Lets just bail out the world (country, American, effects, quote)

Inuzuka Skysword · 01-28-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yukon Cornelius

All business from the smallest to the biggest will do anything to sell you anything so long as its not assential. Catering you ask basically... If you have to have it they will compete.. If you dont need they will find a way to make it easier, of course this goes along with after they have made you want it.

So thats really the question...
Your own free choice to buy. Right but the econonmy blows because there is high tax on what you need... Gas being one of the biggest.. and lower tax on what you want.

Its my free choice to do anything...
No one is a slave to big business ?? Enjoy higher taxes after the next bail out.

I have stated I am against the bail out. My point is the fact that you are blaming the bail out on big businesses taking risks. Sorry, the bail out is a cause of the government meddling with the economy.

sleepy jack · 01-28-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

Oh my gosh, no one could have thought of that! You tell people to hand you things. You believe their property belongs to you. You think that big businesses should cater for you. Join the rest of the stupid liberals.

If a business wants to succeed it should actually cater to a certain extent to the populace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

The only greed here is the idea that we should all have to make up for the mistake of others. I just find it funny how everyone doesn't want to bail out the big businesses which provide all the welfare that a ton of this country is living on in the first place. American liberalism is so hypocritical.

That's not greed Oxford and these businesses (e.g. the auto industry) haven't been making money; in fact they've been losing it. Bush has been giving tax cut to big business anyway. A good deal of Democrats in Wasington (Kucinich for instance) have been strongly against the bail outs and even Clinton's been saying they're going about this wrong and if they are going to do bail out companies they need to (and they only did this with AIG) buy the majority of the stocks and collect enough interest so the tax payers actually make money in the long run.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

Yes, but you make those big businesses big based on your own free choice to buy from them. Nobody should be catering anybody. You pay for their product, then they give it to you. Then you go back to life. Both parties agreed to a price for the item, and that item is sold for that price.

No one is a slave to anyone. Financial situations should not force people into slavery.

Once again if a business doesn't even try and cater to a populace it's not going to sell anything. This is basic supply and demand here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

I have stated I am against the bail out. My point is the fact that you are blaming the bail out on big businesses taking risks. Sorry, the bail out is a cause of the government meddling with the economy.

Wrong. For one these bail outs ARE the government meddling with the economy. The causes of these businesses needing the bail outs is do to their own stupidity. In the case of the auto industry it had nothing to do with the government meddling with their business model it has to do with them making shitty cars. In fact if the government had stepped in like the rest of the world is and told the auto industry to start making smart cars a decade ago they'd be in much better shape. As for the financial industry if During the Clinton years they hadn't repealed Glass-Steagall all these facets of that industry wouldn't be effected. Lack of government regulation and intervention has more do with this then not.

I understand you libertarians want to blame everything on the government being too big but that's simply stupid in this case. Clinton and Bush and the Congress and Senate under them have been getting rid of things set up during the Great Depression for the past ten years as well as deregulating businesses (though this part was more Bush than Clinton.) It clearly hasn't been a good thing. I don't know how you can honestly say these bail outs are the cause of the government meddling with the economy seeing as everything that's happened points to the opposite.

Inuzuka Skysword · 01-28-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

If a business wants to succeed it should actually cater to the populace.

I agree. What you want to do is hold a gun to a business man's head and tell him to cater. I say that the man should cater and succeed if he wants to. If he doesn't then he doesn't succeed.

Quote:

That's not greed Oxford and these businesses (e.g. the auto industry) haven't been making money; in fact they've been losing it. A good deal of Democrats in Wasington (Kucinich for instance) have been strongly against the bail outs and even Clinton's been saying they're going about this wrong and if they are going to do bail out companies they need to (and they only did this with AIG) buy the majority of the stocks and collect enough interest so the tax payers actually make money in the long run.

This is attacking a point that I am pretty sure I didn't make. The points I made were:

The government is forcing taxpayers to pay for a failed business that has nothing to do with me (the individual).
American liberalism is hypocritical because they don't want to bail out companies that pay taxes to their welfare.

