I try not to comment on politics here because those people on the sidebar, not to mention thousands of other blogs, say everything better, with more facts and more eloquence, while I just get all red in the face and start to splutter.
But I was struck by this sentence from Paul Campos's post at Lawyers, Guns, and Money in response to the tab for all the companies that are getting put on the American taxpayer's Visa card, so to speak: "[T]o put it another way, in America today profit is privatized but risk is increasingly socialized."
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
That's putting it really well. Thanks for the link.
It's like we're socializing the companies, but we're never going to see the profits. We'll take the risks and pay out, but the profits will still go to the wealthiest shareholders and top dogs.
That's it exactly, bardiac. We get the risk, and they get the profits.
Also, why aren't we trying to recover some of those profits from the people who are making millions from our losses? The gov't makes single mothers who finally pull themselves out of poverty repay public assistance; why not the CEOs?
If you want to get really riled, look at the mansions of the investment bankers who made those millions betting on the market tanking: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2008/08/hamptons200808. I'm getting all red with rage again.
Sorry--here's the link: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2008/08/hamptons200808
P. S. Hijacking the comments thread again to say I think it's contemptible to make the single mothers pay back the money.
"The gov't makes single mothers who finally pull themselves out of poverty repay public assistance; why not the CEOs?"
This needs to be broadcast far and wide.
p.s. of course we know why the CEO's don't have to pay it back and the mothers do, but STILL it is a graphic enough illustration of Bardiac's point that the general public just might get it.
zing! that really nails it.
Post a Comment