|
The Revolution of 1917, American-Style (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, nobody pays any attention to what you think because youre an ignorant turd. |
Nah, this whole thing really does stink |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
This guy joined in August 2000. Compare that to when you joined. Isn't some respect due for the oldschool members, if nothing else? :conf: |
that's the stupidest thing ive ever heard. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
LOL this thread is funny.
Like Krypton said, there is no comparison to this and the October Revolution. NOTHING.
If you want to compare anything to what happened in Russia then the 1930s offers a whole lot more possiblities for comparison... but not many even there. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| This thread encapsulates why PDD sucks these days. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
For someone with a mad-crazy entrepreneurial spirit, I can't believe you wrote that considering what's happening now with the power grab from the Treasury and this administration. |
I'll go back to my traffic regulation analogy. Say the "traffic minister" is a free market traffic believer and wants to leave the motorists to drive as they please. Obviously, all hell would break lose on our streets. Nothing would stop drivers driving 100mph in a 45mph speed zone. Well, that is exactly what happened in our economy. Many capitalists were essentially driving way over the speed limit and whoever was in their way. Leveraging 1:50 and all that good stuff. I'm not advocating Hugo Chavez style economics. But it's obvious that our system needs a standard of regulation which will prevent this from ever happening again. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
LOL this thread is funny.
Like Krypton said, there is no comparison to this and the October Revolution. NOTHING.
If you want to compare anything to what happened in Russia then the 1930s offers a whole lot more possiblities for comparison... but not many even there. |
Yea, if the comparison were true, we'd be in civil war by now. White Russians versus Red Russians. Dems versus Reps. |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by AnotherWay83
is it now? i think the bailouts really only benefited the elite and the banks anyway, the middle class and the poor got nothing out of it, and i'm a bit disillusioned with some of the appointments obama has made...seems like the same people who were controlling things all along are being placed in charge |
Yeah an interesting twist. Instead of a rich white guy working for a bunch of rich white guys its a rick BLACK guy working for a bunch of rich white guys. Its odd a relatively unknown politician runs the sleekest, most well-funded campaign in history. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Well, that is exactly what happened in our economy. Many capitalists were essentially driving way over the speed limit and whoever was in their way. Leveraging 1:50 and all that good stuff. I'm not advocating Hugo Chavez style economics. But it's obvious that our system needs a standard of regulation which will prevent this from ever happening again. |
Or we need to let people face the consequences of their actions when they leverage 50:1 and lose everything. We need to allow them to fail for a change..and not prop them up endlessly at taxpayer expense. We need to be AGAINST bailouts philosophically don't we krypt? ;) As a person who studies markets, I hope you recognize this now. The prospect of failure removes "moral hazard" and makes that sort of reckless behavior much less appealing on a risk/reward basis. When failure is a real option and the treasury/fed are not implicitly guaranteeing that companies won't be allowed to fail, they will tend to be more thoughtful in their decision making.
"Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses, even the threat of bankruptcy, concentrate the mind on prudent behavior." - Alan H. Meltzer |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by AnotherWay83
is it now? i think the bailouts really only benefited the elite and the banks anyway, the middle class and the poor got nothing out of it |
Oh really? If these bailouts weren't happening, no lending would be occurring, which would have the middle class on its backs. Some of these banks would have just shored up capital, weathered the storm, and survived by the end. They'd just have lower staff numbers and significantly decreased lending, both of which would hurt the middle class.
As a related, the public backlash against the big banks is going to cause the same things. Goldman, JP Morgan, and even Bank of America are talking about repaying the TARP loans as soon as the stress tests are complete to shed the shackles that have been placed on them by these ridiculous compensation demands that will cripple their staff due to departures. In order to do that, they may have to decrease lending, which will hurt you, not them. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Or we need to let people face the consequences of their actions when they leverage 50:1 and lose everything. We need to allow them to fail for a change..and not prop them up endlessly at taxpayer expense. We need to be AGAINST bailouts philosophically don't we krypt? ;) As a person who studies markets, I hope you recognize this now. The prospect of failure removes "moral hazard" and makes that sort of reckless behavior much less appealing on a risk/reward basis. When failure is a real option and the treasury/fed are not implicitly guaranteeing that companies won't be allowed to fail, they will tend to be more thoughtful in their decision making.
"Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses, even the threat of bankruptcy, concentrate the mind on prudent behavior." - Alan H. Meltzer |
They are facing the consequences. They are losing everything. They ARE failing. The only thing being propped up is the systemic integrity of our economy. If a company with over $1 trillion in assets and liabilities fails, it reverberates throughout the entire economy. For some reason, you still don't get that. It's not about propping up bad companies. It's about preventing a financial flat line on the operating table. The prospect of failure didn't stop the extremely high leveraging nor were they thinking, "Oh, we know we'r going to fail, but we know we'r going to be bailed out." No, they didn't believe they were going to fail. If we follow your logic, this country would implode in on itself. Or the working classes would rise up against the executive classes who would ultimately take advantage of them under your theoretical laissez-faire system. Just look at the witch hunt on AIG.
And once again, there is plenty of failure and losses, but for some reason you don't see it. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Bernanke has explicitly stated that he would not allow any more failures krypt. I had a bigger response typed here but I'm going to revert to the quote posted above. Companies are being bailed out at any cost and taxpayers are being raped.
Current policy is very anti-market and pro-state, but for some reason you don't see it. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Bernanke has explicitly stated that he would not allow any more failures krypt. I had a bigger response typed here but I'm going to revert to the quote posted above. Companies are being bailed out at any cost and taxpayers are being raped.
Current policy is very anti-market and pro-state, but for some reason you don't see it. |
Do you want to provide that quote, and preferably the paragraph, so we can have context?
You'r making seem as if any and every company that's appearing to fail is being bailed out, which is blatantly false. You can't count with your fingers and toes how many companies have gone bankrupt in this current recession. Mortgage companies, brokers, underwriters, etc. etc. Give me a break! The only companies being bailed out are those which pose a systemic risk to the economy.
What's anti-market is allowing that very market to collapse into total financial meltdown, and drag everyone else along with it. |
|
|
|
|
