Campaign donations.

[CultureCitizen]

"The distinguishing feature of Iraq's auction of oil rights this weekend is the relative absence of American companies, in contrast to five weeks ago, when US firm ExxonMobil and Anglo-Dutch Shell signed an agreement to develop the West Qurna Phase 1 field."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KL16Ak01.html

“The Chinese are the biggest beneficiary of this post-Saddam oil boom in Iraq,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...its-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Exxon to Pull Out of Huge Iraq Oil Project InvestorPlace

Russia appears ready to step into the Iraqi oil picture - UPI.com
"Iraq's strategic effort to become the world's leading oil producer has taken some bad knocks, with the defection of Exxon Mobil and other majors to independence-minded Kurdistan, and Wednesday's expulsion of Turkey's state oil outfit from an exploration deal.

But Russia seems more than ready to step in and fill the gap in foreign investment that Baghdad needs to rebuild and expand its oil and gas industry on which the country's future depends"

So let's recap....

Claim "Entire war was exclusively about oil".

1. They are pulling out , which clearly means there was an intention to develop the industry . Isn't that proof enough?
2. Why are they pulling out ? Might it be because they are having trouble dealing with the government in midst of the turmoil and the widthrawall of troops.
Again , a failed strategy. Add insult to injury, Dubya wages the war , spends trillions with false statements and now Rusian and Chinese will get the war spoils.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Pinochet did have public support. Allende, only had 34% of the vote.
"When General Augusto Pinochet ousted Chilean president Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 , 80% of Chileans viewed the coup as a rescue operation—a return to order from a chaotic presidency."

Myths of Latin America

When you don't know what you are talking about, make sure you don't accuse others of not knowing. I've read about Pinochet in detail. He was widely supported by the public at the time. Allende was NEVER supported by the public.
In fact, Pinochet had more public support in the 1980s while he was in power, than Obama has right now.

Salvador Allende was not popular. I'll admit that.
That is very different from saying Augusto Pinochet was popular. Man , where did this site get the 80% figure.
He didn't get that even in the rigged referendum :
Chilean constitutional referendum 1980 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In the aftermath most Chileans regard this period of history as a negative one .

BBC News - Chile still split over Gen Augusto Pinochet legacy

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Goldman wasn't a bank, wouldn't have been covered by Glass-Steagall.
Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented a single bad mortgage.

I will repeat myself : bailing out is not part of the free market.

Neither is endless regulation.

I'm against bailout and QE.
True. Glass Steagal wouldn't have prevented bad mortgages. But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.
Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.

So what? The US Treasury made $1.4 billion, for a loan they repaid in less than 9 months.

Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

Yeah, waves of bank failures costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars would have been better than TARP, which saved the banking system and gave the Treasury over $50 billion in profits. LOL!

 

[dblack]

Certainly , not. I really despise dictatorships, but my perception of a democracy turning into corporatocracy doesn't make me happy either.

The thing I wished you could understand is, free market capitalist conservatives are not corporatists. I am a free market capitalist conservative. I go by the moniker Boss because I've always been the boss. I know business and I know how to make one successful. But I have to say, if I were 18 years-old again and had to become successful under today's federal burdens, I doubt I could do it as easily, or if I could do it at all.

We have slowly moved away from true free market capitalism and free enterprise. I want us to return to that and I believe we can, but it starts with changing our direction. The corporatists (both R and D) are having their way in Washington right now. They have found a way to exploit this liberal anger toward capitalist rich folk. All the thousands of laws being passed to regulate and punish those evil bastards.... it's all manipulated by the corporatists who take capitalist advantage.

Here's how we stop the Corporatists. Deregulation. [*liberal heads explode*] By removing the influences of Federal government on free market capitalism and focusing more on corruption and anti-trust, the corporatists no longer have anything to manipulate. You've taken that away from them and opened the door for the spirit of entrepreneurship in a free enterprise system.

The Conservative Right, in 2016, needs to do a better job of articulating the difference between corporatists and free market capitalist conservatives. Contrary to what most left-wing radicals will say, they are not one in the same. Corporatists come in all persuasions, Mitt Romney, George Soros, The Bushes, Billary Clinton... These are capitalists who think we should use the power of government to regulate other capitalists to benefit their own interests. This is not free market capitalism.

