How is this not yet another Maddof ponzi scheme?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_spiker067, Feb 13, 2009.

  1. B_spiker067

    B_spiker067 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is asserted that WWII was the massive govt. spending that got us out the Great Depression, that it validates Keynesian theory. Fact of the matter is that during the war we were still in a depression as evidenced by rationing. Immediately after the war the economy was not that great either.

    What the war provided was a huge post war industrial base and a GI Bill to educate millions of young men. Also, the war was fought abroad and greatly advantaged the U.S. because all or our industrial rivals were decimated; starting from absolute zero (except maybe the soviets).

    That said how is borrowing mind boggling sums of money from the future going to pay for the present? Ans. - It doesn't. It is time to pay the piper. It is time to return to a values based system.

    In my personal opinion the govt. should be only involved in massive money injections to educate the entire nation. The only govt. investment with proven returns. The only other thing the govt. should be directly involved in is public works developing alternative energies: new nuclear plants, solar plants, research in fusion, and biodiesel from algae.

    What is left for govt. beyond that is returning to a market driven economy that is reasonably regulated. The values we speak off and reasonable regulation are what should be the subject of scientific analysis and debate.

    I mean really. Guys hired to run around in Green T-shirts and weather striping or the govt. buying electric golf carts with no intended purpose is laughable economic theory.

    BTW, INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ECONOMY. THE ONLY ONES RESPONSIBLE ARE OUR POLITICIANS (DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS). THE BUCK STOPS WITH THEM, PERIOD. IRONICALLY, THEY ARE THE SAME ONES MANAGING THIS BAILOUT.
     
  2. ZOS23xy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,073
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    directly above the center of the earth
    The mega corporations should be broken up so money is in the hands of more and not fewer people.

    The Mega Corporations prevent small businesses from happening.
     
  3. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Is this because no matter how bad one's personal decisions are, no matter how badly one screws up and makes bad choices ... it's always someone else's fault?

    When it comes down to it, in the entire course of human history, every decision ever made was made by an individual.
     
  4. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keynesian spending does not rely on WW2 alone to validate it, especially because most of our global competitors were decimated after the war.
     
  5. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    554
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    The seep like mentality of the consumer public prevent small business happening.

    We have the power to dismantle mega corps, we're just too soft/stupid to realise it and think we need big gumbyment to do our dirty work for us.

    The free market provides all the solutions and it's real simple.

    Just don't buy ther shit.

    That is all.
     
  6. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    554
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    And here lies the problem. I have no idea where this idea has developed from but another of the great evils of modern economics is the distorting factors that government intervention has on economic development.

    Politicians have absolutely no idea about economics unless it comes out of one thier "advisors" mouths. Relying on them to provide you with a roof over your head, food on the table and a decent education is a sure fire way of getting none of those things.
     
  7. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    sure, break up the mega corporations that employ hundreds of thousands.
    steal all the equity from their shareholders who invest their money in those companies. Give the dividends to the people who do not own and invest in the corporation as opposed to those who have provided investment and liquidity in exchange for dividends and value growth.

    just give it all away to people who don't invest in that company and don't work for the company either.

    yeah cause money isn't in the hands of shareholders, individual investors, pension funds, retirement accounts, charitable foundations...and needs to be in the hands of more people, who that money does not belong to.

    Fire all the employees. Liquidate the assets. Screw the shareholders, confiscate it all and give it all away.

    That makes sense.

    :rolleyes:
     
  8. B_spiker067

    B_spiker067 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    The game of Monopoly [tm] is played by rules. The rule makers in our case are our politicians. We (individuals and corporations) as Monopoly players are simply playing by the rules or "Go to jail, directly to jail without passing go. Without collecting $200." How many NINJA mortgage broker are in jail for fraud right now? Ans. Not enough to make the news.

    Look into it and you will see that lobbyist bought our politicians and got them to de-regulated, re-regulate, or regulate in a manner that went against economic sense. The politicians didn't have to sell out, but they did.

    Look at Canada. Fareed Zakaria has an excellent article online Zakaria: The Canadian Solution | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com. I don't agree with some of it. The stuff about Europe being leveraged 61-1 is eye-opening.
     
    #8 B_spiker067, Feb 13, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2009
  9. B_spiker067

    B_spiker067 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, lack of developed, well educated minds keep small businesses from happening. People with ideas and gumption make things happen.
     
  10. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    well said

    +1
     
  11. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Right, and then we can all enjoy the massive price inflation that would occur shortly after. Small business makes up around 90% of all businesses in the U.S...
     
  12. B_spiker067

    B_spiker067 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mostly true but especially not true on the education part.

    We rely on the govt. to supply the rules to a vibrant, thriving economy. Our govt. has confused that with pandering to the elements of greed within us all.

