to sell to us, we'd also have to be making something else the world needs/wants.

And when I was growing up in the 80's, I played Nintendo and my mom drove a Nissan. Never had a problem from either.

You guys are really getting into it on this subject. I'm enjoying the posts. I haven't thought as deeply as some of you on these issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

You guys are really getting into it on this subject. I'm enjoying the posts. I haven't thought as deeply as some of you on these issues.

---

I agree, this thread a good read with lots of views on the subject.

And to think it all started with gangs and now it's an economy conversation.

OK... so the system is "broken" .... how do you fix it? In a manner that is both feasible and practical? And how do you do it in a manner that people will understand and have the patience for? All too often people want the problem fixed and fixed now. In some cases, I don't think the past administration reacted enough or fast enough, and I think the current one is over steering.... both have me greatly concerned.

Quote:

---

Soon as profit slips a little, companies begin mass layoffs.

---

So it's OK for the companies to go into debt in the hopes that things will get better soon - but not the government? How long do companies let things slide before they have to let people go?

So, how do you "restart" things with out it all going south?

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

So it's OK for the companies to go into debt in the hopes that things will get better soon

---

Companies have a bad habit of going into panic mode as soon as they miss profit by 1%. Even companies that have MADE MONEY during our current recession(depression) have laid people off. What does that do to people still working? Because hell, if the companies that actually made money are still laying off, what hope do I have for my job?

What I would like to see, for once, is a company actually show comittment to their employees. Layoffs cause a chain reaction. Once a couple of companies lay people off, others get fearful for their jobs and stop spending money. So nobody is spending money, more companies lose money, more layoffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

but not the government?

---

Hell no. Answer me this, WHOSE money is the government spending? The government doesn't make any money, and I'm getting pretty sick and tired of them spending mine for things I don't support. In fact, they aren't even spending our tax money (that was spent years ago, thanks Raegan), they're spending our children and grandchildren's tax money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

So, how do you "restart" things with out it all going south?

---

You can't, but that's not the issue. The current system is broken and needs a correction. Guess what? We're seeing the correction. It would be over sooner if the government would get their nose out of business and let the companies that can't cut it fail. They're trying to prop up a house of cards that clearly needs to fall.

All of the companies that need these huge cash infusions are the same ones that were saying just over a year ago, "Leave us alone, we know what we're doing. Free Market!" and all that crap. Now, it's "we messed up, please help us". F U! You wanted free market, so let the free market work. Will it be painful? Of course. However, all of these "too big to fail" companies need to die so that small business can return to it's rightful place as the heart of American business.

All these pieces of scum in three piece suits want to privatize the profits, but socialize the risk and our "gubmit" seems more than willing to oblige them. After all, it's easy to spend money that isn't yours.

Change we can believe in. What a joke!





Edit: Mods feel free to move strictly economic related responses to the Economy thread. I think I'm a prime culprit in steering this one off-topic. *slaps hand*

Every ruler since the dawn of time has propped up the banking sector when it was in trouble. There's a reason for this. Large banks really ARE too big to fail because every company uses short term loans to handle day to day expenses. That's the 'commercial paper market' that came to a halt earlier this year. If all the banks failed and ended that market, most of the businesses in this country, especially the large ones, would cease to function the same day, and as one of the money managers (Paulson, I think, but I'm not sure) told congress, "we'd stop talking about the Great Depression then, because what we'd be in would make it look trivial."

They've got us by the short and curlies, and we got to this state by pulling back on all regulations about capitalization and risk management, but cussing them and cussing past leadership doesn't change the fact that they really do have a grip on us. I don't like the bailouts, and I certainly don't like what as been done with some of that money, but I recognize that we HAVE to fix it, even if it is extortion.

As for letting GM fail, I can understand that the web of suppliers below GM means that we'd take a MASSIVE hit. GM as a manufacturer, and GMAC as a financial body, have a significant impact on the total economy. Just telling them 'tough' might bring about a correction, but a correction that would involve much higher unemployment and much greater financial pain. Would we gain from that? It's hard to say how the country would be a better place with no domestic automobiles manufacturing. Ford might survive, though, so the loss of two out of three might be ok. That's a bitter pill to swallow, though.

I did notice that you expected companies to pay good salaries without unions. What do you think the unions do? They increase employment, keep wages high, and keep benefits high. Is it a good salary without any of those three? There are certainly companies that pay good salaries to blue collar workers without unions, but there are many more that would not, which is why there was a labor movement in the first place. Are the companies more enlightened now? If they had no fear of labor disputes, and had loads of workers to choose from (you've acknowledged that production will be reduced because demand will decline as prices rise, so there will be fewer jobs), would companies still pay high salaries out of the goodness of their hearts? Or would they be Wal-Mart?

In true capitalism, there is no such thing as too big to fail. What we have in the US is socialist capitalism. The rewards a privatized, but the risks are socialized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

If all the banks failed and ended that market, most of the businesses in this country, especially the large ones, would cease to function the same day, and as one of the money managers (Paulson, I think, but I'm not sure) told congress, "we'd stop talking about the Great Depression then, because what we'd be in would make it look trivial."

---

There are plenty of banks that aren't overleveraged and still solvent. They will pick up that business that the "big" banks leave behind.

If Citi goes out of business, it does not signal the apocolypse. Let them declare bankruptcy, sell off the good parts to a bank that's solvent, and be done with it. The way the gov't is propping up these financial institutions is like watch Weekend at Bernie's. They're dead. Bury them so we can move on with life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

but I recognize that we HAVE to fix it

---

So it is the responsibility of the American people to pay for the mistakes of a few? C'mon man. We don't HAVE to fix anything. They wanted free market, they didn't want to be regulated. Ok, let them deal with the consequences of their actions. I don't see any of these CEO's giving back any of the ill-gotten gains they made. So, IMO, if it was ok to do these things when you were getting the money, you should be made to lay in the bed you made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

As for letting GM fail, I can understand that the web of suppliers below GM means that we'd take a MASSIVE hit.

---

GM needs bankruptcy. Just because they go this route doesn't mean they disappear forever. It means they get out of these sweetheart union contracts and (hopefully) emerge better than ever. And please, get rid of Pontiac. That line has been a drain on the company for years. All they need is Chevy, Cadillac, and Saturn. You got your starter car, middle, and luxury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

What do you think the unions do?

---

Out of respect for other members of the forum, and the rules as well, I will not say exactly what I think of unions. Unions had their time and place. That time has gone. Employers know that if workers want to, they can unionize. The law protects this right.

The things that were happening in the Industrial Revolution, which caused the birth of unions, simply do not occur anymore. Working conditions are safe, we have OSHA, child labor laws, etc. The law protects workers, and unions are obsolete. Trust me, if a time arises when unions are needed again, they will come about again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

They increase employment, keep wages high, and keep benefits high.

---

Increase employment? Do you see what's happening at companies that have unions? They keep employment high alright, by making it impossible to fire even the most inept employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

would companies still pay high salaries out of the goodness of their hearts? Or would they be Wal-Mart?

---

You're comparing apples to oranges my friend. You cannot compare the work that goes in a manufacturing plant to stocking shelves, scanning items, and pushing carts.

Now, would GM pay it's employees less? Impossible to answer. I'm sure they'd want to, but they don't want to go through the union drama again so they would probably be hesitatnt to "under-pay" their workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik

There are plenty of banks that aren't overleveraged and still solvent. They will pick up that business that the "big" banks leave behind.

---

The big banks aren't in the same business as the local branch of the community bank. If there are some of the large commercial banks that are still solvent, which is currently an open question, then I'd be content to let the others fail, like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, etc. However, they can't ALL fail, as they are a sector of the economy that is essential.

Quote:

---

So it is the responsibility of the American people to pay for the mistakes of a few? C'mon man. We don't HAVE to fix anything.

---

Yes, we do. The commercial banks underlie our entire economy. Take them out and there will be no economy. Most large and mid-sized companies would close their doors immediately without the commercial banks. My livelihood depends on companies continuing to exist, and so does yours. We can lose some of the commercial banks, and we have. We just can't lose ALL of them. You may not be in banking, but those banks serve a purpose that touches every single one of us. They aren't a section of the economy, they ARE the economy. Through deregulation we allowed them to act irresponsibly, and that has to change, but WE allowed them to act irresponsibly, and THEY are not going to fix the problem on their own, so we get to because the problem HAS to be fixed.

Quote:

---

GM needs bankruptcy. Just because they go this route doesn't mean they disappear forever. It means they get out of these sweetheart union contracts and (hopefully) emerge better than ever.

---

I'd go along with that if they can come out the other side. Many analysts think they would never come out again. I don't know enough about the reasons behind those opinions to evaluate them.

Quote:

---

Out of respect for other members of the forum, and the rules as well, I will not say exactly what I think of unions. Unions had their time and place. That time has gone. Employers know that if workers want to, they can unionize. The law protects this right.

---

I was with you up until the penultimate sentence. Employers know the workers can unionize? And you suggest that GM declare bankruptcy so that they can get out of the union contracts? That would mean the workers getting less pay and fewer benefits. They could switch to a different job, but jobs are hard to come by, so they're going to have to eat the change either way. Hard to imagine that they'd feel happy about it, though. Hard to imagine that they'd take those cuts and agree that they don't need a union anymore.

Quote:

---

The things that were happening in the Industrial Revolution, which caused the birth of unions, simply do not occur anymore. Working conditions are safe, we have OSHA, child labor laws, etc. The law protects workers, and unions are obsolete. Trust me, if a time arises when unions are needed again, they will come about again.

---

I'll trust you. There are laws in congress trying to suppress unionization and fight the suppression of unionization. Therefore, you are right. When the time arises that unions are needed, they WILL come about. The time is still with us, as business is fighting in congress to suppress them. They aren't irrelevant if contentious battles are occuring at the highest level.

Quote:

---

Increase employment? Do you see what's happening at companies that have unions? They keep employment high alright, by making it impossible to fire even the most inept employees.

---

That is exactly what I meant. More jobs and more job security. It's not always a good thing, but it IS one of the benefits they bring to the most inept employee, and from that persons perspective, they are a good thing.

Quote:

---

You're comparing apples to oranges my friend. You cannot compare the work that goes in a manufacturing plant to stocking shelves, scanning items, and pushing carts.

---

Sure you can. Both are blue collar. Wal-mart resists unionization because they realize that if the workers organized they'd face some form of the same issues that GM is facing, which would force them to raise prices. Of course, if they decided to pay their employees better without unions, then they'd STILL have to raise prices. So corporate has decided to focus on low prices, and the workers get low pay. They can make that trade-off because the workers aren't organized. If the workers demanded higher pay they'd be out on their butts.

Quote:

---

Now, would GM pay it's employees less? Impossible to answer. I'm sure they'd want to, but they don't want to go through the union drama again so they would probably be hesitatnt to "under-pay" their workers.

---

Actually, they are going to pay their workers less if they want to continue to exist as a company. It may not be a direct pay cut, but rather a reduction in benefits, but a cut in compensation is a cut in compensation to the workers receiving it.

Unions can cause problems, but they provide a benefit to the workers. You may feel the benefit is undeserved, and in some cases I would agree with you. On the other hand, somebody once observed that nobody is overpaid if they work for somebody else. In all cases, you are paid what you are willing to work for, and what your employer is willing to pay you.

:eek: I've been hijacked :eek: Talk about an :eek2: topic. Oh well it is all interesting reading :thumb: Carry on :wave:, but you guys owe me in the regular forums ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoachBarker

After watching the show on the History Channel "Gangland" I have become appalled at the number of gangs now spread across the US and the inability of the Law Enforcement departments to find a way to resolve this issue. When you look at these gangs and the way they recruit, some start as young as 5 0r 6, you wonder what has our society become.

---

I have seen that show a few times (I think here it's on the CI channel)! Yeah, there seem to be a lot of people not only in the US who want to feel big like that the amount of trouble they cause is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik

What I would like to see, for once, is a company actually show comittment to their employees. Layoffs cause a chain reaction. Once a couple of companies lay people off, others get fearful for their jobs and stop spending money. So nobody is spending money, more companies lose money, more layoffs.

---

I agree here, Companies are too quick to lay employees off as soon as there profit margin gets squeezed. In the current model Companies are too beholden to their shareholder whos only interest is profit.

I believe that a Employees should own a Share of their company. Where this Model is used in the UK for Example John Lewis (a large well respected retailer) there is a much better deal for the employees, and the companies seem to perform better. For instance even in the middle of the recession John Lewis Employees got a 13% bonus in the last fiscal year even in the face of falling profits (they did still make a profit obviously), mainly because relative to the Market they were still out-performing much of their competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
In true capitalism, there is no such thing as too big to fail. What we have in the US is socialist capitalism. The rewards a privatized, but the risks are socialized.

---

I have to say i think Socialism means a different thing in Europe than in the US. Social Policy in Europe (and admittedly it doesn't always work) generally is designed to help the working class and the Labour Party in the UK is traditionally a Socialist Party (although that has changed in recent years as all the parties no resemble each other) and the party the working class vote for.

I don't think what you have in the US Is "Socialist Capitalism" its "Capitalist Capitalism" as it generally benefits the very rich. In the current model it is much easier for the Rich to stay rich and get richer than it is for the poor or less well off to gain wealth. And don't think i am singling out the US it's the same in the UK too !

There is nothing Socialist about a system in which the Rich can get even richer but if they mess up then all the Risk lies with the average taxpayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yes, we do. The commercial banks underlie our entire economy. Take them out and there will be no economy.

---

This i also agree with. We do have a problem in that we have allowed our Deposit banks to also become Trading Banks. The Risk therefore when thing go badly for these banks because massive for the economy as everyone's saving are also are at risk.

If Major banks are allowed to fail it would have disastrous consequences because the current model means that we rely so heavily on Credit for the way we do business.

Now if this was regulated properly, we would never have got in to this situation in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Ok, so what do you want to do about it? It would be nice if the country became less materialistic. It would be nice if we all demanded higher quality food regardless of the cost. I don't think either will happen

---

Yes Materialism is a problem, and it is linked in to the fact the our economies are all based in people buying stuff that they don't need.

As far as food goes though i think that you can change attitudes, i think that it is all about education, and in some European countries for Instance Italy and France they have a much better relationship with food with the UK or the US, and better quality food even in the standard supermarket.

For instance in France if you want to sell say frozen Beef Burgers in Super Markets you cant' call them Beef Burgers unless they are made of 100% Beef. (seriously this is true !!)

They are much more aware of what is in there food and you see much less Ready meals on Supermarket shelves.

What we feed our Kids in Schools makes a big difference to what they will eat in later life.

Anyway back to the main point, Yes the Economy is in the Crapper and yes we will probably see more regulation of Banks because of there mishandling of financially markets but anyone who believes that the system isn't going to go back to something similar to what it was, all by it with a bit more financial regulation is not thinking realistically.

Quote:

---

I've been hijacked

---

Yep, Sorry about that :0)

Yea, sorry about that Coach.

Shaggy, you make good points. However, my opinion on unions stand. They had a time and place, and that time has gone. All they do now is raise costs and keep inept employees from getting fired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

If Major banks are allowed to fail it would have disastrous consequences because the current model means that we rely so heavily on Credit for the way we do business.

---

Well we see what has happened to both consumers and businesses relying on credit. The model is doomed to fail because the economy is based on people using money they don't have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

anyone who believes that the system isn't going to go back to something similar to what it was, all by it with a bit more financial regulation is not thinking realistically.

---

I am not against a system in which individuals use credit responsibly. However, that has not been the case in the US (not exactly sure about other countries). People have been taught to put their paychecks in the stock market and use someone else's money for things you need (want) right now.

