Sad but true... [modified]
-
fat_boy wrote:
On the other hand, its not Europe that has bought the world to its financial knees so a bit of regulation appears to be good thing. What is obvious is the continuing Europe-phobia displayed buy the US. Even after a serious disaster such as this it is incapable of criticising itself.
The question is what caused the crisis? Was this a failure of free market capitalism or was it a faulure of centralized planning? All of the solutions involve, directly or indirectly, some degree of AMericans abandoning the most cherised and ancient traditions of our society. Free market capitalism is characterized by economic booms and busts. They are inevitable. But the overall economic trend is always upwards. Centralized planing is characterized by efforts to manage those perfectly natural, and healthy, economic cycles. But the over all economic trend is always downwards. It is very important to have an unbiased assessment of what really failed here. I argue that it cannot be a failure of capitalism because capitalism brings with it the assumption of occassional failure. Failure is part of the system, but the system can always repair failure by applying new processess and ideas. This crisis is therefore purely the consequence of the failure of centralized planning, and as always, when collectivism fails the solution is more collectivism. That means the US must become more European because a little collectivism always lead to a little more. It is an insidious process. But many of us don't want to be Europeans. My ancestors escaped Europe for a reason: They didn't want to be governed by collectivists and elites.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Sorry, Stan, but that is the most absurd crock of BS I've ever seen you post. The credit crisis was caused by a proliferation of unregulated securities of dubious value - a pure capitalism occurrence, no government involvement (except a failure to regulate or warn). Capitalism failed here by creating a situation in which the very trust it is based on was undermined. To say this had anything to do with centralized planning is simply false. To argue that the bailout caused this to be worse, is just as fraudulent as to argue that the bailout is curing it - the evidence just isn't available yet. And itf you are talking instead of the looming failure of the Big 3, then clearly that is a failure of capitalism, since they created their own situation through years of mismanagement.
-
fat_boy wrote:
This is so untrue in so many ways one wonders where to start
Perhaps it is. On the other hand, it's merely the mirror image of the kind of anti-American crap you throw up against the wall to see if it sticks.
fat_boy wrote:
Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States". I dont know. Probably immigration. European populations are mostly stable for instance.
Population growth has nothing to do with job creation - otherwise African and Asian countries would be well ahead of the U.S.
fat_boy wrote:
On the other hand, its not Europe that has bought the world to its financial knees so a bit of regulation appears to be good thing.
And it was only a month ago that you were boasting that France had insulated itself from all the UK, US financial problems. Instead, France pretty consistently had led Europe in its market's inability to withstand the credit crisis.
fat_boy wrote:
What is obvious is the continuing Europe-phobia displayed buy the US. Even after a serious disaster such as this it is incapable of criticising itself
ROFL. You haven't read an American newspaper recently, have you? Instead you seize on one crack-brained theorist (recomended by knee-jerk Stan, for God's sake) as "proof" that your hatred for America has some rationale.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
recomended by knee-jerk Stan, for God's sake)
I articulated my considred opinion well. There was nothing knee-jerk about it. The only knee jerking around here is your reaction to anyone who disagrees with you.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
I agree with the Europe-phobia, but I'd extend that to so many other things like the fear about Obama becoming president, or Isam. Maybe it's just people not liking or having to change that gets them going. Fear mongering helps sell ads on TV and in print.
ANother example of using fear mongering to argue against fear mongering.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
fear mongering to argue against fear mongering
I was just trying to make an observation about fear mongering. I don't understand where all the fear is coming from. Can't we just discuss an issue or report the facts instead of interjecting fear into it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
This is so untrue in so many ways one wonders where to start
Perhaps it is. On the other hand, it's merely the mirror image of the kind of anti-American crap you throw up against the wall to see if it sticks.
fat_boy wrote:
Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States". I dont know. Probably immigration. European populations are mostly stable for instance.
Population growth has nothing to do with job creation - otherwise African and Asian countries would be well ahead of the U.S.
fat_boy wrote:
On the other hand, its not Europe that has bought the world to its financial knees so a bit of regulation appears to be good thing.
And it was only a month ago that you were boasting that France had insulated itself from all the UK, US financial problems. Instead, France pretty consistently had led Europe in its market's inability to withstand the credit crisis.
fat_boy wrote:
What is obvious is the continuing Europe-phobia displayed buy the US. Even after a serious disaster such as this it is incapable of criticising itself
ROFL. You haven't read an American newspaper recently, have you? Instead you seize on one crack-brained theorist (recomended by knee-jerk Stan, for God's sake) as "proof" that your hatred for America has some rationale.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
it's merely the mirror image of the kind of anti-American crap you throw up against the wall to see if it sticks.
I am not anti American, I just like to have a dig sometimes, for a bit of fun really. No, there are pros and cons to every society, every system, the US has its good and bad and so does Continental Europe. I generally like Americans as individuals. Decent, honest and hard working. Its your foreign policy that is offensive. Mind you, it almost always is self serving. I am not saying that of the UK or France is any better, but at least size makes the total sum of offensiveness less.
Oakman wrote:
African
Dont make me laugh.
Oakman wrote:
Asian
Just wait.
Oakman wrote:
you were boasting that France had insulated itself from all the UK, US financial probl
Nope, you are lying now. (I said it doesnt have home grown issues due to borrowing restrictions).
Oakman wrote:
France pretty consistently had led Europe in its market's inability to withstand the credit crisis
Germany is receding at .9% I believe, Frane still growijng at .1% so you are wrong.
Oakman wrote:
one crack-brained theorist
Its god to kow you have the same reaction to this guy as I do. OK, strike what I wrote and re-word it. Some Americans seem unable to criticise them selves despite the level of the disaster they have created.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What's more baffling is that with a market capitalization of only a little more than $4B (excludes Chrysler, which is privately held, bnut would guess you couldn't seel it for more than $2B right now...), they expect the taxpayers to lend them $25B... We should just purchase them at a small premium over market value, and fire the sorry lot. The cost would be less than half of the $25B they want, and at least we would own something in return, along with the right to install better management.
Two observations (1) Buying for $2B is not the only costs that would be involved. Investments, lay-offs, day-on-day finances to protect. These and other costs would require perhaps another equally large sum of money from taxpayers coffers. (2) Businessmen are very protective of their empire. They should know their business and its plans well enough to make decisions that guide its future. Government are not best at managing industry on a day by day basis as businessmen are. To effect a bail-out it would be right and proper for representatives of Government to sit on the board of directors in a non-executive manner thus applying both development of Strategy and Performance initiatives and nothing else until such time that those shares are sold.
-
Sorry, Stan, but that is the most absurd crock of BS I've ever seen you post. The credit crisis was caused by a proliferation of unregulated securities of dubious value - a pure capitalism occurrence, no government involvement (except a failure to regulate or warn). Capitalism failed here by creating a situation in which the very trust it is based on was undermined. To say this had anything to do with centralized planning is simply false. To argue that the bailout caused this to be worse, is just as fraudulent as to argue that the bailout is curing it - the evidence just isn't available yet. And itf you are talking instead of the looming failure of the Big 3, then clearly that is a failure of capitalism, since they created their own situation through years of mismanagement.
Rob Graham wrote:
The credit crisis was caused by a proliferation of unregulated securities of dubious value - a pure capitalism occurrence, no government involvement (except a failure to regulate or warn). Capitalism failed here by creating a situation in which the very trust it is based on was undermined.
ANd I maintain that such experimentation and the occassional failures it produces is a completely normal part of capitalism. If certain such actions are, or need to be made, illegal and punished than fine, we should do that. But we should always err on the side of economic liberty. Capitalism is an evolving process. If it isn't free to evolve and find better ways of building economies free of bureaucratic political influence, than we will begin quickly heading back into the same political territory we have fought so hard to escape in the first place.
Rob Graham wrote:
To say this had anything to do with centralized planning is simply false.
Sorry, but 70 some years of government insistuous involvment with the banking industry cannot be so casually dismissed. The centralized planning has been a major part of the process. And now we are told we need more of it. Well, we don't. We need less.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
recomended by knee-jerk Stan, for God's sake)
I articulated my considred opinion well. There was nothing knee-jerk about it. The only knee jerking around here is your reaction to anyone who disagrees with you.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only knee jerking around here is your reaction to anyone who disagrees with you.
Dream on, McDuck. I enjoy learning things from people who know more than I and there are many here who correct my misconceptions and or teach me things I never knew. Even in cases where we can do no more than agree to disagree, I have real respect for most folks who frequent SB. You, on the other hand, have a limited set of responses that can be summed up in about a dozen key words and anticipated by anyone who has had any extended contact with you. I don't disagree with you, Stan, any more than I do Troy; I laugh at both of you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/bushs_legacy_european_socialis.html[^] I don't disagree with Morris. However, it is wrong to place so much of the blame on Bush. He was merely the man in that position when the decision had to be made. The decision itself was inevitable from the very moment that Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it. Bush had no real choice. Or, at least, he had no choice that would have been made differently by any other politician we have available to put in his place. McCain, Clinton, Obama, even Romney, would not have done anything differently. Long decades of government management of the economy has left us unable to tolerate the otherwise minor downturns in the economy which are characteristic of capitalism. It would require the election of a true radical, someone far more conservative than even Ronald Reagan, which we don't have, to have avoided this. What would have been a minor cold if the government had never been involved, has become a form of fatal ebola. This was all unavoidable from the very first such government reaction which caused the greate depression. What this really all represents is the true end of the great depression. This was its goal from the very beginning. It is a testimony to the insidious nature of collectivism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:48 AM
There aren't any strong opinions here are there? :)
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
fear mongering to argue against fear mongering
I was just trying to make an observation about fear mongering. I don't understand where all the fear is coming from. Can't we just discuss an issue or report the facts instead of interjecting fear into it.
And I contend that the accusation of 'fear mongering' IS fear mongering. Conservatives try to make us afraid of the 'others' while liberals try to make us afraid of ourselves. In the end, its all the same thing. I believe there is plenty of reason to be concerned about this nation's growing flirtation with a European world view. That isn't fear mongering. I simply do not wish to be a European or to be governed as one. I believe in American Exceptionalism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only knee jerking around here is your reaction to anyone who disagrees with you.
Dream on, McDuck. I enjoy learning things from people who know more than I and there are many here who correct my misconceptions and or teach me things I never knew. Even in cases where we can do no more than agree to disagree, I have real respect for most folks who frequent SB. You, on the other hand, have a limited set of responses that can be summed up in about a dozen key words and anticipated by anyone who has had any extended contact with you. I don't disagree with you, Stan, any more than I do Troy; I laugh at both of you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Dream on, McDuck. I enjoy learning things from people who know more than I and there are many here who correct my misconceptions and or teach me things I never knew. Even in cases where we can do no more than agree to disagree, I have real respect for most folks who frequent SB.
No, you don't. Your use of Jefferson to validate your preconcieved opinions is proof of that.
Oakman wrote:
I don't disagree with you, Stan, any more than I do Troy; I laugh at both of you.
Laugh all you like, Jon. The truth is that you and I agree on far more than Illion and I do. There is simply one small point of disagreement which you cannot tolerate. It sends you into some kind of bizarre intellectual tizzy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
And I contend that the accusation of 'fear mongering' IS fear mongering. Conservatives try to make us afraid of the 'others' while liberals try to make us afraid of ourselves. In the end, its all the same thing. I believe there is plenty of reason to be concerned about this nation's growing flirtation with a European world view. That isn't fear mongering. I simply do not wish to be a European or to be governed as one. I believe in American Exceptionalism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
American Exceptionalism.
This world is not America. America must co-ordinate its many activities with other countries and regions of this world. Sometimes the American way is best, but other times, the converse is true. The present situation requires a mutually beneficial solution and as far as I am concerned, the origin of this mutually benefit solution don't matter as long as it works. And afterwards, you can return waving the Stars and Stripes until your arms drop off.
-
Oakman wrote:
it's merely the mirror image of the kind of anti-American crap you throw up against the wall to see if it sticks.
I am not anti American, I just like to have a dig sometimes, for a bit of fun really. No, there are pros and cons to every society, every system, the US has its good and bad and so does Continental Europe. I generally like Americans as individuals. Decent, honest and hard working. Its your foreign policy that is offensive. Mind you, it almost always is self serving. I am not saying that of the UK or France is any better, but at least size makes the total sum of offensiveness less.
Oakman wrote:
African
Dont make me laugh.
Oakman wrote:
Asian
Just wait.
Oakman wrote:
you were boasting that France had insulated itself from all the UK, US financial probl
Nope, you are lying now. (I said it doesnt have home grown issues due to borrowing restrictions).
Oakman wrote:
France pretty consistently had led Europe in its market's inability to withstand the credit crisis
Germany is receding at .9% I believe, Frane still growijng at .1% so you are wrong.
Oakman wrote:
one crack-brained theorist
Its god to kow you have the same reaction to this guy as I do. OK, strike what I wrote and re-word it. Some Americans seem unable to criticise them selves despite the level of the disaster they have created.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I just like to have a dig sometimes, for a bit of fun really
But if any of us bring up the less-than-stellar French war record over the last couple of centuries, you and Karl squeal like scalded pigs.
fat_boy wrote:
Germany is receding at .9% I believe, Frane still growijng at .1% so you are wrong
The CAC 40 has lost 38.5% of its value in the last six months. The DAX has lost 36.5%. The Dow has lost 35.5%. Of course, none of them come close to Russia's 70% loss.
fat_boy wrote:
strike what I wrote and re-word it.
I'll accept your apology. You might ponder this. There was no-one from the U.S. holding a gun to any French banker ordering him to buy those insanely packaged mortgages. French bankers are just as short-sighted, just as greedy, and just as gullible as the American version. All you are complaining about when you blame the U.S. is that French bankers aren't as imaginative.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Dream on, McDuck. I enjoy learning things from people who know more than I and there are many here who correct my misconceptions and or teach me things I never knew. Even in cases where we can do no more than agree to disagree, I have real respect for most folks who frequent SB.
No, you don't. Your use of Jefferson to validate your preconcieved opinions is proof of that.
Oakman wrote:
I don't disagree with you, Stan, any more than I do Troy; I laugh at both of you.
Laugh all you like, Jon. The truth is that you and I agree on far more than Illion and I do. There is simply one small point of disagreement which you cannot tolerate. It sends you into some kind of bizarre intellectual tizzy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is simply one small point of disagreement which you cannot tolerate. It sends you into some kind of bizarre intellectual tizzy.
That tiny point - that Marxists are responsible for every ill, real or imagined, in the world from climate change to stock manipulations to dysentery to your latest bout of diarrhea underlies your entire world view. No tizzy, just laughter. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/bushs_legacy_european_socialis.html[^] I don't disagree with Morris. However, it is wrong to place so much of the blame on Bush. He was merely the man in that position when the decision had to be made. The decision itself was inevitable from the very moment that Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it. Bush had no real choice. Or, at least, he had no choice that would have been made differently by any other politician we have available to put in his place. McCain, Clinton, Obama, even Romney, would not have done anything differently. Long decades of government management of the economy has left us unable to tolerate the otherwise minor downturns in the economy which are characteristic of capitalism. It would require the election of a true radical, someone far more conservative than even Ronald Reagan, which we don't have, to have avoided this. What would have been a minor cold if the government had never been involved, has become a form of fatal ebola. This was all unavoidable from the very first such government reaction which caused the greate depression. What this really all represents is the true end of the great depression. This was its goal from the very beginning. It is a testimony to the insidious nature of collectivism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:48 AM
Stan Shannon wrote:
The decision itself was inevitable from the very moment that Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it.
There never really has been unregulated capitalism. But there was a time when it was far less regulated than it is today. The greatest myth about the current crisis is that it constitutes a failure of the "unregulated free market." But this is a common pattern. "One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary." Ayn Rand. And that's what we'll get going forward - until the next crisis.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Long decades of government management of the economy has left us unable to tolerate the otherwise minor downturns in the economy which are characteristic of capitalism.
It might be that you wouldn't even get mild industry-wide downturns, i.e., under free and non-fractional reserve banking. But mild downturns wouldn't be so terrible in any case.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is a testimony to the insidious nature of collectivism.
Is it insidious? I don't know. But it is certainly false.
Kevin
-
There aren't any strong opinions here are there? :)
wolfbinary wrote:
There aren't any strong opinions here are th
Of course not. Everyone treads very carefully when expressing an opinion, couching it in the softest possible manner, complete with many demurrers, in the fear of possibly offending someone else.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:35 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
American Exceptionalism.
This world is not America. America must co-ordinate its many activities with other countries and regions of this world. Sometimes the American way is best, but other times, the converse is true. The present situation requires a mutually beneficial solution and as far as I am concerned, the origin of this mutually benefit solution don't matter as long as it works. And afterwards, you can return waving the Stars and Stripes until your arms drop off.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This world is not America
Whatever you do, don't think for a moment that Stan speaks for, or of, America. he has already made it quite clear that he's hoping and praying that this country comes apart at the seams as some sort of comeuppance for straying from the path to Jeffersonian never-never-land. While he will continue to defend Bush by blaming every other President that has held office in the last 100 years for the shape of our economy in an attempt to exonerate the incompetent S.O.B., he has every hope that we are entering a period of time that will destroy the U.S. because he believes that then it will be remade in his image. Whenever he espouses a cause - no bailout, war in Iraq, etc, remember that his ultimate purpose, as he himself has made clear, is to see the flag of the U.S. dragged through the mud.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
And afterwards, you can return waving the Stars and Stripes until your arms drop off.
