PDA

View Full Version : Socialism Wow!!!


Davian93
09-17-2008, 06:47 AM
Bush sure is acting an awful lot like a Socialist lately...the gov't has nationalized another company. Interesting.


Fed in AIG rescue - $85B loan

Government response reaches dramatic new level: U.S. will take 80% stake in nation's largest insurer to prevent global financial chaos.
By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: September 17, 2008: 12:09 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In an unprecedented move, the Federal Reserve Board is lending as much as $85 billion to rescue crumbling insurer American International Group, officials announced Tuesday evening.

The Fed authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) the funds. In return, the federal government will receive a 79.9% stake in the company.

Officials decided they had to act lest the nation's largest insurer file bankruptcy. Such a move would roil world markets since AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) has $1.1 trillion in assets and 74 million clients in 130 countries.

An eventual liquidation of the company is most likely, senior Fed officials said. But with the government loan, the company won't have to go through a tumultuous fire sale.

"[A] disorderly failure of AIG could add to already significant levels of financial market fragility and lead to substantially higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth and materially weaker economic performance," the Fed said in a statement.

The bailout marks the most dramatic turn yet in an expanding crisis that started more than a year ago with the mortgage meltdown. The resulting credit crunch is now toppling not only mainstay Wall Street players, but others in the wider financial industry.

The line of credit to AIG, which is available for two years, is designed to help the company meet its obligations, the Fed said. Interest will accrue at a steep rate of 3-month Libor plus 8.5%, which totals 11.31% at today's rates.

AIG will sell certain of its businesses with "the least possible disruption to the overall economy." The government will have veto power over the asset sales and the payment ofdividends to shareholders.

The company's management will be replaced, though Fed staffers did not name the new executives. The board will remain. For customers, it will be business as usual, officials said.

Taxpayers will be protected, the Fed said, because the loan is backed by the assets of AIG and its subsidiaries. The loan is expected to be repaid from the proceeds of the asset sales.

The government had resisted throwing a lifeline to AIG, hoping to entice investment firms to set up a $75 billion rescue fund. Officials opted not to bail out Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy on Monday. But by Tuesday night, it became clearer that the private sector would not step in to help AIG, which has a greater reach into other financial companies and markets than Lehman does.

"We are working closely with the Federal Reserve, the SEC and other regulators to enhance the stability and orderliness of our financial markets and minimize the disruption to our economy," said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. "I support the steps taken by the Federal Reserve tonight to assist AIG in continuing to meet its obligations, mitigate broader disruptions and at the same time protect the taxpayers."

Dramatic end, high stakes
The firm's options grew more limited as the day wore on. Its already-battered share price fell another 21% with more than 1 billion shares trading hands, and plummeted another 46% in after-hours trading.

At one point Tuesday morning, shares fell more than 70% - a day after losing 61% of their value.

In a statement late Tuesday night the company said, "AIG is a solid company with over $1 trillion in assets and substantial equity, but it has been recently experiencing serious liquidity issues. We believe the loan, which is backed by profitable, well-capitalized operating subsidiaries with substantial value, will protect all AIG policyholders, address rating agency concerns and give AIG the time necessary to conduct asset sales on an orderly basis."

The company also commended the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department for "taking action to address AIG's liquidity needs and broader financial market concerns."

Furthermore, the firm expressed its gratitude to New York Governor Paterson, and other NY State as well as Federal officials.

New York State officials, who regulate the insurance titan, had urged the federal government to rescue AIG. The state attempted to help AIG on Monday by allowing it to tap into $20 billion in assets from its subsidiaries if the company could comes up with a comprehensive plan to get the much-needed capital, said a state Insurance Department spokesman.

Pleased with the federal government's response, New York Gov. David Paterson said Tuesday night: "Policy holders will be protected. Jobs will be saved. Business will continue."

The funding became ever more crucial as the insurer was hit Monday night by a series of credit rating downgrades. The cuts meant AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) could be forced to post more than $13 billion in additional collateral.

Late Monday night, Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services each said they had lowered their ratings. A few hours earlier, Fitch Rating had also downgraded AIG, saying the company's ability to raise cash is "extremely limited" because of its plummeting stock price, widening yields on its debt, and difficult capital market conditions.

