What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[mercury14]

Okay so because you don't have any way to counter his point, you resort to name-calling?

Does this make you feel better?

He will never be able to counter my argument because he knows I'm right. If financial entities grow to represent such huge portions of a nation's economy, they simply cannot be allowed to fail, as their failure would ruin the whole country's economy - not just the financial sector.

We could allow the financial sector to fail and be thrown into another Great Depression. (Which Republicans would wholly blame on Obama)

But then the skyrocketing Chinese economy (plus the rest of Asia, Europe, and emerging markets in places like Brazil) would just fill the vacuum left by the crumbling of America.

Eyer thinks it's a good thing to allow that to happen. Allowing America to permanently shink and shrivel on the world economic stage while other countries kick our ass isn't a problem. That's not the worst-case scenario.

To Eyer, the worst-case scenario is giving the financial sector loans to float them during hard economic times.

ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!!!

 

[unregistered]

 

[eyer]

You still haven't made any kind of rebuttal as to my point though. American companies are comepting with Chinese/Asian/Euro/Brazilian ones. Those countries aren't going to allow their corporations to fold every time there's a recession. But you're saying it's okay if ours do? And this is going to work out okay for us in the long run how?

What point, exactly, can any liberty-loving individual make with a person who sees nothing wrong with fascism?

That you're acting out a fascist stance under this administration doesn't fool me, tho...

You, as well as anyone on this forum, know exactly what our governments' support and intervention on behalf of business has produced. Do we really have to go there? To Cuba? The Philippines? Central America? To Saudi? To Iraq? Where to next...?

I thank God before I became too old and brainwashed, I came across the writings of a military man who played the game of his government's support of American business...I pass this quotation and its link to you in hopes you cool your partisan jets and begin to realize what your clamoring for...


From War Is a Racket, (1935), by Smedley Darlington Butler, Major General, USMC (Ret):

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

 

[Byron In Exile]

WTF???

When corporations employ people overseas, it means less jobs in America, higher unemployment, less people getting taxed, etc.

Are you sure you want to stand by that statement?

GM makes cars in Mexico and Poland.

Toyota makes cars in Kentucky.

Yeah, I think I do.

 

[Byron In Exile]

By the way, enlighten me as to what fascism has to do with bank bailouts.

You should have tacked about five more emoticons onto that post.

You are seriously lost.

 

[mercury14]

GM makes cars in Mexico and Poland.

Toyota makes cars in Kentucky.

Yeah, I think I do.

Toyota makes a tiny fraction of its cars in Kentucky. And they don't pay income tax in the USA. Not a cent.

What else ya got?

 

[mercury14]

What point, exactly, can any liberty-loving individual make with a person who sees nothing wrong with fascism?

That you're acting out a fascist stance under this administration doesn't fool me, tho...

You, as well as anyone on this forum, know exactly what our governments' support and intervention on behalf of business has produced. Do we really have to go there? To Cuba? The Philippines? Central America? To Saudi? To Iraq? Where to next...?

I thank God before I became too old and brainwashed, I came across the writings of a military man who played the game of his government's support of American business...I pass this quotation and its link to you in hopes you cool your partisan jets and begin to realize what your clamoring for...


From War Is a Racket, (1935), by Smedley Darlington Butler, Major General, USMC (Ret):

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

Okay you've made about four name-calling posts without even attempting to counter my argument.

Want to go for five? Or are you going to attempt to come up with a coherent thought or some sort?

 

[eyer]

Okay you've made about four name-calling posts without even attempting to counter my argument.

Want to go for five? Or are you going to attempt to come up with a coherent thought or some sort?

You're not a child, doc, so please don't beg the "name calling" deal like other children do.

If you can't handle being labeled a fascist, then change your fascist/socialist political view(s).

These are grown-up issues we're talking about, doc...

 

[mercury14]

You're not a child, doc, so please don't beg the "name calling" deal like other children do.

If you can't handle being labeled a fascist, then change your fascist/socialist political view(s).

These are grown-up issues we're talking about, doc...

Okay five posts without even attempting to counter my argument.

Go ahead and make it six.


(by the way, go learn what fascism is before you start calling people fascists - just my 2 cents)

 

[Byron In Exile]

Toyota makes a tiny fraction of its cars in Kentucky. And they don't pay income tax in the USA. Not a cent.

What else ya got?

By the way, enlighten me as to what fascism has to do with bank bailouts.

You should have tacked about five more emoticons onto that post.

You are seriously lost.

^ That.

 

[Byron In Exile]

So you think the predictions of Armageddon were just part of the heist?

Yes.

Or you think the whole shitaree should have been allowed to come down around our ears and maybe reset to something better.