    Glass-Steagall had/has a purpose our political geniuses did not appreciate: Glass-Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But even Glass-Steagall was imperfect.
     
  13. B_spiker067

    B_spiker067 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does it depend on then?
     
  14. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,597
    Likes Received:
    886
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    What? Really? Are you THAT deluded or simply that ignorant.

    Rationing during the war was NOT because of recession... it was because the Government was trying to direct productivity into the WAR. The Less gas people used, the more available for the tanks and planes...

    It was the idea that we should incur the LEAST POSSIBLE debt to fight the war.

    BTW- taxes were raised during the war... AND people encouraged to buy War Bonds... essentially voluntary taxation.

    But then, that's what you get when you have a Democrat running a war.



    Oh- and for your information, the New Deal Restored the GNP of the nation to its PRE- wall street crash levels within 3 years of being implemented.
    FOUR YEARS before the US entered WWII.
    By November of 41- a month before Pearl Harbor, the New Deal had cut unemployment in half from its 1934 peak of 29% to 15%


    If you want to spout theories about history, FIRST STUDY HISTORY and get your timelines and your facts straight.
     
  15. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    540
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia
    Good point. While Canada has not escaped the effects of the world economic crisis, it's not as bad as in the States. Businesses are feeling the pinch of the US downturn and housing prices have fallen. Just not as much as south of the border. It's still fairly easy to find work, especially in the west.

    Canadian banks have always been very conservative, perhaps reflecting the basic nature of the people (they could be described as socialist conservatives). The banks didn't get themselves into a situation where they are holding excessive amounts of toxic debt. It's never been really easy to borrow money in Canada. Not super hard, but they don't give the shit away.

    Canadian governments spent like drunken sailors though the 1970's and 80's, running up HUGE debts. As I remember, there was kind of nation consensus in the early 90's, that that had to change. The Liberal government raised taxes and reduced spending starting around 1993. It was painful and there was a huge hew and cry from the left over social spending and the right over taxes. But by 1998 the federal government was running surpluses, restoring some of the cuts and paying down the national debt. Canada's national government debt is now 28 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, compared to an average of 62 per cent of GDP among other G7 countries. Per capita federal debt in 2007 was $15,458. Roughly half what it is in the US.

    The Canadian economy is highly regulated, and has a long history of government participation in the form of Crown corporations and high taxes. There is plenty of capitalist opportunity, but traditional the returns are somewhat lower IMO.

    edit- What I worry about with this stimulus bill is that it may not be big enough. IMO, not spending enough and having it fail, would be worse than overspending. I think they should have cut out all the social spending, canceled the tax cuts, and spent all of the money on infrastructure, education, research, and revamping the energy sector.
     
    #15 vince, Feb 14, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2009
  16. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Yes, but that relates to levels of influence and compliance with rules - it wasn't really the point I was trying to make, which to be fair was cast wider than the financial crises unfolding.

    I'm fully aware of many of the myriad causes for events of the last 12 months or so as they relate to global financial matters. Your last sentence begins to hint at part of what I was meaning, in the case of politicians; they were not compelled act as they did, they 'decided' to.
     
  17. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    The way I see it is, no matter how you cut the cake, Capitalism puts money in the hands of the few rather than the many. This actually is useful, because if the money available to spend was in the hands of the many and not the hands of the few, and the many did not get along, there would not be sufficiently focused investments to be beneficial to the whole of the people.

    It's a lot easier to get one person to invest millions of dollars than it is to get a large number of people to invest the same total.


    If you really want the wealth to be balanced, you must change the system such that it is not a system which intentionally unbalances it for the purpose of greater future advancement. But it is also vitally important to keep in mind that this new system MUST be designed to be able to stimulate research and advancement WITHOUT the singularly controllable holder of large amounts of funds. If the new system cannot do that, we fall behind.
     
  18. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Hmmmm. . . my biggest issue with the stimulus package is: What happened to the idea of becoming oil-free, alternative-energy-dependent? I agree so far all it seems to do is buy a few more months of keeping banks and Wall Street alive. Well, maybe a year. Fortunately, if you still have any cash in US funds one can easily buy and own investment income property -- Hell, just property in general -- in the lovely Provinces north of the border. Of course, you have to pay in full. No mortgages.

    Maybe a nice lake-side home in Kelowna, BC? A baby strip-mall disguised as a real piece of down town architecture where 'Mericuhns can come on vacation and spend those Dollars (now basically equal -- sometimes less -- that the Looney) on expensive coffee-based drinks and banana belt wine? Al fresco dining on side walks outside of little boites cobbled together and run by the natives? After all, everyone needs a totem pole key chain and some post cards of moose(s).
     
    #18 midlifebear, Feb 14, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2009
Draft saved Draft deleted