Debt based growth is unsustainable. And if we simply go back to the same system, it's only a matter of time before the next collapse. You can put all the regulation you want in the financial system, but until PEOPLE learn to control themselves when shopping, our economy will ALWAYS be a ticking time bomb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyrus

Many gangs are nothing more than surrogate families. What needs to happen is a "Back to Basics" shift in the economy and society in general. We need to bring back the single wage earner with one parent staying at home to raise the children. Doing this could solve alot of societies problems.

---

The question is "which parent stays at home?"

My thought is that if both people in a relationship are keen to advance in their careers, maybe they should reconsider having kids.

:wave:

Quote:

---

Well we see what has happened to both consumers and businesses relying on credit. The model is doomed to fail because the economy is based on people using money they don't have.

---

I am not disagreeing, however the problem is again how do you educate people of this when they have been told for years that Spending is good for them and good for the Economy ?

Quote:

---

Debt based growth is unsustainable

---

Again i am in agreement but we have yet to find a credible alternative. I still say one of the main problems of the current model is the greed of the financial institutions, we have lightly regulated for years and the availability of credit cards & loans of vast amounts to people who should have never have been eligible is partly to blame.

Also, Banks and Credit card companies have far to much power and political clout. They behave badly get much of there money by penalising their poorer customers with so called charges (which are basically fines).

People can talk about managing your money properly which i agree with but it doesn't make it right that banks make massive sums of there poorest customers through bank charges (credit card companies are the same). This is a broken business model, and penalises those with less money unfairly.

I know that Banks complain about this and say that they will have to introduce Account charges in there place, well i say go ahead it. They are providing a Service why shouldn't we all pay for it, and it a damn site fairer then a business model that penalises the less affluent.

Banks have become to powerful, and have got away with murder for years and only a proper overhaul of the system and proper regulation will fix that. I hope that those in power have the balls to do it properly !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoachBarker

:eek: I've been hijacked :eek: Talk about an :eek2: topic. Oh well it is all interesting reading :thumb: Carry on :wave:, but you guys owe me in the regular forums ;)

---

We did wander away, eventually, but the thread started out on topic. My first post was entirely on topic. However, I seem to remember some un-fullfilled promise of you posting your opinion.

Here we were, waiting with bated breath for your wisdom, and you didn't show. People started fidgeting, someone mentioned the economy, and pretty soon the discussion moved to the storage habits of squirrels. It's all your fault. Had you not left us waiting we would have remained true, but nooooo, you spurned our earnest intentions, and now look what's become of us. We're getting all civilized and conversant and stuff.

I will make a point to post back tonite when I get home. It is enjoyable and educational to read what most of you post. Continue on.

One thing I'd like to clear up, when banks start talking about making account charges they imply that, by looking after your money for you, they are providing you with a service that you should pay them for. This is a smoke screen. You are, in fact, providing them with a service. You are giving them large sums of money which they can invest in order to make more money. Only when you borrow money from them are they providing a service to you. That's the model the banking industry started out with (you have to go back to medievel times to find it's roots) and the suggestion that they are in any way doing you a favour by allowing you to open an account is a lie.

It's the same mentality that is currently being used to justify charging you to withdraw your money at a cash point. "Hey, we need to maintain these things so we can provide you with a better service", they say while failing to mention the fact that CashPoints were originally a way for them to save money because they could hire less tellers.

Chip and Pin is another lie. It's sold as a way of making your payments more secure - but not for you. If a fraudulent transaction was made against your acount due to a faked signiature it was the vendor's liability. Any other kind of fraud was the bank's liability. Now all the bank has to do is prove that you didn't take proper care of your pin, and the mere fact that someone else used it can be considered sufficient, and the liability is now yours. C&P has nothing to do with making the transaction more secure but has everything to do with shifting the liability from them to you.

I hate bankers. They lie constantly and I find their rhyming slang equivalent to bo wholly apt.

So....let me get this straight. Are you saying that when my bank told me that they were going to get all medieval on me, what they meant was, "we're going to stop charging you fees"?

I guess I should thank them.

