I have agree with you on that one.
Main St anger so intense some say "acts of violence" called for
- Thread starter ByLoSellHi
- Start date
I have agree with you on that one.
And if the Queen had balls, she'd be king.
Told ya. Many times. You take all hope from the average guy, he will exact his vengence. I told you here in March, the 13th in fact of 2008, the US Congress called just the fifth secret meeting in its history, and it was to protect them from you.
Just common sense. And with this moron in the WH, bowing to the Japanese, wearing Mao smocks, nobody sees it getting better.
Just common sense. And with this moron in the WH, bowing to the Japanese, wearing Mao smocks, nobody sees it getting better.
Yes I agree. People will certainly turn to Acts of Violence" rioting looting etc IF things turn that dire. But they won't. At least not in the near future despite difficult economic conditions.
Most people just bitch and complain and will continue to do so.
It is like all those NRA types and Militia members who spout how the government will never pry the gun from their cold dead hands.......when the police knock on their door they bend over and fold and hold their hands out for the cuffs.
Rarely do any fight back and go down in a blaze of glory.
Most people just bitch and complain and will continue to do so.
It is like all those NRA types and Militia members who spout how the government will never pry the gun from their cold dead hands.......when the police knock on their door they bend over and fold and hold their hands out for the cuffs.
Rarely do any fight back and go down in a blaze of glory.
Which is exactly why I said the bailouts were a tragedy. Unfortunately, economies of scale with 'too big to fail' make the economy 'more efficient' (so long as there isn't a monopoly) with large banks -- but the risks on the left tail are far too high, as we've learned. So the question is, are we willing to pay a premium for these services with smaller banks to reduce the systemic risk? I think it is a price worth paying.
Bankruptcy, under capitalism works best with many small businesses. Unfortunately, economies of scale imply that bigger businesses make things cheaper. If a company makes poor decisions, we would hope that the impact from its bankruptcy would be minimal -- if it is a poor business, then the economy should rely little on it. Unfortunately, that didn't occur during this economic cycle -- those companies who were the most vulnerable were also those that the economy relied the most on.
I don't think the executives who by their own incompetence or corruptness let companies fail should get away with it. Shareholders lose a lot of money when the company fails. They should be able to sue the executives who failed and force them to pay back with their own assets. Just leave the guilty with $500 each and the clothes they stand up in.
The top execs get massive rewards for success - well that's fair enough BUT failure - no way. There must be penalties to encourage honesty and integrity.