Here’s what I don’t get. The Conservatives are all up in arms pinning the bank and auto bailouts as the downfall of the American work force, when all it was, was giving Wall Street and corporate Amercia a huge bonus for sucking at their job. Now the Conservative view point to fix this giant blunder and set the ship straight is to deep six nationally funded healthcare and retirement and let have Wall Street and Corporate America have a go with it, becuase they did such a great job with the rest of our Economy after we let Congress cut the checks and balances of regulation. It seems me like giving a pyromaniac 5gals of gas and a set of matches and setting them up in a drought ridden forest . . .
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
First thing I will do is vote for Obama , sorry you guys have forced my hand:)[/quote]
Actually, I think that this is the best that could happen to the GOP.
This ship will tank, why not let the liberal Messiah stand at the helm when it happens?
Not that I am that interested in the wellbeing of the GOP, but I am interested in my portfolio and that you get it over with as soon as possible.
Win-win, one might say.
Well, except those who expected to live of off others, for whom I might shed a tear or two.
Tears of joy, but potato, po-tha-to… [/quote]
The ship will sink so slowly that there will be enough time for both sides to blame it on several other presidents of the opposite party.[/quote]
Chaotic systems…
They dip, and dip, and dip, and then they fall.
Suddenly and thoroughly.
I would not count on an orderly universe allowing for an orderly decline.
[/quote]
If it actually fall fast starting 20 years from now, people old enough will still start the blame on Obama or Bush.
[quote]PrehistoricDog wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get. The Conservatives are all up in arms pinning the bank and auto bailouts as the downfall of the American work force, when all it was, was giving Wall Street and corporate Amercia a huge bonus for sucking at their job. Now the Conservative view point to fix this giant blunder and set the ship straight is to deep six nationally funded healthcare and retirement and let have Wall Street and Corporate America have a go with it, becuase they did such a great job with the rest of our Economy after we let Congress cut the checks and balances of regulation. It seems me like giving a pyromaniac 5gals of gas and a set of matches and setting them up in a drought ridden forest . . . [/quote]
True.
But these are the options you are allowed to choose from.
Enamored with Democracy yet?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
First thing I will do is vote for Obama , sorry you guys have forced my hand:)[/quote]
Actually, I think that this is the best that could happen to the GOP.
This ship will tank, why not let the liberal Messiah stand at the helm when it happens?
Not that I am that interested in the wellbeing of the GOP, but I am interested in my portfolio and that you get it over with as soon as possible.
Win-win, one might say.
Well, except those who expected to live of off others, for whom I might shed a tear or two.
Tears of joy, but potato, po-tha-to… [/quote]
The ship will sink so slowly that there will be enough time for both sides to blame it on several other presidents of the opposite party.[/quote]
Chaotic systems…
They dip, and dip, and dip, and then they fall.
Suddenly and thoroughly.
I would not count on an orderly universe allowing for an orderly decline.
[/quote]
If it actually fall fast starting 20 years from now, people old enough will still start the blame on Obama or Bush.[/quote]
20 years?
Not gonna happen.
And yes, people will blame who they will.
[quote]PrehistoricDog wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get. The Conservatives are all up in arms pinning the bank and auto bailouts as the downfall of the American work force, when all it was, was giving Wall Street and corporate Amercia a huge bonus for sucking at their job. Now the Conservative view point to fix this giant blunder and set the ship straight is to deep six nationally funded healthcare and retirement and let have Wall Street and Corporate America have a go with it, becuase they did such a great job with the rest of our Economy after we let Congress cut the checks and balances of regulation. It seems me like giving a pyromaniac 5gals of gas and a set of matches and setting them up in a drought ridden forest . . . [/quote]
Let’s not forget that it was CONGRESS who changed the rules for the banks in 2007, forcing them to use mark-to-market accounting. THAT’S what caused this crash - not because the banks suddenly decided to run the country’s economy into the ground. It was fucking retarded congressmen who did it. Another prime example of <> “I’m with the government and I’m here to help you”.
Sure there would have been some losses, but not the sudden de-leveraging that CAUSED the implosion and subsequent socialization of the banking industry.
We need LESS government and LESS regulation… Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
And to bring this back to the OP, this really didn’t require a lot of thought, just a checking of historical facts - when was the LAST time our country required the banks to use mark-to-market accounting? Oh yeah: the GREAT DEPRESSION! Fucking BRILLIANT, I tell you…
[quote]PrehistoricDog wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get. The Conservatives are all up in arms pinning the bank and auto bailouts as the downfall of the American work force, when all it was, was giving Wall Street and corporate Amercia a huge bonus for sucking at their job. Now the Conservative view point to fix this giant blunder and set the ship straight is to deep six nationally funded healthcare and retirement and let have Wall Street and Corporate America have a go with it, becuase they did such a great job with the rest of our Economy after we let Congress cut the checks and balances of regulation. It seems me like giving a pyromaniac 5gals of gas and a set of matches and setting them up in a drought ridden forest . . . [/quote]
You are kinda painting with a broad brush, and missing some very key factors.
The removal of regulation worked perfectly. The free market tried to punish people for making bad choices, and the government stopped the free market from working. The government stopped capitalism. And now, people are trying to pin the blame on capitalism, when they should be blaming the government for not letting them fail, and subsequently easing the pain of the people. (If they were to ease at all.)
You can’t turn your back on the system that gives people the most freedom because of a couple bad eggs. If we could take away some of the government power and influence, people/corps wouldn’t buy policy. If they didn’t buy policy they would have to opperate under the same rules of anyone in a “free” market. That would force them to not be assholes if they wanted to survive.
Aside from the fact if people formed a “purchasers union” it would have a much larger effect on those evil rich 1% than any tax increase.
All increasing taxes is going to do is push more money and more economic activity to markets that aren’t the US.
At this point, I want them to raise the taxes. I work in foreign reporting and with VC quite a bit. I shouldn’t lose my job, and I’ll be able to point and laugh at the people that got what they wished for.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]PrehistoricDog wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get. The Conservatives are all up in arms pinning the bank and auto bailouts as the downfall of the American work force, when all it was, was giving Wall Street and corporate Amercia a huge bonus for sucking at their job. Now the Conservative view point to fix this giant blunder and set the ship straight is to deep six nationally funded healthcare and retirement and let have Wall Street and Corporate America have a go with it, becuase they did such a great job with the rest of our Economy after we let Congress cut the checks and balances of regulation. It seems me like giving a pyromaniac 5gals of gas and a set of matches and setting them up in a drought ridden forest . . . [/quote]
Let’s not forget that it was CONGRESS who changed the rules for the banks in 2007, forcing them to use mark-to-market accounting. THAT’S what caused this crash - not because the banks suddenly decided to run the country’s economy into the ground. It was fucking retarded congressmen who did it. Another prime example of <> “I’m with the government and I’m here to help you”.
Sure there would have been some losses, but not the sudden de-leveraging that CAUSED the implosion and subsequent socialization of the banking industry.
We need LESS government and LESS regulation… Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
And to bring this back to the OP, this really didn’t require a lot of thought, just a checking of historical facts - when was the LAST time our country required the banks to use mark-to-market accounting? Oh yeah: the GREAT DEPRESSION! Fucking BRILLIANT, I tell you…[/quote]
The thing with 157 is it devalued the balance sheet, even with gains. People that know what they are looking at, know what unreal gains are. They can look and see that an otherwise position of good standing, can quickly become a going concern as soon as the market dips, depending on the level of the investment, 1, 2, or 3.
Look, I get why they changed it. And on some levels it makes sense. Banks lending on equity built out of fair value gains were gambling, but no one really knew the extent to which they were. I feel like a re-stated balance sheet including 157 in the footnotes would have been a better move, and would have saved a lot of trouble.
I remember a Manager on the news saying “people need to relax, these loses are even real yet, just valuation” while driving to work. I also remembering screaming at my radio “you just told everyone your gains and equity were all fake bullshit too, you dumb motherfucker.”
hahaha, the good ol’ days.
