People are so stupid and controlled by the media

by free2beme 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  free2beme

  I was reading today about all these people who are upset at the big banks for charging more for accounts, to off-set cost for the change in regulations. People were saying, "Banks are greedy" and "Banks are unfair." Which is the common thought among society about several key industries. People actually think a bank should be free, having power, gas and phone is a god given right. In the end, they are always some how upset when they realize, "These are businesses that have to make money!" Yet, there is a solution, right? We have the government regulate them, that will show those greedy bastards.

  Here is the thing, the majority of all jobs out there are from corporations and corporations have used their money to develop some of the technology we all love. Yet! We think they are evil for making all that money. Instead, we want them to give more of that money to us. While we did not event the products, did not pay for the security on our funds and did not pay the payroll and other business expenses to make these things. We're basically a Democratic free market society, longing for Socialism??? Why?

  So, the government tells all these big bad banks, "You can not make any more money of debt card fees, beyond what WE THE GOVERNMENT think is acceptable." Why, as Americans do we think that is okay? If you worked making shoes and had the most amazing pair on the planet and people lined up for them to have a pair. These shoes take most of your night to make, and you spend all day selling them. You want to make this time worth while, so you sale them for $150 per pair. Now, you can make enough money to hire others to make them, sell them and use your knowledge to build a business and be a better part of society. A year goes by and the government comes along and says, "Hey shoe maker, we looked in to it and it looks like it only cost you ten dollars to make these shoes and you have it down to 30 minutes a pair to make. We think you are charging too much, and wont let you. We are capping the amount you sell them for to $60." What would you do as a business owner, as the amount you sold them for before had given you; money to pay employees, money to invent and do more and a better life for your efforts. So you sale the shoes for $60 to follow the law and now you charge $70 extra for the right to work with your employees to purchase them. OMG! That is mean to those customers, just follow the law you greedy bastard and live the same life you had before the change and stop complaining.

  You would not agree with that, at least I hope. However, we have a other other view with banks and other corporations, as we hate them ... right? We don't want them to be successful and lend up money for our homes, our cars, and give us credit cards. We want them to give us free everything, thank us for leaving our average balance of (face it, most people live pay check to pay check and have no balance). All, while we tell ourselves they loaned out my money for those three days and made money off it. Yeah, right? But that is how people feel.

  Are banks jerks at times though, HELL yeah! Greed is rough, but it is also not something new. If you are publicly traded, with stock holders, you better be or you will be out of a job and someone else will replace you. As people on wall street will not invest in you and not believe in your ability to pull a profit. Business, when the veil of how money is really made, is often upsetting to an uneducated and ignorant society. As, most unsuccessful people want to have more, without working for it.

  I was always raised, you work to eat. You get back, what you give in. You do not steal, and you do not be a person who harms others because your jealous of their good fortune. Our government does not always feel this way and they know how to get the media on their side, how to make them appear to be the good guy and realize just how stupid people really are. So let's face it people, did we really think life was worse when we let the banks set their own fees? Fees that we never saw, and allowed us to have free checking accounts, as the fees were made up elsewhere? In the end, society will be burned. ALL banks and credit unions (Credit Unions got a one year reprieve on the law, they wont start until 10/1/12) will raise prices, take away benefits you love and you will just sit there thinking. THOSE GREEDY BASTARDS ... and if you think that, why not just say "I LOVE SOCIALISM!"
• 

  HintOfLime

  Is socialism 100% bad? Is capitalism 100% good?

  Can you see in more than black and white? Could there be a balanced point between extremes?

  If you were born and raised in China, would your opinion be different based on your upbringing and social environment? (Obviously, there are government programs in America that have a 'socialist' nature to them - to some degree, these systems are simply nessessary or advantageous - regardless of 'black and white branding'.)

  - Lime
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Sorry but talking about multibillion dollar corporations as if they are individuals just like us while at the same time talking about government as some kind of oppressive boogeyman, aka THEM, is no better than pegging government as a friend of the people while painting corporations as the enemy. You're just a different kind of extremist.

  Time and again it has been shown that BOTH zero regulation AND too much regulation are bad for business and bad for individual citizens.

  To everyone who discusses political issues here on JWN, PLEASE STOP creating "us versus them" dichotomies. THEY AREN'T REAL!!!
• 

  free2beme

  If we want to be socialism, be it. However, we are not SUPPOSED to be a socialism society. We are becoming one, and headed in that direction and that is really sad. Every single time the government puts their nose in the business of others, we get terrible results. As this is not how the United States was organized. The founding fathers knew this could happen, that all that they set up and worked for, could disappear in a stroke of the pin and the people would do nothing but think, "Maybe it is about time."

  What next, will the government control and set price or policy on ... that we will tell ourselves is okay. I think of a quote from the holocaust, in which is said basically something along this same line of thought.

