Sad but true... [modified]
-
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.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Buying for $2B is not the only costs that would be involved.
I don't suggest they would be. We are signing up for that anyway, with nothing in return and no influence on the outcome. If we must fund these failing companies, then we (the taxpayers) should get something in return. And most observers say we will get to hand them more money later, since they have not proposed any recovery plan other than to spend the money to pay their bills until consumers start buying their crap again.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Businessmen are very protective of their empire. They should know their business and its plans well enough to make decisions that guide its future.
These gentlemen have already demonstrated that they are not competent at running their business. They need to be replaced with managers that have sufficient vision to guide the companies to success in the future.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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.
I see no reason that government representatives should have any less authority than any other board member. I see no reason that current board members should be allowed to continue - they have already failed their fiduciary responsibilities.
-
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point of disagreement is that American democray was purposefully designed to work in a highly specific, proscribed manner
Sure thing. It was originally designed to work with a relatively small group of people - 22 Senators, 59 Congressmen all representing agrarian economies that were dependent on trade with Europe to stay afloat.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is absurd to suggest that such changes have any other possible source aside from the 19th century economic theorists personified by Karl Marx
Marx must have as a time machine. In 1789, The U.S. established a system of Marxist tariffs to put an end to all that free trade b.s. the capitalists were throwing around. In 1790, the first Marxist bail-out occurred when Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison agreed that the feds would assume all state debts. Also in 1790 the Marxist patent system and copyright system were established, further restraining free trade. And in 1791, the Marxist First Bank of the U.S. (precursor to the Federal reserve Bank) was established.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
insistuous involvment
incestuous. It's not always with a sister.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
incestuous. It's not always with a sister.
Always wonder about Bo and Luke Duke with Daisy (perhaps Uncle Jesse). No wonder she always blew off Enos :laugh:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
There aren't any strong opinions here are there? :)
wolfbinary wrote:
There aren't any strong opinions here are there?
To Stan? Why? He is a lost case. :rolleyes: Look: all his whining is b.s. The phase of "collectivism" he complains about (the post WWII era) is by far the biggest economic growth mankind has ever experienced (oh, and technological and scientific too, btw). If he can't see that by himself what is the point of explaining it?
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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.
If the US broke the system, that doesn't mean there is something wrong with us. It means there is something wrong with the system, and I maintain that the overall system is more collectivist in nature, at the insistence of Europeans, than it is free markder. If we become more like you, the problem will only get worse. The underlieing problem will not be resolved until we stop trying to fix collectivism with more 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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the US broke the system, that doesn't mean there is something wrong with us. It means there is something wrong with the system
This particular system, is that one of capitalism or has the United States been living a lie since the arrival of the industrial revolution into the United States.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Europeans
The Europeans do not always get it right, and neither do the Americans. Europe has not always been to the left of politics, many nations are right or centre-right of the political spectrum.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The underlieing problem
Won't go away while everybody is blaming everybody else. If there is to be a solution, it doesn't matter where the bloody solution comes from as long as solution works. And you Stan, you have to give it time as the solution, whatever it may entail, is not instant.
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Actually, plenty of people are.
Who? NO conservative believes that banks and corporations should be above the law.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Unless your definition of regulation includes laws against the initiation of force and fraud.
What do you mean 'force'? Fraud has always been illegal.
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:
NO conservative believes that banks and corporations should be above the law.
There are more people in the world besides conservatives you know? For example, libertarians, classical liberals, Objectivists. It's not a question of being above the law, it's a question of what the scope of the law should be.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you mean 'force'?
I mean things such as murder, theft, assault...
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fraud has always been illegal.
Yes, and the question is what else other than fraud should be. A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting, e.g., a minimum wage law is a regulation. Even though you and I might both agree for me to pay you $1/hour, if the law says I can't then that's a regulation. A law against theft (or fraud) is not.
Kevin
-
wolfbinary wrote:
There aren't any strong opinions here are there?
To Stan? Why? He is a lost case. :rolleyes: Look: all his whining is b.s. The phase of "collectivism" he complains about (the post WWII era) is by far the biggest economic growth mankind has ever experienced (oh, and technological and scientific too, btw). If he can't see that by himself what is the point of explaining it?
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
The phase of "collectivism" he complains about (the post WWII era) is by far the biggest economic growth mankind has ever experienced (oh, and technological and scientific too, btw).
And it would be even bigger without the "collectivism" that he complains about.
Kevin
-
Oakman wrote:
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.,
No, I simply maintain that as long as we attempt to place all the blame on Bush rather than careully understanding the long histroy of how we got here, we are not going to fix it the real problems.
Oakman wrote:
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.
I do indeed. I think it is going to take a major catastrophy to fix the real problems. But that isn't a hope, it is simply an observation. The current system is going to fail, and the only cure for it is a return to the principles currently promoted by American conservatives.
Oakman wrote:
as he himself has made clear, is to see the flag of the U.S. dragged through the mud.
You mean the flag that you think can be legally burned because some judge says so? That flag is already in the mud and has been there for a long time.
Oakman wrote:
I pretty sure he prefers the Stars and Bars.
Not really, but it was a flag that was never betrayed by its own nation as ours has been.
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:
No, I simply maintain that as long as we attempt to place all the blame on Bush rather than careully understanding the long histroy of how we got here, we are not going to fix it the real problems.
So far you've defended him against any blame.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that isn't a hope, it is simply an observation.
