Comments on: Take action before helplessness sets in

By: charleydan

charleydan — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:44:08 +0000

At Mises Institute there is an article called “Inclined to Liberty” worth ones reading.

In that article they show a survey done in 2000-5 of 128 countries. The survey shows that there are five quintiles with almost identical percentages in all the countries. So weather you live in a free society or facism the quintiles do not change. In other words there is no advancement or change in class of people through socialism. What they did find was the freer the society the higher scale of income for all.

I guess that means it just takes more ditch diggers then WallStreeters to operate capitalism no matter what government structure you live under.

Socio-economics tells us that depression leads to socialism. Just what we need now, more socialism.

I understand governments motive as an investment for government to pay its bankrupt debts. But it is these type of things that open doors we wished we never went to. I think we will see far more radical things happen in the near future. I hate hearing them talk about Social Security. Next thing you know, poof’h your retirement IRA, 401′k are in the government hands as Social Security.

Americas broke and government needs cash.

By: J.P. Arendt

J.P. Arendt — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:34:58 +0000

HAHAHAHAH!!! I love the last line, Donald.

By: Donald

Donald — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:49:33 +0000

The whole idea that “Greed and corruption” in this imaginary entity called Wall Street brought down the U.S. economy boggles my mind. Who owns Wall Street? Well, over two thirds of Americans own some form of stock…. so assuming that stock implies ownership (which in light of recent government seizures may not hold true), than it would seem an awful lot like Americans and “Main Street” own “Wall Street”. Obviously, it’s technicalities how you label the two entities, but the point is, Wall Street wouldn’t exist without Main Street. Wall Street has always worked for Main Street. When the investors bought shares of all these financial institutions in the open market they voiced not only their approval of the large bank’s management, but also acceptance of risk. It wasn’t a secret that a large part of these banks were investing in asset backed securities. Yet, when it all collapsed, it was these very same people who were yelling for more regulation and oversight.

To me, this whole thing is a natural contraction that resulted from the most common 4 causes of any crisis: 1. High levels of inflation, 2. Speculative booms, 3. Easy access to money, and 4. Over-priced assets. And we seem to be planting the seeds for the next economic crisis in our response to this one. On a side note, I clearly went off on a tangent that has very little in relation to the previous comments, but the argument I was trying to make is that the essence of publicly owned corporations is that they are PUBLICLY owned. This means that it isn’t just Dick Fuld or John Mack making the decisions for the entire company and are the only ones responsible. Public ownership goes two ways – you take the gains in good times but you take the responsibility and losses during bad. You can’t take the gains and look to the government during bad. On another side note, wouldn’t it be fitting if Capitol Hill was renamed Capital Hill?

By: J.P. Arendt

J.P. Arendt — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:44:53 +0000

Let me get this straight, Tyler. You state that because large financial institutions believed that they were “too big to fail” and the government would bail them out that they acted irresponsibly and were “corrupt”. Then you move on to say that because the government is taking equity that they will be less corrupt? The government has essentially stated that it will bailout anybody and everybody, small or large. Best case scenario a company takes huge risks and makes tons of money. Worst case scenario they lose tons of money and are able to give up a portion of the equity of the business to avoid outright bankruptcy. Seems to me that these government bailouts would actually cause much more corporate corruption, even if the government does take equity. So, now we have even more corrupt companies and a socialist government. Wonderful.

By: Tyler B Harvey

Tyler B Harvey — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:31:22 +0000

Ms Adrian,
As for motivation; you’re absolutely correct. I believe that the large financial institutions always believed in the back of their minds that since they are so instrumental in distributing capital in America to get construction projects off the ground, that the government wouldn’t ever allow them to fail. This motivation to be corrupt and fail was seen during the S&L crisis of the late 80s, and we’re seeing it today. Although I think that with the government now wanting to take ownership that there MAY be less corruption. Just a gut feeling though.