conservatives called the bailouts socialism, but then they call the only long term solution socialism. I'd say, "let the foxes guard the hen house"; if I wasn't a hen.Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps...Reciprocity wrote:
you make it sound so red, so socialist.Turquoise wrote:
If you're suggesting that we should make antitrust laws more comprehensive and ban derivatives, then I would agree.
There really shouldn't be a market for them anyway tbh. Sure, one on one transactions in which both keep what they create makes sense, but buying other peoples risk? No thanks. People will do what they want to do though until they get burned badly enough.Turquoise wrote:
I think 50% would be a better standard.JohnG@lt wrote:
Banning derivatives is silly. As I said in another thread, you might as well ban health, auto, homeowners and hurricane insurance as well. This legislation is a nice happy medium that requires the company that writes the derivatives to maintain 5% of them on its books.Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I know what you're saying, but the conservative blowhards aren't consistent about much of anything.Reciprocity wrote:
conservatives called the bailouts socialism, but then they call the only long term solution socialism. I'd say, "let the foxes guard the hen house"; if I wasn't a hen.Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps...Reciprocity wrote:
you make it sound so red, so socialist.
They're perfectly fine with socializing losses, but they certainly privatize gains.
I guess it's the difference between them and libertarians. I may not always agree with libertarians, but at least they're consistent in their distaste for government involvement.
My main concern is that there's a domino effect. Plenty of people got fucked by derivatives they didn't even buy.JohnG@lt wrote:
There really shouldn't be a market for them anyway tbh. Sure, one on one transactions in which both keep what they create makes sense, but buying other peoples risk? No thanks. People will do what they want to do though until they get burned badly enough.Turquoise wrote:
I think 50% would be a better standard.JohnG@lt wrote:
Banning derivatives is silly. As I said in another thread, you might as well ban health, auto, homeowners and hurricane insurance as well. This legislation is a nice happy medium that requires the company that writes the derivatives to maintain 5% of them on its books.
When a large enough company dives headfirst into the derivative game and it fails miserably, then a lot more than that one company is affected.
This is why I think they are far too dangerous to allow.
I absolutely comprehend the source material, probably far better than you do. I just have the ability to think for myself and have a far greater understanding of the market than she did.Macbeth wrote:
Rand's love of capitalism had a bit to do with philosophical morality also. Something about the powerful and strong not having to curb their actions to please or help the powerless and weak. Got her wet, gets me hard.Turquoise wrote:
What Galt is saying is the difference between Ayn Rand and the truth.Macbeth wrote:
Give me your copy of Atlas Shrugged so I may hit you with it.
The truth is that a certain amount of rational self-interest is caring about the fate of others. Another truth is that Ayn Rand was a fanatic for the capitalist cause primarily because her early experiences with the Soviet Union's other extreme seemed to have affected her ability to rationally assess economics and government in general.
We don't need the capitalist extreme nor the communist one. The happy medium is a mixed economy with a fiscally responsible government. Unfortunately, that balance is hard to maintain.I mean hell, I named myself Macbeth but at least I agreed with the main character and was able to comprehend the source material.Galt wrote:
I chose this name because I had just read the book and every other name I could think of was taken in BF2. Atlas Shrugged is not my bible.
She lived in a time where most of the tycoons thought like Warren Buffet and had a vested interest in expanding their empire and crushing the competition. As has been said elsewhere in this thread, those people are now an aberration. Capitalism has become a twisted and vindictive sport for self absorbed people with zero moral compunction. A person like Dagney Taggart who busted her ass for her company and was wholly beholden to its success is someone to admire. A person like Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling who are in it for short term gain and who don't really care about their legacy are the fuckwits who lead to unnecessary regulation and inspire my scorn and derision.
The world she wrote about no longer exists. Not in our business world.
The people in Atlas treated the companies they owned as they would their own offspring. They wanted them to succeed and survive as their own legacy and as a form of their own immortality. Show me a CEO/owner like this today outside of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates/Paul Allen.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-22 14:50:59)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat