Comments for Capitalism’s worst crisis since the 1930s »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 1 year 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 »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 135
-
88%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year 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%
Endoscopy1 year 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.-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You check the numbers. People laid off and market down. My 401K lost 1/6 value each of those years. I remember that quite well. The liberals were blaming Bush but it started the last year of Clinton. Can't remember blaming that all on Bush can you. Poor libs. Can't keep their story straight.
Reply
Here is a link to a story about the NASDAQ from 2000 to 2003. LOL
http://www.lowrisk.com/nasdaq-1929.htm
They compare it to the crash of 1929. Just like you yoyos are now.-
-
100%
Beau78901 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If your investments lost 16% in each of two years, that was nothing like what we're now seeing. The markets are down over 40% in nine months across the board. And some have lost over half.
Reply
You're in denial about the current situation. And if you're going to tell me you're doing better than the market averages, congratulations. But that doesn't mean our current situation is the same as it was at the beginning of Bush's term.
By the way, we'd all appreciate it if you'd look at some real information and realize that the subprime mortgage debacle is just a tiny portion of our economic crisis. Our entire economy depends on lending of all kinds, and no one's doing it. We haven't seen the fed drop rates to 0.3% to try to encourage lending in many decades, and it still isn't working. And the basic cause of all of the markets plunging was complete deregulation, allowing idiots running banks and hedge funds who don't know what they're buying to lap up all the bad financial instruments (not simply bundled subprimes) on borrowed money, with less to back their risks. All ACORN did was try to allow poor people to own homes rather than rent. The mortgages those people took were already prevalent in the market.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
beavith11 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
greedy speculators? wow. let's pass a law legislating morality. then we can pass another one legislating human nature.
Reply
sheesh.
say. how're those speculators doing now? especially the bastids that bid the price of gas up to 4 and 5$ a gallon?
markets correct. most of the time you don't even know it.-
100%
Beau78901 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All we have to do is pass laws to prevent consumers and little guys trying to invest, who do not have the backing of teams of lawyers, from being swindled. And especially, to enforce them. In my book, that's a far cry from legislating morality.
Reply
Again, deregulation allowed bad investment instruments and their resulting bubbles to be created. (Remember junk bonds? Did anyone learn?) That'd be fine if only the buyers of those instruments suffered. But because our economy is dependent on lending, everyone ends up paying, especially the poor.
I'd guess that while some of those who bid the price of oil up took a beating, most got out with hefty profits--and sold high to those aforementioned little guys. -
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"how're those speculators doing now?"
Reply
They are passing their gambling debts on to you and me.
They are doing just fine.
That, it seems, is a big part of the problem.
"Free market! Free Market!!"
...until the grotesque greed catches up then it's
"Government save my a$$, Government save my a$$".
It's no more advisable to let the wall street thugs loose on the market with no supervision than to let a gang of toddlers loose in the candy store with no supervision.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
mark-stevens1 year 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%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
America will survive. Yes. But will it be sold? Has it already been sold?
Reply
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/09/business/ch...
-
-
-
100%
DarkWizard1 year 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%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year 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%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year 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.-
100%
DarkWizard1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RFE,
Reply
I agree with the majority of your assessment and in particular the Jefferson quote (it is one of my favorites) but there some inherent issues with a "Worker's Party" too. This is really what we are talking about here. America has a Worker's Party, but they have very little recognition in the political arena.
However, I believe that a strengthened Worker's Party may be the only safe guard the common person has against out-of-control government and business practices. I don't know how feasible it is or how a movement like this can gain momentum accept through awareness and necessity. I don't see it being competitive against the entrenched political parties, but I do see were they could gain enough support to force a recognition of worker's demands at the Congressional level. -
100%
reallypsst1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Very good Radio,maybe a model for reform should be put in to play now that tax payers own the debt of many companies.The workers should own stock and have a vote on all the companies issues instead of board of trust and Ceos. This would eliminate the need for unions and would insure the direction their company is taking also level the playing field in the industry.IF you own a piece of the pie you are apt to ensure its progress and work harder for success . there is no industry in the world today that can operate without someone s labor.Even robots and computers need human labor to exist.
Reply-
100%
Candida1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are right that employees who are also owners of the company probably work hard to make the company succeeds, and that's why some companies do pay part of their compensation in the form of shares or give subsidies for purchasing stock in the company. It is not without risk to the employees, however, because if the company goes under, they lose not only their jobs but their savings too.
Reply-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Toyota Japan, has been doing this since at least the 70's. Plus their management typically make less than a third of what their US counterparts make ,(incidentally the cost of living in Japan is HIGHER than in the U.S.). However they ALL get bonuses and stock based on how well the company does. I remember Forbes magazine doing an article about this 20 years ago suggesting we could learn a great deal from their success...we didn't.
Reply
-
-
-
-
RRconComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
89%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year 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%
Spadecaller1 year 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%
DarkWizard1 year 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%
Endoscopy1 year 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%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The auto workers are not particularly overpaid.
Reply
They have made remarkable concessions.
God forbid people should have a pension plan. Are there no prisons? No workhouses?
The US' auto industry has been MISMANAGED for 20 years at least. It's sad but true.
The workers have NOTHING to do with it.
It's a bit complicated but the workers including benefits figure less than 10% of the cost of a 30,000 dollar car. That's really low. Blaming labor is foolish. How much of the cost of your house construction is labor?
It's around 50% in my area, I suspect it's similar in yours.
What does anyone have against a worker making a decent wage and having health insurance? A pension? This was the lesson learned and the unspoken bargain made a few generations ago. One forgotten and trampled upon in todays world. Just bring back slavery that's some cheap labor,,,ogh I forgot you already have, you just keep them in their own countries now...saves on housing and medical expenses.-
0%
beavith11 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(sigh)
Reply
endo says $2000 you say 10% of $3000. what'll it be?
oh. even if you can't admit it, Big Labor had a hand in today's situation. rather than management having to union bust or put up with regular strikes, they made an incestuous deal that defied long term economic health for the whole organization.
that clucking? that's the chickens coming home to roost.-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe I wrote 10% of 3o,ooo -It is actually under 3,000 dollars even taken into account the retirement payments (which unfairly people like to do.) For some models 2,000 dollars is correct.
Reply
Including the retirement figures is bogus because if we added the incomes of retired people to the salaries of workers, then divided by the number of workers,
we would not get an honest average salary would we?
It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Yet even with that "dishonest "figure people still think the failure to make cars that sell well is labors fault?
I think not.-
0%
beavith11 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the point was simple. the gold plated retirement and health plan of the retirees add to the overhead cost on a car that the american plants of foreign brands don't face.
Reply
that's kind of margin busting overhead is a tremendous drag on any of hte american car makers.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
gamahuche1 year 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%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year 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%
Shana4Liberty1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good point. The government has it's tentacles in almost every part of our economy. A free market is just that- free of government regulation and manipulation. I can't think of a single sector of our economy that isn't affected by the government in some way.
Reply-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's because they didn't survive. The banks regulated by FDIC rules will survive and they are still solvent.
Reply
The rotten bast*rds at these wall street financial institutions argued for and were given more and more free reign, look what they did with it. They would all be disappeared, bankrupt if not for the Government propping them up with your money and mine. It's easy and folksy to say government should let these businesses do whatever they want if one does not look at the history. Many of these institutions became wealthy to begin with by money laundering Nazi money for instance. Letting these "greed is good" robbers lose on the populous with no controls or oversight is no more advisable than letting hungry wolves in a baby's room. If you do it you better have weapon, your going to need it.
We need good honest government that represents our interests, we the people,
like Jefferson described. It's more ludicrous to put blind faith in monopolies and corporations than to put blind faith in government. Both of these faiths are ill earned.
-
-
100%
kobzikov1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Suppose there was a free market. How would you recognize it if you've never seen it?
Reply
There have been markets without any regulation. For example before establishment of FDA drug market was pretty much unregulated, does that qualify as a free market? If not then why not?
What about black markets? For example, in countries where government is relatively weak and can't enforce regulations. Are these markets free?
Here is an illegal small arms market in Somalia,
http://www.noob.us/miscellaneous/illegal-gun-marke...
There is no government regulation there is it a free market?
Here is one from Pakistan,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9xf62PKC5M
-
-
-
100%
CHAM1 year 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%
Tangent0011 year 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%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year 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%
amazed1 year 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%
rihbazellle1 year 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%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year 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%
Progressive1 year 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.-
-
100%
alakazam1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0vXxH1IEmQ
Reply -
-
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
100%
willottica1 year 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).-
-
100%
DarkWizard1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I like it too, but their can still be more done to ensure that the top executives have has much at stake as the employees when it comes to the risks of the company failing. Take away golden parachutes (for every company!), remove stock options from the picture, and base earning on salaries and bonuses. The bonuses would be ties to "real" profits and not unpaid debt and would have a "tier" system, throughout the company, making it a profit sharing exercise or bonuses for those directly involved with making a company profitable or both (with possible differentials).
Reply
When a company goes negative, the first people to be affected by pay cuts should come from the top down. The reasoning is, the top is responsible for the capabilities of its company and have the most responsibility to ensure profitability. Who is usually canned when a company is unsuccessful?!; The CEO first and then the executive staff. By tying their salaries directly to the profitability/success of the company you allow the CEO or executives to either rectify the issues or look for other work. Either way it is a win-win situation for shareholders, the board, and employees.
I will try and look up some information on a group that actually pushes for this kind of workplace scenario already. I found them when writing some papers (years ago) on this topic in my MBA program.
-
-
-
100%
willottica1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would be insulted, except that I saw some of my fellow "Dippers;" we're a colorful bunch, that's for sure.
Reply
I'm a fiscal conservative, but think top-down economics is a fundamentally flawed policy. Bottom up is the only way to ensure a stable economy. Ever heard of a statue with clay feet?
So I can't side with the Conservative Party, they're top-down all the way. They're also socially backwards, IMO. I'm a social liberal.
Legalize drugs and abortion so they can be controlled and as safe as possible.
Allow gay marriage - as far as government's concerned anyway. Marriage, by government's definition, is just a business contract between two parties. Love doesn't enter into the picture, and children are not necessary to it. It's sexual discrimination to insist that a partner in a business contract be of a certain sex. -
-
-
-
63%
Painesright1 year 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%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year 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?-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I notice their CEOs make less than a third of what US CEOs make.
Reply
Their rewards are often tied to performance.
50 Chrysler execs got a 50 million dollar bonus this year.
Their company is in ruins begging for taxpayer cash many times over their assets worth.
This kind of ludicrous "entitlement" and "wealth re-distribution" is so inbred in American corporate society that one wonders indeed if it has any value worth saving.-
Neutral
Painesright1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CEO compensation is not controlled by the gov't and is not paid out of tax payer funds (current situtation not withstanding)... taxes are a completely different issue...
Reply
Your statement that avg tax rate is lower in Britain is incorrect... check your facts.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/life/tax/incom...
Two more links to follow...-
100%
alakazam1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"CEO compensation is not controlled by the gov't and is not paid out of tax payer funds"
Reply
When loans are made to private banks against the will of the majority of taxpayers and then misspent by the those corporations it becomes a people to take note that their Leaders believe themselves Masters and above the Law.
-
-
Neutral
Painesright1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And they are going up...
Reply
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/b... -
Neutral
Painesright1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And don't forget the NI
Reply
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Ta...-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The tax rate in Britain varies (as does the US)
Reply
between 24% and 40% . Essentially it very simple - no income tax on the first £5435, 20% over that to £36,000 PA then 40% on any income above that amount.
The median average wage in this country is about £24K PA so the income tax on that would be about £4000
29% of the average taxpayers income goes to taxes.
Source(s):
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
In the US the average taxpayer pays 30%. I paid 38% last year because of a loss in business deductions created by a technicality and not just on the money I made over the magic number, on my entire income. Most other years I paid 33%.
US citizens don't get nearly as much for their money as Brits. -
-
-
-
PainesrightComment removed: Spam
-
100%
JohnGault1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry your info on Chrysler compensation is wrong unless you have other info.
Reply
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-11-14-chr...-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It was 1.5 million for 50 execs. Sorry your right my numbers were overstated.
Reply
Still ,there is 75 million just thrown in the dumpster.
http://www.freep.com/article/20081113/BUSINESS01/3...
-
-
-
75%
awongscreen1 year 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%
rimbaud1 year 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-
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not very many products actually made here anymore.
Reply
Buy your furniture from N. Carolina or other domestic craftsmen, it is still a good value (though the Chinese stuff is cheaper, it compares poorly.)
I tried to find a power tool made in the USA a few months ago in Home Depot, Ace Hardware, and then Lowes...I could not. All imports even Milwaukee, and Stanley.
Opted for a Makita...but it too was Chinese. It has already had problems with the switch, very shoddy.
I gladly pay for quality. Electronics too have suffered. A certified warranty repairman for numerous companies told me the solder jobs are so bad on most stuff today that only 1 in 3 TVs are not returned,
Great. How little are these people being paid to have a record like that be acceptable (or profitable)?
-
-
-
-
25%
tadair9191 year ago
-
75%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year 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).-
-
-
Neutral
tadair9191 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the gold standard doesn't conflict with growth! the fact that you are regurgitating the oh-so-worrisome deflation mantra just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. you don't run out of money, you simply use smaller denomination bills
Reply
with inflation you have money decreasing in value. in the extreme case you have germany in 1929, or zimbabwe now.
but with sound money, you have the opposite of that with growth. you get decreasing denomination bills.-
100%
willottica1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, but if the value of money goes up, then people might hold off on unnecessary purchases and save their money instead!
Reply
...I must have had a point there somewhere, but for some reason that actually sounds like a GOOD thing to do.-
100%
Beau78901 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the very long term, deflation would possibly fix some of our economy's basic ills (its growth is currently entirely dependent on borrowed cash) and would probably revitalize saving.
Reply
In the short and medium term (a couple of decades), we'd have rampant unemployment and poverty. (Businesses too would have no incentive to spend, even on investment in themselves.) The levels of homelessness and starvation would make the Great Depression look like child's play, and the U.S. would look like a Middle Eastern country with a much larger divide between the wealthy elite and an enormous underclass. This would seem like the good ol' days.-
100%
willottica1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why would businesses have no incentive to spend? In order to get more money, they would have to produce. Healthy deflation would not likely be more than a single percentage point, so a 10% profit would still net 9% over sitting on the money.
Reply
And most people WANT to be productive. They are unhappy with their lives and their work if they don't feel that they are making a difference. I would argue that inflation serves the wealthy elite far more than the underclasses, because they can afford the inflated prices, while the underclasses must suffer without.
But it flies in the place of decades of economic policy, and there isn't much precedent for knowing whether healthy deflation (or constant prices) are good or bad.
-
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tadair919,
Reply
There is at minimum a somewhat fixed supply of gold.
Inflation, if managed and controlled is not a bad thing, it made my house a great investment until the morons who caused the internet bubble moved to the real estate market inflating prices artificially leading now to deflation. The gold market is no different it is easily manipulated. It just does not matter. Zimbabwe's currency is worth nothing because their government has mismanaged their economy giving productive farmland to political cronies who failed to learn how to farm. One calamity after another. I suppose if they had a bunch of gold to back up their currency in this case the gold would maintain a certain value, however they would have had to use that gold to trade with other nations as their "real product" is nil. This is of value when it's time to go out of business, when "everything must go" because you've hit rock bottom and are viewed as a worthless ****. The U.S. is unlikely to be viewed as a worthless nation.The world accepts our currency because it is based on America itself.
Our word is good. Now these grotesquely greedy folks who shear the sheep and sell their mothers undo much of that. Perhaps making your belief viable.
America's currency was in no danger as long as we produced "real" products, before the lust for slave labor led to the lunacy of moving everything of value out of the country. We will survive, but if we learn nothing (again) from the raping we survived these last years, we don't deserve to.
-
-
-
beavith1Comment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
100%
canadianrancher571 year 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%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year 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%
crespi1 year 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_d1 year 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%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
-
100%
Beau78901 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There were many who'd lived through the Depression who said the same thing about interstate banking and deregulation. My father, who was just a child during the '30s, was also one of them.
Reply
Too bad our government is too short-sighted to pay attention.
-
-
0%
beavith11 year 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%
tadair9191 year 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%
ELISHEVA11 year 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. -
-
etopclothingComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
ellsworth-tooheyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
CHAM1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some of the best comments I've ever read. One thing is for sure - We American people - "the little people", the 95 percenters better wake up and get with it if we want to save our country from Anarchy. Once the Dam bursts everyone will be fighting to survive. We will have returned to the law of the jungle.
Reply
We are collectively smart enough to avoid the above. But time is ticking, the window of opportunity is closing.-
-
100%
CHAM1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well you're right RFE. I suppose that sometimes you just have to do what you would rather not. But if all choices are exhausted and no effect has been realized that could be considered worthwhile - then revolution occurs.
Reply
As a matter of fact just about every great civilization has begun on this premise:
The people had just had enough and wouldn't take it anymore.
-
-
-
50%
joeliberty1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BS. This has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with state intervention. No one is talking about the community reinvestment act or the drastic interest rate cuts by the FED. get the facts: http://mises.org/story/3128
Reply -
0%
lloydm651 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A good start to make sure this don't happen again,would be to sentence one fourth of the democratic house,and at least ten democrat senators to ninety nine years in the electric chair.The people they were being paid to protect should be boiled in oil.Compare seven hundred billion,against the four and one half trillion in worthless mortgages that destroyed banks,and other financial institution here,and half way around the world.It didn't have a damn thing to do with capitalism.
Reply-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Joe and lloyd,,,that's hilarious HO HO HO you guys are killin' me.
Reply
You are right up there with Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello, and Loeb and Leopold!
Though politicos are not without blame, It was the rotten lobbyists for these "wonderful" institutions who begged the politicos for the "right" to do this.
No one made Wall Street bundle these bags of nothing and resell them to each other in a game of hot potato. They claimed that they alone knew best, and they are revealed as thieves and liars.
If you insist on pretending it was "party" related, need I remind you that deregulating these black holes that suck capital to some other dimension was largely a Republican mantra, though neither side is innocent.
Funny how the regulated institutions have little or no toxic debt, just the deregulated ones. Who invented these worthless "instruments"? government? No. It was the unregulated mortgage industry that lobbied for this deregulation, politicos pretended it was to expand home ownership, and maybe even some believed it. But how can you say if government had hands off the market this wouldn't have happened? It happened precisely because they took their hands off. Lead down a primrose path by an industry of thieves.
-
-
100%
Painesright1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
Reply
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from:
bondage to spiritual truth,
to great courage,
from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness,
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependence,
from dependence back again to bondage.
Professor A. Tyler (or Tytler) 1890-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some truth there, though the Florentine democratic republic lasted pretty long and was stunning in it's achievements. Though one can learn from history's mistakes. Sort of the point of studying history. I would say the Spanish anarchists operated the only true democracy I can think of. They were defeated by the fascists but they had some fascinating beliefs. For instance, that any and all organizing of policy would be mobile with no permanent power anywhere. This is genius, if power is never consolidated it can't be usurped. One man one vote- true democracy. In a sense, their downfall, as they respected their individual rights to decision making so highly that decisions could not be reached quickly (until every voice was heard from)lead to their defeat. This made for slow decision making which unfortunately lead to their demise.
Reply
What it seems your suggesting is that we should dismantle the government and let anarchy reign until a dictator takes over, but that Dictator will cause a revolution, then a new good government will arise that is also doomed?
Not being a wise guy here.
Consider without the massive government deficit spending and employment program in WWII there's a good chance we would be speaking German right now. It's hard to visualize in any terms that would work in our own households, so it's easy to criticize, but...Keynesian economics has a pretty good track record, I can only think of one occasion it didn't seem to work (Japan). I don't think the vast majority want anything from government other than maintaining a level playing field for it's citizens, to reasonably protect them from all enemies (including monopolies).
Ironically it's the wealthiest that are draining the treasury for their personal welfare, not the poor, not the decades long suffering middle class, but the richest 5%. Of course it was the aristocrats who were tired of democracy not entitling them to special treatment that brought down the Florentine Democratic Republic too.
-
-
-
HomerJS49Comment removed: Abusive
-
0%
beavith11 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it evaporates.
Reply
that why the talking heads can say 'the stock market lost $1T today.' if Ann bought $1000 worth of stock today and could only sell it for $100 tomorrow because nobody stepped up to buy it as the her price dropped until it hit $100, $900 went away.
nope. its gone.
on the other hand, if he bought it for $100 and somebody wanted to buy it for $1000 (that of course presumes that they have the cash), she just made $900.
-
-
100%
Painesright1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
Reply
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative
and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
and should do for themselves." William Boetcker-
HomerJS49Comment removed: Abusive
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those are interesting but II like these better personally.
Reply
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. " -Thomas Jefferson
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." -Thomas Jefferson
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." -Thomas Jefferson
"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. " -Thomas Jefferson
"That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part." -Thomas Jefferson
"History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is." -Thomas Jefferson
"The less we use our power the greater it will be." -Thomas Jefferson
"Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people. " -Thomas Jefferson
"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." -Thomas Jefferson
-
-
100%
eastcoast19781 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Socialism is not the answer. Capitalism still works. Its how America became great. Greed without regulation will cause us to suffer. Allowing companies to be leveraged 30-1 isn't helping either. We will get it right and rebuild. Socialism will destroy us.
Reply
loading ...
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.