Capitalism’s worst crisis since the 1930s »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 11 months, 1 week ago in Business & FinanceFor some time now, economists have argued that the market is self-regulating and self-correcting; this fantasy has been destroyed. The crisis has led to a run on the international banking system, a stock market crash, and has opened the door to what will be the longest and deepest recession of the post–Second World War period. This is not a typical cyclical crisis, which capitalism generally has every decade or so, but a systemic crisis, a crisis of the financial system, which provides money for the circulation of commodities, of trade, and of investment. There is no alternative, we were told, to the free market. What we are now told is that there is no alternative to government intervention and regulation.
As Karl Marx pointed out many years ago, capitalist crises do not come about because of a shortage of goods or crop failures, but because of overproduction. This overproduction is not overproduction of things that are needed by people, but overproduction in terms of what can be sold profitably on the market. If products cannot be sold profitably, whether they are physical commodities or debt securities, profits cannot be realized, and the system goes into crisis, as lending and investment seize up. Workers are laid off, plants are closed, and the banks go bust, in a downward spiral. Capitalism’s only way out of the crisis is by lowering labor costs (wage-cutting) and the massive devaluation of capital, as businesses are destroyed and surviving capitalists swallow up the weaker businesses on the cheap.
Read Full Story at isreview.org »
1205 Views Share Story 44 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Radiofreeeuropa
All progress comes from unreasonable people.
Rats live on no evil star!
Wasilla: All I saw...
Sorry, just palindroming around with terrorists.
Are you still ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 116 of 135 Comments (view all)
-
88%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA- "Capitalism’s only way out of the crisis is by lowering labor costs (wage-cutting) and the massive devaluation of capital, as businesses are destroyed and surviving capitalists swallow up the weaker businesses on the cheap."
Reply
Remarkably this is exactly what the financial sector recipients did with over a trillion dollars pumped their way. Allegedly this was to prevent them from making credit scarce, they were supposed to loan the money out. Did they? NO.
What did they do with the bailout money? Mostly they did exactly what this article accuses them of doing- Bought up smaller companies on the cheap. Then they rewarded their management with perks and bonuses.
It is insulting that the cretins whose greed and awful judgment brought down these companies to begin with, are rewarded for their gross incompetence courtesy of taxpayers. Believing letting these guys will behave honorably in a market with no rules or oversight (remember that's what happened in '29. How this failed approach could be repacked and resold again always confused me. Could people really be this stupid?) is like believing a bunch of toddlers left on their own in a candy star won't eat all the candy, wreck the store, then get a bellyache and throw up on your shoes.-
-
11%
Endoscopy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a bunch of malarkey. The problem is similar to the 2000 - 2001 recession. We are nowhere near a depression. But the left wing just loves gloom and doom even when they cause it and blame it on someone else. Well in a couple of years this will be the Obama recession and we conservatives then call it the Obama depression since he did not immediately fix it. We will have fun with that. It's all Obama's fault. He trained ACORN represented them against Citicorp to try and ford them to make more bad loans. When Fannie and Freddy refused to take loans without a minimum of 10% down they went and lobbied congress and in 1992 their dream came true and CRA and other banking laws were modified. Taking effect in 1995. Housing boom with all the new possible home owners. No down, low starting ARM, no principle for a few years, etc. Uproar in congress because Republicans wanted to fix Fannie and Freddy. Housing bubble bust in 2006. mortgaged property dropped over 30%. Papers issued for the mortgages were suddenly worth that much less. Oops the money disappeared out of the financial market.
Reply
All Obama's fault. He trained and helped ACORN. Just look at the resulting financial mess. Thank you Obama. Shall we keep up the list of Obama's failures and how he is ruining the country? This is going to be fun. -
100%
mark-stevens11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's all a matter of opinion... Everett, Washington, the real home for Boeing, at that time a poulation of 47,000 was hit hard in the 70's when the Boeing plant of 20,000 plus, all but closed.
Reply
It seemed that one of every three houses were for sale. I had a guy offer a split level on a lake with a "take over payments" offer.
He found no takers, and lost the house through the bank.
Everett survived and so will America
-
-
100%
DarkWizard11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RFE,
Reply
This is an excellent article that hits on many major points. I have some arguments against the author's thinking on some of the examples he's using to make his points and also I disagree with his origin point of this current crisis. But, he illustrates, very well, the immediate crises and the scope of dilemma we're in.