To see whose ears it actually came down around would have been informative.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Who woulda thought that an opinion piece posted on pajamasmedia blog would be anti-Obama.

I mean, besides anyone who has ever read anything they "published", ever.

Redneck Translation: I don't read anything that might take me out of my comfort zone, it's better to simply ad hominem...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You don't realize the economic mayhem that would have ensued had large banks been allowed to fail.

I'm all for allowing irresponsible businesses to fail. But when banks get so big that their failure would wipe out broad swathes of the economy, it can't be allowed to happen.

The solution is for banks to not get so huge that they become too big to fail. Too much consolidation is very, very bad.

Smaller banks would have grabbed up their assets and then the government could have purchased whatever toxic they HAD to.

Instead they set up a huge slush fund to buy toxic assets, and then didn't leaving companies that now KNOW they are too big to fail and have even less restraint on any future gambles...
__________________
How can you measure the value of knowing that company books are sounder than they were before? Of no more overnight bankruptcies with the employees and retirees left holding the bag? No more disruption to entire sectors of the economy?
Michael Oxley 2002
Co-Author of Sarbanes-Oxley Law

It will take the next economic crisis, as certainly it will come, to determine whether or not the provisions of this bill will actually provide this generation or the next generation of regulators with the tools necessary to minimize the effects of that crisis.
Chris Dodd
Co-Author Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What the neocons need to realize - and you never have a rebuttal for - is that from a practical level we simply cannot allow our industries to fail. Yes, even if it requires significant government intervention.

Why? Because our industries are competing against those in other countries. Everything is global now.

Is China going to allow its banks to fail? Germany? Japan? Brazil? No, they're going to prop up their industries no matter what it takes.

So America can allow it's banks, auto industry, etc to fail whenever there are hard times if it wants to... The result is that foregin powers jump in and instantly pounce on the market share being vacated by failed American companies. If our banks fail, American corps/individuals will just invest with foreign banks, which become a much safer option. If our auto industry is allowed to fail then Asian and European auto makers will happily (and likely permanently) snatch up the market share of Ford/GM/Chrysler.

So while it might seem nice to say that we need to strictly rely on the free market, the cold hard reality is that American corporations are competing globally against rivals with strong government backing that will not be allowed to fail during hard times.

It's been global since the American Revolution. History much?

We can see that free market economics are a stranger to your mindset.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So you think the predictions of Armageddon were just part of the heist? Or you think the whole shitaree should have been allowed to come down around our ears and maybe reset to something better.

Yes. Bring on the "Overcharge" Button...



__________________
Czech!
WODKA!
Владимир Владимирович Путин
(Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin)

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You fail to realize the impact this would have. Every business that had assets tied up in folding banks would be crushed, causing severe bleeding thoughout the economy even in sectors that have nothing to do with finance.

The ripple effect would be immense and thoroughly destructive.

I would say sure, let the banks fail if it just meant that the bank entities themselves would go down. But you must understand that the financial sector is inextricably tied to the rest of the economy. If the financial sector bites the dust, so does everything else.

Again, that's not what would have happened any more than letting GM fail would wreck the auto industry (any worse than the union penchant for pensions was doing).

90% of their assets would not have "disappeared" into thin air...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

WTF???

When corporations employ people overseas, it means less jobs in America, higher unemployment, less people getting taxed, etc.

Are you sure you want to stand by that statement?

I will. As pointed out some time ago before the crash, when you ship jobs to India, for example, then they buy a host of American products and machinery to make those jobs work.

You use globalization to make a point when it suits you, and then bash it equally when you wish to make a counter-point. This is the problem with the collective thinking of the Left, eventually your contradictions smack you upside the head like a wet mackerel...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

He will never be able to counter my argument because he knows I'm right. If financial entities grow to represent such huge portions of a nation's economy, they simply cannot be allowed to fail, as their failure would ruin the whole country's economy - not just the financial sector.

We could allow the financial sector to fail and be thrown into another Great Depression. (Which Republicans would wholly blame on Obama)

But then the skyrocketing Chinese economy (plus the rest of Asia, Europe, and emerging markets in places like Brazil) would just fill the vacuum left by the crumbling of America.

Eyer thinks it's a good thing to allow that to happen. Allowing America to permanently shink and shrivel on the world economic stage while other countries kick our ass isn't a problem. That's not the worst-case scenario.

To Eyer, the worst-case scenario is giving the financial sector loans to float them during hard economic times.

ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!!!

And yet, it was government control and oversight of CRA, Freddie and Fannie that brought those companies to their knees...

So, how would a bancruptcy reorganization of those companies bring America to its shriveling knees?