Couldn't agree more.

Goldman wasn't a bank, wouldn't have been covered by Glass-Steagall.
Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented a single bad mortgage.

I will repeat myself : bailing out is not part of the free market.

Neither is endless regulation.

I'm against bailout and QE.
True. Glass Steagal wouldn't have prevented bad mortgages. But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.
Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.

So what? The US Treasury made $1.4 billion, for a loan they repaid in less than 9 months.

Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

Yeah, waves of bank failures costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars would have been better than TARP, which saved the banking system and gave the Treasury over $50 billion in profits. LOL!

Yes. Actually, it would have.

 

[CultureCitizen]

But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.

So what? The US Treasury made $1.4 billion, for a loan they repaid in less than 9 months.

Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

Yeah, waves of bank failures costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars would have been better than TARP, which saved the banking system and gave the Treasury over $50 billion in profits. LOL!

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?
What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?
And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Any regular company in trouble simply files for bankrupcy and that's the end of the story.

 

[Boss]

The thing I wished you could understand is, free market capitalist conservatives are not corporatists. I am a free market capitalist conservative. I go by the moniker Boss because I've always been the boss. I know business and I know how to make one successful. But I have to say, if I were 18 years-old again and had to become successful under today's federal burdens, I doubt I could do it as easily, or if I could do it at all.

We have slowly moved away from true free market capitalism and free enterprise. I want us to return to that and I believe we can, but it starts with changing our direction. The corporatists (both R and D) are having their way in Washington right now. They have found a way to exploit this liberal anger toward capitalist rich folk. All the thousands of laws being passed to regulate and punish those evil bastards.... it's all manipulated by the corporatists who take capitalist advantage.

Here's how we stop the Corporatists. Deregulation. [*liberal heads explode*] By removing the influences of Federal government on free market capitalism and focusing more on corruption and anti-trust, the corporatists no longer have anything to manipulate. You've taken that away from them and opened the door for the spirit of entrepreneurship in a free enterprise system.

The Conservative Right, in 2016, needs to do a better job of articulating the difference between corporatists and free market capitalist conservatives. Contrary to what most left-wing radicals will say, they are not one in the same. Corporatists come in all persuasions, Mitt Romney, George Soros, The Bushes, Billary Clinton... These are capitalists who think we should use the power of government to regulate other capitalists to benefit their own interests. This is not free market capitalism.

Ok Boss,
I can agre with many of your points :
1. Corporations are having their way in Washington.
2. Deregulation.Agreed, except I would still like to full enforcement of Glass Steagal for banks. Bailing out is not in my free market book. So it should not be an option for any bank. Split the banks , dont let tem be too big to fail.
3. Other issues healthcare , pensions and education ( the bigest areas of govt. expenditure ) I am open to hearing options.

I think you are still missing my point. Corporations are not having their way in Washington, corporatists are. Many corporations are run by free market capitalists like myself, they are not corporatists. These corporations are quite often the victim of corporatist influence of policy. Again, when the powers of government are used to benefit one corporation or industry over others, this is corporatism. Policies favorable to all corporations or capitalists is not corporatism.

Glass-Steagall is a mixed bag. The original 1933 act was governmental regulation of certain types of banks. Over the years, corporatists found ways to loophole and legislate around the regulations they didn't like. The effective repeal in 1999 simply removed the unfair loopholes some corporatists were able to exploit. Now the corrupt corporatists would rather have Glass-Steagall and be able to leverage advantages over competition by exploiting loopholes. And the thing is, no matter what regulations you have, corporatists powers and influence will inevitably find a way to exploit and create loopholes to advantage their own interests at the expense of the scrupulous capitalist.

