Sunday, May 19, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013

Scenes from the American plutonomy

News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.

61 comments

Scenes from the American plutonomy

POSTED: Monday, October 5, 2009, 10:40 AM

 

Plutonomy marches forward, as reported in the New York Times:

For many of the company’s investors, the sale will be a disaster. Its bondholders alone stand to lose more than $575 million. The company’s downfall has also devastated employees like Noble Rogers, who worked for 22 years at Simmons, most of that time at a factory outside Atlanta. He is one of 1,000 employees — more than one-quarter of the work force — laid off last year.

But Thomas H. Lee Partners of Boston has not only escaped unscathed, it has made a profit. The investment firm, which bought Simmons in 2003, has pocketed around $77 million in profit, even as the company’s fortunes have declined. THL collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the company in the form of special dividends. It also paid itself millions more in fees, first for buying the company, then for helping run it. Last year, the firm even gave itself a small raise.

Is anyone paying attention? The Daily News editorial board is:

Pathways is one of many who argue for major updating of the federal poverty guidelines. While it's shocking that four decades have passed without changing the standards, there's at least one obvious reason the government isn't in a hurry to update them; it could get very costly. And frankly, it's harder to think we're a thriving country if we have to acknowledge the full number of people who aren't.

But most journalists are NOT acknowledging that:

A study to be released Monday of financial news coverage this year found that government, Wall Street and a small handful of story lines got the bulk of the attention while much less was paid to the economic troubles of ordinary people.

The study, by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, also found that when the stock market rebounded from its lows and pitched battles in Washington ended, the news media turned their attention away from economic coverage.

I also read a lot over the weekend how the Republicans are practically hiding their giddiness over high unemployment that they see are their path to return to power. No doubt they'll gain seats in Congress in the sheer anger factor -- but aren't voters concerned that the GOP has no ideas or proposals on unemployment? Because they probably should be.

Will Bunch @ 10:40 AM  Permalink | 61 comments
61 comments
Comments  (61)
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:56 PM, 10/05/2009
    So the house of cards built by the housing bubble financed by subprime loans to "underserved" borrowers got too much media coverage? Now, I guess the focus should be revising poverty guidelines, instead of correcting the banking problems. Sounds like a pro-poverty outlook.
    Falls Ed
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:29 PM, 10/05/2009
    It's really cute the way you read my posts so carefully, bpphilly. LOL!
    Talking point sleuth
  • Comment removed.
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 6:59 PM, 10/05/2009
    So, the house of cards built with subprime mortgage loans to "underserved" borrowers is getting too much media coverage, and we really need more coverage of federal poverty guidelines? I guess with the economy shutting down, instead of correcting the causes, we need to update poverty guidelines. That sounds like a strong pro-poverty outlook.
    Falls Ed
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 6:10 PM, 10/05/2009
    ---}}} Tax increases, on the other hand are designed to grow government and redistribute wealth. {{{--- LOL! Ah, those "fiscal conservatives - so opposed to "redistribution of wealth." Here you go, Sleepy. Want so see some "redistribution of wealth?" Take a look at the Bush tax cuts, of which --snip--... a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers....The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 trillion over the 2001-2010 period.... --snip-- All that "redistribution of wealth" away from the rich to the poor, eh Sleepy? Yet, somehow, the income gap grows, and a smaller and smaller percentage of folks who earn at the very, very, very top of the income scale manage to amass a greater and greater percentage of the country's wealth. Now just how does that happen, Sleepy?
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:25 PM, 10/05/2009
    Tax cuts are revenue neutral TPS, I would think you would know that. Tax increases, on the other hand are designed to grow government and redistribute wealth. I'd prefer a smaller, fiscally sound government over the fat, bloated one we have today. How about cutting costs 10% across the Board?
    sleepy
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:00 PM, 10/05/2009
    FYI googled news for "republicans giddy unemployment" - couldn't find anything. Maybe you imagined those stories, Bunch.
    bird11
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:23 PM, 10/05/2009
    "It seems that the problem that we face is white collar crime." . . . . . . Let's pierce the corporate veil in earnest. You'll see corporations police themselves a lot better when officers and shareholders know they'll have to bear the risk of criminal misconduct.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:03 PM, 10/05/2009
    Since waste, fraud, inefficiency, etc. is rampant in both the public and private sectors, why would anyone favor going from public to private (or vice versa). It seems that the problem that we face is white collar crime. Since we are talking about hundreds of billions, it is incumbent upon our gov't to clean up this criminality prior to making any judgements about changing anything in our health care system.
    legatus
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:55 PM, 10/05/2009
    ---}}} TPS We who express our opinions on this site all owe you heartfelt thanks for your overwhelming knowledge- readily available in an instant. {{{--- Well, thanks Lefty. You might be completely wrong in the majority of your posts, but at least you got that part right. Kudos.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:52 PM, 10/05/2009
    Democrats final sloution to everything- RAISE TAXES.
    Manny Trillo
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:52 PM, 10/05/2009
    I have no way of measuring waste/fraud in Medicare as opposed to private sector insurance, legatus. But waste/fraud in the private sectors adds up to a whole lotta change. --snip-- In a separate study released last Thursday by BDO Consulting, 37% of top executives at leading U.S. private equity firms said they’ve been exposed to corporate fraud through their investments, and 40% said the impact on their investment return was “significant.” Of those exposed, 59% have reported instances of fraud costing $1 million or more. Nearly a third said they would pay a higher price—a median of 5% more—for a company with a comprehensive antifraud program in place. --snip-- Waste in military spending adds up to some $172 billion per year. Waste and fraud associated with Medicare, surely, adds up to a lot of money - money which if cleaned up, could provide a lot of medical benefits. But waste and fraud are not confined, in any way, to the public sector or to Medicare.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:44 PM, 10/05/2009
    OOPS "can't enjoy"
    bird11
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:43 PM, 10/05/2009
    Well TPS at least you are finally being honest - you hate people you think make more than they deserve. It must suck living a life like that since you can enjoy professional sports, music, TV, movies, books, heck even Attytood - or do you think Ryan Howard, Bono, Tom Cruise, John Grisholm, and Bunch works so many more times harder than the guy at McDonald's to justify their salaries.
    bird11
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:39 PM, 10/05/2009
    But...but....but....I thought we were gonna fund Obamacare by cleaning up the hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and fraud within existing gov't run health care. Is there a comparable amount of waste and fraud in private insurance? If so, why don't we endeavor to clean this up...as well as cleaning up Medicare/Medicaid...and watch our excessive health care costs magically melt away?
