Another government bailout

[Scarface]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/17/business/17insure.php

If you need another hint that the economy is in a downhill slide, look no further than our US government bailing out yet another company.

 

[Sovereign]

Who cares? John McCain said that the economy was fine. I trust John McCain.

McCain/Jesusfreak 08 plz.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

This is getting ridiculous. The government can't keep bailing out companies with 85 billion dollar loans when there's a government deficit. It really doesn't count as a government loan when your government has to ask China to front the money for you.

 

[Scarface]

Exactly. We are one step closer to socialism every time something like this happens. Sometimes, companies fail and that's just how it goes. Our government cannot keep playing the role of babysitter without dragging it's own people into the ground at the same time.

 

[Sovereign]

We are one step closer to socialism

George Bush is a commie.

every time something like this happens. Sometimes, companies fail and that's just how it goes. Our government cannot keep playing the role of babysitter without dragging it's own people into the ground at the same time.

I guess letting the economy go down the gutter without doing anything is a better solution? The Great Depression happened because people thought that the Market would adjust itself.

This is one of the flaws of Capitalism. The Market is not invincible. It needs some love from the government.

 

[Scarface]

The economy suffers regardless. It suffers greatly however when the government tries to put duct tape on every little leak in it. It's like putting a cap on a water heater, it won't end well. As I said before, the government is not our babysitter.

The great depression occurred in part on speculation, and also on the fact that people started pulling money out of the banks. Banks started to collapse in droves and everyone was too afraid to invest any money on anything because of paranoia. Pessimism in the market led to the worthless assets.

 

[Sovereign]

The economy suffers regardless. It suffers greatly however when the government tries to put duct tape on every little leak in it. It's like putting a cap on a water heater, it won't end well. As I said before, the government is not our babysitter.

The great depression occurred in part on speculation, and also on the fact that people started pulling money out of the banks. Banks started to collapse in droves and everyone was too afraid to invest any money on anything because of paranoia. Pessimism in the market led to the worthless assets.

That's great, I'm sure you know more about this than the expert economists working for the Federal Reserve...

The truth is, after the Great Depression, governments everywhere around the world threw hardcore liberalism out of the window. That's one of the things we learned after 1929.

It is now NECESSARY for the Government to stimulate the economy. This isn't about the government being "a baby sitter", this loan is actually an investment on their part. They can't just let big companies that are essential to the well-being of the American economy die off like this.

 

[Caleb]

That's great, I'm sure you know more about this than the expert economists working for the Federal Reserve...

The truth is, after the Great Depression, governments everywhere around the world threw hardcore liberalism out of the window. That's one of the things we learned after 1929.

It is now NECESSARY for the Government to stimulate the economy. This isn't about the government being "a baby sitter", this loan is actually an investment on their part. They can't just let big companies that are essential to the well-being of the American economy die off like this.

I hate to say it, hardcore fiscal conservative that I am, but I think Sin is probably right on this one. Governments have become too involved in their respective economies just to let them collapse around them--not to mention the responsibility the U.S. has towards the global market, considering our effect on it. If we can avoid a recession, then it's our duty to do it. We can sort out the government control issues later.

 

[Sovereign]

I hate to say it, hardcore fiscal conservative that I am, but I think Sin is probably right on this one.

A conservative agreeing with a Marxist...

Awesome!

 

[Green Ranger]

A conservative agreeing with a Marxist...

Awesome!

Wierd. The universe should have imploded by now.

 

[Caleb]

Yes, but in this case it's not the market's fault, rather, government has become too socialistic for my liking. So, basically, I still hate your guts you commie bastard. :CHappy:

 

[Sovereign]

Yes, but in this case it's not the market's fault.

O.o

How can it not be the Market's fault? It's because of speculators that this whole economic collapse is happening. This would have never happened in a centrally planned economy...

 

[Caleb]

O.o

How can it not be the Market's fault? It's because of speculators that this whole economic collapse is happening. This would have never happened in a centrally planned economy...

Because the government is always so much more insightful and forward thinking than the investers, amirite?