I don't believe in "too big to fail" either, that's a foundational principle of free market capitalism... some capitalists fail as others take their place, size has no role. In 1989 a certain international company with offices all over the world, held basically a monopoly on their vendor services provided to K-Mart and Walmart, as well as numerous other retail chain outlets. Myself and 4 others started a company in a garage and we went after their Walmart account. Walmart at the time was trying to distinguish themselves above K-Mart so we won a contract for 195 stores and within a year, were granted the entire contract for Wal-Mart nationwide. By 2000, our company was reporting larger earnings than our international competitor. By 2010, their company was bankrupt.

As for healthcare , pensions and education, these are not the responsibility of the capitalist. These are tangibles desired by the individual and it should be up to the individual to provide for what they want or decline what they don't want. Those are not "free" items, someone has to pay for them. I realize they are important but so is food and shelter, so is everything people work to provide for. By insisting on more regulations forcing capitalists to provide these things, you enable the corporatist to exploit that to their advantage and they will. They always do.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I think you are still missing my point. Corporations are not having their way in Washington, corporatists are. Many corporations are run by free market capitalists like myself, they are not corporatists. These corporations are quite often the victim of corporatist influence of policy. Again, when the powers of government are used to benefit one corporation or industry over others, this is corporatism. Policies favorable to all corporations or capitalists is not corporatism.

Sory Boss, I did rush my answer, but I was trying to make reference to the corporations that make big donations AND expect the politicians to create some special advantage for their industry or even worse for their company.

Glad to hear you do not endorse the too-big-to-fail BS.

 

[CultureCitizen]

As for healthcare , pensions and education, these are not the responsibility of the capitalist. These are tangibles desired by the individual and it should be up to the individual to provide for what they want or decline what they don't want. Those are not "free" items, someone has to pay for them. I realize they are important but so is food and shelter, so is everything people work to provide for. By insisting on more regulations forcing capitalists to provide these things, you enable the corporatist to exploit that to their advantage and they will. They always do

Ah , this could provide the material for a really good discussion regarding the role of government and intervention in market failures and what to do with an ever increasing automation, but that is the matter for another thread.

 

[Boss]

Sory Boss, I did rush my answer, but I was trying to make reference to the corporations that make big donations AND expect the politicians to create some special advantage for their industry or even worse for their company.

Glad to hear you do not endorse the too-big-to-fail BS.

Well we get into a real philosophical bugaboo here because, in essence, isn't this what we all do? We all expect the person we vote for and support, to do things for our benefit. If I am running for office and I tell you, Culture, I'm not going to do anything for you when I get elected. In fact, I am going to ensure you get no special advantages over anyone else.... Would you vote for me? Would you send me money to get elected? Or would you vote for my opposition who is promising you the moon?

I wish that I could get you to understand, the money is not the problem here... it's the corrupt politician who has no ethics and the corporatists who are looking out for themselves. You fix this by doing two fundamental things... One: Stop electing unscrupulous politicians with no character and integrity. and Two: Take away the corporate tools of leverage found in Federal regulation. Deregulation means the corporatist no longer has government leverage and free market capitalism will prevail. Now... don't take this to the extreme and claim Boss wants us to pollute the water and air by deregulating capitalists, that's not what I am saying at all. We need certain regulations, they are beneficial to us all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Certainly , not. I really despise dictatorships, but my perception of a democracy turning into corporatocracy doesn't make me happy either.

The thing I wished you could understand is, free market capitalist conservatives are not corporatists. I am a free market capitalist conservative. I go by the moniker Boss because I've always been the boss. I know business and I know how to make one successful. But I have to say, if I were 18 years-old again and had to become successful under today's federal burdens, I doubt I could do it as easily, or if I could do it at all.

We have slowly moved away from true free market capitalism and free enterprise. I want us to return to that and I believe we can, but it starts with changing our direction. The corporatists (both R and D) are having their way in Washington right now. They have found a way to exploit this liberal anger toward capitalist rich folk. All the thousands of laws being passed to regulate and punish those evil bastards.... it's all manipulated by the corporatists who take capitalist advantage.

Here's how we stop the Corporatists. Deregulation. [*liberal heads explode*] By removing the influences of Federal government on free market capitalism and focusing more on corruption and anti-trust, the corporatists no longer have anything to manipulate. You've taken that away from them and opened the door for the spirit of entrepreneurship in a free enterprise system.

