The Juggernaut Keeps Rolling (Toyota)

[foxrun]

The door may swing both ways, but our record trade deficit tells where the money is going.

 

Forgive me for a quick history lesson here:

 

Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution specifically delegates to Congress the "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (tariffs) and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", and also "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

 

Until the 16th amendment established the income tax in 1913, tariffs were the primary source of income for the federal government. They were seen both as a means of raising revenue to finance the necessary operations of government, and as a means of fostering and protecting industry within our borders.

 

For some reason, under the sway of free-trade ideology post-WWII, our congress has almost completely ceded its control over trade to the blind workings of "the market", and to supra-national bodies such as the WTO, whose members are unelected, and whose meetings are held in secret. And anyone who questions the wisdom of this ends up marginalized by the power elite. Here is a great discussion by a couple of unlikely - and marginalized - allies: link.

 

The result is there for all to see, in the form of stagnating or falling industrial wages, disruption of the social fabric through the explosion of 2-income households, latchkey, nanny, and daycare children, decreased leisure hours, increased working hours, eroding benefits, rising - no, exploding inequality of income, decreased feeling of security and confidence in the future.

 

Keep apologizing for it while the rich get richer. You're pissing away your children's future.

 

p.s. Hop over and read Captamrica's last post on the "Here cometh Geely" thread in "School of Free Thought". Heartbreaking.

 

 

Wow good post, and thank you for the link it was a good read. I would have never thought Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader could find so much middle ground.

[foxrun]

Here you go.... as I said, the list goes on and on and on.....

 

Ford of Korea

http://www.ford-korea.com/

 

Ford of Japan

http://www.ford.co.jp/

And be it however small, profit from the countries I listed previously AND the ones above go right back to Dearborn. If it did not, the local enterprises would have no purpose to exist and would be shut down.

 

The premise of my argument is that *you* deem profits generated by the labors of people in other countries acceptable AS LONG as the generated profits benefit U.S. corporations (i.e. Ford Motor Company). You never refuted that statement in your previous "red-herring" reply.

 

Inversely however, your posts make it clear that you deem it UNACCEPTABLE for foreign companies to come to the United States, produce and sell products with American labor, and send the profits back to the mother country.

 

This is your argument presented in its most simplest terms. You can bring in the whole list of unfair trade issues, etc., etc., etc. into the picture all you want. But if you think that Ford and GM don't benefit to some degree from similar benefits in the countries they produce and trade in, then instead of the "retarded" label you so like to freely label other people with, I'll use a kinder gentler word such as "naive".

 

Could this country stand to have its trade laws revised and some tariffs put on goods that are obviously being dumped here? Without a doubt......although I'm not sure what kind of chain reaction WTO malestrom would be created. But hey, I'd be willing to see what happens as an experiment!

 

But the main point is, let's try to avoid overt double standards on the boards here passing as fact. If that's possible.

 

 

-Ovaltine

Thought for Today....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction

 

A hypocrite is not saying anything that contradicts the general principles that he asserts to be true; but his actions, in some sense, presuppose that those principles are false.

 

 

wow your a stubborn dick, its not about weather transnational corporations make profits here or there, its about the profits final usage. Profits are the simplest form of the transition that occurs as a result of the labor incurred. The cream or the profit is the extra that is used for growth of societies, its educational systems, its health structure, its law and order, basically its infrastructure. If there is an imbalance as there clearly is [current account defict(thx richard jensen)] then the profit is leaving.

A whole list of unfair trade issues? that is the whole point here. There is no fair trade, also these "transnational corporations" are not just transcending nation states and thier laws they are transcending fiscal governance of any kind.

If a corporation is making money at a fixed site over an extented period of time with fixed labor there is a hope of transperancy of its responsibilities. Mixing up the where, when, and who's of corporate responsibility only benefits those few at the top of those corporations. So is Ford guilty of this behavior? of course it is. But Ford is far more receptive to its corporate responsibilities especially in N.A. soley as a result of a strong middle class with a voice through its democratic institutions unlike your sorry list. The fact profit is leaving N.A. is what is underemining those DEMOCRATIC institutions.

