DescentBB

flip wrote:Jeez, that **** don't work on me Slick.

of course it doesn't, because you are determined to be dumber than a brick and clearly haven't studied the rest of the world. Commerce and trade are working just fine, ask the Indians or the Chinese, or the guy from Singapore I talked to in November who gets 8 weeks vacation and makes oodles of money shipping cheap goods to the US. Government and lack of commerce isn't what is holding you back, ignorance is. I'm not trying to be mean, or pick on you, but you are, in post after post, demonstrating that you don't have the first clue as to how economics works, how global economies operate, the role of government in preventing unfair advantage being taken and how brutally successful the wealthy have been at suckering guys like you into doing their dirty work.

lol, maybe it's just because I stand for different things Slick that your ivory tower has shielded you from. It's sad that people who lack such foresight have that much wealth. Oh wait, it's because for 150 years, that is all they have loved. Sad.

flip wrote:Jeez, that **** don't work on me Slick. If government would keep it's head out of it except arbitrate complaints and enforce anti-trust laws. People trade for goods and services out of necessity. I've noticed too many times you miss the point so it's no wonder, but I never said every man for himself. I said for government to get out of the way so the wheels of trade and commerce can begin turning again. Obama's first presidency has been suffocating.

So do you advocate for government to get out of the bedroom? Most conservatives seem a little unprincipled when it comes to anything having to do with sex and they always have to make some moral exception for wanting that keep-outta-my-life government right in there like perverts looking through a window.

If you advocate for government to get out of commerce, which means NO REGULATIONS, how is that going to help the game when one side, namely Wall Street and Global Corporations, have NO RULES to follow? Kind of like a football game where only one team can bring knives to the game.

flip wrote:lol, maybe it's just because I stand for different things Slick that your ivory tower has shielded you from. It's sad that people who lack such foresight have that much wealth. Oh wait, it's because for 150 years, that is all they have loved. Sad.

I guess it was just blind luck that I bailed out of the stock market in 2007 and bought back in 2009. Even the blind pig, etc....
Couldn't have been foresight and a lifetime of actually learning how markets work, nahhhhh.

tunnelcat wrote: Kind of like a football game where only one team can bring knives to the game.

damn! That was better than my poker analogy.......must've been my lack of experience and foresight.

except arbitrate complaints and enforce anti-trust laws

I never said no regulation, see . I feel people should look at government regulation from the viewpoint "only as much as is needed". All we see now is a huge grab for Federal Power, nothing new. This battle has been waged in this country from it's inception, only now it seems states are offering no resistance. Our strength has always been in our diversity and common needs. Slick's idea is to completely usurp a states right to self-govern over a strong central state. For some reason, until now it was a very bad idea.

flip wrote:

except arbitrate complaints and enforce anti-trust laws

I never said no regulation, see . I feel people should look at government regulation from the viewpoint "only as much as is needed". All we see now is a huge grab for Federal Power, nothing new. This battle has been waged in this country from it's inception, only now it seems states are offering no resistance. Our strength has always been in our diversity and common needs. Slick's idea is to completely usurp a states right to self-govern over a strong central state. For some reason, until now it was a very bad idea.

Who determines what "only as much as needed" really means? The people? Small businesses? Global Corporations? Wall Street? I see that working out just swell. And if the states did their own regulations and the feds got out of the whole thing, how would commerce between the states work with a huge patchwork of regulations to deal with? And how would the states by themselves have enough clout to protect themselves in the cutthroat global community? Most states don't play well with each other right now, let alone form some business coalition. You know they'd be out for themselves in this whole mess. Oh wait, we have governing body that deals with all the states right now. It's called the Federal Government.

Heh, I can't argue with that, it all goes hand-hand with what I feel I see. What happens for instance if Obama is re-elected again. His main accomplishment was probably well-intentioned but so damn hastily made it was obvious half his motivation was his record. Otherwise, he had opportunity to present one well-thought out. Hell, if that was gonna be my one big thing, I'd took just a small portion of the 750 million dollars and hired 4-5 consultants to work together on a comprehensive federal health plan. By the time he got elected he could have a plan that would been hard to beat. It was more something thrown together at the last moment and pushed down everyone's throat like bad medicine before anyone could do anything about it. That's not the behavior of a representative or leader, it's the mark of a dictator. Just my opinion, but I've always liked making people equals, not keeping them sub-subservient to me.