The Conservative Right, in 2016, needs to do a better job of articulating the difference between corporatists and free market capitalist conservatives. Contrary to what most left-wing radicals will say, they are not one in the same. Corporatists come in all persuasions, Mitt Romney, George Soros, The Bushes, Billary Clinton... These are capitalists who think we should use the power of government to regulate other capitalists to benefit their own interests. This is not free market capitalism.

Couldn't agree more.

Goldman wasn't a bank, wouldn't have been covered by Glass-Steagall.
Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented a single bad mortgage.

I will repeat myself : bailing out is not part of the free market.

Neither is endless regulation.

I'm against bailout and QE.
True. Glass Steagal wouldn't have prevented bad mortgages. But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.
Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.

So what? The US Treasury made $1.4 billion, for a loan they repaid in less than 9 months.

Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

Yeah, waves of bank failures costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars would have been better than TARP, which saved the banking system and gave the Treasury over $50 billion in profits. LOL!

Yes. Actually, it would have.

LOL!

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well we get into a real philosophical bugaboo here because, in essence, isn't this what we all do? We all expect the person we vote for and support, to do things for our benefit. If I am running for office and I tell you, Culture, I'm not going to do anything for you when I get elected. In fact, I am going to ensure you get no special advantages over anyone else.... Would you vote for me? Would you send me money to get elected? Or would you vote for my opposition who is promising you the moon?

Ah , perhaps because I am kind of idealistic. So even if I get nothing but taxes :
Would you make a fair society?
Would you trully help the world become more democratic?
Will you help every american citizen have equal oportunities for education or to get a job when equally qualified or the chance to build a small company ( even if it's a hot dog stand)?

Then sure enough I would vote for you. (but that's only me )

One: Stop electing unscrupulous politicians with no character and integrity. and Two: Take away the corporate tools of leverage found in Federal regulation.

Ahhgg. That's the very very hard part. I think there is an undersupply of politicians with character and integrity. And I really , really wouldn't know how to start fixing that.

Take away the corporate tools of leverage found in Federal regulation.

Simple rules. I am clueless how they can build rules which are ever more complex.
But I am pesimestic to this argument : Corruption allways finds a way in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.

So what? The US Treasury made $1.4 billion, for a loan they repaid in less than 9 months.

Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

Yeah, waves of bank failures costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars would have been better than TARP, which saved the banking system and gave the Treasury over $50 billion in profits. LOL!

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?
What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?
And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Any regular company in trouble simply files for bankrupcy and that's the end of the story.

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?

The Fed balance sheet was $800 billion before the crisis, $4.4 trillion now.
That's not tax dollars, so why do you care?

What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?

Trash assets? LOL! Guaranteed bonds are not trash.

And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Who said we have a free market in banking?

 

[Boss]

Ah , this could provide the material for a really good discussion regarding the role of government and intervention in market failures and what to do with an ever increasing automation, but that is the matter for another thread.

While there have been some areas where government has intervened in market failures and it has been a somewhat good thing for most, it's still not free market capitalism. The better alternative is to have government encourage private sector solutions found in the free market itself.

A good example to look at here is public education. The government intervened because the market was providing insufficient result. The demand for education was high but the supply was expensive and limited. But due to lack of free market competition, the government education system becomes lazy, bloated, bureaucratic and lethargic. In the end, supply meets demand but the product is vastly inferior. Contrast this with the private sector solution where schools compete for consumer dollars and you have a much better product in the end because they are driven by competition.

Automation and technology has always been an issue in free market capitalism. But again, this does not exist in a vacuum. New technology and automation costs money and that money has to be recoverable or the capitalist isn't interested.

 

[CultureCitizen]

But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.

So what? The US Treasury made $1.4 billion, for a loan they repaid in less than 9 months.

Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

Yeah, waves of bank failures costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars would have been better than TARP, which saved the banking system and gave the Treasury over $50 billion in profits. LOL!

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?
What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?
And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Any regular company in trouble simply files for bankrupcy and that's the end of the story.

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?

The Fed balance sheet was $800 billion before the crisis, $4.4 trillion now.
That's not tax dollars, so why do you care?

