Unintelligent/uninformed people deserve to be scammed. Right? That’s where this is headed?
Missed this one. Golly Sam, you have a pretty impressive ability to imagine that whatever you read says what you wish it said. For those of us not squinting through massive anti-government goggles, here’s what your link actually says:
That doesn’t say that Spain’s investment in solar power has failed, or that “government subsidies can’t kick-start new industries”. All it says is that when a government suddenly shuts down on a major subsidy program for a new industry due to a catastrophic budget crunch, that industry is likely to find itself facing serious near-term disruptions.
Well, duh. If you’re investing heavily in a new development and you suddenly pull your funding out of it, the new development is going to wind up on the rocks, at least for the time being. Stop pretending that this is somehow a “failure” of the subsidy system in and of itself.
Hell, private investors have been shutting down funding on their investments too, and the firms they invested in have been suffering losses and bleeding jobs, just like Spain’s solar industry. But you’d never be caught dead describing that as a “failure”.
If the market does it, it’s working, and if the government does it, it’s failing: that’s the Sam Stone Principle.
I’m the only person on this board who I can recall as ever saying capitalism is a failure (maybe **psychonaut **or some other socialists too, but I can’t recall) - and I don’t *think *I’ve ever done so by referring to something as banal as the current financial crisis. I’m pretty sure I’ve done it on much more philosophical and ideological grounds.
And my solution certainly wouldn’t have been bigger government. Far from it. Big Gov. Democracy and Capitalism go hand in hand, IMO.
And Capitalism is *not * synonymous with Free Market. In fact, *real *Capitalism, the only Capitalism worth addressing, is intimately dependent on government intervention.
Groan. I should have suspected this debate would have ended up in the same place it always does.
Evil intent. Victims. Plotting. Scheming. The strong oppressing the weak. Good. Bad. White Hats. Black Hats.
I asking you, Mr Algorithm. I’m not asking any ‘uninformed, unintelligent’ people the question above. You. I’m asking you.
Would you buy from a huckster? Why or why not?
Do you ever buy anything on eBay? Or over the Internet? Why or why not?
Personally, I would not buy baby formula, or medication off of eBay. Call me crazy.
You’re a little bit premature, aren’t you Sam? The Great Depression didn’t really get going until a few years after the stock market crash.
The wheel of dishonesty never ceases to turn.
Ah. So debt is a problem. What’s the solution?
Oh? Raise taxes?
More than a third of the Obama stimulus was tax cuts. Obama further decided to let W’s tax cuts last until their original legislated expiration instead of changing it early, also for the purpose of stimulus. But what did Sam hear from those liberals “after the crash”? The evil nasty brutish liberals wanted to raise taxes. That’s a little bit strange to me, because what he somehow managed to hear was the exact opposite of what they specifically did. Why, one might be tempted to conclude that the dear confused boy made up his mind in advance that those evil liberals always want to raise taxes. Pay no attention to those silly facts, which are nearly 300 billion dollars of tax cuts for the purpose of stimulus. Facts are confusing things. They get in the way of blaming liberals for things he would like to blame liberals for. Liberals are always wrong, after all. They want to raise taxes, even when they’re lowering taxes. They want to raise taxes especially when they’re lowering taxes. That’s why they’re so evil.
Of course, as he wrote in the first post, the government debt is a problem. So what does Sam complain about? Why, he complains about tax hikes. So… is the debt a problem, or isn’t it? Because if the debt is a problem (and it’s not, actually, but it eventually will be), then there are two ways to deal with it. Cutting spending or raising taxes. So he complains about the debt, and then he complains about trying to deal with the debt. Marvel of marvels! It’s almost as if he’s hankering for a return to the halcyon days of yore when good, proper, right governments did right by the debt by… increasing spending and cutting taxes, like W did.
Or maybe I’m forgetting how arithmetic works. Whatever. Liberals suck!
Yeah, if I were wrong about half the things that you’re wrong about, I’d be getting tired of it, too.
Quite. Tell that to the millions who will lose their jobs as the rest of us pay for the mistakes of others.
Tell that to the schools, hospitals and universities facing a decade of cuts.
There should be draconian and confiscatory taxes on those who made out like bandits in what turned out to be an illusory economy.
In the early 90s I was a true Libertarian, anti-government, the free market can do EVERYTHING better. It was a fool’s paradise based on assumptions about people and markets that are not true. They are true enough to offer capitalism as the proper framework, I agree, but laissez faire capitalism is not workable in itself. At the other end of the scale is an equally unworkable ideal of socialism. Not too schoickingly, blanket statements about the superiority of the market or the superiority of governement are polllyanna nonsense that have no place in reasonable debate.