I pretty sure he prefers the Stars and Bars.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The decision itself was inevitable from the very moment that Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it.
There never really has been unregulated capitalism. But there was a time when it was far less regulated than it is today. The greatest myth about the current crisis is that it constitutes a failure of the "unregulated free market." But this is a common pattern. "One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary." Ayn Rand. And that's what we'll get going forward - until the next crisis.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Long decades of government management of the economy has left us unable to tolerate the otherwise minor downturns in the economy which are characteristic of capitalism.
It might be that you wouldn't even get mild industry-wide downturns, i.e., under free and non-fractional reserve banking. But mild downturns wouldn't be so terrible in any case.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is a testimony to the insidious nature of collectivism.
Is it insidious? I don't know. But it is certainly false.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
There never really has been unregulated capitalism.
No one is suggesting that capitalism should be unregulated. The question is what purpose should regulation serve? If the regulation is to ensure that corporations are held to the same legal standards that the rest of us are, then good. If the regulation is to bend capitalism to a collectivise agenda, that is bad.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
It might be that you wouldn't even get mild industry-wide downturns, i.e., under free and non-fractional reserve banking. But mild downturns wouldn't be so terrible in any case.
There will always be the possibility of economic 'perfect storms' that can bring a free market economy to its knees. But it must be allowed to rise again of its own accord, not placed into a wheelchair and treated as an ivalid forever.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The credit crisis was caused by a proliferation of unregulated securities of dubious value - a pure capitalism occurrence, no government involvement (except a failure to regulate or warn). Capitalism failed here by creating a situation in which the very trust it is based on was undermined.
ANd I maintain that such experimentation and the occassional failures it produces is a completely normal part of capitalism. If certain such actions are, or need to be made, illegal and punished than fine, we should do that. But we should always err on the side of economic liberty. Capitalism is an evolving process. If it isn't free to evolve and find better ways of building economies free of bureaucratic political influence, than we will begin quickly heading back into the same political territory we have fought so hard to escape in the first place.
Rob Graham wrote:
To say this had anything to do with centralized planning is simply false.
Sorry, but 70 some years of government insistuous involvment with the banking industry cannot be so casually dismissed. The centralized planning has been a major part of the process. And now we are told we need more of it. Well, we don't. We need less.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is simply one small point of disagreement which you cannot tolerate. It sends you into some kind of bizarre intellectual tizzy.
That tiny point - that Marxists are responsible for every ill, real or imagined, in the world from climate change to stock manipulations to dysentery to your latest bout of diarrhea underlies your entire world view. No tizzy, just laughter. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That tiny point - that Marxists are responsible for every ill, real or imagined, in the world from climate change to stock manipulations to dysentery to your latest bout of diarrhea underlies your entire world view.
No. The point of disagreement is that American democray was purposefully designed to work in a highly specific, proscribed manner. The changes that have occurred to it over the last century or so are indistinquishable from the basic principles of collectivist political thieory. It is absurd to suggest that such changes have any other possible source aside from the 19th century economic theorists personified by Karl Marx. Those were the first fully formed articulations of the basic political principles that justify the use of government as an appropriate tool for the solution to every possible human problem which we are still trying to implement today. You can disagree with that all you like, but it is a perfectly reasonable observation of our current situation. The fact that you try to characterize it as somehow radical says far more about your own radicalism than it does about me and mine.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Two observations (1) Buying for $2B is not the only costs that would be involved. Investments, lay-offs, day-on-day finances to protect. These and other costs would require perhaps another equally large sum of money from taxpayers coffers. (2) Businessmen are very protective of their empire. They should know their business and its plans well enough to make decisions that guide its future. Government are not best at managing industry on a day by day basis as businessmen are. To effect a bail-out it would be right and proper for representatives of Government to sit on the board of directors in a non-executive manner thus applying both development of Strategy and Performance initiatives and nothing else until such time that those shares are sold.