What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?

Trash assets? LOL! Guaranteed bonds are not trash.

And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Who said we have a free market in banking?

QE
"A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying specified amounts of financial assets fromcommercial banks and other private institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the monetary base."
Morgage backed securities fall in this category . Where did you get the fed was buying Guaranteed bonds ?

Quantitative easing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.

So what? The US Treasury made $1.4 billion, for a loan they repaid in less than 9 months.

Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

Yeah, waves of bank failures costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars would have been better than TARP, which saved the banking system and gave the Treasury over $50 billion in profits. LOL!

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?
What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?
And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Any regular company in trouble simply files for bankrupcy and that's the end of the story.

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?

The Fed balance sheet was $800 billion before the crisis, $4.4 trillion now.
That's not tax dollars, so why do you care?

What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?

Trash assets? LOL! Guaranteed bonds are not trash.

And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Who said we have a free market in banking?

QE
"A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying specified amounts of financial assets fromcommercial banks and other private institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the monetary base."
Morgage backed securities fall in this category . Where did you get the fed was buying Guaranteed bonds ?

Quantitative easing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Morgage backed securities fall in this category . Where did you get the fed was buying Guaranteed bonds ?

They only buy MBS from Fannie or Freddie. Those are guaranteed.
You didn't know that?

 

[CultureCitizen]

But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.

So what? The US Treasury made $1.4 billion, for a loan they repaid in less than 9 months.

Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

Yeah, waves of bank failures costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars would have been better than TARP, which saved the banking system and gave the Treasury over $50 billion in profits. LOL!

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?
What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?
And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Any regular company in trouble simply files for bankrupcy and that's the end of the story.

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?

The Fed balance sheet was $800 billion before the crisis, $4.4 trillion now.
That's not tax dollars, so why do you care?

What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?

Trash assets? LOL! Guaranteed bonds are not trash.

And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Who said we have a free market in banking?

QE
"A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying specified amounts of financial assets fromcommercial banks and other private institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the monetary base."
Morgage backed securities fall in this category . Where did you get the fed was buying Guaranteed bonds ?

Quantitative easing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Morgage backed securities fall in this category . Where did you get the fed was buying Guaranteed bonds ?

They only buy MBS from Fannie or Freddie. Those are guaranteed.
You didn't know that?

Man , get serious.
Many major banks have participated in QE.

Big banks made 650 million off of Fed s QE program - Fortune

 

[Boss]

Ah , perhaps because I am kind of idealistic. So even if I get nothing but taxes :
Would you make a fair society?
Would you trully help the world become more democratic?
Will you help every american citizen have equal oportunities for education or to get a job when equally qualified or the chance to build a small company ( even if it's a hot dog stand)?

Then sure enough I would vote for you. (but that's only me )

And you've proven my point. You just gave me a list of things you want in exchange for your vote.

Now, I can certainly promise you those things, that takes no effort at all.... Sure, Culture, vote for me and I'll make society fair and the world democratic! Everyone will have everything and we'll all be living in harmonious bliss. While I am at it, I'll eliminate sickness and poverty and we'll never have war again. So I can count on your vote, right?

You see there are some problems here... How do you propose we make society "fair" when there is no such thing? This is Utopian fantasy, a society that is totally fair for all in all circumstances. It doesn't exist in our reality. You recall the Lincoln adage; "You can please some of the people some of the time....?" Well this is what he's talking about. It's not possible for 350 million Americans to all universally feel like things are fair in society.

The very nucleus of the concept behind individual liberty is impossible to have with complete fairness ensured. Think about it. Individual liberty means that I am free to go out there and gain the wealth and status which I desire. It means I am free to use my own mind, to develop my own ideas, to reap the reward for those ideas in their own right. I am not obligated to be fair to others who lack my wisdom and insight. We can't have a system that ensures fairness without destroying individual liberty.

Now we can do things to ensure equality of opportunity, and I am all for that. I don't think it should be done on basis of race, I don't mind it being done by economic status so much. I never voted for Clinton but I liked the policy of "empowerment zones" and that sort of thing. Whenever government can be used to foster generic free capitalist growth, they should do that.... don't have a problem with some tax dollars going to that.

