Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
As opposed to investing in large companies that require huge bailouts, and then fail anyways? That sure doesn't sound like good fiscal policy.
Small Business plus Empathy
- Thread starter apple0154
- Start date
As opposed to investing in large companies that require huge bailouts, and then fail anyways? That sure doesn't sound like good fiscal policy.
apple0154
MEOW
You're right. It wasn't good policy, at all. Of course, they listened to people like Greenspan who kept telling them, "Hands off commerce."
Let's hope they and everyone else learned a valuable lesson. The government is supposed to be looking after the welfare of the people.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
but it's only using it's influence to make us more dependant on huge corporations.
Small business is the savior of mankind.
apple0154
MEOW
Henry Ford showed us the benefits of mass production. The "problems" we've experienced with large companies is not with what they produce. The problem was with how they screwed with their books.
Many more small businesses go out of business compared to large businesses. The solution is simple. Government oversight.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
THe problem is the collusion between big government and big corporations. That's what makes this nation fascist. Little businesses are still run by actual businessmen, not statist cronies positioning themselves for bailouts and favoritism.
The sweet song of corporate fascism sings to him...
apple0154
MEOW
Collusion: "A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose."
Are you suggesting the government was involved with companies like Enron encouraging them to cook the books?
As for hedge funds and other toxic financial instruments there was no government regulation so the government was not involved and that's the problem.
Solution? Big business with government oversight but as others have said the people who don't want government involvement are voting against their own interests.
A business or business person does not give a damn about you. If there are no laws they will do anything to cheat you out of your money. The link to the video I supplied puts it in plain language. Be it a one man operation or a large corporation the same thing happens.
Government oversight of large corporations and basic requirements demanded before one hangs up their business shingle would go a long way to straighten things out.
Wanting less government involvement makes as much sense as saying less Police on the street will result in less crime.
Businesses, be they one man or multi-national corporations, are there to make money any way they can. The reason I favor large corporations is because the government can oversee their practices/actions as opposed to checking on every thieving entrepreneur.
The problem now is for people to understand why oversight is necessary. On the upside those who lost pensions and investments now realize that, albeit, too late.
apple0154
MEOW
If it prevents thousands of hard working people from losing their life savings then it's a beautiful song indeed.
If tighter government control prevents elderly people from paying some scum bag entrepreneur from taking $10,000 for a new roof installation and then going bankrupt then give me government control.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
How can fascism guarantee fiscal solvency?
apple0154
MEOW
By keeping an eye on what the company is doing.
The company is there to make money and the government is supposed to be there to look after the investor's interests.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
apple0154
MEOW
Maybe if you see pictures you'll understand better. Watch this video.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/
If you have a short attention span watch between 38:00 and 36:00 minutes. That's just two minutes. Surely you can concentrate for two minutes.
It explains how the financial system was working.
Do yourself a favor and learn something.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
I prefer your own words. I shan't read your linked to garbage if you cannot show relevance in a concise fashion. sorry.
apple0154
MEOW
It's a video. We all know you can't understand what you read.
Greenspan followed Ayn Rand. "She became a stabilizing force in my life."
She and Greenspan were for a free and unregulated economy. Greenspan didn't believe the government should police fraudulent activity. Can you grasp such craziness?
Two minutes. Take two minutes and watch the video from 38:00 to 36:00. Learn something. Greenspan was a jackass to which he admitted at Congressional Hearings.
His philosophy was screwed up. His understanding of how the world operated was screwed up. He admitted his abject failure.
People now pillage and plunder the financial markets because of inadequate laws. When are people going to open their eyes?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
This isn't about ann rand. This is about your irrationally smearing small business.
Stupidass.
apple0154
MEOW
Not irrationally smearing small business. Criticizing the lunacy of giving money to any con artist who is more interested in stealing the silverware than remodeling the kitchen.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
All small businesses are not cons, what a brain failure you are for believing that.
All bankers are con artists though.
It prevents nothing of the sort, it is because of the assurances of the government bought and paid for by those same corporations you love, and direct requirement from the government, that the banks felt safe making bad fiscal decisions that led to the Great Recession.
apple0154
MEOW
Yes, the government did back the actions of the banks. The point is rather than the government investigate the actions of the banks and other financial companies it listened to fruitcakes like Greenspan who was against any fraud investigations. Again, I refer you to http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/, specifically the segment 38:00 to 36:00 minutes.
The government needs to be down their throat and up their a$$.
The purpose of housing loans for the poor was a community initiative. Not a project to allow people to buy homes/condos as an investment and resell at a profit a year or two later. If only first time buyers had access to those loans housing prices wouldn't have soared because one would have been able to buy only one house under those terms. They would have had one chance at home ownership.