|
|
|
|
|
| | Good Thing Obama Is Saving CapitalismPage 1 of 2 (1, 2) | I recently read an article entitled something like "How Obama Saved Capitalism". That makes about as much sense as saying Bush saved democracy. In any case, the New York Times has an interesting article "USDA sells cheese while warning against eating it":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40045686/ns/health-the_new_york_times
Americans, for the past several years, have been reducing their intake of dairy products because they are loaded with unhealthy saturated fats. This has naturally had an adverse effect on the dairy industry. Since the dairy farms are too big to fail the government has stepped into the market once again to "save capitalism" spening millions of your tax dollars to get you to eat more unhealthy dairy products. And it's working. | |
|
| i love government cheese!
Posted: 11/7/2010 3:44:43 AM | this is great. another government cheese story to light up my day.
"USDA sells cheese while warning against eating it" is just like "Fed sells debt while warning against loading up on it."
what the f,uck else is new with these evil, evil trolls. | |
|
| i love government cheese!
Posted: 11/7/2010 10:03:51 AM | I've always wondered about how cheese can be labelled as unhealthy there, when the USA is far from the highest per capita consumer of it. 
Top cheese consumers - 2008
(kilograms per person per year)
Greece 30.0 (2006)
France 24.6
Iceland 23.8
Germany 22.1
Switzerland 21.41 (2009)
Italy 21.4
Finland 19.1 (2007)
Austria 18.7
Sweden 18.4 (2007)
Netherlands 17.3
Czech Republic 16.3
Norway 15.4 (2007)
United States 15.0
Canada 12.37
United Kingdom 12.3 (2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese
The problem is more the overall diet Americans are exposed too, not cheese itself. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/7/2010 6:55:30 PM | How Gouda you to point this out.
The dairy industrial complex Muensters need to be Shankished in the showers like the common criminals they are.
They keep Passendale buck, but the buck stops here.
Time Abertam the same problems are buried.
We need more people to Roca the boat. Otherwise it's Feta accompli.
These contradictory and downright hypocritical statements from our own government make one Bleu.
Havarti going to over come it? My mind is Blanco.
I have faith in you.
Velveeta la revoluccion!
-Pepper Jack | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/8/2010 6:06:09 AM | ^^^very funny.
count, you know why this happens, don't you? on the one hand, the govt needs to carry out the initiatives they are inveigled to promote by industry lobbyists. cheese deals get cut in washington on a daily basis. and it's no secret that there is a revolving door between "industry cheese experts" and "big cheese" senior executive service slots in cheesy government agencies. on the other hand, the govt needs to pretend to actually care about you and your health, to keep the rabble pacified, so you'll keep voting..... as if it ever made much of a difference one way or the other. it's all about keeping up cheesy appearances. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/10/2010 7:48:38 PM | Ahhh, the power of cheese!!!
One day we will set forth on exploring space, the final frontier...where we will be in search of new types of cheese hitherto unknown to man! | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/10/2010 11:55:34 PM | Isn't this essentially an old old story? The feds have LONG done things to add stability to the otherwise volatile and disruptive agricultural market. They pay people NOT to grow certain things, give bonuses to grow others, and it's all with the goal of balancing the need to keep the food flowing, with out suffering the otherwise natural boom and bust cycles.
Add to that, the fact that there are many different departments, and you get this: the HEALTH department wants us to cut BACK on eating certain things, and increase certain others, while the AGRICULTURE department (with a completely different specified agenda) wants us to consume MORE stuff, for the sake of the industries.
As for "Obama saves Capitalism," that sounds like yet another in a endless supply of nonsense fluff stuff that media types publish, much along the lines of the garbage we all used to write in school, when we had assignments in English.
I see the same general dynamic in the news reports about the world all the time:
1. Something happens, and media people jump right in, and misreport about it, because SPEED TO THE SCREEN is more profitable than ACCURACY.
2. Pundits, commentators, and politicians, promptly misinterpret (often purposely) what's been reported, and help each other confuse the issues even more.
3. More stuff happens, and SOME people START to get a vague idea about what's REALLY going on, but by that time, the folks in #2 have already started a bunch of movements and programs that are going to get in the way of steering things back on course, and/or take us in a completely NEW wrong direction.
4. The news shows, commentators, pundits and politicians all make money, because like stock brokers, they get rich whether you HATE what they do and say, or LOVE what they do and say.
5. Something ELSE happens, and the cycle starts again.
[sigh] I wish I were a pundit, a politician, or a commentator. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/11/2010 11:08:43 AM |
Isn't this essentially an old old story? The feds have LONG done things to add stability to the otherwise volatile and disruptive agricultural market. They pay people NOT to grow certain things, give bonuses to grow others, and it's all with the goal of balancing the need to keep the food flowing, with out suffering the otherwise natural boom and bust cycles.
That's exactly right. And while father may know best, the government certainly doesn't. We still have the boom bust cycles in agriculture.
Add to that, the fact that there are many different departments, and you get this: the HEALTH department wants us to cut BACK on eating certain things, and increase certain others, while the AGRICULTURE department (with a completely different specified agenda) wants us to consume MORE stuff, for the sake of the industries.
Exactly right again. The government has too many agendas, often conflicting, to properly do its job.
As for "Obama saves Capitalism," that sounds like yet another in a endless supply of nonsense fluff stuff that media types publish, much along the lines of the garbage we all used to write in school, when we had assignments in English.
I got the title from an article that attempted to argue that Obama saved capitalism (I'm guessing the author was trying to counter the "Obama is a socialist" meme). He "saved" capitalism with the corporate bailouts. Of course capitalism was in no danger because of the failing corporations. Rather, it was capitalism which is the danger to the huge corporations. | |
|
| |
| i love government cheese!
Posted: 11/11/2010 7:41:39 PM | MG ~~ How about this one. . . .
Greece 30.0 (2006) Greece 78.4
France 24.6 France 78.8
Iceland 23. 8Iceland 79.4
Germany 22.1Germany 77.4
Switzerland 21.41 (2009) Switzerland 79.6
Italy 21.4 Italy 79.0
Finland 19.1 (2007) Finland 77.4
Austria 18.7Austria 77.7
Sweden 18.4 (2007) Sweden 79.6
Netherlands 17.3 Netherlands 78.3
Czech Republic 16.3 Czech Republic 74.5
Norway 15.4 (2007) Norway 78.7
United States 15.0 United States 77.1
Canada 12.37 Canada 79.4
United Kingdom 12.3 (2007) United Kingdom 77.7
All life expectancy figures are 2000, from this site: http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm
AND
What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?
By Gary Taubes
Published: July 07, 2002
If the members of the American medical establishment were to have a collective find-yourself-standing-naked-in-Times-Square-type nightmare, this might be it. They spend 30 years ridiculing Robert Atkins, author of the phenomenally-best-selling ''Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution'' and ''Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution,'' accusing the Manhattan doctor of quackery and fraud, only to discover that the unrepentant Atkins was right all along. Or maybe it's this: they find that their very own dietary recommendations -- eat less fat and more carbohydrates -- are the cause of the rampaging epidemic of obesity in America. Or, just possibly this: they find out both of the above are true.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/12/2010 6:12:26 PM | Well, you got a little of THIS right:
"I got the title from an article that attempted to argue that Obama saved capitalism (I'm guessing the author was trying to counter the "Obama is a socialist" meme). He "saved" capitalism with the corporate bailouts. Of course capitalism was in no danger because of the failing corporations. Rather, it was capitalism which is the danger to the huge corporations."
Neither the Republican led bailouts, or the Democratic follow ups were designed to "save capitalism," any more than the stuff done to fight the Great Depression had anything at all to do with "saving capitalism." All that Bush and Obama were doing with the bailouts and other government actions, was to try to soften the downturn a bit. Did they succeed? We'll never be able to be sure, since it is NEVER possible to know what WOULD have happened IF... in ANY situation.
And I disagree about it being a BAD thing that the feds act at cross purposes to themselves: in fact, it is the epitome of American Government to have "checks and balances." The only way to have a government that DOESN'T trip over itself, is to go the Dictatorship route. Even then, there are bound to be some internal conflicts, as wanna-be dictators vie for the "I'm Next" spot.
