The Conservative movement?

[Traveler]

I am becoming more and more skeptical of the current conservative movements like the Tee Party movement. The primary reason is because the focus is on reducing the size of big government. Whoop-de do. Part of this reduction of government has found its way into reducing and limiting the size and power of “Big Labor”. Double whoop-de do.

What I see missing from conservatives is also limiting the size and power of “Big Corporate”. I keep hearing the notion that the people that have lied, cheated and stolen their way to wealth in the corporate world have earned it and disserve it. I do not believe they have worked any harder or more honestly than the lying, cheating and thieving scum that have grabbed power in big government or big labor.

Big corporate does not create more jobs or better paying jobs than small business that are the back bone of the middle class. So here is my conservative club membership – you can have it – I do not want it anymore than I want a liberal club membership – thank you.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Since no one has responded yet - I thought I would add some things. Where do you think corrupt politicians and corrupt big labor is getting power and funding? Might I suggest the corrupt elements of the corporate structure that has overgrown in this country?

Do you realize for example that lending institutions make more in fees than in interest charged? Do you realize that if most mortgages are not refinanced every 5 years there will be another collapse in financial markets? Do you not realize there are profits in creating mortgages that people cannot pay for – especially if the loses can be passed on to “lower” or smaller financial institutions just trying to comply with the laws and that there are currently in place protections for certain large institutions? And that these large institutions will end up owning the property without paying for it?

Did you know that prior to the great depression that 90% of the farm land was owned by families (small businesses) and that after the great depression the over 80% of the farm land in the USA is now owned by large corporations? Do you realize that with the last economic problem that 90% of the small loaning institutions were taken over by the Big boys?

And all the “conservatives” are, for some reason backing the fat cats controlling the large institutions – saying they worked hard to take over all the small businesses and that they deserve the wealth they took? Why become an illegal thief when a legal thief is so much more profitable and honorable – to both conservatives and liberals?

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

Traveler, usage of the term ALL for conservatives is a bit far fetch, don't you think?

[FunkyTown]

Traveler, usage of the term ALL for conservatives is a bit far fetch, don't you think?

Not at all. Traveler has simply joined the ranks of the Centrist philosophy.

Pushing for little-to-no regulations is just as bad as overregulation. Possibly worse, since you can't vote out a corporate tycoon.

Congratulations, Traveler. You are part of the 10% who are hated by 90% of the people in the US for being mostly wrong on everything.

[gabelpa]

What about the 90% of people who are wrong about everything? Can I be a part of them too?

[FunkyTown]

What about the 90% of people who are wrong about everything? Can I be a part of them too?

No, no. If you're a liberal, you're 100% right on everything. Just ask leftist pundits.

And if you're a Conservative, you're 100% right on everything. Just ask conservative pundits.

But there are no centrist pundits, which means that television will guarantee you're wrong on everything.

[Hemidakota]

No, Traveler is not correct Funky. Nor it is pure wisdom to use the phrase “ALL” in connection to conservatives. Your postulation is far fetch as his ALL statement with percentage.

[FunkyTown]

No, Traveler is not correct Funky. Nor it is pure wisdom to use the phrase “ALL” in connection to conservatives. Your postulation is far fetch as his ALL statement with percentage.

Just so I can confirm: Traveler was arguing that a push for a completely free market is naive because corporate heads are just as corrupt as labour and government heads.

I'd say that's a pretty solid argument. Can you clear up what you think he's wrong on? Would you say that corporate CEOs and CFOs are too morally stalwart to abuse the power given them by a completely free market or are you saying that a completely free market doesn't give them the power to abuse?

Traveler simply said it in as confrontational a tone as he could.

[Traveler]

Traveler, usage of the term ALL for conservatives is a bit far fetch, don't you think?

Please name for me a “conservative” pundant that has even suggested something be done when corporate kingpins that lay of thousands of hard workers that have made the company billions during good times – just so those pendants can take home millions in bonuses. Name one that is calling out the corruption. Name just one!

