Anyone Remember Laissez Faire???

[antagon]

That's what I'm saying.

That wasn't what your OP conveyed. Entitlements for individuals as well as bailouts for corporations need to be eliminated.

Agreed.

consensus on utter poverty.

 

[The Rabbi]

That wasn't what your OP conveyed. Entitlements for individuals as well as bailouts for corporations need to be eliminated.

Agreed.

consensus on utter poverty.

Right. Because without government giving money to big companies we all know we'd be eating dog food.

 

[jillian]

Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?

Laissez faire is great for corporations... for monopolies... for the rich.

destroys the middle class.

thanks but no thanks. the concept of living in a banana republic doesn't appeal to me.

just sayin.

 

[antagon]

no bailout, rabbi, no recovery - if even to the feeble extents we can claim a recovery today, and notwithstanding the wasteful and cronyistic nature of the TARP and the fed's action.

i'm sure your libertarian bullshit economics proposes we should halt entitlement spending to get out of a recession, too.

 

[Truthmatters]

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PLEASE study the history folks.

When banks were left to their own devices without any regulations we had recession every two year or less.

Go look at the list and how long each recession lasted.

This was the economy right up until it lead us into a Great depression.

What you people want was in place at one time, it kept this country from developing a sizable middle class.

 

[antagon]

Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?

Laissez faire is great for corporations... for monopolies... for the rich.

destroys the middle class.

thanks but no thanks. the concept of living in a banana republic doesn't appeal to me.

just sayin.

laissez faire is not good for business. i would narrow your beneficiaries to monopolies, alone. maybe add crooks and robber barons.

the rich as we know it would not benefit. we would have considerably fewer wealthy in the US if we had some laissez-faire garbage instead of our pro-business, pro-consumer economy.

 

[jillian]

Just saying...

Anyone consider had we just left these big corporations alone, fail and then eventually recover, instead of propping them up... That we may have been way better off?

Laissez faire is great for corporations... for monopolies... for the rich.

destroys the middle class.

thanks but no thanks. the concept of living in a banana republic doesn't appeal to me.

just sayin.

laissez faire is not good for business. i would narrow your beneficiaries to monopolies, alone. maybe add crooks and robber barons.

the rich as we know it would not benefit. we would have considerably fewer wealthy in the US if we had some laissez-faire garbage instead of our pro-business, pro-consumer economy.

Good point. But the randians still think that corporations are somehow moral and will act in the interest of the population. I can't help wondering if they're naive, idealistic or just dumb as toast.

Maybe a combination of all three?

 

[Truthmatters]

They just have invested their hearts in the conservative mind set instead of in their country.

Its failed ideas over country for them

 

[The Rabbi]

no bailout, rabbi, no recovery - if even to the feeble extents we can claim a recovery today, and notwithstanding the wasteful and cronyistic nature of the TARP and the fed's action.

i'm sure your libertarian bullshit economics proposes we should halt entitlement spending to get out of a recession, too.

We have spent more money on this bailout and gotten the most feeble recovery to date. Does this not suggest that spending all that money was a really, really bad idea? Does it not suggest that leaving the markets alone would have been a whole lot more preferable to what we have now?
It is not "libertarian bullshit" (I am not a libertarian). It is basic economics 101. Government can only give money to one person by taking it from another. In this case they have taken billions of dollars from productive people and companies and given it to unproductive people and companies. Look at Fannie/Freddie. How much equipemtn could, say, Oracle have bought with all that money and used it to turn a profit? Or Exxon?

People yammer about third world this and that. Has anyone noticed that the "third world", China, Singapore, even South Korea are eating our lunch on a daily basis? Meanwhile the "First World" of France and Germany and Greece are stagnating under exactly the policies being pursued here.
If people cannot understand this then they are too stupid to take part in any debate and should stay home eating Pringles and watching Three's Company.

 

[Truthmatters]

10 Charts You Need To See Before The Weekend


Your problem is Obamas jobs chart revels a 180 turn arround from Bush.

 

[Sheldon]

I bet all those nine-fingered kids in Dickensian London wished they could forget laissez faire.

 

[Truthmatters]

When will the right admitt that unfettered markets have failed to produce what they claim they would produce all though history?

 

[antagon]

no bailout, rabbi, no recovery - if even to the feeble extents we can claim a recovery today, and notwithstanding the wasteful and cronyistic nature of the TARP and the fed's action.

i'm sure your libertarian bullshit economics proposes we should halt entitlement spending to get out of a recession, too.

We have spent more money on this bailout and gotten the most feeble recovery to date. Does this not suggest that spending all that money was a really, really bad idea? Does it not suggest that leaving the markets alone would have been a whole lot more preferable to what we have now?
It is not "libertarian bullshit" (I am not a libertarian). It is basic economics 101. Government can only give money to one person by taking it from another. In this case they have taken billions of dollars from productive people and companies and given it to unproductive people and companies. Look at Fannie/Freddie. How much equipemtn could, say, Oracle have bought with all that money and used it to turn a profit? Or Exxon?

People yammer about third world this and that. Has anyone noticed that the "third world", China, Singapore, even South Korea are eating our lunch on a daily basis? Meanwhile the "First World" of France and Germany and Greece are stagnating under exactly the policies being pursued here.
If people cannot understand this then they are too stupid to take part in any debate and should stay home eating Pringles and watching Three's Company.

i hate to break it to you but the guy by the dumpster wasn't teaching economics 101. your presumptions dont abide with basic econ or follow logic, whatsoever.

no, that government spending coincides with a weak recovery does not indicate that it is the impetus alone. that is pin-headed. where econ 101 would tell you the components of the GDP are consumption, government spending, investment, and net exports, it is indicated that inputs including government spending are insufficient for strong recovery.

oracle doesnt buy equipment for the hell of it, rabbi. they buy on necessity. what is the point of your simpleton's argument about what oracle could have done with bailout money?

developing countries and developed countries are defined, in part, by the rates of growth in their economies. nevermind debate, rabbi, are you too stupid to understand that pointing to the planets developing economies' growth rates is a tumble with circular cause and consequence?

 

[Truthmatters]

They refuse facts.

They refuse history and try to rewrite it.

They trash science and promote myths.

There is just no talking rationally with people who refuse to accept the facts at hand.

 

[Oddball]

Project much?

 

[Truthmatters]

Dude your ideas have never succeded in history.

Our own history of banks shows this and you just pretend your ideas are proven winners contrary to all the evidence

 

[Oddball]

My ideas took America from literally nothing to the world's #1 economic superpower inside 150 years.

If anyone's ideas haven't worked, they're those of the do-gooder Fabian socialist, like you.

 

[Truthmatters]

Then tell us those ideas that you think gave us this success?

 

[The Rabbi]

no bailout, rabbi, no recovery - if even to the feeble extents we can claim a recovery today, and notwithstanding the wasteful and cronyistic nature of the TARP and the fed's action.

i'm sure your libertarian bullshit economics proposes we should halt entitlement spending to get out of a recession, too.

We have spent more money on this bailout and gotten the most feeble recovery to date. Does this not suggest that spending all that money was a really, really bad idea? Does it not suggest that leaving the markets alone would have been a whole lot more preferable to what we have now?
It is not "libertarian bullshit" (I am not a libertarian). It is basic economics 101. Government can only give money to one person by taking it from another. In this case they have taken billions of dollars from productive people and companies and given it to unproductive people and companies. Look at Fannie/Freddie. How much equipemtn could, say, Oracle have bought with all that money and used it to turn a profit? Or Exxon?

People yammer about third world this and that. Has anyone noticed that the "third world", China, Singapore, even South Korea are eating our lunch on a daily basis? Meanwhile the "First World" of France and Germany and Greece are stagnating under exactly the policies being pursued here.
If people cannot understand this then they are too stupid to take part in any debate and should stay home eating Pringles and watching Three's Company.

i hate to break it to you but the guy by the dumpster wasn't teaching economics 101. your presumptions dont abide with basic econ or follow logic, whatsoever.

no, that government spending coincides with a weak recovery does not indicate that it is the impetus alone. that is pin-headed. where econ 101 would tell you the components of the GDP are consumption, government spending, investment, and net exports, it is indicated that inputs including government spending are insufficient for strong recovery.

oracle doesnt buy equipment for the hell of it, rabbi. they buy on necessity. what is the point of your simpleton's argument about what oracle could have done with bailout money?

developing countries and developed countries are defined, in part, by the rates of growth in their economies. nevermind debate, rabbi, are you too stupid to understand that pointing to the planets developing economies' growth rates is a tumble with circular cause and consequence?

I am not sure you are capable of engaging in debate here.
Paragraph 1: What does this have to do with anything? What does it even mean?
Paragraph 2: What does GDP have to do with anything? On that view the more money the federal government spends the higher our GDP, the more wealth we have. We can spend ourselves into prosperity. This has worked real well for the Greeks and the state of California, right?
Paragraph 3: Oracle buys equipment based on the projected economic return of that equipment. Lots of things go into that calculation, including cost of financing. If they are paying out more money for health insurance and carbon credits that leaves them less money for equipment. Pretty simple, eh?
Paragraph 4: Developed and developing countries are defined in part, but only in part, by rates of growth. There are plenty of other measures. But by any measure the Chinese, Singaporeans, Indians, and other countries with lower tax rates have stronger economies than we do now.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then tell us those ideas that you think gave us this success?

Limited government control over businesses, contracts, and the economy coupled with rule of law. The very ideas you swear up and down will turn us into third world countries, despite enormous evidence that the opposite is the case.