I can see that most of you have pretty strong feelings about the Fed! Ok; Ok. . .audit the Fed, and what do you think you're going to find that you don't already know about? Not much, I can tell you. The reason that the Fed has resisted being audited all these years has to do with preserving its independence from the rest of government. The thinking here is that the power to audit equals the power to interfere with the Fed's operations and possibly with monetary policy. And be honest, do you really want some political hack congressman or senator handling monetary policy for the U.S.?
You don't, because first of all they know nothing about monetary policy and how to conduct it (it's pretty complicated). Politicians want easy money policies whenever they're in office, because it makes them more popular and more likely to get re-elected, which is always a politician's first and foremost goal. Thank your lucky stars that monetary policy is conducted by an independent government agency that earns its own income and is not dependent on congressional appropriations (historically, by the way, the Fed has annually returned more than 90 percent of its earnings back to the Treasury Dept.). Calling Fed profits the result of "theft" seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Also, the Fed is not a private corporation that was founded by international financiers. It is an independent government agency that was created by Congress to put an end to the devastating credit crises that occurred regularly in the 19th century. Furthermore, if you were to go back to the "good old days" prior to the Fed, you'd be looking at J.P. Morgan as the private central bank of this country. During financial crises caused by bank runs (which were common prior to the Fed) it was Morgan who ultimately decided which banks would survive and which would fail. How democratic was that?
"Dictatorship of the majority over the minority?" I'd call that a democracy, wouldn't you?
Interestingly, despite the tremendous amount of money poured into the economy recently, there has been no sign of inflation. And depending on how smart/lucky the Fed is, there may be only a little inflation down the road.
Finally, what's all this talk of the "founders?" In case you haven't noticed the world is a much different place than it was 200+ years ago. Personally, I've always thought that the founders would have changed their thinking along with the rest of us if they had been alive all this time. I mean, really, do you want to govern our country as if it were still 1789? I wouldn't.
Oh, and keep in mind that the Fed is not responsible for the spending habits of the executive branch and the congress. Taxes are levied by the Treasury Dept. (not the Fed), and spending programs come from the White House and Congress (not the Fed). Please don't blame the Fed for our deficits.
Whew! I don't know where to begin to respond to everyone's comments.
Meglen: You're right about central planning not working very well, but since when have we had central planning in the U.S.?
Ybul and Meglen: Yes, people and companies should be held accountable for their actions, but the Fed will not allow the country to go down the drain economically just to impose some discipline on bad behavior. That is what the Fed did at the start of the Great Depression, and it was an economic disaster for the country and imposed terrible costs on just about everyone. Is that what you want to do just to impose "discipline" on a few bad actors? The Fed will never allow the economy to crash and will do whatever it takes to keep the country afloat economically--and that includes lending out gobs of money to anyone who needs it and has some collateral to put up (toxic or otherwise). You may recall that this is the whole reason that the Fed was founded in the first place--to be a lender of last resort.
Ybul: Don't confuse central banking in developing countries with central banking in the U.S. In most countries, the central bank is the local money arm of whatever administration is in power. In the U.S. the Federal Reserve was specifically structured so as to provide a strong degree of independence from both Congress and the executive branch. There are numerous instances in history of the Fed resisting congressional and executive branch calls for easy money policies.
JLM: you're right in saying that a little inflation is a good thing for our economy. Not sure you're correct about the amount of toxic assets currently held by the Fed. At this point, the true value of the Fed's loan collateral is not known by anyone, the Fed included.
Everyone: Why does everyone bash the government (local, state, federal) as the biggest meanie in town? Without government it is doubtful that people would follow the rules that make for an orderly society, including business practices and criminal behavior. Without government we would have collusive behavior, little or no national defense, little infrastructure, no judicial system and a host of other ills. I'm always amused when people say that we don't need government or that government is too intrusive or too costly. Don't forget that we live in a representative democracy, and so not every dollar you are taxed will be spent on things that you personally approve of. The best you can do is to vote for the person who most closely believes what you believe in, no?
Carlyle: your last point first--I've long since retired from the Fed, but you make a good point regarding the federal government as the employer of last resort for Ph.D. economists! We used to get a good laugh over that one ourselves!
I think you are wrong in blaming, somehow, the Federal Reserve for our recent economic woes (In fact, I like to think that Bernanke's Fed prevented a true meltdown.). Greenspan may have kept interest rates too low for too long (he was a political animal, you know; everyone in D.C. is), but there is plenty of blame to spread around on other players in both the public and private sectors when considering our recent economic troubles.
Yes, central bankers make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes are costly. Other times, central bankers get it right and everybody wins. Have you an alternative to central banking? Friedman, as you know, was proven wrong in the end, and strict monetarism has largely passed away from serious economic consideration.
Some would have us return to the gold standard--an unrealistic and deeply flawed system of managing money and economic activity. It may have worked to some extent in a bygone era of simpler times, but by even the 19th century its serious limitations were recognized.
There are, in fact, many interesting things that one could discuss about central banking and the Fed, and not all of them put the Fed in a complimentary light. For sure, it has made some spectacular blunders, and any reasonable person should be open to rational and informed discussion about the Fed's overall performance. I simply find it much harder, however, to tolerate the kind of blind rantings contained in Mr. Meglen's comments.
By the way, Ms. Rivlin, whom Mr. Meglen enjoys maligning, is a brilliant and wonderful person who has spent most of her life as a dedicated and underpaid servant of the people. It's hard to believe that she once was a secretive and conspiratorial central banker!
I enjoyed reading this article and the comments it provoked, because, collectively, they demonstrate once again the extraordinary degree of ignorance and paranoia that most Americans have regarding the Federal Reserve System and the role it plays in our economy. Most of Mr. Meglen's assertions about the Fed ought to be hilarious to any serious student of U.S. financial history and the world's current financial system--hilarious, were it not for the fact that so many Americans seem ready to believe the type of conspiracy theory rubbish that makes up most of Mr. Meglen's statements.
Any college student who ever took econ 101 (even those sleeping at the back of the classroom at CMC, where I once taught econ) would know that most of your statements are misleading or flat-out incorrect. I actually laughed out loud to myself when I read several of them. You must be reading some pretty strange stuff to have developed so many wrong ideas about how the Fed and the rest of the financial world works. Surprisingly, you were right or near-right on a few statements (e.g., that the Fed played an important role in perpetuating the Great Depression), so your article is not totally idiotic. Most of the rest of your statements, however, are untrue or very misleading at best (e.g., that "the Fed is neither federal nor has reserves"--trust me on this one; I was a senior economist at the Fed in Washington, D.C. and worked there 31 years--the Federal Reserve System is federal in structure and does hold bank reserves).
It's too bad that Mr. Meglen holds such ignorant and negative views about the Fed; worse yet that he proselytizes in this manner. Oh sure, the Fed isn't perfect and has not always hit the mark in terms of promoting economic growth, full employment, and price stability (some of its many legal mandates). But it is also not even remotely the secretive, conspiratorial institution that Meglen makes it out to be.
People who experience discomfort or loss when complex or incomprehensible problems befall them often look for (and invent) simple-minded explanations (usually incorrect) and bogeymen on which to lay blame. I would urge Mr. Meglen and the other commenters on his piece to read some serious, more academic accounts of U.S. economic history and the development of the Federal Reserve System. Conspiracy theories, while lots of fun, usually take a person down the wrong road to understanding.
Everybody--OK; I hereby retire from the political discussion above. In fact, I would like to hear some discussion of the Fortress/Intrawest debt refinancing myself. Seems like it could have some big implications for the ski area. . . .AC
JLM--Your statements suggest that you have a well-defined and thoughtful view of politics and economic life. It seems too that you were able to take advantage of the educational opportunities offered to you, and you combined them with honest hard work. Rightly and luckily, you were rewarded with success.
It's difficult for me to see how the same is not true for BO. Frankly, therefore, I do not understand your very low opinion of the man and the harsh descriptions you use to describe him. It almost seems that you are frightened of him.
Importantly, I think your fear that BO will somehow undermine capitalism or fail to promote entrepreneurial efforts directed at wealth creation are misguided. What in his statements suggests such outcomes? Certainly, he has reached out to and surrounded himself with successful people, including businessmen, some of whom are his biggest donors. And, that is part of the reason that I trust him. I strongly doubt that he feels in any way the need to "confiscate success" and create a socialist society in our country. If anything, he is trying to create more success in this country by giving poorer people a hand up.