How about a simple little law that says – no bonuses to anybody (including shareholders) for a year before and a year after a company has layoffs? I realize that there are times when a company must down size – yes, to make a company more competitive, productive and stable over a long term. But – and this is a most important but – forgoing bonuses would also make a company more competitive, productive and stable over a long term during tuff times. BTW did you know that in Japan the CEO must resign (without pension) before there is a layoff? And no corporation in the world wants to go head to head with the Japanese – I know because I have sat in on corporate meetings scared to death of the Japanese. (I work in the automation and robotics industry)

A few years ago I sat in a meeting when the company I worked for said that they would have to down size (30%) and that everybody would have to take a 10% cut in salary. The CEO bragged that he would take only $1 in salary. When they opened the meeting for questions I suggested that we all keep our salary and that management forgo their bonuses. Management was not happy. As it turns out our company made about 100 million in profit per year – the reason we were in trouble is because the company lost 680 million in acquisitions that did not turn out. The workers of the company had kept the company profitable but the management was the single cause of the entire problem. The management still laid off 30% of the company workers the remaining workers took a cut in pay – we went from an 80% of the market share to a 50% of the market share – but by darn the wonderful hardworking management kept their bonuses.

For me – I am fine. I have become an independent consultant contractor engineer but many of my fellow engineers are not doing so well – one very good engineer is now driving a bus – others or doing other things to scrape by – some lost their homes – But the last I heard not one of the nice board members lost a penny in corporate benefits.

Am I bitter? Not really. Just that “conservatives” are not saying anything. But if I have missed something please provide a link.

The Traveler

Edited July 6, 2010 by Traveler
small spelling errors

[Traveler]

Just so I can confirm: Traveler was arguing that a push for a completely free market is naive because corporate heads are just as corrupt as labour and government heads.

I'd say that's a pretty solid argument. Can you clear up what you think he's wrong on? Would you say that corporate CEOs and CFOs are too morally stalwart to abuse the power given them by a completely free market or are you saying that a completely free market doesn't give them the power to abuse?

Traveler simply said it in as confrontational a tone as he could.

A thought - I do not believe for a second that corporations today in the USA are playing by free market rules. Not when competitors sit on each other’s board of directors.

Also before I call myself a Centrist - I would like to know what they are.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

As FYI, the modern American parties are the moderates that Funky refers to them. The pundits (left and right) call them Republicrats or Democans, and they are largely right. The two party system forces the two majority-seeking organizations to reach towards the center. So, if it's moderate politics you want, go to the party literature.

Traveler's OP is actually something I've picked up on of late as well. The problem is that I don't think government is that great at reigning in Big Corporate. Ironically, Big Labor is. Adam Smith, hero of economic conservatism, actually contended that laborers need the right to organize, because it's their only leverage against companies.

Today, conservatism and liberalism face the difficult task of proposing a realistic pathway out of the stifling debt we are incurring. No good solutions are politically attractive, so the pundits are left pontificating on inconsequential but juicy incidents--like weather white kids can wear American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo.

[Moksha]

And all the “conservatives” are, for some reason backing the fat cats controlling the large institutions – saying they worked hard to take over all the small businesses and that they deserve the wealth they took?

The Traveler

To add insult to injury, they want to make these fat cats unanswerable to anyone through deregulation. Free wheelin' and dealin' all the way.

[Just_A_Guy]

To add insult to injury, they want to make these fat cats unanswerable to anyone through deregulation.

Actually, conservatives would have hit the big corporations where it hurts--by refusing to bail them out and leaving them liable directly to their victims through the state and federal civil courts.

The President, by contrast, insists that a sum of money with lots of zeros (but which still represents barely a fraction of the company's actual assets) be channeled through the Executive Branch and into a slough of bureaucracies and "grass-roots organizations" before finally wending its way to the victims, who will end up with pennies on the dollar. And if the corporations get into real trouble they can always run to him for a bailout--provided they pay additional protection money to key Democratic constituencies, of course.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

*shakes fist* Never call a centrist a 'moderate'. Moderate implies wishy-washy and I don't think I've ever been wishy-washy in politics!

A centrist is one who believes that there must be opposition in all things, although that's simplistic. I lean libertarian in social authoritarian values while economically, I'm pretty much dead-center.

Also, I would argue that Republicans and Democrats are not centrists at all. If you look at some of the greatest Republican and Democratic presidents of all time, they broke from traditional party lines: JFK believed in lower taxation and was strongly nationalistic and Eisenhower developed the social safety net and was strongly pro-farmer. Heck. Even Jefferson envisioned the USA as an agrarian paradise and certainly was not pro-banking institutes: Look at the arguments between him and Alexander Hamilton.

As FYI, the modern American parties are the moderates that Funky refers to them. The pundits (left and right) call them Republicrats or Democans, and they are largely right. The two party system forces the two majority-seeking organizations to reach towards the center. So, if it's moderate politics you want, go to the party literature.

Traveler's OP is actually something I've picked up on of late as well. The problem is that I don't think government is that great at reigning in Big Corporate. Ironically, Big Labor is. Adam Smith, hero of economic conservatism, actually contended that laborers need the right to organize, because it's their only leverage against companies.

Today, conservatism and liberalism face the difficult task of proposing a realistic pathway out of the stifling debt we are incurring. No good solutions are politically attractive, so the pundits are left pontificating on inconsequential but juicy incidents--like weather white kids can wear American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo.

[FunkyTown]

The problem, Traveler, is that they are definitely playing by Free Market rules:

A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control.

(With thanks to Dictionary.com for the definition).

There is nothing in the definition of a Free Market that denies board of directors from one company from sitting on the board of directors of a second company.

The very anarchy that is the hallmark of a Free Market allows for companies to push for every advantage it can. Price fixing by the companies that provide oil? A true free market allows for that by virtue of it being unregulated. The theory is that if 10 companies come along and price-fix oil, an 11th company will realize it could earn money by setting up an oil company and providing prices slightly lower. I believe that's naive because there are ways to close out new companies that, without regulation, could easily prevent what people think of when they think 'Free Market'.

When there is a power vacuum, unscrupulous people will naturally move to fill it. That is simply human nature. Without any regulation, the unscrupulous will move to take over. It's just the Gadianton Robbers redux.

A thought - I do not believe for a second that corporations today in the USA are playing by free market rules. Not when competitors sit on each other’s board of directors

The Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

Actually, conservatives would have hit the big corporations where it hurts--by refusing to bail them out and leaving them liable directly to their victims through the state and federal civil courts.

The President, by contrast, insists that a sum of money with lots of zeros (but which still represents barely a fraction of the company's actual assets) be channeled through the Executive Branch and into a slough of bureaucracies and "grass-roots organizations" before finally wending its way to the victims, who will end up with pennies on the dollar. And if the corporations get into real trouble they can always run to him for a bailout--provided they pay additional protection money to key Democratic constituencies, of course.

Didn't the first round of bailouts get started by former president Bush, who most would cheer as a conservative?

[Traveler]

The problem, Traveler, is that they are definitely playing by Free Market rules:

(With thanks to Dictionary.com for the definition).

There is nothing in the definition of a Free Market that denies board of directors from one company from sitting on the board of directors of a second company.

The very anarchy that is the hallmark of a Free Market allows for companies to push for every advantage it can. Price fixing by the companies that provide oil? A true free market allows for that by virtue of it being unregulated. The theory is that if 10 companies come along and price-fix oil, an 11th company will realize it could earn money by setting up an oil company and providing prices slightly lower. I believe that's naive because there are ways to close out new companies that, without regulation, could easily prevent what people think of when they think 'Free Market'.

When there is a power vacuum, unscrupulous people will naturally move to fill it. That is simply human nature. Without any regulation, the unscrupulous will move to take over. It's just the Gadianton Robbers redux.

I believe there must be competition for there to be a free market. Corporate USA – ie Microsoft does not operate in a completive market place – I can give many examples of methods of “getting rid of” competition that violates principles of a free market that is “standard” in our economy.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Didn't the first round of bailouts get started by former president Bush, who most would cheer as a conservative?

