TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Corporate bailouts
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

PK, you think Supreme Commander is a good game. That's all I need to realize your opinions are ass-backwards on everything else..

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt PK, you think Supreme Commander is a good game. That's all I need to realize your opinions are ass-backwards on everything else..

dude, im not the one advocating a return to the dark ages in respect to monetary policy

just found a great little article that demonstrates my point about artificially low rates:

http://www.safehaven.com/article-10880.htm

It explains how the fed influences people to make bad financial decisions which lead to these unhealthy boom/bust cycles..

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt First of all, the economy is nothing more than a collection of individuals pursuing their own interests, so I don't like the idea of any institution trying to "regulate the economy." People should be left as free as possible. Secondly, we will never know how an alternate system will do because competition is illegal. If the fed is keeping it's books in order and being responsible with our currency, they should have nothing to fear from a little competition. We don't need to abolish central banks. Just legalize alternatives (competing currencies, etc) and let the people decide.

The powers that be raise hell every time someone wants to get off the petro-dollar. No way in hell that's going to happen.

There's the silver-backed liberty dollar, but I think they got raided by the FBI. Check out their site... www.libertydollar.org

I wouldn't recommend buying any liberty dollars. You might as well just buy the silver bullion itself. That's what I plan. I wonder if I could make my own currency, using my stash of precious metals to back it up! heheh, sounds fun.

you forced me to

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt just found a great little article that demonstrates my point about artificially low rates: http://www.safehaven.com/article-10880.htm It explains how the fed influences people to make bad financial decisions which lead to these unhealthy boom/bust cycles..

gee, i wonder where this guy is coming from?

quote:

But under a fiat currency system, as we made the mistake of embracing in 1971, all logic leaves the system. To give you a historical perspective, look at the chart below of the Fed Funds rate since 1958.

quote:

Unless the government perfects alchemy, buy gold.

Well Pk, where is he wrong? All logic has left the system. With a negative savings rate, the fed is the only one providing these banks with liquidity. If we had a free banking system, they would be raising rates dramatically to attract savings...but with cheap money available from the fed any time, there is no need. Print print print, loan loan loan, inflate inflate inflate. Just keep blowing up those asset bubbles with new money. Lets see if we can get the national savings rate to negative 100%. That would be awesome!

he is wrong by saying embracing fiat money was a mistake.

perhaps the rates the fed have now are too low, but that isnt a failure of the system it is a failure of management of the system. the idea that is advanced between the lines of the article is a return to the gold standard, and we've had this argument before

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt PK, you think Supreme Commander is a good game. That's all I need to realize your opinions are ass-backwards on everything else..

Are you hating on the almighty supcom!? May GPGnet strike you down!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Are you hating on the almighty supcom!? May GPGnet strike you down!

nah, i think letting him play his rock-paper-scissor insta-hit games is punishment enough.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nah, i think letting him play his rock-paper-scissor insta-hit games is punishment enough.

Town = Supcom

nobody ever said world in conflict wasnt an ace game. but its simply not as dynamic as FA. since you've never played FA you really cant comment

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Town = Supcom

Dude, supcom blows that game out of the water. We're talking about a game in which you must think both tactically AND strategically at the same time while building an economy, and developing an army/air force/navy all at the same time. Additionally, certain weapons have plus's and minus's. If your enemy deploys a certain unit and you have no defense against it, you're fucked. You have to be on your toes 100% of the time. If we're going to talk about nukes, supcom is better than that crap! With supcom, you can nuke from a silo, submarine, or battleship. WHen your commander dies, since he is nuclear powered, the guy explodes in a nuclear fireball, and this happens at the end of EVERY game.

Think of it as a game of chess, x1000. Same concept. Kill the king/kill the commander. Instead of a boring checkerboard and pieces, you play on fields/mountains/lakes/etc., building up armies, air forces, and naval forces, and going back and forth with your enemy. There are 1000's of different ways to win, which makes this game one of the most dynamic ever made.

It'de really be good if you joined the club cap...

Wonder how a corporate bailout thread turned into a computer games? I hope we're not....

erecting buildings and mining for coal for an hour before you can start fighting isn't my idea of fun...Homie don't play dat.



I do like chess though. At least with it you don't need to build every piece from scratch before starting the battle.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt erecting buildings and mining for coal for an hour before you can start fighting isn't my idea of fun...Homie don't play dat. I do like chess though. At least with it you don't need to build every piece from scratch before starting the battle.

like i said, youve never played FA so you cant comment. it is the fastest and most hectic RTS ive ever played.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt erecting buildings and mining for coal for an hour before you can start fighting isn't my idea of fun...Homie don't play dat. I do like chess though. At least with it you don't need to build every piece from scratch before starting the battle.

lol.. Dude, you just have to try it.

I get combat units out in 1 minute, 2 at the most. I'm telling you, you have to be on your toes. 1v1 games usually don't last longer than 10 minutes, and I bet you every single minute is full action! Skirmishes, battles, raids, bombing runs, aerial dogfights, and that's just in the first 10 minutes! Even if you wanted to sit back and build up your "economy" or "base", you'de be fucked. It's fast paced dude, I'm tellin you..Try it!

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt First of all, the economy is nothing more than a collection of individuals pursuing their own interests, so I don't like the idea of any institution trying to "regulate the economy." People should be left as free as possible.

... to take advantage of others.

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint ... to take advantage of others.

