#occupy<insertlocalehere>

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's great if you have a Delorean with a flux capacitor, but absent that the bailouts were necessary to prevent a total economic collapse.

Well, you missed the point again. I'm saying that the bailouts should never have happened in the first place - not because they weren't necessary, but because they never should have gotten to that point.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

Well, you missed the point again. I'm saying that the bailouts should never have happened in the first place - not because they weren't necessary, but because they never should have gotten to that point.

I didn't miss the point at all, if you had a time machine that would be great, but barring that something had to be done. It would have been great if policy had changed a decade ago, but it didn't. Hindsight is valuable like that.

[CaptainCrunch]

In a pure market society, your right bailouts don't happen, and companies survive or not based on their own actions.

However in this case would the American's have been better off finacially and employment wise if one of the big automanufacturers and some of the banks had utterly collapsed?

I'm not a fan of governments intervening in private industry, but poor and stupid management or not, it wouldn't have helped the Aemrican economy at all if they had thrown 10's of thousands or hundreds of thousand people out of work.

Plus if you look at the paybacks that the American Government received from the auto industry and the banking industries, it did seem to work out.

[valo403]

^^ Not to mention the fact that literally thousands of businesses of all sizes wouldn't have been able to make payroll. There was no liquidity in the market, the gears had stopped turning.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

I didn't miss the point at all, if you had a time machine that would be great, but barring that something had to be done. It would have been great if policy had changed a decade ago, but it didn't. Hindsight is valuable like that.

How are you missing what I'm saying yet again? I'm not talking about the bailouts themselves, I'm talking about the lax regulation that led having to bail them out in the first place. That's my point.

Your comment about hindsight is useless, because that's fairly obvious.

[afc wimbledon]

Two points here, first boom and bust is the inherent cycle of capitalism, which, while a pain in the arse for all of us, has provided us with the best life mankind has ever known, we live longer, eat better, never know hunger in a real sense and have TVs that hang on the walls like the bloody jetsons for gods sake.

Second point, the reason we are in a pickle is not because the banks screwed up, it is because 'we', as in our representatives the politicians, have spent the last 10 years screwing with the interest rates and other levers of finance to avoid the bust that should have come 6 years ago and the thing that has done the most damage at this stage is the fact goverments have borrowed vast sums in order to support unsustainable social programs, early retirement in Greece Italy etc, wars a vast military industrial complex in the US.

I say this as a socialist, even I can see that paying millions in Vancouver for bike lanes that could be put in for 20 grand is unsustainable.

[CaptainCrunch]

I agree with what your saying AFC, and I guess the one thing that was artificially done is that there was a prevention in that cycle with the bailout of the normal culling of ineffective businesses. The brush fire that has to happen once in a while for a capitalist system to flurish didn't happen.

But in this case because that destruction would have happened economy wide instead of by segments couldn't be allowed to happen.

I agree with the second part, the heartless ####### in me says that there's no way that any part of Greece's debt should have been forgiven because until they change their fundemental government beliefs, and the beliefs of their citizen's they're just going to run up their debt again. We're going to be in this same spot again in about a half a year.

Greece right now is a failed economy, with citizen's that refuse to change for the betterment of their country, it would be nice if there was a international repo agency that could go in and start seizing assets to secure these bailouts.

Currently the American's are spending 4.7% of the GDP on the military, and to be honest I don't think thats completely out of line considering that they've been engaged in two wars, and I don't think that its time to roll out a peace divident just yet, I think the only thing that they could do is put a temporary moratorium on new systems development for a couple of years, but that would have sharp reprucssions against Employment.

currently the American Government spends 39% of its GDP on its social programs and welfare net. There are mass inefficiencies that could create greater budget benefits there.

They're not getting good value for that spending right now.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

How are you missing what I'm saying yet again? I'm not talking about the bailouts themselves, I'm talking about the lax regulation that led having to bail them out in the first place. That's my point.

Your comment about hindsight is useless, because that's fairly obvious.

As is your point. Yep, sure would have been great if we had avoided all this, but we didn't.

[Cowperson]

Times are tough, but the Misery Index tells us they've been a lot tougher . . . .



http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_...were-miserable

I would agree the late 70's and early 80's were petty miserable, although I did have a white, bell-bottom suit like John Travolta.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't remember an occupy Ottawa event when Ottawa tried to destroy the Alberta Economy in the 80's and thousands were tossed out of their jobs.

They can talk about sitting there til change is going to happen, but eventually a protest like this becomes background noise and annoyance.

Will they sit therr when its 30 below? Will be on the hook for the costs of treating frostbite and hypothermia.

Will the city be forced to rent and supply gas heaters for the campers?



Or will their resolve fade in the face or adversity?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In a pure market society, your right bailouts don't happen, and companies survive or not based on their own actions.

However in this case would the American's have been better off finacially and employment wise if one of the big automanufacturers and some of the banks had utterly collapsed?

I'm not a fan of governments intervening in private industry, but poor and stupid management or not, it wouldn't have helped the Aemrican economy at all if they had thrown 10's of thousands or hundreds of thousand people out of work.

Plus if you look at the paybacks that the American Government received from the auto industry and the banking industries, it did seem to work out.

