Economic meltdown!

[random n00b]

oh, i should add, maybe you should read 1984. hehe, you're free to think as you like, as long as you do as we say. man...

And even that is not enough.

 

 

If it's just 'telling' then you're back on the irony boat.

The irony is only apparent. The difference between the two postures is that one would wield power to trump individual freedoms in the name of "the greater good". The other doesn't close the door to acting for said greater good, but doesn't force people to do so. One would easily take the step from telling people how to behave to making people behave that way. The other wouldn't.

 

And all it takes for that to happen is enough well-meaning but ill-informed people to come together. And out of the blue, you have a tyranny.

 

/lecture

[Meshugger]

Awesome!

 

[theslug]

I think the solution is the Chilean Plan. Loan all the money these banks need for their toxic loans and then have them pay it back, with interest (being done already).

[taks]

If it's just 'telling' then you're back on the irony boat.

no, nick, i already stated it quite clearly, his version of "telling" involves government force. c'mon man...

 

well said, noob.

 

a chilean phlan? is that like a custard, or more like a pudding?

 

taks

[Humodour]

This just in: all welfare states are evil socialist entities for creating safety nets for basic human rights!

[theslug]

If it's just 'telling' then you're back on the irony boat.

no, nick, i already stated it quite clearly, his version of "telling" involves government force. c'mon man...

 

well said, noob.

 

a chilean phlan? is that like a custard, or more like a pudding?

 

taks

why you gotta hate on me too taks :'(

 

ur nothing but a former brief best friend to me now

 

i wont forget this

[Humodour]

You know what's hilarious? Australia is a welfare state and still has higher market freedom than America.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Australia is the near perfect example of what I am calling for in balancing capitalism and socialism. Now, if they can just stop banning certain video games due to content...

 

The necessities of safeguarding citizens such as law enforcement, emergency services, municipal utilities, and health care should be socialized and "free" for the public use. Everything else be driven by a capitalistic forces.

[Humodour]

Well, to be fair, it's not just Australia that's doing well with a welfare state + free market mix. Of the top 10 freest markets in the world (all of comparable freedom except Ireland, Australia and Singapore, which are most free), 7 are strong welfare states. The only ones that don't have a comprehensive welfare state are Singapore, Chile and America.

 

Chile had the best welfare system in the world until the 1970's, when the CIA staged a coup to replace Chile's socialist-leaning government and tried to dismantle the welfare system.

 

Well done America.

[Rosbjerg]

Well I have to agree with Taks on this one actually.. (sorry my socalist friends)

 

This is a problem of capitalizing profit and socializing loss. We shouldn't "reward" the banks by bailing them out, because in the end - it's gonna hurt you a lot more than simply letting them die.

 

The money needed to bail them out, would be used to lending consumers money afterwards - which means that the banks are gonna make a profit on this due to the interest rates. Maybe the goverment even have to print money to get access to the 700 billion, which would mean inflation and higher prices - and then more loans.

 

In the long run it's better for a short term crisis.

[Humodour]

Well I have to agree with Taks on this one actually.. (sorry my socalist friends)

 

This is a problem of capitalizing profit and socializing loss. We shouldn't "reward" the banks by bailing them out, because in the end - it's gonna hurt you a lot more than simply letting them die.

 

The money needed to bail them out, would be used to lending consumers money afterwards - which means that the banks are gonna make a profit on this due to the interest rates. Maybe the goverment even have to print money to get access to the 700 billion, which would mean inflation and higher prices - and then more loans.

 

In the long run it's better for a short term crisis.

 

Did you even bother to read the bail-out terms? The modifications made were that the banks have to pay it back with interest, meaning that over time the taxpayers get more money back out of this. Estimations indicate it would be payed back in 5 years. Meanwhile, you've prevented or dampened long-term economic recession, which the vast majority of economists predict, including Warren Buffet.

 

And that's just one of the modifications that Obama (and I believe even McCain) pushed for to protect average Americans. The Republicans arguments against it were generic free market rhetoric, nothing to do with the average person. The vast majority who voted against it were seeking re-election. Of the Republicans who weren't seeking re-election, 90% voted for the rescue package.

 

Next time, before you start calling anybody who supports the bill a socialist, you should check who actually supports it. Among average Americans, 33% don't know, 33% support it, 33% don't support it. And of those who don't support it, 50% are Republicans, and 50% of Democrats. Not to mention McCain himself supports it.

[Walsingham]

Well I have to agree with Taks on this one actually.. (sorry my socalist friends)

 

This is a problem of capitalizing profit and socializing loss. We shouldn't "reward" the banks by bailing them out, because in the end - it's gonna hurt you a lot more than simply letting them die.

 

The money needed to bail them out, would be used to lending consumers money afterwards - which means that the banks are gonna make a profit on this due to the interest rates. Maybe the goverment even have to print money to get access to the 700 billion, which would mean inflation and higher prices - and then more loans.

 

In the long run it's better for a short term crisis.

 

I haven't modelled it, and without a free couple of months I won't have time to model it. But if the 'banking system' implodes, we're not talking an economic sore bum. This isn't twenty strokes of the cane from teacher. This is shooting your own face off.

 

I still say bail them out in exchange for twenty of their own as sacrifices to the god of Abstract Justice. That way we can feel revenged while not turfing people out on the street and shutting off small business loans etc.

[Rosbjerg]

I'd just like to add that I'm a diehard socialist myself..

 

But I can't help but wonder what the longterm ramifications of this would be, I see the very real dangers of doing nothing.. and I see how terrible it would be (for me as well) to simply let the market crash.. I'm just worried that the price we pay may actually be bigger with going through with this particular plan..

 

I'm far from an economic expert though - and I'm simply voicing my concerns.

[Walsingham]

I'm increasingly seeing less and less of a problem. Why NOT smooth out the cycles of bust? We do it with reserves of crude oil. We do it with food. Why not raw capital? It's not as if Wall Street doesn't make the USGov billions each year.

[Humodour]

I'm increasingly seeing less and less of a problem. Why NOT smooth out the cycles of bust? We do it with reserves of crude oil. We do it with food. Why not raw capital? It's not as if Wall Street doesn't make the USGov billions each year.

 

BUT THAT WOULD BE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE FREE MARKET WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIL!!!!!

[Killian Kalthorne]

I'm increasingly seeing less and less of a problem. Why NOT smooth out the cycles of bust? We do it with reserves of crude oil. We do it with food. Why not raw capital? It's not as if Wall Street doesn't make the USGov billions each year.

 

A good idea when we no longer have a deficit AND a national debt.

[Humodour]

"Democrats are also trying to get the homeless to vote. You don't have to have a home to vote. However, Republicans have filed suit in several states to prevent people whose home has been foreclosed from voting on the grounds that the address they gave when they registered is no longer valid."

 

That about sums up the Republican party.

 

Well, that, and this:

 

COURIC: "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy? Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"

 

PALIN: "That's why I say I like ever American I'm speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout.

 

But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy - Helping the - Oh, it's got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."

Edited October 1, 2008 by Krezack

[Gorgon]

Lol, that is pretty low.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Palin is an idiot.

[Gorth]

 

But damn, she makes Dan Quayle sound gifted by comparison

[Meshugger]

Dan Quale had difficulties on expressing his ideas, but his ideas were ok by themselves.

 

Sarah Palin has no difficulties on expressing her ideas, since she doesn't have any.

[random n00b]

I'm far from an economic expert though - and I'm simply voicing my concerns.

Don't worry Ros - with Wikipedia, everyone and his dog is a Sc.D!

[Rosbjerg]

I'm far from an economic expert though - and I'm simply voicing my concerns.

Don't worry Ros - with Wikipedia, everyone and his dog is a Sc.D!

 

 

Sadly true..

 

I'll go research and come back with a proper opinion then..

[taks]

why you gotta hate on me too taks :'(

 

ur nothing but a former brief best friend to me now

 

i wont forget this

i wasn't hating on you at all! i misread the first time (i realized it was "plan" when i posted, however), and just thought it was a good funny.

 

I'm increasingly seeing less and less of a problem. Why NOT smooth out the cycles of bust? We do it with reserves of crude oil. We do it with food. Why not raw capital? It's not as if Wall Street doesn't make the USGov billions each year.

because we're ultimately using the taxpayer to pay for a plan that was created by government meddling in the first place. it is not so much "smoothing out the cycles," it is redistributing wealth. let 'em fail. stop the handouts. get the government out of the system.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

i wasn't hating on you at all! i misread the first time (i realized it was "plan" when i posted, however), and just thought it was a good funny.

 

I'm increasingly seeing less and less of a problem. Why NOT smooth out the cycles of bust? We do it with reserves of crude oil. We do it with food. Why not raw capital? It's not as if Wall Street doesn't make the USGov billions each year.

because we're ultimately using the taxpayer to pay for a plan that was created by government meddling in the first place. it is not so much "smoothing out the cycles," it is redistributing wealth. let 'em fail. stop the handouts. get the government out of the system.

 

taks

 

There is a flaw there, Taks. It is the taxpayer money that bought the reserves of oil and food. Having a rainy day fund tucked away makes good sense as long as it is put to good use. You are right that this problem was created by government meddling in the first place, but now we have the opportunity to remove that meddling. I agree that Fannie and Freddie, and any corporation poorly run, should die, but that rainy day fund could be used to help people directly instead of being used to bailout companies. Of course, we need to get our spending way under control and work towards of eliminating the national debt first.