quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Because if you do that, eventually the whole forest is destroyed by the fire you can't stop.
Viva la revolution
"la revolution" means millions upon millions of deaths. I'll take some businesses collapsing due to bad decision making instead of being propped up by taking money from future generations, personally.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Having businesses collapsing would be the small forest fires. However, it seems that your government is intent on going the other way which will eventually lead to the big forest fire, a revolution.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They create problems so they can swoop in and save the day with government takeovers, "never let a good crisis go to waste" Fannie and Freddie, govt created. AIG, Obama admin had Dodd amend bailout to include bonus. Fake outrage, and pass a crazy tax bill that will end up applying to anyone who received bailout money and makes over 250k. The bailout money will spread throughout the system and if you got some and you get a bonus you'll pay 90% to uncle sam. It's a law that will have tentacles beyond AIG but the people are outraged and short sighted.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: the strong lesson of, for instance, the Japanese financial crisis was that propping up banks by protecting them entirely from counterparty risks only created zombie banks. I'm even okay with partial payments to AIG's creditors for political reasons, but if those banks don't take substantial haircuts, they will have no reason to actually make good decisions. In fact, they will have been given quite a bit of reason to make bad decisions. This has played out time and time again in financial crises, including the great depression and the S&L crisis. Successful recovery meant letting companies that couldn't sustain themselves fail, helping only those companies that really did just need some cash, directly (instead of, say, blanket protection for AIG's counterparties), and providing social protections to the individuals affected.
posted
President Obama when referring to the pork in the stimulus package dismissed it as old business. But the AIG retention bonus contracts were old business also. Isn’t it all pork? I guess government pork was ok but business pork is wrong? In this case both came out of taxpayer pockets. What was the stimulus pork total again?
The executives could spend that bonus money and stimulate the economy. I suppose pig stench research will stimulate something. Sounds to me like Connecticut will loose out on bonus money that might be spent there. Heck, it is still getting money out into the economy.
I don't think that pumping Chinese money into the system is a good idea. But at least the powers that be should treat all expenditures of taxpayer money with the same care. Just change the term Pork to Bonuses.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13: Sure, the US government definitely has the moral authority to govern what kind of banking system it wants inside its own borders. It can make whatever decisions it wants to regarding which companies to prop up (or not) and which individuals to provide social protection. The tricky bit is when it attempts to make decisions on behalf of other countries.
In this case AIG's counter parties included many foreign banks that would find it greatly unfair that the US government was on one hand propping up domestic banks while potentially shutting out their claims. For example, Canadian banks have already made quite a bit of media noise about being extremely wary about some of these US banks that were given money at below market interest rates by the government.
I suspect that this was one aspect of the political reasons to preserve the payments, to avoid exacerbating the problem by creating a situation where the US would be seen as protecting AIG's domestic counterparties but leaving AIG's foreign counterparties out to dry.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The US gov't is also getting no say in how Canadian banks are run, unlike the US banks it is intervening with (and less say than I feel it should, there). It is just handing money to the foreign banks that they would never have had in the normal course of business, with no strings attached, and that is a very bad incentive to keep making stupid deals with large US financial firms.
Especially as most of those banks apparently have credit default swaps in place against AIG, ensuring they don't even lose much money on the swaps they have with AIG if it goes under!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty cool with all of that except I don't think the incentive issue is all that much of a problem. I don't think its nearly enough money to really change behaviour all that much when compared to the money that the foreign banks have lost courtesy of those large US financial firms.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see what the problem with the volunteering is, right now every high school in my state has volunteering as a requirement to graduate, And the incentive of 4000$ for 100 hours of community service is good enough for me to want this to become a reality.
Although I am going to buy myself a gun, helping out others would be such a radical change for America that comething bad has to happen. Like zombies.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hurm. Guns. Samurai swords are way cooler than guns. Handmade by actual Japanese people (or a Brazilian dood adopted by a long line of Japanese sword makers) in the traditional way. IT PWNS GUNZ DOOD! PWNZ!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to compare Obama to Hitler, just the current tone in our society.
Swap "Jew" with "rich" and our administration sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.
Swap "Communist" with "executive" and our congress sounds a lot like 1950's McCarthy Hearings.
Funny we have swung in 50 years from demonizing the Communists to demonizing the Capitalist...just an observation.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Samurai swords are way cooler than guns. Handmade by actual Japanese people (or a Brazilian dood adopted by a long line of Japanese sword makers) in the traditional way. IT PWNS GUNZ DOOD! PWNZ!
quote: Samurai swords are way cooler than guns. Handmade by actual Japanese people (or a Brazilian dood adopted by a long line of Japanese sword makers) in the traditional way. IT PWNS GUNZ DOOD! PWNZ!
quote: Samurai swords are way cooler than guns. Handmade by actual Japanese people (or a Brazilian dood adopted by a long line of Japanese sword makers) in the traditional way. IT PWNS GUNZ DOOD! PWNZ!
I wouldn't necessarily say that the gun lost the fight. Bullets are often engineered specifically to split apart on contact with a target. It seems like both weapons did what they were supposed to in that demonstration.
Still, a well-made Samurai sword is a mighty thing.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Not to compare Obama to Hitler, just the current tone in our society.
Swap "Jew" with "rich" and our administration sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.
Swap "Communist" with "executive" and our congress sounds a lot like 1950's McCarthy Hearings.
Funny we have swung in 50 years from demonizing the Communists to demonizing the Capitalist...just an observation.
Wait...did I miss something? When did we start sending rich people to die in concentration camps or blacklisting executives?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Samurai swords are way cooler than guns. Handmade by actual Japanese people (or a Brazilian dood adopted by a long line of Japanese sword makers) in the traditional way. IT PWNS GUNZ DOOD! PWNZ!
I wouldn't necessarily say that the gun lost the fight. Bullets are often engineered specifically to split apart on contact with a target. It seems like both weapons did what they were supposed to in that demonstration.
Still, a well-made Samurai sword is a mighty thing.
I think were missing the point, we need to be worried about zombies with guns, OR with swords and if I ever see a zombie with a gunblade, were done.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Not to compare Obama to Hitler, just the current tone in our society.
Swap "Jew" with "rich" and our administration sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.
Swap "Communist" with "executive" and our congress sounds a lot like 1950's McCarthy Hearings.
Funny we have swung in 50 years from demonizing the Communists to demonizing the Capitalist...just an observation.
Wait...did I miss something? When did we start sending rich people to die in concentration camps or blacklisting executives?
Germany in the 1930's--there weren't what we think of as concentration camps yet. But it's true, rich people are still citizens.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Germans, I should've used the other axis power as an example:
Grassley (R-Iowa) said: “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they’d follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things — resign, or go commit suicide.”
No, this isn't blacklisting yet, just a senator talking to the American people.
How about this peaceful protest: He explained that there had been death threats, and read an example: “All the executives and their families should be executed with piano wire around their necks,” it said. “That is our only hope
posted
The Jews were demonized for many years before it came to that. Jews were the scapegoat, now the wealthy are the scapegoat. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain, the govt created the banking crisis and now blames the banks. Refuse to allow oil drilling or the creation of a single refinery in 30 years, blame the oil companies for high prices. Ammend the bailout so AIG gets bonus money then play dumb and trump up political anger for increased taxes. When the masses are mad enough at the "rich" they will tolerate higher taxes for the greedy elite. If we enter a true depression like 1930's Germany, we need a scapegoat that isn't the government.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've lost what you're going on about, unless your purpose was to throw more hyperbole on the pile.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jews were the scapegoat, now the wealthy are the scapegoat.
Yeah, I'm terrified that the people with all the money and power are suddenly going to be rounded up and killed. Because having all the money and power is fun, but certainly isn't useful in that sort of situation.
quote:When the masses are mad enough at the "rich" they will tolerate higher taxes for the greedy elite.
Dude, are you seriously going to suggest that increasing the top marginal tax rate by a couple percentage points is even remotely equivalent to, say, shipping people to gas chambers in cattle cars?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see where I suggested such a thing. You did. Societal scapegoats, a means of stirring up support for increased taxation. I'm certainly not wealthy but I understand increasing taxes results in layoffs and higher prices for the little guy. The poor pay in the end. They'll get you mad at the oil companies and charge them "windfall profits tax" and the liberals cheer....gas prices go up. Sheep.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, for...'the gov't created the banking crisis'. Oh, really?
The government is culpable in the banking crisis to be sure, but they're not the only parties. It's not as though The Wealthy were out doing chores in front of their house, shoveling snow out of the walkway, when The Government (complete in leather jacket, smoking a cigarette) sidled up and said, "Pst, hey kid! C'mere," and then hoodwinked the responsible but naive Wealthy into doing something wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm certainly not wealthy but I understand increasing taxes results in layoffs and higher prices for the little guy.
