Comments on: Strong institutions, not strong men

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:04:16 +0000

Thanks Nico:
Yes, my sisters step son with Downs cant get insurance so we know what it’s like.
But we (our family) don’t assume the state, or other people have an obligation to him.
That’s where we differ.
Governments, or what they have become, are failed concepts. They are simply too big, nor can they fulfill all our wants or desires. Heck they can’t even properly fulfill our Constitutional Rights.
However, few of us take that into consideration when we keep requesting that they do more.
I don’t get it.
Is there any wonder they are a shambles?
Check this video out: http://www.weblogbahamas.com/blog_bahamas/2009/07/james-bartholomew-the-welfare-state-were-in.html
Rick

By: Nicolette Bethel

Nicolette Bethel — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:51:53 +0000

Same here.

Missed you!

You’re right of course, but even judicious planning does not eradicate poverty altogether, or provide everyone with disposable income enough to make them worthy of consideration by corporate culture.

And the possession of assets is far too ephemeral a thing to guarantee corporate regard forever. Even the best-off individual, health insurance or no, can have savings wiped out by a critical or chronic illness, and fall off the corporate radar.

One of the strengths of democracy is the right to demand strong institutions that can provide support for all citizens, regardless of their situation (and after all, that’s what I started this post to talk about). WE DON’T HAVE THEM. All we have are individuals bent on shoring up their petty fiefdoms while at the same time shirking the responsibility that their office lays upon them — ensuring that all of their citizens have basic access to basic support, no matter what their status in life.

Oh, and in automobile retail your hands may be relatively clean. If you were in the insurance business, however…

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:54:24 +0000

You might be surprised that I am not mortgage free as you imply. But I still make every effort to save.
One would not expect the unemployed to be in a position to save, but any worker can save. It’s a matter of priorities.
Pension plan or cell phone.
Health insurance or fancy rims?
Etc.
Savings has to start at some point.
I forget the numbers, but if you put $20 a week away for a new born baby, it is surprising how much that adds up to when they finish high school.
I only wish I was in the financial position people think I’m in.

By: Nicolette Bethel

Nicolette Bethel — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:36:18 +0000

Your example may be fine for the employed, the able-bodied, the of-age, the healthy, the mortgage-free, the already set-in-life. What about those people who have trouble meeting the everyday ordinary requirements of life (and there are plenty of them out there)?Should they be disadvantaged because they don’t have enough disposable income to invest, group or no group? Governments don’t have the luxury of rejecting them, unlike private companies. As inefficient as governments are, that’s the good thing about them — they are responsible for us all, not just for the ones who already have a measure of financial independence.

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:03:57 +0000

“Means to invest”?
The example I use is the investment club I am involved with.
I would never have had shares if I did not invest through a group.
Without putting away that little bit each month I could not participate and one day own something or leave something for my kids.
It does take time though.
We often wish to forget the journey to get the “means”, we think they fell out of the sky or the like.

By: Nicolette Bethel

Nicolette Bethel — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:24:04 +0000

I thought that might get a comment from you, Rick.

I wasn’t thinking so much about enterprises that provide people with services that they have the power of choice over, like your business; I was thinking about the things that government provides, that we accept as being necessary aids for modern life, like the provision of running water and electricity and roads and telephone service and national transportation systems and so on — things that have hitherto been provided by public or publicly owned institutions and which are currently being considered for privatization.

The problem I have with privatization is that privately owned companies are accountable to no wider constituencies than their shareholders, and that to become a shareholder in most private companies you have to have the means to invest in them. Sizeable numbers of people are left out. The track record of far too many private companies when dealing with people to whom they have no accountability is, well, no accountability. The selling off of British Rail remains the glaring example of how privatization made a formerly efficient public transportation system a pretty silly institution. I remain skeptical about the value of private enterprise in every situation.

By: Rick

Rick — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:22:51 +0000

Dear Nico:
Trust you are well.
I hope that Mr. Obama remembers all these fine words about institutions and over taxation etc when he gets back on his home soil.
I found this comment by you intriguing:

“…and one of those responsibilities is to ensure that the smallest and weakest of their citizens is not placed in a position of vulnerability to rapacious private enterprises which have no allegiance to their clients beyond the amount of money they make from them.”

It’s funny, but from where I sit we make every effort to satisfy the customer to keep them coming back.
We’ve never sat in a meeting to say, “let’s see now, how can we take advantage of our clients today?”
All the best,
Rick