The Economy

Nation Sets its Sights on Building a Sane Economy

True Cost Tax, Salary Caps, Trust-Busting Top List

The President has called for swift passage of the Safeguards for a New Economy (S.A.N.E.) bill. The omnibus economic package includes a federal maximum wage, mandatory “True Cost Accounting,” a phased withdrawal from complex financial instruments, and other measures intended to improve life for ordinary Americans. (See highlights sidebar) He also repeated earlier calls for passage of the “Ban on Lobbying” bill currently making its way through Congress.

STRICK FRANKLIN

STRICK FRANKLIN

Treasury Secretary Paul Krugman stressed the importance of the bill. “Markets make great servants, terrible leaders, and absurd religions,” said Krugman, quoting Paul Hawken, an advocate of corporate responsibility and author of “Blessed Unrest, How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming.”

“At this point, the market is our leader and our religion. No wonder the median standard of living has been declining so much for so long.”

Krugman said that the new Treasury bill seeks to ensure the prosperity of all citizens, rather than simply supporting large corporations and the wealthy. “The market is supposed to serve us. Unfortunately, we have ended up serving the market. That’s very bad.”

Much as Roosevelt, after the Great Depression, put the brakes on C.E.O. wages and irresponsible banking practices, administration officials claim that today we need to rein in the industry that has caused such chaos and misery.

“The building blocks of post-World War II American middle-class prosperity have all been swept away,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who initially opposed the proposals before overwhelming public support helped change her mind. “This bill brings a level of sanity and restraint back to the system that allowed companies like Enron, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to fleece Americans for all they were worth.”

Merrill Lynch C.E.O. John Thain disputed Ms. Pelosi’s account. “High C.E.O. salaries, sophisticated financial instruments, and the freedom to speculate freely have for the past thirty years been instrumental in driving us to achieve the highest shareholder returns in the world outside of Russia. Shareholders have been very grateful for those returns. We mustn’t look at one rash of foreclosures, or one system collapse, and forget the decade of high returns that enabled a new wave of prosperity for a certain number of people.”

Treasury Secretary Krugman cited the pressure applied by progressive activist groups as instrumental in the S.A.N.E. Act’s success despite overwhelming counterpressure from financial industry lobbyists, who have been working overtime in anticipation of the likely passage of the “Ban on Lobbying” bill, which prohibits lobbying on behalf of private individuals or corporations earning more than $1 million annually.

“We’ve got popular pressure to thank for letting us make the market serve humans once again,” Mr. Krugman said. He also stressed that even passage of the S.A.N.E. bill would be meaningless without passage of the “Ban on Lobbying” bill. Only by banning lobbying, Mr. Krugman added, would it be possible to assure that the changes mandated by the S.A.N.E. Act are not rolled back through the influence of big corporations.

Details of S.A.N.E. Act

Caps Wages. Caps salaries, in part to reduce the incentive of C.E.O.s to speculate wildly with investors’ funds.

Busts Trusts. Breaks up financial conglomerates and reinstate the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act keeping investment banks and commercial banks separate, in order to reduce speculation.

Taxes Speculation. Spearheads an international 1 percent tax on financial transactions, to slow speculation and reduce market volatility.

Stabilizes Mortgages. Keeps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were formed to boost home ownership, under government management, and imposes a moratorium on foreclosures.

Invests in Housing. Reinvests in public housing and renews rent control, until the “ownership society” becomes real.

Prices for True Cost. Establishes a “true cost” pricing system to ensure that prices reflect the true cost to society of products, services, and practices.

Taxes Inheritance. Establishes a 100 percent tax on inheritance for fortunes over $500,000. These revenues will enable a quicker implementation of universal health care, affordable housing, guaranteed college education, and other measures considered standard in almost every other developed country.

Sets Emergency Tax. Provides for an emergency surtax on the wealthy in case of future financial meltdowns, to further discourage the sort of reckless speculation that fueled the latest banking crisis.

Limits Derivatives. Regulates and streamlines the market in abstract financial instruments, especially those derivatives and derivatives of derivatives which serve no social purpose whatsoever.

77 Comments so far ...

1. Hugo Brady Brown

Sets its “sites” ??? Shame!

Comment on November 12, 2008 02:06 pm
2. asdf

if only this were possible. we have too many retards in this country though

Comment on November 12, 2008 05:05 pm
3. Nathan

Go Treasure Secretary Krugman!!

Comment on November 12, 2008 05:28 pm
4. Ben

Trust busting is the only necessary thing on here. We don’t need to play Robin Hood to get back to a sane economy, no matter how tempting it is.

Comment on November 13, 2008 02:58 am

Yet, wait… when does standard of living include having a gold plated toilet? Robin hood my ass.

Comment on November 13, 2008 03:31 am
6. English Rose

Maximum wage? Surely a minimum wage is more important. Even in your wildest dreams in the US you haven’t managed to dream for something we’ve had here in the UK for 10yrs!!

Comment on November 13, 2008 05:03 am
7. The Government

The GOVERNMENT knows better. Stop believing in this false religion of ‘markets’! First of all, the GOVERNMENT is going to spend more for all of you who need it, for everyone who is not that rich. Then, everybody shall believe in the GOVERNMENT since it is the best for everyone. The GOVERNMENT has never harmed anybody and has allways been wise and justified.

Comment on November 13, 2008 05:26 am
8. Citizen W.