Not necessarily. There's an issue of marginal utility that's quite relevant, especially when money is tight. In a nutshell, a dollar has much lower marginal utility to the rich than to the poor. More importantly, a dollar in the hands of the rich has lower utility to the economy than a dollar in the hands of the poor. When the economy is bad and you want to stimulate spending, giving money to the rich is the wrong way to do it; it is far more efficient to take money away from the rich and give it to the poor, who are far more likely to spend it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, that's the argument I never understand. What's wrong with the rich guy saving the money? He's got it invested somewhere and that bank or insurance company or brokerage is going to loan the money out. It doesn't disappear from the economy because the rich guy saves it.
I'm not convinced that there's a class of people who are more deserving than others. Everyone seems just as entitled to whatever thay can legaly earn to me.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. You still think of money as being something people "deserve," as if it were a measure of worth. This is a very bad way to think about economics, IMO.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm interested in keeping money in the hands of the people who make it, generally, because that's what usually makes the most people the most well off.
There are a number of people on the low end not handled by the system, though, so I'm perfectly fine with taxing the wealthy (edit: and to varying extents other people, as appropriate) to remedy those iniquities. (Just as I'm fine with establishing a strong system of property rights in the first place to remedy other iniquities).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Tom is talking about whether people deserve money, but where it is most useful. As I understand it (and I'd say my grasp is tenuous as best), one of the problems with our economy right now is the banks have no idea how much liability they have, and so they don't really want to make loans to businesses. So if someone gets money and gives it to the bank, and if the bank then sits on it, very little has been done to stimulate the economy. Contrast that with a person who is barely making ends meet. They're unlikely to put it in the bank instead of spending it on, say, medical care they've been putting off because they couldn't afford it. Even if the clinic then turns around and just saves the money, at least it's done a little more for the economy than if it had immediately been saved.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: You still think of money as being something people "deserve," as if it were a measure of worth.
When you talk about giving to a group or taking away from a group, I do think we should ask if someone deserves it. Mostly because I agree with this:
quote: I'm interested in keeping money in the hands of the people who make it, generally, because that's what usually makes the most people the most well off.
If you earned it or someone left it to you, it's yours. You should get to keep as much of it as you can or spend as much as you want to. But I also think you should live with those consequences. If you spend it all, the rich guy shouldn't have to give you part of his money to make up for your bad decisions.
I'm cool with social safety nets. Unemployment is a wonderful thing. Temporary welfare I have no problems with. I'd actually like to see more education available for people on what they can get help with from the billions of groups across the country. I just don't like it when help crosses the line to a way of life, and I see that as a potential consequence of treating the rich like the poor man's ATM.
quote: So if someone gets money and gives it to the bank, and if the bank then sits on it, very little has been done to stimulate the economy.
I agree with this, as well. I just don't see where taking from the rich and giving to the poor would fix that. Right problem, wrong solution, in my opinion.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I should take a lesson from your eloquence. I'm the local right wing racist nut job.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack started by govt, regulated by government to back "toxic loans" and holding 40% of the American Mortgages went first. Bush admin warned Barnie Frank in 2003 but he was too busy being the #1 recipient of their campaign contributions. (If you ignore the California bank that had a run on it after a Democratic sentator from a different state said it was going to fail) Have we forgotten about the impending economic collapse of other governemt creations,,social security, medcaire/medicaid. Rather than address existing problems, blame AIG. AIG insured these loans, the packaging and repackaging was a Fannie Freddie thing, a govt thing to encourage banks to lend to people who couldn't otherwise afford it. Come to find out, they really couldn't.
posted
Scott: no, I meant iniquities. I am generally not interested in remedying economic inequities. I think many of them are structurally necessary to ensuring things like enough food for everyone. I am, however, very interested in remedying economic iniquities, such as starvation, lack of housing, that sort of thing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Here you go, a needle in the haystack and tells everything I mentioned. The change you wanted from the home town of Obama. The ultra-right Chicago tribune. Fannie and Freddie, long time Dem piggy bank and the Pres's right hand man....Change we can believe in.
Spoiler alert....If you want to maintain your illusions, do not read the entire article.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Here you go, a needle in the haystack and tells everything I mentioned. The change you wanted from the home town of Obama. The ultra-right Chicago tribune. Fannie and Freddie, long time Dem piggy bank and the Pres's right hand man....Change we can believe in.
Spoiler alert....If you want to maintain your illusions, do not read the entire article.
What, no comment, iteresting...
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
