Solution to the oil problem

[UShadItComing]

Absolutely amazing. Here we have people openly debating socialism which fails every single time it's tried. They then sight as supporting reasons, problems caused by government intervention in the market.

"hey! Government screwed this up! Let's give them control over the whole market!"

Yet, every single example of a government take over, shows absolute destruction. Here we have the best economy in the world, and yet we want to institute a system that the rest of the world has tried over and over with crap for results? Why?

You go look at all the socialist programs currently being run by the federal government, and even some states, and I'll show you a boondoggle with filled with fraud, mismanagement, and waste.

Even within our own economy, the biggest issues we are facing are caused by socialistic intervention!

You want to claim socialist economies lead the pack? Where? Which one? Name ONE socialist economy that is "leading the pack"!

I believe we were talking about standards of living.

World Top 10 - Countries with Highest
Standard of Living

Country

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland

But beside that you seem to be terribly confused over what the debate was all about. So let's begin slowly now. What would you have done in the Bear-Stearns collapse? I would assume that hating socialism so much you would have let them go to hell in a handbasket. Come on now, forget your belligerence and face the music with some answers.

And supposing that you would have bailed them out with a socialist style move on the part of the government, would you see to it that there are consequences for other corps who are about to go belly up and cause the ripple effect which was forecast? Not if it meant you would lose some of your own cash I'll bet!

It's o.k. to take cheap shots at socialism but when you come up against a situation like this you are going to have your feet held to the fire.

And don't try to tell me I'm a socialist.

 

[Andy]

World Top 10 - Countries with Highest
Standard of Living

Country

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland

What would you have done in the Bear-Stearns collapse? I would assume that hating socialism so much you would have let them go to hell in a handbasket.

Do you support corporate welfare? If not, then we shouldn't bail them out.

Do you believe in the Constitution, which doesn't give the federal government the authority to bail them out? If yes, then no.

if you blow all your money on lottery tickets, and can't pay your bills, then no I do not believe the tax payers should be forced to pay for your stupidity. Similarly, if a company makes bad choices and blows it's money on risky loans that are not likely to be repaid, no I do not think tax payers should be forced to cover their stupidity.

And supposing that you would have bailed them out with a socialist style move on the part of the government, would you see to it that there are consequences for other corps who are about to go belly up and cause the ripple effect which was forecast? Not if it meant you would lose some of your own cash I'll bet!

I have a simple solution. I don't borrow money. If I can't afford it, I shouldn't be borrowing to buy it. That said, if you do bail out companies, you encourage them to make bad choices knowing you'll bail them out. I would much rather let one fail, as a sign to others to shape up. Bailing them out, only encourages more bad behavior.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have both been flagged for bad accounting practices, evidence of mismanagement, and shaky loans. Yet they both continued for years until now, and why? Because they believed the government would bail them out if they got caught... hey they got caught, and shockingly the government bailed them out at our expense. Why is this so hard to get?

It's like giving a druggie money and hoping he won't blow it on drugs again. Bailing them out, makes us an enabler to bad practice. We are helping them in their folly.

It's o.k. to take cheap shots at socialism but when you come up against a situation like this you are going to have your feet held to the fire.

And don't try to tell me I'm a socialist.

I don't care what you are either way. The fact is socialism always fails. Even when you look at a country like Norway, it isn't socialist. Socialism means the government controls all means of production. Like China prior to 1978. That is socialism. Note how China was a 50% poor, crap backwords country. Now they are mostly Capitalist and booming.

Norway is considered a mixed economy. When you want to evaluate "socialism" when looking at a mixed economy, you have to look specifically at the Socialized industries as compared to non-socialized industries. The picture once again, becomes very clear. Norway sold 90% of it's stake in the socialized telecom company, making it private. Norway intends to sell off a majority claim in most of their state owned industries. Privatization is big time in Norway right now... why? Because their socialistic companies are not doing well... or as well as they should.

The oil price spike has done wonders for Norway's oil company, but prior to that, the state-owned oil company was flat, not advancing. This is why they plan to privatize it too.

Capitalism always works, provided it isn't screwed up by government regulations.

 

[BigRob]

And according to opinion on the right you would be wrong to not support that bailout and I shouldn't have to tell you the reason why. Regardless of whether or not you are against such bailouts, it happened. Now you need to deal with it and answer my question. I think your own extremist support of your brand of capitalism is preventing you from even understanding that this problem needed to be dealt with in that appropriate way. And so it should but once again: Corps can't remain immune from government interference in one instance and then socialist policies be implemented in times of crisis such as this. Can they? Now tell me what you would have done?

I would have let Bear-Sterns go out of business and let the market correct itself.

I tell you this to illustrate to you that it's nothing more than a tug-of-war between those who want better healthcare and those who don't want to pay for it. The former side has won the battle but we would still like to make it as good as France's.

I have no problem paying for good healthcare, I have a problem paying for other people's healthcare. I think it is a personal responsibility to get your own healthcare. As we seemed to conclude above, you would argue for national healthcare, and I would argue for my privitization and opening the market back up to the individual.

On a conservative Supply Side forum which I take part in sometimes all the conservatives are opposed to free public schools. Free schooling doesn't mesh with SS economics. If you think that 'most' conservatives are for free public education you would have to substantiate that claim. In any case you have missed or perhaps avoided the point haven't you. Conservative governments in other countries which practice capitalism go further than just free public educaton. Healthcare is another example where your contry appears to be standing alone.

Well, perhaps I am not as conservative as these people. I think that people should get a free education until high school. This entitles them to nothing however, they still have to go out and earn a job, or have worked hard to get into college.

Yes, but you wish the WHO wouldn't say what it wants. And you have failed to reconcile the fact that the people want the system fixed and all the pres candidates addressed the problem with their brand of solution. I'll leave you in your misery my friend.

I think the solution is the private route, but many do disagree.

Thank you for the explanation. Still, if all taxaton quintiles are examined the top quintiles end up paying less and your explanation doesn't really dispute that. I don't have access to all the facts which would allow a full rebuttal, nor do I want to even try. I don't however hear any serious rebuttal of the fact that Bush tax cuts for the rich arguably didn't take place. It's one of Obama's main campaigning points as well and I would think that McCain would have been on it with both feet by now. Are you missing something or are you perhaps being a little creative? In any case I will have to defer to your American explanation for now.

Obviously the top groups save more in terms of actual dollars, because they were paying so much more to begin with in terms of actual dollars. Bush did cut taxes for the wealthy Americans, but also for all Americans. He expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit and a lower capital gains rate benefited all Americans.

Further, I argue that cutting taxes for the wealthy is what grows the economy. Giving the middle class $500 dollars will win you some votes, but it will not do much else. The upper class are the ones who will take the money and invest heavily, or start a business, as opposed to the average person who takes the $500 and buys a weeks worth of groceries. Talk about a short term fix, tax breaks for the middle class are the biggest short term fix of all.

Good grief my friend! Are you actually trying to tell me that there is no mortgage crisis in your country???

I am telling you that there are roughly 106,000,000 million households in the United States, and that something like 2,400,000 are in danger of foreclosure. I would further argue that a number of these would be foreclosed on anyway without the credit crunch. So given the math, I would say that the "crisis" is a bit overblown.

Because Europe has made adjustments for the price of gas over the years and the US has not. In addition to that the US consumes much more per cap than Europe. Some experts project that $12/gallon would be catastrophic for the US but I certainly can't prove that assumption. I have no reason to not believe what they say but I believe that you have a lot of reasons to disbelieve. Primarily you are attempting to rebut my claims for patriotic reasons I suspect. I think you are running from the facts. That is only my personal suspicion on your stance.

I am unsure why you say I defend my positions out of patriotism? That said, I do not think $12 gas will destroy the economy. On top of that, the Saudi's cannot afford to let gas get that expensive. Their entire economy depends on oil exports, it is in their best interest to maintain a more acceptable price.

As you will note recently, they told Bush two times they would not up production, but then gas hit $4 a gallon and they came out that they would up production. They have a vested interest in seeing gas that is expensive, but not more expensive than the consumer can bear.

 

[UShadItComing]

Do you support corporate welfare? If not, then we shouldn't bail them out.

The point is Andy that if they weren't bailed out then it was thought that the ripple effect would shake the whole US economy in a negative way. Did you know that? Why do you think they bailed B-S out? Would I have bailed them out. No way but I'm Canadian and I would be making sure we didn't put ourselves in such a dumba-s capitalist position. Woud you support taking any measures to ensure the American people don't get left holding the bag the next time?

Do you believe in the Constitution, which doesn't give the federal government the authority to bail them out? If yes, then no.

Actually it's not my constitution and I find it very flawed to say the least. It has apparently become of little use in protecting the sanctity of the three brances of power because the pres can and has overruled congress with his whattaya call em, signing statements.

if you blow all your money on lottery tickets, and can't pay your bills, then no I do not believe the tax payers should be forced to pay for your stupidity. Similarly, if a company makes bad choices and blows it's money on risky loans that are not likely to be repaid, no I do not think tax payers should be forced to cover their stupidity.

I agree with you on the lottery ticket bit and I also maintain that we shouldn't offer so many lotteries. The problem is, that if a person bankrupts him/herself and his family is depending on him/her to bring home the groceries then it's created a situation which probably even a rabid conservative couldn't ignore. Specifically, children on the streets starving. I just gotta be in favour of helping those kids but you may not agree. Do you?

I have a simple solution. I don't borrow money. If I can't afford it, I shouldn't be borrowing to buy it. That said, if you do bail out companies, you encourage them to make bad choices knowing you'll bail them out. I would much rather let one fail, as a sign to others to shape up. Bailing them out, only encourages more bad behavior.

I don't borrow money either and haven't had to for a long time. But what are you going to do when you contract some sort of Cancer and you need medical help and it's going to cost you a hundred grand to get it? I've got the hundred or two and it it wouldn't bankrupt me but do you? If so you're damn lucky because the recent stats show the average American is up to his a-s in debt to the tune of $30,000.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have both been flagged for bad accounting practices, evidence of mismanagement, and shaky loans. Yet they both continued for years until now, and why? Because they believed the government would bail them out if they got caught... hey they got caught, and shockingly the government bailed them out at our expense. Why is this so hard to get?

