Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bailouts were considered necessary because of the size of those companies. Which is why I am in favor of limiting the maximum size of companies in the first place. As soon as a company reaches a certain amount of employees and/or turnover, it should have to split into two or more independent companies. Big units are always a problem, be it in economics, politics, etc. Like for anything else in human society there need to be rules, good rules, to bring about good behavior.
Its not like the military was required to face off against Godzilla destroying the Citigroup Center. When a bank is insolvent, it violates accounting rules. They can be run as zombie banks until the real assets are liquidated. However the main damage is already done since the credit was already created and the houses were built. What the bailout did was to allow this to eventually repeat this process.
The bailouts were considered necessary because of the size of those companies. Which is why I am in favor of limiting the maximum size of companies in the first place. As soon as a company reaches a certain amount of employees and/or turnover, it should have to split into two or more independent companies. Big units are always a problem, be it in economics, politics, etc. Like for anything else in human society there need to be rules, good rules, to bring about good behavior.
Yes. I've been thinking of that lately. There comes a point in which there is no longer an economy of scale, but just encumbrances and so many segments vying for the so little attention that they actually get, that no one feels adequately represented. In such an environment it seems easier for the bending of rules and corruption to sneak in.
I think that even our country might do better with five autonomous (but for national defense) governments.
Yes. I've been thinking of that lately. There comes a point in which there is no longer an economy of scale, but just encumbrances and so many segments vying for the so little attention that they actually get, that no one feels adequately represented. In such an environment it seems easier for the bending of rules and corruption to sneak in.
I think that even our country might do better with five autonomous (but for national defense) governments.
Do you and Neuling understand that you are talking about more governmental regulation which I think has done more to create the present situation than anything else? Too much regulation can be a bad thing unless you have a completely government controlled economy as in a socialism.
Capitalism and the government are getting blamed for the shadow governments hostile takeover of legitimate governance perpetrated by corporations and lobbyists. THEY are the cannibals. THEY abuse their right to exist in USA & abroad. Global meltdown financial warfare inflicted on the masses is not coincidental.
Yes. We have to somehow remove money from the system. Congress people should have their money in blind trusts once they take office.
Elections should not run on contributions. I think they should be paid for by the government, not last as long, and air time should be contributed by stations. It is still the PUBLIC airwaves, after all. Yes, our democracy is at stake and I think this issue trumps all others. I would certainly pay more taxes for that.
Easy peasy. Whose idea was it that private industry ought to enjoy the option of holding global currencies hostage?
Ohh that's right! LIBERTARIANS!
Yes, and it was Alan Greenspan, another Libertarian, who was part of the drive to rid us of Glass Steagall, which would have prevented this economic melt down or at least mitigated the damage.
There is another bill before Congress which attempts to do what Glass Steagall did, to separate investment banking from those which deal with individual investors. I forget what it's called, though.
You cannot save capitalism if it is the 'only game in town"
Pure Capitalism or pure Socialism being used in a vacuum will destroy itself. It is like just eating protein or just eating carbohydrates......... the system cannot take it.
A country is like a human body. It is built from numerous and varied organs and cells.......... to cater just for one group of cells will destroy the other cells.
This happens when any Country relies solely on one system to make it succesful.
I have heard the term .. "one size fits all" used as a excuse as to why things fail here yet the "one size fits all" is ok when discussing Capitaliam... why is that ok???????????
For a Country to truly be successful then a blend of Capitalism and Socialism must be used. Trying to make Socialism the big bad wolf will NOT save Capitalism.
Both systems have their merits and pitfalls but to use either as some kind of stand alone mechanism to create a successful Country is far beyond dumb and smacks of a dictatorship rather than a democracy with one or the other being denied to citizens because it promotes the needs of a certain group in society.
Get real here............. America should have both Capitalism and Socialism working together or we will stay deep in the economic hole that Capitalistic Greed has put us in
If Citi and Bank of America and others had gone south, it wouldn't have meant hardship for society.
You are just parroting propaganda; it is this sort of thing that allowed the banks to set the tone of the discussion, because nobody had the balls to call them out on their BS.
That's not what I heard on Moyers. Those banks had so many interlocking investments with other banks and those of the world, that it would have had horrible results.
The problem is, as others have said, that they should not be allowed to get that big in the first place, then they should be allowed to fail if they make poor decisions. NOBODY in government has yet done ANYTHING in that direction. Break them up. As a matter of fact, the Obama administration has the same guys in charge who orchestrated that fiasco.
Bush and Clinton were of the same mentality, and these were part of killing Glass Steagall. Even Reagan.
Dodd-Frank is laughable. What a legacy these two retired Congress people have left us with. You would think, being on their way out, they would have left us on a high note. I wonder what they got out of leaving us with such a weak piece of garbage of a bill.
If I may recommend a very good book on this very subject?
"Fixing the game" by Roger L. Martin. He's no dummy and he's certainly no socialist - but he's pointing out, correctly in my opinion, that as long as executives are rewarded for maximizing shareholder value, they'll run their businesses based on meeting the stock market's expectations, instead of focusing on their customers' needs.
And where a company making stuff that people want to buy is pretty much win-win, the casino floor known as the stock market is close to being a zero-sum game.
Anyhoo, check out this article from the notorious commie-pinko-leftie rag known as Forbes Magazine:
Do you and Neuling understand that you are talking about more governmental regulation which I think has done more to create the present situation than anything else? Too much regulation can be a bad thing unless you have a completely government controlled economy as in a socialism.
I disagree. It was removing regulation that caused the problem.
Glass Steagall was enacted in the 1930's to prevent another depression. It regulated the banking industry and knew the danger of backing up poor and risky investments with the life savings of the little guy(in turn, now, backed by the government). We systematically did away with this bill, clearing the way for another economic melt down.
We need the right kind of regulation enacted by people with intestinal fortitude.
Not sure that the American model of Capitalism is worth saving........... It is now just a word for greed and corruption and elitism.
A example of American style capitalistic dictatorship is the American Health System.
America is out alone amongst the Industrialised Nations with a health system where your wealth decides how you get health care. Where health care is treated as a luxury item. where over 40.000 citizens die each year... not from uncurable diseases but from lack of health care.
Capitalism is NOT working in America and needs to be put in proper perpective............ not a tool for greed and corruption but a incentive for all to aim for......... this is no longer the case here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I may recommend a very good book on this very subject?