The downgrade could force AIG to post $13.3 billion of collateral, Fitch said in a statement. Also, the moves would make it more expensive for AIG to issue debt and harder for it to regain the confidence of investors.

All the while, analysts urged the company to unveil its restructuring plan.

"Management needs to address investor concerns now before the market sell-off becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy," Rob Haines, analyst at CreditSights, said Tuesday.

Global ripples
The failure of AIG could have caused unprecedented global ripple effects, said Robert Bolton, managing director at Mendon Capital Advisors Corp. AIG is a major player in the market for credit default swaps, which are insurance-like contracts that guarantee against a company defaulting on its debt. Also, it is a huge provider of life insurance, property and casualty insurance and annuities.

"If AIG fails and can't make good on its obligations, forget it," Bolton said. "It's as big a wave as you're going to see."

AIG has had a very tough year.

Rocked by the subprime crisis, the company has lost more than $18 billion in the past nine months and has seen its stock price fall more than 91% so far this year. It already raised $20 billion in fresh capital earlier this year.

Its troubles stem from its sales of credit default swaps and from its subprime mortgage-backed securities holdings.

AIG has written down the value of the credit default swaps by $14.7 billion, pretax, in the first two quarters of this year, and has had to write down the value of its mortgage-backed securities as the housing market soured.

The insurer could be forced to immediately come up with $18 billion to support its credit swap business if its ratings fall by as little as one notch, wrote John Hall, an analyst at Wachovia, on Monday.

This year's results have also included $12.2 billion in pretax writedowns, primarily because of "severe, rapid declines" in certain mortgage-backed securities and other investments.

The company brought in new management to try to turn the company around. In June, the company tossed out its chief executive, Martin Sullivan, and named AIG chairman Robert Willumstad, who joined AIG in 2006 after serving as president and chief operating officer of Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), in his place.

Ivhon
09-17-2008, 07:05 AM
Watch Corporate America line up for taxpayer bailouts.

All of which will be paid by greater deficits. The concern, for me, is this.

We know that too much debt for the individual is a bad thing.
We know that too much debt for the corporation is a bad thing.
How can too much debt for the country NOT be a bad thing? What happens when our foreign lenders throw up their hands and say "we can't give (and it has to be counted as giving, since they have zero hope of ever seeing their money again) you anymore money?"

Sei'taer
09-17-2008, 08:47 AM
There are ways to stop this, but they will be incredibly painful. One is to stop in this belief that a company is too big to fail. No company is too big to fail. Failure of some of these companies would hurt us bad, but, in the end we would come back because someone is going to step in and take their place.

Another way is to make people pay their taxes. I'm not talking about making sure everyone gives their money to the IRS every year. I'm talking about stopping payroll deductions and making them write the check to the local, county, state, federal, etc governments. Once people truly understood how much money they actually put out every month for these taxes and then they see how it is wasted and frivolously spent on things like this, they will be much more vocal about how their tax money is spent. I truly believe that people don't understand how much money they actually pay in taxes to all of the different taxing entities. When they figure out that they are paying 40% to 50% of their salaries in taxes they won't be happy.

Thats just a couple off the top of my head, I could come up with more if I had tiome to think about it.

Davian93
09-17-2008, 10:58 AM
What's another $80 billion anyway? ~shudders~

Gilshalos Sedai
09-17-2008, 11:09 AM
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-george-washington-good-days-constitution.jpg

Sinistrum
09-17-2008, 11:17 AM
The messed up part is that all of these situations are created by irresponsible management of these companies. Instead of letting nature take its course in the terms of consequences for that irresponsibility and perhaps other companies, the market, and your average joe learning something about what to do and what not in terms of investing and corporate management, Big Papa Government comes swooping in to save the day. By shielding these corporations and the investors behind them from the negative consequences of their own negligence and stupidity, we ensure that we learn nothing from these mistakes and ultimately are doomed to repeat them. You can't potty train corporate American if the government is going to constantly swoop in and wipe their asses every time they crap themselves.

