More change you can believe in.

[highfigh]

Is there a particular element that concerns you?

I've argued before that it would have been better to let the companies go bankrupt and salvage them from bankruptcy than what was done because it would allow a voiding of contracts and restructuring of debts (such as the high-bonus contracts with the executive who bankrupted it). This looks, from what I see, to be an attempt to create a process that allows those changes without first requiring a bankruptcy; clearing up the legal limbo the current take-overs are in.

So, if the huge corporations were allowed to fail, what should be done with the small companies that served as the suppliers- let them fail, too? I would almost bet that if all of the suppliers went under, it would have put more people out of work than GM alone.

If they want to limit the pay and bonuses of people in charge of corporations that received TARP money, I don't have as much of a problem but generally, I don't like government getting involved in business unless criminal activities are being regulated out of normal operation.

 

[JerryLove]

So, if the huge corporations were allowed to fail, what should be done with the small companies that served as the suppliers- let them fail, too? I would almost bet that if all of the suppliers went under, it would have put more people out of work than GM alone.

They haven't gone under though... because GM is still buying... because they were bailed out.

That was the whole point of the bail-out. Not to save GM, but to protect the economy at large.

If they want to limit the pay and bonuses of people in charge of corporations that received TARP money, I don't have as much of a problem

I'm not sure they have the legal groudns to do so.

but generally, I don't like government getting involved in business unless criminal activities are being regulated out of normal operation.

So then you have no problem with the failure of the financial system itself, nor the housing meltdown, nor the bankrupting of companies like GM by their management because none of these were criminal?

I believe: if it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist. Essential services (ones which we cannot tolerate the failre of) are exactly what the government should be involved in (not neccessairily the Fed).

I disagree with much of what was done, but I also disagree with much being said by my fellow opponents.

 

[highfigh]

Now, now. Socialists might be heathen baby eating pederasts but that would be real dumb. Why would they take over failed companies as a power grab? Oh right, they could take over all bankrupt companies and rule the world!

Countries that have dictators often give work to the manufacturers, so they'll have something to do and a way to keep people working. With Nazi Germany, the USSR, Communist China, etc as examples, I'm not sure why this wouldn't be obvious. They isolated themselves from the rest of the world by causing their currency to fall so low it wasn't worth buying and it was "We'll pretend to pay you if you pretend to work" for a long time.

 

[JerryLove]

Because I'm against the federal government taking over every aspect of our lives.

What has the fed done to show that it is intent on deciding whether you sleep on your side or your back?

Or, more relevently, what has the Obama administration been doing to add limits to whom you can marry?

"every aspect" is hyperbole at best.

You tell me why I would want my tax dollars going into a failed business?

To prevent you from loosing your job to a failed economy and then being killed by an angry mob.

Look at how well all their investments have worked out. GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy....bailing out banks weather they need it or not....Unemployment is still rising.

These would be very valid points had the bailouts occured before the meltdown.

But all this was going on before. The question, which can only be estimated, is "would it have been worse if we didn't"?

Now they are going after health care, and this is where we taxpayers need to stand up and tell them no.

Because we have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and some of the least effective in the first world, we should make sure to maintain the status quo?

When did the president become an expert in strategic corporate management? The federal government is famous for its mismanagement,

You know who else is famous for mismanagement? Banks and car companies.

yet this administration continues to demonstrate its certainty that Washington always knows best. The government is there to set up a framework for the individual to prosper, succeed and create wealth not the other way around.

So you mean that the government's job is to make sure that the economy is capable of functioning so that individuals can persue success?

I agree.

That was, actaully, the point of bailing out the banks.

 

[JerryLove]

Countries that have dictators often give work to the manufacturers, so they'll have something to do and a way to keep people working. With Nazi Germany, the USSR, Communist China, etc as examples, I'm not sure why this wouldn't be obvious. They isolated themselves from the rest of the world by causing their currency to fall so low it wasn't worth buying and it was "We'll pretend to pay you if you pretend to work" for a long time.

The US, who spends more than any country in the world, has done this exact same thing for a century.

Countries with dictators also experience yearly seasons. This seems like the "hitler liked dogs" godwin-inducing post.

 

[highfigh]

They haven't gone under though... because GM is still buying... because they were bailed out.

That was the whole point of the bail-out. Not to save GM, but to protect the economy at large.

I'm not sure they have the legal groudns to do so.

So then you have no problem with the failure of the financial system itself, nor the housing meltdown, nor the bankrupting of companies like GM by their management because none of these were criminal?

I believe: if it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist. Essential services (ones which we cannot tolerate the failre of) are exactly what the government should be involved in (not neccessairily the Fed).

I disagree with much of what was done, but I also disagree with much being said by my fellow opponents.

I'm not sure the failures weren't criminal but it would be hard for us to prove. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of money changed hands from "this one guy" to politicians, by way of "a guy who knows a guy".

I think GM should have been split up years ago and I agree that they were too big to be sustainable. It's great to diversify but that was ridiculous. They owned their whole supply chain with only a few exceptions.

 

[JerryLove]

I think GM should have been split up years ago and I agree that they were too big to be sustainable. It's great to diversify but that was ridiculous. They owned their whole supply chain with only a few exceptions.

I think we agree that it would have been better to have delt with this problem 10 years ago (often cases more), though I'm not sure how you would without massive government regulation of the private sector.

 

[Matt34]

What has the fed done to show that it is intent on deciding whether you sleep on your side or your back?

Or, more relevently, what has the Obama administration been doing to add limits to whom you can marry?

"every aspect" is hyperbole at best.

You want me to make a list of how the government is invading our day to day livelihood...give me a couple days.

To prevent you from loosing your job to a failed economy and then being killed by an angry mob.

Wow, good thing big brother is there to protect me.

These would be very valid points had the bailouts occured before the meltdown.

Goes to show you the efficiency when the feds are involved.


But all this was going on before. The question, which can only be estimated, is "would it have been worse if we didn't"?

Because we have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and some of the least effective in the first world, we should make sure to maintain the status quo?

I've never said I'm against healthcare reform, I'm just not a fan of what is being proposed, it's cost or the way it's being shoved down our throats as the only option.

You know who else is famous for mismanagement? Banks and car companies.

Touché but you don't hire the same people that are running SS and medicare in the dirt to bail out them.

So you mean that the government's job is to make sure that the economy is capable of functioning so that individuals can persue success?

I agree.

That was, actaully, the point of bailing out the banks.

When the government starts forcing its hand upon the banks is where I take serious issue.

 

[JerryLove]

You want me to make a list of how the government is invading our day to day livelihood...give me a couple days

Perhaps one focused on the point you wish to make would be best

Wow, good thing big brother is there to protect me.

Your sarcasam aside: would you rather be here or Somalia? Even if we pretend the violence isn't an issue.

My point being that the government has done some good. Whether this was the best option is debateable. I don't think it was. But I don't think that "doing nothing at all" was a better choice.

I've never said I'm against healthcare reform, I'm just not a fan of what is being proposed, it's cost or the way it's being shoved down our throats as the only option.

At this point, I've moved more to one side. I want a single-payor system.

Touché but you don't hire the same people that are running SS and medicare in the dirt to bail out them.

Though I'm not defending the choices of who is bailing them out, I do think that the characterization of (for example) SS is a bit unfair. Social Security would be funded in perpituity (as far as we can forcast) if it was actaully getting the money that we have been collecting for it since we expanded the tax in the 80s. Instead that's been diverted.

When the government starts forcing its hand upon the banks is where I take serious issue.

I think that the original idea from the depression: to offer insurance, but only to banks that comply with strong regulation, was a good idea. I think that the regulation failed to keep up with the times.

 

[Matt34]

Your sarcasam aside: would you rather be here or Somalia? Even if we pretend the violence isn't an issue.

My point being that the government has done some good. Whether this was the best option is debateable. I don't think it was. But I don't think that "doing nothing at all" was a better choice.

\

I've been through worse and survived.

I agree it's debatable and like to hear others take on the situation....except those pesky, socialist loving Canucks.

 

[Davemcc]

And here is a many pointed quote back at you:
"Arguments for nationalization
* In the case of an essential service - particularly one on which lives may depend - nationalisation may ensure the continuation of this service regardless of commercial or environmental pressure. Although a governmental monopoly is nonetheless still a monopoly, it is answerable to the electorate rather than a small group of shareholders.

Define essential. National defense, police, courts, public health, infrastructure, etc. are all generally considered essential. Beyond that, any further gov't functions are discretionary. There's no way ownership of banks and auto companies could be considered essential.

* Nationalisation can help remove extreme imbalances of wealth.

More like a way to remove wealth, period. Nationalization removes any incentive for private investment, substituting instead taxpayer funded spending that is removed by force from the performing economy. It is ultimately a drain on the real economy for quite often politically motivated purposes or wasteful schemes without any purpose or plan.