Edited January 19, 2006 by foxrun

[RichardJensen]

If there is an imbalance as there clearly is [current account defict(thx richard jensen)] then the profit is leaving.

Actually, the current acounts deficit is balanced, by and large, through foreign investment in U.S. capital markets and U.S. financial institutions, which return profits to the U.S. economy.

 

Also, try and avoid personal insults, all of you.

 

...

[foxrun]

Actually, the current acounts deficit is balanced, by and large, through foreign investment in U.S. capital markets and U.S. financial institutions, which return profits to the U.S. economy.

 

Also, try and avoid personal insults, all of you.

 

...

the deficit is balanced? so its not a deficit? returned to U.S. economy gets profits by foriegn investment? Richard your just spinning the cycle faster. So some of the profit returns in the form of foriegn investment. All that means is more power is transfered to nondemocratic organizations like CHINA.

Edited January 19, 2006 by foxrun

[llog215]

The cream or the profit is the extra that is used for growth of societies, its educational systems, its health structure, its law and order, basically its infrastructure.

 

But Ford is far more receptive to its corporate responsibilities especially in N.A. soley as a result of a strong middle class with a voice through its democratic institutions unlike your sorry list. The fact profit is leaving N.A. is what is underemining those DEMOCRATIC institutions.

 

Infrastructure is mainly supported through taxes. These foreign corporations do still pay federal and states taxes and their employees are still spending their wages in this country. I'm not quite sure what you mean by profits not being spent in this country. I think the profit that Toyota/Hyundai/Honda generate is what allows them to reinvest in the US. I do agree with you that there is an auto trade deficit. Unfortunately, Washington only looks at the big picture and not any specific industry.

 

Secondly, last I checked Japan, Australia, UK, Canada, Germany, and Italy are all democratic countries with strong social programs.

[RichardJensen]

the deficit is balanced? so its not a deficit? returned to U.S. economy gets profits by foriegn investment? Richard your just spinning the cycle faster. So some of the profit returns in the form of foriegn investment. All that means is more power is transfered to nondemocratic organizations like CHINA.

The "deficit" is not "balanced" because "current accounts" does not include the staggering monthly inflow of foreign capital into the United States.

 

And the inflow of money into the U.S. on a monthly basis IS staggering. There is no other country in the world that can come close, that is even remotely capable of matching the United States' capital markets, not in breadth, not in depth, not in liquidity, not in transparency.

 

All the while people have talked about American manufacturing, important facts have been overlooked. Trillions and trillions of dollars are invested in the United States, representing holdings from around the world. The U.S. financial industry bankrolled the U.S. manufacturing industry.

 

The reason why the U.S. has been able to carry such a current accounts deficit for so long is because the U.S. remains the single safest place in the universe in which to invest your money. It has been so ever since WWII without question, and it looks to be so into the foreseeable future.

 

And while Chinese purchase of Treasury debt may seem ominous, it's not like they can demand payment at any time. The only risk the U.S. runs is that, absent a large foreign buyer, interest costs on new debt issued will go up.

 

...

[foxrun]

The "deficit" is not "balanced" because "current accounts" does not include the staggering monthly inflow of foreign capital into the United States.

 

And the inflow of money into the U.S. on a monthly basis IS staggering. There is no other country in the world that can come close, that is even remotely capable of matching the United States' capital markets, not in breadth, not in depth, not in liquidity, not in transparency.

 

All the while people have talked about American manufacturing, important facts have been overlooked. Trillions and trillions of dollars are invested in the United States, representing holdings from around the world. The U.S. financial industry bankrolled the U.S. manufacturing industry.

 

The reason why the U.S. has been able to carry such a current accounts deficit for so long is because the U.S. remains the single safest place in the universe in which to invest your money. It has been so ever since WWII without question, and it looks to be so into the foreseeable future.

