Socialist Bailout Failing

I think the majority of people knew it was going to fail. Also, you trying to set a record or something?
 
Thandurin said:
I think the majority of people knew it was going to fail. Also, you trying to set a record or something?
Click to expand...

Apparantly not on this forum. I see people defending it from post to post.


Also no, I'm surprised by how dead this forum is lately, especially considering how much is going on. It was way more active back in the day.
 
Either way there's a lot of people on here that support it, even as seen in those threads.

Companies that took these risks should be allowed to run their natural course.

Companies like GM and Ford are hurting badly now, is there going to be a socialist bailout for them? The last thing we need is nationalisation of these companies through takeovers and funding.

The economy needs to be allowed to correct itself.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Apparantly not on this forum. I see people defending it from post to post.
Click to expand...
Lurk moar. There were lots of arguments about it. My recollection though is that most of us, not being trained in the mystical arts of economics, weren't really sure what to make of it. No one was celebrating it as the best thing evar though - at most they considered it a necessary evil.

On topic: It's reprehensible what these guys are spending so much money on, especially the bonus's. Don't these ethically bankrupt businessmen realise.... oh wait never mind.

Also weren't there conditions to prevent abuse like this that had to be met by any company that received money from the bailout?
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Howwww?????

It's a bane to capitalism for the government to interfere. It disrupts the entire process.
Click to expand...
As I understand it the argument goes something like this: while nobody enjoy's rewarding bad business practices the businesses in question provide the foundation for many other businesses who, through no fault of their own, will collapse if the bad businesses collapse. So the government will lend the bad businesses enough money to (hopefully) avoid collapse and, while things may get tight, survive the downturn long enough to live on to better times.

Now I believe that the counter argument is that investors, whose confidence is required for a healthy economy, aren't going to be too impressed by businesses that needed government funding (or the businesses that rely on them). So by preventing their collapse it's going to take longer for investors to start throwing money around again.

But I'm not an economist so I really don't know and economics seems to be an area where objective truth is hard to come by and the arguments get wrapped up in politics.
 
Won't be long now before every single thread on the first page of politics will be made by RT.
 
Bonuses should only be paid out in stock, that can't be sold for 2-5 years or so. Problem of short-term "numbers polishing" by executives solved.
 
Will you stop making threads in here after Tuesday?
 
PvtRyan said:
Bonuses should only be paid out in stock, that can't be sold for 2-5 years or so. Problem of short-term "numbers polishing" by executives solved.
Click to expand...
A non-economist asks:

Wouldn't that just encourage long-term numbers polishing? As a form of mutual backscratching in the market, so the stocks that comprise their bonuses will continue to appreciate until they can sell them?

And for other people asking:
The bailout was necessary, even if it left a bitter taste. It's not a matter of saving irresponsible banks, but thawing the credit freeze so that inter-bank lending can continue. The knock on effect is that in theory it will allow business big and small to continue to have access to capital, so that they can continue to pay their workers etc. It's also supposed to work in tandem with the measures to increase the insurance thresholds for savings accounts, etc. so that consumer confidence is upheld and that people don't make a run on the banks.

How well it's going to work, or how well it's been implemented is another matter. Bear in mind that this article is still just a London story from what I understand, so it only tells of the ineptness of the British government in ensuring that banking firms don't profit off the mess. Maybe it will play out the same around the world, but part of all these measures was an assurance that these firms wouldn't be able to suck money off the top of it, so I'm not sure how that's been allowed to happen. Nevertheless, problems in execution != problems in principle.

The notion of 'self-correction' is a bit naive. The markets would only be 'correcting' themselves to the immediate and traumatic detriment of almost everyone in the world. It's as naive as the notion that wholly unrestricted capitalism will eventually lead to this idealised self-governing market system based on entirely rational principles - because people never try to fiddle the numbers at all...

I'd make the analogy of a house that's built on shaky, soft foundations, which catches fire. Sure, the house wasn't built on the best design principles. But now the mother****er's on fire are you just going to let it 'self-correct' because there's too much expense involved in risking lives to put it out? Sure the fire will 'correct' all the problems you had with your subsiding shithole of a house, but only in the most drastic way imaginable, and at the end of it all you're still going to be left without a house.
 
so the government is giving away your hard earned money so the bankers can stuff their pockets?

1. i find it hard to believe those in charge of the bailout weren't aware this might happen
2. the gov and these banks might have planed it all along...it sounds as a conspiracy, but considering how much crap the republicans managed to stuff down our necks the last 8 years i wouldn't be surprised.




*DISCLAIMER: may or may not be true, do not consider it as absolute truth, i'm just thinking (too) out loud*

on a side note...in a very vague way this could be considered a way how the ("political" or other) elite is gaining control over its citizens. it's not by having the police busting your door down and arresting you, like many second amendment zealots like to believe. it's using much more subtle ways to screw you...so you don't get really upset and actually use that assault rifle you've been worshiping for so many years.
yes it really sounds like a conspiracy...but it doesn't really require a leap of faith, this thread is an excellent proof that these things do happen. add here the patriot act and other shit...then you really have some substantial data to back it up.
no i'm not saying this is directed by one person or something...everyone who's rich and has power is in for the game.
let me give you another nice example...in my country there are 5 distributors of electricity. a few months ago they decided to raise the price of electricity at the same time for the same amount. they of course got busted. so what are they trying to do now...they are raising the price for the same amount but in a time delay, so they can't be caught that easily.
this is how powerful and rich people do work...they don't really plan to dominate the world in orwell's 1984 style, but they are surely gonna screw you as much as possible, not because they are evil, but because they can.

here the government just robbed you of an amount of money you couldn't even imagine and what do "we" do...nothing. gather 1000 armed people and march to congress and the withe house, let's see if they'll dare do such a stunt again.
this is why the second amendment is obsolete, because no one in their right mind would dare do a frontal attack on 10million assault rifle armed hicks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VirusType2
Taxpayers make 12 billion+ on Citigroup bailout
Replies
13
Views
2K
Mr Stabby
Mr Stabby
Back
Top