In relation to the current "stock crash", I've recently heard an interesting theory.

The theory is that the crash was planned so that the Boomers wouldn't be able to retire. So I get to thinking about it, and there might be something to this. If every Boomer retired today, there is not nearly enough people around to replace them. You also have to think about the business and technical knowledge the Boomers have that has not been passed on to younger generations. Most companies can't afford for the Boomers to retire.

And then there's Social Security. If every Boomer started drawing that check, there is no way there are enough working people to pay the necessary taxes it would take. I remember when I got my first job years ago, I always thought the SS I was paying was for me when I got to retirement. When I got older though, I figured out that I was actually paying for people ALREADY retired. Huh? I came to realize that SS is probably the biggest Ponzi scheme the government has ever come up with. SS makes the Madoff case look like child's play.

On the issue of banks, I am in agreement that WE are doing the service by putting our money in there for them to loan to others and make money. And what do we get, 2% (if you're lucky) interest rates. Especially right now, since they are basically borrowing from the gov for 0%, they have the nerve to have such low interest rates on savings accounts. What a crock.

However, there is a service that can only be had by putting your money in a bank (or similar financial institution), and that is FDIC insurance. I'm not sure if you people have this across the pond, but the gov insures all deposit accounts up to $100k USD (the $250k limit expires Dec. 31) and all eligible retirement accounts (IRA's and such) are insured up to $250k. Of course this insurance is somewhat paltry if you have millions in a bank, but if you have that much money it should be spread out anyway.

It's also a lot safer to have your money in a bank than walking around with a wad of cash all the time. Just make sure your money is in a bank that's solvent, which readily eliminates most of the "big boys" like BoA & Citi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik

Most companies can't afford for the Boomers to retire.

---

Older workers tend to be paid more. Many companies prefer to offer early retirement to shuffle off the older workers. I don't think they are smart enough to make the calculations that you were expecting.

Quote:

---

I came to realize that SS is probably the biggest Ponzi scheme the government has ever come up with.

---

This wouldn't be true if the SS actually functioned the way it had been set up. You aren't supposed to be paying directly into outfalls, but paying into a trust fund. The interest on the trust is supposed to pay SS. Had this been the way things worked, all would be well. Naturally, however, congress couldn't leave the trust fund alone, and has been swapping that money for IOUs pretty much since it began. Therefore, the capital of the trust fund, which should have allowed the fund to weather the rises and falls of population, isn't there. Nothing but a stack of IOUs. Congress is likely to honor those IOUs, since older people tend to vote at very high rates, and they strongly support SS, but the payments will come out of general funds (taxes) rather than the dedicated funds that should have handled the payouts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

Somehow reestablish the social stigma associated with having children out of wedlock - I have heard figures that say more than 70% of inner city kids have no father in the house.

---

Most children out of wedlock are 'accidents'. I think there's a stigma already associated with that ;)

Quote:

---

Why is the idea of a happy family crumbling?

---

Most of the divorced couples I know were all married in high school or directly after. All made the immediate decision (without much though) to have kids once married. So the best part of their life was spent dealing with the complications of marriage and the unexpected work of having children. Needless to say, they quickly found out that marriage and kids aren't a walk in the park and not something they were ready for. They also found out that the high school dating game is totally different than having to pay bills with someone. All found out very soon in their marriage they never had true love for their significant other. Then came divorce... Now the kids of these parents are practically raised by grandparents because both the mother and father want to go out, have fun, travel, and hang out with friends - something they should have been doing during the best part of their life.

People just need to think things through and stop making life altering decisions so quick. I can't imagine being married that young let alone having kids immediately without much though. I would think you should live with someone for a couple of years before having kids so you can experience life, get things in order, advance your career, etc. Of course, there are couples who made it just fine doing the opposite, so my personal opinion is just that - a personal opinion. If people choose to get married and have kids early on in their life, then that's their choice. I just don't think it's a wise one.

Quote:

---

Most children out of wedlock are 'accidents'.

---

And some children that were had IN wedlock are "accidents" too....

-tg