LordKaT
09-24-2008, 02:25 PM
I wrote a short article on how I think this bailout is akin to financial slavery to a social sub-class: the political sub-class of the economic wealthy.
It took me too long to realize this: there's no such thing as freedom. Not in America, not in Canada, not on planet Earth. As long as there are artificial social sub-classes that create and enforce laws, there can never be true freedom.
In the United States of America there exists a layer between enforcement of laws and the people: representatives. The original idea of a representative government is to have the consensus of the people represented in government. Unfortunately, our representatives have become an exclusive social sub-class of the economically well off.
Oh, you don't believe me? Well then, consider this: the net worth of the majority of representatives falls in the millions of dollars:
McCain - $40.4 Million
John Edwards - $54.7 Million
Hillary Clinton - $34.9 Million
Barack Obama - $1.3 Million
Ron Paul - $3 Million
The House - est. $5 Million average in 2006
The Senate - est. $11 Million average in 2006
This economic disparity also holds true at the state and local level:
Rudolph Giuliani - $52.2 Million
Mitt Romney - $202 Million
Fred Thoompson - $8.1 Million
Jane Harman - $400 Million
Now, consider the various economic social classes in America:
At the top are the super-rich, consisting of 0.9% of the population, earning multiple millions of dollars.
Below that are the rich, consisting of 5% of the population, earning $1 million or more.
Below that is the middle class, consisting of 46% of the population, earning - on average - $57,000.
Below that is the working class, consisting of 45% of the population, earning - on average - $40,000.
Below that are the poor, consisting of 12% of the population, earning - on average - $12,000.
At first glance, this disparity of economic representation is not a problem. Ideas such as social health care or housing for the homeless are not strictly formed based on money earned; however, representative disparity only becomes obvious when the economics of ideas are discussed. This representation becomes unfair when economic events threaten the livelihood of the wealthy while not threatening the lives of the economically average.
The current financial credit crisis has exposed a severe rift between the representatives of the people, and the majority of the population that they represent. Currently, a proposal is on the table to bail out failing companies - specifically, companies that took on bad debt during the Bush administration - by buying the bad debt. This is estimated to cost nearly $1 trillion - and possibly more depending on the economic reaction. Because of the immense cost of the bailout, the taxpayers may end up paying an additional $33,000 in taxes - money that comes from every economic class. This is problematic for two reasons:
This economic crisis directly affects only those with direct financial interests in these companies. This is, most of the time, limited to employees and share holders.
The majority of sub-wealthy Americans often hold little or no stake in these failing companies, or, in the unlikely event that they have an investment portfolio for retirement purposes, they are (or, according to economic and statistical law, should be) diversified enough to not be harmed by this significantly.
If the majority of taxpayers in this country are not going to be directly affected by the failure of companies that took bad advice from a political party, then there must be a very good national reason for the federal government to propose a financial bailout without considering the alternative of just letting these companies die.
Some pundits have suggested that there would be total economic chaos, while others suggest that there will be a significant economic downturn for an extended period of time if these companies were left to fail.
I propose a third, significantly different, option: the wealthy cannot have the financial sector live in turmoil for too long because it will have a significant negative financial impact on the political social class. In 2006, politicians had stocks and other investments in financial, insurance, and real estate companies to the tune of $1 BILLION dollars (http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=S&year=2006).
What exactly are they discussing now? The bailout of financial, insurance, and real estate companies.
We, the people, are going to be forced to pay for the bailout of companies that the political class had heavily invested in. We, the people, will pay for the debts of failing companies not because the failure of said companies would lead to an economic route, but because the political class has too much to lose from a fallout in the financial, insurance, and real estate sectors.
We, the majority, are being forced to pay additional money to bail out companies that politicians have a financial stake in. We are being forced to work and will see no benefits of this work.
This bailout is financial slavery.
The rest of the article is here (http://www.lordkat.com/american-financial-slavery.html).
I'm looking for feedback and opinions on my opinion piece as I feel this is a serious crime being committed against the majority of American citizens.
