is that what we have? seems like Goldman Sachs has many advantages others don't, that doesn't seem so free to me
Goldman has competitive advantages. not illegal ones like you seem to suggest.
I think what he meant is that Goldman and other banks have many LEGAL advantages that others don't. These are fictional legal advantages that normal citizens would be convicted of fraud for engaging in, but by virtue of the massive lobbying efforts they can afford, they get laws passed to protect them and give them perks that are antithetical to the free market. It's like socialism for corporate financial institutions. Why is it ok when a minority interest like banks lobbies congress with massive funding to pass laws that give them free perks that hurt the general welfare, but it's awful when the citizens through activism and action pressure their representatives to provide free perks (like health care) that benefit the general welfare? Which one of those looks more democratic, and which looks more like an old British aristocracy?
this is the problem, too many people call UHC, "free" health care. its not free at all.
but yea, I'm not 100% supportive of the lobby process in Washington or the power and pull financial institutions have. but they do need to be protected from bringing down our economy.
I think what he meant is that Goldman and other banks have many LEGAL advantages that others don't. These are fictional legal advantages that normal citizens would be convicted of fraud for engaging in, but by virtue of the massive lobbying efforts they can afford, they get laws passed to protect them and give them perks that are antithetical to the free market. It's like socialism for corporate financial institutions. Why is it ok when a minority interest like banks lobbies congress with massive funding to pass laws that give them free perks that hurt the general welfare, but it's awful when the citizens through activism and action pressure their representatives to provide free perks (like health care) that benefit the general welfare? Which one of those looks more democratic, and which looks more like an old British aristocracy?
this is the problem, too many people call UHC, "free" health care. its not free at all.
but yea, I'm not 100% supportive of the lobby process in Washington or the power and pull financial institutions have. but they do need to be protected from bringing down our economy.
Neither is our current market "free" at all. It's carefully controlled and shaped to provide the maximum benefit to large, monolithic business entities and to stifle competition from smaller businesses and private citizens.
And no, UHC isn't free. We pay for it. So what's the big deal? I thought the whole problem was that there would be freeloaders? You pay for health insurance now, what difference does it make if you get it through a company that will arbitrarily change your plan and make you fight them for years to get your benefits or if it's through one, uniform and predictable system provided through a federal entity? You've got no problem driving on federal roads... you don't have a "right" to those roads, but you don't whine about your tax dollars being spent on them.
Neither is our current market "free" at all. It's carefully controlled and shaped to provide the maximum benefit to large, monolithic business entities and to stifle competition from smaller businesses and private citizens.
the top banks and financial institutions are the first to be protected to prevent systemic failure of the system but its not shaped to provide "maximum benefit".....and our country's economy is made of 85% + small businesses....you last statement is complete nonsense.
Neither is our current market "free" at all. It's carefully controlled and shaped to provide the maximum benefit to large, monolithic business entities and to stifle competition from smaller businesses and private citizens.
I second this. I also believe that smaller businesses would thrive if it was more free.
I thought the whole problem was that there would be freeloaders? You pay for health insurance now, what difference does it make if you get it through a company that will arbitrarily change your plan and make you fight them for years to get your benefits or if it's through one, uniform and predictable system provided through a federal entity?
it would be anything but predictable....it would be more expensive then the health care insurance payments I make...and the quality of care would be less.
You've got no problem driving on federal roads... you don't have a "right" to those roads, but you don't whine about your tax dollars being spent on them.
no, I dont have a problem using federal roads. I can afford to pitch in for those. and the quality of those roads are barely acceptable but I can handle it.
UHC is much more expensive and the quality is much more important than roads. but great example.
Neither is our current market "free" at all. It's carefully controlled and shaped to provide the maximum benefit to large, monolithic business entities and to stifle competition from smaller businesses and private citizens.
I second this. I also believe that smaller businesses would thrive if it was more free.
yea probably. but they already do thrive. they make up almost our entire economy.
Neither is our current market "free" at all. It's carefully controlled and shaped to provide the maximum benefit to large, monolithic business entities and to stifle competition from smaller businesses and private citizens.
the top banks and financial institutions are the first to be protected to prevent systemic failure of the system but its not shaped to provide "maximum benefit".....and our country's economy is made of 85% + small businesses....you last statement is complete nonsense.
Where do you get that 85% figure and how do you define a small business?