* Nationalisation and the threat of same reduces the ability of non-governmental organisations to challenge or influence a democratically-electedgovernment's power.

This only substitutes govt's absolute power for the ability to question or influence gov't. Even democratically elected govts need to have challenges and show that their policies and values are superior. The only way that non-governmental entities can have a detrimental effect is if unprincipled persons are elected. In fact, the election of principled persons to public office is the best, though least used method of safeguarding democracy.

* By creating a publicly accountable monopoly, nationalisation eliminates wasteful competition and transaction costs (e.g. instead of three companies producing the same thing resulting in duplication and inefficiency, one nationally-owned company can make the same product).

A nationalized industry with no competition removes all incentive for improving a product or service, stagnates technology and innovation and fixes prices at whatever the monopoly demands. Competition by its nature breeds improvement, quality and cost effectiveness.

* A profitable nationalised industry contributes with its profits directly to the common wealth of the whole country, rather than to the wealth of a subset of its population.

A single profitable nationalized industry is no match for the profit and economic contributions of a number of competing interests. Society also benefits from the lower costs to consumers, better products and technological advances. Businesses with no competition stagnate.

* More accountability to voters - e.g. if the telephone service is nationalised, voters can bring pressure onto the government to provide better services, and parliament may have the power to sack anyone responsible for a reduction in the quality of service.

There may be accountability to voters every four years but at the expense of day to day accountability whereby one can vote with their dollars and choose the best performing service and let others go by the wayside. Accountability to voters still only represents gradual change over long periods and only then when things go catastrophically wrong. Besides, a gov't that gets elected on a completely unrelated platform can end up in charge of these businesses and have no idea how it's run or how to improve it, yet still be in charge.

* Nationalised industries are guaranteed against bankruptcy and so can borrow money at lower interest rates to reflect the lower risk to the lender.

They are guaranteed to continue indefinitely long after they have failed and continue to fail indefinitely at the taxpayer's expense. And they borrow with taxpayer's backing and go back to the trough repeatedly at taxpayers expense.

* Employees may be more inclined to view their work positively if it is directed by a management appointed by a government that they have a say in electing, rather than a management representing a shareholding minority. "

Workers don't care who owns the company as long as they get their paycheck. You may be right in the sense that gov't jobs are unionized and pay and benefits are generally higher than their counterparts, at taxpayer expense and employee expectations are very low. It's guaranteed inefficiency.

 

[highfigh]

I don't think I said it did...


Well, here in Quebec the government sells electricity, alcohol and runs gambling casinos and all this money is redistributed. Again, I'm not against capitalism. But I'm not against some gov't run stuff either.

This has not been the case at Hydro Quebec, Loto Quebec or the SAQ. Oh and I forgot we have no fault car accident insurance.

Says who? Again, select areas can be government run.

My whole point is to get away from ideology and to be pragmatic. If it works, it works. You are quoting theory and I have real world examples that work. If reality contradicts theory should I give up reality?

Again, not the case in Quebec. We are bailing out banks and car makers...

How does "No Fault" insurance help drivers with a perfect record? What happens when one person who drives like a complete idiot is constantly caught speeding, crashing and injuring or killing people? Does their premium increase or stay the same? Is there any incentive to drive safely?

Re: the rest- you don't like any kind of system where people have some incentive to be creative or ambitious, do you? Why not have the employers pay the government and then the government can decide who should get what?

No thanks. You can have that. I don't want a government that eliminates competition by being the only game in town.

 

[JerryLove]

How does "No Fault" insurance help drivers with a perfect record? What happens when one person who drives like a complete idiot is constantly caught speeding, crashing and injuring or killing people? Does their premium increase or stay the same? Is there any incentive to drive safely?

Unless that means something different there than here in Florida: "no fault" helps by covering you regardless of fault. It has no relationship to premiums, except perhaps to raise them a bit for good drivers (as it is possible for an insurance company to have to pay out to a not-at-fault client).

Re: the rest- you don't like any kind of system where people have some incentive to be creative or ambitious, do you? Why not have the employers pay the government and then the government can decide who should get what?

My question would be: and incentive to do what.

Right now, private health insurance pays either per-procedure: goving an incentive not to fix you and not to spend time with you, and not to take the best route, but to put you through the most procedures that take the least effort, or per patient: in which case the incentive is not to see you at all.

The drug companies make money not by helping you, but by selling you drugs; and the insurance companies make money not by paying for your treatment, but by *not* paying for it.

There's tons of incentives in private healthcare: but none of them are to provide useful service.

No thanks. You can have that. I don't want a government that eliminates competition by being the only game in town.

You haven't told me why you don't oppose government police, and fire departments, and a governmental millitary yet.

For me, I don't want any system thatis looking to use my suffering or death as an opportunity for profit. There are indeed natural monopolies; and in my experience private companies left to their own are far more abusive in that circumstance that governmental agencies. There's a time and place (well, market) for both.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I've been through worse and survived.

I agree it's debatable and like to hear others take on the situation....except those pesky, socialist loving Canucks.

Hee! Hee! Are we getting under your skin?

Are you aware that Canada has one of the most tightly regulated banking systems in the world? And, are you also aware the soundest banking system in the world is also in Canada? Coincedence? I think not...

Fact is, Canadian banks have weathered the meltdown with little pain. All five of the largest Canadian banks are on the list of the world's 50 safest banks. The ratings were issued by Standard & Poor's, Moody’s and Fitch and reported by Global Finance magazine.

Those 5 banks have all been targeted for aquisition by other international banks because they are so attractive. However, the Canadian Banking act forbids it. Pretty fortunate really.

Sure, capitalism is the best economic system. But, capitalists are only capitalists when things are going well. It's human nature. I remember about 25 -30 years ago, when Harley-Davidson was on the ropes, because they were building crap bikes and were being hammered by better, cheaper Japanese bikes. So, they persuaded the US government to put tariffs on large displacement Japanese bikes.

Same thing was going on with the auto industry. And now, Canadian softwood lumber also faces US (so much for NAFTA) tariffs, because most Canadian lumber comes from crown land and the stumpage fees are low for harvesters. Most US lumber comes from private land and I guess the landowners can't (or don't want) to compete.

Sometimes business people need to be protected from themselves. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a socialist, by nature. I consider myself to be a pragmatist. I say whatever works, is fine by me. One shouldn't let himself be handcuffed by ideology. I can't recall who said it, but a favourite quote of mine is: "The worst thing about socialism is socialists, the worst thing about capitalism is capitalists." I take this to mean that both systems could work perfectly - if we weren't human beings.

 

[lsiberian]

Hee! Hee! Are we getting under your skin?

Are you aware that Canada has one of the most tightly regulated banking systems in the world? And, are you also aware the soundest banking system in the world is also in Canada? Coincedence? I think not...

Fact is, Canadian banks have weathered the meltdown with little pain. All five of the largest Canadian banks are on the list of the world's 50 safest banks. The ratings were issued by Standard & Poor's, Moody’s and Fitch and reported by Global Finance magazine.

Those 5 banks have all been targeted for aquisition by other international banks because they are so attractive. However, the Canadian Banking act forbids it. Pretty fortunate really.

Sure, capitalism is the best economic system. But, capitalists are only capitalists when things are going well. It's human nature. I remember about 25 -30 years ago, when Harley-Davidson was on the ropes, because they were building crap bikes and were being hammered by better, cheaper Japanese bikes. So, they persuaded the US government to put tariffs on large displacement Japanese bikes.

Same thing was going on with the auto industry. And now, Canadian softwood lumber also faces US (so much for NAFTA) tariffs, because most Canadian lumber comes from crown land and the stumpage fees are low for harvesters. Most US lumber comes from private land and I guess the landowners can't (or don't want) to compete.

Sometimes business people need to be protected from themselves. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a socialist, by nature. I consider myself to be a pragmatist. I say whatever works, is fine by me. One shouldn't let himself be handcuffed by ideology. I can't recall who said it, but a favourite quote of mine is: "The worst thing about socialism is socialists, the worst thing about capitalism is capitalists." I take this to mean that both systems could work perfectly - if we weren't human beings.

The issue is our government is very bad at running things. Canadians are probably fine with it, but our government is just terrible.

1 issue with capitalism is that once a product matures it is reduced to 2 or 3 producers making it no longer truly competitive. I think banning mergers or being much more shrewd about them may be a good idea. Imagine if all the sub companies of GM ran on their own. You'd see more innovation IMO and more competition.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The issue is our government is very bad at running things. Canadians are probably fine with it, but our government is just terrible.

1 issue with capitalism is that once a product matures it is reduced to 2 or 3 producers making it no longer truly competitive. I think banning mergers or being much more shrewd about them may be a good idea. Imagine if all the sub companies of GM ran on their own. You'd see more innovation IMO and more competition.

I wouldn't say that the Canadian government is especially good at running things. Costs for many things (ok most things, except health care) are higher in Canada than in the US. That can be directly attributable to government involvement in the economy. It's the price we pay for - arguably - greater stability. During the most recent economic boom, there were many complaints that our economy was underperforming those of other developed countries. A lot of that could be blamed on government regulation.

However, when the bust came, we weren't hit to the same extent as the US. You could say that by not hitting the highest highs, we weren't as vulnerable to hitting the lowest lows.

That said, we haven't gotten off scott-free from the fallout. Our government, after posting many years of surpluses, has put us into a major deficit this year by spending like drunken sailors on "stimulus projects" across the country. The day will come, and soon, when we have to pay the piper. Hopefully, the economy will have picked up steam by then.

I wouldn't be so hard on your own government - the US is still the most powerful nation on earth. You don't get and stay there by being completely incompetent. And, give Obama a chance - it's still early days in his administration. Lots of people are scared he's going to transform your country into something you don't want. From what I gather, the White House doesn't have nearly as much power over the government, as the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) has over ours.

 

[lsiberian]

I wouldn't say that the Canadian government is especially good at running things. Costs for many things (ok most things, except health care) are higher in Canada than in the US. That can be directly attributable to government involvement in the economy. It's the price we pay for - arguably - greater stability. During the most recent economic boom, there were many complaints that our economy was underperforming those of other developed countries. A lot of that could be blamed on government regulation.

However, when the bust came, we weren't hit to the same extent as the US. You could say that by not hitting the highest highs, we weren't as vulnerable to hitting the lowest lows.

That said, we haven't gotten off scott-free from the fallout. Our government, after posting many years of surpluses, has put us into a major deficit this year by spending like drunken sailors on "stimulus projects" across the country. The day will come, and soon, when we have to pay the piper. Hopefully, the economy will have picked up steam by then.

I wouldn't be so hard on your own government - the US is still the most powerful nation on earth. You don't get and stay there by being completely incompetent. And, give Obama a chance - it's still early days in his administration. Lots of people are scared he's going to transform your country into something you don't want. From what I gather, the White House doesn't have nearly as much power over the government, as the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) has over ours.

These are the conservatives you hear, but the minority party is always the loudest. The liberals think Obama is the savior of America. Most moderates think he's got great potential, but he's no saint either. He has helped our image abroad though and that needed bad repair.

 

[tcarcio]

Which socialists are you thinking of?

Not any in particular but you can take your pick...prominent socialist would include Karl Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, Fidel Castro, Ernesto Guevara, Muammar al-Gaddafi.

 

[JerryLove]

Not any in particular but you can take your pick...prominent socialist would include Karl Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, Fidel Castro, Ernesto Guevara, Muammar al-Gaddafi.

So not ones with any real bearing to Obama, the US, or the rest of the first world: more the ones who wonder if "marriage" is a type of ownership and so should be disallowed.

 

[highfigh]

Unless that means something different there than here in Florida: "no fault" helps by covering you regardless of fault. It has no relationship to premiums, except perhaps to raise them a bit for good drivers (as it is possible for an insurance company to have to pay out to a not-at-fault client).

My question would be: and incentive to do what.

Right now, private health insurance pays either per-procedure: goving an incentive not to fix you and not to spend time with you, and not to take the best route, but to put you through the most procedures that take the least effort, or per patient: in which case the incentive is not to see you at all.

The drug companies make money not by helping you, but by selling you drugs; and the insurance companies make money not by paying for your treatment, but by *not* paying for it.

There's tons of incentives in private healthcare: but none of them are to provide useful service.

You haven't told me why you don't oppose government police, and fire departments, and a governmental millitary yet.

For me, I don't want any system thatis looking to use my suffering or death as an opportunity for profit. There are indeed natural monopolies; and in my experience private companies left to their own are far more abusive in that circumstance that governmental agencies. There's a time and place (well, market) for both.

First off, I was replying to someone else' post. Second, I have repeatedly said that government is needed for some things, including police, fire, securing our borders and national interests.

We need the fire departments for obvious reasons- private citizens don't have the resources to fight fires on a large scale. Add life-saving/EMS to that, and they're definitely a good thing to have. Police are needed because a large number of people can't control themselves, so they commit crimes that need to be investigated and when the suspect is caught, they need to be apprehended. They react violently to what others say and do, whether there's a good reason, or not. They lie, cheat, steal, burgle, kill and injure others daily and in the absence of the police, we would have mayhem. For people as a whole to be able to live in peace, it's necessary to remove some from the rest and, while they were previously incarcerated "to pay their debt to society", it's only to get them off the streets, now.