Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

6 (12.8%)

No

18 (38.3%)

Not Citizen, Yes

3 (6.4%)

Not Citizen, No

9 (19.1%)

I don't care, but I like to vote!

11 (23.4%)

Total Members Voted: 47

[lumin]

i completely agree which is why i want buyout, not a grant. 

...

I'm not advocating that the government should operate these companies, rather they should facilitate the transferal of ownership to other companies that are in the best interest of our country.

Well, I believe what is going on is absolutely the government taking control of it. I found it funny that they are proposing to appoint an "Auto Czar" to manage it.

What you're proposing sounds better (although having the government's hands in the middle of changing management sounds risky), but I think the best alternative would be a structured bankruptcy, so everything doesn't happen all at once, allowing for the economy to adjust.

[mainiac]

By passing this bailout, what is really happening is that the government is trying to pour water on a wildfire that already burned the forest years ago.

How much you wanna bet that A. they'll go out of business anyway, or B. They'll be asking for another bailout, in a few years from now?

The $700 Billion mortgage bailout has already made absolutely zero difference, why should we expect a different result here?

Modern economic activity is impossible in the absence of banks.  TARP was cheap compared to another depression.  And it hasn't cost 700 billion, it's cost less then 300 billion to date.  The vast majority of said 300 billion is going to be paid back with interest.

I am very grateful that economic policy is so undemocratic.

[lumin]

Modern economic activity is impossible in the absence of banks.

Of course it's possible.  We'd just have to learn to stop buying things on credit.  We'd live in smaller homes, and drive smaller cars, but most everything else can be bought with cash if we worked hard enough for it.

This is the flawed thinking with those who support the bailout.  They are afraid to go through another Great Depression.  I don't think an individual's happiness is dependent on wealth at all, in fact I believe the greatest generation of the last 100 years lived through the most meager of times.

[mainiac]

Modern economic activity is impossible in the absence of banks.

Of course it's possible.  We'd just have to learn to stop buying things on credit.  We'd live in smaller homes, and drive smaller cars, but most everything else can be bought with cash if we worked hard enough for it.

There is not a single industrial economy at any point in history which was able to survive without a stable banking industry or the government taking complete control of the economy (like in the soviet union or Meji restoration.)  When money markets stop working, severe economic contractions always follow, without exception.

Patronizingly criticizing people for not having the values you want them to is all well and good but I prefer sensible policy myself.  If you want to enjoy the wholesome values of the Great Depression, please move to one of the lovely failed states in the world rather then trying to fail the state we have right here.

[sneakey pete]

Show me a foreign answer to the Volt before you tell me that it would be good for GM to go down.

Nissan working on some shit that should hit markets in 2010. Point being, the volt is just one car. And, with the current financial thing going on, i can't see people rushing out to buy one just for the sake of it. New cars will only be bought when absolutely necessary now, because people just can't afford to buy a new one every 5 years.

[lumin]

Modern economic activity is impossible in the absence of banks.

Of course it's possible.  We'd just have to learn to stop buying things on credit.  We'd live in smaller homes, and drive smaller cars, but most everything else can be bought with cash if we worked hard enough for it.

There is not a single industrial economy at any point in history which was able to survive without a stable banking industry or the government taking complete control of the economy (like in the soviet union or Meji restoration.)  When money markets stop working, severe economic contractions always follow, without exception.

Patronizingly criticizing people for not having the values you want them to is all well and good but I prefer sensible policy myself.  If you want to enjoy the wholesome values of the Great Depression, please move to one of the lovely failed states in the world rather then trying to fail the state we have right here.

So you've failed if you aren't rich, like the USA?  I lived in a third world country for 2 years and the people are no more a "failure" than the people in the great US of A.

It's not impossible for industry/people to espouse values of self-reliance, instead of living on credit or borrowed money.  How is it impossible?  You (as a business or individual) make purchases with that which you can afford at the time, not with money you do not yet have.  Again, how is that impossible?

Just because a modern industrial society hasn't done it, does not mean it is impossible.

- 1/0 is impossible
- a*b + b*b = c*c is impossible
- living without credit is possible

[mainiac]

Failed state is a commonly used term to describe when economic and governmental systems stop working.  It's hardly a reflection upon the citizenry.

Living without credit is certainly "possible" whatever the hell that means.  I fail to see how that in any way invalidates the point that the 300 billion spent on the TARP loans was anything but a prudent investment.  I point out the historical context and you go all Dadist, not very sporting.

[Il Palazzo]

United States public debt
The data in the above suggests that Americans should not think of investing their money in risky businesses.

[PTTG??]

It is true that the Modern Economic Paradigm is impossible without banks; it is impossible without certain amounts of oil reserves, impossible without a minimum amount of economic growth, impossible without Alan Greenspan sitting in the same chair that until recently he had occupied for longer than most people have been alive.

In other words, it's no longer possible. We need a new system and nothing can change this; the oil production of the world is slowing and when demand recovers there's going to be a sharp price correction. The banking system, even with a trillion dollars of bailouts is on the way out and all the money in the world will just buy it time.

So what I'm saying is, historical context, other than a comparison to the Great Depression, is unreliable. So, let's pick what we want our next system to be like. How about a global democratic socio-feudalism?

[ProfessorA]

Remind me again why a failure in confidence now means people will never need to transfer capital again?  Arguing that the loss of banking as we know it leads to the failure of capitalism as we know it seems a little backwards - true free markets will create a demand for banking once all the insanity/corruption/fiscal foolishness passes.
Times are going to be harder.  Suck it up already and get back to work.

[mainiac]

Remind me again why a failure in confidence now means people will never need to transfer capital again?  Arguing that the loss of banking as we know it leads to the failure of capitalism as we know it seems a little backwards - true free markets will create a demand for banking once all the insanity/corruption/fiscal foolishness passes.
Times are going to be harder.  Suck it up already and get back to work.

Financial sectors form very slowly.  It took longer for the US to form a banking industry independent of Europe then it took to go from an agrarian economy to industrial giant.  The whole notion that demand for an industry will cause it to form is only possible if you have banks to fund said industry.  Demand for banks won't cause banks to form.  Rather, you'll have economic inhibited by the fact that businesses can't grow or survive due to lack of capital.  Working hard and saving up money might be a little hard if you can't find a job.
The first step in recovering from the Great Depression was restoring confidence in the banks so they could start borrowing and lending again.  It took years and cost billions and billions of dollars of economic fallout.  If we'd allowed the bank failures to just run their course, with the tightening of credit that would have ensued, the cost in lost economic activity would be far more then what the final price tag on TARP will be, payed for over many painful years.