How is Obama a dictator? I haven't seen him make a hard principled decision unless he was backed into a corner. All he's done is try to play Mr. Nice and compromise, compromise, until he got kicked in the nuts so many times he finally got a little mad about it and made some speech or another about how it was the other guy's fault.

The only thing I can point to is Obamacare, and that was the result of compromising with the Republicans to come up with an absolute piece of garbage that turned out to be corporate welfare. You want a dictator? He could have forced in a European single payer system and written the greedy health insurance industry totally out of the loop. It could've been worse. Oh wait, it sucks now.

I didn't say he was a dictator per se, I think that his ideas and the way he does things will lead to a dictatorship. What his main concern right now should be getting the economy healthy again instead of fairness. Obama is steering us towards a state run and controlled economy.

The economy IS getting healthy again, overall. Or, at least, healthier. As I pointed out in a long-ago thread here, you will have to rebuild a massive amount of infrastructure and re-focus on education of the workforce and getting ahead of the curve on R and D
before you have a prayer at regaining true strength. Even then, you have to accept that you will be competing with the tightly controlled economy of China.
From a profit or investment standpoint, the past 3 years have been on a straight upward march. Fairness comes in the consideration of asking those of us who have seen 200% ROI on 2009 investments pay more on our income to help pay for those infrastructure items, social safety net items and maybe even cut into the deficit while the bulk of the populace gets back on its feet.

Then you concede that Obama set precedent of the state taking over majority control of struggling companies instead of allowing the normal bankruptcy proceedings? That little sliver there is a start. I don't see it disappearing, so over time it is guaranteed to grow.

flip wrote:Then you concede that Obama set precedent of the state taking over majority control of struggling companies instead of allowing the normal bankruptcy proceedings? That little sliver there is a start. I don't see it disappearing so over time it is guaranteed to grow.

we started down that path with AIG under Bush, if you are looking for precedent. Actually, the US took over banks during the depression, as well, I think. Had you allowed the 'normal bankruptcy proceedings' in GM's case, over 2.7 million people could have been added to the unemployment roles(directly from GM/Chrysler, from their parts suppliers and businesses which depended upon those workers for profitable business). Can you see how that would have deepened a deep recession to a very much more dangerous level?

I can see helping them with finances and extensions, with loans to help them get back on their feet, but not taking over majority control. That suggest other motive besides the survival of that company. Especially in light of the fact that at present they are threatening to cut losses and bail instead of ensuring it's survival. Maybe had they let the normal process continue, GM would be thriving again NOW.

we started down that path with AIG under Bush, if you are looking for precedent.

In other words, Bush went for control of the banks and Obama went for the companies. Now they got a foothold in each. or,

Bush set the precedent and Obama followed suit.<---Poker analogy

flip wrote:I can see helping them with finances and extensions, with loans to help them get back on their feet, but not taking over majority control. That suggest other motive besides the survival of that company. Especially in light of the fact that at present they are threatening to cut losses and bail instead of ensuring it's survival. Maybe had they let the normal process continue, GM would be thriving again NOW.

sorry, but no. GM needed to go into bankruptcy. I say this with some angst, as a former stockholder and bondholder. They had a short term run of bad sales, due to bad decisions by the old management(and board) that caused them to bleed money. Futher, they owed a ton of obligations to the pension funds for the workers. There was no way, legally, they could have recovered and done the necessary restructuring without bankruptcy. Loaning them money would have been extremely dumb and it would have certainly never been repaid, and you would have been at the tail end of a long line of creditors. Hell, the bondholders took a loss on principle, and they were first in line.

This has now become difficult....heh. We both agreed on bankruptcy, it's obvious the main point is if the government should also take over majority control of those companies. Don't get all Obama Lover on me, I nor most people I know are half as stupid as you have been led to believe.

flip wrote:This has now become difficult....heh. We both agreed on bankruptcy, it's obvious the main point is if the government should also take over majority control of those companies. Don't get all Obama Lover on me, I nor most people I know are half as stupid as you have been led to believe.

read slowly, if need be:

if the government didn't buy up the shares, at the outset, the bankruptcy and restructuring of debt could not have occurred either as it did, or remotely close. It also would never have happened quickly enough to keep GM functional. Remember, the goal of the whole thing was for GM to remain in continuous operation, thus, the government had to buy the shares and at the time, assure the public that it would sell them off quickly. Once again, Obama delivers on his promise and is true to his word. Was it a smart idea?
Time will tell, but from the very article you cited elsewhere, this quote:

"I agree with Mr. Gilbert that GM has come a long way, both in its radical restructuring with a more rational cost structure,"

First off, GM really went down because the banks went down because of fraudulent activity in the housing loan industry. Still has nothing to do with financially backing someone. Easiest example I can think of is the TV show Gold Rush. Those guys are digging for gold with the backing of a financier. The financier has no control over the day to day operations of their enterprise, he has faith that his investment will pay off, or in GM's case, recover. So, say we both agree that the state should take over huge corporations or banks if they get into financial trouble, do they have the responsibility to stay the long haul and ensure that companies survival, or do they get to do as they are now and threaten ruin at any moment?

flip wrote:First off, GM really went down because the banks went down because of fraudulent activity in the housing loan industry.

really? I was, as I said, a stockholder, and never realized that they were losing money 5 years before the housing debacle because of the housing debacle. Please, Flip, stop making declaritive statements about stuff you don't understand. It makes you look stupid.

Still has nothing to do with financially backing someone. Easiest example I can think of is the TV show Gold Rush. Those guys are digging for gold with the backing of a financier. The financier has no control over the day to day operations of their enterprise, he has faith that his investment will pay off, or in GM's case, recover. So, say we both agree that the state should take over huge corporations or banks if they get into financial trouble, do they have the responsibility to stay the long haul and ensure that companies survival, or do they get to do as they are now and threaten ruin at any moment?

what, pray tell, do you think purchasing stock means? You are providing capital to a corporate entity which you hope will pay off.
Nothing more, nothing less. The only difference between that and a private finance deal is that you can trade your stake to someone else who is willing to purchase it from you.


addendum--a quick read as to the difference between the Fed Reserve and a National Bank, I hope this helps:
On December 26, 1912, the Glass-Willis proposal was submitted to President-elect Wilson. Instead of suggesting the creation of a central bank, the proposal called for the creation of twenty or more privately controlled regional reserve banks, which would hold a portion of member banks' reserves, perform other central banking functions and issue currency against commercial assets and gold. Wilson approved of this idea, but also insisted upon the creation of a central board to control and coordinate the work of the regional reserve banks.

So, you agree that the state should take over huge corporations or banks if they get into financial trouble?

Slicks pie getting bigger

Yours and Obama's ideas will lead to that slice getting bigger and bigger. The same government seizing corporations that you decry is already too partial to the rich. To change that you have to limit government, not broaden it's horizons.

Lol, now I can go to bed

flip wrote:So, you agree that the state should take over huge corporations or banks if they get into financial trouble?

I agree that it should be an option, but used judiciously. Personally, I would have liked to have seen the large investment banks and large commercial lenders pay a far more severe price for their actions. By this, I mean that I would have like to have seen all the investments in AIG, Citi, Chase, Wells Fargo and BOA wiped out. However, doing so would have not only punished the unscrupulous and irresponsible bankers involved, it would have completely frozen the liquidity of the naton. If you are unclear as to what that means, it translates into every citizen unable to get cash from an ATM, borrow money, use a credit card, etc. In other words, all commerce, and I truly mean ALL, would have come to a screeching halt. I have an old school chum who is a chief analyst for an internatonal private bank, who told me that the nation came within about 6 hours of that happening over the Lehman Brothers collapse, and that we came pretty close to that abyss on two other instances. Bottom line is that sometimes you have to do drastic things to keep a massive, complex economy from disaster, once you've allowed things to get so far out of whack. This was one of those times. The trick, and this is what Obama has been trying to do(with huge resistance), is to reset your regulations to insure that such things won't happen again. A reading of history shows that until the 1980's, the businesses of banking, insurance and investment were heavily regulated, and, more importantly, kept separate from one another. Once that changed, the machine was set in motion for the series of collapses capped by the Enron mess and Housing Bubble.

flip wrote:Slicks pie getting bigger

Yours and Obama's ideas will lead to that slice getting bigger and bigger. The same government seizing corporations that you decry is already too partial to the rich. To change that you have to limit government, not broaden it's horizons.

why, Flip, do you keep citing a 3 year old article that clearly(if you even read it) debunks the idea that Obama took over anything other than a microscopic piece of private industry? The article itself refutes your premise and you have posted it twice. Why?

flip wrote:Slicks pie getting bigger

Yours and Obama's ideas will lead to that slice getting bigger and bigger. The same government seizing corporations that you decry is already too partial to the rich. To change that you have to limit government, not broaden it's horizons.

limit government and you allow the rich to run roughshop over everything. History shows that. You all try to point to Greece as the bad example of government excess, and I'll keep pointing you to a far better example of less regulation, Russia. Either is an extreme that I don't feel the US will ever sink to, but we're in far greater danger of oligarchy than we are of bankruptcy.

why, Flip, do you keep citing a 3 year old article that clearly(if you even read it) debunks the idea that Obama took over anything other than a microscopic piece of private industry? The article itself refutes your premise and you have posted it twice. Why?

Because it's "a" start. I actually posted 2 articles. The first one that you just referenced was around the beginning of the bailout, and that guy as you is trying to explain there is no harm. The second was linked the first time around. It was from April of last year and the government is expressing wishes to bail even at a huge loss. Taxpayer money. Just 3-4 years ago there was no other choice but to bail them out, they were "too big to fail", now, a few years later it's fack 'em?

If the government takes over struggling business's with taxpayer money, should they be held responsible to make sure that money is returned and with interest or profit?

EDIT: When that stock is sold at a loss, who do you think it is going to be sold to?

I don't think it is wise to remove the limits on government, the problem isn't that the government lacks the power to solve these issues, it is that the government is deliberately incompetent. The regulators are being staffed by the corporations they are supposed to be regulating. It's worse than "the foxes are guarding the hen-house", its more like the ranchers are feeding the livestock to a pack of wolves so they won't get eaten themselves.

The size is also part of the problem, I just don't see a difference between big government and big business, its pretty obvious that neither is particularly good for the little man. When a business becomes "too big to fail" you could say it ceases being a business and becomes form of government anyway, even if the official ownership hasn't changed. When you are "too big to fail", you are pretty much as powerful as government, but don't have to suffer the same limits. GM and the banks probably should have been split into a bunch of smaller companies a long time ago, smaller companies that would compete with each other but could individually fail without risking a global economic collapse. The system needs the ability to churn failed businesses, without the ability for companies to fail the economy will inevitably collapse and each bailout or half-assed economic measure will at best only delay that inevitability.

One other thing I've heard around the internet is people commenting about how terrible socialism is and how it will ruin society if things become socialized, but the vast majority of the people saying it completely miss the bigger issue. It isn't that socialism is bad (it more often than not produces bad results, but isn't itself inherently bad), it is that monopolies pretty much are universally bad and socialism generally creates a monopoly. A private monopoly (aka mega corporation) is every bit as bad as a government monopoly (aka socialism), so the people that speak about how terrible socialism is and then use that to insist that the government should not regulate industry are complete idiots destined to drown in their own kool-aid.

We need regulation of capitalist industry, but we don't need big government, and the two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Edit: oh, and if this makes no sense at all, I blame the NyQuil.

Makes sense to me. Totally agree. I take that to mean that from now to the end of time we have to fight for balance. It will not fall in our laps, because others are fighting for extremes. Good post Krom.

Krom wrote:I don't think it is wise to remove the limits on government, the problem isn't that the government lacks the power to solve these issues, it is that the government is deliberately incompetent. The regulators are being staffed by the corporations they are supposed to be regulating. It's worse than "the foxes are guarding the hen-house", its more like the ranchers are feeding the livestock to a pack of wolves so they won't get eaten themselves.

The size is also part of the problem, I just don't see a difference between big government and big business, its pretty obvious that neither is particularly good for the little man. When a business becomes "too big to fail" you could say it ceases being a business and becomes form of government anyway, even if the official ownership hasn't changed. When you are "too big to fail", you are pretty much as powerful as government, but don't have to suffer the same limits. GM and the banks probably should have been split into a bunch of smaller companies a long time ago, smaller companies that would compete with each other but could individually fail without risking a global economic collapse. The system needs the ability to churn failed businesses, without the ability for companies to fail the economy will inevitably collapse and each bailout or half-assed economic measure will at best only delay that inevitability.

One other thing I've heard around the internet is people commenting about how terrible socialism is and how it will ruin society if things become socialized, but the vast majority of the people saying it completely miss the bigger issue. It isn't that socialism is bad (it more often than not produces bad results, but isn't itself inherently bad), it is that monopolies pretty much are universally bad and socialism generally creates a monopoly. A private monopoly (aka mega corporation) is every bit as bad as a government monopoly (aka socialism), so the people that speak about how terrible socialism is and then use that to insist that the government should not regulate industry are complete idiots destined to drown in their own kool-aid.

We need regulation of capitalist industry, but we don't need big government, and the two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Edit: oh, and if this makes no sense at all, I blame the NyQuil.

Made a hell of a lot more sense than what I've come up with.

Flip agreed with me? And then tunnelcat seconded it?

I Just backed up the database just in case the whole site explodes.

Too much NyQuil indeed.

Don’t worry, I disagree that socialism isn’t inherently bad…

Socialism, or even a full blown dictatorship would be great if the person in charge loved you, otherwise your just a piss-ant to them

Spidey wrote:Don’t worry, I disagree that socialism isn’t inherently bad…

so, you would prefer to live in the US under pre-1920 rules? Because, ever since the graduated income tax was made law,
the US has had some element of Socialism.

The progressive tax system is nothing to brag about, I actually know people who stop working extra hours or “other things” to avoid going into the next bracket.

A better example of socialism actually working for a change would be the US road/highway system and the electric grid, and the good old land line phone service.

Before I moved to the city, I lived in a house that was nestled between corn fields, miles from the nearest village even. But even out in the fields I was one of the lucky ones and still had access to "high speed" DSL internet, half a meg was all it was, and it cost $20 more per month than this 30 megabit cable I have here in the city. The only reason I was even able to get DSL out there is because of government meddling (aka socialism), otherwise I would have been at the mercy of private industry and they would NEVER serve a rural area like that on their own. Forget DSL, if it weren't for socialism we likely wouldn't have even had a phone line at the house at all, or even electricity.

In America the cellular service is dominated by a couple of anti-competitive private duopolists (AT&T and Verizon) and the coverage is terrible outside of major population centers (and sometimes terrible even inside major population centers). Lately AT&T and Verizon can't shut up about how awesome their "4G" networks are, but here in my Midwest America home town of 11,000 I'm still stuck on "2G" service. Oh well, I guess I should count myself lucky because at my old house there was no cell service at all, you could easily drive 5-10 miles in any direction from my house and NOT get a cellular signal. On the other hand, I have much better 3G cell phone service pretty much anywhere in Costa Rica (even at the top of mountains!). So whats the difference between American cell service and Costa Rican cell service aside from Costa Rican service working better and costing less? Well, it would be that the cell service is socialized and government owned in Costa Rica. So it is pretty safe to say that private industry SUCKS at this, they are expensive, uncooperative, and don't even work half the time. When a third world nation can do some public service better than it is done here in America, you know our "private" (maybe in this case it'd be best to call it an "antisocial") system isn't working.

So no, socialism isn't inherently bad, in fact when it comes to some services and infrastructure it is the only sane way to operate.

Well I have tried in the past to explain the difference between socialism and municipal services. So if people can’t figure out the difference between a political system based on “fairness and equality” and simple government services…

Capitalism can provide even better public services than socialism can, and I can name many counter examples to your one…Cuba for starters, Russia for another.

Tc is always trying to make the point that the police and fire departments are examples of socialism, but it begs the question…what do these services have to do with “fairness and equality” they are services provided at a lower cost than you could buy them yourself.

When I was younger the guys used to all chip in and buy a keg of beer, none of us could afford to have that much if we all bought our own…what does that have to do with “fairness and equality”

But, I will admit some socialist countries do a better job providing some services than capitalist countries…but the fault lies in capitalism, not in the greatness of socialism.

But, my main counter that socialize is inherently bad is this…hope your still reading…”fairness and equality” one mans fairness is another man’s oppression, and who’s notion of “fairness” is going to be instituted? Then comes “equality” a state of human existence that is against all of nature, and the only way humans can ever be “equal” is at the lowest common denominator. Do you think the government can make us all equal at or near the top? Then there is the entire litany of other problems with socialism such as overwhelming dept…no I won’t use Greece as an example, so I will use Japan…the “Welfare Superpower”. They are right on the verge…

Of course there are also other inherent problems such as the disincentive to be productive…etc.

And, I will also admit that pure capitalism is also bad.

Also, I want to smack everybody that says fairness “AND” equality, because as far as I can tell the two of them are mutually exclusive. The obvious proof of this is in taxes where equality has to be shoved under the table so we can have fairness, and voting where fairness has to be shoved aside, because what’s so fair about some guy who works his ass off, all his life and gets the same single vote some slob who never worked a day in his life gets?

So socialism should be fairness “OR” equality, because if either were worth a spit, they could both be applied to the same issue at the same time.

/rant

Krom wrote:A better example of socialism actually working for a change would be the US road/highway system and the electric grid, and the good old land line phone service.

Before I moved to the city, I lived in a house that was nestled between corn fields, miles from the nearest village even. But even out in the fields I was one of the lucky ones and still had access to "high speed" DSL internet, half a meg was all it was, and it cost $20 more per month than this 30 megabit cable I have here in the city. The only reason I was even able to get DSL out there is because of government meddling (aka socialism), otherwise I would have been at the mercy of private industry and they would NEVER serve a rural area like that on their own. Forget DSL, if it weren't for socialism we likely wouldn't have even had a phone line at the house at all, or even electricity.

Good grief! Where the hell is that place? I'm going to have to move there! I'm still stuck with a 1.5 Mbps connection, and I'm in a relatively small town with only 2 telecoms, Comcast and Century Link. I don't see them putting out much effort and money in even trying to upgrade their systems for the twenty first century. They're too short sited to see that high speed internet and a good, solid backbone will eventually pay off in spades. It's all "give me the money, NOW", while their infrastructure languishes in the 19 century (I swear ). I mean, come on Comcast, you have high speed internet. Why does it take 24 HOURS to download the TV guide info into my DVR after some reset or another?

Spidey wrote:The progressive tax system is nothing to brag about, I actually know people who stop working extra hours or “other things” to avoid going into the next bracket.

if so, then they are kind of short sighted. The times I've bumped up a bracket, I still came out ahead of where I would have been, although, I concede you could fall back if you went 'barely ' over, but controlling that would me extreme attention to detail and a bit of luck......

Spidey wrote:But, I will admit some socialist countries do a better job providing some services than capitalist countries…but the fault lies in capitalism, not in the greatness of socialism.

I think a bit of study will show that the core difference isn't all in the political/economic structure,but the willingness of the populace to accept or fight against inefficiency and unfairness. In general, Europeans are far more willing to take to the streets to demand services, whereas Americans shrug and say, " what do you expect from Government".

You seem to hint at a point I very much agree with. Pure capitalism or pure socialism are too problematic to work all that well.
I suspect no 'pure' ideology ever serves the populace. Easy solutions, one size fits all solutions, tend to be illusions......