And Capitalism was NOT " the danger to the corporations." Capitalism is what they were indulging wildly in. Capitalism is NOT by itself a WELL-DEFINED SYSTEM at all, it is a vague market and exchange behavior, based entirely around using MEDIUMS OF EXCHANGE instead of direct trade of goods and services. Nothing more or less. The Republicans wanted a "low or no regulated economy," because they fantasized that capitalist investors and businessmen were all naturally fair-minded, moral people. So they let them loose, with great huzzahs, and expected wealth to gush uninterrupted into their, and their friends pockets. It actually DID work that way for a short time, until the bills came due.
Anyway, perhaps you meant that the badly run corporations endangered Capitalism with their greed and lies. Also not really true, since MOST capitalist theories INCLUDE the element of lying, cheating, thievery, and such. In fact, a TOTAL free market system actually flourishes BECAUSE of boom and bust. It's absolute HELL on society, and the peasants invariably suffer in extremis, but the super rich make HUGE increases in their wealth during BOTH boom AND bust. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/13/2010 12:01:51 PM |
And Capitalism was NOT " the danger to the corporations." Capitalism is what they were indulging wildly in.
The poorly run corporations were about to be crushed by capitalism. These corporations made really bad decisions, which the wheels of capitalism don't tread lightly upon. And keep in mind that the so-called Republican led bailouts were supported by a majority of Democrats and opposed by a majority of Republicans.
Capitalism is what they were indulging wildly in. Capitalism is NOT by itself a WELL-DEFINED SYSTEM at all, it is a vague market and exchange behavior, based entirely around using MEDIUMS OF EXCHANGE instead of direct trade of goods and services. Nothing more or less. The Republicans wanted a "low or no regulated economy," because they fantasized that capitalist investors and businessmen were all naturally fair-minded, moral people. So they let them loose, with great huzzahs, and expected wealth to gush uninterrupted into their, and their friends pockets. It actually DID work that way for a short time, until the bills came due.
I don't know where people get the idea that there are few regulations and other government intrusions into the market. Federal laws are readily available on the Internet for anyone's perusal. There are thousands of regulations on the books.
Capitalism does not run on the notion that businessmen are fair-minded or moral. That's what communism is based on and why communism will always fail. Capitalism assumes that businessmen (and indeed everyone) acts in their own self-interest. This is how self-regulation arises. A businessman makes a better and/or cheaper product not because he's altrustic, but because he wants to grab a bigger share of the market. There's a subtle interplay of greed and fear in the market that keeps businesses in line. Unfortunately when the government gets involved they get rid of those fear mechanisms (e.g. government backing of mortgages) and then have to put regulations in their place. But who writes these regulations? The corporations themselves or their pet politicians.
There are thousands of regulation but they are a poor substitute for the checks and balances in the free market. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/13/2010 12:34:28 PM | Actually, capitalism as defended by it's supporters, does run on the notion that businessmen are fair minded and moral. Check your Adam Smith - the basis for it is "Enlightened Self Interest." The notion is that they won't rape and pillage when cultivating their market is in their long term best interests.
Unfortunately, the market today demands that corporations ignore their long term best interests. I could give countless examples, but I'll give you one: I live less that 200 miles from Seattle, so we get Seattle TV here. A number of years ago Boeing had a massive layoff that immediately sent their stock price through the roof; the managers of any corporation are, by civil law, required to look after the short term interests of their share holders. If they had failed to do so, Boeing could have been sued by shareholders, as the demand for their planes was in a slump. However, when demand picked up, Boeing couldn't meet the demand - and Airbus took the portion of the market they currently hold.
It would have been in Boeing's Enlightened Self Interest to keep their machinists et al on the payroll, but it conflicted with the best interests of their shareholders.
It's in the long term best interests of forestry companies not to clear cut, but management gets paid based on quarterly earnings. It's in the long term best interests of companies to employ people in their country of origin, since if every company behaves the same, they protect their market - that's what Henry Ford did when he paid his workers enough to afford to buy a Ford. However, if a company tried to use that justification their stock price would plummet, and they would lose in court. Jack Welch is held up as a capitalist saviour, even though we now know he cooked the books and GE was no more profitable at the end of his tenure than it was before he took over. All he did was close American factories and throw tens of thousands out of work. | |
|
| |
| |
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/13/2010 10:56:02 PM | ^^^^^^^^^^^
You know you're right. The quote I used is all over the net. They paraphrased him inserting capitalism for Democracy. I used intellectual honesty something that is in short supply on the left.
Winston Churchill once said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.
Margaret Thatcher once said that 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money' | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/14/2010 8:36:36 AM |
Actually, capitalism as defended by it's supporters, does run on the notion that businessmen are fair minded and moral. Check your Adam Smith - the basis for it is "Enlightened Self Interest." The notion is that they won't rape and pillage when cultivating their market is in their long term best interests.
Actually this sounds a lot like what I was saying. People, including businessmen, act in their own self-interest. This kind of behavior is generally not seen as moral.
Unfortunately, the market today demands that corporations ignore their long term best interests. I could give countless examples, but I'll give you one: I live less that 200 miles from Seattle, so we get Seattle TV here. A number of years ago Boeing had a massive layoff that immediately sent their stock price through the roof; the managers of any corporation are, by civil law, required to look after the short term interests of their share holders. If they had failed to do so, Boeing could have been sued by shareholders, as the demand for their planes was in a slump. However, when demand picked up, Boeing couldn't meet the demand - and Airbus took the portion of the market they currently hold.
Sounds like it's not the market that demanded this short term behavior, but the government. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/14/2010 9:14:12 AM | This behaviour isn't a result of laws enacted, but of lawsuits. You get someone like T. Boone Pickens who sues a company he owns stock in - they have to pay him and change the way they do business. It may not be in the best long term interests of the company, but it is in the best short term interest of Mr. Pickens. He can move his money elsewhere long before the fallout from the decisions he forced on the board comes.
Right now, the system is being run by the capitalistic equivalent of 5 year olds with no concept of delayed gratification. Hedge funds. for example, are huge players; the average length of time a hedge fund holds a stock is 15 minutes. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/14/2010 2:15:35 PM |
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy
I can see the "gospel of envy" part for sure. I'm not sure about the rest.
The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money
I think this illustrates a poor understanding of socialism. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/14/2010 6:51:53 PM |
Actually, capitalism as defended by it's supporters, does run on the notion that businessmen are fair minded and moral. Check your Adam Smith - the basis for it is "Enlightened Self Interest." The notion is that they won't rape and pillage when cultivating their market is in their long term best interests.
Actually this sounds a lot like what I was saying. People, including businessmen, act in their own self-interest. This kind of behavior is generally not seen as moral.
Enlightened self interest and myopic self interest (greedy) are two different things.
Businessman aren't born with enlightened self interest, they learn it through consequences.
Such as when there is no such things "too big to fail."
Attempting to eliminate suffering and consequences without infinite resources seems a bit stupid and self defeating.
the market today demands that corporations ignore their long term best interests.
What is "long term" anymore, with global competition, globalization, instant communication, and the simple computing power of computers.
Corporations have to look at a balance between long term and short term best interests.
...the examples given seem simplistic.
Such as Boeing vilified for laying of 20% of it's production team rather than praised for its ability to keep 80%.
You seem to think Boeing knows how to time markets.
You seem to be saying they should have kept everyone on payroll, burning through cash reserves, simply biding time until the market picked up...which could have been a week later, or ten years, or never.
In 2006 Toll Brothers laid off a bunch of construction workers...you think they should have kept them on the payroll until today? 4 years later? Demand's going to come back! They lost market share!
You seem to minimize the importance of stock price.
When things go into a downturn what sometimes happens? Excess capacity is bought up by someone entering the market? Market prices go down? Companies bought out due to low stock price? Employees let go, operations moved over seas?
Unfortunately, the market today demands that corporations ignore their long term best interests.
Short term decisions are just as important to a company as long term decisions.
You usually just aren't consulted or privy to their long term planning. Just the effects of short term decisions. In many cases the short term decisions you are faced with right now are the results of their long term planning.
