Thoughts on the global financial crisis

Post Reply New Topic

The argument is to what degree really. I tend to think that the government does need to deal with healthcare, the criminal justice system, the military and have a certain social safety-net. Even Paine argues for something similar in "Agrarian Justice", I cannot quote him verbatim on it, but the reasoning went along the lines of that property ownership had robbed their ability to feed off the land as they would have in the natural state of humanity and therefore a pension of sorts should be paid out as compensation for this.

Provided that laissez-faire capitalism isn't desired as an economic system, the government will also have to regulate the capitalism a bit seeing as it loses its natural regulation once its no longer laissez faire.

If the government is to deal with healthcare then they mine as well tell us when to eat.

Given how f***ing fat 35% of Americans are, someone needs to start telling people what to eat and fast. All a public healthcare system really does is pool risk, it also benefits the country and the private sector since odds are reduced of people just kind of dying. It wouldn't change who provides your healthcare, you'd just pay for it with taxes and then the government pays when you need it.

[

So true but the right-wingers would pitch a hissy fit over such thing's I wouldn't though the obesity in america is due to the chain of fast foods and what they put in fast food to make it so fatening.

A lot of the people on top did see it coming, hence why several banks including Goldman-Sachs made quite a bit of money on it by shorting mortgage backed securities. Michael Burry did the exact same thing with his fund and he operated unrelated to the big banks. People forget that a corporations goal is to maximize shareholder value, taking care of people is the governments job.
As for the sociopath thing, its actually good for society that corporations behave as sociopaths because part of running a successful company means having to make decisions that inevitably leads to negative consequences for someone.

For instance, its not a fun thing to fire X people but if it keeps Y people working its better than both X and Y getting fired. The whole thing hinges on the government though. The job of the government is to go "hold it there, it may not be ideal to build a coal plant next to that kindergarten" however with the way the US finances political campaigns any person who wants a chance to get elected has to take money from a corporation and its very hard to bite the hand that feeds you. However, you cannot blame companies for exploiting this, you have to blame the jackasses in government who voted for the reforms.

The jackasses in government were voted on by the people, since everyone gets 1 vote so in the end the lion's share of the blame rests on the voters. That's the key here, people voting for people who will actually change things. When the Teabaggers and other people voting against their interest put a bunch of morons in Congress, the result is that President Obama and the Democrats are unable to do anything because the Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to keep corporations in power. Now, the democrats are not that much better, both parties are corporatist at this point and Obama is a right-winger by objective political standards. He's to the right of both Reagan and Nixon and arguably George H.W Bush.

This whole aftermath that we are now experiencing is because the economy is very dependent on politicians to act competently and effectively, unfortunately two things politicians generally are not is competent and effective. If the US bailout had been significantly bigger, much of the aftermath would most likely have been avoided since the result of a bailout that was something like 30% of what it needed to be, combined with the debt situation on a state and municipal level was that something like 600.000 government jobs and millions of private sector jobs were lost, something which is a huge problem when your economy is demand dependent such as the US.

There was simply not enough money available in the hands of consumers.

The vendors made fast food very tasty. Food that tastes good will sell more and faster than food that does not.

ruveyn

The vendors made fast food very tasty. Food that tastes good will sell more and faster than food that does not.

ruveyn

The vendors made fast food very tasty. Food that tastes good will sell more and faster than food that does not.

ruveyn

True but why can't the vendors make a healthy choice and sell it I am sure they can promote it in a good way.

I think the main problem is most people don't want to shoulder the blame. People actually believe that if their income isn't increasing 200% a year then it's the Presidents fault. People feel entitled. They don't want to wait 15 years to save up and buy that house they cannot afford right now. Everyone has to have the newest $500 phone. New car every few years. A car that probably gets 12 miles to the gallon, but hey, it's a cool flashy car !

The DOW is over 13k. I live within my means. I don't spend more than i make. to me, there is no financial crisis. sucks to be those people who are in a huge debt hole, but be honest with yourself, you put yourself there, not the President. or anyone else.

They are in the business of making the most profit. They are not in the business of guarding your health or mine. Let each person guard his own health as best he can. Not overdoing or overeating the products of the fast food chains is a good start in that regard.

The rule is very simple: Let the buyer beware.

ruveyn

Food does not have to be drenched in grease to taste good.

That is true, but greasy salty stuff seems to sell rather well. People should eat more sensibly than they do.

ruveyn