Note to Mods:
LBJ did say it you know.
He like, really, really did.
It also had the desired effect.
Are we pretending now that no one ever called someone something nasty and they no politician ever was a tad cynical?
Are we entering Laura Ingalls Wilder territory now?
What ought not to be can not possibly be?
Well, things that ought not to be existing kind of tend to get to you every now and then.
[quote]orion wrote:
Note to Mods:
LBJ did say it you know.
He like, really, really did.
It also had the desired effect.
Are we pretending now that no one ever called someone something nasty and they no politician ever was a tad cynical?
Are we entering Laura Ingalls Wilder territory now?
What ought not to be can not possibly be?
Well, things that ought not to be existing kind of tend to get to you every now and then.
[/quote]
Oh well, you did not pull it after all.
I will leave this here then, admitting my eternal shame.
[quote]orion wrote:
Note to Mods:
LBJ did say it you know.
He like, really, really did.
It also had the desired effect.
Are we pretending now that no one ever called someone something nasty and they no politician ever was a tad cynical?
Are we entering Laura Ingalls Wilder territory now?
What ought not to be can not possibly be?
Well, things that ought not to be existing kind of tend to get to you every now and then.
[/quote]
LBJ was a racist
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]PrehistoricDog wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get. The Conservatives are all up in arms pinning the bank and auto bailouts as the downfall of the American work force, when all it was, was giving Wall Street and corporate Amercia a huge bonus for sucking at their job. Now the Conservative view point to fix this giant blunder and set the ship straight is to deep six nationally funded healthcare and retirement and let have Wall Street and Corporate America have a go with it, becuase they did such a great job with the rest of our Economy after we let Congress cut the checks and balances of regulation. It seems me like giving a pyromaniac 5gals of gas and a set of matches and setting them up in a drought ridden forest . . . [/quote]
Let’s not forget that it was CONGRESS who changed the rules for the banks in 2007, forcing them to use mark-to-market accounting. THAT’S what caused this crash - not because the banks suddenly decided to run the country’s economy into the ground. It was fucking retarded congressmen who did it. Another prime example of <> “I’m with the government and I’m here to help you”.
Sure there would have been some losses, but not the sudden de-leveraging that CAUSED the implosion and subsequent socialization of the banking industry.
We need LESS government and LESS regulation… Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
And to bring this back to the OP, this really didn’t require a lot of thought, just a checking of historical facts - when was the LAST time our country required the banks to use mark-to-market accounting? Oh yeah: the GREAT DEPRESSION! Fucking BRILLIANT, I tell you…[/quote]
Yes but those “retarded congressman” were petitioned by these corporations for the bailout money. And instead of acting in interest for the public they voted to bailout their bedfellows. I’m not a political genius, but I do realize that ALL politicians are corporate sponsored. The way the system is run right now the Corporations have funding both in campaign finance and lobbying. Hell I wouldn’t put it past them to stir the pot and use fiscally conservative candidates to try and pull money from the government and convince the American public that it’s in their best interest to let the unregulated “Free Market” make decisions about their health and retirement. So instead of having elected officials that can be voted in or out based upon their performance having control of these enterprises, we instead have private corporations making decisions on our behalf with out any public over site (other than whether or not to use their services) and with the ultimate goal of maximum profitabilty. All I can see is CEO’s and CFO’s laughing all the way to their private jets with there 10’s of millions of dollars bonus checks in hand.
[quote]PrehistoricDog wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]PrehistoricDog wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get. The Conservatives are all up in arms pinning the bank and auto bailouts as the downfall of the American work force, when all it was, was giving Wall Street and corporate Amercia a huge bonus for sucking at their job. Now the Conservative view point to fix this giant blunder and set the ship straight is to deep six nationally funded healthcare and retirement and let have Wall Street and Corporate America have a go with it, becuase they did such a great job with the rest of our Economy after we let Congress cut the checks and balances of regulation. It seems me like giving a pyromaniac 5gals of gas and a set of matches and setting them up in a drought ridden forest . . . [/quote]
Let’s not forget that it was CONGRESS who changed the rules for the banks in 2007, forcing them to use mark-to-market accounting. THAT’S what caused this crash - not because the banks suddenly decided to run the country’s economy into the ground. It was fucking retarded congressmen who did it. Another prime example of <> “I’m with the government and I’m here to help you”.
