And who needs the Chieftans when you've got Chipper Jones?Emphasis mine.
ADD much?
(Hey, the economy's going to Hades in a handbasket, how come he's getting paid so much?)
The End of Capitalism?
- Thread starter Bird of Prey
- Start date
(Hey, the economy's going to Hades in a handbasket, how come he's getting paid so much?)
What we have right now is a capitalistic system that lacks the oversight needed for economical stability. We had the laws in place, just they weren't enforced, and assholish moves perpetrated by the leaders of the financial community, as well as the leaders of large corporate entities need to be held accountable. It's all a balancing act, if you over regulate then you end up with an environment that's makes business impossible, but as we've seen we can't trust people to act out of the goodness of their hearts if no one is being held accountable for their behavior.
Hold the reigns loosely but use an iron grip. When people cross the line and commit behaviors like we've seen in the past few years they should be fucking crucified. Put in prison with the worst of the rapists and murderers. While they might not be stealing from a bank at gunpoint, they're certainly stealing from millions that are invested in the stock market or work for those companies. Examples should be made when people pull a Madoff, and those people should spend the rest of their lives in prison, and have all of their assets stripped away.
Hold the reigns loosely but use an iron grip. When people cross the line and commit behaviors like we've seen in the past few years they should be fucking crucified. Put in prison with the worst of the rapists and murderers. While they might not be stealing from a bank at gunpoint, they're certainly stealing from millions that are invested in the stock market or work for those companies. Examples should be made when people pull a Madoff, and those people should spend the rest of their lives in prison, and have all of their assets stripped away.
All well and specific. But you umbrella'd it under a general statement (centralization)-- remember?
Specificity is a good thing, especially in this case. As I said, mind your rhetoric. I don't even disagree with what you said, just wish you would have put it clearer originally.
ETA: for curiosity's sake, when has the U.S. done this before? Ever?
AMC
Centralization isn't a generic statement, regarding economics. It is also sometimes referred to as a command economy. It is a specific type of economy, where the government manages commerce. For instance, if the government decided to buy a major banking institution.
Well, I'll meet stubborness with stubborness today. Let's map it out.
General to specific:
Economics --> Centralization* --> Printing money
*This is where you were originally (go look for yourself), less specific than "printing money" but more specific than general economics. Now why would I harp on you for being too general, relative to "economics"? Wouldn't that be...stupid? No, centralization was a generalization, considering your direct comparison to third-world countries which (you later note, specifically) print off new money to pay for old debts.
----
Besides that, you never answered: When has the U.S. done this before-- printed new money to pay off old debts? Have we run into the same problems as those third-world countries?
AMC
General to specific:
Economics --> Centralization* --> Printing money
*This is where you were originally (go look for yourself), less specific than "printing money" but more specific than general economics. Now why would I harp on you for being too general, relative to "economics"? Wouldn't that be...stupid? No, centralization was a generalization, considering your direct comparison to third-world countries which (you later note, specifically) print off new money to pay for old debts.
----
Besides that, you never answered: When has the U.S. done this before-- printed new money to pay off old debts? Have we run into the same problems as those third-world countries?
AMC
Did you follow any of the links in my posts?
I feel as if I have pointed to enough reliable sources backing up, or at least explaining my opinions that I shouldn't (and, in fact, won't) do so again.
If you examine those various news articles and opinion pieces and find some flaw there, or if you have some counter-evidence that says the Federal Government is not mimicking command economics, and is not printing off money, I'll be more than happy to look at it, and potentially revise my opinions, or else
If you want to say that the phrase I used was too generic, you're certainly entitled to believe as much, but it was not rhetoric, EG, "the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast."
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7. & 8. don't apply to what I was saying, but 3-6 do.
As I said earlier, I don't disagree with your posts! The question of whether or not we've used these practices before (and to what effect, begs the commentary) is not answered satisfactorily in your links-- I was looking for a specific affirmative or negative or somewhere-between. Yes, it's clear we are doing it now, but my question out of curiosity of the past, its effects, and if they're conducive to beneficial comparisons to third-world countries. This is considering the context outside the "practice" itself.
AMC
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7. & 8. don't apply to what I was saying, but 3-6 do.
As I said earlier, I don't disagree with your posts! The question of whether or not we've used these practices before (and to what effect, begs the commentary) is not answered satisfactorily in your links-- I was looking for a specific affirmative or negative or somewhere-between. Yes, it's clear we are doing it now, but my question out of curiosity of the past, its effects, and if they're conducive to beneficial comparisons to third-world countries. This is considering the context outside the "practice" itself.
AMC
Ah. I assumed something else. My bad.
I'm no historian, but I think this is mostly a first-time thing in the US. The New Deal was a step towards centralization, but it's generally considered to be beyond reproach.
We need a new gold standard. As I see it, having something tangible tied to our money worked really, really well. Gold would be a silly thing in today's economy, but as it stands now, money is becoming this increasingly intangible thing that can exist entirely in the form of credit, which is literally just a number. When the amount of money people have in credit exceeds the amount of money that actually exists, what happens?
We know what happens, and it ain't pretty. But it's not only third-world countries: Germany of course had this problem. Printing money makes its worth suspect; I wonder (with the increasing gold prices) just how out of whack our monay-inflation really is, and how much we can afford before the skew is too great to bear.
AMC
The problem with tying tangible things to money is that a lot of things that have value are intangible. Some of of the best exports I can think of are...anime, movies, video games, music, books and so on.
How does one tangibilize art and culture, which are rather vital parts of the economy. Or at least, I think they are.
How does one tangibilize art and culture, which are rather vital parts of the economy. Or at least, I think they are.
Right, except "services" are sometimes not directly tangible (higher education -- I studied English -- for example) and we still value them in terms of money, a "tangible thing". Besides that, I don't think things are always 100% tangible or not (huh?). Books are bound pieces of paper with ink or images on a laptop screen even while what they communicate may be "intangible".
AMC
Because you believe in capitalism doesn't mean you sanction theft. Theft is the problem and that is what regulations and laws are suppose to be about.
I trade and invest my money for a gain. I make a product. I sell a product. I buy a product. There is nothing in capitalism that says I have to believe in giving away my money to a con game. A con is taking money and giving nothing back in return. And that you have to regulate against because people are fundementally corruptable.
And Gordon Gekko on Wall Street was the VILLIAN, not the hero. He was the guy who took things, destroyed them and stole what was left. That wasn't building anything.
I trade and invest my money for a gain. I make a product. I sell a product. I buy a product. There is nothing in capitalism that says I have to believe in giving away my money to a con game. A con is taking money and giving nothing back in return. And that you have to regulate against because people are fundementally corruptable.
And Gordon Gekko on Wall Street was the VILLIAN, not the hero. He was the guy who took things, destroyed them and stole what was left. That wasn't building anything.
Any good capitalist should realize that the best kind of business is the one that keeps on giving: One that does not screw over the customers. If you do that, you'll eventually either run out or destroy the system.