As it is late where I am right now, I will come back to make comments on this tomorrow. I do look forward to seeing the comments on this article though. -
92%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do find this article very interesting, having read a good deal about the great depression, FDR, and the New Deal; one thing I discovered is that socialists hated FDR and the New Deal for pretty much the same reasons we see here in this article. (Saving capitalism.) The right, of course, hated FDR for being a "class traitor". FDR famously said "Everybody hates me but the voters" having won the presidency handily not once, or twice but four times (The only person ever to do this), he had a point.
Reply
But my point is that Geier is speaking from a socialist perspective, so his conclusions tend to be a little tinted, shall we say, yet much of the observations are quite astute and accurate.
For instance-
"People will also be forced to ask: what does government intervention mean when this is a government not of the workers, not of the masses of people, but a government that represents the interests of the owners, the bankers, and the industrialists? The state is being used for state capitalist purposes, in order to reorganize capital, even to curb some of its excesses. But its aim is to keep capitalism and its social relations going—relations in which labor is dominated and exploited for the profits of a few. Part of the restructuring will involve, as we’ve said, an even harsher attack on working-class living standards. At the same time, nationalization opens up space for us to argue against wholesale privatization, for the defense of public schools against privatization, and even to argue for nationalized health care. But we have to be clear that state capitalist nationalization—that is, the intervention of the state in order to prop up the bankers and the industrialists at our expense and without any democratic control over the process—is no great improvement over what went before."-
93%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(Cont)
Reply
That rings true. I still believe the best system is a hybrid. People need to be rewarded for their work or creativity, hence capitalism provides that avenue best. But in my opinion, unrestrained capitalism, aside from the criticisms in this article, eventually places all the capital in the hands of very few. There needs to be serious safeguards against monopoly, and outright swindling. There needs to be checks and balances to keep the playing field level. And perhaps industries that currently profit by providing basic needs( Which are probably defined a little differently in todays world than in the 18th century) should be run as non profits (and who could do this but the government?).
Now take the oil industry for example...they enjoy higher profits by NOT building new refineries. Why shouldn't we the people build our own refineries? We don't "need" to make 20 billion a quarter in profits, we don't care if it's expensive to build and operate them in safer less polluting ways. The battle cry of those who want privatization is that the private sector does everything cheaper and better. If that is true, they should have no fear competing with a citizen owned oil company.
(Just an example as we must also realize that oil as a source of energy must be phased out, yet I imagine we'll need to use it for a while- use it smarter though.) Monopoly or near monopolies are of no value at all.
A degree of collectivism and capitalism whose ratio remainded liquid and adjustable to need seems the best economic system.
The government itself MUST serve the general population, not the few. How many times did the founders of our nation warn us about that? As Jefferson said- "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Doesn't sound much like an argument for unrestrained lazy fairy capitalism to me.
Sounds more like a call for oversight and regulation.
In the end a good government is one that works with and for the people and business interests to facilitate common good. -
RRconComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
89%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another important point is one must understand the term "neo-liberalism" as it applies to economics to rightly understand some of this article. http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/ne...
Reply -
94%
Spadecaller11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excellent post RFE...
Reply
A government run by unregulated corporate elitists represented by lobbyists, and an economy that rewards only the few at the top is programed to fail.
Replacing a flourishing working class with cheap labor from exploited markets consisting of indentured servants, guest-workers, and underpaid foreign slave labor, there can be no affluent middle class to consume the goods manufactured. Expanding the military to "care" for the disenfranchised young cannot sustain itself when war is only used for the profit of corporations.
When the busting of Unions began by Ronald Reagan and he instituted "trickle down economics" which was perpetuated by many years of the same from both Bush administrations, the beginning of the end for the middle class in America was set in motion. In essence, a few had a grand party on the backs of the working class and the national treasure.
Using the propaganda of "free trade" (not fair trade)and selling an ignorant public on the idea of unregulated markets has lead to the crisis we now face. Commonsense can easily show how unregulated power-hungry profiteers and greedy corporate leadership has killed the goose that lays the golden egg.
When the value of the laborer is not respected and rewarded in deed by a government and nation that only pretends to support the interests of a middle class, the only possible consequence has to be economic collapse.
The absurd part about it is this: the corporate leaders severed the very hose that once supplied them the wealth, which they mismanaged and failed to share accordingly with those who created the products that can sustain real economic growth.-
92%
DarkWizard11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spadecaller,
Reply
"The absurd part about it is this: the corporate leaders severed the very hose that once supplied them the wealth, which they mismanaged and failed to share accordingly with those who created the products that can sustain real economic growth."
Excellent observation! This is exactly one of the points I keep coming back to. The corporate world had basically created a no win situation for employees. A take-it-or-leave-it workplace philosophy/mentality can only survive for so long. Then, logically a breakdown will occur when the majority have no loyalty to the business they work for, they become more and more disenfranchised, and incentives are removed instead of given. -
25%
Endoscopy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And what is the big problem that the big three car manufacturers have. Union wages and legacy pensions that were forced by the unions. The complete medical costs for all of those people. The foreign car manufacturers that set up shop here in the US do not have those high wages or benefits and no legacy costs. Those things make the cost of a car $2000 more for the big three than the other car manufacturers. But it is all the corporate leaders fault. The union has no responsibility. Poor spadecaller can't seem to call this spade a spade.
Reply
-
-
100%
gamahuche11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Phew!
Reply
Quite a piece..
I'll be coming back to it and also will send the story to a couple of people.
The writing has, of course, been on the wall for a long time.
The cycles of history always provide an opportunity for destruction and starting anew and this collapse is, on one level, just another of those - no actual physical all-out war on the style of the 2 World Wars of last century but nevertheless the trigger for the current crisis, if not the direct cause, seems to have been the face-off between the WEstern world and the Islaamic world, with the collapse of Communism and the emergence of Russia as a different kind of power the joker in the pack.
What must be obvious to anyone with even a smidgen of a braain is that perpetual growth and ever-increasing consumption are unsustainable and the conflicts around the world are more predicated on that than any other single factor - including the whole starving world of have-nots who have no saay beyond the impact that they may have on the consciousness of the "lucky ones".
Thanks for a great post RFE! -
-
89%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And thank you for the comments. I thought this was an outstanding piece too. And it covers much. I like your take on it, it IS an opportunity to make a new start particularly for changing the dynamics of world socio-economics in relation to the have-nots. We need to take a good hard look at the mechanics of the economic aspects of our society, I would like to think enough of us have in a sense transcended base greed as the principle focus in our lives, that what we want is certainly to be able to prosper from our labors or creativity, but at the same time we also want all treated fairly. It seems the Pendulum swung way beyond the pale in terms of greedy accumulation for the few at the expense of the many. Rather than save a corrupted flawed system of wealth distribution perhaps some truly new thinking is required, something as daring as Keynes was, yet tweaked for a slightly different goal. The best interests of all with room and freedom to prosper through individual effort. Now is the time for the utopia to merge with the pragmatic.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
CHAM11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RFE I think this is an excellent article and it get overly long but the gist is the author says that it is wrong that a free market is self regulating.
Reply
Of course he is who is wrong. This market isn't free,and has not been for many years. It is a manipulated market to enhance the profits of the few. I call it a Corporatocracy. Or maybe we should call it an Oligarchy. Whatever we call it, it's a monster.
We have allowed what I have often referred to as the "Shadow Government" to corrupt our system. Our elected leaders were met at the door to their newly elected offices by those corrupt people and they weren't inclined to resist all that money and favors.
I wrote an article on Metscape about two years ago about the growing imbalance of wealth. When I wrote that article the split had increased to about 95/5 meaning that about 5% of the worlds population owned about 95% of the wealth. It had gone from 90/10 in ten years.
The focus of the message though was that there had to be a threshold of imbalance where the house of cards would come falling down. Production is based on expectations of rewards for the labor. When those at the top get too greedy, the incentive ends.
It's kind of like the Aesop fable of the Goose that laid the Golden eggs. Greed dried up the source of the Golden eggs. We are witnessing a parable come true.-
100%
Tangent00111 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I call it a Corporatocracy. Or maybe we should call it an Oligarchy. "
Reply
Call it what it is: Kleptocracy: a government that extends the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class at the expense of the population. -
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well yes the imbalance between the richest and average has soared in recent times. As cited numerous times on various threads since the 90's upper management pay has gone up well over 400 percent where as the average pay has only gone up 4%. A disparity that has no justification. But the argument has been to deregulate, deregulate. Though we do have an SEC it's teeth were removed. The notion first expressed in "the Wealth of Nations" in 1776 by Smith is idealist and naive...though radical at the time. We have learned all too well since from experience if capitalism is unregulated it will eat itself. All the capital ends up in a few hands, It was "the robber barons and their monopolies in earlier times. Today many of the corporations they started are the same ones we now are "bailing out" because of the outright thievery and incompetent irresponsible management . Note that regular banks continue to be solvent, I suggest that is because they are regulated well since the great depression.
Reply
-
-
100%
amazed11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We have not had free market capitalism since the early 1900's.
Reply
Our economy is quite regulated in many respects.
It is the failure of the regulation and the misguided, although well-meaning requirements as well as the neglect of oversight and enforcement of the tried and true regulations that has truly brought our economy to its knees.
Yes, some regulation is needed. Those regulations must have teeth. Too much regulation ends up being as toxic as no regulation.-
ellsworth-tooheyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
100%
rihbazellle11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
THis is a strong article but regulation by folks in county, state and federal government who never spent a day in the trenches of a real business can only hurt the natural progression of good businesses to great and bad businesses to extinct one's. We are in a dog fight right now as we continue to try and build our ten year old online contact lens etailer http://clecontactlenses.com What I dont need now, is more regulation and oversight. We need governement to get behind big infrastructure and alternative energy spending and drive it hard.
Reply-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you a publicly traded company or a private one? If private, I don't think you would be the subject of the type of oversight recommended in this article. Best wishes for your business.
Reply
And we do need to have a government that will government to get behind big infrastructure and alternative energy spending and drive it hard. Much agreement there.
-
-
100%
Progressive11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It was the government and its policies that greased the wheels for this catastrophe. It presided over the redistribution of wealth from labor to capital, it gave enormous tax breaks to the rich, and it encouraged easy credit and debt spending."
Reply
That's the longest and best article on the subject I've read since Niall Ferguson's recent piece in Vanity Fair. I just wish the neocons would consider more carefully what kind of "redistribution of wealth" we have actually undergone. -
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
100%
willottica11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think one piece of simple legislation would go the farthest towards improving the economic state of the US.
Reply
Set a reasonable maximum pay ratio.
Be it 5:1, 10:1, or even 20:1. In order to earn more money, those in charge of a company will have to pay more. I.e. the company must be more productive for profits to increase. An increase in profits means nothing if it is achieved by cutting wages. This is just re-distributing the profits to those at the top by stealing them from those at the bottom.
If you want to make 1,000,000 a year, earn it by being innovative enough to ensure that all your employees can earn 100,000 a year as well. Any idiot with a big enough stick can get slaves to make more money for him (especially with the right "enforcement" personnel in place). -
63%
Painesright11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is that we got away from capitalism, not that we embraced too much of it. Credit was the golden goose and we killed it by trying to give everyone credit before they had earned it. If we had stuck to true capitalist principles, we would not be in this situation.
Reply
Either way, progressive policies are not the answer.
I actually lived and worked in a country that has followed every progressive liberal's dream policy for the last 40 years. The citizens of that progressive country enjoy "free" gov't housing for all who need it, "free" healthcare, "free" college education, "free" daycare, 13 weeks of paid vacation per year, a very high mandatory "living wage", super strong unions (workers can't get fired in their first 2 years of employment and when a company does need to fire someone, they have to go to court and prove to the judge that the company has done everything in it's power to turn them into a good worker), where working more than 35 hours per week is not permitted (yes you read that right) and on and on.
Now, before you get too excited and start packing your bags, please note that all of this free stuff has lead to very high tax rates... for EVERYONE. The MIDDLE class tax rate is 30% on income, sales tax is 19.6%, capital gains tax 18%, social security tax is 8% and everyone pays an 11% "social contribution" tax. That list does not even begin to exhaust the complete list of taxes, such as a tax on wealth, inheritance tax, property taxes, 33% corporate tax, etc, etc. Fraud and abuse is rampant in practically every entitlement program. What a shocker that the more their gov't gives them, the more they take!
That country, with all of their progressive policies, has a much higher unemployment rate, higher suicide rate, higher use of antidepressants and higher alcoholism rate than we do in the U.S. The country is financially ruined and has a declining birth rate that is not high enough to replace their current population.
Now, why would these people living on easy-street be so depressed? Because all of the "free" government programs and restrictive laws have killed their ability to be self-sufficient, productive individuals and has sent companies (IE: potential employers) running for the hills. And that is exactly what the same types of progressive programs/policies will do here.
Every citizen that I ever met in that "utopian" country would have given his right arm to be a U.S. citizen... despite what the U.N. would have you believe, most people in the world still consider the U.S. as THE land of opportunity, for now.
Say what you want, but capitalism did not do this and more socialism won't fix it.-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well the average tax rate is lower in Britain than the US.
Reply
They have collective medicine and education.
And you'll be hard pressed to find an English citizen who doesn't think it's a point of pride rather than a burden.
How do they do it? -
75%
awongscreen11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On the contrary, we are getting more and more towards extreme capitalism which is the cause of self destruction.
Reply
Free market - Free to do whatever in the name of profits. To achieve free market, we have de-regulation and privatisation. Once the nations wealth cannot sustain the profits growth, then came globalisation to keep growing with all the wealth of the world.
Unfortunately, with the excess population we have, the earth cannot provide the necessary resources and digests the resulting dumping of garbage, waste.
Solution? Reduce population and consumption. Capitalist will label this as anti-growth.
-
-
100%
rimbaud11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some of the old rules don't apply in the global economy. The people you hire to manufacture your goods don't necessarily have to be among your customers for the same goods. Your employers may not necessarily re-invest, or spend, their profits, in the same community where you are employed.
Reply -
25%
tadair91911 months, 1 week ago
-
75%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A very out dated idea. Go back further, and shells were used as capital. I live on the beach so I like that idea since my supply is quite good.
Reply
The gold standard does not allow for growth, that's just bad as overproducing.
(One might argue we are on an oil standard at the moment for instance).
-
-
100%
canadianrancher5711 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow that is quite the artical but there is alot of it that presents a very biased pint of view.
Reply
To me the most important paragraph of the artical is the second one in which Karl Marx basically hit the nail on the head with his ideas on capitalism. Capitalism collapses with the overproduction of goods, and this is the point that we are at now, the overproduction of products was not caused by the US. but by many nations of the world. When we think of capitalism we tend to think of mostly the western world and its corporations but the capitalists that may survive this and buy up the weaker ones may be from countries such as China and maybe even Russia, although the Russians have gained because of the boom in commodities so they may not be in as good of a position as the Chinese.
The author of this artical basically has no use for capitalism but in the artical mentions of the finacial problem in Europe as well and some of these countries are socialist countries. Up here in Canada we have more socialism than you have in your country and it does come at a cost. We are still dealing with gasoline costs of $3.48 a gallon and that is because we need money to run our programs, so if one entered the energy costs into the costs of producing goods socialism could make us uncompetative.
As I have said before it really matters little which system you operate under if greed becomes a major factor it will fail. -
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The goose that laid the golden eggs was a profitable middle class.
Reply
The Theives have eaten the goose. If it can't be resurrected and protected from being slaughtered again in the future, that future is a horribly bleak one, a return to feudalism.-
100%
crespi11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And the greedy types thought they all would be the lords of us, when only those who START at 3 or 4 hundred million dollars a year are elligible (the 5 or 6 million dollar types considered as being down with the minimum wage earner "scum" were surprised.)
Reply
Many, many Republicans found this out this year...
-
-
HomerJS49Comment removed: Abusive
-
100%
dotsie_d11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My grandfather, who died at the age of 94 in 1996, said the U.S. economy was going to fail when bank deregulation began. The old guy, in his infinite wisdom, said once the little guy became unimportant, capitalism would end, and oligarchy would begin. He said this in 1985. He was talking about how local banks were being swallowed up by regional banks. He did not live to see even the long and the short of it. He was a product of the '20s, raised my mother and sister during the Great Depression, and was a supervisor under the WPA. He said he would not live to see another depression, but that I would, and it would probably come around 2007 or 2008, because people were living beyond their means, and to quote him, "Reagan has made us a bunch of greedy peckerwoods." He said it would take a while because it takes some time for a snowball to become and avalanche. I loved my grandfather, and I listened to him well. He wa a very, VERY wise man. I miss my morning cup of coffee with him. If I were a prognosticator, I believe he'd think that depression was here.
Reply-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa11 months, 1 week ago
-
0%
beavith111 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i'm sure he was a wise man. i feel the same way about my grandfather.
Reply
the only thing that i can say is that he would have had to have known that CDO and CDS failures were going to occur in the mid 2000s before this would have happened. seeing that those instruments didn't exist back then, i'd say he just got lucky...
-
-
100%
tadair91911 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
attention anybody who wishes to have a clue. watch a documentary called "America: Freedom to Fascism" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5355374476...
Reply -
100%
ELISHEVA111 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Extreme right wing becomes extreme left wing with the same result: a few with everything and most with not quite enough. Even that does not satisfy the greedy.
Reply
The only way out of it is if all the leaders co-operate, work together and begin to share on all levels: (Example) America needs oil, the developing countries need food and water... etc.
With that example, people can begin to look out for each other and once we all take responsibility for our actions, stop blaming and expecting to be bailed out for our mistakes in our world, we will have a chance.
More News
Daily Finance
The Crash of 2008: It's the Panic of 1825 all over again (also 1837, 1847, 1866 ... )
Franklin fund bought into Cadbury hoping for buyout deal
Cruise wars: To lure tourists back, companies vie to launch biggest ship
Broader unemployment rate hits 17.5% as companies get smarter about staff
Hurricane Ida's trip through Gulf of Mexico could push oil prices higher
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.