It's hardly nonsense. Look at modern corporate, securities, and property laws (specifically mortgages and the like). They are all written to clearly benefit people that deal in high volumes. It allows them to cut corners that would normally be illegal, just by incorporating. They get fictional rights that are gifted on them by government action, not some inherent right of the free market. All of this favors bigger businesses. That is why you end up with businesses "too big to fail." The fact that we even talk in those terms shows this is not a free market. When was the last time you saw a local bank that wasn't a credit union? They've all been gobbled up by Goldman of Bank of America. Because there is no way they can compete with the kind of cash flow the latter can provide when the laws are changed to allow a huge corporation to consolidate its books and loan money it doesn't have based on projections of future earnings or the prospect that they can sell it to another company whenever they wish. You kick and scream about government deficit spending, but when banks and corporations do it you just shrug and say "well, so it goes, I guess we have to give them taxpayer money to save the people that are screwing us and making this market so unstable." That's insane!
It's hardly nonsense. Look at modern corporate, securities, and property laws (specifically mortgages and the like). They are all written to clearly benefit people that deal in high volumes. It allows them to cut corners that would normally be illegal, just by incorporating. They get fictional rights that are gifted on them by government action, not some inherent right of the free market. All of this favors bigger businesses. That is why you end up with businesses "too big to fail." The fact that we even talk in those terms shows this is not a free market. When was the last time you saw a local bank that wasn't a credit union? They've all been gobbled up by Goldman of Bank of America. Because there is no way they can compete with the kind of cash flow the latter can provide when the laws are changed to allow a huge corporation to consolidate its books and loan money it doesn't have based on projections of future earnings or the prospect that they can sell it to another company whenever they wish. You kick and scream about government deficit spending, but when banks and corporations do it you just shrug and say "well, so it goes, I guess we have to give them taxpayer money to save the people that are screwing us and making this market so unstable." That's insane!
you make it sound like banks and financial institutions are the ONLY businesses in America. and sadly, yes, some of them are too big to fail. its just the way it is....if they fail, we all fail. and since we, the taxpayer, are keeping them afloat as well as giving them a safety net...I'm all for government regulation to prevent bullshit like subprime from happening again.
It's hardly nonsense. Look at modern corporate, securities, and property laws (specifically mortgages and the like). They are all written to clearly benefit people that deal in high volumes. It allows them to cut corners that would normally be illegal, just by incorporating. They get fictional rights that are gifted on them by government action, not some inherent right of the free market. All of this favors bigger businesses. That is why you end up with businesses "too big to fail." The fact that we even talk in those terms shows this is not a free market. When was the last time you saw a local bank that wasn't a credit union? They've all been gobbled up by Goldman of Bank of America. Because there is no way they can compete with the kind of cash flow the latter can provide when the laws are changed to allow a huge corporation to consolidate its books and loan money it doesn't have based on projections of future earnings or the prospect that they can sell it to another company whenever they wish. You kick and scream about government deficit spending, but when banks and corporations do it you just shrug and say "well, so it goes, I guess we have to give them taxpayer money to save the people that are screwing us and making this market so unstable." That's insane!
you make it sound like banks and financial institutions are the ONLY businesses in America. and sadly, yes, some of them are too big to fail. its just the way it is....if they fail, we all fail. and since we, the taxpayer, are keeping them afloat as well as giving them a safety net...I'm all for government regulation to prevent bullshit like subprime from happening again.
Interesting. 500 people seems a rather large business to me. Nonetheless, I don't see the 85% figure in there. But I do find it alarming that they say 99.7% of business entitites make a bit over half of our products... meaning that 0.3% makes almost half. That is what I was thinking. If you go by the name of the business, I'm not remotely shocked that there are far more small businesses. But if you go by market share, jobs, and production... You're talking about nearly 50% of our economy being dominated by less than 1% of our businesses. You don't see that as an imbalance?
Government regulation of private business... that sounds like socialism to me. Essentially, you agree that these businesses cannot or will not regulate themselves and that regulations need to be placed upon companies for our protection... which is exactly what this thread was initially started to discuss.
Government regulation of private business... that sounds like socialism to me. Essentially, you agree that these businesses cannot or will not regulate themselves and that regulations need to be placed upon companies for our protection... which is exactly what this thread was initially started to discuss.
and? are we not discussing it? and wait, aren't you a champion for government regulation for the financial sector?
I have never stated otherwise. and government regulation is not socialism. while I am for some government regulation in protecting us, I am not for the government 100% running the show.
Government regulation of private business... that sounds like socialism to me. Essentially, you agree that these businesses cannot or will not regulate themselves and that regulations need to be placed upon companies for our protection... which is exactly what this thread was initially started to discuss.
and? are we not discussing it? and wait, aren't you a champion for government regulation for the financial sector?
I have never stated otherwise. and government regulation is not socialism. while I am for some government regulation in protecting us, I am not for the government 100% running the show.
