Save American Jobs: Boycott Chase
JP Morgan Chase wants to push Chrysler into bankruptcy so it can jump the line ahead of retirees and US taxpayers to get paid back.
If JP Morgan Chase does that, 300,000 people will lose their jobs.
That’s sorry thanks we get from a company that has gotten $25 billion in TARP funds from American taxpayers–plus billions more in other benefits from the Wall Street bailout.
My husband and I decided the only way to pressure JP Morgan Chase to negotiate in good faith with Chrysler was to close our Chase accounts. We want our money to go to a bank that is investing in rebuilding Michigan–not bankrupting it.
Now, FDL and Progress Michigan are calling on others to join our Chase boycott.
Join the FaceBook group
Find your Michigan Chase branch and close your account
Explain why you’re closing your account
Update: Progressive radio host Nancy Skinner–who drives a Chrysler and lives in MI–is joining the boycott.
She’ll have Jane on her show today at 3PM to talk about the boycott. Listen in.
Good going!
Digg it!
Find any branch in any state and close your account.
Come on Ohio folks, join this too.
Done, EW, and thanks for giving me the opportunity.
Incidentally, every two weeks my MI unemployment check is drawn against a Chase account. Governor Jenny — care to comment?
We should have news on that front shortly.
The entire state should breath down her neck on that one as well as many other states…
Also posted at DailyKos. Kossacks, go forth and Rec the snot out of it!
Give ‘em hell EW !!!
linky not worky!
Chrysler is a dead man walking. This isn’t going to do anything at all. Sorry, but that’s the reality.
They said that back in the 1980s, too. Not only did Chrysler come out of it, they paid back all their loan money in full. That’s more than Chase will do.
ANd that means we should continue to support JPMChase when they’re refusing the President’s request to negotiate?
That means we should continue to invest our money with a bank that is putting 300,000 of our neighbors out of work?
Too bad the point went over your head.
I’ve already shut down my Chase accounts here in Arizona.
After 14 years of accounts and no late payments I was insulted when they cut two of my well earned credit limits way back, then put up inside the branch office a huge mission accomplished banner after their bailout, that said “WE HAVE ONE TRILLION DOLLARS IN CASH”.
Bank customers ‘willl never forget’ either.
Like Cheney the Dick, you’re flat wrong !
Care to explain why, or will this devolve into more blaming? Don’t blame me for being realistic. Chrysler’s doomed, let’s move on.
Go take your ‘Ferrari’ for a nice long drive …
And park it over the railroad tracks like that moron who called 911 did. ( be sure to stay in it)
There is a decent chance you are correct; that said, it in no way whatsoever undercuts the reason or strength for the action taken in this post and suggested that others join. If Chrysler is to go under, it should be by natural forces, and should be done in a slow, measured and orderly process; it should NOT be precipitated by a greedy predatory bank using US taxpayer funds to accomplish the goal. In short, even in the event you are correct, your rationale for blowing off the logic and movement sought to be started here is misplaced and poorly taken. Sending a message to Chase here is a good thing.
Chrysler may be “a dead man walking,” but Chase is still swaggering around and exploiting all of us. Wonderful to be able to sign this petition and register your bitter resentment of this travesty. Thanks, EW!
Now if only our Congresscritters cared enough to DO something about this!
You may be right. I just read somewhere that Chrysler is coming out with a new SUV. WTF?
Chrysler’s coming out with an electric car that — unlike the Toyota Prius — will have a battery made by A123, an American battery maker.
A123 was passed over by GM for the Volt as well. Sounds like they’ve got it together now.
How about Chase credit cards too?
If anyone feels like contacting the Michigan governor regarding those unemployment Chase debit cards (you know – the ones where they charge FEES to your unemployment for things like checking your balance on the debit card) –
Governor Jennifer M. Granholm
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, Michigan 48909
PHONE: (517) 373-3400
PHONE: (517) 335-7858 – Constituent Services
FAX:(517) 335-6863
It is an outrage that the people that will be put out of work will get a cash card that charges fees that go to Chase. Instead of “Thanks a billion”, it’s like Chase is saying to the people of Michigan and President Obama “I’ll give you something to cry about”.