Bush approved them, yes. Whether or not President Bush was a true fiscal conservative is, I think, open to debate. As I recall, the primary opposition to the bailouts came from conservative circles; establishment Republicans and Dems all around seemed to be in favor of it.

[marshac]

I believe there must be competition for there to be a free market. Corporate USA – ie Microsoft does not operate in a completive market place – I can give many examples of methods of “getting rid of” competition that violates principles of a free market that is “standard” in our economy.

The Traveler

Oh no? Then why are they so frightened of Google? I think competition in some areas simply takes time to mature and develop, but once it arrives, it does so in a big way. Also- in the case of MS, they're a fairly multifaceted company, so while they have extreme competition in some areas (ie: mobile marketplace), the competition is still in the process of maturing in others (MS Office).

Given enough time, even Intel will once again have serious competition from Chinese or Indian companies (or even AMD again... who knows...).

[marshac]

Bush approved them, yes. Whether or not President Bush was a true fiscal conservative is, I think, open to debate.

I think he was an opportunist- he saw what worked and what didn't work for his father, then put it into practice by calling himself a conservative, promising tax cuts, and embracing the religious right.

[NeuroTypical]

I am becoming more and more skeptical of the current conservative movements like the Tee Party movement.

Quick note of clarification - it's not "Tee", it's "Tea". As in the Boston Tea Party. As in ticked off enough to start a rebellion against the government. Sort of the exact opposite of people playing golf.

But don't get too worried - I bet there's a significant chunk of people who actually are part of the movement who have also completely missed the meaning of the term too.

LM

Edited July 7, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[marshac]

Quick note of clarification - it's not "Tee", it's "Tea".

Cripes... i'll leave the clubs home for the next rally. Thanks for the clarification.

[Moksha]

Actually, conservatives would have hit the big corporations where it hurts--by refusing to bail them out and leaving them liable directly to their victims through the state and federal civil courts.

The banks and financial institutions got in trouble in the first place by being allowed to play fast and loose due to lack of enforced regulations. That is understandable since capitalism is driven by greed and when the greed is uncontroled then inevitable trouble results.

The people whom the government represents would have been hurt by a complete economic collape from all the banks failing. Thus it was in the capacity of acting as the people's representative that they intervened.

I fail to see why conservatives would have "hit the big corporations where it hurts", when historically they have served as their staunch advocates. Has something changed or was this just a mistaken premise that they would act against corporate interest. I have a hard time imagining they would have failed to pledge the money when it was in their financial best interest to do so.

[Kawazu]

I am becoming more and more skeptical of the current conservative movements like the Tee Party movement. The primary reason is because the focus is on reducing the size of big government. Whoop-de do. Part of this reduction of government has found its way into reducing and limiting the size and power of “Big Labor”. Double whoop-de do.

What I see missing from conservatives is also limiting the size and power of “Big Corporate”. I keep hearing the notion that the people that have lied, cheated and stolen their way to wealth in the corporate world have earned it and disserve it. I do not believe they have worked any harder or more honestly than the lying, cheating and thieving scum that have grabbed power in big government or big labor.

Big corporate does not create more jobs or better paying jobs than small business that are the back bone of the middle class. So here is my conservative club membership – you can have it – I do not want it anymore than I want a liberal club membership – thank you.

The Traveler

It seems like more and more Big Business is seeking "too big to fail" status so that they can be first in line for bailouts and Big Government all too often allows it to happen:

Artist's Website/High-Resolution Image for Printing

One can take issue with the legislators on the Left and the Right, I agree.

[rameumptom]

Reduce big government and you will reduce corporate power. We create huge corporations by government decision. We encourage them to take huge risks, by guaranteeing to bail them out. Meanwhile, small business only gets a small nod. Just look at what we've done in the last few years regarding the "bail out."

Reduce big government and you will reduce corporation influence. Of course, there are laws on the books against monopolies....