What are you talking about? You make nonsensical claims, I refuted them.
As for Caterpillar, Vanguard is also the biggest owner, and stock funds own 63% of the company:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=CAT+Major+Holders
Again, what is your point?
The phrase âinvesting folks retirement fundsâ is such a trite dodge for Wall St to use to keep those who have a few thousand in the markets in their corner. It amazes me that so many remain loyal to Wall St after the losses they took in 2008-2009.
Itâs amazing how original intent of the stock market has now morphed a retirement fund. The people who make the MOST money in the market are NOT the small individual investorsâŠbut the ones who own and control the investment funds. Thatâs why I limit my investments in the stock market. Unfortunately I donât have much control over my 401k funds.
If you invest through low-fee firms like Vanguard I donât see the problem.
âGood immigrantsâ are those who come prepared to work and be law-abiding. There has to be a class of âtemporary workersâ who can come to work to harvest crops and then leave, all legally.
I was in Holland last year and saw many Vietnamese workers pick fruit and vegetables. They were temporary workers who make good money, pay local taxes, and then leave to go home. They may be back next year. Without such an arrangement you can expect illegal entrants to be hired under the table.
The whole Middle East runs on imported workers with temporary working visas. Those are usually renewed as required. Iâve met countless US oil specialists in Saudi Arabia making really good money and going back after 5-10 year to retire in the US.
Many industries and unions try to influence politicians. Limiting donations will greatly reduce that.
@Docnick
There has to be a class of âtemporary workersâ who can come to work to harvest cops and then leave, all leaglly.
I was in Holland last year and saw many Vietnamese workers pick fruit and vegetables. They were temporary workers who make good money, pay local taxes,
The key is in your second statementâŠThey have to make good money which means American workers must be making good money. Otherwise, it wonât happen is a way that benefits anyone. Low wages encourages under the table payment and reduces tax revenues. Itâs NOT the American people who need to come on board, itâs corporate America, the same one that disses unions also is against a comprehensive immigration policy and decent minimum wage.
The Republican party talks to suit their constituencies on issues. The Tea Party anti wet back crowd gets patted on the head and told that the GOP is with them 100% to get âcontrol of the borders, etc.â Then the growers and lodging industries wave their check books and the GOP assures them that cheap labor is here to stay. Then, to make a dent in the Latino vote they offer support for an amnesty bill. And they hedge their own bets by putting a 13 year time line on citizenship and voting rights for those getting amnesty. The bottom line is that the party takes care of itself and its moneyed constituents while everyone else gets a song and dance.
The Republicans move farther to the right for one good reason, the Democrats move closer to the center. On critical issues in the name of compromise, the right thing to do is no longer important. Itâs now the expedient thing to do. When you have Democratic senators like Baucus voting with the Republicans in many key issues over the years, you might as well call many Democrats, ârepublican lightâ. A pox on both their houses.
âUntil the late 19th century, the USA had no illegal immigrants because we let everyone in, and it was good for the economy.â
^
Whitey is correct.
I am so sick and tired of people saying, âMy grandparents (or great-grandparents, orâŠ) came to this country legally, unlike many people todayâ, when the reality is that, up until the late 19th Century, there were no restrictions on entry into the US except (possibly) those of a health-related nature. The masses of immigrants who came in via Ellis Island were turned away only if they had diseases like Trachoma or Tuberculosis, or were severely crippled. EVERYONE else was just waved-in by US officials.
And, when my ancestors came to this countryâabout 4 decades before Ellis Islandâthere werenât even any health restrictions on entry. EVERYONE who could walk down the gangway from an arriving ship entered the US with no restrictions whatsoever.
Do we need better immigration regulations?
Sure we do, but to pretend that our ancestors were vetted by some sort of involved legal process in order to enter the US isâŠjust not true for the vast majority of us.
History class is dismissed for todayâŠ
If we had the same immigrant laws now like we did back when my grand parents came hereâŠAND people were coming here at the same rate as they did 100 years agoâŠthe US population would be well over 500million. Iâm not sure our country is big enough to support a population of 500 million people.
South Florida still hasnât recovered from all the criminals Castro released from his prisons who immigrated to the US. That was 20+ years ago.