    legatus
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:27 PM, 10/05/2009
    ---}}} TPS so you think admin expenses will disappear? {{{--- Of course not, birdie. They would be diminished, however. ---}}} and pay everyone the same hourly rate be they CEO of a Fortune 500 or a fry cook at Micky D's. {{{--- Good point, birdie, because H. Edward Hanway, Chair/ CEO Cigna Corp makes $30.16 million, and there really is no middle ground between $30 million and what a Micky D's fry cook makes. And besides, A Cigna CEO works 2,000 times harder than a Micky D's fry cook, so it's only fair that he earns 2,000 times as much money.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:21 PM, 10/05/2009
    TPS so you think admin expenses will disappear? I'll buy the marketing expenses decrease but remember that will come at a cost too. That marketing expense provides jobs be it in the insurance company itself or in outside marketing firms - cut the marketing and we lose even more jobs in a struggling economy. You seem to have a problem with anybody making a profit or a salary you feel is excessive so why stop at insurance companies? Why not let the government seize all property and pay everyone the same hourly rate be they CEO of a Fortune 500 or a fry cook at Micky D's.
    bird11
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:19 PM, 10/05/2009
    --snip--...the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population. (And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.) ...In international perspective, the United States spends nearly six times as much per capita on health care administration as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Nearly all of this discrepancy is due to the sales, marketing, and underwriting activities of our highly fragmented framework of private insurance, with its diverse billing and review practices --snip--
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:09 PM, 10/05/2009
    --snip-- Revenues: According to WellPoint’s income statement for 2008, the company’s total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees’ health benefits and bear full risk for them).....The Health Benefit Ratio (alias Medical Loss Ratio): WellPoint’s payments for health benefits in 2008 equal the sum of what it calls “health benefits” ($47,742.4 million) and the “cost of drugs” ($468.5 million). Together these health benefits came to $48,210.9 million. As a fraction of total premium revenue of $57,101.0 million in 2008, total health benefits amounted to 84.4 percent of premium revenue. ....
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:07 PM, 10/05/2009
    Fine, birdie - I used the term "overhead" incorrectly. The point remains - consumers have to pay money to cover factors in private insurance that are non-existent in publicly provided insurance. --snip-- Marketing and Administrative Expenses, or S.G.&A.: The firm’s total marketing (selling) expenses for 2008 were $1,778.4 million. General administrative expenses were $7,242.1 million. The sum of these two items goes by the acronym “S.G.&A.” One should relate these S.G.&A. expenses not just to premium revenue, but also to total revenue. In this case, S.G.&A. expenses amounted to 14.7 percent of total revenue in 2008. The Profit Margin: WellPoint’s net income (profits) after all expenses and the provision for income taxes in 2008 was 4.07 percent of total revenue. In accounting jargon, it is called the “profit margin.” In 2007, that margin had been 5.47 percent. In 2006 it was 5.42 percent.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:00 PM, 10/05/2009
    BTW TPS in case you are not sure "profits" do not qualify as "overhead cost".
    bird11
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:00 PM, 10/05/2009
    BTW, birdie - I'm not saying that overhead costs can be eliminated in public insurance options. What I'm saying is that "private insurance companies charge consumers for overhead costs that are non-existent with public supported health insurance," (e.g., sales, advertising), as well as for profits.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:57 PM, 10/05/2009
    TPS you could simply have responded that you don't know what "overhead cost" are or that you misspoke and that while some "overhead cost" would disappear obviously overhead cost like rent, utilities, office salaries, etc will not. But instead when the TPS is proven wrong (again) he goes on the attack because admitting that he was wrong would be just too difficult. If you need help with the terminology CCP offers a nice ACCT 101 course for cheap.
    bird11
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:54 PM, 10/05/2009
    You don't say what are the costs of gov't run health care or the percentage of $$$ that go to medical services in order to show a comparison of the two. Let's take Medicare for example...what do the percentages show in terms of administrative costs, waste, fraud, etc.?
    legatus
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:50 PM, 10/05/2009
    Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation" * Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112 * Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740 * Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469 * Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355 * Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309 * U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042 * Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:47 PM, 10/05/2009
    ---}}} ....HOW ARE OVERHEAD COST ELIMINATED BY GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE??? {{{--- I didn't answer the first time, birdie, because it's so freakin' obvious. But OK, I'll take pity on you. Overhead costs of private health insurance = the costs of marketing and sales. Of course, that doesn't even take into account the huge salaries of insurance company executives. --snip-- health care economist Uwe Reinhardt explains. Within the context of companies’ revenues, insurers skim off 15-20 percent of premium dollars for administrative costs and profits. In fact, an examination of insurers’ medical loss ratio — the fraction of revenue from a plan’s premiums that goes to pay for medical services– suggests that within the last 10 years, insurers have been spending less on medical care and more on administrative costs or profits:....Moreover, a report by Families USA found that “insurers in the individual market sometimes maintain medical loss ratios of only 60%, retaining 40% of premium dollars for administration, marketing and profit.” --snip--
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:42 PM, 10/05/2009
    ---}}}Private insurance companies can charge consumers for overhead costs (non-existent with public supported health insurance)}}}--- .....HOW ARE OVERHEAD COST ELIMINATED BY GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE???
    bird11
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:39 PM, 10/05/2009
    ---}}} What I do know is that I don't trust our politicians to fix it. {{{--- We need to fix the political system that allows corporations to buy off politicians. The only way to do that is through campaign finance reform. So, we need to elect legislators that will create finance reform laws, and we need to elect legislators that will appoint judges that won't be "activists" and thereby overturn campaign finance reform legislation (which the "conservatives" on the current SCOTUS are about to do). We also need to fight against the notion that government is the enemy. Government is only the enemy if we continue to elect corporate hacks (and the only way that we won't continue to elect corporate hacks is if we have campaign finance reform).
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:31 PM, 10/05/2009
    We need to get out of this QUAGMIRE in Afghanistan, don't you think Wilbur????
    WriteWinger
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:25 PM, 10/05/2009
    Another nice little picture (I have others if you're interested) that explode the myth about the Republican Party being the party of "fiscal conservatism." http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m Oh, and btw --snip-- a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers....The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 trillion over the 2001-2010 period.... This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed....--snip--
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:15 PM, 10/05/2009
    "-- but aren't voters concerned that the GOP has no ideas or proposals on unemployment? " Try to think like a small business owner, Will. You are watching the Dems try to: 1) Significantly raise your energy costs, 2) Squabble over how much to raise your health care costs, 3) And seek to significantly raise your own taxes. So tell me, with that kind of uncertainty, why would small businesses WANT to expand payroll now?
    db_cooper
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:14 PM, 10/05/2009
    "I also read a lot over the weekend how the Republicans are practically hiding their giddiness over high unemployment...." Kinda like Pelosi and Reid prophesying with "giddiness" that the surge in Iraq wouldn't work?
    pj katauskas
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:13 PM, 10/05/2009
    ---}}} The Republicans are getting their message out much more effectively then the Dems, which shocks me. {{{--- It has been that way for a long time, Iggy. For a couple of reasons. First, between Fox, Limbaugh, O'Reily, Hannity, Savage, Hewitt, Ingrahm, Beck, Medved, Bennett, etc., etc., "conservative" has the market cornered on highly partisan media. Argue if you will about the "leftwing" bias of the so-called "MSM," but even if you don't believe the "MSM" to be unbiased, there is no question that they are less biased than huge portions of mass media. Secondly, Republicans are just much better at closing ranks and being the aggressors, politically. There has been some infighting recently (say Limbaugh against McCain), but it pales in comparison to the dis-unity among Dems. And tell me, Iggy, how well did all that "giving people's money back to them" work out during the Bush administration and a Republican controlled legislature? Facts are facts: if you compare economies under Dem presidents and Dem legislatures vs. Rep presidents and Republican legislatures, based on a diverse set of metrics, our economy has performed marginally better under Dems (growth in stock indecis, government debt as a % of GDP, debt as a percentage of revenue), while gaps in income inequality was better controlled.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:10 PM, 10/05/2009
    SteveMG -- your point is correct, kind of. You can actually have a tax cut, that if it stimulates the economy, will generate more tax revenue. Tax increases generate more tax revenue in the short term, but in the long run depress the economy and can hurt worse then they help. Also, I think implied in "tax cuts" are also massive spending cuts...
    IggleFan68
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:10 PM, 10/05/2009
    The Republicans want to topple the Democrats who defeated the Republicans after they replaced the Democrats. It goes on and on and the the blame game just continues. These two parties have been taking the country for a ride for decades. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It is time we stop the insanity and look at independent, or Libertarian, or Green Party candidates. We already know that the D's & R's are just looking out for themselves and their cronies.
