|
Post by Pir8ozzy on Jan 15, 2010 14:23:25 GMT -5
One thing I'm really outraged about though, is the bailouts. Some of you might remember a few months ago, California (with a $10 billion deficit at the time), asked the federal government for help, and they refused. Yet they gladly give hundreds of billions to huge corporations, most of which just goes to bonuses. They'll help the huge companies, but they won't even help the state governments, can you believe that? In my opinion, that is the height of corruption. Just because Obama failed to make the right bailouts at the right times does not mean that the concept of bailing out itself is flawed. If Obama had bailed out Lehman Brothers then we may not have slipped into such deep recession. It is due to a series of unfortunate events that the Lehman bailout, (the one bailout which could have saved the economy) was missed. And anyway, its not as if the governments had much of a choice over the bonus pools. Rejecting the bonuses would have caused a mass exodus of skilled workers from the state-owned companies. If the state gained a reputation for ripping up pay contracts then companies would stop accepting bailout money. This would have compromised the governments ability to react to another crisis. Finance is not like other industries. A bank is made by the talent of its workers. No bonuses means no talent means no profits. Some banks were so aware of this that they actually gave the bailout money back immediately so that they could continue to pay the same bonuses.
|
|
|
Post by mattaroni on Jan 16, 2010 17:47:42 GMT -5
I believe the concept of bailing out is flawed. If someone or some company cannot succeed on their own efforts, they should be allowed to fail...
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Jan 16, 2010 18:20:06 GMT -5
Exactly. The natural success of good companies and failure of bad ones is part of what makes capitalism work. By bailing out companies, the government is disrupting the natural flow of things and screwing up the capitalism they supposedly love so much. Government intervention almost always makes things worse.
|
|
|
Post by Pir8ozzy on Jan 17, 2010 6:50:57 GMT -5
Exactly. The natural success of good companies and failure of bad ones is part of what makes capitalism work. By bailing out companies, the government is disrupting the natural flow of things and screwing up the capitalism they supposedly love so much. Government intervention almost always makes things worse. Makes things worse? You are vastly underestimating the cost of letting a bank fail. The high leverage ratio of our economy, combined with the ease at which our asset pools have been securitised globally, have compromised our ability to absorb multiple bankruptcies at this level. Lehman Brothers was just one single failure. And yet that alone deepened the recession by an unprecedented amount. Lehman Brothers is one bank in many that required bailouts. It seems that you suggest we should have let every single one fail? I must emphasise that we could have seen a cost to the economy of many times the size of the Lehman effect if the snowball effect had not been halted. If we let more institutions fall, then the situation would deteriorate exponentially, NOT in a linear fashion, as some people seem to believe. The bailouts saved us trillions of dollars, and millions of jobs, which would otherwise have been lost. I think the reason that you are adverse to state-bailouts is that you struggle to envisage just how bad the situation would be if we let the industry collapse. The only other point I must make is that the Credit Crunch is a clear indicator that Capitalism cannot work on its own. I must admit that I also used to believe that Capitalism was near-perfect, but now its flaws have become clear. The financial markets are unable to self-regulate without external input. Sometimes to save Capitalism we must go against its will. We may not like it, but it is a matter of social responsibility. It is simply reprehensible to apply the notion of ‘every company for themself’ to a situation where the future of the global economy is at stake.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 21, 2010 15:26:37 GMT -5
It's called Belgium-ing entropy. No situation can be ideal and will slowly collapse regardless of its structure. Even in a non-physical sense.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Jan 21, 2010 21:26:42 GMT -5
I believe the concept of bailing out is flawed. If someone or some company cannot succeed on their own efforts, they should be allowed to fail... I agree. *cough* General Motors *cough* *cough* Every Bank in America *cough* *cough* Obama *cough*
|
|
|
Post by Pir8ozzy on Jan 22, 2010 10:26:19 GMT -5
It's called Belgium-ing entropy. No situation can be ideal and will slowly collapse regardless of its structure. Even in a non-physical sense. That 'concept' has absolutely zero relevance to economics or politics, as it is not an accurate representation of the real world environment. If you cannot back those statements up, then your opinion is not valid.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 22, 2010 12:38:00 GMT -5
It kind of is. Have YOU ever seen a perpetually stable government? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by Pir8ozzy on Jan 22, 2010 15:36:40 GMT -5
It kind of is. Have YOU ever seen a perpetually stable government? I think not. You misunderstand me, I must explain the logic behind my words; I said your statement was not a realistic representation because you made an invalid assumption. You are saying that any development will eventually tend towards entropy. However I think that you do not have sufficient evidence to make such an assumption, as no country has yet completed their economic development. The economic structure of highest stability has not yet been reached, simply due to time constraints. So far every system has developed in exactly the same way: agriculture=>production=>industrial=>financial/capitalist=> It is a trend, NOT towards entropy, but following a very specific route. Throughout this journey the world has also become less chaotic. The system is finding ways to decrease its volatility. Our most developed countries have improved in every single indicator of development, and we have the means to push this boundary further. Following this, the assumption cannot be made that the world will never stabilise, as that is where every single trend is heading. We already have stable economic systems on a smaller scale, it is just a matter of time before the global system begins to mimic this stability.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Jan 22, 2010 17:46:12 GMT -5
It kind of is. Have YOU ever seen a perpetually stable government? I think not. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by mattaroni on Jan 22, 2010 21:28:26 GMT -5
Not to change the current subject, but... Does anyone else find it slightly amusing to watch ObamaCare go down in flames at the hands of the Ameican public? It's democracy at it's finest.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Jan 22, 2010 22:07:33 GMT -5
It's hilarious. People are so sick of Democrats now... Massachusetts, probably the most democratic state in the United States, has elected a REPUBLICAN SENATOR. This just goes to show how sick people are of the democrats destroying the country.
*braces self for flame war*
|
|
|
Post by mattaroni on Jan 24, 2010 1:18:08 GMT -5
Ha...haven't we all!
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Jan 25, 2010 19:18:28 GMT -5
I got into a debate today with a few Obama supporters...
ME: (something crappy that Obama has done) THEM: nou u r teling a lei ME: Not really, because (explanation) THEM: Nou dats nut tru! etc. etc. etc.
That happens to me sooooo much. Obama supporters just immediately shoot down everything people say that Obama has done wrong, because they know it's true but can't do anything about it.
Also, what the hell is going on with Haiti? Oh, sure, it's a horrible tragedy and I feel terrible for the people there, but Obama immediately sent ONE HUNDRED MILLION dollars over there- where did we get that money? Oh, right, we didn't! Obama did! He took it right out of people's taxes that they already pay a ton of hard-earned money for!
Oh my gosh, Obama... where will you screw up next?
|
|
|
Post by Pir8ozzy on Jan 26, 2010 11:50:23 GMT -5
Also, what the hell is going on with Haiti? Oh, sure, it's a horrible tragedy and I feel terrible for the people there, but Obama immediately sent ONE HUNDRED MILLION dollars over there- where did we get that money? Oh, right, we didn't! Obama did! He took it right out of people's taxes that they already pay a ton of hard-earned money for! Its probably because its quite close to the USA, so the government feels obliged.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 27, 2010 9:20:49 GMT -5
Oh my god, he HELPED THOSE POOR PEOPLE! He's such a terrible person! He shouldn't have done that! He should have kept the money for taxpayers who will OBVIOUSLY die if they don't get a few bucks back!
Do you realize that you're sounding like an (Funny Man)?
Also, "democrats destroying the country?" I only have one response to this: Reagan.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 27, 2010 9:25:56 GMT -5
It kind of is. Have YOU ever seen a perpetually stable government? I think not. You misunderstand me, I must explain the logic behind my words; I said your statement was not a realistic representation because you made an invalid assumption. You are saying that any development will eventually tend towards entropy. However I think that you do not have sufficient evidence to make such an assumption, as no country has yet completed their economic development. The economic structure of highest stability has not yet been reached, simply due to time constraints. So far every system has developed in exactly the same way: agriculture=>production=>industrial=>financial/capitalist=> It is a trend, NOT towards entropy, but following a very specific route. Throughout this journey the world has also become less chaotic. The system is finding ways to decrease its volatility. Our most developed countries have improved in every single indicator of development, and we have the means to push this boundary further. Following this, the assumption cannot be made that the world will never stabilise, as that is where every single trend is heading. We already have stable economic systems on a smaller scale, it is just a matter of time before the global system begins to mimic this stability. That's a good point, but it also means that we can't say whether or not there is a final stable environment and if it won't head towards entropy itself. So this point is useless for both of us now until then.
|
|
|
Post by mattaroni on Jan 27, 2010 16:09:37 GMT -5
Reagan was a great president and an even greater American. He restored the wholesome morals of American society, which had faded away under previous corrupted leadership.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Feb 7, 2010 11:43:40 GMT -5
Oh my god, he HELPED THOSE POOR PEOPLE! He's such a terrible person! He shouldn't have done that! He should have kept the money for taxpayers who will OBVIOUSLY die if they don't get a few bucks back! Do you realize that you're sounding like an (Funny Man)? Also, "democrats destroying the country?" I only have one response to this: Reagan. That's not what I mean. It's great that he's helping the people in Haiti, and, like I said, it is a sad and horrible tragedy, but where is he getting the money to help them?! Reagan was a great president and an even greater American. He restored the wholesome morals of American society, which had faded away under previous corrupted leadership. I agree. If it wasn't for Reagan, I don't think we would be where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by mattaroni on Feb 9, 2010 22:56:28 GMT -5
I agree completely with your statements about Haiti and Ronald Reagan...
Remember people, [glow=red,2,300]"It's not about right or left, it's about what's right or wrong."[/glow]
|
|