Our society needs needs to be very careful in providing the private sector with the means to pursue self-actualization in capitalism. The S&L scandal of the 1980s and the current financial crisis are prime examples of what can happen when proponents of the "invisible hand" run amok.
At this time in our country I am more inclined to look lower on Maslow's triangle and to focus more on fulfilling the basic needs of so many of our fellow citizens. There is plenty of wealth at the top in this country; there are many opportunities left, and they are not going away, with or without BO.
P.S.--a few questions for you. . .What in JM's background suggests that he would be a true champion of capitalism? After all, he has spent his ENTIRE life in the bosom of the government. Do you agree with him that his running mate is qualified to be president should he die or become incapacitated? Would JM be one of the smartest guys in the room in any meeting involving the president? (Bush Jr. wasn't, and it's not hard to see how his lack of intelligence, education, (I know that he graduated from Yale. ) and focus hurt our country by allowing those around him to essentially hijack his presidency for their own purposes.)
Good luck to you. You seem like an effective person, but you might do more good if you were to open your mind and heart a little and allow that others may not have had the same opportunities, natural endowments, experiences, and luck in life as you. In fact, doing so might even provide you the self-actualization and peak experience that we all crave.
JLM--It sounds as though you had a very successful and financially rewarding career, possibly in a business that you started yourself. Moreover, it seems that you opened the door to success for some of your employees as well. You are to be commended.
Please realize, however, that along the way to your success you undoubtedly received substantial help--either direct or indirect--from various government entities, all of which were supported by tax dollars collected from the rest of us (and, to some extent of course, your own taxes paid).
This tax-financed government assistance probably took many forms. For example, did you ever receive some kind of "tax break" along the way? (It was a "break" for you but not the rest of us who had to pay whatever you avoided paying.) Were you able to conduct business in an orderly marketplace governed by rules and laws? (enforced by a tax-financed judicial system) Did you receive police protection and fire protection for your physical plant? (paid for by tax revenues) For that matter, was your country protected from invasion by foreigners during the time your business developed? (national defense is financed by dollars) Countless other examples of tax-funded assistance exist in the business world.
The point is that no person or business in the U.S. is entirely free from government--either on the paying end or the receiving end. To say that you and your more successful employees never "dipped into another man's chili bowl," therefore, is not entirely true. I bet you and your tax lawyers were good at taking advantage of every tax-saving legal loophole you could find. (I don't blame you, BTW) In doing so, however, you merely passed your tax burden on to someone else's shoulders (other Americans; damn good men and women!) and never looked back.
America's businesses in general "dip" plenty. Just look at all of the corporate welfare that is doled out each year by various schemes (promoted by both Republicans and Dems). Who do you suppose pays for these goodies? The rest of us, that's who.
To think that American entrepreneurs are achieving greatness all on their own dime is a myth. Trust me, you were in bed with the government the whole time you were in business, whether you knew it or not. We all are to some extent.
Obviously, there needs to be an acceptable balance between personal freedom and government interference in our lives. And, this balance is different for each person.
Pure capitalism, if it ever existed, is gone forever. You might as well admit it and quit kidding yourself and feeling frustrated. Here's an idea: Why not come over to our side and put your business talents to good use by helping to make government work better?
Respectfully, AC (former federal government regulator)
My use of the word "cheap", however, was slang meant to convey my sense that your comment regarding "BO" (a clever if unfortunate moniker--I like it) was an easy and opportunistic jab at the Democratic candidate--and, surely off-point for a discussion of issues relating to the ski area (how does one segue from a discussion of ski area financing to blasting one of the presidential candidates?).
Additionally, my reference to "little people" has nothing to do with folks in SB per se. I lived there once, and I feel as you do--terrific place; terrific people; wonderful lifestyle (whether you're wealthy or not). "My bad" if anyone incorrectly felt slighted.
Regarding inequality--why is it a big deal? It's a big deal, because nothing erodes democracy and freedom more surely than economic inequality. Governments "of the rich" are as deceitful and degrading to the human spirit and condition as any communist or other totalitarian form of rule.
I agree with you that opportunity trumps dependency. However, we can hardly turn our backs on the many citizens in our country that effectively have little or NO real opportunity to improve their economic well-being within a reasonable time (you can forget "trickle down" economics). Occasionally, it may be necessary to assist people even if doing so creates a greater risk of socialism. This may simply be a price for long-term democracy in a modern global economy.
Ironically, the biggest recipients of government assistance have been the "red" states which loudly repudiate big government but which are all too ready to accept government funds when the occasion arises. They sing the same old refrain--"We hate big government." Sure they hate it--until THEY need a bailout or handout of some kind or other (be it crop price maintenance, natural disaster assistance, corporate welfare, tariff protection, preservation of redundant military bases, etc.--the list is endless). Then, who do they look to FIRST? You know who.
I agree that we SHOULD be trying to make more millionaires in America. But along the way, let's not further bury those who need a hand up. Clearly, big government is not always the best answer; but, sometimes (particularly in the short run) it is the only answer. The upcoming presidential election might be one of those times.
Neither BO nor JM can solve all of our problems, but I am putting my money (so to speak) on Barack Obama. I will do this not because BO is in any sense "The One" but rather because he promises a change from the awful policies and practices of the recent past. A friend of mine once said, "The only thing Republicans care about is their money." Of course, this may not be completely true.
Paying higher taxes (if it comes to that) is a small price to pay for a better country; and, in the end it may help ALL of us to pay the rent while we wait for love to appear.
JLM--Why not state your views on Intrawest and Fortress without resorting to a cheap political statement? But, since you did, allow me to say that if you're happy with the same miserable and costly policies that have run our country into the ground over the past eight years then you should vote for John McCain and not Barack Obama. Among other things, McCain will make sure that the little guys in towns like SB continue to get the economic scraps that "trickle down" from the wealthiest five percent or so of Americans. You might consider that with a more even income and wealth distribution, more (not fewer) people could afford a ski or summer vacation in SB. Wouldn't that be nice?
Joe Meglen: About the Fed
I can see that most of you have pretty strong feelings about the Fed! Ok; Ok. . .audit the Fed, and what do you think you're going to find that you don't already know about? Not much, I can tell you. The reason that the Fed has resisted being audited all these years has to do with preserving its independence from the rest of government. The thinking here is that the power to audit equals the power to interfere with the Fed's operations and possibly with monetary policy. And be honest, do you really want some political hack congressman or senator handling monetary policy for the U.S.?
You don't, because first of all they know nothing about monetary policy and how to conduct it (it's pretty complicated). Politicians want easy money policies whenever they're in office, because it makes them more popular and more likely to get re-elected, which is always a politician's first and foremost goal. Thank your lucky stars that monetary policy is conducted by an independent government agency that earns its own income and is not dependent on congressional appropriations (historically, by the way, the Fed has annually returned more than 90 percent of its earnings back to the Treasury Dept.). Calling Fed profits the result of "theft" seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Also, the Fed is not a private corporation that was founded by international financiers. It is an independent government agency that was created by Congress to put an end to the devastating credit crises that occurred regularly in the 19th century. Furthermore, if you were to go back to the "good old days" prior to the Fed, you'd be looking at J.P. Morgan as the private central bank of this country. During financial crises caused by bank runs (which were common prior to the Fed) it was Morgan who ultimately decided which banks would survive and which would fail. How democratic was that?
"Dictatorship of the majority over the minority?" I'd call that a democracy, wouldn't you?
Interestingly, despite the tremendous amount of money poured into the economy recently, there has been no sign of inflation. And depending on how smart/lucky the Fed is, there may be only a little inflation down the road.
Finally, what's all this talk of the "founders?" In case you haven't noticed the world is a much different place than it was 200+ years ago. Personally, I've always thought that the founders would have changed their thinking along with the rest of us if they had been alive all this time. I mean, really, do you want to govern our country as if it were still 1789? I wouldn't.
Oh, and keep in mind that the Fed is not responsible for the spending habits of the executive branch and the congress. Taxes are levied by the Treasury Dept. (not the Fed), and spending programs come from the White House and Congress (not the Fed). Please don't blame the Fed for our deficits.
September 6, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joe Meglen: About the Fed
Whew! I don't know where to begin to respond to everyone's comments.
Meglen: You're right about central planning not working very well, but since when have we had central planning in the U.S.?