RoyalOak, thanks for the contact information below:
Governor Jennifer M. Granholm
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, Michigan 48909
PHONE: (517) 373-3400
PHONE: (517) 335-7858 – Constituent Services
FAX:(517) 335-6863
Almost makes me wish I had a Chase account to close.
Me too … Canada is Chase-free.
ew –
got two MI homeboyz(my bosses)and a co worker to switch to a regional bank
thanks !
Nicely Done ! I hope this goes viral.
(((cbl2))) You are awesome. Yup. Awesome.
Closing my credit card account w/ them. Thanks MTW!
Just to let you know, Chase will be crying losses from their credit card business due to the increase in unemployment. Get that? They are crying the blues when they could be preventing more loss. But see, crying about credit card losses was to make you feel like it is okay for them to profit off of unemployment through their EBT’s business to state and Federal agencies.
Morons. We’re not crying.
Who in the world is their PR director? What kind of CEO let’s a release like this go out? Really!?! Really!
Boy, SNL could have a great deal of fun with this.
That news release just countered their argument for bankruptcy for Chrysler. They just said they should help Chrysler by putting that release out because helping Chrysler will help themselves with reducing unemployment nationally; thus reducing their losses in their credit card business. It’s positive sum folks! And they made the argument without realizing it.
I would like to know who UAW banks with – just to be sure. I do not want any egg on our faces here, s’all.
They plan to open 120 branches this year. You have to wonder how smaller independent community banks feel watching the competition’s branches come in, funded by their own taxes and yours. Atlanta is one place they are going.
http://www.ajc.com/services/co…..e0408.html
Beat me to it! I was just going to post that with my other link to make the point, “Yeah, we’re crying the blues about credit card losses due to high unemployment rates but we can still afford to open lots of new branches. Thanks to your tax dollars and the fees we collect off the unemployed.”
Probably the same way my friends who ran a stationary shop felt when Kinko’s came to town.
Tune in to hear Jane on Nancy Skinner’s show at 3:00 ET today to talk about this. If you don’t have a local affiliate, you can listen live at http://www.nancyskinnerlive.com.
The banks are treating citizens like livestock to slaughter and feed off of.
All of ‘em are doing this, since Obama ratcheted up Bush’s TARP plan, they own US.
Spoke to Granholm’s office – they claim they can’t drop the Chase unemployment cards due to the contractual obligation. However, when the contract ends they will consider this matter when they look at renewal.
Two-part video of Byron Dorgen’s speech to the Senate opposing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 is up at dailykos, for those who haven’t seen it before:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..-BlileyWOW
i love the idea of boycotting chase – but what gives with the appeals to economic nationalism in the title? the banksters are screwing ordinary people all over the world, not just here. if there’s an “us against them” and i believe there is, it’s ordinary people vs the banksters. not americans vs non-americans.
One step at a time. We all agree with you; however, Chryler’s on the clock.
economic nationalism is a step we don’t have to take.
The pushback has to start somewhere. It could gather steam and cause similar actions in other countries, which would make Bank Execs change their policies that Politicians have apparently not been able to force.
you misunderstand. i v strongly support the boycott, it’s only the appeal to economic nationalism in the title i’m objecting to.
1) it’s unnecessary. (for example, as easy as, “save jobs: boycott chase”)
2) i’ve done a very little bit of cross boarder organizing and this kind of language makes me cringe. i think you are canadian? maybe you “hear” it differently? but i’m quite sure that the people i’ve worked with would hear it as another example of american entitlement (only american jobs matter).
3) solidarity is a progressive value.
We have had this discussion before and I have told you that I agree with your global perspective. Again, please suggest another way to save some jobs in the short term in order to phase in job growth in other sectors while preventing a domino effect in this terrible economy. We tumble our economy to the ground, your global concern becomes moot.
i’m not suggesting anything other than the “american” in the title is unnecessary. why does it require “another way” to save jobs when i have said all along that i support the boycott. it’s only one word i’m objecting to.
Please see the link at 54. Fingers crossed that this will help.
