[QUOTE=KevinKohler;1061007312]A very large % of those record profits came at the expense of american workers. Those companies that laid of millions of workers and then demanded that those that remained work longer and harder to maintain production/service without any appreciable increase in income.Because they don't NEED to. If they don't NEED to hire another person, WHY do so, regardless of sales figures?
At some point they will need to invest those profits, they are years behind in the competitive race. They seem content to sit back and maintain the status quo, while other nation's and their corporations, unfettered by inertia invest heavily in themselves to position themselves for future competitiveness. It a price that will surely be paid down the road.
Nonsense. There are tens of thousands of American Corporations headquartered in the States. There are millions of warehouses, hundreds of thousands of factories. You seem to ignore that US workers are the most productive in the world.American corporations? Almost no such thing anymore, sunny jim. Sure, they might have an OFFICE in the country. But a warehouse? A factory? Not when the cost of doing so is four times that of shipping that work elsewhere.
Okay I'll agree about its contribution to upper societal stratum and industrialization. I do not support more government control, I support appropriate government control.Yes. Last I checked, it's responsible for the modern world. If you don't LIKE the modern world...well, I assume you live in Canada...lots of space up there to go hardcore back woodsman.
And I am constantly amazed that people who support more government control ignore human nature (particularly greed, corruption and ego gratification)
So corruption, de-regulation and lack of oversight all contributed to the financial meltdown. And the solution is laissez faire? Feed corruption, strangle regulation and tie up any govenment enforcement in the courts for decades is the right balanced formula where america and americans can live happily ever after?The housing crisis was a result of our government REQUIRING mortgage companies to approve "minorities" (read: people with worse credit ratings) for home loans. THAT was Clinton's baby. So, the bakers approved these people for loans that they otherwise WOULD NOT HAVE. Because they had more loans and thus more paperwork to plow through, they had to hire more and more staff to handle the load. I mean, overnight, the ellegable customer base for home loans nearly doubled. If you've ever bought a house in the US, you are aware of the amount of crap involved. The banks, fearing (rightly so) that these loans were unstable, sold them off. To investment firms. The investment firms, using perfectly legal means, bundled those toxic loans (toxic = risky) with other LESS risky loans, in order to sweeten the sale, and called them securities, in a nice little bit of double speak. Insurance companies where the major customers for these, because they have to have high assets as a nature of the business they do. All of this continued right on through Bush, up till the crash. Was there corruption involved? A lack of oversight? Yes. On the part of OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. You see, many of our elected officials came to those government jobs BY WAY of jobs at places like Goldman Sachs, or, hey, Bane Capital. And many of them, should they not get re-elected, had those jobs to go BACK to. In other words, they are COMPROMISED. Many of them have SWEET retirement packages, as a result of certain deals done, papers signed, while in office. Some of them have investment returns not allowed to the rest of the general public, more results of the same actions.
Do you see the problems here? The only REAL corruption we have...is NOT on the private side. It's on the public side.