If you like it, you can Digg it here (http://digg.com/political_opinion/This_Economic_Bailout_is_Financial_Slavery)
It took me too long to realize this: there's no such thing as freedom. Not in America, not in Canada, not on planet Earth. As long as there are artificial social sub-classes that create and enforce laws, there can never be true freedom.
In the United States of America there exists a layer between enforcement of laws and the people: representatives. The original idea of a representative government is to have the consensus of the people represented in government. Unfortunately, our representatives have become an exclusive social sub-class of the economically well off.
Oh, you don't believe me? Well then, consider this: the net worth of the majority of representatives falls in the millions of dollars:
McCain - $40.4 Million
John Edwards - $54.7 Million
Hillary Clinton - $34.9 Million
Barack Obama - $1.3 Million
Ron Paul - $3 Million
The House - est. $5 Million average in 2006
The Senate - est. $11 Million average in 2006
This economic disparity also holds true at the state and local level:
Rudolph Giuliani - $52.2 Million
Mitt Romney - $202 Million
Fred Thoompson - $8.1 Million
Jane Harman - $400 Million
Now, consider the various economic social classes in America:
At the top are the super-rich, consisting of 0.9% of the population, earning multiple millions of dollars.
Below that are the rich, consisting of 5% of the population, earning $1 million or more.
Below that is the middle class, consisting of 46% of the population, earning - on average - $57,000.
Below that is the working class, consisting of 45% of the population, earning - on average - $40,000.
Below that are the poor, consisting of 12% of the population, earning - on average - $12,000.
At first glance, this disparity of economic representation is not a problem. Ideas such as social health care or housing for the homeless are not strictly formed based on money earned; however, representative disparity only becomes obvious when the economics of ideas are discussed. This representation becomes unfair when economic events threaten the livelihood of the wealthy while not threatening the lives of the economically average.
The current financial credit crisis has exposed a severe rift between the representatives of the people, and the majority of the population that they represent. Currently, a proposal is on the table to bail out failing companies - specifically, companies that took on bad debt during the Bush administration - by buying the bad debt. This is estimated to cost nearly $1 trillion - and possibly more depending on the economic reaction. Because of the immense cost of the bailout, the taxpayers may end up paying an additional $33,000 in taxes - money that comes from every economic class. This is problematic for two reasons:
This economic crisis directly affects only those with direct financial interests in these companies. This is, most of the time, limited to employees and share holders.
The majority of sub-wealthy Americans often hold little or no stake in these failing companies, or, in the unlikely event that they have an investment portfolio for retirement purposes, they are (or, according to economic and statistical law, should be) diversified enough to not be harmed by this significantly.
If the majority of taxpayers in this country are not going to be directly affected by the failure of companies that took bad advice from a political party, then there must be a very good national reason for the federal government to propose a financial bailout without considering the alternative of just letting these companies die.
Some pundits have suggested that there would be total economic chaos, while others suggest that there will be a significant economic downturn for an extended period of time if these companies were left to fail.
I propose a third, significantly different, option: the wealthy cannot have the financial sector live in turmoil for too long because it will have a significant negative financial impact on the political social class. In 2006, politicians had stocks and other investments in financial, insurance, and real estate companies to the tune of $1 BILLION dollars (http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=S&year=2006).
What exactly are they discussing now? The bailout of financial, insurance, and real estate companies.
We, the people, are going to be forced to pay for the bailout of companies that the political class had heavily invested in. We, the people, will pay for the debts of failing companies not because the failure of said companies would lead to an economic route, but because the political class has too much to lose from a fallout in the financial, insurance, and real estate sectors.
We, the majority, are being forced to pay additional money to bail out companies that politicians have a financial stake in. We are being forced to work and will see no benefits of this work.
This bailout is financial slavery.
The rest of the article is here (http://www.lordkat.com/american-financial-slavery.html).
I'm looking for feedback and opinions on my opinion piece as I feel this is a serious crime being committed against the majority of American citizens.
If you like it, you can Digg it here (http://digg.com/political_opinion/This_Economic_Bailout_is_Financial_Slavery)