It's a little late to flag the evil pigs now after they have ruined the lives of perhaps 100's of thousands. Why is it always after the fact in your country. Capitalists giving capitalists the benefit of the doubt too often? What about the little guy for a change?

It's like giving a druggie money and hoping he won't blow it on drugs again. Bailing them out, makes us an enabler to bad practice. We are helping them in their folly.

No doubt, but the bas--rd's kids scenario is the same as in your previous instance with the gambler. Capitalists sometimes don't like to take that extra step do they.

I don't care what you are either way. The fact is socialism always fails. Even when you look at a country like Norway, it isn't socialist. Socialism means the government controls all means of production. Like China prior to 1978. That is socialism. Note how China was a 50% poor, crap backwords country. Now they are mostly Capitalist and booming.

I really wish you would tell your fellow Americans what socialism means because I know and it's them that don't. Good point. In that case Canada is not a socialist country as they keep trying to tell me and neither is Norway, Sweden, or the rest of the leading 5. We're all mostly capitalist countries which acknowledge a social responsibility toward our citizens. Man oh man am I glad I got you to say that! I hope some of the ribid righties read this now. They might but they'll probably pretend to not.

Norway is considered a mixed economy. When you want to evaluate "socialism" when looking at a mixed economy, you have to look specifically at the Socialized industries as compared to non-socialized industries. The picture once again, becomes very clear. Norway sold 90% of it's stake in the socialized telecom company, making it private. Norway intends to sell off a majority claim in most of their state owned industries. Privatization is big time in Norway right now... why? Because their socialistic companies are not doing well... or as well as they should.

Perfect for Norway! But they haven't privatized everything and they practice a different sort of capitalism from the US. We can talk more about that but I already have said quite a bit. As for Canada, we in B.C. have ICBC which is provincial run. It's been working for about 40 years and it's a huge success. We allow private competition but that's a joke. They can't compete with ICBC. No sh-t pal, research it. The obvious reason is that the capitalists don't get a huge chunk of the money right off the top and that makes it a corp which no cap can compete with. Go figure eh!

The oil price spike has done wonders for Norway's oil company, but prior to that, the state-owned oil company was flat, not advancing. This is why they plan to privatize it too.

They might but what I enjoy out of that is the fact that Norway is a oil 'have' country and the US is a oil 'have-not country now. High oil prices may be your undoing!

Capitalism always works, provided it isn't screwed up by government regulations.

In the case of Bear-Stearns it didn't work and the government didn't screw it up, it saved it's a-s at the little guy's expense. Your grandchildren will thank you pal. And that's just the most current of the big screwups which the little guy gets to hold the bag for. Maybe capitalism doesn't 'always' work. Ya think?

 

[Andy]

The point is Andy that if they weren't bailed out then it was thought that the ripple effect would shake the whole US economy in a negative way. Did you know that? Why do you think they bailed B-S out? Would I have bailed them out. No way but I'm Canadian and I would be making sure we didn't put ourselves in such a dumba-s capitalist position. Woud you support taking any measures to ensure the American people don't get left holding the bag the next time?

This statement is contradictory and incompatible. Capitalism, by definition, means that the government doesn't bail them out and the public isn't left 'holding the bag'. This is an example of socialism that we got caught in.

By indicating you wouldn't put us in a "dumba-s capitalist position", you are indicating that you'd socialize it, which is the exact same thing, the public being left 'holding the bag'.

How do you claim one is better than the other?

Finely, you may have missed this, but Bear-Stearns still failed even with the bail-out. The economy didn't crash, the world didn't come to an end, everything is fine. Typically socialists always use "the sky is falling" tactics to scare people into doing socialism. Ultimately, big companies fall, new companies raise, people lose jobs and gain new ones, and the world goes around. They tried to justify bailing out Enron and Worldcom, yet both crashed, and we are still here. So the final answer is, no, we do not need socialism. Capitalism works best.

Actually it's not my constitution and I find it very flawed to say the least. It has apparently become of little use in protecting the sanctity of the three brances of power because the pres can and has overruled congress with his whattaya call em, signing statements.

Which is why the past 200 years of being under it, has put the US so far behind the superior Canadian system. If only we can achieve the economic and military leadership of Canada.

Executive Privilege. No I don't support that system, and it isn't in the Constitution. You can't blame the Constitution for things not in it, any more than you can blame a "no crossing" sign for not also saying "no running either". That's illogical.

The problem is, that if a person bankrupts him/herself and his family is depending on him/her to bring home the groceries then it's created a situation which probably even a rabid conservative couldn't ignore. Specifically, children on the streets starving. I just gotta be in favour of helping those kids but you may not agree. Do you?

I don't see any children starving in the streets. In fact most are horribly overweight, and spend all their time watching TV and playing video games.

That said, I am in favor of helping people, at the private level. We have food banks, homeless shelters, rescue centers, even free job training organizations. This is Charity, when you don't have to, but choose to help others.

When you steal from people, by force, and generally with other peoples money, you are not being charitable. You are being a tyrant, stealing from others in the name of "helping", not for the benefit of the poor, but for the benefit of your own politics. Typically the people in government who demand welfare and food stamps and government hand outs, with the accompanying hikes in taxes, are generally the most miserly scrooges that ever lived.