The truth is that capitalism and governement control can and should coexist. You will NEVER find a perfect fit of the two because people are not mathematical equations. So it is a process and not a static ratio. There is not a straight line between the two, it is a collage that will come up short time and time again because it is fricking complicated. So you can try to find the soutions that don’t consist of “Yay! Busines” or “Boo! Business!” you understand that we don’t exist in a vacuum, that our decision matter and you start living in the real world and not some fantasy utopia.
:shrug: Big Government has been “failing”, according to the most simplistic of ideologues, ever since the New Deal (and we know what made that necessary, don’t we?)
Any year now … :rolleyes:
Haven’t you heard of Homo Economicus.
I am opposed to the government warning the people I am trying to rip off, or worse yet, outlawing the way I rip them off!
It should be mandatory for people to pay health insurance premiums to companies that deny needed procedures.
Unions should be illegal except in country’s like Poland, because unions, as seen in Poland, can overthrow evil governments.
Governments must give failing enterprises huge subsidies, and accept worthless stock as collateral so that executives can get their bonuses.
States that have deficits in Medicare funds should not have access to capital to cover temporary shortfalls: old people who are on Medicare can do without the care and stop being a burden on the state; rich people should die so that their heirs can inherit and spend idiotically so it can “trickle down” on the peons.
If money isn’t squandered on high speed rail, it might actually be spent on high speed rail, and that would hurt the “Big 3”. “Green” technologies are not owned by capital because the wind blows everywhere and the sun shines everywhere and there is not a huge capital barrier to entering the market. That’s why pot should be illegal!
Nuff said!
The OP’s own words:
My emphasis.
Not intentionally. I wouldn’t buy something from a dishonest person, but that requires a rather important piece of knowledge prior to the transaction - namely that the salesperson is indeed dishonest.
And it’s funny that you mention ebay and purchases over the internet. A lot of those have reputation systems - easy ways to check up on a seller. Not every market has these for one, and for another, past performance isn’t a guarantee of future results. You could go to a reputable seller and still get screwed ala bernie madoff.
You need transparency, and for that, you need regulation.
Here’s where I’m supposed to say “no, because I’m so smart I know right away who is honest and who isn’t.” But we both know that’s not true.
No matter how smart you are, there are millions smarter, and a few of them are dishonest and greedy enough to try and take the money of those less intelligent, or less informed than them.
Bernie Madoff was heavily regulated and was watched by the SEC. It didn’t matter though. Anyone who foolishly believes “regulation” will save them from future Bernie Madoffs deserve what they get.
But that isn’t a very good argument if your point is that regulation is worthless.
See, if we have no regulations, we definitely won’t catch the next Madoff. Without oversight, he’ll be free to loot and pillage like a drunk viking in a village of quadraplegics.
But if we have regulations, we might catch him.
I’ll take the “might catch him” option, please.
No, you’re the one with the faulty logic.
If you have NO regulations it does not mean you DEFINITELY WON’T catch the next Madoff.
How did Charles Ponzi get caught in 1920? The SEC didn’t exist until 1933!
It was the newspaper’s inquiries that tipped off the government (Massachusset’s bank commissioner) and not the other way around.
According to your logic, Ponzi couldn’t have been caught in 1920 and we would’ve had to wait 13 years for the creation of the SEC to save us stupid investors from him.
That’s fine for you but that doesn’t mean more regulations will eliminate or even reduce future Bernie Madoffs. The future Bernie Madoffs simply do different kinds of fraud that the old regulations or procedures do not detect.
I hesitated about giving an example because of the potential for a bullshit response like this. ‘Heavily Regulated’ means nothing when no one’s enforcing the rules. And he wasn’t being watched by the SEC. that was the f’ing problem.
I’ll take it that you have no response to the critique of your loaded question then.
The WSJ reported that the SEC investigated Madoff 8 times. He fooled them repeatedly.
If the almighty (or is it incompetent?) SEC can’t figure out Madoff then I guess the answer is… wait for it… to create a new regulation to investigate NINE TIMES… duh!
And let’s not forget the Enron crisis. The SEC didn’t pursue a formal investigation of Enron until October 2001 which was about a month before they declared bankruptcy. That’s pathetic considering a magazine writer questioned the validity of Enron profits in March 2001. The SEC watchdogs were scooped more than 8 months in advance.
Does anyone really think all the new post-Enron scandal regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley will protect you from new Enrons? Sure, if you refuse to learn from the history of financial frauds and continue wishful thinking.
How does one “enforce the rules” when you don’t know what to look for? New fraud techniques are always more sophisticated than the regulations the investigators are using as a template to detect irregularities.
You’re asking for the impossible.
Don’t know what you’re talking about here.