Excellent!

And the Edwards quote: "Decades of public investments and policy manipulation by the World Bank, the IMF, and the US government have deliberately created an environment where the exploitation of workers is.." has much broader applicability.

It applies to just about anyplace The Three Amigos (IMF, World Bank, government-backed US businesses) have inserted themselves, and especially in South America. In every case, the net outflow of cash and resources has become greater than the inflow, and the countries get poorer and poorer.

But the spin machine goes on and on ...

Dude, you really are socialist! The quote from Dissident Voice sounds like the John Candy lines from Volunteers after he was brainwashed: "masses must confront their oligarchs" "US behemoth" "the Leviathan" "global government of the corporations" "the future of humanity as we know it" "our comrades"

Did someone miss the last 50 years or so? Socialism doesn't work, it's discredited, it's anti-democratic, it's dictatorial, it's anti-progress, it's contrary to human nature. Yes, we have an example right in our own backyard: Cuba, which sports the dual gifts of being the poorest AND most repressive country in the Western Hemisphere. I guess the dream dies hard.

I didn't see any rants advocating socialism.

If you read the original post and drop out the emotive words and the biases in the quoted materials, there are still a lot of facts left that could be addressed.

Cuba has been under siege for fifty years, and yet its health care system is admired throughout the Third World. Cuban mortality rates compare very favorably to countries in Latin America that receive generous amounts of U.S. aid.

A quarter of American children live in poverty, an absolutely unacceptable rate in a society that is much wealthier than say, Canada, which does not have any where near this rate.

To me, this proves that American-style capitalism is a failure.

I guess my real point is that this is a severe conflcit of values and assumptions: if you assume corporations are bad, that the US government (ane particularly THIS government) is bad, that capitalism is bad, globalization is bad, and socialism is good, you are going to have a vastly different view of the world, and it's very hard to argue with that other than to say "I don't see it that way at all."

"if you assume corporations are bad, that the US government (ane particularly THIS government) is bad, that capitalism is bad, globalization is bad, and socialism is good"

Who assumes that? It's U.S.-style capitalism that's a failure, not "capitalism" per se.

Although the U.S. government is indeed quite foul. It is in fact completely without legitimacy, undemocratically elected and a threat to its own people.

The last time this country faced such a threat was just before the Revolutionary War.

mike, that perspective is rather extreme and I just don't see it that way. I think perhaps there have been a few periods in the 230 years since that may qualify as more "threatening": the Civil War, the two world wars, the Vietnam War, and Watergate come immediately to mind.

By more threatening, I mean a scenario in which the U.S. government was more threatening TO ITS OWN PEOPLE. In the Civil War and WWII, the U.S. was protecting its own people. In Vietnam, it was a threat to the Vietnamize people. Watergate was just a break-in.

Fully 25-30% of the American people, according to polls, do not believe that the Bush Administration is a legitimately elected regime. Sentimen that widespread hasn't been seen--since the Revolutionary War.

Eric said, "Socialism doesn't work, it's discredited, it's anti-democratic, it's dictatorial, it's anti-progress, it's contrary to human nature."

Eric, corporate dominance doesn't work, it's discredited, it's anti-democratic, it's dictatorial, it's anti-progress, it's contrary to human nature.

I don't think I necessarily implied anything about socialism, anyway. I was mainly commenting on the systems of government that the US spreads throughout the world. We say, "democracy," but we actually export something quite different. I believe that our government does not like to deal with true democracies--they are too independent and unpredictable. Look at how pissed Bush and Rumsfeld were by Turkey and their hesitation to support the war in Iraq. The US would much rather deal with corrupt, undemocratic governments (dictatorships, monarchies, etc.). We prefer to deal with the Saudi Royal Family than deal with a Saudi Arabia that was a true democracy. If the people of Saudi Arabia really had a say in how their resources were allocated, US oil companies would not so easily rip them off. Our corporations are making huge profits off of some of the worst governments in the world, and they like it that way. Have true democracy in China, Burma, and Indonesia, and see if the people there tolerate the crappy money our corporations are paying them to manufacture our stuff. The trouble with some of these governments is that they sometimes do things that draw too much ire from the conscientious people of the world and of the US, or they just make things difficult for our corporations. So, Saddam kills Kurds and the corporate US can handle that, but when Saddam defies OPEC and tries to bully around a country of his own, then we deal with him. These are the workings of the Iron Triangle. War profiteering is rampant. We get control of oil. We destroy and reconstruct, niftily diverting more money from the taxpayers to corporate pockets. We get to make ourselves look good by pointing out these dictators' evils. Errant democracies can be a lot more difficult to deal with and do away with. But it must be worth the effort. Corporate US can have the errant dictators/leaders assassinated, deposed, kidnapped--just as we attempt to do with democratically elected leaders such as Chavez or Lula who don't bow down to our corporations.

Our own democracy is in jeopardy as Neocons and over-ambitious Republicans are taking politics to a new level. Sean Wilentz, Dayton-Stockton Professor of History at Princeton, lays out well the problems within our own democracy in Democracy in America, 2003(Watch out, this article is from Dissent Magazine). The way he puts the following political events together, I wonder if we even live in a democracy anymore: The Clinton Impeachment, 1998-1999; Florida, 2000; The Iraq War and Disinformation, 2002-2003; 2002 Elections; Redistricting in Colorado and Texas, 2003; and Recall in California, 2003. Read his descriptions of what occurred in each case. Deliberate actions were taken by a lot of people to circumvent democracy.

Back to the comment about socialism, it is too general a term to throw around. Our system of highways is socialist in its creation and maintenance. I like it. I like the idea of public schools and nationalized health care, too. But there are certainly things that I don't like about some of the socialist systems that I have seen in the world. I have a point to make: I think that our corporate-dominated government presents us with everything that we did not like about the USSR. Most of the negatives that I learned about the USSR as a kid stemmed from central control. Our corporatocracy is central control. They dictate everything. Our culture is disappearing and being cloned as Max and Erma's, Damon's, Friday's, Applebees, Chili's and other indistinct chains suffocate and crush independent restaurants (what the hell is the difference between the five restaurants that I just mentioned? They are all starting to taste the same to me. The Matrix? Chicken?). Consider the decorations in these restaurants. From where do they come? There are plaques and memorabilia strewn across the walls, but I am losing touch with their origins and their meaning in our culture. It's like some Hal 2001: A Space Odyssey computer decided what our culture should be and splattered it all over the walls of the corporate restaurants. Starbucks?

What about stores? I can see Hal (the computer, not Pawluk) manufacturing our culture at Walmart, too. Walmart drives small, unique stores out of business (so does the Target/Mervyns/Marshal Fields conglomerate). Go to a high school and look at what the kids are wearing. They are becoming corporate clones. Kids are wearing Abercrombie shirts with odd dates or slogans on them, and they have no idea what they mean--nor do I. Culture?

Consider this excerpt from a previous blog in which I compared The USSR and Our Corporate-Dominated America:

Has the corporatocracy transformed the US into the new Soviet Union? I remember fragments of my elementary school education from the late 1970's and early 1980's that stressed how bad the Soviet Union was and how great the democratic, capitalist United States of America was. Here is a string of what I remember was bad about the USSR: everyone was poor and unhappy; jobs were hard to come by; one had to work the job that one was told to work; there was no variety; drab, boring clothes; everybody drove the same style of car; neighborhoods all looked the same; apartment buildings all looked the same; there was a single censoring source as a news and media organization; one had to stand in line all the time, sometimes for hours and hours; if one said the wrong thing, then one got in big trouble--or one might even disappear (vaporized); spies were everywhere (like the East German Stasi); central planning; propaganda and misinformation; no free will; etc.

Isn’t this America today under the momentous roll of corporatization and conglomeration? To be sure, the above listed traits are broad and open--maybe every government in the history of the world exhibited some degree of each of them. But I remember being taught that these things were undesirable and evil and against everything that is natural and humane. Yet we see it all around.

On my last (oh, and I guess only) trip to Denver about seven years ago, I felt revulsion as I looked at the suburb of Aurora. Every mile-block seemed exactly the same. Every corner seemed to have the same strip mall. And thousands and thousands of people streamed by in their isolating automobiles (pods in The Matrix). I had a similar feeling when I was just out of high school working as a delivery driver. I found out that Westland, Novi, Northville, Wayne, Romulus, Canton (all Detroit suburbs) and many other exact-same places existed beyond the borders of Ann Arbor. It shocked me that there were so many people living in cloned environments.

Shark is bowing prostrate on the floor in honor of Dirtgrain's rant; sound of printer hums in the background; he regains breath after extreme bout of joyful/angry hyperventilation before exclaiming:

THE MAN'S GOTTA POINT.

(Shark get up, dials travel agent, and checks availability of one-way tickets to the moon)

Sometimes Eric surprises me. Like hello? Of course there are socialists. Several other people who post at BC are as 'socialistic' as Dirtgrain. I'm surprised he hasn't noticed before. I will let people say for themselves because I don't like to put words in their mouths. And, yes, American socialism still has some impact on public policy, in my opinion. Not so much collective ownership of things as conducting public policy for the collective good -- locally, nationally and internationally.

And, before anyone asks: Are you a socialist? Sort of. But, it is dififcult for someone who thinks like a (good) lawyer as much as I do to be really a leftist. I've been steeped in the reality of how the American $y$tem works too much. That tends to make one pragmatic about public policy issues. How about the lawyers who like to call themselves 'radicals'? They are pulling people's legs. The American legal system is inherently conservative. When you participate you are playing a conservative game by conservative rules.

Eric,

Like hello?

Helllooo - Earth to Err-ick?

I mean, Duh!

Duuuuh!


(shaking head)

Well, choke me with a Cuisinart.

There are "socialistic" elements everywhere, yes, but you don't run into very many actual "socialists" anymore. Sorry if it strikes me as anachronistic.

And isn't "conducting public policy for the collective good" the aim of all government?

And DG, the thing you seem to miss about corporations is that 1) they are in competition with each other 2) most are publicly held, virtually anyone can participate in their profits

"And DG, the thing you seem to miss about corporations is that 2) most are publicly held, virtually anyone can participate in their profits"

I think I'll take socialist silliness over this. Talk about utopian nonsense.

Have you been barred from purchasing stock?

Are you saying that there is no corporate control of our government because corporations don't get along with each other? Consider the following that I blogged a few months ago:

I found several solid websites from the appendices of Thom Hartmann's Unequal Protection that deal with corporate corruption and our government. First is They Rule (requires Flash 5), which is a site that offers you the opportunity to map out the illuminati-like (or Skull and Bones?) inner-workings of the networks of companies' board of directors. They are all working together to make themselves richer and you poorer. Using board member lists from 2002, the site allows you to see which people serve on boards for several companies, mapping out all the connections of the board members. Here is a concise version that I typed of the list that was printed in Unequal Protection (up to date as of early 2002):

IBM shares a board member with Coca Cola, which shares a board member with AT&T, which shares a board member with Citigroup, and the string goes on through the following companies (in this order) Lucent Technologies, Chevron, Hewlett Packard, Boeing, Sara Lee, Bank One Corporation, Cardinal Health, Freddie Mac (oh yah!), Lehman Brother Holdings, PepsiCo, Bank of America, Motorola, J.P. Morgan Chase, ExxonMobil, SBC Communications, PG&E Corporation, Home Depot, General Electric, Delphi Automotive Systems, Goldman Sachs Group, Ford Motor Company, Sprint, Allstate, AMR (owns American Airlines), Aetna, Dell Computer, Prudential insurance, Dow Chemical, Met Life, Verizon, USX (formerly U.S. Steel), Lockheed Martin (bastards), Enron (bastards), Compaq (Ken Lay was a board member on Enron and Compaq at this time), Dynergy, CVS/Pharmacy, Fannie Mae, Conoco, E.I. du Pont de Nemours, IBM, which shares a board member with Coca Cola.

It's one big, creepy loop. Oligarchs? Plutocrats? These are the people who are running the country. ". . . 86 percent of billion-dollar company boards contain at least one CEO of another company, while 65 percent of outside directors serve on two or more boards" (Robert A. G. Monks paraphrased in Unequal Protection, page 202). Combine this fact with the fact that "the world's largest 200 corporations, which employ fewer than 0.8 percent of the world's workforce, account for over 27 percent of the world's total economic activity, more than all nations in the world combined except the top 10" (Unequal Protection, page 204). You can run from them, but you can't hide from them.

It's the battle of the two Georges: Bush takes on Soros. Based on whore MoveOn.org's embracing of Soros, you might see him as our Rocky who will unseat Clubber Lane (okay, so Bush is too wimpy to justify this analogy, but I'm going with it). This is not Rocky vs. Clubber. It's not Rocky vs. the evil USSR boxer Drago. It's Clubber vs. Drago. No matter who wins, one evil bastard will control the world, and democracy will be the seemingly innocent manager, Mick, who gets a fatal, unfortunate blow in the hubbub that precedes the fight.

The Center for Public Integrity has just put out Who Bankrolls Bush and his Democratic Rivals? In it, we see that corrupt world of campaign financing yet again exposed. Democracy is dead. Our politicians are kicking its dead corpse around as they spout out, "democracy" that, and "our Founding Fathers" this. Over a year ago, when I saw an interview with John McCain, I almost faltered and believed that democracy could be reincarnated. And then we got the Do-Not-Call list that finally has gotten telemarketers off of my back. I thought that this country might actually be serving its people instead of its big-money overlords. Balderdash. For more information, go to the PBS show Now's page on the book, The Buying of the President 2004.

Eric,

Speaking on that "feeling level" you referred to above --

Having experienced as a young comprehending adult both Viet Nam and Watergate, I can tell you this period of US "history" not only feels worse, but I perceive it as being much, much worse than those two episodes and far more dangerous besides, especially when considering the long run. Things have gone very bad for too many people far too quickly.

I realize your last remark is intended as a closing remark, but people investing have in essence been "barred" from buying stock -- if only by being "closed out" from sweetheart closing day sales that manipulate the day's results. They're permitted to buy when the gates are opened again. An extreme instance, of course, but it's happened often enough and recently enough to comment on.

To use economic clout and NOT buy particular stocks, or to BUY particular stocks to secure a vote or voice in the direction that industry might eventually chart, or perhaps just that the stock brokers will accept anyone's money without batting an eye is what I think you were saying in your last remark? You are free to invest where you please?

Well, I went to school with the oligarchy Dirtgrain is talking about. You know, the five percent of the population that controls more than 50 percent of America's wealth -- often through interlocking control of corporations. And, believe me, those people have no illusions about who runs America. They know they do. And, how did they come to exercise all that power? Often through inherited wealth, which is even more indefensible. Yes, any John Doe with $100 to spare can buy a stock in any corporation offering shares publicly. But:

*The stock he buys will often be inferior.

*Most of the shares are already in the hands of the very wealthy or their representatives.

*His pension fund is likely losing more money for him than he is ever going to recoup from individual investments.

*The stock he buys will likely never generate a profit.

And, let's not put the buggy before the horse. That John Doe has $100 to spare. A significant part of the population does not, especially not several times over.

In regard to an earlier post by Dirtgrain, I commented that only about 20 percent of Americans move out of the class they are born into. The mythical aspect of the stock market is part of the reason why. And, let's not forget -- a person is as likely to go down in economic class as up.

Before Eric points it out, yes, I went up. But, that doesn't change my opinion that the $y$tem is inherently unfair.

I see your knowledge of the stock market matches your knowledge of circumcisions.

*The stock he buys will often be inferior.
Ok, by what measure? A share of Microsoft is a share of Microsoft is a share of Microsoft... Or perhaps you're comparing preferred to common stock, which, in spite of having a snooty name isn't much different aside from not conferring dividends, but in most cases at a certain point transforms to common stock anyway. Or maybe the concept of caveat emptor bothers you. Overall, just a silly statement.

*Most of the shares are already in the hands of the very wealthy or their representatives.
Uhuh, you trade stocks much? How many millions of shares trade hands in a given day? And even if it weren't a patently obtuse statement, if poor John Doe were lucky enough to somehow wrest a share from a money grubber or the representative, are you saying he wouldn't be able to collect on the same benefit?

*His pension fund is likely losing more money for him than he is ever going to recoup from individual investments.
Sweetie, it's not a zero sum game, he's still ahead whatever he recoups from his investment regardless of the performance of his pension fund.

*The stock he buys will likely never generate a profit.
Ok, Ms. Krugman, your slipping in to the realm of speculation here. Yeah, if he tries to fire and forget and buys without knowing what he's buying he's probably going to hurt himself, but explain how buying into an S&P index fund which generally returns somewhere around 11% annually won't generate a profit.

And, let's not put the buggy before the horse. That John Doe has $100 to spare. A significant part of the population does not, especially not several times over.
Silly. Saving and investing is not about having money to spare, it's about making a conscious decision to set aside for the future. More importantly, it's a choice. If John Doe makes the determination that it's worth it to him he'll find a way to forego cable or curtail beer and save incrementally.

(Not snickering in the interest of amity.) There are still people who don't realize there are classes of stock?

Say, Joe -- this is a serious question: why do you feel the need to start wagging dick and talking about lopped dick when you make a counter argument? Is that a way of expressing a form of confidence in the merits of your argument?

blaska - Sorry if my penis talk offends your tender sensibilities, I'll try to refrain, it was was carryover from another thread. Good question. Likewise, do you think that focusing on a smartass remark rather than the gist of my argument somehow detracts from the points which are pretty clearly separated? Thanks for asking.

Perhaps MD would care to elucidate as to what the barriers are to purchasing different classes of stock and what percentage of stock is actually divided into classes(hint: not many and not much)? Why don't you stick to topics you understand?

MD: "Most of the shares are already in the hands of the very wealthy or their representatives."

JOE: "...you trade stocks much? How many millions of shares trade hands in a given day?"

Yes, it's a real level playing field: billion dollar mutual fund managers recommending buys on CNBC in the morning and selling out in the afternoon -vs- Joe Q. Public playing with chump change and pullin' guesses out of his ass .

re: Corporations competing with each other - You've got to be kidding.
Just a sample. TV/Media

BTW: The biggest threat to 'democracy' other than George Bush, campaign finance, and current election laws is the CONSOLIDATION of the media.

Journalists are supposed to protect and preserve democracy, but these days, they pretty much speak out of one, maybe two sides of the same Janus-headed beast known as *Corporate Advocacy.

*aka "Marketing"
aka "Satan's Handmaiden"

re. Socialism - Was Jesus a Socialist?

- or -

WSWJB? ("What stocks would Jesus buy?")

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth..."

"You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven..." (Mark 10:21)

"Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions." (Luke 12:15)

Man, I see a GREAT new Constitutional Amendment somewhere in there!

No, Joe, I just think dick talk detracts from your argument, as you indeed went on to complain about. But you brought it up first. I asked you why you feel the need to do that and you haven't answered. Why don't you tell us all about your dick some more? You also said this carried over from another thread ... is that a way of saying that sometimes influences elsewhere spill over and intrude into other conversations?

James Randall, former president of Archer Daniels Midland:

We have a saying in our company: "Our competitors are our friends. Our customers are the enemy"

bflaska -
I don't feel a need, it was just a continuation from a previous thread where Diva expressed an interest in my package, if you feel somehow left out, I can point it out to you. If you'd like to hear more about my dick, feel free to email me. As to your last question, my answer is absolutely, but your point is unclear to me.

Shark-
I'm not tracking with you on the level playing field business, because John Doe can buy into a mutual fund as well and take advantage of the billion dollar mutual fund managers. Again, not zero-sum game. I'm not saying there isn't risk, or that it doesn't require research and diligence. It definitely isn't for everyone, but if your willing to accept the degrees of risk involved, it beats the hell out of sticking quarters in slot machines and making the weekly trip to the convenience store to buy your powerball ticket.

And I'm pretty sure Jesus would focus on derivative moves, options, and futures.

Certainly everyone with some money can participate in the stock market, and the profits and losses of the stocks.

But the participation is like that of a flea on the back of a dog - it doesn't have any control over where the dog goes.

Government and big business are so intertwined today that if you step back, what's going on looks more and more like roving packs of dogs scrapping over territory.

Us fleas are just innocent bystanders, although some of us seem to think that shouting "Go, Rover" to encourage one pack or another has some consequence :-)

Thanks, Hal. You've expressed what I tried to. Now, if the unenlightened only grasp simile and metaphor-:).


Speaking of the fleas on the dog's back, here's an interesting anecdote. Paul Allen, one of the world's richest men, recently filed for bankruptcy reorganization for the city stadium he owns here in Portland. He wants to pass more of the 'losses' it accrues through creative bookkeeping on to others. In man on the street interviews, people actually feel sorry for Allen and say they believe he should be able to get out from any liabilitites regarding the Rose Garden. Their ownership of a stock here or there has them thinking their best interests lies with a billionaire. This is the kind of ignorance, so ably demonstrated by Shark, that I don't see the petty bourgeoisie overcoming any time soon.

Corporations will always strive to set things up for their own advantage - that's why we have rules and why it is so important they be enforced. Enron demonstrated this: in its wake lots of very rich people are going to jail and/or facing huge fines. This is encouraging.

I am not happy about the consequences of media consolidation either and say so on an almost daily basis, but it is also extremely obvious that the media does not "speak with one voice." Surely the wild range of perspectives and opinions we link to here in Blogcritics is ample evidence of this.

You can couch it however you wish, but the average citizen can participate in the economic growth of corporations in a number of ways, including directly ownign stock, participating in mutual funds, pension funds, etc. This is real and open to all with even a modest amount of disposable income.

And you can scoff all you want that corporations are in competition with each other, but they are in a bitter daily struggle, both within and between industries, with companies going out of business every day. There are abuses and the field is ALWAYS tilted in favor of money and power, but this does not mean the system is fatally flawed or that it is any more fundamentally "unfair" than life is.

Eric: "that's why we have rules and why it is so important they be enforced"

Tell that to Michael Powell at the FCC. Or Patrick Wood the Third at FERC. Or Michael Leavitt at the EPA. Or any number of this administration's appointees.

Eric: "And you can scoff all you want that corporations are in competition with each other, but they are in a bitter daily struggle, both within and between industries, with companies going out of business every day."

I've never scoffed at that.

But while companies struggle with each other , the competition we're seeing is "turf wars" to see which "gang" gets the spoils.

The politicians argue, but they're part of the same turf war. This administration happens to have gotten the upper hand for a while and has installed a government "of business, by business, for business."

It has been a long process, but seems to have gained speed starting in the late 1970's, and it has been getting worse and worse.

One symptom is the trade deficit, which coincidentally started at the same time and has been accelerating. That deficit has not been financed by internal savings(which would make it okay) but by borrowing from foreign governments, and we now owe $3 trillion-and-climbing to foreign countries.

If that doesn't stop, we're headed for serious problems, and a case has even been made that we're approaching a situation similar to that which existed before the great depression.

I don't know that it's that bad but my gut feel is that Bush might be smarter to lose the next election - there's likely to be a large "correction" before the end of the next presidential term.

I hope not, but ...

Joe -- so you were mad at Mac Diva when you came in to the conversation here -- and that's your reason for being abrasive and snotty to everyone else here? And, no, I don't feel left out at all if that's how you talk in company. Or clients ... surely you don't actually work as a broker and talk to prospective clients like that?

As to your arguments, Joe, all I can say is that if a guy starts starts out a conversation by put downs and talking "dick", people tend to think his brain isn't in the right gear.

I mean I wouldn't likely take investment advice from a broker who starts out talking about his dick. Neither would I listen to a guy who's just interested in put downs. I wouldn't be so inclined to trust him with my money, either.

"Dick" and "money" are both current "power" words, but I found it odd you started out: "I see your knowledge of the stock market matches your knowledge of circumcisions."

That doesn't seem to be a very good arguing point and is just designed to be insulting.

Then OK you go on to talk about investment packages.

Sure, the "wise" ones in the market will always prosper, they always do and there's nothing new there. It's generally true, too, that mutual funds and pension funds in particular have taken a severe beating under this administration. To end up slightly ahead in those is going to be a much longer haul than anyone entering the game ever anticipated. "Being aware of the risks" includes knowing that brokers make money on every single transaction when a stock is bought or sold, even if their own clients lose money big or small. And, really, it's only money.

bflaska-
Again, I'm sorry if I offended you in some manner, it was unintended. Needle you, yes, offend/insult, no. Insofar as being mad a Mac Diva, I don't think that's an accurate statement, certainly I'm as flabbergasted as a person can be with a contrived internet personality that has attacked me and lied about me in this forum, but mad, no, more amused than anthing else. In this particular instance I just saw what she was espousing as fact and presented my opinion.

As for context, the whole circumcision thing came up as the result of an admittedly lame joke I cracked in response to speculation of a Jewish conspiracy theory (Jewish/circumcision... get it? Ok, I already admitted it was lame.)

I do appreciate you sharing your opinion and will try harder to be less insulting to people I don't intend to insult.

I love the eternal debate and struggle. Do you want the corporations to win so you can be they're bitch or do you want the government to win so you can be it's. Either way your going to lose.

I fall on the right because at least you know what corporations want....money. The government wants to control you, your thought, your actions. The government assaults every form of organization other than itself. Individual liberties? I can't even supersize my value meal for crying out loud. Religion? The government has seperate but unequaled it out of power for better or worse. Family? Almost gone. Businesses? A good scapegoat and they can raise alot of money to pay government officials off and get them reelected. Businesses are scared shitless of the government that's why they are willing to pay the blackmail fee. Every corportation has a large percentage of it's workforce devoted to following governments forced mandates. You tell me who's really in control.

I dunno, Layla. Perhaps government and business are not necessarily adversaries, the claim you are relying on. In this age of multinational corporations that have greater power and more money than most countries, it is definitely time to revisit definitions. I find your conceit -- Government=Bad; Business=Good, an oversimplification.

Joe,

After that weird introduction, I now say
thanks very much for thinking about this and taking the time here to respond. I sometimes think there's too much verbal crossfire in our culture these days, emotions are flowing over the boundaries, people are sensitive, and it's getting to be almost impossible not to insult someone even unintentionally. I know because I seem prone to this myself. I also don't like even overhearing discussions that degenerate into character assassinations, so I appreciate your remarks.

OK Back to business. There are plenty of small investors in the market. Do you think that mom and pop mutual fund investors across the board have a chance of regaining their footing over the next few years, or should a more extended timeframe be considered? I mean, only if mutuals are something you are following with an active interest, if you're willing to comment now, that is. :)

You bring up a good point and one which the above article certainly implies. I should have worded my response more clearly. I am not a fan of big business. They will gladly exploit any person capable of working to the point of slavery. Next, they will manipulate those same people to purchase products that are harmful or unneccessary. Then, to top it all off, they pay off government officials to turn a blind eye to the travesty.

It appears to me though in my limited wisdom that their is even a more insidious power out there. The government, the power that everyone wants to turn to for help. Unfortunately, it is not the product of a small group of conspirators. If it were they could be unmasked and the whole process derailed. The increasingly powerful government is the product of millions of good intentions. It is the great protector, the one everyone looks for in times of need. And she is always willing to help. What the majority has failed to realize is that with every bit of help, be it against a roque nation, terrorists, or a bad business, comes a cost. As with any gift there are strings attached, the government becomes more powerful and they in turn exerts more control over the people.

Are businesses in bed with the government? Absolutely, it would be literal suicide not to be.

Can you do anything about it? No, conventional "wisdom" says to put a halt on creeping increases of government power you should get active, vote, and participate in it. Wow, let's apply that example to terrorist organizations. If you want to stop terrorism maybe you should join your local terrorist organization, donate some cash and work your way up the chain of influence. It makes no sense your not helping your becoming part of the problem.

In the good old days the people could check the government power now and again with a good old fashioned revolution. In the technological age we don't have the capability or willpower, yet!!!!

That's literally a million dollar question. Investing is, at it roots, an exercise in optimism. Think about it, an investor is bearing an opportunity cost in the belief that a.)in the future, market conditions are going to improve and that b.) they are going to be around to realize the benefits of the investment. So far, history has shown that for every instance of downturn there has been an equal and greater recovery, so in general, yes, I would say there's plenty of opportunities. That's not to say that some investors aren't royally screwed. Investing takes a degree of discipline, risk-taking, and decision-making so if, as investor, you're not willing to exercise those attributes, the stock market isn't the place you should to be putting your money.

I guess to answer your question regarding mutual funds I'll first have to make the disclaimers that I currently have very limited exposure in mutual funds, I'm not a stockbroker (I'm a software engineer), and I've been investing for about fifteen years and experienced plenty of irrational exuberance as well as Holy !@#$! moments. The answer depends on the individual's investing horizon (how long before they need the money), how much risk can they tolerate, and what their investing goals are. If they retreated from the market when things started looking bad and haven't returned then they've missed out on buying on lows over the last few years. If they've continued to systematically put away money they'll probably do ok is the short answer. Additionally, they need to be making sure that over time their evaluating risk and balancing their portfolio in keeping with their horizon ie. moving towards less risky investments (bonds, T-Bills, etc) as they get closer to the time when they want to cash out. It's not really rocket science or alchemy, just a rational approach that has been pretty well documented over the last century. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.