But what are you going to do when you contract some sort of Cancer and you need medical help and it's going to cost you a hundred grand to get it? I've got the hundred or two and it it wouldn't bankrupt me but do you? If so you're damn lucky because the recent stats show the average American is up to his a-s in debt to the tune of $30,000.

I pay for good health care insurance. That's the point of it. If not, then I'd pay for what I could, and get a bill for the rest, which I'd start paying on monthly, as many have done. If nothing else, I'd die. No one is "owed" anything for merely being alive. You have the right to pursue happiness, not a promise of it. Health care is not a right, it's a service to be pursued.

Yes the average American is broke. This is true, but it's true by choice. People choose to blow their money, to not save, to buy frivolous things they can't afford that hold no value. Who's fault is this? Government's? It's governments fault a guy blows all his money every friday at the beer joint and at the movies and on an expensive car to show how "manly" he is?

So what is the alternative? A socialist system that makes you broke by force? The nice thing about Capitalism is, you don't have to be broke. You can choose to be money wise, and be wealthy.

It's a little late to flag the evil pigs now after they have ruined the lives of perhaps 100's of thousands. Why is it always after the fact in your country. Capitalists giving capitalists the benefit of the doubt too often? What about the little guy for a change?

First of all, everyone is Capitalist that isn't in the government. "the little guy" syndrome is ironic because all you 'little guys' are capitalists.

So let's think this through. You are trying to claim that somehow, it's the fault of the government or companies, that cause thousands of people to go out and buy things they can't afford with money they didn't have?

The little guy makes choices. He choses to open a credit card account and ring up $30K in debt. Now who is at fault? The government who allowed the company to provide a service 'the little guy' wanted? Or the company for daring to provide the service 'the little guy' wanted? Or the little guy who choose to do something stupid?

Perfect for Norway! But they haven't privatized everything and they practice a different sort of capitalism from the US. We can talk more about that but I already have said quite a bit. As for Canada, we in B.C. have ICBC which is provincial run. It's been working for about 40 years and it's a huge success. We allow private competition but that's a joke. They can't compete with ICBC. No sh-t pal, research it. The obvious reason is that the capitalists don't get a huge chunk of the money right off the top and that makes it a corp which no cap can compete with. Go figure eh!

Two major hallmarks of a socialized system...
Corruption

...55 damaged vehicles sold to automotive dealers through a wholesale auto auction were subsequently resold to senior managers, employees and others who were either friends or relatives of employees. Five of the vehicles were later resold by the insiders for a profit. The audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers also found that concerns about activities at ICBC reported by whistleblowers on three separate occasions were not properly investigated, beginning in 2006.

Mismanagement:

All government-run auto insurers in Canada have required taxpayer subsidies as a result of charging too little in premiums and having insufficient start-up funds. In 1975-76, BC taxpayers had to bail out their government-run insurance company – Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) – in the amount of $181 million ($645 million in 2006 dollars), just two years after it had begun operations.

I'd also add poor service, however not all socialized system exhibit all three. It could also be argued that by having private competition, the beast known as ICBC is being forced to meet demand. That said the average price for insurance under ICBC is over US$130/month. I pay a bit less than half that. So I prefer my system over yours.

They might but what I enjoy out of that is the fact that Norway is a oil 'have' country and the US is a oil 'have-not country now. High oil prices may be your undoing!

Yeah, but you still fail to get that socialistic policies... policies that interfere with the Capitalist system, is specifically why we don't have. 90% of the acres of land that we know have oil are off limits for no other reason than government. Not Capitalism, but socialism. Same with ANWR. The government did a land grab in the 80s, and then specifically searched for oil on it, for the purpose of tapping it, and then prevented drilling for it for 25 years. Only now are they finely going to allow, what they knew about 15 years ago. You think if it had been left to Capitalism, that we would not have drilled in the last 25 years? Of course not. It's socialism that caused this whole thing.

In the case of Bear-Stearns it didn't work and the government didn't screw it up... Maybe capitalism doesn't 'always' work. Ya think?

Yes Capitalism does always work. Companies making bad choices and crashing, is proof that it works. Capitalism rewards those who are effective and efficient at providing a product or service, and conversely, causes the decline and crash of those who are ineffective or wasteful.

Government is what doesn't work, just like it didn't save Bear-Stearns, it just wasted tax money, which is what government ALWAYS does. Government always costs the 'little guys' money.

In France, a market analyst discovered that the French publicly owned Rail Service, had 33% more maintenance employees than the entire corporation had rail cars. He found that they could actually lay off 1 out of every 3 cheese eaters, and still have enough people to have 1 tech dedicated to each rail car for the entire year. Who pays for that? 'the little french guys' do. That... is socialism at work.

 

[UShadItComing]

Well I see this is going to be like pulling teeth Andy so let's see if I can get you straitened out on your first error before I waste more time on you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by UShadItComing
The point is Andy that if they weren't bailed out then it was thought that the ripple effect would shake the whole US economy in a negative way. Did you know that? Why do you think they bailed B-S out? Would I have bailed them out. No way but I'm Canadian and I would be making sure we didn't put ourselves in such a dumba-s capitalist position. Woud you support taking any measures to ensure the American people don't get left holding the bag the next time?