You get someone like T. Boone Pickens who sues a company he owns stock in - they have to pay him and change the way they do business
You also get people that sue over their own stupidity, which then causes companies like insurance companies to rewrite every single policy they have as well as set aside even more money to cover the increase in claim payouts. Rising costs for all.
So one guy sues an insurance company over mold damage causing lung damage(not in policy) because of rain through a leaky rough (covered in policy) and now every homeowner policy they write (and have written and needs to be updated) has to cover mold and lung damage as well because the judge says it was "implied" by the policy, or should be covered (or the guy that drank a few beers and decided to use his lawnmower as a hedge trimmer and cut off his foot, and the company is now out of business because of the payout from the jury seeing deep pockets and paying out to footless sadsack McGee and having to then incorporate safety features on their products that try to keep people from using a lawnmower as a hedge trimmer, which depressed the price of the stock, the company bought out by competition, and simply discontinued).
It may not be in the best long term interests of the company, but it is in the best short term interest of Mr. Pickens.
That's the government forcing the company to change it's way of business and planning via the court system.
the system is being run by the capitalistic equivalent of 5 year olds with no concept of delayed gratification.
Which system? The system of government? I agree...look at the health care bill. Have to get it done and passed now now now, fix it later, learn what's in it later...hurry up and pass it.
Hedge funds. for example, are huge players; the average length of time a hedge fund holds a stock is 15 minutes.
You understand when you hold a security for like less than a year you pay the government a huge chunk? Capital gains tax? A difference of as little as 5% for holding it over a year, and 25% holding it less than a year?
So it's either hold it for a lot longer than a year...or work by a target rate and as soon as that is hit let it go in order to guarantee that return, after taxes?
So in 15 seconds a stock can gain enough to generate a targeted profit with capital gains tax in mind.
If you make 10% gain in 15 seconds, and that's your target gain, why hold it for another 11 months? Or 12 to avoid the tax penalty? Knowing it could go back down at any time?
That's "one" reason for holding it for so little amount of time.
Oh wait, that's long term planning. Dealing with capital gains tax and having it affect investment strategy so a target rate of return is sought rather than simply throwing your money after something and hoping it pays off in greedy evil "profit." | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/14/2010 9:16:46 PM | I actually don't understand the people who claim capitalism fosters only short term thought. It's simply not true, demonstrably so.
Companies like GM, Ford, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, IBM, etc... They sell products in huge volume, while at the same time spending millions in researching technology to create products that they won't see a dime from for several years. GM has been working on the Volt for the better part of a decade. The Boeing 747 took nearly a decade to get from planning to takeoff. Solid state hard drives have been in development for years. IBM has been working on next-generation, post-silicon processor materials that may not even ever come to fruition, and if they do it won't be until 2015ish, but it is the type of research investment that has been driving our economy for over a century.
Ford remained more competitive than did GM and Chrysler because they took the long view of financial planning since the turn of the century, leaving them more secure in a crashing economy despite a terrible sales environment plaguing every manufacturer. We see in every industry companies planning way ahead and being rewarded for it.
Hell, even less high-tech companies like Specialized, Trek, Cannondale, and other bicycle companies spend their R&D constantly developing lighter, stiffer, and faster products that won't come to fruition for a long time.
Christ, you can look at a damned whiskey bottle and know that the company who created it wasn't thinking of just 3 months down the road. My own liquor cabinet is an example of distilleries planning years ahead of time to develop high quality products to stay competitive in the market.
Right now, the system is being run by the capitalistic equivalent of 5 year olds with no concept of delayed gratification.
This just isn't true, unfortunately you have the advantage of being able to define "the system" as being whatever you want to talk about, which leaves you somewhat free to cherry-pick bad examples. But "the system", our economy, is certainly not represented by a few hedge fund managers, even if the sum of them may have an effect on our economy. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/15/2010 2:32:27 PM | I don't believe capitalism fosters short term thinking. I do however believe that the way the market works now, does.
Right now, the officers of any public company have a fiduciary responsibility to look after the interests of the share holders. I have no problem with that, and frankly, a lot of terrible things have been done when they don't look to ensure the share holders' best interests.
The problem is, that this responsibility has been defined very narrowly. The woman who founded The Body Shop built a thriving multi-national retail empire, based on principles of ethical sourcing. She was convinced to take the company public, and all the principles that built customer loyalty were thrown out the window. She sold all her shares in disgust. Since then, judging by local evidence, it seems that Body Shop has seen shrinking market share. The founder kept controlling interest, wanted to maintain her founding principles, but was forced out since her policies didn't provide the quickest buck.
It also drives me nuts that an arbitrage firm can buy a thriving company, then saddle it with the debt incurred to buy it. That's a huge part of the supposed decline of print media, as an example. The Chicago Sun Times was making money in its day to day operations, but not enough to cover the debt charges piled on it by the people who bought it. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/15/2010 4:45:31 PM | Since then, judging by local evidence, it seems that Body Shop has seen shrinking market share.
This implies that the market DOES work in such a way that it fosters long term thinking.
Publicly listed companies with quarterly shareholder profit announcements manage to plan long-term on a regular basis, as exemplified by the companies I listed. Intel seems to be doing fine, so do Google and Apple, two of the most valuable stocks on the market. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/18/2010 5:40:32 PM | Count I:
"And keep in mind that the so-called Republican led bailouts were supported by a majority of Democrats and opposed by a majority of Republicans." Please go back and look. The bail outs started while the Republicans still controlled BOTH houses of congress, as well as the Presidency. If a majority of Republicans had opposed them, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH CONGRESS.
And you didn't read what I said about Capitalism. I did NOT say that Capitalism runs on the notion that businessmen are fair-minded, I said that REPUBLICANS behave as though THEY BELIEVED that NO regulations are needed, because THEY think businesses will behave logically and fairly. I said specifically that I AGREE with you, that CAPITALISM HAS NO HEART. I know full well that there are thousands of regulations. The reason WHY there are thousands of them, is BECAUSE businessmen have done things that were detrimental to many people, as well as to the industries they were in, as well as to the marketplace itself. Simple example: when possible, large companies tried to completely control an industry or function. That is called a MONOPOLY, and monopolies were REGULATED away, BECAUSE they DESTROYED the ability of the market to "self-regulate."
I will add to what I said about the "free-market" advocates I have seen: they THINK that the market will self regulate exactly as you describe: "A businessman makes a better and/or cheaper product not because he's altrustic, but because he wants to grab a bigger share of the market. There's a subtle interplay of greed and fear in the market that keeps businesses in line. " The trouble is, that anyone who actually LOOKS will find that throughout history, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. When a business becomes powerful enough, the leaders have tended to be VERY human, and instead of INNOVATING to stay in the lead, they have instead used their power to QUASH COMPETITION, often as not with direct violence.
We are in agreement that artificial government regulations are sometimes not well conceived, not well described, and sometimes make a mess of things. However, the "subtle interplay of greed and fear in the market that keeps businesses in line" that you cite has repeatedly been shown throughout history to be a fantasy. In the real world, greed leads businessmen to lie, cheat, steal, and sabotage the competition. They will try to isolate segments of a given market, and establish localized monopolies, so that they DON'T have to do anything to improve, or even be responsible for the quality or value of their product. That is WHY there are so many government regulations: for every regulation, there was a REAL incidence of businesses doing something that CAUSED the authorities to step in. The government certainly did a bad job of regulating things on many occasions, bit to say that ALL or even MOST government regulations are a "poor substitute for the checks and balances in the free market" ignores the FACT that the regulations, however badly executed, were enacted BECAUSE the free market FAILED to regulate itself. | |
|
| Good Thing Obama Is Saving Capitalism
Posted: 11/24/2010 10:49:39 PM |
Please go back and look. The bail outs started while the Republicans still controlled BOTH houses of congress, as well as the Presidency. If a majority of Republicans had opposed them, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH CONGRESS.
I did go back and look. The Democrats mostly voted for it and the Republicans mostly voted against it (I'm talking about TARP).
to say that ALL or even MOST government regulations are a "poor substitute for the checks and balances in the free market" ignores the FACT that the regulations, however badly executed, were enacted BECAUSE the free market FAILED to regulate itself.
This is hardly a fact at all. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
