Originally Posted by herbal tee

Me? If so, I'll say that I still have friends in the Charlotte area, some of which have been laid off by BOA or Wachovia as they have swallowed up smaller banks along the way. Hopefully, Charlotte can diversify the local economy before such a thing happens.

Meanwhile BofA has bought up one of the big credit-card players here. (Yes, it's the one I've mentioned a few times before, that took its workplace environment into full 4T mode, etc. in 2001.) Anyway, even as they've closed a couple of their smaller sites, I don't think the shoes have begun to drop with it.

Delaware was an easy target with the credit-card banks, since there's no maximum state interest rate, and there is no interstate usury law in this country. But so many of the lesser players have bought each other up, either partially (just the local operations) or fully (most recently Chase and BankOne) that there aren't many players left.

Meanwhile, it was just announced that one of our two auto assembly plants will be closing in the next couple of years. And the other one is still in trouble (unless someone really is buying Pontiac Solstices.)

I have said many times on these boards that it should be time to pass some regulations limiting the power of these large corporate players. Do we have hope with the new Democratic majority in Congress, or will much continue to be the same old, same old at least as long as the Iraq war continues?

Here in Illinois the governor is getting considerable heat for this plan to start asking large corporations to pay their fair share in taxes so as to provide health care programs, etc. to benefit the working citizens? When do we, or will be, begin to put the idea of sucking up to big business concerns to bed?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I have said many times on these boards that it should be time to pass some regulations limiting the power of these large corporate players. Do we have hope with the new Democratic majority in Congress, or will much continue to be the same old, same old at least as long as the Iraq war continues?

The credit industry may indeed be getting a more critical look. They certainly deserve one.

Here in Illinois the governor is getting considerable heat for this plan to start asking large corporations to pay their fair share in taxes so as to provide health care programs, etc. to benefit the working citizens? When do we, or will be, begin to put the idea of sucking up to big business concerns to bed?

My guess is that we will have to get well into the 4t before we see the worship of all things corporate subside.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Musharref is assasinated. Pakistan ejects US presence, including the embassy. The old Soviet republics follow suit. US units in Afghanistan are forced to beat a hasty retreat by air, to avoid being captured piecemeal. 95% escape back to the US, after being forced to stage through Russia, China, and India, enduring much humiliation.

CENTCOM is cashiered by Bush for this. The Admiral will never need to buy a drink again, however, as public opinion supports the decision to withdraw, and the rescued troops praise the former CENTCOM.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...7-2703,00.html

In response to the comment made about worship of all things corporate, I don't believe this is a syndrome that the majority of the general American public subscribes to. In fact, I would bet that only about 15 percent of the general public is guilty; with the remain 85 percent disdainful of corporate power or just don't care and don't try to change the status quo because they feel there is nothing they can do. They can write about it; remember the old adage that the pen is mighitier than the sword?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

In response to the comment made about worship of all things corporate, I don't believe this is a syndrome that the majority of the general American public subscribes to. In fact, I would bet that only about 15 percent of the general public is guilty; with the remain 85 percent disdainful of corporate power or just don't care and don't try to change the status quo because they feel there is nothing they can do. They can write about it; remember the old adage that the pen is mighitier than the sword?

Maybe 15% of the American public gives wholehearted support to Corporate America, perhaps still sporting a "W" badge on the car. 85% of America may see something very wrong with Corporate Power as the defining factor in all aspects of America, but how many of those 85% do anything?

The Great Depression began because of economic conditions similar to those today: skyrocketing profits and stagnant wages, labor unions rendered impotent, intensification of economic inequality, and government policies that endorsed whatever the successful "experts" wanted. Whoever produced a true commodity -- typically farmers -- did badly even before the Crash.

Marginal players in the American economy who have leveraged themselves badly are going to be the first to get burned. We can start with subprime borrowers who hoped that improving conditions would make the burden of debt slighter, and subprime lenders who bet that subprime borrowers would become more reliable in paying back loans. Stagnant wages and economic uncertainty have made the subprime borrowers even poorer risks.

Real estate is an unregulated market in which speculation is even more pervasive than were "securities" during the 1920s. What goes up in a speculative boom can also go down. People with huge debts for worthless items tend to walk away from impossible obligations.

Great amounts of real estate will end up foreclosed. Lending will dry up; real estate values will tumble. Think of Detroit, a place that has endured hard times for a couple of decades; much housing is now abandoned as the auto plant jobs vanished without the appearance of new jobs capable of supporting families. That could be the wave of the future.

As usual the government will be called to step in.

Originally Posted by 1990

The year-by-year rundown, as it will be presented on TV just a few years from now!

Now it's your turn. Finish the decade.

2007: The Bush Administration/Rove Dictatorship unravels even faster. .

The Libby trial and the even more damaging reports of attempts to turn federal prosecutors into agencies of the Neocons and partisan enemies of all Democrats will offend increasing numbers of Americans. When vile leadership is under threat, it turns to drastic measures -- coups and aggressive wars -- to manufacture support.

2008: War erupts in Iran after some "Gleiwitz incident".

What's a Gleiwitz incident? On September 1, 1939, according to German news reports, POLAND INVADED GERMANY, 'seizing' a radio station and encouraging the Polish minority in Upper Silesia to prepare to rule a large chunk of German territory. Hitler of course addressed the German people, assuring that the German Armed Forces were "returning fire". . It was all fake except for the horrors that continued until the German armed forces quit 'returning fire' in accordance with an unconditional surrender.

It is timed so that the Republicans can attack Democrats for a failure to support America (read, "George W. Bush") at its time of greatest need since WWII. With this, the election of Karl Rove's chosen successor to Dubya wins, and the Republicans regain control of the House and Senate in November.

2009: DICTATORSHIP CONSOLIDATED.

232 years of democratic tradition in America as a nation and even longer if one counts the oligarchic House of Burgesses of Virginia and the more democratic Massachussetts General Court (the colonial legislative body) disappear in "emergency' legislation. One Constitutional Amendment guts the Bill of Rights and another establishes the Republican Party as the "leading force of American politics".

Democrats find themselves impotent to thwart any legislation. American news media become conduits for propaganda. Bloggers must 'register' to the satisfaction of the Republican Party.

2010: NATO splinters as democratic countries in Europe seek a more reliable ally. Russia? Brazil? Military reverses in Iran lead to the endangerment of Iraq. At the end of the year, the Democratic Party is reduced to 28 seats in the Senate and 170 in the House. For all practical purposes the United States of America has become a single-party system under a party that allows no internal democracy.

2011: The GREAT PURGE begins as the GenSec Karl Rove begins removing any Republicans who show any signs of independence, often with criminal trials. Colleges, publishing houses, and news media are 'culled' of 'backsliders'. Dissidents are 'rehabilitated' in Guantanamo Bay. Part of the 'rehabilitation' will include being forced to move about nude on all fours, attached to a chain and collar...

The United States is renamed the Union of Christian and Corporate States and presented as the New Hope for the New Age.

... there will be little nostalgia for the Oh-Oh decade under that scary scenario for two reasons: first, that too many people will be concerned with survival to councern themselves with anything but their present predicament, and second, that as a 4T is underway, the 3T is reviled for contributing to the bad conditions of the 4T. People who have the freedom to think otherwise (in the horrible scenario above, Americans wise enough to have emigrated) tend to recognize the 3T as a time of failed opportunities for creating a better world when the difficulties and costs were much lesser.

I hope for better. I hope to see the Rove/Bush clique disgraced and pressured to flee or to face criminal trials for gross misconduct. I hope that in an era of liberal ascendancy that conservatives rediscover moral principle that precludes un-libertarian patronage. I hope to see the federal government as a granter of hope instead of as a cause for disgust.

The inept Presidents at the end of the 3Ts of the 1850s and 1920s were followed by two Presidents almost universally considered two of the three best -- Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

The post concerning the prelude to the Great Depression is to me a prime example of the adage that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But we won't really know unless we see something similar happen in upcoming years. And there is a new player in the game now which wasn't around in the 1920's, and that's consumer credit, which has fueled a debt surge so pervasive that it can be referred to as financial alcoholism. The credit card issuers are constantly changing their terms to benefit themselves, not their customers, despite the fact that there is still considerable competition for credit card use. We can, of course, all vote with our fingers and our mouse clicks, but how many people are really going to create enough of an uprising as to in unison cancel their cards in protest. I recently cancelled one of mine after numerous interest rate hikes and other booby-traps. They try to sell you identity theft protection and also credit protection against unexpected events such as a job layoff. But their terms are hard to meet if you are really proactive. I believe these things are "boobytraps" to try to squeeze more money out of you.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

[b] 2008: War erupts in Iran after some "Gleiwitz incident".

What's a Gleiwitz incident? On September 1, 1939, according to German news reports, POLAND INVADED GERMANY, 'seizing' a radio station and encouraging the Polish minority in Upper Silesia to prepare to rule a large chunk of German territory. Hitler of course addressed the German people, assuring that the German Armed Forces were "returning fire". . It was all fake except for the horrors that continued until the German armed forces quit 'returning fire' in accordance with an unconditional surrender.

It is timed so that the Republicans can attack Democrats for a failure to support America (read, "George W. Bush") at its time of greatest need since WWII. With this, the election of Karl Rove's chosen successor to Dubya wins, and the Republicans regain control of the House and Senate in November.

Do you really believe that our president, for all of his faults, is that diabolical enough to start a major war for sole purpose of consolidating power? Yes I know that one of the reasons that hitler started world war II was to strengthen the nazis hold on germany.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Do you really believe that our president, for all of his faults, is that diabolical enough to start a major war for sole purpose of consolidating power? Yes I know that one of the reasons that hitler started world war II was to strengthen the nazis hold on germany.

I agree that it's a stretch. Unlike Germans living in Weimar Germany, Americans have had 200+ years of history that was drummed into us from the time we were old enough to understand we were "Americans" and that America is a "free country".

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

The post concerning the prelude to the Great Depression is to me a prime example of the adage that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But we won't really know unless we see something similar happen in upcoming years. And there is a new player in the game now which wasn't around in the 1920's, and that's consumer credit, which has fueled a debt surge so pervasive that it can be referred to as financial alcoholism. The credit card issuers are constantly changing their terms to benefit themselves, not their customers, despite the fact that there is still considerable competition for credit card use. We can, of course, all vote with our fingers and our mouse clicks, but how many people are really going to create enough of an uprising as to in unison cancel their cards in protest. I recently cancelled one of mine after numerous interest rate hikes and other booby-traps. They try to sell you identity theft protection and also credit protection against unexpected events such as a job layoff. But their terms are hard to meet if you are really proactive. I believe these things are "boobytraps" to try to squeeze more money out of you.

It could be that in scenarios parallel to scenarios in The Grapes of Wrath most Americans lose their ability to pay for credit purchases, and credit cards become irrelevant for most. If anything, Americans will be obliged to use cash or debit cards. Abuses possible with debit cards are just as devastating as those with credit cards. We are being set up for very bad times.

I recognize the credit crunch as one result of the decay of communitarian business, one that reflects the cartelization of banking to the ostensible convenience of customers but ultimately destructive of any civic life that depends upon local connections and the degradation of a workforce that is reminded that it is 100% expendable. The values that allowed economic growth and social improvement in the post-WWII boom are mocked even more completely than in the 2T of the Consciousness Awakening.

The cornerstone of Rove/Bush economic policy is the cartelization of every imaginable industry to facilitate profit maximization on behalf of the well-connected. I can imagine ending up with four or five national banks: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, Citicorp, and (which ever survives) National City, Fifth Third, Comerica, Mellon, and First Union should the trends continue... If you don't want to deal with them there will be the ripoffs of payday loans and currency exchanges.

If any trend is well developed in 4Ts it is the reversal of the destructive tendencies of the previous 3T that made the 4T a certainty. "Socialism for the Rich", the effective ideology throughout the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations, will be out of vogue. People will have to make do by doing good for people instead of doing nasty things to people. One idealist faction in charge at the start of the 4T is thoroughly discredited, and another faction attracts the attention of those who were stepped on in the 3T and becomes the vanguard of history.

Events will likely force people to look to local solutions to personal problems, and that means smaller enterprises that appear in the interstices. Say what you want about Thirteeners -- but a lot of their talent has gone underused during the 3T because of the perverse choices of Silent and Boom owners, financiers, and bosses. A lot of real estate and a lot of industrial equipment will be available cheaply after the Great Devaluation, and at some point opening a noodle shop on a shoestring investment looks far more attractive than being a file clerk for bosses who increasingly resemble Simon Legree despite the clerk's possession of a college degree.

Giant networks that exist solely for the profits of a few are likely to face competition from those smaller outfits that better serve customers and treat employees with more decency. People who still have access to the Internet will find it useful as a superb tool of reference and perhaps self-expression... but much of the rest will look like the HAL-900 computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey -- thoroughly distant, amoral, and untrustworthy.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Do you really believe that our president, for all of his faults, is that diabolical enough to start a major war for sole purpose of consolidating power? Yes I know that one of the reasons that hitler started world war II was to strengthen the nazis hold on germany.

No, he's not diabolically clever enough to start a major war with Iran... but he is morally weak enough to do nothing to stop it. His credibility is wrecked without any possibility of redemption except through the reshaping of events. Dubya is one of the weakest leaders that we have ever had, and his weakness as a formal leader allows cabals to operate with him as the frontman.

As I see it, the neocon clique recognizes that its hold on power has become shaky. I see it willing to do anything to save its power, even if such implies a catastrophic gamble of everything that America has ever stood for.

pbrower 2a said [

" I can imagine ending up with four or five national banks: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, Citicorp, and (which ever survives) National City, Fifth Third, Comerica, Mellon, and First Union should the trends continue... If you don't want to deal with them there will be the ripoffs of payday loans and currency exchanges."]

Which is why your local Credit Union IS your friend.

(Proud member since 1981.)

pbrowera:

Your sundry post in response to mine on the impact of consumer credit, et al was very interesting, and made me wonder why the other shoe hasn't dropped yet. It has occurred to me that in spite of all the uncertainties of company layoffs, downsizing, outsourcing, et al that there are still a lot of people making money somehow, and goals people have dreamed of and hoped for are still within reach even though many have struggled to achieve them. We are constantly being told things such as "Don't stop now when the sky's the limit" and "Don't limit yourself in any way." and "There is growth potential and expansive opportunity if you have the temerament to follow through."

I'll be the first to confess to the "sin" of having been a bit too laid back to really follow through with a lot of things that could have made money for me. Maybe some of my convictions got in the way, and I feel that we are a much more moneycentric society than we need to be, and that in many ways we were better off when we weren't so bottom-line obsessed.

Here I am just trying to explain one of the possible explanations for why the other shoe has yet to drop. You did mention the scenarios of debit cards, but that is the same as a check, and it can bounce just like a check when you are overdrawn. Could those of us who continue to work for a company actually ended up choosing between Simon Legree or Ebenezer Scrooge? What a scary thought!

In building what many here refer to as a financial house of cards, those who have been able to exploit new and emerging technologies have prospered handsomely, while those who have not have become icons of how the other half lives(I guess we can update that to how the other half becomes largely iviisible). Many have taken to trading up on homes on gotten heavy into making home improvement, figuring they will be big cash cows for them. On one hand we hear that real estate has bottomed out, yet on the other there are still lots of new upscale developments sprouting up in former farm fields and in cities in areas that less prosperous yet decent people have been forced from due to the greed of big-time developers.

Could "Socialism for the Rich" aka "Robin Hood in Reverse" be to the 4T what "Free Love" was to the 3T? And well excessive corporatism be this 4T's equivalent of what colonialism, slavery and fascism were to the previous 3T's respectively?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

No, he's not diabolically clever enough to start a major war with Iran... but he is morally weak enough to do nothing to stop it. His credibility is wrecked without any possibility of redemption except through the reshaping of events.

Even W can figure that much out. Whether we go to war with Iran is not in his hands... it's in Condi's, and Cheney's, and Gates's, and the generals'. Fortunately, only Cheney thinks the war would be a great idea. Unfortunately, he still has a lot of infrastructure to make it happen, including his shadow national security council and his shadow "intelligence agencies".

As in any imperial system, the primary conflicts are now between government officials. The City on a Hill has joined the ranks of the Eternal City, and the Golden Horn, and the Forbidden Palace, and the Kremlin, and Whitehall, and Versailles. It is the sign of inaccountability and intrigue, the sign of a government run amok.

The British pulled back from the brink before they lost their souls. There were ideals in the Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets, and those ideals survived all the atrocities committed in their name. Will ours do the same?

Dubya is one of the weakest leaders that we have ever had, and his weakness as a formal leader allows cabals to operate with him as the frontman.

That was the whole point. In fact, it was baldly stated when W. was first presented: "Sure, he's not the best candidate in the world, but just look at the dream team of advisers!" And an America drunk on the 3T wine of the dotcoms had convinced itself that it didn't matter who was president.

Yes. It. Does.

As I see it, the neocon clique recognizes that its hold on power has become shaky.

Barely literate peasants in Afghanistan know this. It is a testament to the wackiness of the 21st century that I am neither joking nor engaging in hyperbole.

I see it willing to do anything to save its power, even if such implies a catastrophic gamble of everything that America has ever stood for.

They've already done that; they were called Iraq, and Gitmo, and Abu Ghraib. Only by throwing them collectively under the wagon can we save our honor, not to mention our Republic.

Attacking Iran, or even allowing it at this point, would destroy America's ability to conduct foreign policy at all. The Russians have just decisively signed on to the diplomatic counter-proliferation offensive; China alone stands to block the full weight of the United Nations descending on Ahmedinejad's ass. And Ahmedinejad isn't important to China: they care nothing about Israel or Iranian pretensions, only for oil and more oil. I think the mullahs will find a way to stifle him, and shut down the centrifuges, by year's end... if they can be reassured that Cheney is not about to bomb their asses.

Because if Cheney does unleash the whoopass, they have no choice but to build Bombs in self-defense! Thus do paranoids create their own enemies.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

In fact, it was baldly stated when W. was first presented: "Sure, he's not the best candidate in the world, but just look at the dream team of advisers!" And an America drunk on the 3T wine of the dotcoms had convinced itself that it didn't matter who was president.

Yes. It. Does.

It's funny that you would put ot that way. I'd almost swear that you were at a pool party that I went to in August, 2000. A friend of mine scince high school, who is a finiancial services professional and who was not intoxicated at the time-that came later that night : - tried to reassure me that "it really didn't matter who was the president as long as Alan Greenspan ran the fed." My reply at the time was that the last thing America needed was another president Bush". That's once I wish that I had been wrong. :

They've already done that; they were called Iraq, and Gitmo, and Abu Ghraib. Only by throwing them collectively under the wagon can we save our honor, not to mention our Republic.

Agreed. The rot is so total that it's incomprehendable if one just looks specific incedents that you mentioned or at the individual scandals seperately. Yet, it's the same overarching belief system leading to all of this.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

pbrower 2a said [

" I can imagine ending up with four or five national banks: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, Citicorp, and (which ever survives) National City, Fifth Third, Comerica, Mellon, and First Union should the trends continue... If you don't want to deal with them there will be the ripoffs of payday loans and currency exchanges."]

Which is why your local Credit Union IS your friend.

(Proud member since 1981.)

Wow I have you beat. I've been a proud member since 1972. I was 10 years old and I remember having to get my SS number to open an account in my father's employer credit union. That means, soon I'll be a loyal credit union member for 35 years. As for all the above, banks and paycheck loanshark joints can go fuck off.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

pbrower 2a said

" I can imagine ending up with four or five national banks: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, Citicorp, and (which ever survives) National City, Fifth Third, Comerica, Mellon, and First Union should the trends continue... If you don't want to deal with them there will be the ripoffs of payday loans and currency exchanges."

Which is why your local Credit Union IS your friend.

(Proud member since 1981.)

That is a very good idea. I am reasonably satisfied with rural banks that have the obligation to make decisions locally and whose survival (until they are bought out by some megabank, an inevitability) depends upon the strength of the community instead of the whims of some distant ruling class -- distant both in physical and emotional senses that makes its profits by treating people as badly as possible -- still serve people well. With the giant banks one must walk on eggshells to avoid getting fleeced.

The solution to distant organizations that have lost all humanity is to find those entities that must operate on smaller scales and that do not cater to the super-rich and to an executive class paid very well for treating people very badly.

.......

Technology can well serve elites alone as it has throughout the recent 3T... or it can serve humanity as a whole. Likewise politics and even education. American elites (Silent to some extent, but Boomers even more) imposed a heartless order upon us and who knows how much of the rest of the world, offering some low-cost entertainments (thanks to cheap computer power and technological achievements of people dissimilar to themselves) in much the same role as Karl Marx had for religion -- as an opiate of the masses.

Without doubt the latter part of the 3T will be repudiated almost entirely and quickly, as was the last one. When the great hardships strike, people will look upon the 3T as a time of lost opportunities to do far better with resources then available. Almost nobody in 1927 could have predicted what America would be like in 1935 -- and that by 1935 Americans would turn to more wholesomeness in culture and equity in economics.

I think that we will be obliged by 2012 to do what we failed to do in 1995 that we could have done at lesser cost -- such as investments that reduce energy use (mass transit -- good mass transit, that is), an imposition of traditional content in education through the undergraduate level, and revitalization of our largest cities.

Specific hardships of a 4T will be unpleasant -- but few will want to return to the destructive and empty circuses of the late 3T.