Andy wrote:

This statement is contradictory and incompatible. Capitalism, by definition, means that the government doesn't bail them out and the public isn't left 'holding the bag'. This is an example of socialism that we got caught in.

What's contradictory about what I said? In case you didn't notice it was your capitalist system which bailed them out!

It's an example of a socialist attempt to bailout a corp as I said and if it's going to continue then I maintain that there needs to be a mechanism where the American people will be protected and not be left holding the bag.

Work on it Andy and if you are able to demonstrate that you are capable of getting it right and not start hammering away like a rabid rightie on me then maybe we can talk. You may also acknowledge that I said I wouldn't have bailed them out because our socialist policies wouldn't allow for that and shouldn't. Only in America Andy!

Sheesh!

 

[Andy]

Well I see this is going to be like pulling teeth Andy so let's see if I can get you straitened out on your first error before I waste more time on you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by UShadItComing
The point is Andy that if they weren't bailed out then it was thought that the ripple effect would shake the whole US economy in a negative way. Did you know that? Why do you think they bailed B-S out? Would I have bailed them out. No way but I'm Canadian and I would be making sure we didn't put ourselves in such a dumba-s capitalist position. Woud you support taking any measures to ensure the American people don't get left holding the bag the next time?

Andy wrote:

What's contradictory about what I said? In case you didn't notice it was your capitalist system which bailed them out!

Um... these are mutually exclusive. Capitalism and "bail-out" are not compatible. If you bail-out a company, it isn't Capitalism. If it's Capitalism, you can not bail them out.

Capitalism is where the private individual, or group of individuals, assumes the risk and reward of the venture. As in, they own the means of production, and the success or failure of the means of production is on them. If the risk is moved to government in the form of a bail-out, this it is not how Capitalism works.

It's an example of a socialist attempt to bailout a corp as I said and if it's going to continue then I maintain that there needs to be a mechanism where the American people will be protected and not be left holding the bag.

The protection is simply to not have socialism. If there is no bail out, then tax payers are not left holding the bag, and no 'mechanisms' are needed.

See, from my perspective, you are looking at a socialistic failure, and claiming this is an example of Capitalism failing. That doesn't make sense. A failure of socialistic policy, is a failure of socialism, not Capitalism.

America is in the process of becoming a more socialized economy, and the problems and issue we are having, are due to socialization. Yet people oddly look at the massive screw ups caused by socialization, and claim it shows Capitalism doesn't work and we need more socialism to fix it.

No, what we need is a more complete return to Capitalism, and an elimination of Socialism.

 

[Sihouette]

Yeah, that darned sprinkling of socialism!

Every time I drive on our roads or think of how kids are getting educations I become irate at socialism.

Pure anything is a mistake when governing people.

And trusting a monopoly like BigOil is the same as submitting to fascism. Don't hear you guys discussing that much..

"Better fascist than socialist" eh? You've got it exactly backwards.

 

[UShadItComing]

Um... these are mutually exclusive. Capitalism and "bail-out" are not compatible. If you bail-out a company, it isn't Capitalism. If it's Capitalism, you can not bail them out.

Well Andy, I see I wasn't wrong to try to get you to speak without a forked tongue and now I see you are a waste of my effort. So I'll just repeat in a language even a 6th. grader will understand.

Bear-Stearns screws up.

Capitalist rightwing government bails out B-S.

Taxpayers pay bill.

Need to protect taxpayers is obvious.

Capitalism is where the private individual, or group of individuals, assumes the risk and reward of the venture. As in, they own the means of production, and the success or failure of the means of production is on them.

Time after time it's proving to not work that way. B-S is just one example.

If the risk is moved to government in the form of a bail-out, this it is not how Capitalism works.

That is how US capitalism works as we have seen time after time. And it is not how capitalism works in Canada where we have sensible social policies for our people and we don't lay the expense of a failing corp on the people. Get it now Andy?

The protection is simply to not have socialism. If there is no bail out, then tax payers are not left holding the bag, and no 'mechanisms' are needed.

B-S failed, the gov bailed them out. It was decided that the ripple effect would have the potential of destroying your economy further. Again Andy, in your great capitalist wisdom what would you do?

See, from my perspective, you are looking at a socialistic failure, and claiming this is an example of Capitalism failing. That doesn't make sense. A failure of socialistic policy, is a failure of socialism, not Capitalism.

For what it's worth Andy, and that's only the comic relief I am offering the lefties here, the failure was a capitalist failing. The bailout was a socialist response to that capitalist failing. Get your head together on that Andy.

America is in the process of becoming a more socialized economy, and the problems and issue we are having, are due to socialization. Yet people oddly look at the massive screw ups caused by socialization, and claim it shows Capitalism doesn't work and we need more socialism to fix it.

No, what we need is a more complete return to Capitalism, and an elimination of Socialism.

Could be Andy but the US is the most extreme brand of capitalism in the world today so that comment is a little less than convincing. ;-)

After you work through that, if you ever can, here's something on ICBC.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/11/03/ICBCSuccess/

And btw Andy, both mine and your car insurance appear to be below the average, for what that's worth. zip! I need you to read the whole thing so you'll learn why it works so well.