Sure there would have been some losses, but not the sudden de-leveraging that CAUSED the implosion and subsequent socialization of the banking industry.
We need LESS government and LESS regulation… Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
And to bring this back to the OP, this really didn’t require a lot of thought, just a checking of historical facts - when was the LAST time our country required the banks to use mark-to-market accounting? Oh yeah: the GREAT DEPRESSION! Fucking BRILLIANT, I tell you…[/quote]
Yes but those “retarded congressman” were petitioned by these corporations for the bailout money. And instead of acting in interest for the public they voted to bailout their bedfellows. I’m not a political genius, but I do realize that ALL politicians are corporate sponsored. The way the system is run right now the Corporations have funding both in campaign finance and lobbying. Hell I wouldn’t put it past them to stir the pot and use fiscally conservative candidates to try and pull money from the government and convince the American public that it’s in their best interest to let the unregulated “Free Market” make decisions about their health and retirement. So instead of having elected officials that can be voted in or out based upon their performance having control of these enterprises, we instead have private corporations making decisions on our behalf with out any public over site (other than whether or not to use their services) and with the ultimate goal of maximum profitabilty. All I can see is CEO’s and CFO’s laughing all the way to their private jets with there 10’s of millions of dollars bonus checks in hand.
[/quote]
You are largely hitting the nail on the head here.
Let me ask you a question:
If, the federal government didn’t have the power to do what they do, would the money flow to them in the amount it does?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]PrehistoricDog wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]PrehistoricDog wrote:
Here’s what I don’t get. The Conservatives are all up in arms pinning the bank and auto bailouts as the downfall of the American work force, when all it was, was giving Wall Street and corporate Amercia a huge bonus for sucking at their job. Now the Conservative view point to fix this giant blunder and set the ship straight is to deep six nationally funded healthcare and retirement and let have Wall Street and Corporate America have a go with it, becuase they did such a great job with the rest of our Economy after we let Congress cut the checks and balances of regulation. It seems me like giving a pyromaniac 5gals of gas and a set of matches and setting them up in a drought ridden forest . . . [/quote]
Let’s not forget that it was CONGRESS who changed the rules for the banks in 2007, forcing them to use mark-to-market accounting. THAT’S what caused this crash - not because the banks suddenly decided to run the country’s economy into the ground. It was fucking retarded congressmen who did it. Another prime example of <> “I’m with the government and I’m here to help you”.
Sure there would have been some losses, but not the sudden de-leveraging that CAUSED the implosion and subsequent socialization of the banking industry.
We need LESS government and LESS regulation… Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
And to bring this back to the OP, this really didn’t require a lot of thought, just a checking of historical facts - when was the LAST time our country required the banks to use mark-to-market accounting? Oh yeah: the GREAT DEPRESSION! Fucking BRILLIANT, I tell you…[/quote]
Yes but those “retarded congressman” were petitioned by these corporations for the bailout money. And instead of acting in interest for the public they voted to bailout their bedfellows. I’m not a political genius, but I do realize that ALL politicians are corporate sponsored. The way the system is run right now the Corporations have funding both in campaign finance and lobbying. Hell I wouldn’t put it past them to stir the pot and use fiscally conservative candidates to try and pull money from the government and convince the American public that it’s in their best interest to let the unregulated “Free Market” make decisions about their health and retirement. So instead of having elected officials that can be voted in or out based upon their performance having control of these enterprises, we instead have private corporations making decisions on our behalf with out any public over site (other than whether or not to use their services) and with the ultimate goal of maximum profitabilty. All I can see is CEO’s and CFO’s laughing all the way to their private jets with there 10’s of millions of dollars bonus checks in hand.
[/quote]
You are largely hitting the nail on the head here.
Let me ask you a question:
If, the federal government didn’t have the power to do what they do, would the money flow to them in the amount it does?
[/quote]
It’s a simple question with a very complex answer. The short answer your looking for is “No if the government wasn’t as powerful an entity then Corporations wouldn’t be puppetizing it for their gain, therefore we need smaller federal government”
However, Government and Regulatory systems are necessary as a checks and balances system to the free market. Some decisions should not be made on cost/benefit analysis because they are human rights. That’s why when the Constitution was drafted they decided to define what some of these rights are and made it possible to amend and add to these rights. If you let the free market run free, at some point someone or group ends up with the majority of power and we revert back to feudalism and we become serfs to the Corporations. Like Monopoly, only in real life.
[quote]PrehistoricDog wrote:
However, Government and Regulatory systems are necessary as a checks and balances system to the free market.[/quote]
If regulation is needed, the market is not free. We can play chicken and egg with that statement all night, but it doesn’t really matter which comes first. A free market doesn’t allow for oppression. Because through the actions of the oppressed a funny thing happens, those that are being oppressive stop receiving the benefit of the oppressed. Look at labor unions as a perfect example.
People were free to come together and force the hand of employers into better treatment. This lead to a more well paid consumer base that could purchase the goods of the companies. It ended up a win/win.
Look a free market works only when both parties in a transaction benefit, and it also requires a large, very large degree of personal responsibility. This isn’t to say that you give a corporate mega power free reign to do whatever they want and hope and pray like children they do the right thing. Often times they won’t, it is up to those on the other side of the transaction to “punish” them. In a one-on-one transaction this is easy. When we are talking about mega corps, you need more people.
All regulation does it take away freedom of choice from one side or the other.
What rights does freedom to choose take away?
You can regulate murder all you want, it doesn’t stop it. But the person in violation of that regulation losses their rights.
A free market doesn’t mean lawlessness. Like I said above, taking a corp to court, and proving a tort will deter any corp from doing the same actions again. That isn’t regulation though. The corp is still free to choose to act foolish.
The same document also tried to keep our government from getting this large and gave the people guns to protect itself for when the government got this large.
The government wants to take those guns away… And people are a-okay with that. Sounds like stockholm syndrome to me…
Think about it. They gave us these rights and limited government, not business. Think about that.
[quote] If you let the free market run free, at some point someone or group ends up with the majority of power and we revert back to feudalism and we become serfs to the Corporations. Like Monopoly, only in real life.
[/quote]
You can’t have economic equality and freedom at the same time. It just doesn’t work…
â??All men are created equalâ??? Right. Sort of, we need to keep in mind the man that penned the Declaration of Independence was a slave owner, so he didnâ??t mean what people want to think he meant. What he meant is: equal right to continue to live, and live in this land (life), equal right to make the free choice to do as you please with what come before and after this point (liberty), and equal right to try and make a living/own personal property, slaves being personal property and not men (pursuit of happiness). (Later equal in the eyes of the law comes into play as well.)
So, if you read it, nowhere does it say people are equal. Because we are not. Even in a room full of people considered your peer, some will have strengths others donâ??t have. People are not equal, and not of equal worth to the whole of society, particularly in an economic sense. And this is why you canâ??t have economic equality and freedom, it goes in the face of nature.
Example:
Michael Jordan. Dude was good at basketball. So, the market dictated that many people would gather together and pay to watch him play. Iâ??m not good at basketball. No one is gathering around to watch me play, the market doesnâ??t have a demand for my skills. Iâ??m not worth what he is to the market. But, in a situation where there is economic equality, I would have to be equal in value to him in relation to basketball and every other sense. So we have two choices: 1) force people to pay me to play ball what he is paid or 2) force Michael to play for the same pay my market value determines, not his own, which is zero. Once you force people, they are not free. (Not to mention the market as a whole is losing with option 2.)
I am stealing the above from Freidman, and he explains it best, but it is what it is.
But when it comes down to it, responsibile individuals in the free market will overcome poor. No one said it would be easy or equal, and it may take a generation or two, but they will overcome with time.
I am also aware real life and theory are two different things.
LOL…I can tell that you spent a lot of time watching those Friedman vids. You’re right about reality and theory being different.
I would argue that we haven’t had a free market since sometime in the mid-late 1800’s. From the early days of our country when we were tyrannized by British corporations we’ve had a loathing for large corporations but industrialization saw them regain power again. These large corporations have eventually grown to the international behemoths that they are now that exert such influence over society. Do you really think that true capitalism can truly work well when half of the deck is rigged? People don’t have as much power over these companies as you would believe.
I think there needs to be a healthy mix of capitalism and some amount of regulation. Regulations that have teeth are the only way to keep these entities obeying the rules. We have seen what happens when they are left to their own accord. Sure, people say “I hate GM and I’ll never buy one of their cars” but there’s only so many car makers out there. The same for banks. You can say that “I’ll never bank with a company that took TARP funds” but, again, your choices of banks are really limited. Even less so for investment houses. So if we, as the consumer, don’t have the ability to punish these companies through purchasing elsewhere then how do we make sure they follow the rules? Or is the answer to simply not have rules and expect them to “do the right thing”? I don’t think that is realistic either.
I don’t necessarily agree with your comparison of regulating murder because you can’t really compare the actions of an individual with that of a company. If companies knew that they would be slapped a hefty fine for rigging their books and if they knew that there was a decent chance that they would get caught then they wouldn’t do it. If UBS thought that they would be left to fail and that criminal charges would be brought against them for trading in certain funds then they wouldn’t do it because the risk / reward isn’t there for them. Individuals don’t operate with the same risk vs reward logic that a corporation does.
james
What’s really ironic/funny/sad is that some/a lot/I don’t know exactly how much corporations buy politicians with their own money. As in the money they see from gov’t contracts. And who said a perpetual motion machine can’t be built. HA!
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/07/383779/30-big-corporations-taxes-lobbying/?mobile=nc
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
LOL…I can tell that you spent a lot of time watching those Friedman vids. You’re right about reality and theory being different.[/quote]
I like to put them on while I work late nights, inthe back ground.
I don’t know… I like to believe that people are more powerful than they believe. It is in the best interest of both of the cornies to keep the people believing they can’t change things.
Today, in the real world, in order for the people to change anything, it would take so much that I agree it isn’t possible. And the best case we could hope for is some fucked up Neo-Marxist revolution which would be the worst idea ever.
The cynical side of me looks at “us” as fucking farm animals man, being poked and branded, indoctinated into a system that clearly contains our freedom, but has been cleverly hidden right below our eyes.
The difference I would like to see, is the courts dictating “regulation” through precedence.
Yes, allow the corps to run wild, and let the people bring cases against them. Let the rule of law dictate what is moral and what isn’t in our society. This at least allows freedom of choice. Regulation forces behavior and punishes based on pre-determined facts. The courts can “change the rules” based on each situation as an individual instance.
This would, more likely than not, in our world just devolve into regulation anyway, so I guess it is just sematics.
I would argue that a free market would hand out the same punishments
[quote] Individuals don’t operate with the same risk vs reward logic that a corporation does.
james [/quote]
At times, I feel like that is a weakness of the individual. Everything can be broken down into a “business transaction”.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not think things will tank just yet, I think the Bush tax cuts will expire and fix a lot of problems [/quote]
You are so wrong for a number of reasons. First off the government taking more money out of the economy in the form of taxes will not help the economy. There will be less money for consumers and more importantly the people who best know how to manage their money wisely, will have less to put to good use generating commerce.
Next, the money raised from those taxes will be insufficient to bring down the massive deficits Obama has been running ever since he got elected. Any extra revenues that come in will be wasted like the stimulus.
Beans, in our current environment what do you think the the punishment that the free market would dish out? Serious question there.
james