Who's excited? it's going to be a battle for the ages
Trump2016
Who??
73
Trump
68
Hillary
deletedover 8 years
Considering Trumps followers are the most obnoxiously right wing people there is, i'm sure theres always going to be a good amount of people carrying at his rallies. Trump actually just cancelled his trip to my city, i was actually wanting to go to see real life trump supporters and get a dank hat.
"Supporters of Trump still inside chanted "We want Trump" after the event was canceled. Protesters, meanwhile, shouted "We shut s*** down" and "We stumped Trump." Others chanted "Bernie" as supporters whipped out Bernie Sanders campaign signs."
i wonder if republicans, who believe in their 2nd amendment so firmly think guns should be allowed in these trump rallys, cuz oh man would that ever be a news headline if they were
trump is gonna fk around and cause a civil war lol
deletedover 8 years
deletedover 8 years
also, while I admit the banks may be too big (may in italics)
The idea of the government breaking up a company is a slippery road.
Also, does that mean a rule would need to be put into place saying "once a bank gets X big, we break it up!"
How do you quantify X? But the bigger issue is how will the banks that are
deletedover 8 years
orly, one of the reasons the big banks got bigger after the great recession is because of regulation. Too much regulation bogs down smaller banks who cant afford to have a huge compliance department. Like, just think about what happened to credit unions. Those things were so hype 7 years ago.
I dont think 0 regulation is the answer, but regulation for the sake of regulation is worse
Has someone stolen our tax payer dollars? Yes, just as much as a politician feeds off campaign donations and the political capital of a constituency. Does this mean it has left the hands of the US government? Not necessarily, and there's the rub: some of the companies operate within the government itself, and some politicians are in coordination with those companies. Others, of course, are sided with other companies, in the same market.
And so the simple reality is that a bailout was necessary for the sake of the general US economy, but it ended up helping a certain set of financial firms much more than others. Would an unregulated market do better? Do we really want our finances in the hands of entities that are not tied down to US laws? Because that's what you're asking for.
So when Republicans talk to me about the free market, I have to laugh inside, because what they're really discussing is handing over the reigns to corporations to regulate in their own interests. Regulations will ALWAYS exist, because you need them to stabilize the markets. A perceived lack of regulations is perhaps better stated as a need for protection of the consumer within the market, rather than protection for the supplier...
But continue to live in your dream world where corporations are somehow benevolently managing the free market through natural competition.
The problem with drawing that distinction is that by the time the bailout was needed, it was causing a financial meltdown outside of the banks that were sharing bundled derivatives of mortgages. The US government stepped in in order to prevent further calamity, and had they not done so, we would have actually seen a massive shift in financial stability.
Now, looking back in retrospect, was it the best way to go about solving the crisis? Possibly not, but my point is that the border between government and corporation is casually crossed over in the current economic era. When you state that the Federal Bank could have prevented the crisis, or that the US gov't could have let the free market solve itself, your argument overlooks the very obvious fact that the government operates within the market as an agent both for and in tandem with other financial institutes.
So just to clarify, corporatism is normally a sociopolitical term used to explain more generally the current social distribution of power within a society. It's the definition of a blanket term when discussing economic theory. But I digress, as I was only stating that you could be more specific with your terminology/diction. If you didn't catch the fact that me calling you a realist was a sarcastic jab at your own jargon, then I'm sorry for that as well.
Neo-objectivist? Really? This is again a very bad way of harmonizing your argument, leaving it vague and qualified as a catch-all in terms of validity. Neo-objectivism has very little to do with what we're specifically talking about in the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008.
Anyway, we're really arguing in circles, to some extent, while you avoid the obvious truth. No one is arguing here that individual firms are irrelevant to US power; they are obviously essential to our economy. The issue is that you have a vague conceptualization of there being some stark difference between a bailed-out bank and one that was outside of the mortgage bundle deals and therefore independent.