 

And while Chinese purchase of Treasury debt may seem ominous, it's not like they can demand payment at any time. The only risk the U.S. runs is that, absent a large foreign buyer, interest costs on new debt issued will go up.

 

...

 

Ah Richard, I get the feeling you and I are going to go at it again for a while.

 

The U.S. is the safest? well ya, but not because of some benevolant reason. It is soley a result of power and that becomes more clear because of your point that it started after ww2.

 

To think that I'm tring to say the U.S. is becoming less powerful as a result of this economic dynamic is misleading. The important thing is to figure out which part of the U.S. is becoming more powerful and you cannot deny there is a transferance of power from democratic institutions to corporate ones.

 

If as you agree in my post about yoda not having a good relationship with its employees, or how can we possibly know, and if there is a transition in N.A. to manufacturing that has less working class representation, then it becomes even more clear where that power is going and how.

 

The fact that the U.S. has such a cozy relationship with the Chinese once again adds up to the same thing. Corporations as a system differ little from what the Chinese see as the proper way to run a society, but that means little towards the fact that China will always act on its best interests.

 

What I really like is your last statement on how the Chinese can't just demand payment. No your right they likely can't , but what of thier risk toward social instability as a result of thier inevitable economic downturn coupled with an energy crisis that will come. The resulting "interest costs" will be devistating for the U.S. with its debt ridden populace.

[Ovaltine]

Profits are the simplest form of the transition that occurs as a result of the labor incurred. The cream or the profit is the extra that is used for growth of societies, its educational systems, its health structure, its law and order, basically its infrastructure.

 

The fact profit is leaving N.A. is what is underemining those DEMOCRATIC institutions.

 

Foxrun:

 

I'm now VERY intrigued by your take on economics. If we take *your* definition of profit and try to match it up with one of the economic systems below, I'd have to say that your explanation aligns much more with communism than capitalism.

 

com·mu·nism Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm) n.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

 

 

cap·i·tal·ism Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm) n.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

 

 

Bonus definition:

 

prof·it Pronunciation Key (prft) n.

The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met.

 

 

Note: It is my belief that the terms "development" and "reinvestment" mentioned under the definition of capitalism represents what the private or corporate owners decide to do with *their* profits. It does not necessarily represent the "development" that the government performs with the taxation of those profits.

 

 

At this point I am going to invite you to post a *succinct* non-rambling dissertation on the specifics of how you would like the economy to work in the United States. It's apparent that you have thought this through quite extensively, and I think all of us on here would enjoy reading a semi-detailed layout of your ideal economic system.

 

This is an honest invitation to you to enlighten us.... it's not meant to be troll-bait.

 

-Ovaltine

Edited January 20, 2006 by Ovaltine

[68Cougar]

Using the logic being used here, when Ford makes money in Europe, the money should stay there instead of being sent to Dearborn. :rolleyes:

[RichardJensen]

If as you agree in my post about yoda not having a good relationship with its employees, or how can we possibly know, and if there is a transition in N.A. to manufacturing that has less working class representation, then it becomes even more clear where that power is going and how.

Hey blame your unions. This is not unlike what happened in the "Gilded Age". Accretion of power in the financial sector, overwhelming--and growing--gap between rich and poor. That's not just the 1990s, that was the 1890s too. The disgusting thing is the unions had little to no power in the 1890s. They had plenty this time around, but they squandered it.

 

The unions have just sat back and watched as Wal-mart filled this country from one coast to the other with $6/hour jobs. With no benefits. Why? Because union management as a whole (and a lot of union rank and file) considered the poor souls working at Wal-mart as second class citizens, not deserving of efforts to collectivize and get a fair voice at the bargaining table.

 

The U.S. does not need to manufacture everything that is consumed here: Look at Japan as a scary counter example--they do not grow anywhere NEAR enough food for their population. The U.S. is dependent on other countries for luxuries. Japan is for necessities.

 

As to why the U.S. remains a sound place for foreign capital, there are so many reasons that, structural weakness in any one area is still overshadowed by the overall strength of the economic unit--among the reasons why the U.S. remains a popular destination for foreign capital:

 

1) liquidity--U.S. stock and bond markets are the most active in the world. The market for dollar denominated bonds (corporate, municipal, and treasury) is larger than any other market in the world.

 

2) transparency--agencies like the SEC, the CFTC, and others have continually improved reporting requirements for all publicly traded companies, and for companies that issue publicly traded bonds. The transparency of U.S. issued dollar denominated stocks and bonds is unsurpassed

 

3) safety--Dollar denominated bonds are backed by the largest corporations in the world, and by the taxing power of the U.S. government. Deposits in banks are insured. The Federal Reserve bank has managed monetary policy providing a greater degree of stability and independence than any other central bank. U.S. laws prohibit the kind of practices that caused over a decade of stagnation and recession in Japan (laws against banks investing in their customers, laws that require writing off bad debts within a prescribed timeframe, etc.)

 

4) breadth--from CDs to option contracts, the U.S. financial sector offers a variety of investment options that--while available elsewhere--are not available in comparable quantities or quality.

 

5) size--the U.S. is a huge country, fourth largest in the world in both population and in area; it is not as suceptible to localized catastrophes.

 

6) wealth--the U.S. is not, per capita, but overall, the wealthiest country on the planet. Investments are safer in wealthier countries. Investment in dollar denominated stocks and bonds is ultimately a vote of confidence in American consumers and businesses.

 

BTW, WWII didn't so much raise U.S. banking interests as it crippled foreign competition for investment. The U.S. financial sector has been one of the primary targets for investment capital since the Civil War. It was shortly after the Civil War that wealthy U.S. citizens began investing in the U.S. primarily, instead of in Europe.

 

...

[foxrun]

Foxrun:

 

I'm now VERY intrigued by your take on economics. If we take *your* definition of profit and try to match it up with one of the economic systems below, I'd have to say that your explanation aligns much more with communism than capitalism.

 

com·mu·nism Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm) n.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

cap·i·tal·ism Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm) n.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Bonus definition:

 

prof·it Pronunciation Key (prft) n.

The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met.

Note: It is my belief that the terms "development" and "reinvestment" mentioned under the definition of capitalism represents what the private or corporate owners decide to do with *their* profits. It does not necessarily represent the "development" that the government performs with the taxation of those profits.

At this point I am going to invite you to post a *succinct* non-rambling dissertation on the specifics of how you would like the economy to work in the United States. It's apparent that you have thought this through quite extensively, and I think all of us on here would enjoy reading a semi-detailed layout of your ideal economic system.

 

This is an honest invitation to you to enlighten us.... it's not meant to be troll-bait.

 

-Ovaltine

 

 

lol

the system is fine just change the laws so the playing field is even. Raise the minimum wage, increase tariff's on imports or domestic assembled with over 50% of its parts imported from countries that the U.S. has an imbalance of trade. Stop trading with nondemocratic countries until they become more democratic ie China. Insist some countries improve thier laws toward more humane standards (Mexico-majuiladoras), improve standards in the U.S. or place like Siapan that fly the American flag.

 

In short enforce what America claims to stand for.

[foxrun]

2) transparency--agencies like the SEC, the CFTC, and others have continually improved reporting requirements for all publicly traded companies, and for companies that issue publicly traded bonds. The transparency of U.S. issued dollar denominated stocks and bonds is unsurpassed

 

This is a joke Richard; Tyco, Enron, Worldcom and much much more. the U.S. even has a history toward large scale scandal remember savings and loan remember how that started, federally deregulated banking system. Transparency please Richard the money roles in because of the power thats it.

[NickF1011]

lol

the system is fine just change the laws so the playing field is even. Raise the minimum wage, increase tariff's on imports or domestic assembled with over 50% of its parts imported from countries that the U.S. has an imbalance of trade. Stop trading with nondemocratic countries until they become more democratic ie China. Insist some countries improve thier laws toward more humane standards (Mexico-majuiladoras), improve standards in the U.S. or place like Siapan that fly the American flag.

 

In short enforce what America claims to stand for.

 

Raise the minimum wage? Inflation.

 

Impose tariffs on foreign goods? Inflation.

 

Stop dealing with China? Inflation.

 

Everything you mentioned would cause nothing but increased overall prices, even for American goods. Sure, it would make us all feel warm and fuzzy inside, but warm and fuzzy doesn't make paying twice as much for a television any easier to swallow.

[foxrun]

Raise the minimum wage? Inflation.

 

Impose tariffs on foreign goods? Inflation.

 

Stop dealing with China? Inflation.

 

Everything you mentioned would cause nothing but increased overall prices, even for American goods. Sure, it would make us all feel warm and fuzzy inside, but warm and fuzzy doesn't make paying twice as much for a television any easier to swallow.

 

So a cheap T.V. is more important to you then human rights?

Is that what you want the great American democratic institutions to stand for the right to buy T.V.'s for less? :lol:

[NickF1011]

So a cheap T.V. is more important to you then human rights?

Is that what you want the great American democratic institutions to stand for the right to buy T.V.'s for less? :lol:

 

It's not more important to me, but it IS more important to the average American consumer who would not stand for higher prices on goods when they COULD be cheaper.

 

It's also a balance. What does us not doing business with China do for human rights? It would probably only make matters worse. As it is now, we're RAISING the standard of living in the majority of countries with which we do business by investing capital in them.

 

Or are you talking about American human rights? Is it not our right to buy goods from whoever we want at FAIR prices? I would say yes. By slapping huge tariffs on some foreign products, or in some cases, not allowing them to be sold at all, you're are doing nothing but LIMITING our choices. Choice is a good thing. And so is competition. Where would American automobile quality be without the Japanese to push them? Probably right where it was in 1978.

Edited January 20, 2006 by NickF1011

[foxrun]

It's not more important to me, but it IS more important to the average American consumer who would not stand for higher prices on goods when they COULD be cheaper.

 

It's also a balance. What does us not doing business with China do for human rights? It would probably only make matters worse. As it is now, we're RAISING the standard of living in the majority of countries with which we do business by investing capital in them.

 

Or are you talking about American human rights? Is it not our right to buy goods from whoever we want at FAIR prices? I would say yes. By slapping huge tariffs on some foreign products, or in some cases, not allowing them to be sold at all, you're are doing nothing but LIMITING our choices. Choice is a good thing. And so is competition. Where would American automobile quality be without the Japanese to push them? Probably right where it was in 1978.

 

So you believe that a cheap T.V. is more important to the average American consumer then Human rights and would not stand for higher prices? :lol:

 

WOW you prove me right every time you post thank you.

 

Seattle when the WTO met?

Quebec city?

Washington?

I guess those people were upset the meetings weren't going to go well and the next T.V. was going to cost more then bread? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[NickF1011]

So you believe that a cheap T.V. is more important to the average American consumer then Human rights and would not stand for higher prices? :lol:

 

WOW you prove me right every time you post thank you.

 

Seattle when the WTO met?

Quebec city?

Washington?

I guess those people were upset the meetings weren't going to go well and the next T.V. was going to cost more then bread? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Apparently you can't read.

 

"It's not more important to me, but it IS more important to the average American consumer " were my exact words.

 

And you're talking about a few hundred, or maybe a couple thousand protestors at the WTO meetings? How many people would be demonstrating outside of Wal-Mart if they suddenly doubled all of their prices? I assure you -- a lot more!

[foxrun]

Apparently you can't read.

 

"It's not more important to me, but it IS more important to the average American consumer " were my exact words.