@MikeInNH You are so correct. In the late 1800s the earthâs population was 1/3 of what is is now; India had only 300 million (now 1.2 billion), Egypt 20 million (now 84million), Mexico 19 million (now over 120 million), etc. The US would be inundated with arrivals and 500 million would be reached in no time, even if all arrivals were healthy and willing to work.
You canât go home again! The world may be rid of Communism, but we now have even more dangerous enemies, international terrorism, and rogue states. And we have serious overpopulation in many areas. Americaâs most effective foreign aid might well be birth control.
Selective and controlled immigration is the only feasible answer.
The world was a little different back in the 1800âs. Back then there were vast amounts of unsettled spaces in the midwest. The country needed settlers and people to establish ranches and farmers in this open space. Not to mention the railroads needed customers and of course the problems in Europe. So we needed people. Land prices ranged from $1.25 and acre to free if you settled it. The fact that there were no restrictions means that the folks coming in were LEGAL. Since the areas of the US were settled, restrictions were placed on people coming here as they have been placed on every other modern nation, including Mexico. The current proposal for the W status to bring in temporary workers to fill economic needs is a good one with one fatal flaw. Once the person comes in, they can quit the job and take whatever other job they want. Seems to me this isnât much of a plan.
@Bing I agree. Other countries have the EMPLOYER completely responsible for the worker, provide housing, etc. If the job is finished, the employer has to repatriate the worker to his home country. Every foreign worker has to be registered with the regional goverment office.
E.R.Murrowâs âHarvest of Shameâ spotlighted the shameful conditions that farmers furnished for migrant farm workers 50 years ago but not much has changed in the mean time. I drove down the Pacific coast from San Francisco to LA 2 years ago when strawberries were coming in season. The Mexicans were stuffed in old vans and pickup campers when traveling and stopped wherever they might be left alone to rest. All public rest rooms along the road were closed. The fast food joints apparently wouldnât allow them on the lot, Several times I saw a vehicle full of workers parked down the street from a McDonaldâs, etc., and one person would be walking to or from the place. Are we to demand that the poor become so desperate that they will live and work in those conditions?
Re the original question. Plutocracy: is rule by the wealthy. The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion, though the term itself is almost always used in a pejorative sense.
Was the lack of ability for women and slaves to vote an example thereof, Probably so. So under WIKI definition we started out as a plutocracy.
Now for whatever reason campaign spending may be correlated to the outcome. Corporations are people and can donate to a greater degree than most individuals. Is that plutocracy?
Re Vanguard, @Texases. Investors at Vanguard took a 58% haircut in 2008. And the company continues to be in the swap scheme
In 2008 the market crashed for the main st investors but the Wall St crowd just took it in stride and laughed at the school teachers and firemen all the way to the bank.
And the market has come back, as it always does. Lots of high fliers took a bath, too, but they had bigger cushions. Small investors that panicked and left the market lost the most, those that stayed in did much better.
I agree on the need to protect investors from hidden risks, the 2008 debacle was clear evidence of this.
Yes the market did recoverâŠbut that still didnât mean it didnât hurt anyone. I have two engineers who work for me who are close to 70. They were all set to retire back in '08âŠthen the tank. Itâs taken them YEARS to build up their retirement back to the point it was before '08. There are people today working at Wallmart because they lost so much in their 401Kâs they had to un-retire just to survive. And for the rest of us that stayedâŠYeaâŠitâs nowâŠbut that was a struggleâŠand really hurt many of us financiallyâŠand really changed the way I invest. Since I donât have anywhere near the money to invest in ways to shield me from many of those pitfallsâŠI had to move most of my investments out of the stockmarket. Too close to retirement to risk it now.
Very true, Mike. Like I said, it was a debacle, and I donât think all the causes have been fixed. Iâve been around too many âsmartâ MBA types who werenât that smart, after all. Iâm not condemning the lot, but when some of them tried to explain how Enron worked (before the implosion), I thought I just didnât understand. Turns out I didâŠ
Some very very smart people got caught in this. Some investment firms lost everything. One of the TV magazine shows interviewed a few investment firms that actually fared pretty well in this messâŠA couple of them said that the whole mortgage thing just didnât feel right to them. They knew something was wrongâŠbut didnât know whatâŠso they just pulled out. Others saw the same thingâŠbut were making so much money they decided to stay in. Greed can be blind.