To pbrower2a:

First of all, my apologies for omitting the 2 in your login when I responded to a sundry post recently. I had already submitted it for posting, and by then couldn't change it.

I believe I responded to what I believe was your post about worship of all things corporate. I am curious to know why you feel more hasn't been done to fight back. My own thought on this is that most of the public now feels that, (although history has proven otherwise) you can't fight big money, so why bother trying. Agree or disagree? Do you have a different theory? I'm curious to find out.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

To pbrower2a:

First of all, my apologies for omitting the 2 in your login when I responded to a sundry post recently. I had already submitted it for posting, and by then couldn't change it.

I believe I responded to what I believe was your post about worship of all things corporate. I am curious to know why you feel more hasn't been done to fight back. My own thought on this is that most of the public now feels that, (although history has proven otherwise) you can't fight big money, so why bother trying. Agree or disagree? Do you have a different theory? I'm curious to find out.

No apology is necessary.

The only effective way in which to fight bad capitalism is with better capitalism. Government ownership and operation of productive enterprise generally does not work well. Government might do better than unconstrained monopolies in energy production and certain forms of insurance, and non-profits might be better at operating universities and hospitals. I would never privatize law enforcement, fire protection, courts of law, libraries, tax collection, or highways.

Big money can fail catastrophically. Look at Enron Corporation, a pathological enterprise that did a lot right (especially in oiling the Bush campaign). Look at Schlitz Brewery, once the marketers of the #1 beer in sales volume and now unavailable... because the company ran some inept ads that suggested that only sociopathic loners want that beer but want it so much that they will do anything, however disgraceful, to get and keep it. Sears was once the #1 hardlines merchant, K-Mart was once the biggest retail discounter... K-Mart went through bankruptcy and retrenched and bought out Sears.

The success of the American economy has depended more often upon small enterprises than upon giants capable of exercising monopoly power, having deep pockets for advertising, or corrupting the political process. As Corporate America increasingly mistreats American workers, abusing them psychologically as well as economically, more people will have to establish their own businesses so that they can have some modicum of individuality and personal independence. Local enterprises can survive without huge budgets for advertising, without bloated bureaucracies, and without game-playing executives. To be sure, there's little time for hedonism if one owns a restaurant or a gift shop -- but if one works for certain large corporations at the lowest level one ends up with 'free time' with no means with which to enjoy it. Morons might be happy watching television or playing video games when not cashiering at a box store, changing linens in a motel, or washing dishes at a chain restaurant... but how many Americans are not so inclined?

The bloated bureaucracies have done most Americans no good. Neither have the huge advertising budgets or huge campaign contributions to reactionary politicians and causes.

When things get bad enough for smart people with a little nest egg, then disillusioned drudges will open coffee shop/ used-book bookstores. That's about all that they will be able to do. We can rule out any proletarian revolution because the rich will sic the Klan and neo-Nazis upon us if we start showing any red flags, images of Mao or Castro, or hammers-and-sickles. Heck, if we can't organize unions in the workplace, what can we do?

The ruling elites of America would prefer that we accept their indulgence as the definitive expression of progress while being thankful to them for food on the table and protection from the cold.

The bulk of those who can establish small businesses that meet needs that Corporate America can never meet with the current top-down management and premises of economic elitism are Thirteeners who will have to challenge the corporations that offer limited choice, poor service, limited opportunities for advancement, starvation wages, and despotic management. Some will have to decide that if they get a small inheritance it is better spent on a down payment on a restaurant in a dreary hick town that one can never escape than on a car or a once-in-a-lifetime trip.

pbrower2a: (ha ha! I remember the 2 this time)

In all seriousness, your post was another one right on the money. The last paragraph intrigued me especially, and was wondering if you sense that the decline of many mom and pop establishments over the last three decades or so was maybe not so much being unable to compete with large corporate entities on pricing, but not being able to meet the demands of the emerging lifestyle. You see, when, in most married households, both spouses went outside the home to work, there was nobody to do the shopping and other errands during the daytime hours, assuming that both worked tradtional 9-to-5 or so weekday shifts.

In order to have any semblance of a life, most small business owners closed up shop by 5:30 or 6:00. However, they were open all day on Saturday, and often used Wednesday afternoon as the other half of their weekend. I still believe most people wanted the more personal touch, but often were unable to get to those stores while they were open.

I would be curious to know if you feel that this is one of the main reasons why we went from an 80 percent family owned retail environment to one now about 80 percent corporate owned. And you will seldom see a mom and pop store in a major shopping mall. I can tell you why I believe this, but would enjoy hearing your input first to see if you read my mind. Will tell you my theory in the next post.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

pbrower2a: (ha ha! I remember the 2 this time)

In all seriousness, your post was another one right on the money. The last paragraph intrigued me especially, and was wondering if you sense that the decline of many mom and pop establishments over the last three decades or so was maybe not so much being unable to compete with large corporate entities on pricing, but not being able to meet the demands of the emerging lifestyle. You see, when, in most married households, both spouses went outside the home to work, there was nobody to do the shopping and other errands during the daytime hours, assuming that both worked tradtional 9-to-5 or so weekday shifts.

In order to have any semblance of a life, most small business owners closed up shop by 5:30 or 6:00. However, they were open all day on Saturday, and often used Wednesday afternoon as the other half of their weekend. I still believe most people wanted the more personal touch, but often were unable to get to those stores while they were open.

I would be curious to know if you feel that this is one of the main reasons why we went from an 80 percent family owned retail environment to one now about 80 percent corporate owned. And you will seldom see a mom and pop store in a major shopping mall. I can tell you why I believe this, but would enjoy hearing your input first to see if you read my mind. Will tell you my theory in the next post.

One part of 4T reality is the repudiation of the trends that got the society into the mess that it got into. I see the corporatization of America as at its best the imposition of greater efficiency and the offering of greater convenience -- but at the price of added vulgarity, reduced opportunity, and greater inequality. The tendencies that catapulted Wal-Mart and MacDonald's into prominence in retailing and restaurant business will be dramatically reversed. As jobs disappear in the aftermath of a Great Panic and such jobs that remain offer less-than-survival wages, people will do anything to survive.

A 4T is a surprisingly good time in which to start a business because (1) real estate is dirt-cheap, (2) equipment and merchandise are available at fire-sale prices, (3) good help is readily available, (4) people will want the personal touch that small businesses can do but bureaucratized organization (because of rules) can't offer, and (5) people tend to stay closer to home (until they are uprooted) in hard times. The rewards for starting a small business are much slighter... but by comparison it becomes advantageous.

Small businesses rarely need large budgets for advertising, let alone for payoffs to the political establishment. They must rely upon the cultivation of a local reputation. If they have to do thins on small scale and lack the capacity for doing everything... personal choices narrow greatly.

I look at fast food at homogenized environments as one of the commodities that flourishes in good times. People eat there on the go, often at lunch breaks. If people are out of work, then they won't go on lunch breaks -- for obvious reasons. The competition for MacDonald's used to be the lunch pail; the lunch pail that one remembers from Modern Times will surely make a comeback when people try to pinch every penny that they can and sacrifice convenience and variety.

I look at Wal-Mart as an illustration of what happens when everyone has a car (Wal-Mart is always on the fringe of town, and never in the town center), an entity that attracts to its surroundings either businesses that don't compete (gas stations, bank branches, ethnic restaurants) or outdo it for lowball goods.

When people are priced out of their cars they will no longer go to Wal-Mart, and much that Wal-Mart sells will be unmarketable. Used goods readily available will be competing with Wal-Mart ... paradoxically many of them once bought there.

Will MacDonald's and Wal-Mart re-invent themselves in the 4T? Will they rely upon people sliding into their demographic from what used to be the upper middle class? Wal-Mart and MacDonald's won't make enough money from such people; there just aren't enough of them. They probably won't be 24-hour operations.

The chain and corporate retailers and restaurants were able to take advantage of economies of scale in advertising; advertising is a huge cost of doing business, and it requires a reliable clientele to justify. In a 4T people will be less responsive to advertising not so much because they have become less gullible and impressionable but instead because they will have lost huge chunks of disposable income necessary for making the responses that advertisers and their clients desire.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A 4T is a surprisingly good time in which to start a business because (1) real estate is dirt-cheap, (2) equipment and merchandise are available at fire-sale prices, (3) good help is readily available, (4) people will want the personal touch that small businesses can do but bureaucratized organization (because of rules) can't offer, and (5) people tend to stay closer to home (until they are uprooted) in hard times. The rewards for starting a small business are much slighter... but by comparison it becomes advantageous.

I noticed this wandering around downtowns while traveling, both in MS and MA. Check for "Established 1XXX" signs in businesses. You'll find that a statistically significant number were stared in 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936. Once the regeneracy was on, America regenerated: new shoots appeared in the areas devastated by the economic forest fire. Some of those kicked out of work re-trained and found new slots in the economy.

Of course, they all started on the ground floor, too. So it was a good bit longer before the lost wealth was reclaimed...

When people are priced out of their cars they will no longer go to Wal-Mart, and much that Wal-Mart sells will be unmarketable. Used goods readily available will be competing with Wal-Mart ... paradoxically many of them once bought there.

There are enormous numbers of suburbs, mostly in the Midwest and West, that have no built-in local commercial district at all - not even a 7/11. Think of how many general stores there will have to be to service all those suburbs... assuming they're allowed.

One of my nightmare scenarios is where Wal-mart buys out a delivery service like Peapod and starts delivering groceries directly to the door. They could kill off supermarkets entirely - and have effective local monopolies on food distribution. I need not point out the level of power such would represent. With their draconian competition methods, they already have such an effective monopoly in some places.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

I noticed this wandering around downtowns while traveling, both in MS and MA. Check for "Established 1XXX" signs in businesses. You'll find that a statistically significant number were stared in 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936. Once the regeneracy was on, America regenerated: new shoots appeared in the areas devastated by the economic forest fire. Some of those kicked out of work re-trained and found new slots in the economy.

Of course, they all started on the ground floor, too. So it was a good bit longer before the lost wealth was reclaimed...



There are enormous numbers of suburbs, mostly in the Midwest and West, that have no built-in local commercial district at all - not even a 7/11. Think of how many general stores there will have to be to service all those suburbs... assuming they're allowed.

One of my nightmare scenarios is where Wal-mart buys out a delivery service like Peapod and starts delivering groceries directly to the door. They could kill off supermarkets entirely - and have effective local monopolies on food distribution. I need not point out the level of power such would represent. With their draconian competition methods, they already have such an effective monopoly in some places.

In a 4T, undercutting becomes a possibility because (1) small businesses have no bureaucracy or boards, (2) they must rely upon the reputation of the owner/operator instead of upon advertising to develop a clientele -- and a good reputation can be earned without money, (3) small-scale entrepreneurs can run on a dime as big businesses can't, (4) start-up entrepreneurs live on shoestrings that those who have already established 'success' can't, (5) entrepreneurs can learn about merchandise and customize sales pitches as hired clerks can't, and (6) small-scale entrepreneurs are difficult to regulate.

A Wal-Mart store offers the convenience of buying almost everything under one roof. One can get videos, cheap furniture, office supplies, food, and housewares all in one place. In good times (in contrast to a 4T, any other time) that is time-saving convenience even if one gets no break on price. In bad times people (a 4T) have time and they are shopping for fewer items and closer to home. Convenience means not having to go far to get a few staple items, and being able to buy things that one can't afford isn't of any value.

People will be making do with what they have or doing without. They will sacrifice style for savings. People will be patching and repairing clothes rather than replacing them.

As many of you who have read my posts here know, one of my main concerns is the excessive stranglehold coporate America has over today's society, and my main issue is with retail. I pointed out that at the end of WWII 80 percent of retail was still family owned, where today 80 percent of thereabouts is corporate owned. Because of the intense hierarchy in large retail concerns, we have difficulty getting products into stores unless they are approved by the corporate structure. An individual store manager often has his/her hands tied by that structure as far as being able to satisfy customers. I have found this out first hand by trying to get one of my favorite products into more stores.

Many of those concerned describe Wal-Mart as Public Enemy #1, but they are certainly not alone. Think Walgreens, CVS, Blockbuster, Jiffy Lube, et al. There are "shop local" movements around, but so far they have been for the most part fairly passive, and perhaps an example of "too little, too late".

I am ready to do my part to do battle in order to limit the power of large corporations, and would welcome suggestions on whether to start, and whether it should start at the local, state or national level. Whatever we choose to do, there is sure to be someone presenting opposition or an obstacle, and corporate America's lawyers will obviously try to fight it every step of the way. Yet history has shown that you CAN fight big money, and now may be the time when we must at least try. Giving in at the first sign of confrontation will only result in losing out. I am now energized by the challenge. How you play the game is important, but so is winning.

My concern here is not to completely turn the tables regarding what big business did to mom and pop operations, but limit their power in order to level the playing field a bit. Any leads to organizations already working on this would be greatly appreciated.