Cary Sedai
09-17-2008, 11:29 AM
You can't potty train corporate American if the government is going to constantly swoop in and wipe their asses every time they crap themselves.

Great metaphor! I agree that as long as the government bails them out, the cycle will only be perpetuated, we will go further into debt and when there are no more fixes, we'll be in worse trouble than we would have been if they were allowed to fail in the first place.

Ivhon
09-17-2008, 12:01 PM
I heard rumors the other day that part of the Fanny/Freddy bailout included golden parachutes for the CEO's. Didn't hear anything that seemed to confirm it though.

Did my tax dollars go to pay someone's multimillion dollar retirement package?

EDIT: And it is nice to see that people on all sides of the political spectrum seem to be in complete agreement about what caused this and what can be done to stop it. And what hasn't been done to stop it.

Crispin's Crispian
09-17-2008, 12:20 PM
Well, let's not forget there's a big tradeoff here. If you want the corporations to suffer for their own mistakes (which is fine), you end up punishing millions of people who had little or no control over what the company did.

AIG has its fingers in economic pies all over the world, and if they were no longer good on their loans, the world economy would take a huge hit (bigger than any so far in this mess). Not to mention all the speculation and fear would kill the stock market. No, I'm not just parroting the government line, I'm trying to be rational about this. The whole god damned thing stinks.

In the interest of full disclosure: I have an old retirement account through AIG (who bought out my old account holder, VALIC). If they went under, what would have happened to my money?

tanaww
09-17-2008, 07:50 PM
Typically those accounts are not insured Muttley. They are securities and not covered by FDIC.
I repeat my point that we need to fix the fundamental management issues or this is only going to get much worse. It might already be too late. I'm afraid. Realy.

Ozymandias
09-17-2008, 10:29 PM
Its a market economy. Companies speculate. Its not bad management. Ken Lay was practicing irresponsible management. These guys aren't. They were out to maximize profits, and took a stupid risk. They got burned, and so did investors.

I think the basic principle the federal government is working off of is okay. Save a few key pieces to prevent total meltdown, but let some big guys die off so that no one expects a handout.

Seeker
09-17-2008, 11:11 PM
The messed up part is that all of these situations are created by irresponsible management of these companies. Instead of letting nature take its course in the terms of consequences for that irresponsibility and perhaps other companies, the market, and your average joe learning something about what to do and what not in terms of investing and corporate management, Big Papa Government comes swooping in to save the day. By shielding these corporations and the investors behind them from the negative consequences of their own negligence and stupidity, we ensure that we learn nothing from these mistakes and ultimately are doomed to repeat them. You can't potty train corporate American if the government is going to constantly swoop in and wipe their asses every time they crap themselves.

The only flaw in your argument is the assumption that people are capable of learning.

Though I'd be willing to say that that AIG and Lehmen are more symptom than cause. I'd say the problem is endemic to the way we're socialized.

tworiverswoman
09-18-2008, 02:01 AM
I agree that it would be nice to line the bastards up in front of a firing squad, but a company isn't just the pointy-haired bosses in the top seats.

AIG is not just a huge, multi-national company, it BACKS lots of other companies. It insures insurers, if I'm not totally off base. If it goes down, all at once and nothing first, the global domino effect will be unimaginable. It might be survivable were the economy otherwise healthy and able to produce enough "staying power" to keep the other dishes spinning. But... it's not. I have no idea how much, if any, of what we're seeing now has its roots in 9/11, but I'm sure OBL is sponsoring "THEY'RE FALLING! THEY'RE FALLING!" parties in his various hiding places.

To say, "let 'em collapse and teach 'em a lesson!" might please the part of us that's really pissed at seeing stupidity at this level... but the consequences might be more than we bargain for.

Ozy -- what Ken Lay and Enron did wasn't "irresponsible management" -- it was criminal. I've not been able to do enough research on what's happening now but ... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

Ivhon -- I'm starting to discount some of what you post as "conspiracy theory" stuff -- but if you are even remotely correct that the pointy-haired bosses in question are protected from damage and get "bought off" then that firing squad is starting to look awfully good...