  "They came for the banks, and I did nothing as I hated the banks"

  "They came for the corporations, and I did nothing as I hated the corporations"

  "They came for the small business, and I did nothing as I did not like the money the small business owners were making"

  "They came for the unions, and I did nothing as I thought the unions were greedy"

  "They came for the public workers, and I did nothing as I thought they were overpaid anyway"

  "Then they came for me, and no one was left to do anything for me ... and I was confused and angry"
• 

  PSacramento

  To everyone who discusses political issues here on JWN, PLEASE STOP creating "us versus them" dichotomies. THEY AREN'T REAL!!!

  You're obviously one of THEM !
• 

  free2beme

  What I always find interesting about JWN, is that no matter how much freedom we now have to speak our minds. There is always a poster or two that wants to be an elder and say, "Hey, I want to control this a bit and set guidelines."
• 

  HintOfLime

  "They came for the banks, and I did nothing as I hated the banks"

  "They came for the corporations, and I did nothing as I hated the corporations"

  Basically the 'slippery slope argument', and a logical fallacy. If the government does anything, it eventually has to lead to you losing all of your freedom.

  Nonsense. As if any small change in banking regulation inevitably and unavoidably snowballs into complete collapse of the system. It really is quite a stupid suggestion. Were American freedoms so fragile - why would you want to be an American at all?

  And when you say "they came for the banks" I assume you mean "they paid off the debts of private banks with money from the people, and in exchange placed additional regulations in place so they wouldn't have to do it again." Just like a person might have the "right to bear arms", but not the right to go around shooting it in public places - banks should have the right to do business, but not nessessarily the right to take risks that can potentially destroy the US economy.

  - Lime
• 

  free2beme

  I can see your kind of ignorant on TARP money, so I will educate you. George Bush hit the panic button when the economy was seeing the bubble of the housing industry collapse. So he did the TARP money to save banks. Did the banks ask for it, and come before congress like the auto industry and ask for it? Nope, not at all. In fact, the banks said "We don't need that!" But the government said, "No, you have to take it." So the banks took it, paid interest on it (Millions) and wanted to pay it back right away. As the media was killing them for taking it!!! What did the government do? They said, "No, you can not pay it back yet." So the banks paid interest, did not use the money and just waited until they could pay it back. As the media was killing them for taking it!!! So they were finally given permission to pay back, and they did immediately (18 months after being forced to take it). What did the media do about this, oh it was on a back page of a newspaper some where. It was just not good news to report, as it made the public so angry they took it (forced to take it) and it got them angry at the banks. Even all these years later, I can still hear an echo out there of ignorant people say "You took our money and now your complaining about making profit and you used that money (that you paid interest on in the millions and paid back, did not use) to give bonuses."

  Now your educated, hope you understand TARP money better now.
• 

  garyneal

  Now your educated, hope you understand TARP money better now.

  Credible sources please.

  George Bush hit the panic button when the economy was seeing the bubble of the housing industry collapse. So he did the TARP money to save banks. Did the banks ask for it, and come before congress like the auto industry and ask for it? Nope, not at all. In fact, the banks said "We don't need that!" But the government said, "No, you have to take it."

  If Bush did that then that just further undermines his credibility. Personally, I would've been OK with banks collapsing, the government bailouts should not have happened.

  So, the government tells all these big bad banks, "You can not make any more money of debt card fees, beyond what WE THE GOVERNMENT think is acceptable." Why, as Americans do we think that is okay? If you worked making shoes and had the most amazing pair on the planet and people lined up for them to have a pair. These shoes take most of your night to make, and you spend all day selling them. You want to make this time worth while, so you sale them for $150 per pair. Now, you can make enough money to hire others to make them, sell them and use your knowledge to build a business and be a better part of society. A year goes by and the government comes along and says, "Hey shoe maker, we looked in to it and it looks like it only cost you ten dollars to make these shoes and you have it down to 30 minutes a pair to make. We think you are charging too much, and wont let you. We are capping the amount you sell them for to $60."

  I'm not for price caps, I am for competition. However, is it possible for consumers to switch banks as quickly as they switch shoe stores or shoe makers? My wife and I are considering moving out money to a new bank once this $5 / month debit card fee comes up at B of A. I see no reason why I should have to pay that to use my own money.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I have a much more nuanced view. Capitlism is both wonderful and atrocious. I used to very against big business until I sat through law school. It would be good for civics classes to teach our const'l rights and what businesses actually do at an age appropriate level. Before a corporate track in law school, I never read the Business section of any newspaper. I would try out of boredom but I lacked any background to understand what was being discussed.

  Regulation is necessary, unless you want children acting as slaves in a factory. Judging where regulation is needed and where it is superflouous, is in the eye of the beholder. I don't have a consistent view. CEOS have acknowledged the need for some regulation to me. I don't see proof that the market is efficient in itself. If I were a plantation owner, slavery might be viewed as economic necessity. Also, if I were a NY or London merchant banker, I'd see it as necessary. Quakers, etc. and the slaves will view it is as completely amoral. Slavery was not economically feasible at one point.

  Primarily, I view myself as a regular consumer with no special powers. Those who think government should not intervene should read historical accounts of what society was like before the major shift. Also, from a legal and business viewpoint, technology and globalization have led to a much stronger role for administrative measures rather than traditional common law. We live in a global society now.