The same laws used to breakup monopolies should be used against these organizations. I'm surprised that so few people argued for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Printable View
The same laws used to breakup monopolies should be used against these organizations. I'm surprised that so few people argued for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
The plan has as of yet not been announced but the likely senario is the IMF will demand the Irish government breakup our banks into smaller entities to ensure no one of them ever become overly large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Basically we have a structural problem in that the size of our banking market is not big enough to tempt some of the big banks abroad into it and it is still too small to safely retain such relatively large banks for such a small country.
Why do you hate freedom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
A monopoly and a cartel do not differ that much.
Too big to fail is about a chain reaction crippling the banking system, not individual banks. Compare to that the top 10 oil companies went simultainously bankrupt. It would probably take a year or two for the company cannibalism to be done, thus crashing production during this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
What you did lack was a goverment with the guts to go. "You blew it (and they really did, since they bypassed laws inserted to prevent this). So now we own your companies. Bye." You can then sell off the banks after the market has stabilized itself.
Free-markets don't work properly in the oligopolic markets that form in long time, money investive markets, in particular when it's quite essential that it functions properly.
Hah! Consider that term stolen! :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Too big to fail = Too big to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Nope. The term was applied to individual institutions (e.g. General Motors), not to a system as a whole. That's kinda silly. About as silly as exploiting a recession to forcibly take over a business. If hostile takeovers are evil in the business world, how much worse is it if the government itself is the robber baron?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Considering what the crisis did to Saab and Volvo, the luckiest scenario would be that GM ended up chinese owned. Since they're larger, GM would probably cease to exist. Some chunks would be sold off, while the rest becomes dismantled, effectually killing off the car industry in the US. While you can't keep an industry on crutches forever (and shouldn't), that's one pretty nasty hit during a recession.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Because you're not doing it as an excuse to take over the buissness, you're doing to save the system and/or jobs. It'll cost you, certainly at the beginning, so you better get something back from it. It keeps the system intact (if most of the major players are killed off, you won't have people taking over the companies whole). And you can freely fire the people creating this mess. You know that punishment some talks about. Sure your company might survive, but you're now broke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
You are aware that I'm using real life examples correct? Bought during a right-wing goverment and (mostly, still own about 20%) sold off during a left-wing goverment. The goverment can remove its clutches on things they get hold on, but in the US, that's probably as unheard of that Obama currently have the lowest taxes in 60 years.
Need to correct a few details here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
It isn't about political ideology it's about state control over the means of production. That's almost become a cliche but even though government can release these things doesn't mean state ownership is preferable. I understand where you're coming from but it is a recipe for, at best, mediocrity.
The current president has nothing to do with the "low" tax rate. He wants to raise them again and is using it as a bargaining chip with the new Congress. You'll also have to specify which taxes.
Well anyone tasked with getting the USA finances in order should want to raise taxes. Cost of sustaining the USA as it is run today is larger than the revenue, hence the deficits. The single best example that ought to drive this point home is California. The state decided it really didn't want to levy taxes anymore, and promptly went bust and had to be bailed out by the FED essentially. (Technically a specific single tax, but as it happened also the lifeline of the California state.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
And slash entitlements. Nothing less will bring fiscal sanity. But I despair at seeing that combination anytime soon. Ideal lemur solution: radically simplify tax code, cut marginal rates a bit, eliminate every deduction (yes, including mortgage, charity, etc.), raise retirement age, institute public opt-in healthcare to drive down hleathcare insurance costs system-wide, and watch the books balance themselves. Oh, and eliminate Medicare Part D, the most financially irresponsible legislation in my lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
-Tax code won't be simplified nor deductions eliminated. There are far too many special interests influencing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
-Raising the retirement age is an excellent idea. I love my grandfather to death, but retiring at 62 and living till your 80s (85 currently) without working simply doesn't work and bankrupts this nation
-How would this work? I'm not doubting you but I'd be interested in hearing more. The sad part is even if such a thing is a feasible, the right wing will always bring stupid things like death panels and "Obamacare" nonsense up.
-After briefly looking up what Part D was, how exactly are you going to provide prescription medication for eldery people that can't afford it? Using my family as an example again, my grandmother takes many different prescriptions that she could not afford without government assistance. How exactly will she still recieve her medication? "Let her die" is an acceptable answer... I'm just wondering where you are going with the whole thing.
Funny thing about death panels is that some of the earliest were in the USA regarding who received dialysis as there were a handful of machines.
Concerning prescriptions, there are often several options for any given condition, and some work better than others - usually the newer ones are better.
The price differential between older generic ones and the newest ones can be at least 1,000% if not vastly more. Do they work this much better? Not by any stretch.
Is it the case in the USA that medicare is based on cheaper generics, or full cost treatment for everything?
~:smoking:
It's the territory where free market systems aren't working properly. Within that framework, it will obviously be difficult to make a good system. It's not state control of means of production is always good, it's that in this case, it's better than the alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Your suggestion is also that the state continously ripps apart companies to keep them in size. Who are then really in control of the means of production? :juggle2:
Federal tax income as a percentage of GDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
And yes, the low tax rate has mostly to do with the Bush era tax cuts combined with the cuts during the stimulous package. Care to guess that most of the US will scream bloody murder when the taxes are restored to even pre-stimulous levels?
8-14-23 or Fight!Broaden the tax-base, lower the rates, slash entitlements and deductions. With lower rates the mortgage deduction wouldn't be missed, the problem is selling this to the taxpayers. Special interests & the Drive By Media will whip up fear mongering to new levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Time for some fiscal sanity, however it may take until Obama is voted out in 2012 before it can begin.Quote:
The chart illustrates the rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul reality of our current "system." If you want to retain favored tax breaks, like the personal exemption or earned- income tax credit, everyone's rates have to rise to make up for those "breaks." Subtract the breaks, and rates can fall. That's the devil's bargain the U.S. has made for decades. The tax system we have is anti-economic. The IRS code is best understood as a political document.
Honestly Hosa, if you think Obama is the biggest stumbling block between the U.S.A. and fiscal sanity, you're not paying attention. Did Obama sign Medicare D into law? Did Obama launch two wars paid for entirely with credit cards? Did Obama say "deficits don't matter"? I mean, really. Come on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Which is why Republicans better pay attention to the fiscally conservative policy issues of the Tea Party movement, this isn't some fad. Republicans didn't win this last election, the Democrats got fired. Both party's are guilty of fiscal irresponsibility and they better stop kicking the can down the road and do something about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Fiscally responsible? The tea party? Are we talking about the same group?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Because the ta party I know are in full support of the current two wars and I doubt they'd have much of a problem with a third...