Sodas
09-18-2008, 03:45 AM
There are ways to stop this, but they will be incredibly painful. One is to stop in this belief that a company is too big to fail. No company is too big to fail. Failure of some of these companies would hurt us bad, but, in the end we would come back because someone is going to step in and take their place.
Bull.

Complete and utter market failure could occur, creating a collapse of the Dollar. Paper money is always succeptible to crashes, and there are plenty of historical examples.

Don't believe me? Watch. History repeats itself.

Want 4 ways we could have stopped this?

Begin publishing the M3 statistics again. Let us see the numbers that most accurately reveal how much new money the Fed is pumping into the world economy.

Tell us exactly what the President's Working Group on Financial Markets does and why.

Explain how interest rates are set. Conservatives profess to support free markets, without wage and price controls. Yet the most important price of all, the price of money as determined by interest rates, is set arbitrarily in secret by the Fed rather than by markets! Why is this policy written in stone? Why is there no congressional input at least?

Change legal tender laws to allow constitutional legal tender (commodity money) to compete domestically with the dollar.
- From Ron Paul's Statement at Hearing of the House Financial Services Committee, February 15, 2007

Davian93
09-18-2008, 06:23 AM
This started when Nixon took us off the Gold Standard. Our currency has been stable only because other countries hedged their own week economies by buying US Treasuries. That stops, we go down. Imagine what would happen if the world decided to go to the Euro (could easily happen) for the petrol trade? Or if China decided to dump all its Treasuries (they have hundreds of billions, possibly trillions) in favor of Euros?

Ishara
09-18-2008, 07:56 AM
Um, Tru? The CEOs and head honchos of any big company will always be bought out at the expense of their employees and/or the tax payers. Always. They know too much and could hurt too many people by talking. Plus they may handle their companies poorly (and sorry, but the risks they took? pretty much stupid, given the market and simple common sense), but they're no dummies when it comes to Number One. A buy out is always in the contract.

tanaww
09-18-2008, 08:03 AM
Ozy -- what Ken Lay and Enron did wasn't "irresponsible management" -- it was criminal. I've not been able to do enough research on what's happening now but ... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

Tru (and anyone else interested) either read "Conspiracy of Fools" by Eichenwald or rent "The Smartest Guys in The Room". The guys at Enron were arrogant and stupid. The criminal (well most criminal) one of the bunch is Andy Fastow.

The problems are foundational. We put too much emphasis on soft skills so that politicians in the corporate setting get promoted and their lack of analytical skill combined with their desire to "network" and "create synergies" makes for a bad situation. We need the hard analytical skills to come back into favor. It is not one or the other that should take precedence. It is a balance. The ability to read the numbers and crunch them yourself as well as the ability to just say no to really bad ideas. The last requirement is to check your ego at the door. I've seen too many CEOs forget their responsibility to stakeholders in the process for short-term personal glory.

And I read in the only newspaper that the Golden Parachutes for the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae CEO's were being blocked. They could have had some large coin but apparently not all involved in the situation are monkeys.

Sei'taer
09-18-2008, 09:00 AM
Bull.

Complete and utter market failure could occur, creating a collapse of the Dollar. Paper money is always succeptible to crashes, and there are plenty of historical examples.

Don't believe me? Watch. History repeats itself.

Want 4 ways we could have stopped this?


Funny, Ron Paul, in two statements he made agrees with me. Not that you said he didn't, you just posted parts that you thought I wouldn't agree with, when I do agree with them. As I said I could have come up with more. If you go back a reread my second point, then you will see that I am basically agreeing with him on the way to get the American people involved in what the gov't is doing with our money. He went a lot further with it than I did...probably because he is anti any tax at all, so he was looking at it from a different angle than I was.

The guy you quoted...just sayin' (http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/20948214/number_crunching.htm?q=ron+paul+bailouts). Don't believe me? Then listen to what he says.

Also note what he says about it not being a conservative or democrat caused problem. He's right on the money when he says it's both parties fault.

Here's some stuff from another speech he gave

"Lending standards were relaxed, or even abandoned altogether, creating an exaggerated pool of homebuyers that led to ballooning home prices that many, especially real estate investors, expected to continue forever. Now that the bubble has burst, the losses are staggering.

