OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.
[/quote]

Ok. That’s where we differ.

As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

Another thing that CA renter did not address is layoffs. As she admitted before, the revenue of the bubble years, combined with anticipated returns on investments allowed state and local governments to go on a spending binge (government spending grew much faster than population and inflation).

How about rolling back spending to the pre-bubble years and mandating that government spending not increase faster than population growth + inflation?

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter]

Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.

[/quote]

Why?

And that is where we differ CAR…Your argument that fire and police are not overpaid is fine, and for the purposes of my point, I am happy to leave that issue alone.

I was merely pointing out, that one does not have to happen before the other. They must both happen in whatever order we can muster. It makes no sense to hold public sector union compensation over the heads of the tax payer so that they will claw back ill gotten banking industry gains. To the taxpayer all that matters is getting his listing ship of state right. The order of makes no difference.

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter]

Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.

[/quote]

Why?

And that is where we differ CAR…Your argument that fire and police are not overpaid is fine, and for the purposes of my point, I am happy to leave that issue alone.

I was merely pointing out, that one does not have to happen before the other. They must both happen in whatever order we can muster. It makes no sense to hold public sector union compensation over the heads of the tax payer so that they will claw back ill gotten banking industry gains. To the taxpayer all that matters is getting his listing ship of state right. The order of makes no difference.

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter]

Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.

[/quote]

Why?

And that is where we differ CAR…Your argument that fire and police are not overpaid is fine, and for the purposes of my point, I am happy to leave that issue alone.

I was merely pointing out, that one does not have to happen before the other. They must both happen in whatever order we can muster. It makes no sense to hold public sector union compensation over the heads of the tax payer so that they will claw back ill gotten banking industry gains. To the taxpayer all that matters is getting his listing ship of state right. The order of makes no difference.

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter]

Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.

[/quote]

Why?

And that is where we differ CAR…Your argument that fire and police are not overpaid is fine, and for the purposes of my point, I am happy to leave that issue alone.

I was merely pointing out, that one does not have to happen before the other. They must both happen in whatever order we can muster. It makes no sense to hold public sector union compensation over the heads of the tax payer so that they will claw back ill gotten banking industry gains. To the taxpayer all that matters is getting his listing ship of state right. The order of makes no difference.

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter]

Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.

[/quote]

Why?

And that is where we differ CAR…Your argument that fire and police are not overpaid is fine, and for the purposes of my point, I am happy to leave that issue alone.

I was merely pointing out, that one does not have to happen before the other. They must both happen in whatever order we can muster. It makes no sense to hold public sector union compensation over the heads of the tax payer so that they will claw back ill gotten banking industry gains. To the taxpayer all that matters is getting his listing ship of state right. The order of makes no difference.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Unlike private unions, public unions aren’t “bargaining” or “negotiating” with anyone. The politicians who vote for these sweet deals are sitting on the SAME SIDE of the table as the unions. This is vote buying, pure and simple. Wisconsin is not some bellwether state, blazing a new trail and seeking to bust unions. Only half the states have a collective-bargaining agreement in place, and there is plenty of data to support the fact that the states that don’t, like Virginia or Indiana, are in fact able to deliver effective services and at a lower cost.
[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. The adversarial relationship that exists between private unions and their employers does not exist between municipal unions and those they are negotiating with. They are sleeping in the same bed. And in most cases the negotiators for the taxpayers are in line for even larger pensions than the union members. That is why we end up with these ridiculous contracts with benefits and retirement packages virtually unheard of in private industry. It’s also why so many states don’t allow collective bargaining for their municipal unions. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Unlike private unions, public unions aren’t “bargaining” or “negotiating” with anyone. The politicians who vote for these sweet deals are sitting on the SAME SIDE of the table as the unions. This is vote buying, pure and simple. Wisconsin is not some bellwether state, blazing a new trail and seeking to bust unions. Only half the states have a collective-bargaining agreement in place, and there is plenty of data to support the fact that the states that don’t, like Virginia or Indiana, are in fact able to deliver effective services and at a lower cost.
[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. The adversarial relationship that exists between private unions and their employers does not exist between municipal unions and those they are negotiating with. They are sleeping in the same bed. And in most cases the negotiators for the taxpayers are in line for even larger pensions than the union members. That is why we end up with these ridiculous contracts with benefits and retirement packages virtually unheard of in private industry. It’s also why so many states don’t allow collective bargaining for their municipal unions. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Unlike private unions, public unions aren’t “bargaining” or “negotiating” with anyone. The politicians who vote for these sweet deals are sitting on the SAME SIDE of the table as the unions. This is vote buying, pure and simple. Wisconsin is not some bellwether state, blazing a new trail and seeking to bust unions. Only half the states have a collective-bargaining agreement in place, and there is plenty of data to support the fact that the states that don’t, like Virginia or Indiana, are in fact able to deliver effective services and at a lower cost.
[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. The adversarial relationship that exists between private unions and their employers does not exist between municipal unions and those they are negotiating with. They are sleeping in the same bed. And in most cases the negotiators for the taxpayers are in line for even larger pensions than the union members. That is why we end up with these ridiculous contracts with benefits and retirement packages virtually unheard of in private industry. It’s also why so many states don’t allow collective bargaining for their municipal unions. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Unlike private unions, public unions aren’t “bargaining” or “negotiating” with anyone. The politicians who vote for these sweet deals are sitting on the SAME SIDE of the table as the unions. This is vote buying, pure and simple. Wisconsin is not some bellwether state, blazing a new trail and seeking to bust unions. Only half the states have a collective-bargaining agreement in place, and there is plenty of data to support the fact that the states that don’t, like Virginia or Indiana, are in fact able to deliver effective services and at a lower cost.
[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. The adversarial relationship that exists between private unions and their employers does not exist between municipal unions and those they are negotiating with. They are sleeping in the same bed. And in most cases the negotiators for the taxpayers are in line for even larger pensions than the union members. That is why we end up with these ridiculous contracts with benefits and retirement packages virtually unheard of in private industry. It’s also why so many states don’t allow collective bargaining for their municipal unions. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Unlike private unions, public unions aren’t “bargaining” or “negotiating” with anyone. The politicians who vote for these sweet deals are sitting on the SAME SIDE of the table as the unions. This is vote buying, pure and simple. Wisconsin is not some bellwether state, blazing a new trail and seeking to bust unions. Only half the states have a collective-bargaining agreement in place, and there is plenty of data to support the fact that the states that don’t, like Virginia or Indiana, are in fact able to deliver effective services and at a lower cost.
[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. The adversarial relationship that exists between private unions and their employers does not exist between municipal unions and those they are negotiating with. They are sleeping in the same bed. And in most cases the negotiators for the taxpayers are in line for even larger pensions than the union members. That is why we end up with these ridiculous contracts with benefits and retirement packages virtually unheard of in private industry. It’s also why so many states don’t allow collective bargaining for their municipal unions. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

[/quote]

Brian: I’m as much of a money-grubbing capitalist as the next guy, but I’d also be the first to say that Wall Street has fundamentally failed in its primary mission: The proper allocation of capital to profit-making ventures.

While we don’t have the space to get into all of the details, I think its safe to say that Wall Street’s mission and priorities became tied to short-term bonuses and compensation and thus we saw the explosion of investment products, like CDOs, MBS, etc, that produced the largest bonuses for groups like Lehman, Bear and Goldman Sachs. Combined with the insane amount of leverage that was present and the inherently poor quality of the products themselves, the meltdown became inevitable.

I think if you go back in time and look at groups like Goldman, Merrill and Bear Stearns when they were partnerships and not publicly floated corporations and back when leverage was reasonable and controllable, I think they did a much better job of allocating capital. Of course, this was also back when America actually produced things of value and didn’t really on a wage-stagnant service economy papered over with commercial credit that masked the true ills.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

[/quote]

Brian: I’m as much of a money-grubbing capitalist as the next guy, but I’d also be the first to say that Wall Street has fundamentally failed in its primary mission: The proper allocation of capital to profit-making ventures.

While we don’t have the space to get into all of the details, I think its safe to say that Wall Street’s mission and priorities became tied to short-term bonuses and compensation and thus we saw the explosion of investment products, like CDOs, MBS, etc, that produced the largest bonuses for groups like Lehman, Bear and Goldman Sachs. Combined with the insane amount of leverage that was present and the inherently poor quality of the products themselves, the meltdown became inevitable.

I think if you go back in time and look at groups like Goldman, Merrill and Bear Stearns when they were partnerships and not publicly floated corporations and back when leverage was reasonable and controllable, I think they did a much better job of allocating capital. Of course, this was also back when America actually produced things of value and didn’t really on a wage-stagnant service economy papered over with commercial credit that masked the true ills.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

[/quote]

Brian: I’m as much of a money-grubbing capitalist as the next guy, but I’d also be the first to say that Wall Street has fundamentally failed in its primary mission: The proper allocation of capital to profit-making ventures.

While we don’t have the space to get into all of the details, I think its safe to say that Wall Street’s mission and priorities became tied to short-term bonuses and compensation and thus we saw the explosion of investment products, like CDOs, MBS, etc, that produced the largest bonuses for groups like Lehman, Bear and Goldman Sachs. Combined with the insane amount of leverage that was present and the inherently poor quality of the products themselves, the meltdown became inevitable.

I think if you go back in time and look at groups like Goldman, Merrill and Bear Stearns when they were partnerships and not publicly floated corporations and back when leverage was reasonable and controllable, I think they did a much better job of allocating capital. Of course, this was also back when America actually produced things of value and didn’t really on a wage-stagnant service economy papered over with commercial credit that masked the true ills.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

[/quote]

Brian: I’m as much of a money-grubbing capitalist as the next guy, but I’d also be the first to say that Wall Street has fundamentally failed in its primary mission: The proper allocation of capital to profit-making ventures.

While we don’t have the space to get into all of the details, I think its safe to say that Wall Street’s mission and priorities became tied to short-term bonuses and compensation and thus we saw the explosion of investment products, like CDOs, MBS, etc, that produced the largest bonuses for groups like Lehman, Bear and Goldman Sachs. Combined with the insane amount of leverage that was present and the inherently poor quality of the products themselves, the meltdown became inevitable.

I think if you go back in time and look at groups like Goldman, Merrill and Bear Stearns when they were partnerships and not publicly floated corporations and back when leverage was reasonable and controllable, I think they did a much better job of allocating capital. Of course, this was also back when America actually produced things of value and didn’t really on a wage-stagnant service economy papered over with commercial credit that masked the true ills.

[Author]

Posts