I say, it would have restored confidence in the economy when everyone else in the food chain saw not just that bad businees decisions would be punished, but that there was an opportunity for better-run on-the-way-up middle companies to step up to "big" status. What the government did by turning to Fascism was to at once take away that confidence in ANY in the protected banks while additionally telling the competition, STAY IN YOUR PLACE!

Basically what Obama told Joe, the Plumber, we're going to limit your opportunities to "help" those BELOW you...

That makes a man hungry to work!


__________________
"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
Ayn Rand

 

[Byron In Exile]

I will. As pointed out some time ago before the crash, when you ship jobs to India, for example, then they buy a host of American products and machinery to make those jobs work.

You use globalization to make a point when it suits you, and then bash it equally when you wish to make a counter-point. This is the problem with the collective thinking of the Left, eventually your contradictions smack you upside the head like a wet mackerel...

It amuses me that we can disagree about something, and yet, whichever one of us is eventually proven right, Mercury14 will still be wrong.

That cracks me up.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Toyota makes a tiny fraction of its cars in Kentucky. And they don't pay income tax in the USA. Not a cent.

What else ya got?

Most companies don't pay their fair share of taxes. Politicians in States, Cities, and local municipalities "compete" for their business based upon the rather novel idea that the people they EMPLOY will be paying your precious wealth-envy "income" taxes...

But those of us who have been studying up on economics know this one little thing about wealth-envy economics:

YOU CAN'T SOAK THE RICH! THEY FACTOR TAXES IN TO THE COST OF THEIR WIDGET OR SERVICE AND THEN PASS IT ON TO THE MIDDLE AND LOWER-CLASSES.​

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It amuses me that we can disagree about something, and yet, whichever one of us is eventually proven right, Mercury14 will still be wrong.

That cracks me up.

WE disagree???



That's the most polite way yet that you've called me an idiot!


__________________
If you think it is acceptable to take a percentage of someone's income above your station in life, then everyone in that station, as well as everyone below your station in life will find it perfectly acceptable to take like amount from you.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Redneck Translation: I don't read anything that might take me out of my comfort zone, it's better to simply ad hominem...

Oh fucking please.

The entire opinion piece you posted was ad hominem and unsubstatiated bullshit from beginning to end, as are most of what pass for "informative articles" on that site.

You know it, I know it.. You can at least admit that you're using a purely partisan blog site to back your POV ala Dizzybooby.

Come to think of it, that used to be HIS goto source too didn't it?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

And yet, it was government control and oversight of CRA, Freddie and Fannie that brought those companies to their knees...

Bullshit.

Nobody forced those banks, who held the vast majority of the sub-primes that failed (Not Freddie and Fannie) by the way, to finance anyone. The real culprit here was greed and deregulation spearheaded by the banking and mortgage industry Lobby, and gobbled up by the Republican majority in search of your Randian "Free Market" regulation free Utopia.

The CRA had been in place for 30 years, it wasn't the cause of the burst bubble. That's just a convenient scapegoat for those that despise social programs to point to rather than face the fact that businesses, banks in particular, simply cannot be trusted to function without strict oversight and regulations to keep them from gambling away other people's money looking for the big score.

Because THAT was what happened when the banking industry started writing out all of those risky mortgages. Property values were artificially inflated and they had nothing to lose by betting against the mortgagee. If the mortgagee defaulted 5 years down the road when their mortgage ballooned then the bank could simply foreclose on a property that had gained substantial value in the interim and do it all over again. It worked for awhile, but artificially inflated real estate values couldn't last forever any more than tech stocks could before the .com bubble. The house of cards came tumbling down and those who championed deregulation started pointing fingers at the CRA, which had functioned very well until the Graham, Leach, Bliley Act of 1999 repealed safeguards put in place after the stock market crash of 1929.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Oh fucking please.

The entire opinion piece you posted was ad hominem and unsubstatiated bullshit from beginning to end, as are most of what pass for "informative articles" on that site.

You know it, I know it.. You can at least admit that you're using a purely partisan blog site to back your POV ala Dizzybooby.

Come to think of it, that used to be HIS goto source too didn't it?

How would you know? Channeling the Obama Administration...?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That's not bullshit.

Those banks were under increasing pressure to make affirmative-action loans to protect themselves from the race industry, something that BOTH Obama and ACORN were part of and were aided in by the hapless Bush who doesn't get nearly enough credit for his endless outreach programs aimed at Democrat voters...

So, they made the loans because they could turn around and "sell" them to the Democrat-controlled (via Harvard) Freddie and Fannie with zero scrutinization over the actual validity of the loans.

When a low percentage of blacks own homes, the only answer to the Left is institutionalized racism and they worked diligently to discern and destroy all vestiges of this "racism" in the industry and it was easier to make bad loans than to confront the force and weight of the Federal government.