Ybul and Meglen: Yes, people and companies should be held accountable for their actions, but the Fed will not allow the country to go down the drain economically just to impose some discipline on bad behavior. That is what the Fed did at the start of the Great Depression, and it was an economic disaster for the country and imposed terrible costs on just about everyone. Is that what you want to do just to impose "discipline" on a few bad actors? The Fed will never allow the economy to crash and will do whatever it takes to keep the country afloat economically--and that includes lending out gobs of money to anyone who needs it and has some collateral to put up (toxic or otherwise). You may recall that this is the whole reason that the Fed was founded in the first place--to be a lender of last resort.
Ybul: Don't confuse central banking in developing countries with central banking in the U.S. In most countries, the central bank is the local money arm of whatever administration is in power. In the U.S. the Federal Reserve was specifically structured so as to provide a strong degree of independence from both Congress and the executive branch. There are numerous instances in history of the Fed resisting congressional and executive branch calls for easy money
policies.
JLM: you're right in saying that a little inflation is a good thing for our economy. Not sure you're correct about the amount of toxic assets currently held by the Fed. At this point, the true value of the Fed's loan collateral is not known by anyone, the Fed included.
Everyone: Why does everyone bash the government (local, state, federal) as the biggest meanie in town? Without government it is doubtful that people would follow the rules that make for an orderly society, including business practices and criminal behavior. Without government we would have collusive behavior, little or no national defense, little infrastructure, no judicial system and a host of other ills. I'm always amused when people say that we don't need government or that government is too intrusive or too costly. Don't forget that we live in a representative democracy, and so not every dollar you are taxed will be spent on things that you personally approve of. The best you can do is to vote for the person who most closely believes what you believe in, no?
September 5, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joe Meglen: About the Fed
Carlyle: your last point first--I've long since retired from the Fed, but you make a good point regarding the federal government as the employer of last resort for Ph.D. economists! We used to get a good laugh over that one ourselves!
I think you are wrong in blaming, somehow, the Federal Reserve for our recent economic woes (In fact, I like to think that Bernanke's Fed prevented a true meltdown.). Greenspan may have kept interest rates too low for too long (he was a political animal, you know; everyone in D.C. is), but there is plenty of blame to spread around on other players in both the public and private sectors when considering our recent economic troubles.
Yes, central bankers make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes are costly. Other times, central bankers get it right and everybody wins. Have you an alternative to central banking? Friedman, as you know, was proven wrong in the end, and strict monetarism has largely passed away from serious economic consideration.
Some would have us return to the gold standard--an unrealistic and deeply flawed system of managing money and economic activity. It may have worked to some extent in a bygone era of simpler times, but by even the 19th century its serious limitations were recognized.
There are, in fact, many interesting things that one could discuss about central banking and the Fed, and not all of them put the Fed in a complimentary light. For sure, it has made some spectacular blunders, and any reasonable person should be open to rational and informed discussion about the Fed's overall performance. I simply find it much harder, however, to tolerate the kind of blind rantings contained in Mr. Meglen's comments.
By the way, Ms. Rivlin, whom Mr. Meglen enjoys maligning, is a brilliant and wonderful person who has spent most of her life as a dedicated and underpaid servant of the people. It's hard to believe that she once was a secretive and conspiratorial central banker!
September 4, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joe Meglen: About the Fed
I enjoyed reading this article and the comments it provoked, because, collectively, they demonstrate once again the extraordinary degree of ignorance and paranoia that most Americans have regarding the Federal Reserve System and the role it plays in our economy. Most of Mr. Meglen's assertions about the Fed ought to be hilarious to any serious student of U.S. financial history and the world's current financial system--hilarious, were it not for the fact that so many Americans seem ready to believe the type of conspiracy theory rubbish that makes up most of Mr. Meglen's statements.
Any college student who ever took econ 101 (even those sleeping at the back of the classroom at CMC, where I once taught econ) would know that most of your statements are misleading or flat-out incorrect. I actually laughed out loud to myself when I read several of them. You must be reading some pretty strange stuff to have developed so many wrong ideas about how the Fed and the rest of the financial world works. Surprisingly, you were right or near-right on a few statements (e.g., that the Fed played an important role in perpetuating the Great Depression), so your article is not totally idiotic. Most of the rest of your statements, however, are untrue or very misleading at best (e.g., that "the Fed is neither federal nor has reserves"--trust me on this one; I was a senior economist at the Fed in Washington, D.C. and worked there 31 years--the Federal Reserve System is federal in structure and does hold bank reserves).
