NationStates Jolt Archive

http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/ani079.gif


But seriously.

What do you all feel must be done to fix the economy?

Personal i say we let the bankrupt companies rott, and seize the assets of the CEO's.

While at the same time using that bailout money everyones talking about to fund social programmes and infanstructure development, as well as giving a large gift to Co-operative companies, so they can expand and offset unemployment, which are STRANGELY doing really well off the recession...because they aren't greedy companies.

Your thoughts?

Those companies have employees. If they go bankrupt their employees suddenly don't have an income. They can't buy anything. Other companies now have less customers. They'll make less money, and be less able to pay their employees, and might have to fire some, and then other companies will have less customers, and so on.

And that's just from the employees going broke. There are any number of companies that rely on other companies as customers. If one goes down they could take others with it. If a construction company goes bankrupt then the people who sell them tools and machinery and materials will lose money, maybe even go bankrupt themselves.

Not to mention that seizing the assets of the CEOs for no good reason is rather illegal.....

You sir, are hereby blacklisted for scaring me first thing in the morning before I've turned on any news.

If the bailout money was given to companies which had the ethical sense not to be greedy as hell, then not only would more of the bailout money actual go toward expansion (As there would be less slush fund) but those companies could then buyout the old ones.
I don't see why we're rewarding these corrupt company owners who are essentially holding their workforce hostage and saying "If i go im taking them with me", screw illegal we should change the law. If your greed puts others at risk then you are most definately a danger to society, the entire point of prisons is to keep people like that away from the public.

If the bailout money was given to companies which had the ethical sense not to be greedy as hell, then not only would more of the bailout money actual go toward expansion (As there would be less slush fund) but those companies could then buyout the old ones.
But every company in existence is greedy. Their raison d'être is to make as much money as possible by charging for a good or service.
I don't see why we're rewarding these corrupt company owners who are essentially holding their workforce hostage and saying "If i go im taking them with me", screw illegal we should change the law.
To make theft legal? Good luck with that.
If your greed puts others at risk then you are most definately a danger to society, the entire point of prisons is to keep people like that away from the public.

Then talk to a public prosecutor about pressing charges.

Print more money. That always works

http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/ani079.gif


But seriously.

What do you all feel must be done to fix the economy?

Personal i say we let the bankrupt companies rott, and seize the assets of the CEO's.

While at the same time using that bailout money everyones talking about to fund social programmes and infanstructure development, as well as giving a large gift to Co-operative companies, so they can expand and offset unemployment, which are STRANGELY doing really well off the recession...because they aren't greedy companies.

Your thoughts?

You must be young with little time so far to fully think things out.. If banks fail, business will have no way of getting capital for payroll, inventory etc and with no businesses creating product means you would have nice shiney empty roads and bridges. And a destroyed economy.

And what have CEOs done wrong? The CEO and the company are both separate legal entities capable of coming to an agreement on salary package. The CEO doesnt have a gun and no company has to hire any CEO for any wage. Its the free market. Why is the CEO being stripped of his legal possessions again according to you?

And let me get this straight, you dont like the fact that government is giving money to companies, yet your solutiuon...is to give money to different companies?

And social programs are the worlds largest sump pump. You could dump the entire nations GNP for the next decade into social products and noone would even notice the difference and there would still be huge numbers of people still asking for something.

But every company in existence is greedy. Their raison d'être is to make as much money as possible by charging for a good or service.

To make theft legal? Good luck with that.


Then talk to a public prosecutor about pressing charges.

The cooperative bank isn't greedy, hence why its surviving the recession.

Theft? I wouldn't call it theft, a redistribution of wealth maybe, a 100% tax hike on certain individuals.

No point, we all know the judges are in the corporate pocket :( :p

You must be young with little time so far to fully think things out.. If banks fail, business will have no way of getting capital for payroll, inventory etc and with no businesses creating product means you would have nice shiney empty roads and bridges. And a destroyed economy.

And let me get this straight, you dont like the fact that government is giving money to companies, yet your solutiuon...is to give money to different companies?

And social programs are the worlds largest sump pump. You could dump the entire nations GNP for the next decade into social products and there would still be huge numbers of people still asking for something.

The business' can use the banks that have acted rationally and prudently.
Yes, my solution is to give money to different companies so that they can buyout the shell of the old companies.
Well yes, people will always ask for more.
But they might not NEED more, which would be a great step

Those companies have employees. If they go bankrupt their employees suddenly don't have an income. They can't buy anything. Other companies now have less customers. They'll make less money, and be less able to pay their employees, and might have to fire some, and then other companies will have less customers, and so on.

And that's just from the employees going broke. There are any number of companies that rely on other companies as customers. If one goes down they could take others with it. If a construction company goes bankrupt then the people who sell them tools and machinery and materials will lose money, maybe even go bankrupt themselves.