That step was already taken when the financial companies took taxpayer dollars to shore up their operating costs.
They have a responsibility to their shareholders.
Also, why are you assuming everyone loses their jobs when a company goes into bankruptcy???
Once they became too big to fail — took bailout money — their responsibility to shareholders becomes secondary to their responsibility to the public.
Maybe we should all move our accounts from the Big stupid banks to smaller local banks and credit unions.
love it. great idea. something for those of us without chase accounts to do.
I bank with Hells Fargo. There was a time in my life when I have a fair amount of money in Hells. They fell all over themselves to keep me happy. Their tune has changed. They have made several mistakes in my accounts recently and it takes days for them to fix it but seconds to pull my money out of my accounts. $70 for an overdraft. We aren’t just wage slaves in this economy but bank serfs.
LOL. love your renaming of your bank. i’ve also had trouble with my credit union (!) recently (changing things, making me have to sign up to have my contact info given to third parties for marketing in order to continue to use online bill payer functions, weird stuff like that). after 24 years, there seems to have recently been some big changes. in my case, i don’t really know what to do about it – unless i can find another credit union or small bank.
Yes, I did that a few months ago. Closed my B of A accounts and opened two at local banks.
Odd that I’m not finding any hidden fees with the smaller, local banks, isn’t it?
I don’t suppose you realize the impact of boycotting Chase, do you? I mean, if everyone stopped using Chase’s services, over 170,000 people would be out of work.
I realize Chase is half the size of Chrysler, but c’mon…at least admit you are boycotting them out of spite as opposed to taking a real stance against unemployment.
Then perhaps the employees of Chase should realize they have jobs because of tax payers and should, as a group of employees, urge the company to restructure Chrysler’s debt.
You’ll get no argument from me there. However, it is misleading to say Chase employees have jobs because of taxpayers…especially when Chrysler is in the same situation. It seems you are playing economic favorites.
If your true goal is to save jobs I suggest re-examining your premises. Saving one company instead of another – in this case, Chrysler over Chase – contradicts the tenets of the “market” system we are supposed to have in this country.
What a laughable equation you make; perhaps you should consider researching the difference between principle and spite.
Or are you just “being sarcastic”.
No, no sarcasm intended. A principle shouldn’t contradict itself, that’s all I’m saying.
Spite, on the other hand, is irrational. Which is a word I’d use to describe your stance on this issue. If preservation of employment was truly your goal here, you wouldn’t advocate an action that (when taken to its end) achieves the exact opposite of what you intended!
The difference is that the Chase boycott is not designed to drive Chase out of business, quite the contrary, it is designed to correct negative behavior and make a better financial corporate citizen out of them. In contrast, what Chase is doing to Chrysler is absolutely designed to drive Chrysler directly to liquidation, and the motivation is not only the surface greed that has been laid out in the posts on this topic, but almost certainly a hidden agenda of derivative casino bets below the surface. Thus why I said the equation of the two situations is both wrong and laughable.
Ditto.
(Would love to have done that “ditto” in all caps, bold faced, underlined and italicized, but that would be rude.)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Chrysler have the ability to seek financing, etc. from another company aside from Chase?
Bankruptcy is not the end of the world for a company, either. It allows for the re-allocation of assets to more productive avenues. Sometimes that means people will be laid off, sometimes not. A better understanding of bankruptcy proceedings would help temper your anger.
Can you elaborate further on this “hidden agenda” of “derivative casino bets” please? I’m interested.
Let’s look at a Chrysler bankruptcy from a viewpoint other than that of the corporation. A bankruptcy could allow the override of all existing contracts – with suppliers, cleaners, food services, and the UAW. This could result in lower wages, huge loss of benefits for the retirees. This could result in plant closings, affecting the suppliers and the workers and all the little barber shops/restaurants/gas stations that rely on the plants’ workers for their income. I’ve had 35 years of corporate bankruptcy experiences and you have no idea the can of worms that can be opened.
Chase holds significant Chrysler debt, this is not a matter of Chrysler looking for money.
No question the residual effects of Chrysler going under will spell trouble for a lot of people and associated businesses. I don’t deny that, not for a second.
But to commit taxpayer dollars in an effort to “fix” this problem only delays the inevitable collapse. In fact, it makes the collapse worse by ensuring all taxpayers feel the pain…as opposed to the workers in the industries that support Chrysler. I don’t know about you, but given the choice I’d rather confront this tragedy head-on (look for another job) rather than rely on “society” to provide for my well-being.
Huh. Do you mean to suggest that society doesn’t already provide for your well being? Really? Were you delivered by a doctor or by wolves? Did you go to school or learn English while confined in solitude on an island? Do you grow your own food? Make your own clothes from fibers you have produced yourself? Did you manufacture your means of conveyance (whether bicycle, car, bus, or train)? Did you design and manufacture the device you are using at this moment to communicate?
You can’t possibly suggest that society doesn’t provide for your well-being. You may not like other people and you might imagine that you are capable of surviving without the support of another human to aid you, but you would be wrong. Humans are social animals as much out of necessity as anything else. Your well-being critically depends on your place within our society. The least you could do is be more gracious in accepting that fact and thankful to those who support your lifestyle every single day.
an “amen!” from the chorus.
Ummm, I take it you don’t follow the news, because you appear to be unaware that Chase is at zero risk of failure due to your tax dollars and mine. Therefore, we can boycott to focus their attention on becoming better corporate citizens without truly jeopardizing those 170,000 jobs that are keeping you awake at night with worry. And the best part is, we may yet save 300,000 jobs! See it’s a win-win situation.
*tsk* *tsk* … phred, facts never matter to bridge dwellers …
Ahhh yes, the ad hominem…whatever you do, don’t refute my statements with facts, theory, or research – it’s so much easier to just call me names isn’t it?
Mirror, mirror on the wall … it is you who are blinded to facts but enjoy your last few responses
That is a somewhat fair complaint folks. Agree or disagree, our new friend has begun to engage on the merits, at least to some degree. Let us not be that which we loathe.
Thanks, bmaz – my thoughts as well
Oh I follow the news. And I’m certainly no friend of Chase or Chrysler. It’s important to remember that propping up any industry with taxpayer dollars is foolish…and it contradicts the principles of our supposedly “market based” economy. Mussolini had a term for public/private mergers; we all know how that turned out.
Personally, I’d rather no taxpayer dollars were re-distributed to companies with failed business models. What you term as a win/win situation above is actually a lose/lose situation – instead of having one company at the public trough requesting taxpayer bailouts…we’ll now have two. That makes no sense to me.
You’re a stitch. What principles of our “market based” economy are you referring to? Your term in quotes is usually prefaced by the word “free”, at which point that hypothetical system departs from reality entirely. You may wish we had a free market system, but we don’t. We have a hopelessly unfree, unfair, corrupt economy with rules literally written by the highest bidders in the Washington market. If you think that your imaginary ideals are even remotely related to the current state of our economic affairs, then I reiterate that you haven’t been keeping up with current events.
The best we can do is try to contain the damage within the system we have until we can fix the mess we are in. To that end, I will happily prop up manufacturing and the rest of the real economy while we work to that end.
Yes! That’s the reason I didn’t use the word “free” before market in my previous comments. I’m under no delusions – I completely understand America does not have a free market, not even close. Further, I understand America’s economy is some strange hybrid of crony capitalism, special favors, and legislation-through-buyout.
By definition, what we have in America today is fascism. An ugly, corrupt, and unworkable form of fascism that is supported by both sides of the political spectrum.
I disagree with propping up industries in the hopes that they will somehow find themselves on proper footing again. Lessons are learned through failure. Tough lessons, sure, but valuable lessons nonetheless. That said, I have no problem if you want to donate your money to Chrysler, Chase, or whatever industry you deem worthy….but committing taxpayer dollars to the same only invites more of the crony capitalist practices we both deplore.
Well, at least we are both interested in trying to solve the same problem. We simply have different views on the best approach to that solution.
The problem at this moment as I see it is one of grotesque unfairness. Chase should not be able to put Chrylser into a crippled position by virtue of having received a tax-funded bailout to save itself. If tax payers are on the hook for bailouts, then we need to be prepared to treat all comers equitably, which has simply not been the case to date.
I understand your point that Chase should not have been bailed out (I agree, I would have much preferred an FDIC-like catch and release program), but now that they have been, in the interest of fairness, it’s simply wrong to let Chase force a bankruptcy where it might otherwise be averted.
By the way, Chrysler has been here before. Remember Lee Iacocca? I don’t see the demise of Chrysler as inevitable as you do.
Oh, dear. I really can’t let that go by. Corporatism and social democracy are nowhere near the same thing, which is definitely what that overgeneralization implies. The choice between the two does seem the brink we’re all on, though.
Economically speaking, the only distinct difference I can see between the ideologies is the treatment of private property rights. The ideologies may differ in their campaign rhetoric, but both promote an oppressive, massive welfare/warfare state – what fascists would term “syndicates” a social democrat would term “a mixed economy”
Both advocate large amounts of control of citizens by government.
Quite a few concern trolls here today.
Treasury opened $5B finance support “to help auto suppliers keep parts flowing to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC . . ..”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200….._bailout_5
Maybe we can also start demanding that people who work for the banks and make very little get paid more. We can support the tellers, etc. while demanding accountability from the corporatists.
I hope you are being sarcastic…
That’s hoping for a lot !
Marcy’s post is currently #5 at DKos …get over there and recommend it !
it’s a lot more complicated than that. the taxpayer dollars are taxes that have yet to be paid. it’s debt we will have to pay, but right now it’s being paid at least in part by people who are in effect making loans to us. here’s something that george soros recently wrote:
in some ways, the money that our gov is giving to the banksters is being lent to us by people who have even less. we just don’t live in a close economic system.
Jane’s up —>
Want to Join Marcy and Me to Protest Banks on Saturday, April 11?
but wouldn’t the other banks and credit unions have to hire more help for the increase in their business?
Um, Chrysler is not holding economic threats over another company’s head. Chrysler will not turn around and benefit from holding another company hostage financially because of of gross conflict of interest.
So yes, I’ll agree in this case, I am playing economic favorites.
The fact remains that Chase, which has received far more government dollars, has the power to restructure Chrysler’s loan. They do not want to. Chrysler is not holding anything over the heads of Chase employees.
Wow, thank goodness an intelligent life form has appeared to show us the error of our ways !
FOTFL!!
i 2nd bmaz comments # 40 post..
Perhaps Ferrariman will do us all a favor and pull “Thelma and Louise” with his Idealic FOREIGN car, Don’t get me wrong I love Ferraris>…
???
Does it help or hurt that I want a Ford Mustang? Last I checked, it’s made in Michigan, unlike the Camaro or Challenger, both are which made in Canada.
… although the Mini Cooper S looks nice…
I think you missed the point of my comment, Phred. If I failed to communicate it properly I apologize.
What I was trying to say was, I don’t want society to be coerced into providing for my well-being. Those who advocate for the usage of taxpayer dollars to prop up various industries are doing precisely that: taking from one group and giving to another. The residual effects of such a practice are well-known, and the inevitable result is the strengthening of the same flawed system we have today.
I’m sorry if that was unclear in my previous comment.
Fair enough. I misunderstand things all the time. We’ll chalk it up to a poor choice of words ; )
All the same, I beg to differ with your central point. I would argue that taxes are the primary mechanism for how society makes its choices. Where you see coercion, I see the disparate interests of members of a society making choices of what they value. No matter how they are assessed or who the recipient is, taxes pretty much by definition are a transfer of money from the members of the society as a whole to a recipient that that society chooses to support. So unless you are prepared to do away with taxes and government entirely, I fail to see how you get around the problem of “coercion” as you see it.
Now, I would not take the position that our system of taxation and representation is working properly, clearly it is not. But that’s a separate argument from the one you seem to be making.
As I see it, so long as taxpayers are involved in the equation, things will never be fair, just, or any other adjective government likes to use to justify the re-distribution of funds.
Private business, if allowed to operate free from government control AND the promise of taxpayer bailouts, has proven itself to be a sound mechanism to provide goods and services to the masses. For example, everyone in America that wants a pair of shoes or a necktie can obtain them. Thanks to the market, everyone who desires a PC can obtain one.
Conversely, government introduces a moral hazard when it involves itself in the affairs of private business. Where CEOs were once concerned with satisfying the most consumers they are now forced to comply with a host of government regulations and requirements that had not existed before. The market becomes perverted. Lobbyists emerge, funds originally intended for research and development are instead diverted into political campaigns, etc. In short, government interference distorts natural market forces, and the result is a greater inconvenience – not to mention higher prices – for all citizens.
(I realize I’m generalizing a lot, but that’s my viewpoint in a nutshell)
The underlying assumption you are working with here is that the private business model suits all societal needs. That is demonstrably not the case.
Consider things like shipping and roads. To get your products from point a to point b efficiently you will need to count on access to dependable roads. What private interests will foot the bill, unless you think all roads need to become toll roads. How about the power you need in the plants for manufacturing — do you really want unregulated power systems? Those rolling blackouts in CA orchestrated by Enron weren’t very helpful to all the private enterprises that found themselves suddenly without power.
Lets say your house catches on fire. Do you want private businesses responsible for providing assistance? How much are you willing to pay? Lets say your neighbor’s house catches on fire, but can’t afford to pay the private fire contractor, are you willing to pay to put out the fire at his house in order to save your own?
How about someone breaks into your house? Do you want to pay for a private police force and go into a private court system?
I could go on, but I’m sure you get my drift. So my question is this… If there are public services that you depend on and are willing to pay for, then how does the broader society decide what services they want? I’ll admit there are government programs that my tax dollars go toward that I consider reprehensible and loathsome, others that are simply a waste. But that’s the price of living in a diverse society. There are people who ardently support things I hate, while there are things I ardently support that others hate. So collectively we all find ourselves paying for things we disapprove of as compromises to get the things we do want.
I don’t see how you get around that fundamental problem. And I sure as hell don’t want to live in a fully privatized society. It’s bad enough having to put up with lousy plowing every winter since we privatized snow plowing. But, if it came to really important things like the fire department, the schools, or the courts, that’s got disaster written all over it.
Dude or dudette, I live in Oakland and this is about as whacked an understanding of America on the ground as I have ever, ever seen. Howard Rourke might be a zippy fictional character, but as far as philosophy goes “A is A” is just a tautology.
Wait, you telling me that Billy Beane can’t run his formulas to make everything perfect their by the Bay?
Billy wha? Billy Martin? (Onlookers ohh and ahhhh as bmaz’ sports reference sails high, high over Hmmm’s sportsoallergenic head.)
I am not a fan of chase,but their hard line with a company that is not viable by itself will force the Fiat merger,takeover. Really only option besides more of our cash. Also no money for current horible owners.
johng
The boycott Morgan movement gains momentum, from an unexpected corner.
Apparently, Alabama got sold some options on swaps (”Swaptions”, they call them) in a deal involving our friends at the House of Morgan.
Tyler Durden reports that, rather than pay Morgan, Alabama has filed a declaratory judgment action on whether the swaption contract was legal under Alabama law.
I’m not sure whether this is a case of Alabama as blind squirrel, or the start of something worthwhile, but I’m happy to welcome them aboard the Stiff Morgan train. Plenty of room.
Those are all legitimate concerns, and certainly issues I struggled with for a long time before reaching the conclusion that government is inferior to the private sector when providing goods and services to the masses.
Full disclosure: I wholeheartedly support the privitization of roads, shipping, defense, police, firefighting, schools, etc. People often forget that, prior to the 1900’s, the bulk of these services were provided by the private sector. Our first roads – both wagon and rail – were provided by private companies. When poor companies failed, more efficient companies picked up the pace.
The key to understanding the difference between a government-centered society and a private-centered society lies in the concept of consumer sovereignity. In a government-centered society, my money is taken from me and put to use to satisfy a bureaucrat’s pet project. It doesn’t matter whether or not I voted for this person, my money is taken away regardless. Every cent that was put towards that bureaucrat’s pet project is one penny less that I can devote to my own needs – be it shoes, neckties, computers, whatever. The only way to “voice” my disapproval with government’s actions is to cast a (meaningless) ballot every two, four, or six years. Not exactly an efficient feedback loop if you ask me!
On the other hand, in a free market I vote every day with my wallet. If I prefer The North Face to Adidas, I am free to make that decision. My money supports The North Face, and North Face continues to produce products they believe I will enjoy and continue to consume. The pricing system in the market is the most efficient way to provide feedback to those providing goods and services.
The same principle applies to roads, shipping, defense, police, health care, etc. but admittedly it takes a bit more time to explain (for a brilliant analysis of these issues, see here.)
Whereas a government survives and expands based on conflict amongst its citizens, a private-centered society encourages cooperation and peace. Competing companies mean lower prices for consumers, even in the realm of security and fire. Insurance companies would compete for valuable consumer dollars, forever seeking competitive advantage in terms of better service and lower prices. The opposite is true of government-run enterprises: do you want the same government who handled the response to Katrina to be in charge of your medical care? I sure don’t!
Will a private-centered society be better? I don’t know. It will be different, and I think we can agree that the present system needs to be fixed. I look at it this way: if the private-centered society fails we can always revert to more (shudder) government control.
You seem fixated on retail… So in your private nirvana, how do you prevent abuses such as company scrip instead of federal dollars? How do you prevent monopolies that crush competition and stifle innovation? How do you prevent unsafe workplaces or abusive treatment of workers? None of those things were fixed by private enterprise. The government had to step in.
Nor do you contemplate how to deal with long term investments. Do you intend to do away with Wall Street’s slavish devotion to quarterly statements? How do you promote responsible fishing and agriculture? How does private enterprise sustain long term R&D unless there is an immediate profit to be made? In my view, it can’t. Private enterprise could not have run the Apollo program, nor could it maintain our extraordinary level of support for medical research, or technological innovation. The profits that can be gained from those endeavors only appear after years of work that our society thus far is willing to support.
And I also note, you didn’t address my point about courts.
To answer yours about Katrina and medical care… No I do not want a government run by people who despise government and seek to destroy it to be the ones sent to help me out of a natural disaster. However, I would prefer the government that helped out my elderly parents via Medicare and other beneficial programs to provide my healthcare rather than a private company that rescinds my coverage as soon as I make a claim.
So yeah, I’m all in favor of government programs that are run by people who believe in the ability of government to address societal needs and delivered by civil servants motivated by notions of public service.
I am not in favor however, of ever again electing Adam Smith devotees who think public service is all about the personal gain that can be achieved by bellying up to the public trough. No. Those folks didn’t work out too well.
We’ve never had Adam Smith devotees in government. To suggest we’ve had them is a contradiction because the free market has no need for a governing body.
The only monopolies that exist/have ever existed can be traced directly to the government. While it is not difficult to name government-run monopolies today (post office, military, roads, etc.) you have to do a bit of digging before you uncover the real motivation behind anti-trust legislation. Why did the big trusts support anti-trust legislation? Because anti-trust legislation was/used as a bludgeon to beat over the heads of small businesses…preventing free and open competition in the market. Indeed, some of the most anti-market people in existence are big corporate CEOs who are hell-bent on preventing any form of competition from threatening their bottom line. Government is all to happy to serve as an intermediary in this situation – signing the bills, regulating the economy, and spinning themselves as benevolent overseer of the whole operation.
To answer your question about workplace abuses, who would want to work in an unsafe environment? Would you take a job that you deemed to be too dangerous? Of course not. One company’s failure to provide adequate safety for its workers becomes another company’s competitive advantage. No government oversight is necessary. People are smarter than you think!
Re: courts. I support private courts. Insurance companies could use arbitration to settle disputes; no legal licenses required, no state-appointed judges tilting the table in favor of the state they serve. Part of selecting your insurance agency would involve weighing the quality of that insurance company’s dispute resolution body. Companies providing inadequate percentages of court victories would go bankrupt; successful companies would thrive and expand. There’s no comparable “check” in today’s system – in fact, every incentive exists to fail…for in failure the state always expands.
Free markets are far from perfect, I’ll readily admit that. Losses, bankruptcies, etc. are just as much a part of the free market as profits. Government programs are fundamentally flawed because they do NOT allow people to choose what’s best for themselves. Conversely, the free market thrives on individual choice…without force or fraud.
Sorry, one more thing: I like the idea of competing currencies and/or the elimination of the federal reserve note. With respect to your comment on how I would prevent such abuses, the answer is that fraud/abuse/violations of person and/or property are criminal acts….not capitalistic acts. They will be punished in (ideally) private courts.
I’ve got to scoot. Clearly we disagree, but I’ve enjoyed the conversation. Thanks : )
Me too – thanks for helping me pass the time!
Hopefully we can do this again soon…take care.
Have you even heard of the Marianas Islands? Holy crow, I’ve never seen a libertarian with such a polly-annish view of the world.
Some people behave badly. Some companies behave worse.
Governments should maintain a level playing field, but they don’t always. I get that. But free enterprise isn’t going to solve the problem either. And all things being equal, I prefer having an admittedly weak voice in an imperfect democracy, than none at all in your private wonderland.
You seem to think jobs grow on trees and that companies don’t collude. You think anyone who wants a decent well paying job can get one. You think price fixing has never happened, much less slavery or indentured servitude. In a society with no safety net, desperate people resort to desperate measures and that’s not good for any of us.
Private courts may be corrupted and if you think you can sell the notion of honest insurance company arbiters in these days of AIG and United Health, I’ve got bridge to sell you.
Free markets are illusory. Every system can be gamed. The idea of government ought to be to keep the rules fair and the public safe. At the moment our government is failing on both counts, but I’ve got greater faith in the political process than in the selfish motivation of those who want to keep all their gold for themselves so they can buy the niftiest jacket on the rack.
“I prefer having an admittedly weak voice in an imperfect democracy, than none at all in your private wonderland.”
Thing is, in a private world, your voice is many, many magnitudes louder than it is in a democracy. That was the whole point of my “vote every four years” versus “instant feedback in the market” comment. Democracies are worthless precisely because the agenda moves forward regardless of what people think. For an example of this, consider what Congress did after over 90% of the people were supposedly opposed to the first bail out. That’s democracy, in a nutshell.
I never said the free market was perfect. There will be failures, there will be unemployment. Those things are inevitable for two reasons:
1. Man is not perfect; he (and she) will make mistakes. Many of them! and
2. Not everyone wants to work
My belief is that the free market provides choice, and choice breeds empowerment. Empowerment enables people to take control of their own lives…free from mandatory regulation and oversight from an oppressive body like the federal government. The same cannot possibly be said about government, where obscene levels of taxation, regulation, and nanny-state laws govern everything you do.
I agree with you here, though: price fixing has happened before, and it will happen again…and soon. Who fixes prices, though? Government. See the 1970’s, for example. Or how about minimum wage laws? How about Union jobs? All are forms of explicit (1970’s) or implicit (Unions) forms of price fixing. Price fixing – and the driving forces behind them – ensure more unemployment…a reality that (sadly) we will inevitably continue to see expand in the coming months.
Sadly, all I can do is sign the petition. My money’s in one of the other evil banks. I’m sure the threat of no future business from me will focus their attention.
Signed the petition, and just sent this to Chase:
Please be advised I will be paying off and canceling my Visa card if JP Morgan Chase forces Chrysler into bankruptcy, by denying it the necessary restructuring of debt to complete its merger with Fiat.
Please advise me of the Company’s intentions in this matter, as soon as determined.
This one I hate to have to do, as it is/soon-to-be-was my airline mileage earning card with United. Perhaps United should hear from us, as well? How many other corporations have their affinity cards with Chase?
I like your spirit. Be advised, however, that closing a CC account can hurt your credit rating. But that’s OK, because the hit to Chase is all in losing the balance anyway, because that’s what generates the interest and the opportunity to charge add-on fees. So I think no harm to leaving the account open with zero balance, if you need to keep your best credit scores. As I think a lot of people do these days.