Cog wrote:The market will tell you what products and services are wanted or needed. We don't need the government putting their thumbs on the scale to affect some societal need. That is full blown socialism which always leads to authoritarian government and misery.
Cog wrote:I'm quite happy with how my life turned out GHung. How about you? You sound angry bro. Its only six more years. Surely a man of your intelligence can do something else for six years.
Cog wrote:Intervention in a time of economic and monetary collapse is not socialism. It's an expected part of what government does. The fact you don't understand the difference is telling.
Cog wrote:The market will tell you what products and services are wanted or needed. We don't need the government putting their thumbs on the scale to affect some societal need. That is full blown socialism which always leads to authoritarian government and misery.
Cog wrote:The market will tell you what products and services are wanted or needed. We don't need the government putting their thumbs on the scale to affect some societal need. That is full blown socialism which always leads to authoritarian government and misery.
Cog wrote:....... There are all kinds of radical leftie ideas being floated out there like demanding that workers get a piece of a corporation just for the fact of working there or capping the pay levels of CEO's. That sort of nonsense.
Cog wrote:I'm referring specifically to evilgenius's idea of government competing with the banks as being the preferred lender to the citizenry. That would put the banks at a competitive disadvantage since the government can control the money supply and interest rates. That is putting a big thumb on how lending is supposed to work. I will go further and say the government should have never got into the student loan program. Make student loans dischargeable during bankruptcy and you will see the appetite of reckless lending go way down.
But during the financial crisis during the 2007-2009 recession, the Treasury and Fed were faced with a complete lock-up in lending. No one would lend because no one knew what the risk would be. Now I might argue that allowing more banks to fail would have been a better idea. Wells Fargo should have been allowed to go under. Most likely GM on the automotive side as well. But you can't argue that the FED and Treasury should have allowed a total lockup in the banking system and just said "Oh Well". That is why we have a FED and Treasury and FDIC to begin with. To manage a crisis and to provide stability during non crisis times. .
But in the normal course of affairs, those outside of a recession, the government needs to leave corporations alone as long as the corporations are acting within the law. The market will tell you if societal needs are being met through profits. Unprofitable firms should be allowed to fail. There are all kinds of radical leftie ideas being floated out there like demanding that workers get a piece of a corporation just for the fact of working there or capping the pay levels of CEO's. That sort of nonsense.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests