Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

The media buzz today is centered around the talk in Washington of the potential nationalization of our banks in the United States.  The threat of nationalization in the United States would make the likes of the late-Juan Peron and dictator Hugo Chavez proud.

Nationalization is non other than government control at its worst. It is a dangerous path to take, especially in a country where capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit of innovation and new ideas should be called upon during times of economic crisis.

If the banks are nationalized, then what? How did we get to a place where the government is convinced it can do a better job at running the banks than the private sector? The record of government control of our money should be reason enough to protest nationalization. Ronald Reagan said it best when he quipped: "Government is not the solution to our problems...government IS the problem".

The United States is at a turning point in its 200 plus year history. Every nation that has ever bet against America has lost money doing so. We need to hear more from Washington about optimism and hope, more about personal and fiscal responsibility, and less about government control and nationalization.

The path of nationalization is a slippery slope void of the American spirit. It tells us that we CAN`T fix this thing ourselves and that the government can do a better job running things than the American people who hired them to lead, not to assume responsibility for our lives.

Call 202-225-3121 and ask for your U.S. Representative and United States Senator. Let them know that not only is nationalization a threat to business and entrepreneur alike, but goes against the grain of the American spirit.

America is depending upon our resolve and willingness  to remain true to liberty and to secure the future of our children by refusing to sell-out the next generation for quick fixes and a band-aid for a stab wound.

We can recover as we have always recovered. But we need to do it as a people where the courage of our convictions trumps the rhetoric of Washington.

-Will Griffith, Chairman
The Griffith Corporation
www.griffithcorp.com
888-828-5355



-------------------------

Will Griffith
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

Another "buzz" I`m seeing starting to creep up everywhere is the question, "What`s wrong with socialism? Sweden is doing just fine!"

Arguing the American spirit likely won`t overcome the nationalization of banks and industries, wage-and-price controls, and property confiscation. Nor will rationing and an overwhelming bureaucracy.

Too many people see nothing wrong with government control over the society. What`s worse is that they don`t consider themselves to be part of that society, in that they personally won`t be affected by the proposed new laws.

Dear Mr. Landes,

Well said! The apathy with regard to a "united socialist states of Amerika" does not seem to bother the "europhiles" at all.  The beautiful part about this country is our people are free to come and go. There isn`t a wall and there isn`t a regime preventing them from going to Sweden (at least not yet) or any other nation where people have grown complacent, sacrificed freedom and security for the benefit of "big brother" taking care of them: and where the threat of terrorism is less a threat because the flame of liberty does not burn. In the eyes of Islamic fundamentalist extremists, there is nothing worth destroying in those countries. Those countries have already destroyed the spirit of freedom through their system of government. They committed an act of "terror" against themselves before the Jihadis could get there.

Our nation is unique in a great many ways. Where it is not unique is in its vulnerability against those elements that would replace the fundamental values of what our nation stands for with another form of government that represents control and complacency.

Mr. Landes, your response was right on target, and the ultra-left be warned...we`re on guard and ready to preserve this last frontier of hope on earth.

When you see the news ticker on the major networks read: "Liberals worried about Fiscal Responsibility Summit", as it did today, there is little else to say. Now is the time for action.

This is not "change" I can believe in.

Will Griffith, Chairman
The Griffith Corporation
www.griffithcorp.com



-------------------------

Will Griffith
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

If the US nationalizes the banks - for that matter, if the US nationalizes the entire corporate economy - it would be well deserved. We`re in one of the worst economic disasters of the century, and it`s largely because people who probably knew better, used shady economics to get rich quick. You`ll notice they`re the ones also getting the trillion dollar payoff. That`s the American dream. Screw the nation, and get a billion from Congress. It`s clear that we can`t trust businesses to self regulate. If given freedom, they`ll exploit. If I were in power, all of these banks would be filing bankruptcy and going out of business. You can`t claim laissez-fair capitalism when it allows you to break the rules and then beg for socialism to save your butt. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and their kin, they should face the natural economic consequences of their poor judgement. Since that`s not happening, you might as well nationalize all of the banks and be fair about it.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

Matt,
Although I agree with your word "deserved," I have to disagree with "well deserved."

As an example of how federal nationalization would work, let`s take your car. Literally!

This was done when the Soviet Army (a so-called people`s liberation army) marched into Moscow, back when Russia was a monarchy run by the Czar. At that point, operating under the newly developed concepts of communism, the private citizens were suddenly told they were no longer private. They only were citizens.

Following that, the socialist government removed ownership from all private businesses, placing it under the domination of the government. Therefore, all income and revenue from that business was taken "for the people," and paid out in portions to all the citizens.

When the previous owner of a business needed to re-stock inventory, they had to fill out paperwork and request authorization from the government. The government then allowed some portion of that request, "assuming" that the request was too much, and only worthy of the fat-cat capitalist back in the old days.

Allowing a percentage of the request for inventory (remind you of HMOs and Medicare?), they then sent the papers along to the vendors. Those vendors had also been nationalized, and now had quotas. They had to produce a certain amount of product. Especially in the beginning, if those quotas weren`t met, the managers were either shot or sent to Siberia or the Gulags.

Assuming some amount of inventory actually made it back to the original store owner, he didn`t own it. But a lot of that inventory was diverted, both for criminals in the underground and for the Politburo.

The leaders of the People`s Republic lived far better than those people, because they had the power and guns to divert whatever goods they felt like taking, all in the name of "important government needs."

When the store owner returned to his home, it was declared much too large for a common citizen. So it was broken up into apartments. Those who had no housing were moved into parts of the erstwhile private home, sharing bathrooms and kitchens. The people moving in were total strangers, and the property that used to owned (dishes, pots, pans, etc.), all became "the people`s possessions."

All cars and automobiles were either confiscated, for the good of the people, or they had to be justified. Papers had to be filled out, with requests to allow the previous car owner to "borrow" their car back from the government. But only if it was truly necessary.

Of course gasoline stopped flowing immediately, so that too was nationalized. But in that case, because of its importance, the Soviet military was brought in to "protect" those necessary and critical assets.

Obviously, many people were upset about this. Particularly students, professors, theologians, artists, musicians, writers, and anyone with strong right-brained processes. To uncover those dissidents, enemies of the State, the secret police (KGB) was instituted.

Along with them, there was the political indoctrination arm of the politburo and Soviet government. Around the neighborhoods, on each block, the citizens were required to meet on a regular basis to discuss their needs. That meant their personal needs, not their business needs.

Nobody cared about business needs. They cared about whether or not the citizens felt they were being treated fairly, nicely, and equally. They wanted to know if the citizens had health care, food, housing, clothes.

If you didn`t attend these meetings, you either were warned or simply jailed. With no room in the jails, you were then shipped off to Siberia or the Gulags. If you were a "marked" dissident, you simply were shot.

Much like in Cuba today, physicians and scientists were also made equal. They were given the same salaries as everyone else. They were not allowed to charge for their services, as they were part of the common good. If they needed more food, they were maybe allowed to grow some vegetables or have some chickens or goats.

Very quickly, people realized there was no personal gain in becoming a doctor, scientist, professor, artisan, craftsman, developer, or anything else. Nobody kept their own earnings, so what was the point?

To counter that, the government took control of the schools. They instituted skills testing, then told the children what they would study. For more complex subjects, the children were removed from their families and sent to universities or boarding schools.

The government realized they needed some form of art, having outlawed all religions as "subversive," so they created national art institutes, where children who showed some promise were sent for training.

So you see, it`s not so bad if the government nationalizes a few things here and there. Sure, that`ll cause problems in unforeseen areas, so they`ll have to nationalize those areas too. We`ve got lots of room in Alaska, outside the livable zones, so we can send the protesters and dissidents there. They can build their own camps, and live in whatever way they choose.

It took 80 years and nearly 5 generations before the Soviet Union collapsed. Why? Because American capitalism had so-far outstripped the peasant-level lifestyle of the common Russian, that the people wouldn`t even remotely accept that the government worked.

And now Vladimir Putin, the current Prime Minister of Russia, former head of the KGB, was in the news. Last week he *warned* the US against going down the same pathway as the USSR had taken.

This is the head of Russia! And we know that Russia was the focal point for global socialism! And he`s telling us....America!...that we should pay more attention that we don`t overstep into socialism!

Fair enough - total nationalization would be a severe mistake. But, I think we can also say that the US policy of wild west, might makes right capitalism - the opposite of the Soviet system - has proven nearly as disastrous. A middle ground is the right solution. Don`t place all commerce in the hands of the government. They don`t seem to know what they`re doing. However, the very definition of capitalism is getting ahead at the expense of others. Capitalists shouldn`t be trusted to be ethical, because as we`ve seen, money corrupts. I think the start of this corporate meltdown was the Enron scandal. When the housing scandal first hit the news, I was over in England watching it on the BBC, and didn`t get the full extent of the damage. I don`t think anyone really knew it. But I didn`t have Fox news to exaggerate the situation for me. It wasn`t until recently that my disdain for unchecked capitalism started to materialize. If this thread had appeared say, two years ago, I would have been 110% free market capitalism - no restrictions - survival of the fittest. However, I don`t think that`s in anyone`s best interest. I got screwed by these corporations, and if that`s not enough, I`m going to be paying them my taxes till I die for their mistakes. Is that justice or what? What sort of crime do I have to commit to even get a loan to start a coffee shop? If I lead the nation to bankruptcy, I get a few billion dollars from the president and a "don`t do that again" (that`ll stop them). Do we have to bankrupt a state to get even a small loan? It doesn`t pay to be honest. I hope it does soon.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

Money doesn`t corrupt. It`s the lust for money that corrupts.
Power doesn`t corrupt, it`s the lust for power that corrupts.

Same thing, over and over: it isn`t the process that`s causing the problem, it`s the intent behind the process.

Both capitalism and socialism are a morality. Both require a set of values. Socialism has been tried repeatedly, but capitalism has never been tried, excepting in small, local regions.

True capitalism rests first on a culture of values. Those values rest on the basic principle of quality of life. Directly up from that principle is the next one of accountability. Actions have consequences, and each individual must be held responsible for their actions.

We`ve had years (decades) of ethical relativism, where nobody is responsible for anything.

Another important part of a social system is the news media. They indeed must be the watchdogs, reporting excess and amoral actions by local and national leaders and companies.

If the media broadcasts the kinds of unbelievable excesses, editorializing on the likely consequences, the public (the market) has a chance to withdraw from supporting the problem.

We don`t get any news these days, just fluff. Nor do we hold anyone accountable for anything.

Ultimately, all of this depends on whether people "believe" that reality is real and objective. The threat of real disaster and real consequences should be the ultimate backstop to preventing catastrophic actions.

Few people seem to believe that reality is real anymore. And so, reality itself will work through the system.

It isn`t capitalism that`s wrong. In the same way, cellular reproduction is critical to life. But when a particular group of cells reproduces totally unchecked, out of context, with no consequences of restraint, we call it cancer. Profiteering is the cancer of current history.

1) Government is not intended to be a business. That`s why they suck at trying to act like one.

2) Big business is not bad. It`s the few behind big business that screw it up for the rest of us that make it bad.



-------------------------

M Hall
Website Critique Community
International Society of Curmudgeons

I am always encouraged when I hear from Mr. Landes and Mr. Hall, and those who recognize how the current economic and political climate has dropped the ball on the American people.

Now, we leave the bench, get onto the court and pick up that ball!

Will Griffith
www.griffithcorp.com



-------------------------

Will Griffith
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

The economic "climate" and political "climate" aren`t conscious entities. They have no capacity to drop or carry anything.

A better analogy would be that the political and economic perceptions of the general population that make up the "climate" has decided to end the game.

Nobody should carry a ball, only the referees. The players should be sidelined, and the field should be closed for an environmental impact study.