    Mark Glaeser
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:00 PM, 10/05/2009
    theo, the point of the story is that wealth was not created by the firms who bought and sold Simmons. The Simmons company created wealth ov decades of manufacturing quality mattresses. What the takeover firms did was squeeze out the wealth that the Simmons company created. The firms aren't the only ones to blame, there are a lot of investors who sunk their own (and clients') money into bonds that probably should never have been bought. I despise the idea that this sounds remotely like Martin Sheen's character in "Wall Street", but what the heck. And for the millionth time, there is no such thing as a tax cut when you're running a deficit. It's like "saving" money by not paying your bills.
    SteveMG
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:58 PM, 10/05/2009
    "Private insurance companies can charge consumers for overhead costs (non-existent with public supported health insurance)" .....HOW ARE OVERHEAD COST ELIMINATED BY GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE???
    bird11
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:55 PM, 10/05/2009
    First, Will, let me point out your hypocrisy over Republicans rooting for higher unemployment. I agree that they are certainly doing that, which is unAmerican, but it is certainly better then how the Democrats rooted for a rising death count in Iraq, which is unforgivable. Republicans DO have a plan for fixing the economy, but it uses vastly different principles that Democrats. I believe that returning people's money back to them will drive consumer & business spending, create a better business environment, and drive the economic engine. Government can help by giving specialized tax breaks to foster emerging industries (Green energy anyone??) and help us be more globally competitive. All of this said, I'm still willing to be proven wrong - I will evaluate where tax & spend gets us -- will it really fix what's broken? And finally, a question for the libs: Was this what you imagined when you voted for Obama? Somehow, despite having control over the White house and the Congress, it feels like you lost the election. The Republicans are getting their message out much more effectively then the Dems, which shocks me.
    IggleFan68
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:43 PM, 10/05/2009
    Republican Party solutions = "Yes, there is a free lunch." Private insurance companies can deny coverage without "rationing" medical benefits. Private insurance companies can charge consumers for overhead costs (non-existent with public supported health insurance) without providing health care "on the backs of the taxpayer. We can build our economy on "tax cuts" without building up a deficit by having more spending than we have revenue. LOL! The Republican Party = the party of "fiscal conservatism." You fellas are hilarious.
    Talking point sleuth
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:36 PM, 10/05/2009
    Lefty laid the responsibility at the feet of the politicians. I think that the corporatists are primarily to blame. Thus, I think it is the government's job to regulate the market. That's going to be tough for government to do if it gets drowned by "conservatives" in a bathtub. We have a political system that continues to allow corporations to buy political influence through campaign contributions and as long as Republicans lead the charge (certainly abetted by many Dems) against campaign finance reform, little will change. Oh, and we will soon be able to thank our non-"legislating from the bench conservative" Supreme Court justices for over-turning laws passed by our elected officials, in the name of "free speech" for giving corporations even greater access. Our "activist judge" hating "conservatives" on the Supreme Court have been, in reality, the most active court in history in over-turning legislative initiatives.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:29 PM, 10/05/2009
    ---}}} If only business had the power to coerce people into buying what they are selling with taxes and fees they would fail about as much as government. {{{--- LOL! Indeed, who could possibly equate the marketing, selling, buying, leveraging, and under-evaluating TRILLIONS of bad debt involved any "coercion?" Clearly, the solution to the collapse of a house of cards made out of the marketing of bad debt, is to trust in the people who made hundreds of millions yearly for business practices that led to economic collapse.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:26 PM, 10/05/2009
    Lefty says that the business world's antics were made possible by elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Tps says that "CFOs and their corporate buds...spent hundreds of millions leverageing government officials to legislate away the legal restrictions...." are responsible. He is saying the same thing as lefty, but somehow thinks he is setting lefty straight. Hmmmmmmm........
    legatus
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:25 PM, 10/05/2009
    So, Will, you're saying that an economy based on wealth creation is bad? I'm pretty sure that's been tried in Russia and China and they've found that wealth is far better than the alternative. Used to be as a country we believe in economic and political self determination. I guess we have the State to take care of us now.
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:24 PM, 10/05/2009
    ---}}} Republicans do have solutions to unemployment: Tax cuts for people and business. {{{--- LOL! You know, because the "Republican solutions," including tax cuts, worked out so well during the 8 years that a Republican was in the White House along with 6 years of legislative control. Oh, and BTW, for all you faux Republican-=votingsupporting "fiscal conservatives" out there. --snip-- It is interesting, and perhaps worth noting, that while political opposition seems to be hardening against the $1 trillion, ten-year cost of the early versions of health reform, barely a peep of concern has been raised about the $3 trillion price tag for President Obama’s plan to extend most of the Bush-era tax cuts. The message seems pretty clear: The President, congressional Democrats, and nearly all Republicans are fine with busting the budget to cut taxes for nearly everyone, notwithstanding a cumulative deficit over the next decade of $9 trillion. They are, by contrast, unwilling to spend one-third as much to provide medical insurance for those who cannot afford it. I’ve always felt that health reform is as much an ethical choice as an economic one. We appear to be making ours. --snip--
    Talking point sleuth
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:19 PM, 10/05/2009
    Jwad, "real business oriented recovery", from that gang of clueless obstructionists? Or maybe bring back Bush to run it into the ditch again. Sheesh, will you wingnuts ever get a clue? And I have a word for the Republican-oriented economy: Enron. Oh and Bear Stearns, and lets not forget the whole collapsing financial markets.
    Les Ismore
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:17 PM, 10/05/2009
    ---}}} Greed, complicity and sheer ignorance on the part of our elected officials from both sides of the aisle are responsible for our newer, more brutal form of capitalism. {{{--- Good point. Who could possibly think that CFOs and their corporate buds, who bought bad debt, leveraged themselves 35 to 1 to buy bad debt, bought insurance on that highly leveraged bad debt from "insurers" who didn't have the collateral to back that insurance, pressured rating agencies to over-value the bad debt, pressured assessment agencies to over-value the collateral the bad debt was leveraging, marketed bad debt through deceptive practices, spent hundreds of millions leverageing government officials to legislate away the legal restrictions that restricted who could by/sell bad dept and how much they could leverage themselves to do such, built their windfall salaries based on underestimating the risk of so much bad debt. etc., could POSSIBLY share some responsibility? I mean, you know, in the age of "personal responsibility" and "accountability," it would be just ludicrous to assert that somehow, the actual people who collected hundreds of millions in salaries even as they ran the largest and most powerful companies in the largest and most powerful market sector could possibly share some responsibility. After all, unfettered capitalism is the answer to all of our problems. The fact that unfettered capitalism actually ran out economy into the ground is entirely irrelevant.
    Talking point sleuth
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:22 PM, 10/05/2009
    Hey, howie, if you read the article, you would see an example of a company that was run by people who made money not by making mattresses but by issuing debt. Their marketplace had nothing to do with jobs or prosperity. Then they either find another buyer with suckers lined up to buy bonds cr declare bnkruptcy and walk away. I fail to see how either party would want to hold this practice as admirable.
    SteveMG
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:11 PM, 10/05/2009
    jwad, is that going to work something like the business oriented collapse?
    SteveMG
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:07 PM, 10/05/2009
    Hey jwad: I presume you're expecting a "real business oriented recovery" from the same folks who proudly brought us the "business oriented disaster" that is our economic downturn.
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:06 PM, 10/05/2009
    I have a new word for a liberal-oriented economy: Detroit. By the way Will, Republicans do have solutions to unemployment: Tax cuts for people and business. Libs think if you don't have their ideas, you have no ideas. Detroit is the result of their ideas.
    jmc
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:02 PM, 10/05/2009
    "The sooner BO is out of office the sooner we can get on with a real business oriented recovery." . . . . . . You see Will, the GOP does have a plan.....remove BO. Now why didn't Bush think of that?
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:58 AM, 10/05/2009
    Has this adminsitration even expressed any support of the private sector, other than the card companies and GE's of the world. They's rather see small business fail-while big business writes off the cost of health insurance to the feds.
    sleepy
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:44 AM, 10/05/2009
    Do you read history, wad? Businesses fail a lot more often than governments.
    HandNik
  • Comment removed.


1
About this blog
Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics and world affairs, the media, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports, not necessarily in that order.

PLEASE COMMENT WITH PASSION...

...but not with racial slurs, potentially libelous allegations, obscenities or other juvenile noise. Such comments will, at our discretion, be deleted in their entirety, and repeat offenders will be blocked from commenting. ALSO: Any commenter advocating killing any government official will be immediately banned.

Reach Will at bunchw@phillynews.com.

Will Bunch
Blog archives:
Past Archives:
Blog Roll