It's too bad that Mr. Meglen holds such ignorant and negative views about the Fed; worse yet that he proselytizes in this manner. Oh sure, the Fed isn't perfect and has not always hit the mark in terms of promoting economic growth, full employment, and price stability (some of its many legal mandates). But it is also not even remotely the secretive, conspiratorial institution that Meglen makes it out to be.
People who experience discomfort or loss when complex or incomprehensible problems befall them often look for (and invent) simple-minded explanations (usually incorrect) and bogeymen on which to lay blame. I would urge Mr. Meglen and the other commenters on his piece to read some serious, more academic accounts of U.S. economic history and the development of the Federal Reserve System. Conspiracy theories, while lots of fun, usually take a person down the wrong road to understanding.
September 3, 2009 at 11:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Man bears large cross walking from Texas
Who you callin' "boy"?
July 17, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Debt looms for Fortress
Everybody--OK; I hereby retire from the political discussion above. In fact, I would like to hear some discussion of the Fortress/Intrawest debt refinancing myself. Seems like it could have some big implications for the ski area. . . .AC
October 23, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Debt looms for Fortress
JLM--Your statements suggest that you have a well-defined and thoughtful view of politics and economic life. It seems too that you were able to take advantage of the educational opportunities offered to you, and you combined them with honest hard work. Rightly and luckily, you were rewarded with success.
It's difficult for me to see how the same is not true for BO. Frankly, therefore, I do not understand your very low opinion of the man and the harsh descriptions you use to describe him. It almost seems that you are frightened of him.
Importantly, I think your fear that BO will somehow undermine capitalism or fail to promote entrepreneurial efforts directed at wealth creation are misguided. What in his statements suggests such outcomes? Certainly, he has reached out to and surrounded himself with successful people, including businessmen, some of whom are his biggest donors. And, that is part of the reason that I trust him. I strongly doubt that he feels in any way the need to "confiscate success" and create a socialist society in our country. If anything, he is trying to create more success in this country by giving poorer people a hand up.
Our society needs needs to be very careful in providing the private sector with the means to pursue self-actualization in capitalism. The S&L scandal of the 1980s and the current financial crisis are prime examples of what can happen when proponents of the "invisible hand" run amok.
At this time in our country I am more inclined to look lower on Maslow's triangle and to focus more on fulfilling the basic needs of so many of our fellow citizens. There is plenty of wealth at the top in this country; there are many opportunities left, and they are not going away, with or without BO.
P.S.--a few questions for you. . .What in JM's background suggests that he would be a true champion of capitalism? After all, he has spent his ENTIRE life in the bosom of the government. Do you agree with him that his running mate is qualified to be president should he die or become incapacitated? Would JM be one of the smartest guys in the room in any meeting involving the president? (Bush Jr. wasn't, and it's not hard to see how his lack of intelligence, education, (I know that he graduated from Yale. ) and focus hurt our country by allowing those around him to essentially hijack his presidency for their own purposes.)
Good luck to you. You seem like an effective person, but you might do more good if you were to open your mind and heart a little and allow that others may not have had the same opportunities, natural endowments, experiences, and luck in life as you. In fact, doing so might even provide you the self-actualization and peak experience that we all crave.
Regards, AC
October 23, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Debt looms for Fortress
JLM--It sounds as though you had a very successful and financially rewarding career, possibly in a business that you started yourself. Moreover, it seems that you opened the door to success for some of your employees as well. You are to be commended.
Please realize, however, that along the way to your success you undoubtedly received substantial help--either direct or indirect--from various government entities, all of which were supported by tax dollars collected from the rest of us (and, to some extent of course, your own taxes paid).
This tax-financed government assistance probably took many forms. For example, did you ever receive some kind of "tax break" along the way? (It was a "break" for you but not the rest of us who had to pay whatever you avoided paying.) Were you able to conduct business in an orderly marketplace governed by rules and laws? (enforced by a tax-financed judicial system) Did you receive police protection and fire protection for your physical plant? (paid for by tax revenues) For that matter, was your country protected from invasion by foreigners during the time your business developed? (national defense is financed by dollars) Countless other examples of tax-funded assistance exist in the business world.