However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place. The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers. People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government. But part of sound financial management should be recognizing untenable or falsified economic conditions and adjusting risk accordingly. Many banks failed to do that and are now looking to taxpayers to pick up the pieces. This is wrong-headed and unfair, but Congress is attempting to do it anyway. These housing bills address the crisis in exactly the wrong way, by seeking to hide the problem with more disastrous government bail-outs and interventions.


The net effect of all this new funding has been to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial system and bail out banks whose poor decision making should have caused them to go out of business. Instead of being forced to learn their lesson, these poor-performing banks are being rewarded for their financial mismanagement, and the ultimate cost of this bailout will fall on the American taxpayers. Already this new money flowing into the system is spurring talk of the next speculative bubble, possibly this time in commodities.

Worst of all, the Treasury Department has recently proposed that the Federal Reserve, which was responsible for the housing bubble and subprime crisis in the first place, be rewarded for all its intervention by being turned into a super-regulator. The Treasury foresees the Fed as the guarantor of market stability, with oversight over any financial institution that could pose a threat to the financial system. Rewarding poor-performing financial institutions is bad enough, but rewarding the institution that enabled the current economic crisis is unconscionable."


So, maybe not bull...eh? Here is another speech about bailouts:

Fannie and Freddie (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul469.html). If you're interested, there are transcripts of his speeches all over that last site...lewellrockwell.com

So, I stand by my point, it will be painful but we have to let them fail. And just as a bonus add in. The savings and loan banks went belly up a few years back and they are back now and as strong as they were...if not stronger. Remember all the hype from that?

Gilshalos Sedai
09-18-2008, 09:23 AM
Sad thing is, I probably would have voted for Mr. Paul. He is not my area's representative, so I can't keep him in office there, but hopefully he sticks around for his district.

John Snow
09-18-2008, 09:35 AM
so I will - this ain't socialism, Davian - it's corporatism, wherein corporations tell the government what to do - control government. That does come quite close to part of the criteria for fascism, though.,...

Davian93
09-18-2008, 09:40 AM
so I will - this ain't socialism, Davian - it's corporatism, wherein corporations tell the government what to do - control government. That does come quite close to part of the criteria for fascism, though.,...

Well technically when the gov't owns controlling shares of companies that is an aspect of socialist economic model. Granted it DOES depend on whether the gov't is calling the shots or the corporation is telling the gov't what to do. In this case its more of a gov't being bought and paid for coming to the rescue of its masters in the business world. Its very late 19th century esque.

Crispin's Crispian
09-18-2008, 10:19 AM
Well technically when the gov't owns controlling shares of companies that is an aspect of socialist economic model. Granted it DOES depend on whether the gov't is calling the shots or the corporation is telling the gov't what to do. In this case its more of a gov't being bought and paid for coming to the rescue of its masters in the business world. Its very late 19th century esque.
In the case of AIG, I believe, the government doesn't own anything because it's a 24-month loan from the Feds to AIG. It's like saying your bank owns you because of your mortgage.

However, I did hear that Bernacke or his advisers appointed AIG's new CEO (the former head of Allstate), so apparently the Feds are calling the shots to some extent.

Late 19th-Century would have had Bill Gates bailing out the Feds, no? I guess there's still time.

Crispin's Crispian
09-18-2008, 10:20 AM
Its a market economy. Companies speculate. Its not bad management. Ken Lay was practicing irresponsible management. These guys aren't. They were out to maximize profits, and took a stupid risk. They got burned, and so did investors.

I think the basic principle the federal government is working off of is okay. Save a few key pieces to prevent total meltdown, but let some big guys die off so that no one expects a handout.
It's bad management if you take a bad risk and it bites you in the ass. That's practically the definition of bad management.

Taking risks isn't the problem, it's taking bad risks that put millions of citizens and smaller corporations on the block. That's where the "socialist" aspect has to take over from the "market-driven" aspect, or you have financial chaos. Not all the time, but with a player the size of AIG or FMs...