You're right though, a regulated market would never have been in this situation because the stifled development of that market would have ensured that it never amassed the sort of capital needed for speculative buying.

 

[Sovereign]

Because the government is always so much more insightful and forward thinking than the investers, amirite?

Investors only have their own interests at heart.

You're right though, a regulated market would never have been in this situation because the stifled development of that market would have ensured that it never amassed the sort of capital needed for speculative buying.

You're trying to argue against Marxist from a Capitalist perspective.

The idea of constantly amassing capital is a purely capitalist one. From my point of view, I'd argue that such an amount isn't necessary.

 

[Caleb]

Investors only have their own interests at heart.

You're trying to argue against Marxist from a Capitalist perspective.
The idea of constantly amassing capital is a purely capitalist one. From my point of view, I'd argue that such an amount isn't necessary.

To the first point, the interests of investors almost always coincide with the general economy as a whole. Thus, economy going good, investors happy, economy bad, investors sad.

To the second, unfortunately, like all Marxist thinking, you're operating in a vacuum. Stable capital would work just fine, if we're looking at a globally socialist market--and I'm talking real Marxism, not this authoritarian Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Stalinism bull. But, BUT, if you've got even one capitalist market working against a socialist system, that market is going to be able to undercut, outsell, and outstrip everybody else--thanks to their massive reserves of capital. So, theoretically it could work, I'd guess, but practically, no.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Just to make sure my point of view is clarified, I have no real problems with government bailouts, but only when the government actually has money. It's necessary, but I take issue with a government giving companies money that they don't even have. Loaning loaned money is never a very good idea.

 

[Cailst]

Just to make sure my point of view is clarified, I have no real problems with government bailouts, but only when the government actually has money. It's necessary, but I take issue with a government giving companies money that they don't even have. Loaning loaned money is never a very good idea.

But wouldn't it be better that government and business were separate from each other similarly to how government and religion are separate? In the latter case, religion has flourished in America because it can't rely on the government to help it out so it plans better so it doesn't need help.

 

[Scarface]

That's great, I'm sure you know more about this than the expert economists working for the Federal Reserve...

The truth is, after the Great Depression, governments everywhere around the world threw hardcore liberalism out of the window. That's one of the things we learned after 1929.

It is now NECESSARY for the Government to stimulate the economy. This isn't about the government being "a baby sitter", this loan is actually an investment on their part. They can't just let big companies that are essential to the well-being of the American economy die off like this.

Did I ever claim to know more than the expert economists?

It is not the place for the government to stimulate the economy, the consumers (we the people) do. I'll use an example, earlier this year the government sent out a "stimulus package" my household got right around $900, which when you get a free $900 check in the mail it's great and for a short term outlook this deal works pretty good. People put money back into the economy (poorer people mostly but that's another argument entirely). But we have had two days this week where the DJIA dropped below 450. So we see how well the package worked out over the long (kinda) term. I hear now that Bush wants to spend another $50 billion on another stimulus package.

I think it's a ridiculous notion to suggest that when we have no money to begin with, our first solution to a problem is to throw money at it.

Sometimes companies have to be allowed to fail. If I had a business, and said business failed, the government wouldn't think twice about bailing me out. Answer: they wouldn't.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

But wouldn't it be better that government and business were separate from each other similarly to how government and religion are separate? In the latter case, religion has flourished in America because it can't rely on the government to help it out so it plans better so it doesn't need help.

Better? Yes. More realistic? No. When it comes to peoples mortgages and, basically, their entire futures then I have no problem with the government stepping in and giving it a leg up.

 

[Sovereign]

Sometimes companies have to be allowed to fail. If I had a business, and said business failed, the government wouldn't think twice about bailing me out. Answer: they wouldn't.

You probably have no idea what kind of company AIG or Merrill Lynch is.

They're both insurance companies. Merril Lynch deals with plenty of other things as well. These companies are the backbone of the American economy. It's not just some crappy business we're talking. It's BILLIONS of dollars, people's investment THEIR LIVES etc. You can't let companies like down get thrown down the gutter and say "Oh the market will fix itself etc"