 

And you're talking about a few hundred, or maybe a couple thousand protestors at the WTO meetings? How many people would be demonstrating outside of Wal-Mart if they suddenly doubled all of their prices? I assure you -- a lot more!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I love it demonstrations in front of Wal-mart because prices were too high. :blink: :lol: :blink: :lol:

I'm sorry Richard but this guy is not retarded he is fucking retarded!!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard I'll refrain from saying anything else to this clown, that way I won't call him a retard again :lol: :lol:

[Bluecon]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I love it demonstrations in front of Wal-mart because prices were too high. :blink: :lol: :blink: :lol:

I'm sorry Richard but this guy is not retarded he is fucking retarded!!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard I'll refrain from saying anything else to this clown, that way I won't call him a retard again :lol: :lol:

And Ford buys all their engine assembly line and machining equipment in Europe.

 

Their cars are designed in Sweden or Japan and now built in Mexico.

 

Foxrun you are a Canadian. Who are the Canadian Automotive manufacturers?

What is the difference between Toyota and Ford in Canada?

 

On the Detroit news (TV) this morning they are reporting the almost immediate end to minivan(Freestar) production. You hear about this in Oakville?

[Ovaltine]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm sorry Richard but this guy is not retarded he is f-cking retarded!!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard I'll refrain from saying anything else to this clown, that way I won't call him a retard again :lol: :lol:

 

I thought that some people on here might be interested in this little factoid....

 

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:LH1P6q...d+epithet&hl=en

 

The term "mental retardation", like its predecessors, long ago escaped from the clinical realm of classification into universal English usage as a potent, utterly dismissive invective in the mouths of adults and school children. The injurious nominal form retard became a term of opprobrium alongside moron, imbecile, and idiot.

 

As a descriptive, retarded is a commonly heard teen epithet to label someone or something as deserving ridicule, as in, "Those shoes are so retarded."

 

For what it's worth....

 

-Ovaltine

[NickF1011]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I love it demonstrations in front of Wal-mart because prices were too high. :blink: :lol: :blink: :lol:

I'm sorry Richard but this guy is not retarded he is fucking retarded!!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard I'll refrain from saying anything else to this clown, that way I won't call him a retard again :lol: :lol:

 

Wow. That's real grown up of you. What a man! Can't come up with anything better than petty insults? :rolleyes:

 

And you doubt that people would demonstrate because of high prices? History is filled with examples of citizens boycotting and demonstrating against high prices. Fact is, you'd see a lot more pissed off people if the price of a television goes up than you see out in front of any WTO meeting.

 

People have skewed priorities. What happens to some laborer in Mexico or China is of no consequence to most Americans compared to the money coming out of THEIR wallets for things they used to pay less for. Just look at the insanity coming from the mouths of some over gas prices. Only difference is people NEED gasoline, so you can't exactly boycott it or protest it. You just have to suck it up.

 

It's disappointing that this is the mindset of the American consumer, but it's true.

[foxrun]

And Ford buys all their engine assembly line and machining equipment in Europe.

 

Their cars are designed in Sweden or Japan and now built in Mexico.

 

Foxrun you are a Canadian. Who are the Canadian Automotive manufacturers?

What is the difference between Toyota and Ford in Canada?

 

On the Detroit news (TV) this morning they are reporting the almost immediate end to minivan(Freestar) production. You hear about this in Oakville?

 

Actually there has been nothing said other then the '07 model will be the last. It was suppose to last to '08 but they cut that out. I wouldn't be surprised at all if '07 is cancelled and for that to be annouced on monday.

I've been sayin to the guys at work that the Freestar was dead for about a year now and no one there wanted to hear it.

 

Oh the difference is unions, a middle working class voice. A collective voice that can counter the corporate elite.

They have those in Europe too you know.

Edited January 20, 2006 by foxrun

[RichardJensen]

2) transparency--agencies like the SEC, the CFTC, and others have continually improved reporting requirements for all publicly traded companies, and for companies that issue publicly traded bonds. The transparency of U.S. issued dollar denominated stocks and bonds is unsurpassed

 

This is a joke Richard; Tyco, Enron, Worldcom and much much more. the U.S. even has a history toward large scale scandal remember savings and loan remember how that started, federally deregulated banking system. Transparency please Richard the money roles in because of the power thats it.

Laws have been tightened with each scandal. BTW, where would your money be safer. I never said the U.S. is perfectly safe, or perfectly transparent, but where can you find better standards? You would prefer to invest in China?

 

...

[foxrun]

Laws have been tightened with each scandal. BTW, where would your money be safer. I never said the U.S. is perfectly safe, or perfectly transparent, but where can you find better standards? You would prefer to invest in China?

 

...

That is all fine Richard, there are reasons I believe for that "safety" that I will not go into because I want to focus on what we are talking about. Yes if you have money the U.S. remains the safest place to invest but for the growing working poor the knowledge of where to invest is becoming harder to aquire if not impossible, and without that knowledge most investments in the U.S. remain too risky.

Arthur Anderson was the premier accounting firm in the U.S. if not the world. They were respected at the highest levels but what they did was out and out criminal. What has changed to prevent another AA, Sarbanes Oxley maybe, but wasn't the first case using it a failure with that Southern religious guru something or other. Even if S/O proves in some way usefull it still can do nothing about nonU.S. based transnational corporations.

The JURISDICTION of the worlds true democratic institutions is fading, weather they are in the U.S., Europe, or emerging in Asia or Africa. We are in the wild west, the new uncharted territory of nanosecond transportaion of liquid assets. How can a person stocking shelves at walmart even fathom such a world?

[RichardJensen]

That is all fine Richard, there are reasons I believe for that "safety" that I will not go into because I want to focus on what we are talking about. Yes if you have money the U.S. remains the safest place to invest but for the growing working poor the knowledge of where to invest is becoming harder to aquire if not impossible, and without that knowledge most investments in the U.S. remain too risky.

Arthur Anderson was the premier accounting firm in the U.S. if not the world. They were respected at the highest levels but what they did was out and out criminal. What has changed to prevent another AA, Sarbanes Oxley maybe, but wasn't the first case using it a failure with that Southern religious guru something or other. Even if S/O proves in some way usefull it still can do nothing about nonU.S. based transnational corporations.

The JURISDICTION of the worlds true democratic institutions is fading, weather they are in the U.S., Europe, or emerging in Asia or Africa. We are in the wild west, the new uncharted territory of nanosecond transportaion of liquid assets. How can a person stocking shelves at walmart even fathom such a world?

Well, first of all, the working poor do not invest. That is because they are poor. Poor people don't save. They can't. If they can't save, they can't invest.

 

Secondly, the real losers in the Enron/Tyco/Worldcom/Qwest fiascos were employees that were FORCED to invest 401(k) money in company stock. For everyone else, it was clearly a case of "buyer beware", intelligent investors, as a rule, avoided those companies because their books were so hopelessly messy that if there was not management led bamboozling going on, it was impossible to be sure of it.

 

Thirdly, the characterization of "most" investments in the U.S. as too risky is a bit of a stretch. Any U.S. treasury bond or note and any insured municipal bond is about as safe as you can get.

 

And what will prevent further corporate bamboozling of the Enron/Worldcom level? The YEARS of Federal prison time awaiting Bernie Ebbers, Andy Fastow, etc, and the years of state prison time awaiting Kosloski, the Rigases, and even Martha Stewart's time. White collar crime is no longer punished less severely than violent crime. Not at the federal level. And SarbOx makes "C" level officers legally culpable for the books that their company keeps. That means if you knew or should have known (not that you directed, but simply that you failed to prevent) fraud, you are criminally liable for the fraud.

 

In the late 90s no one was paying attention because everyone was making money. It took a massive downturn in the stock market to expose the finagling that was going on behind the scenes at companies that the best investors had always been skeptical of.

 

Finally, if you think the financial institutions have too much power, like I said before, all you have to do is look at the leadership of the AFL-CIO. Your unions may have gotten you a decent pay and decent benefits, but they've screwed you over, because they haven't looked out for workers in general. Just the workers in their own little fiefdoms.

 

...