Davian93
09-18-2008, 10:25 AM
In the case of AIG, I believe, the government doesn't own anything because it's a 24-month loan from the Feds to AIG. It's like saying your bank owns you because of your mortgage.

However, I did hear that Bernacke or his advisers appointed AIG's new CEO (the former head of Allstate), so apparently the Feds are calling the shots to some extent.

Late 19th-Century would have had Bill Gates bailing out the Feds, no? I guess there's still time.

I was thinking of the Freddie/Fannie Mac situations where the Gov't now owns the companies. I had thought the original plan with AIG included gov't control of operations as well.

Here's the quote from the original article: The Fed authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) the funds. In return, the federal government will receive a 79.9% stake in the company.

On the 19th century I was thinking more of the fact that a handful of corporations basically controlled politics from about 20 years.

Crispin's Crispian
09-18-2008, 12:26 PM
I was thinking of the Freddie/Fannie Mac situations where the Gov't now owns the companies. I had thought the original plan with AIG included gov't control of operations as well.

Here's the quote from the original article: The Fed authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) the funds. In return, the federal government will receive a 79.9% stake in the company.

On the 19th century I was thinking more of the fact that a handful of corporations basically controlled politics from about 20 years.
Weird. Since when does giveing a loan give you control? Wait...that happens with the mob, doesn't it? Hmmm....

As for the corporations controlling everythiing--when has that not been the case? ;)

Davian93
09-18-2008, 12:52 PM
Cheney'll be sent out to "take care" of things when there's an issue.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-18-2008, 12:57 PM
You mean, Darth Cheney?

Davian93
09-18-2008, 01:13 PM
You mean, Darth Cheney?

Yup.

John Snow
09-18-2008, 01:29 PM
lemme lay a couple of definitions on you (at the risk of sounding professorial).

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power"

That's Franklin D. Roosevelt, president of the United States from 1933 to 1945, described fascism in his 1942 "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws"
-----------------
"Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought."

That's Mussolini in "The Doctrine of Fascism"
-----------------
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
Robert Paxton in his book "The Anatomy of Fascism"
-----------------------
And the Commies, in "The Encylopedia of Marxism", have this to say:

"Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.

1. Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicious of foreigners.
2. Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.
3. Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.
4. Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.
5. Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in captialist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.
6. War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.
7. Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.
8. Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history"

Gilshalos Sedai
09-18-2008, 01:40 PM
Interesting, Snow, I can see where its creeping inwards. Not sure it's irreversible, yet.

Sodas
09-18-2008, 04:27 PM
Also note what he says about it not being a conservative or democrat caused problem. He's right on the money when he says it's both parties fault.
This is mostly the fault of the Bush Administration and the economic philosphy that wants even appropriate regulation to disappear.

And it's the fault of Phil Gramm.

And it's the fault of people who listened to Phil Gramm, whose only mantra was deregulation.

Deregulation is good for business. Deregulation is smart.

Well, you finally got your way, Mr. Deregulate.

How do you like dem apples? You know, that reddish thing with alittle stem on it. Oh never mind.

And it's the fault of Democrats who caved. Caved because they listened to business's demands and never played their parties role. Caved, because that is really what they seem all too good at doing.

Both parties fault? Sure. But let's not delude ourself of what happened. Otherwise, it won't get fixed.

So, I stand by my point, it will be painful but we have to let them fail. And just as a bonus add in. The savings and loan banks went belly up a few years back and they are back now and as strong as they were...if not stronger. Remember all the hype from that?
No, that is not painful, that is suicidal.

Do you realize what would happen if our economic stopped having any liquidity? No loans to start businesses. No one willing to take risks and invest.

Bailing out these companies will hurt - it will definately causes even more increased inflation - but it will at least allow the market to survive another day.

And what Saving's and Loan banks are you talking about? You mean Lincoln and American Continental?

American Continental went bankrupt.
Lincoln was siezed by the Feds.

The reason why both failed was because of the Keating 5 putting pressure on regulators to not do their jobs.

So what you mean by back and strong I have no clue.

But maybe McCain remembers that "hype."

John Snow
09-18-2008, 04:39 PM
And what Saving's and Loan banks are you talking about? You mean Lincoln and American Continental?