One: Stop electing unscrupulous politicians with no character and integrity. and Two: Take away the corporate tools of leverage found in Federal regulation.

Ahhgg. That's the very very hard part. I think there is an undersupply of politicians with character and integrity. And I really , really wouldn't know how to start fixing that.

Hey, it's a real problem we've gotten ourselves into and it isn't easy to fix. Our entire perspective of the political system is askew. Every election, we line up to vote for the politician who promises to do stuff for us. This means passing more laws, more regulations, more restrictions, more government solutions. We vote for the representatives who "bring home the bacon" because we look at politics as a way to get what we want. It doesn't matter if you are republican, democrat, conservative or liberal... even independent or libertarian.

This was a major fear of both Madison and Jefferson, as well as other founding fathers. The Nature of Government, as they put it, is to always grow and consume freedom of the individual. This is why they enumerated powers of government and believed strongly in a limited federal government. We've gone WAY over the boundaries of anything they would have ever considered.

Take away the corporate tools of leverage found in Federal regulation.

Simple rules. I am clueless how they can build rules which are ever more complex.
But I am pesimestic to this argument : Corruption allways finds a way in.

Of course it does, and when you regulate and restrict those who are operating legally above the law, this makes the potential corruption more important than ever. It is counter intuitive. As has been pointed out, the corrupt individuals are simply not going to follow your rules. The rules punish the honest not the corrupt.

We have to strongly enforce anti-corruption. When we find a quid pro quo, we have to frogmarch a Senator or two out in shackles. We can't tolerate unethical behavior in persons who have political power. We have to punish this harshly instead of ignoring it or spinning it politically while refusing to hold our favored politicians accountable. That is really all you can do for corruption.. send butts to prison when they're caught.

Corporatists are mostly not criminals. They aren't doing illegal stuff, for the most part. They are using the power of government and their influence, to line the pool balls up as they please for their trick shot. You can take the pool table away or remove the balls, but this destroys the game for all. It's better to remove their ability to manipulate the balls.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.

So what? The US Treasury made $1.4 billion, for a loan they repaid in less than 9 months.

Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

Yeah, waves of bank failures costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars would have been better than TARP, which saved the banking system and gave the Treasury over $50 billion in profits. LOL!

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?
What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?
And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Any regular company in trouble simply files for bankrupcy and that's the end of the story.

You have any idea on how much money has been poured into QE ?

The Fed balance sheet was $800 billion before the crisis, $4.4 trillion now.
That's not tax dollars, so why do you care?

What is the government going to do with all those trash assets ?

Trash assets? LOL! Guaranteed bonds are not trash.

And how does this feet into your idea of free market ?

Who said we have a free market in banking?

QE
"A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying specified amounts of financial assets fromcommercial banks and other private institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the monetary base."
Morgage backed securities fall in this category . Where did you get the fed was buying Guaranteed bonds ?

Quantitative easing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Morgage backed securities fall in this category . Where did you get the fed was buying Guaranteed bonds ?

They only buy MBS from Fannie or Freddie. Those are guaranteed.
You didn't know that?

Man , get serious.
Many major banks have participated in QE.

Big banks made 650 million off of Fed s QE program - Fortune

Are you okay? You keep changing the subject.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Are you okay? You keep changing the subject.

We were discussing QE.
The fed can't press the intrest rate any lower so they've resorted to QE.
Those 4.4 trillion are not made of exclusively of MBS from Fannie and Freddie. They contain all kinds of junk assets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you okay? You keep changing the subject.

We were discussing QE.
The fed can't press the intrest rate any lower so they've resorted to QE.
Those 4.4 trillion are not made of exclusively of MBS from Fannie and Freddie. They contain all kinds of junk assets.

We were discussing QE.

Yes. Your understanding is full of errors.

Those 4.4 trillion are not made of exclusively of MBS from Fannie and Freddie.

LOL! Of course not.

They contain all kinds of junk assets.

Why don't you tell me about the junk assets?
And then I'll show you your error.