Easy Street

Note: I did make two posts today, so you make want to read the previous post below first.

I made some comments last post about the economic collapse last week, so I decided to say something more than, "I told you so." What disgusts me is the governmental buyout of the problem. The conservative government deregulates these markets duping the common people into believing that less government is better, even though these deregulations have no effect on them. Deregulation is for corporations. Now these corporations have no oversight and are allowed to use their "greedy algorithms" (I put that in quotes because I'm analogously using the math term in that they take what they can at each step while relinquishing the least, not the mundane use of greed). This can only work for so long before things collapse. For businesses to succeed long term they have to give back. They have to invest and build for the long term, not be concerned only with what's going to happen in the next 3-4 quarters.

Those regulations were in place for a reason!

Deregulation is just another term for the trickle down economics of the '80s. In fact, that's where the modern use of the term originates from. Didn't we learn back then that economic bliss never trickles down to those that need it? Back then the news media outlets were deregulated and look where they are now? Why they even bother to hide their biases at this point is beyond me. The last thirty years they've ceased to be about news delivery and have become a spin machine.

Hello! McFly! What shall we deregulate next?

I know. How about the food industry? That way people can eat unclean food and die from various forms of food poisoning. In short, we can just eliminate the people rather than just ruin their economic future. CEO's don't seem to be doing too badly for their poor handling of their businesses. Sadly, there's not enough money in the food industry to bother deregulating.

So what's the government going to do when these irresponsible actions "trickle down" and finally start bankrupting the common man? We're getting closer. In the U.S., More than 1.6 million bankruptcies occur every year. That's 1 person in every 188. Is the government going to bail them out? Did they act any less responsible than than AIG?

Too bad the '80s excessive fissuring of the middle class makes these people so economically unimportant. Maybe then, the government would actually take care of them. And before anyone starts ragging on this lower middle class as being uneducated and lazy, I would like to point out that me, most of my family, and a rather large portion of my friends belongs to this class. The rest of my family isn't nearly as lackadaisical about money as I am. We're living proof that trickle down economics doesn't trickle down far enough. You can't realistically give all the breaks to corporations since their goal is not to pass down the wealth, it is to create their own wealth as efficiently as possible.

A byproduct of this "efficiency" is the mandatory depression layoffs to "tighten the ship". Naturally, this makes the overall economy worse. If they want the economy to recover faster, they should be keeping these people employed so that the consumers in the area will be capable of consuming. The government should be working with these corporations to keep these people employed, not giving them tax breaks so that their margins remain the same. (Economic margins refers to a "rate" of profit/sales/etc. A calculus concept that drives too many business decisions, so it does have its uses!)

To date the argument has been that the government gives the tax breaks, they can't force the businesses to run their companies one way or another. To which I say, "Why not?" If a business wants a tax break, we shouldn't sit around and hope the corporations do the right thing, we should require it.

OH NO! It's more regulation! More government's bad! So says the media spin machine. I think I'll use my common sense rather than listen to their corporate biased deregulated asses.