Yes you can, so move it! :):):)
How great it is to see the wonderful us-american people in renewed, flamming debates about political issues, and with so much engagment! Hurray, hurray, we are the movement of the gray (no not “the gray” southerners of us-american civil-war, but the gray mass of anonymous citizens;)). So however peoplle, your comments above signal some ongoing dissent in the however “ex-opposite nowruling” part of political spectrum. It is allways the same;) critical intelligences tends to too much critzizing eachother, instead of focussing on common priorities;).
But don’t worry, I loooove discussions, words are the most greatest tool of mankind and the struggle 4 true reasoning and perception is anyway worth the trouble;).
Okay, 2 get back 2 commenting;), 1st) I agrre @engl. rose a higher minimum wage would be profoundly more necessary right now, worldwide, 2nd) I agree too @Chris in Utah thats a quite good argument to determinedly feature and force a higher degree of social inclusion, and real economic equality in substantial amounts. Hey look around in the USA. There’s quite damn a whole lot of reasons around to Robin Hood your ass of to change the god damned inequality that is so embarrassing in your super-ultra-rich country. But damn’ in a country where the elected next President, Mr. Obama (CONGRATIULATIONS, SIR!!! HURRAY!HURRAY!HURRAY!!!2markmyoppinion’boutthathere;)), is openly called “communist” because he seems 2 b an idealist, somehow at least. Yeah, damn’ it you have a whole bunch of problems more than “just” anyone else worldwide;). It seems those McCarthy-style “Coldwarriors” and redneckish “yeeeehaaa!” re-baptised Bushists need an world-2.0-the situation2day-update to get out of this democracy=communisim malfunction circruit. So there’s quite a lot o’work 2 do, so c’mon ‘n move it!
Anotherworldispossible’causeyeswecandoitsodoitgoddamn’anddon’twasteanymoretime

ur citizen W
Frankfurt/M., Germany

Comment on November 13, 2008 05:38 am
9. Citizen W.

P.S. Please excuse spelling and grammatical failures in my writing. As shown I am a nasty little, german nagger and that without correct english grammar and spelling! Damn, mea culpa, shame on me!;)
Hope u mind my words anyway;)

citizen w

Comment on November 13, 2008 05:44 am

Where is the article about the basic monetary system facts, the Federal Reserve and other private central banks, Fractional Reserve Banking, The Rothschild Dynasty, Zionism, Masonry, Iluminati, etc.? Where is the article about the end of the IRS? Why no mention of the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century)? 9/11 was the “catalyzing event” in said project, “like a new Pearl Harbor”. In order to repeal the Patriot Act first we must unmask false flag state sponsored terrorism. At first I was thrilled by this release.
But then I realized the content is still “oficial versión”.
9/11 Truth, Censored Technologies in Energy, Medicine, etc..? This looks like an Inside Job to me. A Michael Moore type job to keep well intentioned persons from digging deeper.

Comment on November 13, 2008 06:22 am
11. yoni

Awesome !!!

Comment on November 13, 2008 07:01 am
12. Ugh

Awful. Maximum wage?

Someone never took Economics 101.

Comment on November 13, 2008 03:59 pm
14. robbie

When conservatives brought up their fallacious “socialist” attacks against Obama I thought it was ridiculous. Now I see where they were coming from.

Don’t you guys realize this horseshit is just as bad fundamentalists from the right who want to invade Iran, torture prisoners, ban gay marriage and build a huge wall between the US and Mexico?

Comment on November 13, 2008 04:39 pm
15. mmp

I’m reading that some readers don’t like the idea of a maximum wage. But from what I’ve read, our clever contributors are suggesting that the maximum wage would be set at 15 times the minimum wage. So, CEO’s want a higher salary to pay for their 3rd home and 2nd yacht? then increase the minimum wage and help the little guy, too. In other words: a more balanced economic system, ergo a more stable economy.

Someone mentioned economics 101. well how about a common sense analogy from architecture 101: don’t make it top heavy, or it’s going to collapse.

Comment on November 13, 2008 06:15 pm

[...] 13th, 2008 · No Comments (New York Times) The President has called for swift passage of the Safeguards for a New Economy (S.A.N.E.) bill. [...]

Pingback on November 13, 2008 06:20 pm
17. dea

The government is “We, the people,” and can be as WE choose. The alternative to the religion of markets is not the religion of government. The alternative is involved, informed, active citizens who own their government, rather than letting themselves be owned.

Comment on November 13, 2008 09:24 pm
18. Otis

This will ruin rappers! They wear $500,000 on their wrist, $1,000,000 for the chain! Don’t take the diamonds out of my mouth, they keep the kristal cold.

Comment on November 13, 2008 10:23 pm

READ & THINK and CAST A PERSONAL VOTE ON-LINE -)
on behalf of reforming the economical situation of natives & possibly,over time, eventually, of each and every stressed Citizen worldwide

WHEN WILL ABOLISHING MONEY BE TODAY’S GOAL IN POLITICS?

WHEN WILL ABOLISHING MONEY BE THE PROCLAIMED GOAL OF CONTEMPORARY POLITICS?

A HAPPY WORLD IN THE MAKING - if YOU & I WISHED so & were getting into
A MOTION sooner than later. Do you know, my friend, that a certain rock
band got paid 7 million pounds for having their hit used in Windows
commercials? Why wouldn’t they or others sometime start themselves up musing & rocking about a world finally without the money instead of simply inflating their already enlarged egos further at the expense of the vanity in their ordinary fans’ build-up of financial capability
which yet to each & every one of us down here generally is so troublesome a part of life in the survival of the relentless control of our elements and energies by the networking classes of ruling men? How deplorable it is that human beings have not yet reached that state of existence where all, humans & and animals alike, were freely sharing all needs with all others wisely without having to resort to a mean medium of humiliating money, as the other brother & sister partners in life on this globe have, even they’re all claimed to be of lesser intelligence than we humans, ever felt happy and free in so doing, and among whom not a single killing of another being has ever been reported as happening over that business of sharing. Earthlings’ creation MONEY is in the end a tremendous values-politicizing power-pop-up-medium being possessed and amassed first of all by weaklings in the fields of fruit-bringing action - even they might be called millionaires, weaklings still they are - and poses as such an ugly thing that ought to be eventually overcome on this globe of hope. Intelligent rock bands should now get into producing songs about a human race who is to evolve into living together hand in hand truly for the first time ever since distant Stone Ages - in a state where money as such will be made altogether redundant in global panvoluntaristic societies where everyone will be working together freely with everyone each according to their capacities - thus redeeming finally the joy of ‘give & take’ from its horrible bondage to money.

Think about it, dear friend, and join in for the new all-out human drive.
How is the world to exist without money - why can’t humans be as clever as the animals and come to terms without money without killing each other over petty things? THE MOTTO of a totally revolutionized world order run without money is to be PANVOLUNTARISM.
This means that everyone is voluntarily contributing one’s personal share in maintaining the production and distribution of all consumer goods and cultural appliances. Everyone is in turn entitled to receiving their necessities and fancy articles for free. Naturally before such a system can be workable comprehensive re-education and re-orientation programs on a grand scale must prepare people all around the world to win each and everyone’s acceptancy and willingness to go along the new lines. A major key factor will be with the industrial manufacturing sector. Erstwhile competitor companies have to come to a consensus to stop the rat race of futile innovations but instead abide per type of product by a standard agreeable to all sorts of people. The different companies’ product diversifications will then be concentrated solely on satisfying people’s craving for distinguishing individualized designs & patterns of items. Those units of eventually upcoming pioneering scientific novelties that are time and again to bring
about more human advancement and convenience to the masses may then
initially be the admirable booty of televised contest winners at their
first stage before the general replacement of the older model versions
will follow in the wake of positive reports by the first batch of test
users. This will serve people’s need for entertainment as well as to make generally known the lurking innovations. The individuals’ motivation to evolve and make use of their skills will not be anymore earmarked by a pride factor that is proclaiming its success basically in having been able to raise the envy of neighbours, friends and relatives, but solely by finding a deeper sense of satisfaction in being socially contributive to linking personal self-realization with the common well-being of all individuals & human communities. -

Associate with well-mannered people and your manners will improve. Run
with decent folk and your own decent instincts will be strengthened.
Keep the company with bums and you will become a bum. Hang around with
money people and you will end up by picking up the check and dying broke.

- Dear contemporary! How many people, not only in your country but
meanwhile all over the world today, would want to see the general social evolution of the whole global human community go the way that in the end an altogether new state of dealing with one another will be reached where money as such will have become a redundant thing of the past, its long and troublesome era only to be remembered in the history books. As a parameter of the dimension of such a total change in human life and, more importantly, to indicate thereby the feasible characteristics of a new money-free system that is virtually practicable, let us envision here as one example of a future state of things the following advertisement posting likely to be encountered in these happy days to come:

‘Hello out there!
I’m looking for work mates to share my top-notch salary-free
job site within the professionally skilled….. sector? All returns of
the personality-engaging community commitments, in accordance with the
new global system of panvoluntarism, are 100% gratified for full gratis
procuring of all consumer goods plus, of course, all prevailing fancy
gears & gadgets of the day just for the taking at shop-4-free markets
where, on top of all, they will also offer to you free passes into a
variety of most popular raffle entries for the meanwhile globally
participated televised show-down events which, sure thing, hold for all smart & lucky winners, after the public fun making is over, FREE OWNERSHIP OF THIS OR THAT ALL-OUT ADMIRED TOP-OF-THE-DAY APPLIANCE MODEL…? ‘? -

The above projection should be enough to convey the idea of the type of society
model we should want to promulgate. Money is obviously the root of all
evil, and only when the world will have overcome the need for its greed, only then will we finally be assured of happy days to stay with us for good in the future. Let us now start working together with ideas and efforts to eventually achieve this truly new world order.

AN ERA CAN BE SAID TO END WHEN ITS BASIC ILLUSIONS ARE EXHAUSTED -

Either we’d embrace it or not. People’d better do.

Imagine one day they’d discover another intelligently manned planet
where they’re all happily living without that horrifying devil of money!
While here all these fools are saying it’s totally out of the question
to abolish money, only lunatics and kids could even think of such a thing to happen.
But then, what about our other animals here on Earth? !

Not one species of them ever extinguished because of lack of food and none of them ever had taken to violence in the face
of food shortage, and all that without the use of money! This message
corroborates the secret dream of the majority of all people and it is
the pledge of the many, each to everyone, but first of all one directed
to heads of states and their other leaders! Help, dear contemporary to
make PANVOLUNTARISM known with them so that they will use their
influential positions for the glorious end to be accomplished.
And scatter ‘the word’ with the makers of popular music! Their participation in the emerging yet dreaded cause to drive out money worldwide could prove even more efficacious than any other social party’s.

LET US JOIN IN MIND AND JOIN OUR HANDS TO RE-INSTALL PARADISE BUT LET US MAKE IT THIS TIME BE AN EVERLASTING ONE BY STAMPING OUT NOW IN ADVANCE THE ILL-FATED DEMON - IN THE FORM OF MONEY

@(’;')@

I am herewith, as I’m hoping you’re doing fine in life, heartily
inviting you, to visit the following Votelet page on the Internet at

http: //www.network54.com/Votelet/38264

The objective of the recommended Votelet page is to realize our human
possibilities by permanently solving the huge financial crises that
paralyze all nations and which in all regions of the world, today more than ever, put to hardest tests the lives of huge masses of people,
especially of those who live in impoverished areas. If you wished to do so, you may on-line indicate your personal view in this opinion poll by casting a vote for one among nine given optional statements of attitudes and beliefs, common ones juxtaposed to others quite unheard of, all in reference to the basic issue at stake: Eventually to help our brothers & sisters of all our races and bring about the ABOLISHING OF MONEY worldwide, and realize therein the goal of the true re-establishing of ‘paradise on earth’, a goal all religions, despite their assurances, so far have failed to come up with by purely spiritual means only. Moreover I’ll be thankful for any comments and suggestions by you. It seems to be a tremendous issue, real revolutionary in its dimensions, which could but well not all too long from now develop into an encompassing major global movement! Thanks to you for your giving it a thought or two, and for taking interest in the matter! It is for a much, much better world, the fruits of which if not yet to be experienced by our own generation in our own times then but surely by all our future generations to come ahead of us on this our green planet of hopes. And who would not want to see a better world, on coming back down to earth after having passed through this one life in the presence. But the change will only happen if someone courageous enough to talk about abolishing money with others starts to reflect on the issue at stake right now.

Thanks, honestly, for your precious considerations!

Please visit

http://www.poemhunter.com/erhard-hans-josef-lang/poems

to read more poems by Erhard Hans Josef Lang

German readers are invited to take a look at my
contrastingly illustrated electronic journal on
A World Wholly Without Money at
http://libidopter.twoday.net

Comment on November 13, 2008 11:44 pm
20. Ferd

Poemhunter - with writing like that, no wonder you want a world without money!

What a load of scroll-by drivel!

Love how the libs think this is real! Shh, don’t tell anyone! These are probably some of the same people that Stern’s show interviewed and thought McCain’s positions were Obama’s positions.

Comment on November 14, 2008 12:31 am
21. marc

Progressive groups applying pressure to the Democrats?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Comment on November 14, 2008 01:21 am

Good article and illustration…the maximum wage at 15 times the minimum wage is brilliant!!! And no lobby groups!! We now live under Corporate Fascism, and Corporate Fascism has failed. The U.S.S.R. and China fell too and are now dens of Corporate Fascism as well. History shows clearly that religion is the good partner to fascism. Capitalism or Communism it’s not the ideology but the people running it who make the difference. Criminalism and greed are dynamic and function with their own set of rules under any ideology. Strict penalties for Wall Street frauds would be a good start.

Comment on November 14, 2008 03:32 am
23. merabaxa

жесть, хуле

Comment on November 14, 2008 04:43 am
24. Gianfranco

Lovely… You gotta fear the mafia now…

Comment on November 14, 2008 04:55 am
25. Gianfranco

By the way… any ban in FurReal Friends and “Reality Shows” that promote abuse of a type of individual over another will be brought in?

Comment on November 14, 2008 05:19 am
26. Gianfranco

For the FurReal Friends in present I know that the 7th of June of 2009 a group of anthropologists, psychologists, ethologists and the like determined that owning “FurReal Friends” as a replacement for pets destabilizes mental stability, dehumanizes and leads to confussion between lie, fantasy and reality. They keep deepening their research btu so far FurReal Friends has shown no goodness in them, the same applies to Foster Hosue for Imaginary Friends and many of the shows given to children. Studies agree that entertaintment has become a tool to dampen critical thinking.

Comment on November 14, 2008 05:24 am
27. Russian bear

I am so glad!
Welcome back to USSR, my dear Americans!

Comment on November 14, 2008 07:59 am
28. John Doelman

Great parody!

Comment on November 14, 2008 08:50 am
29. LTeak

If there’s a maximum wage law who will pay all the taxes?

Top 10% of earners pay 70+% of taxes, so I hope all of you socialists are ready to get out your checkbooks. It’ll be especially interesting when all major company headquarters get shifted to other countries so that executives can continue to get compensated at higher levels than Joe the Plumber.

Comment on November 14, 2008 10:15 am
30. Non-extremist

100% tax on fortunes over $500,000? Am I to understand that anything over 500,000 given to me goes to the government? Look, obscenely rich money-chasers who are all about making the next buck disgust me just as much as anyone else, but being rich does not make you a bad person. If I was to inherit anything above 500k I would NOT want to give that to the government.

I do not want a government that GOVERNS. Niether one that controls me by deciding what is best for me, neither one that doesn’t care about me and does what is best for it’s pals, but one that actually exists to literally govern, that is manage in a general way, the way I (underline that “I”) live my life.

I DON’T think the answer to corruption is to give more money or control to the government. Less government, more efficiency.

Comment on November 14, 2008 11:34 am
31. Duderino

Want to solve a problem? Lower the costs of higher education. As it stands, a person who takes a higher education path won’t even break even in the long run. It’s simply not worth it. Each student pays 25k a year for a decent school while tenured professors get 75k? Something’s not right there.

How do you expect people to spend more, pay there mortgages and so on with a debt looming before they even start working?

And I know far to many people out of reputable schools that charge in excess of 25k a year and are offered less than 30k a year for salary. These are very capable people, it’s a system that’s broken.

You don’t put a roof on wages. This just forces corporate cutbacks, which hurts the middle class more.

You help people that are going to put it back into the economy.

Comment on November 14, 2008 01:24 pm
32. Sally

Obviously written by children

- Punitive taxes on fortunes more than $500,000, most people who own their homes in urban areas will have to sell their houses (which probably exceed $500,000 in value right now) to pay their taxes. Anyone who is cash poor but house rich because they stayed in one place over time will be evicted the minute their parents die. This is a Very Bad Idea. There would be no better way to destroy communities and small privately owned farms.

- Rent Control! In New York City this meant aristocratic renters who locked in prices at 1950’s rates and handed their apartments down through families to the point where landlords couldn’t afford to be landlords anymore, and nobody wanted to build anything new. Result? Overcrowding, a constant housing crisis, and brownstones with full tenants collapsing spontaneously from age. Some people even died as a result.

Can’t progressive socialists learn from their mistakes? Ideology can’t trump reality! We have to be better than the abstinence-only types or we’ll never be taken seriously!

Comment on November 14, 2008 02:06 pm
33. Nathan

Fuck yes!

Comment on November 14, 2008 02:16 pm
34. Dan R.

@ 15

“Someone mentioned economics 101. well how about a common sense analogy from architecture 101: don’t make it top heavy, or it’s going to collapse”

How, uh, glib.

Salary caps and minimum wages are just fancy words for price ceilings and price floors. The only difference is that they are applied to the labor market.

Let’s look at these one at a time. Basic, basic, basic supply and demand shows us that when a price floor is higher than the clearing point for the market, i.e. the quantity and price where supply meets demand, there will be excess supply. Why? Because consumers want a lower price, and the floor keeps suppliers from meeting them at that price. Hence there is an excess of supply.

To apply this logic to labor, think of the minimum wage as a price floor. If the clearing point for wages drops below the floor (which, if you support a minimum wage, you must believe is the case), then consumers of labor (businesses) will demand less labor. And, because the price is so high, there will be an excess of supply (laborers). This creates the condition where there are more people looking for work than there are people looking to employ them, and this condition is what must people call “unemployment”.

Consequently, a raise in the price floor (minimum wage) will create less demand for employees and cause more people to enter the labor market enticed by higher wages. This will have the effect of raising the unemployment rate. It will not simply “make everybody richer” as some here seem to believe.

Contrariwise, putting a price cap on salaries will similarly have an effect on supply and demand. If the clearing point for that market is above the cap, there will be an excess of demand and a shortage of supply. The supply, in this case, is high-level management. Because the wage is insufficient to entice enough qualified people to enter that market, you will quickly discover that there simply aren’t enough people to competently fill the roles of upper management. This will have the nasty side-effect of jeopardizing the integrity of private institutions, themselves sources of large quantities of employment.

This is economics 101. If you don’t believe that this analysis applies to the labor market, I ask you to seriously consider why this would be the case. If you think this analysis is flawed, I ask you why it can be used to account for nearly every other market phenomenon. The example of rent control has already been cited, but there are countless others.

As for your architecture analogy… quaint, but poisonous if you actually believe such nonsense should compel anyone to seriously support potentially harmful legislation.

Comment on November 14, 2008 05:08 pm
35. White Protestant American Male

Dear Dan R.,
People are not commodities.

Comment on November 14, 2008 07:08 pm
36. Dan R

Dear White Protestant American Mail,

Fair enough, but I never claimed that they were.

I likened human labor to a commodity, which, in the sense that a commodity is both useful and valuable, it is.

If you are suggesting that labor isn’t a commodity, then you are suggesting that it is without value, which, of course, would imply that any wage is too high.

Comment on November 14, 2008 07:59 pm
37. Bryan

This site is a perfect example of what happens when a group of people with too little knowledge have too much time.

Comment on November 14, 2008 08:26 pm
38. Mason

This can only end well. I’m sure that if we passed enough laws, there will never be a market crash again. Class warfare is sure to fix all our problems. Let’s not just cap wages, we should make it so that the top 5% pay 95% of the taxes. Oh wait we already do that. Better yet we should make a 100% income tax for all. Then we can let the government tell us what we need and let them buy it for us too.

Comment on November 14, 2008 08:31 pm
39. Don

Wealth accumulation should be capped. Anyway it is good that you started to take a look at the maximum wage. Everyone has always talked of a minimum wage, while rapacious exploiters went about their business of sucking up as much wealth as they could. It pinches the rich too even consider such concepts but when half the world lives on two dollars a day or less (and no sign of trickle down economics working) then the day is sure to come when they will be forced to give up their obscene wealth.

Comment on November 14, 2008 08:50 pm
40. White Protestant American Male

Dan R.,
You’re right. You didn’t say that people are commodities. And your economic analysis is unimpeachable.
I agree that human labor is both useful and valuable. The problem is that “basic, basic, basic supply and demand” doesn’t care what happens to laborers when “the clearing point for the market” gets to be lower than what they need to mainain a decent way of life.
Workers don’t have any other commodity to sell, and their labor is an enormous part of themselves (time and energy). Therefore, the commodification of labor entails the commodification of people themselves.
You are not wrong from a strictly theoretical point of view, but intervention in the labor market is justified from a human point of view.

Comment on November 14, 2008 09:00 pm
41. Lewis Beyman

OK, capitalism sucks, It is a stupid and irrational system and ideology. But what to replace it???

We need people to deeply think about this issue. We want and need a system that is less wasteful of all sorts of resources, especially non renewable resources. We want to reduce the work week and greatly increase leisure time. We want a pleasant work place. We want a high standard of living and good quality of life.

Here are some thoughtful websites that have good suggestions: Z Net, IWW, Technocracy , INC. I am certain there are many more.

Let us not settle for a crappy system like capitalism. Apparently we are headed for another capitalist collapse. Let us make the best of it and not save capitalism like Roosevelt did, we need to destroy it and we need to put the right wingers, especially the fascists into jails.

Comment on November 15, 2008 06:54 am
42. Hoq

“Caps wages”? What a fucking crock.

And Lewis, suggesting that you put a certain political party into prison IS facism. I hope you get prison-raped.

Comment on November 15, 2008 08:15 am
43. Oneloveinus

I hope you people realize the underlying message the people who created this website and newspaper are trying to convey. 1. There are other ways of doings things. Granted the ways and means described in this article aren’t perfect but we are discussing true and better ways and that is truly an accomplishment. And good for all of us. 2. For a mass amount of people…1.2 million and counting to read something that wasn’t pre-filtered or pre-decided by a group of wealthy monopolistic individuals under the context of something they already took and believed was true can only open the minds of those who read it and thus demolish the lies and debauchery initiated by the pre-existing media. 3. If you people really want to see change, start discussing better ways of doing things with everyone you know and not tear down every idea that doesn’t agree with you, that is only self-defeating.

React. Interact. Reform.

Comment on November 15, 2008 08:40 am
44. a.

you mean t. veblen, don’t you?

Comment on November 15, 2008 06:29 pm

I’m French
I love your site, for a better future
Great parody!

By

Comment on November 15, 2008 07:23 pm
46. Dan R

@White Protestant American Male
=
I certainly do appreciate your concern for this subject and I want to make sure that a conversation like ours might rise out of the muck of stereotypical, pointless online bickering to strike a chord with any person interested in investigating this issue beyond drawing the cliched battle lines and filtering comments for like-minded POVs.
=
The commodification of human beings is no point to be easily dismissed, however there are a few things that are important to keep in mind. First off, and I mean this point quite seriously, the quality of life associated with the real earnings of a minimum wage employee is significantly higher than someone making a relatively high wage more than 60 years ago. Modern amenities and increased purchasing power has enabled those making such a small wage to have access to powers previously denied to whole former generations. If you want to make the point that the minimum wage ought to be a “livable wage,” you need to seriously evaluate the difference between such a wage and the wage that is actually necessary to sustain human life. Let me be clear on this point, however. I am not suggesting that humans ought to simply survive, only that saying that people ought to earn a “livable wage” is clearly advocating for a certain advanced state of living chosen at an arbitrary standard.
=
This leads me into my second point. You claim that it is justified to intervene into the labor market, essentially, because human labor is distinctly tied to humanity, whereas the products of human labor are differentiated. The supply and demand analysis might produce an efficient allocation of goods, but, basically, if chocolate dips to a very low price, the damage is far less than if the price of human labor so drops. While I will grant this point, I feel that it is important to note that from a purely law-based economic perspective, the treatment of human labor as a special good, distinct from the rest, is only something that we project. As a consequence, my original point still stands, namely that a price floor will produce excess supply in the form of unemployment. My point was never some highfalutin libertarian ideal of the sanctity of the markets; my only objection was that the intention behind the intervention would yield a less desirable consequence.
=
Make no mistake. I am a stringent liberal. But I am also a consequentialist. I want to improve the power and liberty of the lowest member of society. But I am skeptical of good intentions that are light on pragmatic basis. If a system of income redistribution empowers a poor person but also stifles the growth of the economy over the long run, we might find that the poor person has been offered less benefit over time than would have been otherwise. IMHO, the concern ought to be about the poor, but often, as in the case of the people who created this site, people spend more time worrying about the rich. Pushing for more equality of earnings without a concern for what effect this will have on the poor strikes me as petty.

Comment on November 15, 2008 08:15 pm
47. Lewis Beyman

Thorsten Veblen was /is one of the best political economic thinkers in this country. It is a shame he is not read more often. If I was teaching economics he would be required reading. Veblen was one of the leaders in the Technocracy Movement, let the engineers rule. He recognized that the market system was a fucked up type of system with its booms and busts and production for profit. He called for production for use rather than profit and it is about time we went in that direction. We need to use the Obama presidency to revolutionize the socio-economic system.

Comment on November 17, 2008 01:55 am
48. Lewis Beyman

=
Sometimes it is very hard to know the results of an action/policy in advance. That is why we need experimentation and a system to change policies when necessary. I believe that could be part of the planning process. Another way to prevent mistakes is to achieve a tremendous consensus for a policy. This is the democratic ideal of course, Jeffersonian democracy —1. an educated population 2.hours - days - weeks of intense discussion about a policy 3. A multistage decision process with voting and further discussion so that most people agree with the policy. The early kibbutz movement is the model. (A system of direct democracy) This should give a result that will mean —BEST PRACTICE!

Comment on November 17, 2008 02:21 am
49. Lewis Beyman

>Dan R. Make no mistake. I am a stringent liberal. But I am also a consequentialist. I want to improve the power and liberty of the lowest member of society. But I am skeptical of good intentions that are light on pragmatic basis.>
=
Sometimes it is very hard to know the results of an action/policy in advance. That is why we need experimentation and a system to change policies when necessary. I believe that could be part of the planning process. Another way to prevent mistakes is to achieve a tremendous consensus for a policy. This is the democratic ideal of course, Jeffersonian democracy —1. an educated population 2.hours - days - weeks of intense discussion about a policy 3. A multistage decision process with voting and further discussion so that most people agree with the policy. The early kibbutz movement is the model. (A system of direct democracy) This should give a result that will mean —BEST PRACTICE!

Comment on November 17, 2008 02:22 am
50. Robert
51. Robert

Sounds like borderline communism to me. sigh.

Comment on November 17, 2008 04:05 pm
52. Bruce Budy

Perhaps with all these wise writers tossing ideas about so freely, this might be the place to ask; If a minimum wage is imposed, doesn’t it raise the price of the ‘product’ across the board? ie, no advantage is gained or lost by the ownership, other than the usual dilema of how many are needed to produce the product, etc. And aren’t the wage earners also the buyers? As an extreme, how many products were directed at the slave demographic?

At the other end, the $500,000 figure used to determine “rich” is of course absurd, but what do we call incomes of tens of millions per year? How burdensome is it for someone with an income in the millions to pay taxes? How anxious should the rest of us be to protect that amount of wealth? Is anyone actually working to earn that much, or isn’t that level of earnings a mere by product of their ambition? Will ambition be stifled by a loss to taxes of $5 million on earnings of $20 million? I doubt it.

We have just seen job seekers spending millions and devoting 18 months to achieving a salary which is well below a million dollars per year. If we raised the salary of our CEO/President would we attract better applicants? If we made it a volunteer position, would we have no applicants?
Workers only become buyers once paid. The CEO’s are paid once they become powerful, not before. Once they become powerful, their pay is no longer measured in buying power, but as a scorecard figure, rating the power level achieved. For the people to expect them to pay back some of that wealth in the form of taxes, to pay for the educations of the workers who created that wealth, the roads and bridges which allow them to get to work and to the malls where the products are sold, the health care that keeps them on the job, the safety inspections that keep their work places safe and the food and water we all use clean, etc, etc, hardly seems unfair.
Of course the rich do often “pay their debt to society”, or “express their gratitude to this great land of ours”, depending on the speech writer, via good works and or massive institutions or endowments, etc, but passing this wealth along to their heirs may not be the best thing to pass on. Heirs can be notoriously different from their benefactors, and should we go out of our way to ensure their rights to succession? Are we so anxious to create noble families as a consequence of our democratic idealism?

Comment on November 18, 2008 12:55 pm
53. DRS

Kooky

Comment on November 18, 2008 02:13 pm
54. Eros

100% tax for inheritance? What? Really people, do you seriously want to live in a Socialist country? Do you? Go do some research and then answer that question.

Comment on November 18, 2008 04:48 pm
55. Capitalist

Your article says:

“This bill brings a level of sanity and restraint back to the system that allowed companies like Enron, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to fleece Americans for all they were worth.”

Then you go on to say that the S.A.N.E. act:

“Stabilizes Mortgages. Keeps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were formed to boost home ownership, under government management, and imposes a moratorium on foreclosures.”

You got it right the first time: Fannie and Freddie are as corrupt as any corporate entity we have seen AND they caused this meltdown in the economy. Congress stood by and let it happen. But the S.A.N.E. act should keep these outrageous and corrupt organizations the heavily lobby senators for protection from oversight?

If you are going to be a insane liberal at least be consistent on your point.

Comment on November 19, 2008 12:43 am
56. TessyRenberg

People are actually talking about economics? Why did the Argentina model fail? What can we do different in the US? I am an American living in Sweden. I want to see my family in the US happier and healthier! We have a capitalistic socialism here, small business thrives, and workers have access to healthcare, childcare, and sickleave. It is so different from what I experienced in the US, its more free for families. Don’t let anyone divide you on this, the life of the lowest worker needs to be more sane. Unions have a place in a healthy economic system, and government is YOUR government, not the enemy. Thanks All!

Comment on November 19, 2008 05:22 pm
57. Baller

Stupid idea capping salaries

Comment on November 20, 2008 09:52 am
58. Heather T.

For one, everyone who has replied to this newspaper and is NOT an AMERICAN, should butt out- you do not live in this country. Second, those who are foreigners who have come to this country and talk about how great your country is… GO BACK!

You want to know why we are the greatest country in the world? Because we have capitalism. You know why the rich are rich? Cause they work for it. I am 19 years old, came from a poverty-stricken life. My mom is in jail and has not had a job for ten years. I have a full time job, I go to school full time, have my own insurance that I pay for (because I choose to not spend my money on frivilous things so I can have insurance), have my own place and volunteer regularly.

I am working hard to I don’t have to have a difficult life in the future. So how about everyone that wants a ‘free for all’ life style, go to Europe where you can all be equal. But I am not the same as some low life who can’t get there ass off of the couch to go be someone.

Excuse me for thinking this was a country where I have the ability to be prosperous.

Comment on November 20, 2008 05:11 pm
59. Lewis Beyman

>>100% tax for inheritance? What? Really people, do you seriously want to live in a Socialist country? Do you? Go do some research and then answer that question.>>
-
Of course there should be a hundred percent tax on inheritance. Why should any one be born rich. Let them struggle like everyone else. And of course I want to live in a socialist country. Who wouldn’t want to live in a fairer society? Only people who want to rip off others.

Comment on November 20, 2008 06:03 pm
60. Lewis Beyman

>>>You want to know why we are the greatest country in the world? Because we have capitalism.>>>
=

The USA is very far from the greatest country in the world. The USA usually rates at the bottom of social indicators for health and well being for an industrial country.

=
Being brainwashed is no way to go through life. Capitalism sucks and because we are so capitalist we suffer for it. We need to end this society where rewards are based on your family or how greedy you are and can get away with it. A new world is possible.

Comment on November 20, 2008 06:20 pm
61. Heather T.

lewis…. Our country rewards the motivated. Don’t get me wrong, I know that capitalism has it’s problems, but as far as government systems work, this one is the best (while it is not the fairest), take a look in history, all socialist (progressive) economic systems inadvertantly starve their people.
Just out of curiosity, do you think that will a much more “fair” society, do you think that the elite of this country will give up their money? I certainly don’t. Look at Saddam Hussein, he lived in riches while his people starved.
Socialism is a “nice” idea, but it won’t work. If you supress the rich, some power hungry person who is not longer “elite” will try and take power. In all socialist countries this has happened.
Liberals have hearts.
Conservatives have logic.

(Think about all the people who come here illegal searching for a better life, no other country in the world has the rate of people coming into their country like we do)

Comment on November 20, 2008 07:00 pm
62. DrFeelGood

Heather T., people like you are why I am proud to be an American, and why I still have hope. (assuming what you said is true). Like Gandi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”
Just curious, but where would all of you USA-bashers go, if you could go anywhere? I’m not a “love it or leave it” guy, but come on. Look in the mirror. Where are you going that is so much better? NOWHERE!
Lewis Beyman: I hope you are on scholarship. I’d hate to think that your parents are actually paying for you to learn that B.S. Engineers run the world! LLOOLL! YOU brought up brainwashing! LOL again. No one does it better than the collegiate left wing academics. Wake up, son.

Comment on November 21, 2008 09:17 pm
63. DrFeelGood

Lewis:
Capitalism does indeed suck. There are winners and losers. Just like every other system. Just like life. Life is hard, and unfair. But at least in captalism, anyone has a shot. Just look at Obama. And, try to consider all the ways that capitalism has touched your life, added to it, and most likely saved it, because it fostered innovation. Capitalistic innovation from which you have benefitted, and always will benefit, and now hypocritically chastise.
A new world is possible, but it may not be what you have in mind. Read up on the Weimar Republic. I like your kibbutz model, that may be where we are heading.

Comment on November 21, 2008 09:40 pm
64. Deb

What Bryan and Sally said, can’t add much more, they nailed it.

Comment on November 22, 2008 01:43 am
65. Un Pobre

Where is the “Ban on Buying Senators” bill (aka the Ban on BS)?

Comment on November 26, 2008 10:54 pm
66. Albert Olofsson

Higher interest and no taxes is the way to go. Prosecute the Rothschilds and the rest of the AIPAC, Bernake goes back to where he came from
-Israel.

Comment on November 26, 2008 11:28 pm
67. Albert Olofsson

ZeitGeistMovie.com -Addendum

Comment on November 26, 2008 11:29 pm
68. Heather T

Randist.

Can’t wait for your exceptionist story to hit Lifetime, ABC, or some other network that tell us how we are special and unique individual who had the courage to change the world.

Butt out and Go back: I love how we let our borders tell us that racism is still okay, so long as it’s pro-America!

Comment on November 30, 2008 07:38 pm
69. Gianfranco

Heather Tits, I guess that’s your stage name, the US’ wealth comes from bullying other countries, that’s how it sustains the capitalism you protect… Wonder why the US has the crime it has? Yeah, of course nationalistic capitalism… That probably lead more than one to jail… You are another media-washed fool thinking that socialism is identical with marxism or communism… It is not, and this joke never held communism/marxism as the ideal…

Comment on December 1, 2008 07:11 am
70. Not for Socialism

“Taxes Inheritance. Establishes a 100 percent tax on inheritance for fortunes over $500,000.” How is this American?

As for Socialism=Communism debate, either way, a system that encourages a person to do less than their best effort is not a system I am in favor of. Socialism is made possible by “redistributing wealth”…so if you may have money taken from you for doing your best, why try? Even those who make no attempt are given enough to survive.

I will admit that some people get screwed over with Capitalism, but the idea that hard work will get you somewhere is exactly what society needs.

Comment on December 2, 2008 09:42 pm
71. Carry Your Own Weight

Bruce Budy
“How anxious should the rest of us be to protect that amount of wealth? Is anyone actually working to earn that much, or isn’t that level of earnings a mere by product of their ambition? Will ambition be stifled by a loss to taxes of $5 million on earnings of $20 million? I doubt it.”

We should be concerned because you are missing the point. For those in the not TOO ridiculous tax bracket of $250,000 per year income, taxes can be upwards of 40-45% at least in my locale. So, will ambition be stifled by a loss to taxes of $5 million on earnings of $20 million? If that were the case I would agree completely with you saying no. However, considering you are off be AT LEAST a factor of 2, I would say that you should start paying attention to your taxes or at least start paying them. I would really appreciate that.

Comment on December 2, 2008 11:26 pm
72. Lonn Gipson

Again, good spoof. Enjoyable.

Comment on December 7, 2008 08:36 pm
73. Ray

Indeed, I will stop working and paying sizable taxes in January 2009. Just doing my part to support the new political paradigm. Good luck socialists, you will need it.

Comment on December 19, 2008 01:03 pm
74. Heather T.

To whoever said “Randist.

Can’t wait for your exceptionist story to hit Lifetime, ABC, or some other network that tell us how we are special and unique individual who had the courage to change the world.

Butt out and Go back: I love how we let our borders tell us that racism is still okay, so long as it’s pro-America!”

frankly, this website is all about ‘changing the world’, so to attack me personally because i work hard, is silly because we all would like to see changes in this country whether or not you are conservative or liberal. we just have different views on how we would do that. and yes, i do believe in pro-america. and guess what? if i grew up in italian or france or canada, i would probably be pro- that country. i believe in fighting for your country. and while i do not agree with every countries philosophies, i do think it is an admirable characteristic to be proud of where you live. those who are unhappy with this country need to work to better it and stop whinning. whinning does nothing, since when did people stop believing in fighting for what they believe in and believe they are just “entitled” to everything with out earning it?

and ya know what, if i put some sappy version of my story on lifetime and it inspired some lazy bum to get motivated in life i would so do it! (even if it is cheesy) i lead by example. and others ought to as well.

we should close our borders but still let people legally come here, but i beleive in doing it the right way. i’m not racist, i just want my taxes going to help out american citizens, even if it took them five years and a difficult test to become one.

and to everyone who thinks that the socialists are ahead, more people in this country are tranditionalist (thank the lord), unfortunately the left controls the media.

its time we all led by example.

Comment on December 23, 2008 07:54 pm

Those taxes are nothing less than theft. If I am fortunate enough to have 500,000 dollars to leave my child, is that reason enough for the state to take it? I’d rather withdraw the money and burn it than do that. And an ambiguous emergency tax on the wealthy? Who defines that? Hmm whenever gov’t bureaucrats need more money, boom, extra taxes?

I’d also rather burn my money than turn it over to INTERNATIONAL bureaucrats.

Nothing like killing success and destroying incentive.

Remember, eventually you will get to the point where the wealthy have either been reduced to poverty or fled the country with whatever assets they could take with them. Then your socialist nightmare will collapse.

Comment on January 25, 2009 10:16 pm
76. Danny

What a great idea, because all this stuff worked so well in the USSR, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba…you get the idea. If we capped wages at roughly $200,000 a year a few things would happen that weren’t mentioned. The Economy would not stabilize, on the contrary many companies would suddenly be gone. Every company that sold luxury items would loose all their clientele. The unemployment rate would skyrocket, on top of that the gov. would loose all those revenue sources. Your pretty much taking away all the money that would fund these huge spending programs that are being suggested. At the same time taking away all the incentives for people to start new businesses. Then you try and compensate by stealing all the money people have (100% inheritance tax, and emergency wealth tax). That is flat out stealing. So you want to blame your Dr. or anyone that has ever been successful because a few investors were dishonest? A knee jerk reaction like that would never cause any kind of fighting to break out, or force the entire professional class flee the country with everything they could. But the icing on top of this cake is definitely, that while everyone apparently wants to punish everyone who’s been successful even if they had nothing to do with the collapse, and at the exact same time reward Fannie and Freddy (who were already by the way very large companies, and semi-owned/controlled by the gov.) who were very large contributors to the collapse, and then replicate that formula for all other areas of industry? Way to think things through.

Comment on January 26, 2009 07:32 pm
77. Nick

100% tax on any inheritance over 500k? Yeah then you woke up.

The funny thing is we actually have a moron like Obama who really believes in this policy, as he indicated in an interview given to a liberal SF radio station. We doesn’t have the guts to implement such a policy since it’s almost as retarded as the people who support this drivel site. I’d like to see the salaries of the sluggards who wrote this pablum (if they even draw a salary besides tending bar or working in the NYU cafeteria for 7 an hour)

Comment on March 8, 2009 01:12 am
(required)
(will not be published) (required)
(opitional)