EPT
on letting the weak fall
| Blogs > geometryb |
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Fuck GDP, I want GNH. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
As for GNH, well, lol. Until we can somehow have standarized happiness units, that's a pointless indicator. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32135 Posts
| ||
|
ScarFace
United States1175 Posts
By the way, Bad ass DOES mean exploiting poor countries. It's how we get ahead and stay ahead. Take your whining pussy morality out of here, I for one don't want to see China get stable and Rich, or any single country more than needed. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On July 24 2008 06:23 geometryb wrote: Ruthless and lucrative--that's how business should be. America's Laissez-faire capitalism has produced some of the most awesome, badass, and competitive companies. This week, with the federal government's bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, banks, and millions of homeowners, we have become a bunch of vaginas. Rather than letting these private companies and individuals fix their own mistakes (or die trying), the government decided it would be better for the public to pay for some other guy's house and poor investments. This makes me sad. The US economy has been built on bail outs like this. Maybe you're too young to know the difference, but a large percentage of US fortune 500 companies would've crumbled long ago if not for government intervention. Sorry for shattering your delusions, but there's no such thing as free-market capitalism in the real world. We just call it that so the little-guy doesn't demand the same protections from the government that the big guy gets. | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
On July 24 2008 08:18 Tadzio00 wrote: The US economy has been built on bail outs like this. Maybe you're too young to know the difference, but a large percentage of US fortune 500 companies would've crumbled long ago if not for government intervention. [citation needed] | ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
On July 24 2008 06:35 PsycHOTemplar wrote: I don't know much about the particular incident you're talking about, but there's a difference between being weak and not having opportunity, and it's for these reasons I don't like a totally free market. It's too easily abused. TBH, there's nothing bad ass about the corporations in our countries. They step on little guys (ie countries without labour laws) and generally just act like greedy douche bags. Baller is when someone is incredibly generous and still lives well. Pathetic is the money clutching cheapo's that have turned us into souless devils of consumerism. Fuck GDP, I want GNH. talking about government promising to laying aside 25billion or more to save the loan companies: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. spending 4billion to buy foreclosed houses. insuring Bear Stearns riskiest assets so they could be bought by jpmorgan. these are huge companies that are going to collapse because of really huge that they made, and now the public's money is going to be spent to keep them in business. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
As for protectionism...what is that bull about we losing a part of our history when others control our companies? That is still a part of our history, a history that tells of a company that could have been, and a lesson for the future. Protecting that would be truly meaningless, with the situation with Freddie and Fannie, we can't afford not to intervene. With Budweiser? Come on, whose money are you going to waste to protect a piece of fantasy. EDIT - About the housing bill, that one I was rather annoyed with. A good amount of those caught are speculators that got caught at the top of the boom, the very idea of providing them aid sickens me. As the Fed helping Chase though, the situation during that time was extremely confusing. Without the Fed taking clear action to control that mess, it could easily have spiraled out of hand right there. | ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
On July 24 2008 07:47 ScarFace wrote: I think a degree of protectionism is a good thing, or soon we shall see more American Companies [Budweiser anyone?] being bought out by foreigners. We lose a part of our history if others control our companies, and it may even result in job loss. I don't know about you, but I'm not fond of the idea of America slowly being bought by wealthy Arabs, Belgians, and Brazilians. By the way, Bad ass DOES mean exploiting poor countries. It's how we get ahead and stay ahead. Take your whining pussy morality out of here, I for one don't want to see China get stable and Rich, or any single country more than needed. more about how the public has to pay for people's homes, and cover companies' losses than preventing international competition. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac isn't free enterprise they're government sponsored companies, i.e. they're backed by the government is it any surprise that they need bailouts? silly beauracrats and shadowdrgn, a truly free market would not limit opportunity. Hence "free." | ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
On July 24 2008 08:45 Caller wrote: dude Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac isn't free enterprise they're government sponsored companies, i.e. they're backed by the government is it any surprise that they need bailouts? silly beauracrats and shadowdrgn, a truly free market would not limit opportunity. Hence "free." aren't they independent, publicly traded, and for profit? | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 24 2008 08:50 geometryb wrote: aren't they independent, publicly traded, and for profit? isn't this still an example of the government pretending to be advocating a free market while backing up several zaibatsu? | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
By the way, Bad ass DOES mean exploiting poor countries. Bad ass in a nerdy scrawny accountant sort of way... Yeah. No. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
I'll broaden this to government assistance, since I misspoke when I said "bailouts" (though those happen commonly as well, they require more than a 15 second google search to come up with). To be honest, I read the stat about fortune 500 companies years ago and have lost the reference, which is why I didn't get specific about the percentage of fortune 500 companies that've benefitted from socialism. Here's an entertaining article that's generally about this topic. You can trust that I'm not making shit up, research it yourself, or be even lazier than I am and consider me a liar. I really don't care to put a whole lot of effort into disillusioning you. I'm only giving examples for the first 4 on the fortune 500 list, if you're interested, you can do your own research beyond that. 1)Walmart has received more than $1 billion in government subsidies. 2)Exxon Mobile has received more than $5 billion in government subsidies in the last decade, 3)General Motors, along with Chrysler and Ford, were part of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles where the US government paid for these companies to research and develop cars that got upwards of 70 miles per gallon, while they were successful, they never put the cars on the market. McCain has said he's willing to bailout GM in the near future (2009) should they need it. 4)Chevron Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, and BP have all received no-bid contracts from the US government, totalling $4.1 billion in 2007, alone. Because of US pressures in Iraq, they are also in line to receive further no-bid contracts from the Iraqi government to work their oil fields. And if you wanna get nit-picky about it, all corporations are beneficiaries of government assistance, since they're legal constructs and wouldn't exist in the sense they do now without government rules and regulations including but not limited to copyright and trademark laws. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
See: every single law concerning trade and money. Seriously. Or dictionary or economics textbooks' definitions of those terms. Either what you see or what you think are very, very different from what I see and what I think. (I'm thinking specifically about anti-cartel, anti-collusion, and patent laws.) | ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
| ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
The bottom line is that everything sounds good in theory. The problem is that our conceptualizations of reality fail to take into consideration the infinite complexity of reality. The world is much messier than any theory would have you believe. I am skeptical of anyone who spouts simplistic slogans or simplistic ideology. The world just is not that simple, but people who keep beating simple ideas end up stirring up a lot of shit, whether they be Christians, Capitalists, Communists, or what have you. There is much to fear in socialism and unbridled capitalism. There is also much to fear with today's US economic and government policy. | ||
| ||
