How would you fix the economy ?

[painter]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Where did you dig up this old thread? I thought it was new and was reading along wondering what was up until I noticed the date. One salient point, people's positions have not changed much over the two years.

Just a reminder bhunter. People have such short memories when it comes to "lets repair those bridges and roads."

While I am at it...another Dollar Store will be opening in our neighborhood! There are five within FOUR miles of my front door!!!
I've been in a few. They employ maybe three individuals on a week-end to man/woman the cash registers...and shelves are stocked by a call in (from what I was told). So how this is going to take down the unemployment line is beyond me.
Your tax dollar and mine at work????

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

This is a subject that is very close to all of us. How or what would you do to "fix" the economy ?

Grumpy

Bring back Glass Steagle as written and no more bailouts! It's throwing good money after bad. At least Roosevelt had something to work with, we won't if we keep covering the bets of the crazy gambling addicts of Wall Street. Let them fail, that's about all they are useful for. I would like to see those hustlers doing useful work for a change. The Hoover Dam is due for a mucking out for one.

My take on the chestnut that the stockbrokers jumped out windows in '29 is that they didn't jump, they were thrown out feet first by their bookies as a warning to the rest of their ilk.

I'm with Ozmoid, I've always contended that public servants should be drafted. Volunteers encouraged but never elected by those with the most cash to spend. To which they are beholden to for the rest of their careers. If these public servants didn't perform to some minimum standards they would be demoted ultimately to the modern equivalent of a salt mine for their malfeasance. The ones who did perform would receive time off for good behavior. So that they could get on with their lives and teach their sucessors. Call me a liberal Progressive or a progressive Liberal or what have you. I consider my self a socialist in the literal sense- I'm for society as a whole. Being a hard worker should gain to you more of what you want, not free reign over others.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Bring back Glass Steagle as written and no more bailouts! It's throwing good money after bad. At least Roosevelt had something to work with, we won't if we keep covering the bets of the crazy gambling addicts of Wall Street. Let them fail, that's about all they are useful for. I would like to see those hustlers doing useful work for a change. The Hoover Dam is due for a mucking out for one.

My take on the chestnut that the stockbrokers jumped out windows in '29 is that they didn't jump, they were thrown out feet first by their bookies as a warning to the rest of their ilk.

I'm with Ozmoid, I've always contended that public servants should be drafted. Volunteers encouraged but never elected by those with the most cash to spend. To which they are beholden to for the rest of their careers. If these public servants didn't perform to some minimum standards they would be demoted ultimately to the modern equivalent of a salt mine for their malfeasance. The ones who did perform would receive time off for good behavior. So that they could get on with their lives and teach their sucessors. Call me a liberal Progressive or a progressive Liberal or what have you. I consider my self a socialist in the literal sense- I'm for society as a whole. Being a hard worker should gain to you more of what you want, not free reign over others.

Sad thing is the brain drain that Wall Street caused. They took some of the brightest in mathmatics and the sciences, directed their efforts toward beating an artificial system, rather than toward producing things of real value, but suffered real consequences when they screwed up.

Regards,

D-Ray

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Sad thing is the brain drain that Wall Street caused. They took some of the brightest in mathmatics and the sciences, directed their efforts toward beating an artificial system, rather than toward producing things of real value, but suffered real consequences when they screwed up.

Regards,

D-Ray

You mean you don't see the joint stock company as a stabilizing economic force? What do you think is artificial about Wall Street? The sciences are also filled with the same type of ambitious folks as Wall Street. Perhaps, if government wasn't there artificially manipulating the market, market forces would be effective. If you have a better idea than the market, then, by all means, tell us. Wholesale condemnation of Wall Street without a viable alternative rings a trifle hollow IMHO. Fannie and Freddie alone ought demonstrate the folly of government involvement in markets, but, of course, the central planners will get it right the next time. It just needs a little more tinkering. Unfortunately, there is not one nation where that has been successful over the long term. The glory days of a pseudo-socialist Europe and the much ballyhooed ascendency of the European Union are long gone. The heralded China economy is overheated, but is fraught with nascent internal problems that will soon slow its influence.

No, free markets might not be ideal, but there just isn't anything else that reflects the inherent nature of self-interested human beings better while concomitantly nourishing liberty.

[Bigerik]

Funny, I thought the market worked better when it was more regulated.

[merrylander]

There were no bank failures in Canada, I wonder why that is. Reed the former CEO of Citi admitted that the model the bright boys of MIT wrote underestimated the risks. It made everything come up looking like roses so they made even more risky ventures like Derivatives, Tranches, Credit Default Swaps.

Freddi and Fanny were not the problem, the real problem is the moral hazard in the mortgage system. Broker finds a sucker (oops client) fabricates their income and gets a $300,000 mortgage takes $3000 and walks away. The lender takes $6000 and secutritizes the mortgage and walks away. It is a license to print money, and several major banks are in it up to their elbows. Fortunately the Attorney General of New York refused to go along with cozy little deal where the were going to grant the bankers immunity. Now we have the Justce Dept, FBI, SEC, Consumer Protection, etc. digging up the dirt and with luck some bankers are going to find their sorry arses in jail.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by bhunter

No, free markets might not be ideal, but there just isn't anything else that reflects the inherent nature of self-interested human beings better while concomitantly nourishing liberty.

I've heard that thought espoused and cited as the impetus for democracy. It was on a history channel show about buccaneers and pirates. Somehow they conflated the way a pirate crew chose their leaders by a vote, while ignoring that most of the leaders of the pirate movement got their letters of marque from the King or by murdering their competion. Hardly a business model to admire, don't you think?
Speaking for myself, I believe that is exactly the model we got from the so-called modernization of banking act. Gutting Glass Steagle in the quest for loot is why we're in the pickle we're in. It's piracy on a huge scale.
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (acronym-TANSTAAFL)
by Robert Anson Heinlein

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

No, free markets might not be ideal, but there just isn't anything else that reflects the inherent nature of self-interested human beings better while concomitantly nourishing liberty.

But the market was not free, it was rigged by the big financial institutions. You seem to get confused between ambition and greed at times.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Funny, I thought the market worked better when it was more regulated.

It did. It was more stabile. But, see there is more opportunity for profit making in volatility, more spikes and dives. So, who cares if a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs with each nosedive, they'll find another job during the next short lived spike. And, in the meanwhile, the Gordon Gekkos and Mitt Romneys of this world cash in. So, it's all good.

Right?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

No, free markets might not be ideal, but there just isn't anything else that reflects the inherent nature of self-interested human beings better while concomitantly nourishing liberty.

Nourishing liberty? There's "liberty" to be found in unemployment? You're somehow more free if you're changing jobs every couple of years whether you like it or not?

Oh, you're talking about the "liberty" enjoyed by the heads of the business world. (But, not so much the proles.) Oh, okay, I see.

Dave