 

[Libsmasher]

There's nothing more giggly than a statist "explaining" capitalism.

 

[UShadItComing]

I would have let Bear-Sterns go out of business and let the market correct itself.

I perhaps would have too Rob but we can't deny that greater financial/economy minds chose to do otherwise. This is what makes the question so difficult to answer. I think first of all the bailout policy must be stopped because the taxpayer can't be left holding the bag for all these failures of big corps. It's not fair and furthermore it illustrates a flaw in the system if it allows that to happen. I'm sure you can understand that even though Andy appears to be mentally challenged with the issue to the point of not understanding.

I have no problem paying for good healthcare, I have a problem paying for other people's healthcare. I think it is a personal responsibility to get your own healthcare. As we seemed to conclude above, you would argue for national healthcare, and I would argue for my privitization and opening the market back up to the individual.

How you fix your system is up to you but there appears to be little doubt that it needs fixing. What you say about not having to pay someone else's way is impossible to argue Rob, but the implications for the economic success of the lower and middle class also needs to be considered. They cannot fail to prosper in a successful economy and their lack of ability to obtain healthcare insurance and also good quality healthcare insurance is how I read it. This is leading to the major cause of bankruptcies in your country, a lower life expectancy, and a abyssmal infant mortality rate. Important: People need to have the ability to choose to go see their doctor for problems they encounter in life without having to weigh that with being able to afford to buy groceries for their children. or people need to be able to look after their teeth without having them rot out of their heads without having to forego nutritional food for their children.

Well, perhaps I am not as conservative as these people. I think that people should get a free education until high school. This entitles them to nothing however, they still have to go out and earn a job, or have worked hard to get into college.

I don't think you are as conservative as those people because you understand that free education is a necessity. You are more conservative than I am because you don't carry it further.

I think the solution is the private route, but many do disagree.

I think there is little doubt that your healthcare system needs to be fixed in that it needs to be made more affordable and available for everyone. How you fix it is your business but I have mentioned Switzerland's success with government run healthcare insurance and their realization that they had been wrong to aviod it for so long. Switzerland is one of the world's bastions of capitalism.

Obviously the top groups save more in terms of actual dollars, because they were paying so much more to begin with in terms of actual dollars. Bush did cut taxes for the wealthy Americans, but also for all Americans. He expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit and a lower capital gains rate benefited all Americans.

Fact: Middle class Americans are earning less and paying more in taxes since Bush took over. I don't have a link right now but I got that from the news two nights ago. I'll pursue this with you if you like.

Further, I argue that cutting taxes for the wealthy is what grows the economy. Giving the middle class $500 dollars will win you some votes, but it will not do much else. The upper class are the ones who will take the money and invest heavily, or start a business, as opposed to the average person who takes the $500 and buys a weeks worth of groceries. Talk about a short term fix, tax breaks for the middle class are the biggest short term fix of all.

Handing out $500 to taxpayers is an evil tactic. Period! No need for an argument there. But don't attempt to mix up $500 handouts with tax breaks for the middle class please. I understand the Supply Side logic very well my friend and I understand what point 'A' on the Laffer curve is. I also understand that the Laffer curve is now proving to be a falacy. For example: I will argue that point A is 80% taxation and ask you to prove that it isn't. It's a great concept on a paper napkin but it is proving to not work in real life. I still argue that if SS economics don't work over a perios of time then drastic measures must soon be taken to elevate the middle class. If you don't then you end up with a situation similar to Mexico where all the loot is in the hands of the top 1 or 2 per cent. Through the Bush years your country has proceeded in that direction. SS economics has had it's chance.

I am telling you that there are roughly 106,000,000 million households in the United States, and that something like 2,400,000 are in danger of foreclosure. I would further argue that a number of these would be foreclosed on anyway without the credit crunch. So given the math, I would say that the "crisis" is a bit overblown.

I won't argue your figures but I will say that saying it's overblown is not realistic. I don't hear anyone in the know or anyone who talks about the situation sharing your opinion. In any case it's pretty much the opinion of economists that it hasn't bottomed out yet. I think there is little sense in us going back and forth with our respective perceptions of the situation now.

I am unsure why you say I defend my positions out of patriotism? That said, I do not think $12 gas will destroy the economy. On top of that, the Saudi's cannot afford to let gas get that expensive. Their entire economy depends on oil exports, it is in their best interest to maintain a more acceptable price.

If the truth is known the Saudis have little control over the market now. I have asked a Saudi directly if he thinks that the country has the capability to increase production appreciably and he said that they don't have the ability to do that. That is now proving to be the facts of the matter even thogh it's a guarded secret. The gentleman was a Turk who was in Saudi working for the Caterpillar corp which is primarily involved with the oil industry. That was at Christmas time and I considered myself very fortunate to be able to talk to the man and get a firsthand answer. Interesting topic to explore further and Peakoil.com is full of the discussion.

A huge increase in the price of gas at the pump will hinge on whether or not the Iranians block Hormuz when and if war comes. That's the issue we were talking about.

As you will note recently, they told Bush two times they would not up production, but then gas hit $4 a gallon and they came out that they would up production. They have a vested interest in seeing gas that is expensive, but not more expensive than the consumer can bear.

My latest information is that they are being accused of blowing off Bush and they have failed to increase production appreciably if indeed at all. What is your latest?

 

[UShadItComing]

There's nothing more giggly than a statist "explaining" capitalism.

Good rebuttal libs!

 

[Libsmasher]

Good rebuttal libs!

A comic monologue requires a rebuttal?

ANOTHER good one!

 

[BigRob]

I perhaps would have too Rob but we can't deny that greater financial/economy minds chose to do otherwise. This is what makes the question so difficult to answer. I think first of all the bailout policy must be stopped because the taxpayer can't be left holding the bag for all these failures of big corps. It's not fair and furthermore it illustrates a flaw in the system if it allows that to happen. I'm sure you can understand that even though Andy appears to be mentally challenged with the issue to the point of not understanding.

I see his point. He is saying that a capitalist system would never allow for the bailouts to begin with, so to call our system capitalist is flawed.

They cannot fail to prosper in a successful economy and their lack of ability to obtain healthcare insurance and also good quality healthcare insurance is how I read it. This is leading to the major cause of bankruptcies in your country, a lower life expectancy, and a abyssmal infant mortality rate.

The last stats I saw said that 50% of bankruptcies in the US involve someone who has gotten an illness, but all but 9% include someone who has lost their job. So is it the medical bills or the job loss that is the cause? Also, many people go bankrupt simply because they are drowning in self-induced debt.

I think there is little doubt that your healthcare system needs to be fixed in that it needs to be made more affordable and available for everyone. How you fix it is your business but I have mentioned Switzerland's success with government run healthcare insurance and their realization that they had been wrong to aviod it for so long. Switzerland is one of the world's bastions of capitalism.

Well, I would fix it following the private path.

Fact: Middle class Americans are earning less and paying more in taxes since Bush took over. I don't have a link right now but I got that from the news two nights ago. I'll pursue this with you if you like.

This debate has to start with what you define the middle class as.

Handing out $500 to taxpayers is an evil tactic. Period! No need for an argument there. But don't attempt to mix up $500 handouts with tax breaks for the middle class please. I understand the Supply Side logic very well my friend and I understand what point 'A' on the Laffer curve is. I also understand that the Laffer curve is now proving to be a falacy. For example: I will argue that point A is 80% taxation and ask you to prove that it isn't. It's a great concept on a paper napkin but it is proving to not work in real life. I still argue that if SS economics don't work over a perios of time then drastic measures must soon be taken to elevate the middle class. If you don't then you end up with a situation similar to Mexico where all the loot is in the hands of the top 1 or 2 per cent. Through the Bush years your country has proceeded in that direction. SS economics has had it's chance.

I think that 80% taxation would be ridiculous. I already pay 35% and I think that that is to high. Also, in regards to the Laffer curve, I think you have to define what group you are talking about when you say Point A is 80%.

I won't argue your figures but I will say that saying it's overblown is not realistic. I don't hear anyone in the know or anyone who talks about the situation sharing your opinion. In any case it's pretty much the opinion of economists that it hasn't bottomed out yet. I think there is little sense in us going back and forth with our respective perceptions of the situation now.

I have heard it mentioned rarely, but I do watch the news all day long. I have heard that as much as $1,000,000,000,000 was lost in all of this and banks have only now written off about $200,000,000,000. Now the market might not let the bottom be 0, but there is still room to fall.

If the truth is known the Saudis have little control over the market now. I have asked a Saudi directly if he thinks that the country has the capability to increase production appreciably and he said that they don't have the ability to do that. That is now proving to be the facts of the matter even thogh it's a guarded secret. The gentleman was a Turk who was in Saudi working for the Caterpillar corp which is primarily involved with the oil industry. That was at Christmas time and I considered myself very fortunate to be able to talk to the man and get a firsthand answer. Interesting topic to explore further and Peakoil.com is full of the discussion.

The Saudis are near peak production within their OPEC limits. They are nowhere near full production if these limits were removed. OPEC in general does not want tot see $12 dollar oil because it will kill many middle eastern economies as people stop buying it.

A huge increase in the price of gas at the pump will hinge on whether or not the Iranians block Hormuz when and if war comes. That's the issue we were talking about.

The Iranians will not block Hormuz. Doing that means open war with the United States. The navy has already stated that they will destroy anything that attempts to block the strait. If Iran was to retaliate somewhere it would be inside of Iraq.

My latest information is that they are being accused of blowing off Bush and they have failed to increase production appreciably if indeed at all. What is your latest?

They blew off Bush because there was not the outcry that there is now about oil prices. Once it hit $4 they changed their tune. They have increased production, this month alone they have increased production by 500,000 barrels a day.

Also, people fail to realize that when oil started dropping so much lately it was not because Bush lifted the offshore ban. The same day it came out that supply was in fact higher than originally thought, which sharply dropped the price. (Remember that Bush's ban did not actually do anything, and for short term speculation was irrelevant.) It was the added supply that dropped the price.

 

[Andy]

Bear-Stearns screws up.

Capitalist rightwing government bails out B-S.

You don't see a glaring contradiction in that statement? Is a 'bail out', a capitalist action, or a socialist action? Let's ask you for the answer from post #126: "It's an example of a socialist attempt to bailout a corp". You are correct. It is socialism. So... is our government really Capitalist rightwing? I guess not.

Capitalism is when Enron showed up asking for a bail out, and Bush said take a hike. Again, Capitalism is when the private individual or group of individuals, owns not just the reward, but also the risk of the private venture.

That said, is our government right wing or Capitalist? Well technically, Capitalism is a economic system, not specifically a form of government. And from that perspective, all government is technically socialist. What does government do? Control, regulate, tax and spend, and all of which is socialism.

However, I would even argue on whether our government is "right-wing" or "Capitalist" based. Our government has hundreds of regulations on all forms of energy, from oil to nuclear, from Ethanol to windmills. We have even had people in congress openly stating they would like to take over the oil industry, and the health care industry. How is this right wing or capitalist? It is not.

Taxpayers pay bill.

Correct, and we would under any form of socialism.

Need to protect taxpayers is obvious.

As I said, less socialism, and more capitalism is the protection we need. Automatically, if we have Capitalism, and no socialism, there will not be a bail out of anyone anywhere, and thus tax payers will magically never be left paying for a bail out, because there will never be a bail out to pay for.

Time after time it's proving to not work that way. B-S is just one example.

How do you claim this? B-S did in fact fail. Last I checked our economy is doing pretty well comparatively to most of the world. Even now, it's growing, not shrinking. So how does this prove Capitalism doesn't work, when... it's working?

That is how US capitalism works as we have seen time after time. And it is not how capitalism works in Canada where we have sensible social policies for our people and we don't lay the expense of a failing corp on the people. Get it now Andy?

Not really. The article I posted from #125, showed that ICBC was bailed out for millions at tax payer expense. This proves the exact opposite of what you just claimed. Further, the fact people come to the US due to some of your 'sensible social policies' doesn't seem sensible to me.

B-S failed, the gov bailed them out. It was decided that the ripple effect would have the potential of destroying your economy further. Again Andy, in your great capitalist wisdom what would you do?

Why is this not sinking in. B-S was bailed out.... and STILL failed. B-S is not in existence anymore, the company was not saved. It completely and totally crashed and burned. Where was the "ripple" effect? Where is the 'potential of destroying [our] economy'?

So... since the company's crash didn't have any major effect on the economy, which given it's mostly a Capitalist economy it shouldn't, and didn't, then... I would suggest the bail out didn't do anything of any value but blow tax payer money.

What would I do? I would not bail them out... because it won't hurt our economy (and didn't), and because bailing them out won't help (and it didn't).

It's the same as Chrysler. Chrysler was bailed out because the socialists claimed it would devastate the economy. Did the bail out save them? Nope, they still crashed. They were sold off, sold again, and they still have a shaky future. Did it cause a huge crash in our economy? Nope.

So you can ask a million times what I'd do, the answer will always be the same. Capitalism is the answer, always. A socialistic bail out, that never helps, and always fails, is never the answer.

For what it's worth Andy, and that's only the comic relief I am offering the lefties here, the failure was a capitalist failing. The bailout was a socialist response to that capitalist failing. Get your head together on that Andy.

You seem to be claiming that every company that crashes, is proof that Capitalism fails. Um... I disagree. Capitalism never claimed that no companies would fail, rather, it in fact promises companies will fail.

When a company provides a good product, and has good management, it will succeed. Whereas, a company that provides lame products or has horrible mismanagement, it will fail. Both show the success of Capitalism.

When two companies provide the same basic product, but one is either cheaper, or has higher quality, the other company will tend to fail. Both companies are showing successful Capitalism.

Could be Andy but the US is the most extreme brand of capitalism in the world today so that comment is a little less than convincing. ;-)

That may have been true about 60 years ago, but things are not so, now. We have Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Section 8 and low income housing, we have regulated and mandated Ethanol, Windmills, Social Security, regulations, controls and price fixing for Oil, Gasoline, Corn, Electricity, Nuclear power, coal, even subsidies for most everything, even farming that pays farmers to... not farm. They are literally are paid to not grow any crops.

This is an 'extreme brand of capitalism'? What Capitalism are you looking at? The Stalin/Mao version of Capitalism? This is socialism running amok through our economy, not Capitalism.

And btw Andy, both mine and your car insurance appear to be below the average, for what that's worth. zip! I need you to read the whole thing so you'll learn why it works so well.

Actually, mine served me very well. When I was hit, the company stepped in and got full repayment for the damaged car. When my other car was totaled many years ago, I was handed a check that in all honesty, was likely more than the car was really worth.

(ARTICLE IN LINK)
Well, I am not seeing evidence the article you posted is actually true.
This post on the cost of ICBC vs. Private insurers, has a vastly different outlook. Thousands have found private insurers to be cheaper.

I have also read that generally speaking, ICBC has a lower pay-outs, and typically higher deductibles than private insurers. So from the articles standpoint, sure the ICBC may have a larger income rate, but at who's expense? You talk about the little guy, but the little guy in Canada, is paying higher premiums, paying larger deductibles, and receiving lower pay-outs, under the Socialized ICBC system.

I was amused to find out that auto-glass repair had a $300 deductible. Amusing because most glass repairs are at, or less, than $300. It's almost like not having insurance at all.