I am very much for government regulation of the private sector, but I also don't throw socialism around like a bad word. You seem to think socialism means government 100% runs the show. That's not the case. What I don't understand is what you think should be regulated if you don't think Goldman Sachs is a textbook example of the problems inherent in our current system of regulation. If their situation doesn't cry for regulation, what the hell does?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion- dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.[/b]
Just read this part and has confirmed what I believed even more. That if the people in power really cared about the environment they would find ways to actually fix it as opposed to just finding more ways to tax it.
Comments
this is the problem, too many people call UHC, "free" health care. its not free at all.
but yea, I'm not 100% supportive of the lobby process in Washington or the power and pull financial institutions have. but they do need to be protected from bringing down our economy.
Neither is our current market "free" at all. It's carefully controlled and shaped to provide the maximum benefit to large, monolithic business entities and to stifle competition from smaller businesses and private citizens.
And no, UHC isn't free. We pay for it. So what's the big deal? I thought the whole problem was that there would be freeloaders? You pay for health insurance now, what difference does it make if you get it through a company that will arbitrarily change your plan and make you fight them for years to get your benefits or if it's through one, uniform and predictable system provided through a federal entity? You've got no problem driving on federal roads... you don't have a "right" to those roads, but you don't whine about your tax dollars being spent on them.
the top banks and financial institutions are the first to be protected to prevent systemic failure of the system but its not shaped to provide "maximum benefit".....and our country's economy is made of 85% + small businesses....you last statement is complete nonsense.
I second this. I also believe that smaller businesses would thrive if it was more free.
if its not free, then dont call it free.
it would be anything but predictable....it would be more expensive then the health care insurance payments I make...and the quality of care would be less.
no, I dont have a problem using federal roads. I can afford to pitch in for those. and the quality of those roads are barely acceptable but I can handle it.
UHC is much more expensive and the quality is much more important than roads. but great example.
yea probably. but they already do thrive. they make up almost our entire economy.
Where do you get that 85% figure and how do you define a small business?
It's hardly nonsense. Look at modern corporate, securities, and property laws (specifically mortgages and the like). They are all written to clearly benefit people that deal in high volumes. It allows them to cut corners that would normally be illegal, just by incorporating. They get fictional rights that are gifted on them by government action, not some inherent right of the free market. All of this favors bigger businesses. That is why you end up with businesses "too big to fail." The fact that we even talk in those terms shows this is not a free market. When was the last time you saw a local bank that wasn't a credit union? They've all been gobbled up by Goldman of Bank of America. Because there is no way they can compete with the kind of cash flow the latter can provide when the laws are changed to allow a huge corporation to consolidate its books and loan money it doesn't have based on projections of future earnings or the prospect that they can sell it to another company whenever they wish. You kick and scream about government deficit spending, but when banks and corporations do it you just shrug and say "well, so it goes, I guess we have to give them taxpayer money to save the people that are screwing us and making this market so unstable." That's insane!
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusi ... drives.htm
you make it sound like banks and financial institutions are the ONLY businesses in America. and sadly, yes, some of them are too big to fail. its just the way it is....if they fail, we all fail. and since we, the taxpayer, are keeping them afloat as well as giving them a safety net...I'm all for government regulation to prevent bullshit like subprime from happening again.
Interesting. 500 people seems a rather large business to me. Nonetheless, I don't see the 85% figure in there. But I do find it alarming that they say 99.7% of business entitites make a bit over half of our products... meaning that 0.3% makes almost half. That is what I was thinking. If you go by the name of the business, I'm not remotely shocked that there are far more small businesses. But if you go by market share, jobs, and production... You're talking about nearly 50% of our economy being dominated by less than 1% of our businesses. You don't see that as an imbalance?
Government regulation of private business... that sounds like socialism to me. Essentially, you agree that these businesses cannot or will not regulate themselves and that regulations need to be placed upon companies for our protection... which is exactly what this thread was initially started to discuss.
and? are we not discussing it? and wait, aren't you a champion for government regulation for the financial sector?
I have never stated otherwise. and government regulation is not socialism. while I am for some government regulation in protecting us, I am not for the government 100% running the show.
I am very much for government regulation of the private sector, but I also don't throw socialism around like a bad word. You seem to think socialism means government 100% runs the show. That's not the case. What I don't understand is what you think should be regulated if you don't think Goldman Sachs is a textbook example of the problems inherent in our current system of regulation. If their situation doesn't cry for regulation, what the hell does?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSwWy4E6 ... r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoQrYa_N ... r_embedded
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Just read this part and has confirmed what I believed even more. That if the people in power really cared about the environment they would find ways to actually fix it as opposed to just finding more ways to tax it.