You appear to be making my point for me. Or were you going for something else?
When All Else Fails Blame "Free Markets"
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
You appear to be making my point for me. Or were you going for something else?
Ayn Randâs libertarian âGroundhog Dayâ: Billionaire greed, deregulation and the myth that markets arenât free enough
Wall Street wrecks the economy, and we keep pretending they're heroes worth emulating. Maybe we really are suckers more . . .
Wall Street wrecks the economy, and we keep pretending they're heroes worth emulating. Maybe we really are suckers more . . .
This seems to be the thesis of your article.... "The primary component of the modern scandal is deregulation, either by law or by the de facto dumbing down or hacking back of the supervisory offices of government. This is the common thread that unites such otherwise disparate events as the 2008 financial crisis, the S&L debacle of the 1980s, the BP oil spill (made possible by the driller-friendly Minerals Management Service), and the fall of lobbyist Jack Abramoff (who aimed to shield offshore sweatshops from the heavy hand of the state)"
---
Wrong.... total misunderstanding of what is happening in this world where cronies get what they want. For instance:
a. We attempted health legislation... instead of single payer we got insurance company care.
b. Barney Frank's lover was on the board of Fannie Mae - and all sorts of insiders at fannie and freedie were tied into govt.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/10/03/lawmaker-accused-fannie-mae-conflict-interest/
c. We had glass steagall... Rubin, Clinton and Graham took it down on behalf of the bankers. When we tried to get it replaced and end too big to fail we got some other piece of crap legislation that actually makes things worse.
Right now the cronies are making the laws to protect themselves ... and they are making things worse.
That is why we need smaller govt.. not more regulation... in general.
---
Wrong.... total misunderstanding of what is happening in this world where cronies get what they want. For instance:
a. We attempted health legislation... instead of single payer we got insurance company care.
b. Barney Frank's lover was on the board of Fannie Mae - and all sorts of insiders at fannie and freedie were tied into govt.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/10/03/lawmaker-accused-fannie-mae-conflict-interest/
c. We had glass steagall... Rubin, Clinton and Graham took it down on behalf of the bankers. When we tried to get it replaced and end too big to fail we got some other piece of crap legislation that actually makes things worse.
Right now the cronies are making the laws to protect themselves ... and they are making things worse.
That is why we need smaller govt.. not more regulation... in general.
When wall street wrecks the economy, the government needs to step out and let those who are failing fail. Not many of these super big banks would have survived had they not been saved by the government bailing them out many years ago. There's nothing wrong with having greed. What's wrong is to use money of those who had nothing to do with the risks being taken and hand it to those who took the risk and failed. When the bad ones fail, eventually the savvy businesses will find a way to not take unnecessary risks.
The movie Titanic showed at the end that the rich were willing to pay and went crazy trying to save their own lives at the expense of the women and children. What is not clarified is that this is not what really happened. The director choose to depict the rich this way as he thought showing the rich to be heartless was more in tune with the current thinking. In reality the rich stepped aside and voluntarily offered to have the women and children to be taken first in the boats. The idea of sacrifice isn't restricted to those who are poor. Government intervention and handouts though have over the years been eroding the morality and responsibility by being the center of giving handouts, shifting the responsibility away from individuals to do so.
Taking assets of those who have them and redistributing to those who haven't isn't moral. Those who wish to help can choose to voluntarily give what they have to the needy. This government intervention is eroding the idea of philanthropic giving and blaming it on the greed of the rich. Greed is just a desire to have more. It's not greed that's undesirable, but rather the lying and thieving of one person from another. For that let one businessman compete with the other and have no bailouts when the lie is caught. Remove restrictions and see how these same greedy souls compete with one another for your business.
Without larger government intervention the rich won't get much chance to control things and restrict competition. It's with larger government that they use the strings to manipulate and make things go their way.
Gringo
So the answer to the problem of not enough regulation is less regulation. You are insane.
And yes the thesis of the article is correct. Only a Teadiot or the Koch bros sheep(same thing), would think otherwise.
This seems to be the thesis of your article.... "The primary component of the modern scandal is deregulation, either by law or by the de facto dumbing down or hacking back of the supervisory offices of government. This is the common thread that unites such otherwise disparate events as the 2008 financial crisis, the S&L debacle of the 1980s, the BP oil spill (made possible by the driller-friendly Minerals Management Service), and the fall of lobbyist Jack Abramoff (who aimed to shield offshore sweatshops from the heavy hand of the state)"
The philanthrophy thing hasn't worked out very well over the past several thousand years or so. I see no reason to believe that it will suddenly catch hold today, particularly since the rich are doing their very best to screw just about everybody.
they should stop making slavery illegal.....that would stop a lot of the violence associated with the slave trade that happens to day. (which is still quite large)
...because we all know that in the past the slave trading businessmen did everything right by their customers and looked after their goods.
....but lets not talk about humans....what about animals and health animal husbandry processes....because every business man looks after their end customers right.....
did I just read of some other food scares in some parts of the world?
...oooh lets not forget about security companies that are able to charge, look after the customers and be responsible.....what are they called again - mercenaries - they have a good name over history.
...................while I am not being totally serious - just for those who dont get it - anyone who is calling for abolition of all government, of all regulations and thinks that that will solve all our problems is as foolish as those who think more regulations will solve the problems - no matter how many great thinkers or theoretical examples you might envision. This is one time backtesting tells us thats not a great road to go down.
what you might be better ranting about is better simpler but more effective regulation.....which would kill 2 birds in one stone. It would make government smaller, and it would also be able to make people more accountable for their actions - lets not forget its not corporations pulling the strings its people. (For some they may be lizard people but their still just people)
...because we all know that in the past the slave trading businessmen did everything right by their customers and looked after their goods.
....but lets not talk about humans....what about animals and health animal husbandry processes....because every business man looks after their end customers right.....
did I just read of some other food scares in some parts of the world?
...oooh lets not forget about security companies that are able to charge, look after the customers and be responsible.....what are they called again - mercenaries - they have a good name over history.
...................while I am not being totally serious - just for those who dont get it - anyone who is calling for abolition of all government, of all regulations and thinks that that will solve all our problems is as foolish as those who think more regulations will solve the problems - no matter how many great thinkers or theoretical examples you might envision. This is one time backtesting tells us thats not a great road to go down.
what you might be better ranting about is better simpler but more effective regulation.....which would kill 2 birds in one stone. It would make government smaller, and it would also be able to make people more accountable for their actions - lets not forget its not corporations pulling the strings its people. (For some they may be lizard people but their still just people)
"When the bad ones fail, eventually the savvy businesses will find a way to not take unnecessary risks."
Eventually Mr. Mits has suffered unto death while the markets "clear" themselves. And in the meantime, a new generation of both cheats and suckers has come along to repeat the cycle and to learn the lesson anew. What's needed is a balance between the two extremes.
No asswipe... right now the govt is a beast controlled by the cronies.
Do you prefer Obamacare over single payer or the lower premiums we had?
We could have insured more people for a hell of lot less money.
Govt needs to be made smaller with good regulations.
Do you prefer Obamacare over single payer or the lower premiums we had?
We could have insured more people for a hell of lot less money.
Govt needs to be made smaller with good regulations.