No transaction takes place on the free market unless both parties believe they will benefit from it. The only institution with the legal power to force people to act against their own wishes is the federal government.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt No transaction takes place on the free market unless both parties believe they will benefit from it. The only institution with the legal power to force people to act against their own wishes is the federal government.

If it were up to the market, some institutions would take 1:100 leverage if they could. That's why we need regulating. It's like allowing anyone to drive as fast as they want on the highways. Someone is bound to get hurt, and cause a traffic jam!!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If it were up to the market, some institutions would take 1:100 leverage if they could. That's why we need regulating. It's like allowing anyone to drive as fast as they want on the highways. Someone is bound to get hurt, and cause a traffic jam!!

If someone wants to pay through the nose for something thats in high demand...

Just take a look a what happens around Christmas time when the newest toy/gadget/game shows up on Ebay and what people are willing to pay - sans log jams!

It's a slippery slope when government gets involved to regulate something that isn't considered 'essential'.
I'd say if it's going to hurt the overall economy then yes, the government should probably make suggestions and an ultimatum before stepping in.
Most of the time, the market will correct itself unless it was a train (plane) wreck like Air Canada where literally thousands of spinoff jobs were at peril across Canada before the government bailout.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r If someone wants to pay through the nose for something thats in high demand... Just take a look a what happens around Christmas time when the newest toy/gadget/game shows up on Ebay and what people are willing to pay - sans log jams! It's a slippery slope when government gets involved to regulate something that isn't considered 'essential'. I'd say if it's going to hurt the overall economy then yes, the government should probably make suggestions and an ultimatum before stepping in. Most of the time, the market will correct itself unless it was a train (plane) wreck like Air Canada where literally thousands of spinoff jobs were at peril across Canada before the government bailout.

There is such a thing as too much credit, and as the subprime collapse showed, it leads to crap for everyone, not just banks and subprime borrowers. I would consider regulation essential.

dot com bubble, housing/credit bubble, what's the next bubble?

Corporate Bailouts = Plunge Protection Team = Next Bubble!

Re: Corporate bailouts

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Any company which requires government funds should be owned by the government.

Totally agree with this one! I can see the point in a bail out, in for example the case of Bear Sterns, Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, buuuuut, if the tax payers are paying for it, they should make it a complete takeover (like they did in Britain with Northern Rock). Subsidizing shareholders/bad management is not cool!

(Although I kinda anticipated this happening, so I bought a bunch of Freddie Mac shares, so thank you US taxpayers )

Excellent leader from The Economist on the subject:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...ory_id=11848299

quote:

Housing bill A hair of the dog Jul 31st 2008 From The Economist print edition Congress has been too lenient on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac IT IS hard to deal with an alcoholic. But most experts would agree that the answer is not to leave your credit card behind the bar, persuade the pub landlord to stay open till dawn and leave the inebriate to get on with it. Sadly that is how the American Congress, in its new housing bill, is treating those troubled mortgage groups, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A rescue of the pair was inevitable. With some $5.2 trillion of debt owned or guaranteed by the duo, their collapse could have ushered in financial catastrophe. Nor could the government close Fannie and Freddie to new business and wind down their old operations. Without them, the mortgage market in America would shut. But imagine that Fannie and Freddie had turned for financial support to Hank Paulson not as treasury secretary but in his old incarnation as head of Goldman Sachs. Goldman would have insisted that the companies paid a high price: shareholders would probably have been wiped out. Just look at the deal that Lone Star, a private-equity firm, has struck with Merrill Lynch to buy the latter�s dodgy mortgage-related assets: not only is Lone Star paying a mere 22 cents on the dollar, Merrill is lending it most of the purchase money. By comparison, the federal government�s negotiating skills look more like those of Donald Duck than of Donald Trump. The housing bill imposes no changes in management or approach on Fannie and Freddie and no penalties on shareholders. The American taxpayer is instead given two flimsy protections. The first is that the treasury secretary will have the right to dictate terms if the government does have to stump up equity capital. In the past Mr Paulson could generally be trusted to do the right thing, but he will be gone in six months. The second protection is the creation of a new regulator. But the existing regulator has been hamstrung by Congress, thanks to the immense lobbying clout of Fannie and Freddie. Shamefully, a proposal to eliminate their lobbying budgets was not even put to a vote on the Senate floor. Government departments are not allowed to lobby Congress; why are these two firms, whose debts now have an explicit government guarantee, permitted to do so? Heads they win If Fannie and Freddie are too important to be allowed to collapse, and the American government is really responsible for their debts, then they should be nationalised. The current arrangement allows managers and shareholders to take all the profits and leave the losses to the taxpayer. If they were nationalised, Fannie and Freddie could be returned to the private sector when the housing market recovers. Privatisation should then create a much wider range of competing entities. It is not entirely clear why the core business of the enterprises�providing guarantees for mainstream (not subprime) mortgages�needs government sponsorship. The bill does have some prudent parts. The plan to alleviate home foreclosures via a government guarantee both penalises the lenders (they must accept a loss of 10-20%) and gives the government a share of the upside if prices recover. But these provisions are voluntary and it seems unlikely that many lenders will go for them; an earlier scheme, requiring a write-down of only 3% for the banks, had few takers. The whole package is an attempt to throw government cash at a market that is already heavily distorted by tax breaks and subsidies. And it comes at a time when house sales, if not prices, look at last to be bottoming. Nationalisation, followed by speedy, full privatisation would have been so much better. Are there are any free-market capitalists left in Congress?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.