Number two was a generalization, but it is true for a lot of people.

Quote:

Once again if a business doesn't even try and cater to a populace it's not going to sell anything. This is basic supply and demand here.

Again, I don't want to force businesses into catering to anyone. That is slavery.

Quote:

Wrong. For one these bail outs ARE the government meddling with the economy. The causes of these businesses needing the bail outs is do to their own stupidity. In the case of the auto industry it had nothing to do with the government meddling with their business model it has to do with them making ****ty cars. In fact if the government had stepped in like the rest of the world is and told the auto industry to start making smart cars a decade ago they'd be in much better shape. As for the financial industry if During the Clinton years they hadn't repealed Glass-Steagall all these facets of that industry wouldn't be effected. Lack of government regulation and intervention has more do with this then not.

Nobody would have to bail out anybody if there was no welfare. The thing is, America runs on the taxes of the upper class/middle class. If the only people who were going to lose out were stockholders/people related to the business then this wouldn't have happened. However, we have entangled each other into our lives with welfare. A lot of people are now depending on other people to work for them. It isn't like it is voluntary either. It is at gun point.

Secondly, freer economies bring more successful businesses. Our economy has never been a completely free economy. In fact, what we live under right now is VERY restricted capitalism. So the notion that businesses fail under capitalism is false because we operate under the absolute worst economic system, moderated capitalism or mixed economy.

Quote:

I understand you libertarians want to blame everything on the government being too big but that's simply stupid in this case. Clinton and Bush and the Congress and Senate under them have been getting rid of things set up during the Great Depression for the past ten years as well as deregulating businesses (though this part was more Bush than Clinton.) It clearly hasn't been a good thing. I don't know how you can honestly say these bail outs are the cause of the government meddling with the economy seeing as everything that's happened points to the opposite.

They are not deregulating enough. Moderated capitalism is worse than socialism.

Trauma · 01-28-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

It wouldn't be 4.00 a gallon if there were no taxes. There is way to much regulation in the business world from minimum wage to anti-trust laws.

Okay Ayn Rand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

They are not deregulating enough. Moderated capitalism is worse than socialism.

The U.S.???
And what does "moderated capitalism is worse than socialism" even mean?

Is socialism an inherently bad idea?

Definition:
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Sounds like your only beef is wanting to have Adam Smith's children.

sleepy jack · 02-01-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

yeah, because understanding an entire economic system is as simple as looking up a sentence-long definition in the dictionary.

EDIT: and yes it is an inherently bad idea because not only has it failed in practice but it was suggested (some say proven) almost ninety years ago that it can't even work in theory as with socialism comes economic planning and a planned economy lacks a mechanism to rationally apportion resources. aside from that, there are the arguments that socialism hinders technological progress as a result of stifled competition, inevitably leads to totalitarianism, and most importantly that it drastically reduces incentives for workers as everyone holds equal wealth.

why anyone would think socialism is a good idea is beyond me.

Yes and complete economic deregulation leads to sweat shops, corrupt businesses and wages you can't live on.

Trauma · 02-01-2009, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

EDIT: and yes it is an inherently bad idea because not only has it failed in practice but it was suggested (some say proven) almost ninety years ago that it can't even work in theory as with socialism comes economic planning and a planned economy lacks a mechanism to rationally apportion resources. aside from that, there are the arguments that socialism hinders technological progress as a result of stifled competition, inevitably leads to totalitarianism, and most importantly that it drastically reduces incentives for workers as everyone holds equal wealth.

why anyone would think socialism is a good idea is beyond me.

Oh, it was proven that socialism doesn't work?
Point me over to that experiment.
What's that, there wasn't one?

Sure, incentives to earn cash would be reduced in a Socialist world, but on the flip-side, in a perfect Libertarian world, a few people would have millions of dollars and 80% of the population would be dying from starvation.

"Why anyone would think socialism is a good idea is beyond me" is the most unintelligent crap I've heard in a while.
Besides being an ideal founded on the principle of egalitarianism, it is also one of few political theories that actually takes into account morality instead of base selfish indulgence.

sleepy jack · 02-02-2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trauma

Sure, incentives to earn cash would be reduced in a Socialist world, but on the flip-side, in a perfect Libertarian world, a few people would have millions of dollars and 80% of the population would be dying from starvation.

If were going to actually be fair in a perfect Socialism world everyone would have the education and knowledge to understand giving your all will be the best for you and your entire society. Of course perfect Marxism would actually be anarchy because government would no longer be necessary. I don't understand why Libertarians insist this could never be a reality (which is true) because people are corrupt and selfish as well as governments with that much power (also true) yet they think absolute economic freedom and power wouldn't be just as corrupting. I find both structures of government in their true form not only possible but terribly depressing. Libertarianism for its inequality and Marxism...well actually I don't have a problem with Marx's philosophy it's just that it's nothing more than a dream. I am for a social democracy however.

sleepy jack · 01-28-2009, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

I agree. What you want to do is hold a gun to a business man's head and tell him to cater. I say that the man should cater and succeed if he wants to. If he doesn't then he doesn't succeed.

This is attacking a point that I am pretty sure I didn't make. The points I made were:

The government is forcing taxpayers to pay for a failed business that has nothing to do with me (the individual).
American liberalism is hypocritical because they don't want to bail out companies that pay taxes to their welfare.

Number two was a generalization, but it is true for a lot of people.

Again, I don't want to force businesses into catering to anyone. That is slavery.

Nobody would have to bail out anybody if there was no welfare. The thing is, America runs on the taxes of the upper class/middle class. If the only people who were going to lose out were stockholders/people related to the business then this wouldn't have happened. However, we have entangled each other into our lives with welfare. A lot of people are now depending on other people to work for them. It isn't like it is voluntary either. It is at gun point.

Secondly, freer economies bring more successful businesses. Our economy has never been a completely free economy. In fact, what we live under right now is VERY restricted capitalism. So the notion that businesses fail under capitalism is false because we operate under the absolute worst economic system, moderated capitalism or mixed economy.

They are not deregulating enough. Moderated capitalism is worse than socialism.

lol.

How can the first bold statement and the second bold statement both be true?

We have operated under a completely free economy before. If you thought corporate fraud was an offshoot of government intervention than you're dead wrong. The government's hand was forced in because businesses don't operate on some Randian code rationality they just want to make money...which means taking advantage of people. I understand you think progressive presidents are evil socialists but they didn't create recessions and economic problems you know in fact their policies have helped pull us out of them. Economies naturally go through ups and downs; having some regulation isn't what causes the downs.

Dr_Rez · 01-28-2009, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

I understand you think progressive presidents are evil socialists but they didn't create recessions and economic problems you know in fact their policies have helped pull us out of them. Economies naturally go through ups and downs; having some regulation isn't what causes the downs.

You should stress that more. The conservative view does not work when it comes to fixing this countries heavy problems. The past has clearly shown that many times over.

And dont even get me started on the conservative view on warfare. It seems today it is better to be PATRIOTIC AND LOYAL than intelligent. Why else do you think the people in office are not to bright?

Dr_Rez · 01-28-2009, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

I have stated I am against the bail out. My point is the fact that you are blaming the bail out on big businesses taking risks. Sorry, the bail out is a cause of the government meddling with the economy.

Your right, the conservative view is perfect. Who would want the government raising minimum wage, staying out of wars we shouldn't be in, and giving the people health care. That would just be stupid.

Almost every big recession and war has happened on a Republicans watch. Just look at the 3 depressions this country has been in. Big business is the newest for a capitalism in the United States. If you actually think they should not cater to the public thats absurd. When there working conditions are **** and they pay less than the rising cost of living I would say that's a bad thing. As Wayfarer said, they have proven themselves incompetent and unable to run things on there own because of corporate greed and bad decision making.