Crap. Anyone who has read a majority of your posts in the early fall knows you have been chortling over what you predicted would be a complete meltdown. You said things to the effect that you couldn't wait for the US to fall apart.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That flag is already in the mud and has been there for a long time.
If true, that's no call for you to be happy about it. It flies over my house tall and true, btw.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not really, but it was a flag that was never betrayed by its own nation as ours has been.
Nor did it ever fly over a viable nation to be betrayed by. That's why you like it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
incestuous. It's not always with a sister.
Always wonder about Bo and Luke Duke with Daisy (perhaps Uncle Jesse). No wonder she always blew off Enos :laugh:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Always wonder about Bo and Luke Duke
Luke was saving himself for Martha Kent (nee Clark)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Sure, but he could have practiced on Daisy.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
insistuous involvment
incestuous. It's not always with a sister.
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.
-
Don't tell the CP members, bang on the doors of Congress and tell them as they are rather unlikely to read this internet Code Project Soapbox forum.
-
Sure, but he could have practiced on Daisy.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
Paul Conrad wrote:
Sure, but he could have practiced on Daisy
Did you know she wore pantyhose under her shorts? Network Standards and Practices allowed for shorter shorts if she was wearing "tights" underneath. :cool:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
insistuous involvment
incestuous. It's not always with a sister.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
It's not always with a sister.
I would'nt know.
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:
NO conservative believes that banks and corporations should be above the law.
There are more people in the world besides conservatives you know? For example, libertarians, classical liberals, Objectivists. It's not a question of being above the law, it's a question of what the scope of the law should be.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you mean 'force'?
I mean things such as murder, theft, assault...
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fraud has always been illegal.
Yes, and the question is what else other than fraud should be. A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting, e.g., a minimum wage law is a regulation. Even though you and I might both agree for me to pay you $1/hour, if the law says I can't then that's a regulation. A law against theft (or fraud) is not.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting
Hmmm.. Ok. Nevermind. In retrospect your definition is a reasonably objective one. I was going to comment something along the lines of "it also prevents employers from creating conditions where an employee will "agree" to sacrifice eyes and fingers if their need for work is bad enough" but you didn't express it as a value judgement so I can't really retort with that :)
-
Oakman wrote:
It's not always with a sister.
I would'nt know.
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:
No, I simply maintain that as long as we attempt to place all the blame on Bush rather than careully understanding the long histroy of how we got here, we are not going to fix it the real problems.
So far you've defended him against any blame.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that isn't a hope, it is simply an observation.
Crap. Anyone who has read a majority of your posts in the early fall knows you have been chortling over what you predicted would be a complete meltdown. You said things to the effect that you couldn't wait for the US to fall apart.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That flag is already in the mud and has been there for a long time.
If true, that's no call for you to be happy about it. It flies over my house tall and true, btw.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not really, but it was a flag that was never betrayed by its own nation as ours has been.
Nor did it ever fly over a viable nation to be betrayed by. That's why you like it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So far you've defended him against any blame.
No, I haven't. I have repeatedly asserted my desire to have his actions investigated by congress. I simply wish to have the appropriate institutions conduct a legal process rather than associate myself with a political witch burning.
Oakman wrote:
Crap. Anyone who has read a majority of your posts in the early fall knows you have been chortling over what you predicted would be a complete meltdown. You said things to the effect that you couldn't wait for the US to fall apart.
I believe the sooner the inevitable meltdown occurs the better off we will all be. The longer the delay, the worse the ensueing chaos will be. And, yes, I also believe that, as the only workable, viable set of political principles, conservativtism would ultimately be the most likely benefactor of such an event. The flow of power to the center is going to fail precisely as it has always failed. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when.
Oakman wrote:
If true, that's no call for you to be happy about it. It flies over my house tall and true, btw.
Yet, you don't support any of the principles it was created to symbolize. How ironic...
Oakman wrote:
Nor did it ever fly over a viable nation to be betrayed by. That's why you like it.
Probably true. I am glad the South lost, Jon. Had they won, I probably would have been born into a third world economy. Of course, it looks like I'm likely to die in one anyway. So maybe it didn't really matter after all.
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:
NO conservative believes that banks and corporations should be above the law.
There are more people in the world besides conservatives you know? For example, libertarians, classical liberals, Objectivists. It's not a question of being above the law, it's a question of what the scope of the law should be.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you mean 'force'?
I mean things such as murder, theft, assault...
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fraud has always been illegal.
Yes, and the question is what else other than fraud should be. A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting, e.g., a minimum wage law is a regulation. Even though you and I might both agree for me to pay you $1/hour, if the law says I can't then that's a regulation. A law against theft (or fraud) is not.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
There are more people in the world besides conservatives you know? For example, libertarians, classical liberals, Objectivists.
Yes, but I was referring to conservatives. I'll let all those others speak for themselves.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I mean things such as murder, theft, assault...
I can understand concern for theft. But murder and assault? Who has done that?
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting, e.g., a minimum wage law is a regulation. Even though you and I might both agree for me to pay you $1/hour, if the law says I can't then that's a regulation. A law against theft (or fraud) is not.
And, yes, those are the kinds of regulations conservatives have problems with. They represent the government inteferring in the natual processes of capitalism. The US federal government has no constitutional authority telling two private citizens how they can arrive at some kind of financial accomodation. Nor should it have. Interference of that sort is precisely the reason we are having the kinds of financial problems that are occuring now. There is a word for a political system in which the private insitutions of a society work to achieve state defined goals. That word is fascism.
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.