This is misleading. The auto industry has by no means paid back in full what it was bailed out with despite what those blowhard commercials say. Chrysler and GM have only paid off the debt instruments and a small portion of equity. The US and Canadian government still own equity worth a fraction of what they paid in at. The auto bailout was a business solvency issue which has long term structural business problems, whereas the banking industry had a liquidity problem where the short term panic caused a run on the banks. Big difference. People should actually be more pissed off at GM and Chrysler than they are at Wall Street vis-a-vis bailouts.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

This is misleading. The auto industry has by no means paid back in full what it was bailed out with despite what those blowhard commercials say. Chrysler and GM have only paid off the debt instruments and a small portion of equity. The US and Canadian government still own equity worth a fraction of what they paid in at. The auto bailout was a business solvency issue which has long term structural business problems, whereas the banking industry had a liquidity problem where the short term panic caused a run on the banks. Big difference.People should actually be more pissed off at GM and Chrysler than they are at Wall Street vis-a-vis bailouts.

I think anyone that has actually owned a dodge or a chevy is already plenty pissed at them.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by valo403

This is maybe the stupidest post yet on this topic. Just willful ignorance.

This may be the most pompous, self important, narcissistic, post yet on this topic. Just willful attacking.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Well, a good many people, including myself, pay tax AND contribute time and funds back into the community already.

You would not find a single corporation of this size - including multi-nationals and including Bank of America - that does not already "donate to what I support in my community, schools, arts, etc, etc."

Bank of America gave out $200 million in philanthropic cash donations in 2010, the second largest donor in America, and that would be only only one aspect of its charitable giving programs.

General Electric contributed more than $250 million in philanthropic value - including cash - to charitable activities on a worldwide basis in 2010.

You could pick any company in this class and I could probably demonstrate within five minutes that they have these kinds of programs, which would include paid time off for employees to donate skills to the community as well. This is a normal business activity.

And they pay taxes when they are legally obliged to do it.

Costco, by the way, is what we would call a "recession-proof" business with fairly stable earnings in both good times and bad times, meaning they are more likely than most to generate a tax bill through all years. As I said before, its not unusual, within the laws of the land, for corporations with cyclical earnings to have a zero tax bill one year and larger ones in subsequent years. Like any individual, they should not be paying more tax than they are legally obligated to do.

Minimum tax laws are fine if you want to go that way . . . . . but banging on the doors of BAC isn't going to get it done. It's a symbolic waste of time. Its an argument about law, even the moral aspect.

Most would already agree USA tax law needs a susbstantial overhaul on both the personal and corporate level and, if they really wanted to help themselves, they'd introduce the equivalent of ultimate fairness, a GST tax.

Again, the place to be taking this argument is the campaign trails, running Occupy candidates, arguing in legislatures and at the White House where you can effect change.

Cowperson

I understand your point perfectly. However, a company (or "evil corporation" as Valo likes to call them) this size must return 30% back as Tax, not "Value". A toilet seat can have a value of 1000.00 as long as one agrees.

And it's what most companies "get away with". Not what is legally achieved. Frankly, if these companies are not responsibly paying income tax at 30% then they should be heavily fined and or embargoed (If a company continues it's shady business). Operating a company with the people means supporting the people as well. It's a symbiotic not a parasitic relationship that is required.

I don't disagree at all with your comments that the laws have to change or revert to what they were previously. Capitol Hill is the final goal, but the financial sector is currently in control. Over the last decade (perhaps longer) the financial lobbyists have been pulling for de-regulation. These parasitic actions must be dealt with firmly, and with a finality that will keep other companies from cheating the people.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I understand your point perfectly. However, a company (or "evil corporation" as Valo likes to call them) this size must return 30% back as Tax, not "Value". A toilet seat can have a value of 1000.00 as long as one agrees.

And it's what most companies "get away with". Not what is legally achieved. Frankly, if these companies are not responsibly paying income tax at 30% then they should be heavily fined and or embargoed (If a company continues it's shady business). Operating a company with the people means supporting the people as well. It's a symbiotic not a parasitic relationship that is required.

I don't disagree at all with your comments that the laws have to change or revert to what they were previously. Capitol Hill is the final goal, but the financial sector is currently in control. Over the last decade (perhaps longer) the financial lobbyists have been pulling for de-regulation. These parasitic actions must be dealt with firmly, and with a finality that will keep other companies from cheating the people.

"I'm curling right now and I don't care" - Ron Swanson

Cowperson

[To Be Quite Honest]

I'm making Nachos for the game tonight. I guess we're done.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I'm making Nachos for the game tonight. I guess we're done.

Well I'm at a curling rink and eating nachos.

Cowperson

[chemgear]

http://business.financialpost.com/20...you-for-lunch/

A flier entitled “We are Wall Street,” has been dropped on Occupy protesters in Chicago, according to a copy making the rounds on Facebook. Below, Wall Street gives a ringing defence of the Wall Street way of life.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by chemgear

http://business.financialpost.com/20...you-for-lunch/

A flier entitled “We are Wall Street,” has been dropped on Occupy protesters in Chicago, according to a copy making the rounds on Facebook. Below, Wall Street gives a ringing defence of the Wall Street way of life.

"We're used to not getting up to pee when we have a position?"... So either you're a far more superior version of a human because of your incredible bladder or you enjoy peeing yourself.

Funniest thing I've seen in a while.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by chemgear

http://business.financialpost.com/20...you-for-lunch/

A flier entitled “We are Wall Street,” has been dropped on Occupy protesters in Chicago, according to a copy making the rounds on Facebook. Below, Wall Street gives a ringing defence of the Wall Street way of life.

Brutal letter. Doesn't really make their point well and doesn't make me sympathize with their position. Not to mention the swipe at teachers is baseless and cowardly. I'd love to see the writer of this letter trying to teach a bunch of underpriviledged children with little to no support from the system or the parents like they say they could.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say the attitude behind the letter is exactly the sort of thing a lot of these people are protesting against.

Not to mention they basically admitted that their job is gambling in the first paragraph.