The point is that no person or business in the U.S. is entirely free from government--either on the paying end or the receiving end. To say that you and your more successful employees never "dipped into another man's chili bowl," therefore, is not entirely true. I bet you and your tax lawyers were good at taking advantage of every tax-saving legal loophole you could find. (I don't blame you, BTW) In doing so, however, you merely passed your tax burden on to someone else's shoulders (other Americans; damn good men and women!) and never looked back.
America's businesses in general "dip" plenty. Just look at all of the corporate welfare that is doled out each year by various schemes (promoted by both Republicans and Dems). Who do you suppose pays for these goodies? The rest of us, that's who.
To think that American entrepreneurs are achieving greatness all on their own dime is a myth. Trust me, you were in bed with the government the whole time you were in business, whether you knew it or not. We all are to some extent.
Obviously, there needs to be an acceptable balance between personal freedom and government interference in our lives. And, this balance is different for each person.
Pure capitalism, if it ever existed, is gone forever. You might as well admit it and quit kidding yourself and feeling frustrated. Here's an idea: Why not come over to our side and put your business talents to good use by helping to make government work better?
Respectfully, AC (former federal government regulator)
October 22, 2008 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Debt looms for Fortress
JLM--You make some good points.
My use of the word "cheap", however, was slang meant to convey my sense that your comment regarding "BO" (a clever if unfortunate moniker--I like it) was an easy and opportunistic jab at the Democratic candidate--and, surely off-point for a discussion of issues relating to the ski area (how does one segue from a discussion of ski area financing to blasting one of the presidential candidates?).
Additionally, my reference to "little people" has nothing to do with folks in SB per se. I lived there once, and I feel as you do--terrific place; terrific people; wonderful lifestyle (whether you're wealthy or not). "My bad" if anyone incorrectly felt slighted.
Regarding inequality--why is it a big deal? It's a big deal, because nothing erodes democracy and freedom more surely than economic inequality. Governments "of the rich" are as deceitful and degrading to the human spirit and condition as any communist or other totalitarian form of rule.
I agree with you that opportunity trumps dependency. However, we can hardly turn our backs on the many citizens in our country that effectively have little or NO real opportunity to improve their economic well-being within a reasonable time (you can forget "trickle down" economics). Occasionally, it may be necessary to assist people even if doing so creates a greater risk of socialism. This may simply be a price for long-term democracy in a modern global economy.
Ironically, the biggest recipients of government assistance have been the "red" states which loudly repudiate big government but which are all too ready to accept government funds when the occasion arises. They sing the same old refrain--"We hate big government." Sure they hate it--until THEY need a bailout or handout of some kind or other (be it crop price maintenance, natural disaster assistance, corporate welfare, tariff protection, preservation of redundant military bases, etc.--the list is endless). Then, who do they look to FIRST? You know who.
I agree that we SHOULD be trying to make more millionaires in America. But along the way, let's not further bury those who need a hand up. Clearly, big government is not always the best answer; but, sometimes (particularly in the short run) it is the only answer. The upcoming presidential election might be one of those times.
Neither BO nor JM can solve all of our problems, but I am putting my money (so to speak) on Barack Obama. I will do this not because BO is in any sense "The One" but rather because he promises a change from the awful policies and practices of the recent past. A friend of mine once said, "The only thing Republicans care about is their money." Of course, this may not be completely true.
Paying higher taxes (if it comes to that) is a small price to pay for a better country; and, in the end it may help ALL of us to pay the rent while we wait for love to appear.
Respectfully, AC
October 20, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Debt looms for Fortress
JLM--Why not state your views on Intrawest and Fortress without resorting to a cheap political statement? But, since you did, allow me to say that if you're happy with the same miserable and costly policies that have run our country into the ground over the past eight years then you should vote for John McCain and not Barack Obama. Among other things, McCain will make sure that the little guys in towns like SB continue to get the economic scraps that "trickle down" from the wealthiest five percent or so of Americans. You might consider that with a more even income and wealth distribution, more (not fewer) people could afford a ski or summer vacation in SB. Wouldn't that be nice?
October 18, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )