Jaime Vallés
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- New York City
- Website
- www.casicasi.com
Do the math again. $25,000 has one zero too many.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Bailout Alternative???
- Thread starter Vladimir Eugene
- Start date
- Status
Tom Lowe
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 8,520
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Ha ha!... let's send Fed Chairman Bernanke to the Sizzler and cook his steak, then feed him to the seniors on Tuesday night Buffet!!!
Siva Kollipara
Well-known member
I am an Indian and but work in New York City, so little aware of both the sides.
The first and foremost thing to solve a problem is to admit it...
Understand what the problem is and where the problem is.
Till Bush,Bernake and Paulson trio neither know what the problem is nor admitted that there exists a problem.
Looks funny, but true, they are always threating American Tax Payers with horrible consequences if bail-out plan is not passed.
Whether you put $700 billion or $7 Trillion, writing on the wall, patient is already in ICU, the doctors are not letting you see the patient so that they can act if they are treating him with expensive medicines.
During war do not worry about the dead soldiers, try to save the rest.
When patient was attached with Cardiac Arrest, instead of taking him into hospital Investment bankers(IBs) put him on 100m running race. IBs put heavy bets on commodities and crude oil, eventually it went to $147/barrel. thinking that they can short it and eventually cover the losses. This was game played by US/US companies in 70s/80s and made everyone fools, but now Arabs understood the game, ball is in their court, they are playing smart game now.
What happens now..?
1) If Arabs cut oil production as little as 2 million barrel/day, whole world has to go and beg them at their feet.
2) If China says to America, "settle my trade account today" . US cannot pay.
In the above two scenarios are catastrophic not only to US, but to entire world . With rise in oil price, the third world countries suffer extremely.
What are options to US?
a)Declare Bankruptcy, dollar is thrown out of bank and Gold will soar to $2000 or more
b)Go to the feet of Arabs/Chinese
c)Provoke every country and dictate American Tax Payers to fund the WAR.
If US can declare $25 million on Bin Laden, why can't they declare $100 million to experts, who can provide solution..?
The first and foremost thing to solve a problem is to admit it...
Understand what the problem is and where the problem is.
Till Bush,Bernake and Paulson trio neither know what the problem is nor admitted that there exists a problem.
Looks funny, but true, they are always threating American Tax Payers with horrible consequences if bail-out plan is not passed.
Whether you put $700 billion or $7 Trillion, writing on the wall, patient is already in ICU, the doctors are not letting you see the patient so that they can act if they are treating him with expensive medicines.
During war do not worry about the dead soldiers, try to save the rest.
When patient was attached with Cardiac Arrest, instead of taking him into hospital Investment bankers(IBs) put him on 100m running race. IBs put heavy bets on commodities and crude oil, eventually it went to $147/barrel. thinking that they can short it and eventually cover the losses. This was game played by US/US companies in 70s/80s and made everyone fools, but now Arabs understood the game, ball is in their court, they are playing smart game now.
What happens now..?
1) If Arabs cut oil production as little as 2 million barrel/day, whole world has to go and beg them at their feet.
2) If China says to America, "settle my trade account today" . US cannot pay.
In the above two scenarios are catastrophic not only to US, but to entire world . With rise in oil price, the third world countries suffer extremely.
What are options to US?
a)Declare Bankruptcy, dollar is thrown out of bank and Gold will soar to $2000 or more
b)Go to the feet of Arabs/Chinese
c)Provoke every country and dictate American Tax Payers to fund the WAR.
If US can declare $25 million on Bin Laden, why can't they declare $100 million to experts, who can provide solution..?
- Banned
- #24
GlennChan
Banned
To me, it seems like the bailout would only delay a financial collapse (and make it a lot worse).
The problem with banking is that banks lend out money they don't have. (Fractical reserve banking.) This is fine as long as the economy is growing (or rather, the people borrowing can generate wealth and pay their loans back). If people can't pay these loans back, then there is a big problem. e.g. what happened in the great depression, when a whole number of banks went under. People thought that their money would be safe in their bank... only to discover that when they wanted to withdraw their money, the bank didn't have it.
What the bailout looks like is getting all American taxpayers to foot the bill. So essentially, money is being taken from every American taxpayer to prop up these failing banks. Should the American taxpayer pay for the irresponsibility/bad business practices of others? Probably not IMO.
The argument for a bailout is that confidence in the banking system is restored and that we can continue to play this game of musical chairs. As long as economic growth outpaces aggressiveness/soundness of the banks' lending, things would be ok. I don't think this is a good plan at all because there are moments where the economy doesn't grow fast enough to support lending levels. e.g. great depression, the savings and loan crisis, the LTCM bailout, etc.
2- Derivatives allow for a variation on the fractional reserve banking problem... under derivatives, you make promises to do something if certain conditions are met (e.g. pay $___ if Y happens). The magnitude of these promises can greatly exceed your ability to pay. For example, Long Term Capital Management at one point was leveraged 30:1. i.e. For every $1 they had, they were borrowing $30 and promising to pay that back.
The US government, if it were responsible (yeah right), would regulate the use of derivatives and make sure that they don't get out of hand. Right now, they regulate fractional reserve banking to make sure that the banks don't overlend to prevent something like what happened in ~1929 (where a series of banks went under). Back then, people lost their life savings because they stuck it in a bank and the bank went under on them. So the government stepped in to make sure that something like that wouldn't happen again (but then it did in the savings and loan crisis, and taxpayers bailed that out).
The government should, IMO, definitely regulate derivatives more to prevent future financial disasters. And they should have done that after the LTCM bailout. But they didn't. So there's another potential disaster.
The financial institutions would prefer to have less regulation, since riskier lending practices can mean more profit. Riskier lending (e.g. lending out even more money you don't have) absolutely leads to short term profits... which has a short-sighted appeal. In the long run, risky lending is a bad thing as eventually the business will blow up and go bankrupt. When CEOs get paid with options, then it definitely encourages them to go for short-term gains (they won't lose money if their company goes bankrupt or loses a lot of money... unlike shareholders; compensation via options is a bad idea in general because the CEOs interests aren't aligned with shareholders).
The problem with banking is that banks lend out money they don't have. (Fractical reserve banking.) This is fine as long as the economy is growing (or rather, the people borrowing can generate wealth and pay their loans back). If people can't pay these loans back, then there is a big problem. e.g. what happened in the great depression, when a whole number of banks went under. People thought that their money would be safe in their bank... only to discover that when they wanted to withdraw their money, the bank didn't have it.
What the bailout looks like is getting all American taxpayers to foot the bill. So essentially, money is being taken from every American taxpayer to prop up these failing banks. Should the American taxpayer pay for the irresponsibility/bad business practices of others? Probably not IMO.
The argument for a bailout is that confidence in the banking system is restored and that we can continue to play this game of musical chairs. As long as economic growth outpaces aggressiveness/soundness of the banks' lending, things would be ok. I don't think this is a good plan at all because there are moments where the economy doesn't grow fast enough to support lending levels. e.g. great depression, the savings and loan crisis, the LTCM bailout, etc.
2- Derivatives allow for a variation on the fractional reserve banking problem... under derivatives, you make promises to do something if certain conditions are met (e.g. pay $___ if Y happens). The magnitude of these promises can greatly exceed your ability to pay. For example, Long Term Capital Management at one point was leveraged 30:1. i.e. For every $1 they had, they were borrowing $30 and promising to pay that back.
The US government, if it were responsible (yeah right), would regulate the use of derivatives and make sure that they don't get out of hand. Right now, they regulate fractional reserve banking to make sure that the banks don't overlend to prevent something like what happened in ~1929 (where a series of banks went under). Back then, people lost their life savings because they stuck it in a bank and the bank went under on them. So the government stepped in to make sure that something like that wouldn't happen again (but then it did in the savings and loan crisis, and taxpayers bailed that out).
The government should, IMO, definitely regulate derivatives more to prevent future financial disasters. And they should have done that after the LTCM bailout. But they didn't. So there's another potential disaster.
The financial institutions would prefer to have less regulation, since riskier lending practices can mean more profit. Riskier lending (e.g. lending out even more money you don't have) absolutely leads to short term profits... which has a short-sighted appeal. In the long run, risky lending is a bad thing as eventually the business will blow up and go bankrupt. When CEOs get paid with options, then it definitely encourages them to go for short-term gains (they won't lose money if their company goes bankrupt or loses a lot of money... unlike shareholders; compensation via options is a bad idea in general because the CEOs interests aren't aligned with shareholders).
- Banned
- #25
GlennChan
Banned
On the other hand... there is a lot we don't know about economics. And a lot of economic theory is wrong. e.g. the efficient market hypothesis, taught in practically all universities, is wrong IMO.
The laws of supply/demand probably also isn't true... there are some situations where raising prices *increased* volume of sales.
The laws of supply/demand probably also isn't true... there are some situations where raising prices *increased* volume of sales.
Andrew Walker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,974
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Bozeman, MT
- Website
- 599productions.com
I like your thinking Tom.
- Banned
- #27
Rick Darge
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 3,775
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 44
Wait a minute.. I thought the economy was fake?
You guys are telling me now that it's real?!?!
You guys are telling me now that it's real?!?!
And end up like JFK.
My plan -
1) Take the money from defense contractors and bankers who've pilfered/profited from all this corruption and throw them in jail.
2) Cut Spending and when we do spend require the CEO's of any U.S. government contractor to make a maximum of 15 times the wage of their average worker. Require 90% of the workers employed by American Tax Dollars to BE US CITIZENS.
Spend money on green oil alternatives so we can stop paying royal families in oil countries so we can drive to work.
Clint Johnson
Well-known member
The largest underlying problem for this meltdown was the banks loaning out massive amounts of money to people who were not eligible for the loans. This was caused by the government created Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac buying up of these bad loans - and government regulations that allowed these entities to have a capital/asset ratio of less than 3% . The regulations on the other banking and lending institutions were placed there to keep them from becoming insolvent... but solvency was considered a liability to achieving the goals placed on the “Government Sponsored Enterprises” Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. So the other institutions simply took the profits from these bad loans and passed the liability on to the GSEs – using the inconsistant regulations to bypass the regulations on themselves.
So the meltdown was precipitated by the “government sponsored enterprises” buying up bad loans and - the government solution is to spend tax dollars... to buy up bad loans? The phrase “good money after bad” has never been more appropriate.
I'm a capitalist pig and I believe the government that regulates the least, regulates the best... but those regulations have to be rational and consistent. They can't be rigged to give a result that is politically or philosophically expedient but economically infeasible.
One thing could be the elimination of businesses as entities that can take the blame for the actions of individuals. Individuals who have unprecedented economic power need to be held accountable for the results of their actions and walking away with multi-million dollar payouts isn't what I consider being held accountable. If the management and stock holders can be held accountable for what the company does, the management will be far more careful about what they do and the stockholder will keep a much sharper eye on them. There is some responsibility already there but an insane amount of it can be offloaded to a piece of fiction called a corporation.
In my opinion, that apportioning of responsibility should carry over to the politicians as well. The politicians make whatever promises it takes to get people to give them hundreds of millions of dollars that they then use to tell the largest percentage of the population what they think they want to hear. So the primary qualifications to be the most powerful people on the planet is the ability to sell themselves to business for money and to the population for votes. That doesn't mean that they can't have any other abilities, such as understanding economics or waging military campaigns, but gaining these abilities takes time and if they waste too much time on those unrelated pursuits they will have less time for their essential work of getting and holding power.
Maybe if they were held responsible for their actions while in office they might actually tailor their actions to something other than the next round of fund raising and electioneering. They also may be less likely to hold to political actions that fail repeatedly whenever tried.
But how far back to do you go? It would be kind of hard to go after Franklin D. Roosevelt for the New Deal and the creation of Fannie Mae... but how about Franklin Raines who, under direction of the Clinton administration, relaxed the lending standards of Fannie Mae for ridiculously subprime borrowers? And how about the Bush administration who allowed that to continue?
Anyone want to hold there breath for Clinton or Bush to take responsibility for their part in this economic crisis?
Didn't think so.
In addendum, the latest numbers from the census bureau show that the current population of the United States is about 305,256,000 people. The age related breakdown I could find with a quick Googling show that 72.6% of the USA population is 20 years of age or older. I could look further to find the more precise “18 and over” but this will do for a back of the napkin calculation.
Apportioning $700 billion to these 221,615,856 people would give them $3,158.62 each.
This math brought to you by a Canadian high school dropout.:whistling:
So the meltdown was precipitated by the “government sponsored enterprises” buying up bad loans and - the government solution is to spend tax dollars... to buy up bad loans? The phrase “good money after bad” has never been more appropriate.
I'm a capitalist pig and I believe the government that regulates the least, regulates the best... but those regulations have to be rational and consistent. They can't be rigged to give a result that is politically or philosophically expedient but economically infeasible.
One thing could be the elimination of businesses as entities that can take the blame for the actions of individuals. Individuals who have unprecedented economic power need to be held accountable for the results of their actions and walking away with multi-million dollar payouts isn't what I consider being held accountable. If the management and stock holders can be held accountable for what the company does, the management will be far more careful about what they do and the stockholder will keep a much sharper eye on them. There is some responsibility already there but an insane amount of it can be offloaded to a piece of fiction called a corporation.
In my opinion, that apportioning of responsibility should carry over to the politicians as well. The politicians make whatever promises it takes to get people to give them hundreds of millions of dollars that they then use to tell the largest percentage of the population what they think they want to hear. So the primary qualifications to be the most powerful people on the planet is the ability to sell themselves to business for money and to the population for votes. That doesn't mean that they can't have any other abilities, such as understanding economics or waging military campaigns, but gaining these abilities takes time and if they waste too much time on those unrelated pursuits they will have less time for their essential work of getting and holding power.
Maybe if they were held responsible for their actions while in office they might actually tailor their actions to something other than the next round of fund raising and electioneering. They also may be less likely to hold to political actions that fail repeatedly whenever tried.
But how far back to do you go? It would be kind of hard to go after Franklin D. Roosevelt for the New Deal and the creation of Fannie Mae... but how about Franklin Raines who, under direction of the Clinton administration, relaxed the lending standards of Fannie Mae for ridiculously subprime borrowers? And how about the Bush administration who allowed that to continue?
Anyone want to hold there breath for Clinton or Bush to take responsibility for their part in this economic crisis?
Didn't think so.
In addendum, the latest numbers from the census bureau show that the current population of the United States is about 305,256,000 people. The age related breakdown I could find with a quick Googling show that 72.6% of the USA population is 20 years of age or older. I could look further to find the more precise “18 and over” but this will do for a back of the napkin calculation.
Apportioning $700 billion to these 221,615,856 people would give them $3,158.62 each.
This math brought to you by a Canadian high school dropout.:whistling:
I'm a US citizen who does not have a political affiliation and have never cared about politics, but I agree with everything you just said. Does that make me a Rep, Dem, or Lib? I'm registering to vote next week...
Joseph Ward
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,144
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Mark my words people will be made(direct or indirect), to make a choice of having an ID on/in their bodies, that will make them a slave. My mission in life is to help, have the US make its own money. I am willing to die and live for it because I believe in the freedom of the US citizens and the rest of the world.
Steven M. Bailey
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 49
I am one of those poor smucks that is losing my house, business, assets ect...
Last year my house appraised for 1.2 mil, this year I can't sell it for $699.000
There are so many foreclosures on the market that I can't even find work in the construction field. I can't liquidate my assets and I can't make money in my field. Its a real cluster.
I had one more house to build before I started my feature film. If I don't get bailed out personally I will be paying on this mistake for the rest of my life. I don't want anything for free, I would settle for selling my house for half its value.
It just happens that right now it is more beneficial to the upper end market to wait for you to crash, then buy your house from the bank.
If you know anyone looking for a 5400 sq ft vacation home near Shasta lake let me know. The third floor is a 1500 sq ft bar and grill
pics @ http://www.blownapartstudios.com/house/index.php?page=pictures
Last year my house appraised for 1.2 mil, this year I can't sell it for $699.000
There are so many foreclosures on the market that I can't even find work in the construction field. I can't liquidate my assets and I can't make money in my field. Its a real cluster.
I had one more house to build before I started my feature film. If I don't get bailed out personally I will be paying on this mistake for the rest of my life. I don't want anything for free, I would settle for selling my house for half its value.
It just happens that right now it is more beneficial to the upper end market to wait for you to crash, then buy your house from the bank.
If you know anyone looking for a 5400 sq ft vacation home near Shasta lake let me know. The third floor is a 1500 sq ft bar and grill
pics @ http://www.blownapartstudios.com/house/index.php?page=pictures
- Banned
- #33
Pawel Achtel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 3,648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Tasmania
- Website
- www.achtel.com
I think you are on to something, Clint. Maybe the problem with US economy is in fact a problem with elementary education, especially up at the decision-making level :gun:
I think G.W.B. would drop out of primary school in any civilised country... :whistling:
Steve Sherrick
Well-known member
Honestly, we're probably screwed either way. I see Washington as a bunch of people who are out of touch with reality right now. Not all of them, but unfortunately, a good amount of them. I don't favor either of the political candidates right now, and was not convinced after tonight's debate either. But Mccain is right to a certain degree. We have to hold people accountable for their mistakes. The average person in this country is held accountable. Don't pay your mortgage, they'll take your house. Don't pay your car loan, they'll repossess it. Break the law, go to jail. The only difference between us and the high powered executives and politicians - lawyers.
With lobbyists and high powered attorneys involved, politics will probably always be susceptible to corruption. If McCain is for real and would truly embark on a mission to clean up washington, stop the irresponsible spending (if you want to see where your hard earned tax dollar goes, check out the deserted prisons we started to build in Iraq, only to abandon the projects due to construction overages and corruption) and bring a sense of responsibility back to government and the citizens of the US, it could be a step in the right direction. Problem is, I'm not sure his economic policies are going to get us out of this mess anytime soon, nor do I think Obama will be able to do everything he talks about if the economy takes the kind of hit we expect it will.
Is this gloom and doom? Well, the US has been resilient in the past. We do seem to step up when challenged. But if this turns into the Great Depression, the world gets screwed up because it's all tied together now, a global economy. And that can only lead to tension, possibly more conflict throughout the world, and maybe even more wars.
It's an understatement to say this is a critical juncture. Lawmakers need to step up and do what's right. How "right" is defined is up for debate and I'm not optimistic they are going to do the right thing, at least not in the long run. But maybe they will come together and come up with a brilliant plan that will surprise us all. It's the brilliant part I worry about.
With lobbyists and high powered attorneys involved, politics will probably always be susceptible to corruption. If McCain is for real and would truly embark on a mission to clean up washington, stop the irresponsible spending (if you want to see where your hard earned tax dollar goes, check out the deserted prisons we started to build in Iraq, only to abandon the projects due to construction overages and corruption) and bring a sense of responsibility back to government and the citizens of the US, it could be a step in the right direction. Problem is, I'm not sure his economic policies are going to get us out of this mess anytime soon, nor do I think Obama will be able to do everything he talks about if the economy takes the kind of hit we expect it will.
Is this gloom and doom? Well, the US has been resilient in the past. We do seem to step up when challenged. But if this turns into the Great Depression, the world gets screwed up because it's all tied together now, a global economy. And that can only lead to tension, possibly more conflict throughout the world, and maybe even more wars.
It's an understatement to say this is a critical juncture. Lawmakers need to step up and do what's right. How "right" is defined is up for debate and I'm not optimistic they are going to do the right thing, at least not in the long run. But maybe they will come together and come up with a brilliant plan that will surprise us all. It's the brilliant part I worry about.
Clint Johnson
Well-known member
And that is the worst part of the whole thing. Tens of thousands of perfectly reasonable loans are being made untenable by the mess created trying to give unreasonable loans to people who could not possibly pay them off. With thousands upon thousands of foreclosures, the equity that a lot of solid middle class people built into something that should have been a good bet, homes, has been pulled out from under them by a flooded market.
The politicians will spin it so that they are the heroes come to rescue the economy (never mind that they're the ones who's oversight and regulations caused this), the companies and managers will get billions of dollars in bailouts and golden parachutes if they have to leave (never mind that they took advantage of the governments oversight and regulations to cause this) and thousand of people got to live above their means for years (I can't build up animosity toward these folk since they are in bad financial straights and tend to work hard at physically demanding and low paying jobs... they just shouldn't have been able to get loans for those homes).
While folks like you, who should have been on solid financial footing, get hammered by all of them. I checked out the link to the house and it looks like an interesting design with some nice unique touches- it's a shame that it sits there while people wait for you to go under.
Well, speaking from the extremely poor perspective, if house prices don't drop then there's no way the lower class can ever afford to buy a place of their own.
My thought on the issue is that it's cruel to allow life's fundamental necessities to be subject to the capitalist system. Capitalism is based on the concept that there is profit to be made when demand exceeds supply... so to make money on food, water, housing, clothing, and medical care, requires that there be an intentional limitation of those items, in order to create a profitable state of demand. If houses AREN'T built, then people will pay more for the few that exist. If medical training is withheld, and fewer hospitals are built, then the few hospital owners will make lots of money from the higher demand.
We have the machines and the resources to provide housing to everyone in the country (albeit not all at once, there will have to be a roll-out period). The houses might be basic little condos, but they'd keep people warm and meet basic needs. We can plant enough food and provide water for everyone, if the government simply allocates resources to meet demand. Basic clothing could also be provided to everyone, although the bulk of clothing sales would probably remain in the capitalist realm as most people would want something more stylish than the government standard issue clothing.
Power (electricity... not that carbon burning junk) is another thing that should be readily free to people. Green technologies are enough to power the country, if we'd simply implement the infrastructure. It will cost some money initially, but with the entire country backing it we would have it finished and paid for in no time.
The remaining luxury items would be left to the capitalist system... nicer places to live, boats, cars, video cameras, toys, etc. would all be earned using money that comes in from jobs.
Key to getting the money problem fixed is to take money from the rich (corporations in particular) to pay for the country's debts, instead of taking it from the poor working class. Restrictions should be put on the total wealth any one person can have during their lifetime. If they hit that cap (say, $500m), then any other money they make should automatically go to the government to pay for the infrastructure. When the greedier members of society (Wall Street execs for instance) hit the cap, they won't be able to earn any more money, and so they'll stop trying to profit off the other people in society. Maybe they'll be replaced by another greedy person, but at least some of the money will be spread around that way.
My thought on the issue is that it's cruel to allow life's fundamental necessities to be subject to the capitalist system. Capitalism is based on the concept that there is profit to be made when demand exceeds supply... so to make money on food, water, housing, clothing, and medical care, requires that there be an intentional limitation of those items, in order to create a profitable state of demand. If houses AREN'T built, then people will pay more for the few that exist. If medical training is withheld, and fewer hospitals are built, then the few hospital owners will make lots of money from the higher demand.
We have the machines and the resources to provide housing to everyone in the country (albeit not all at once, there will have to be a roll-out period). The houses might be basic little condos, but they'd keep people warm and meet basic needs. We can plant enough food and provide water for everyone, if the government simply allocates resources to meet demand. Basic clothing could also be provided to everyone, although the bulk of clothing sales would probably remain in the capitalist realm as most people would want something more stylish than the government standard issue clothing.
Power (electricity... not that carbon burning junk) is another thing that should be readily free to people. Green technologies are enough to power the country, if we'd simply implement the infrastructure. It will cost some money initially, but with the entire country backing it we would have it finished and paid for in no time.
The remaining luxury items would be left to the capitalist system... nicer places to live, boats, cars, video cameras, toys, etc. would all be earned using money that comes in from jobs.
Key to getting the money problem fixed is to take money from the rich (corporations in particular) to pay for the country's debts, instead of taking it from the poor working class. Restrictions should be put on the total wealth any one person can have during their lifetime. If they hit that cap (say, $500m), then any other money they make should automatically go to the government to pay for the infrastructure. When the greedier members of society (Wall Street execs for instance) hit the cap, they won't be able to earn any more money, and so they'll stop trying to profit off the other people in society. Maybe they'll be replaced by another greedy person, but at least some of the money will be spread around that way.
Andrew Walker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,974
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Bozeman, MT
- Website
- 599productions.com
This whole thing is a farce. In that the FED and the GOV, which are two separate things but still very much connected in their plans, have been planning this for a while. Its not like they woke up one day and there was a huge problem with the economy. And if anyone thinks that they just made a mistake and this whole thing happened you have been mislead. The FED knows exactly what its doing. When your dealing with trillions of dollars people don't just do a quick night study session on our economy...they make a life out of being able to know what the effect will be when they cause something.
This country and its economy aren't the problem. Its the greedy and power hungry that have destroyed this country and turned it into a socialist country. I want my hard work to count for something. People that just sit on their asses all day long shouldn't get nothing for me. There's always work to be had. If its not in your area move to where it is. I'm only in LA because of the work. If the studios weren't here I wouldn't be.
I think this is a horrible idea. Not everyone that makes $500M in their lifetime is as evil as you seem to think the Wall Street Execs are. People that are billionaires can do great things for other people. Look at Jim and RED. I truly believe Jim is passionate about what he does and looks to revolutionize the industry and to give us people that would have never had a chance to get those big price cameras. A chance to have a camera that is way better and a fraction of the cost. People can be good. No need to punish the rest of us for greedy assholes that are running a muck.
This country and its economy aren't the problem. Its the greedy and power hungry that have destroyed this country and turned it into a socialist country. I want my hard work to count for something. People that just sit on their asses all day long shouldn't get nothing for me. There's always work to be had. If its not in your area move to where it is. I'm only in LA because of the work. If the studios weren't here I wouldn't be.
I think this is a horrible idea. Not everyone that makes $500M in their lifetime is as evil as you seem to think the Wall Street Execs are. People that are billionaires can do great things for other people. Look at Jim and RED. I truly believe Jim is passionate about what he does and looks to revolutionize the industry and to give us people that would have never had a chance to get those big price cameras. A chance to have a camera that is way better and a fraction of the cost. People can be good. No need to punish the rest of us for greedy assholes that are running a muck.
Clint Johnson
Well-known member
Their meddling in (what was supposed to be) a small sector of the mortgage market lead to a financial disaster that will take years to dig out from under... and you want to hand them the reins to pretty much every market sector?
Socialism and collectivism may infatuate you with an idealized vision where the people in charge always make the right decisions and only with the best intentions... in the real world you end up with the Soviet Union, East Germany or North Korea.
Those aren't anomalies, they are inevitabilities.
Capitalism isn't perfect by any means and the state has a legitimate role in making sure that individual rights aren't trampled by money... but what you are calling for has, every time it has been tried over the last hundred years, lead to abject poverty for everyone but the politically connected and powerful.
Please, forget what your heart insists is real- emotions and wishful thinking sometimes have to take a back seat to what happens in the real world outside of coffee house discussions, musty books and philosophical table thumping.
What would be cruel is to put the fundamentals of life into the hands of the ruling class that has historically mismanaged everything they touch... let the government handle the police, judicial system and the military and leave the market to the market. The state's role is to have a near monopoly on the threat and use of extreme violence... but that means the also need to be tightly regulated in how they are allowed to exercise that violence.
If you insist they control anything in the market, please let it be luxury goods. People don't starve to death when there is a shortage of $80 million dollar yachts.
Radoslav Karapetkov
Well-known member
I hope that the US manage to solve this, cause the chain reaction would be rather bad for pretty much everybody. :umm:
Priyesh P.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Your ideas are also not really based in reality either. Big corporations have greater power than most governments, and they aggressively exert influence. You`re against regulation of markets, but that leads to perverse excrescences like tvs running advertisement in schools, so called "press" to promote views and surreptitious advertisement for affiliated corporations. The list goes on and on. You`ll probably say "shit happens". But this is the exact shit that also led to the iraq war.
- Status