American Continental went bankrupt.
Lincoln was siezed by the Feds.


I remember an outfit called Silverado - now who owned that........:D

Sodas
09-18-2008, 04:48 PM
Who is Neil Bush?

:rolleyes:

Davian93
09-18-2008, 05:17 PM
Who is Neil Bush?

:rolleyes:


Terrorist!!!!

Get Him!!!

tworiverswoman
09-18-2008, 06:47 PM
Professor Snow - I find myself rather suspicious of being fed direct propaganda when an internet article such as the one you quoted is so ... amazingly "apt" to what I see around me in today's news. I note that the article has no citations, no bibliography, no AUTHOR... Yes -- I went directly to the website to read it in situ (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm). (The link won't take you to the direct page -- you'll have to find it yourself)

I can't call it false because, frankly, I had abysmal grades in what were called "social studies" in my school years, so I have no idea if this "encyclopedia" is 100% accurate, or carefully crafted to fit some pre-conceived model.

But, point for point, almost every single talking point seems to be happening now -- so I'm going to have to start reading up on this crap to find out if Seeker has been right all along (to my dismay :( )

I hate politics...

Sei'taer
09-18-2008, 09:26 PM
And what Saving's and Loan banks are you talking about? You mean Lincoln and American Continental?

American Continental went bankrupt.
Lincoln was siezed by the Feds.

The reason why both failed was because of the Keating 5 putting pressure on regulators to not do their jobs.

So what you mean by back and strong I have no clue.

But maybe McCain remembers that "hype."

I'll get back to the first part in a sec. I want to answer this first. I forgot that you don't take into account earlier posts. Ok, so all the savings and Loans went out of business and there are no more. Damn, that sucks. I guess I should have known that. I thought for sure that some had come back, some had never gone completely out and some had risen from the ashes of the ones that crashed and burned. Seems I was incorrect. Good god I apologize... Oh wait, no I don't. Because they didn't go away, damn, if you look at the stock lists there are hundreds of them...holy smokes, a lot of them are highly traded and worth a heck of a lot, meaning...oh my...meaning strong! Can you believe that???

So:

Failure of some of these companies would hurt us bad, but, in the end we would come back because someone is going to step in and take their place.


Now, on to the first part. You brought up Ron Paul as if he was a beacon of hope in this whole problem, then when I pointed out that I essentially agreed with him, you threw this in:

This is mostly the fault of the Bush Administration and the economic philosphy that wants even appropriate regulation to disappear.

And it's the fault of Phil Gramm.

And it's the fault of people who listened to Phil Gramm, whose only mantra was deregulation.

Deregulation is good for business. Deregulation is smart.

Well, you finally got your way, Mr. Deregulate.

How do you like dem apples? You know, that reddish thing with alittle stem on it. Oh never mind.

I saw that movie. Will Hunting was a brainiac. Did we deregulate AIG? Nope, Fannie and Freddie appear to have brought AIG down. Um, BTW, while we're talking about that...who signed the Bill (hint hint) of deregulation that Gramm wrote? wait, you mean both parties had a hand in that? Inconceivable!

And it's the fault of Democrats who caved. Caved because they listened to business's demands and never played their parties role. Caved, because that is really what they seem all too good at doing.

Both parties fault? Sure. But let's not delude ourself of what happened. Otherwise, it won't get fixed.

Yes, let's not delude ourselves. It's going to hurt, regardless. I still say we should listen to Ron Paul. Seems like he hit it right...and I figure it'll fix itself, we just gotta be prepared to take one in the melon before it does.

John Snow
09-19-2008, 09:37 AM
Sorry TwoRiversWoman, I should've provided a bit more background - all the quotes are from the wikipedia article on "definitions of fascism". The best way to use wikipedia, I've found, is to read the article and the discussion page that accompanies each article. You get a better sense of diversity of opinion that way, since the articles are supposed to maintain NPOV (neutral point of view). I don't really know about the marxist encyclopedia either, but you make a good point, worrying whether it was written post hoc to fir the bush administration. Even if it were, that list is alarming, isn't it? I think just for simple statements, though, I like Roosevelt's definition.