Not to mention that seizing the assets of the CEOs for no good reason is rather illegal.....
Obviously the way to prevent this is to lower corporations' tax rates.

Print more money. That always works

Jip, and all those extra zeroes make it look good too:
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/6783/zmbw100mrdfaw9.jpg
Everyone a billionaire!

(Sarc) Obviously the way to prevent this is to lower corporations' tax rates. /(Sarc)


Fixed...hopefully

Fixed...hopefully

How dare you question my seriousness about the greatest economic policy ever created - trickle down economics. If it can't solve the problem, we arn't applying it hard enough.

The business' can use the banks that have acted rationally and prudently.

You dont have a clear understanding of Banks and the financial market. During the financial crisis it stopped being a matter of seperating the "good" banks from the bad. Instead, the collapse built on itself and every weekend, the new perceived weakest bank would have investors flee based not as much on financial decisions as a panic from depositers based on rumor. It got to the point where it wasnt an issue of what bank was stronger or weaker, it was simply where will the sharks strike this weekend.

That process worked itself for months as company after company fell. It wasnt what bank was weak, what one was strong, it was what one is the weakest of the bunch to flee from this weekend. That is disaster and the buyout was to stop this domino effect on banks and to restore faith in the financial institutions.

The government in fact forced banks that didnt even want money and had a perfectly sound financial base to borrow it anyway and it also forced them to give up part ownership. Regardless of how well the bank was managed, all for the supposed greater good of the entire financial system.

Yes, my solution is to give money to different companies so that they can buyout the shell of the old companies.

I have no idea what this means or why any company would want to buy a shell or for what reason and what is the governments incentive to want to participate in it?

Well yes, people will always ask for more.
But they might not NEED more, which would be a great step

I repeat, bottomless sump pump.

praying to a bovine statue might work (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/wheres_charlton_heston_when_yo.php)

http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/ani079.gif


But seriously.

What do you all feel must be done to fix the economy?

Personal i say we let the bankrupt companies rott, and seize the assets of the CEO's.

While at the same time using that bailout money everyones talking about to fund social programmes and infanstructure development, as well as giving a large gift to Co-operative companies, so they can expand and offset unemployment, which are STRANGELY doing really well off the recession...because they aren't greedy companies.

Your thoughts?

*polishes blade on guillotine*

*shiver*

I think we need Captain Capitalism in here...

i do not know what a free country is. i do not know if such a thing is possible.

what i do know, is that capitolism only works when it is willing to accept a reasonable degree of social responsibility.

and it isn't some kind of wild eyed procustianism to say so.

every once in a while, people forget this, and then they go along for a while, thinking they can get away with it for ever, or that some convoluted how the're going to get something out of it, and then reality catches up with them.

economic analysts call this a correction.
deregulation needs a lot of correcting.
it doesn't make anyone who isn't born with a silver spoon the next donald trump.

The way to prevent what happened this year, is to make it risky enough that the people who did it won't do it again.

The Bailout killed that. You can't have a long-term situation where the Profits are Private, and the Risk is Socialized, and maintain a healthy economic situation, keep people long-term employed at living wages, and retain any sort of Liberty. Liberty demands Risk be REAL, Free men must accept the outcomes of their bad decisions, or they cease to be free.

It's really very simple-if Banks can misuse funds and remain solvent on the public's dime, then that is what they will do. Only when there is the threat of failure, and the resetting of the Market caused by such failure, can you get out of the pattern of Bubble-to-Bailout that has corrupted the markets, endangered prosperity, and threatens to destroy EVERYONE.

The S&L Bailout only covered a small portion of the market, that's because the S&L FAILURE was localized and the policies that led to it were likewise localized. The Mortgage Mess was the S&L Failure of the eighties writ large-and it was writ large because the people perpetrating it knew, deep in their bones, that the Government would NEVER let them collapse entirely, that they would be bailed out, and that little, if anything, would be demanded of them in turn.

the NEXT one is going to be truly global, and likely catastrophic-and it's entirely a result of this fallacy of "To Big to Fail".

The solution? Nuke everyone. When there are no people there are no economy to worry about.

I am saying this because there seem to be a lot of post on "who cares about the big business", and although I do not deny that we put up way too many defense to safeguard their continuous existence, to let them drop now at this rate will lead very serious consequences. Take away those barriers when new businesses can replace the falling one, not while businesses are closing everywhere and that we need them around to provide jobs. By now it's no longer a question of who's paying the price, it's obvious that the working class are. Either in the form of taxes and national debt, or in the form of unemployment. We need to solve the problem at hand first.

The real big challenge I think, is that no politicians will be willing to take away those benefits after it is established, even after the economy stabilized. This will most likely result in a much more catastrophic event than the one we are seeing today.

Have governments buy shares in banks to raise capital, then sell them when it'd be profitable to do so. Once the banks get to working again, everything is going to go a lot smoother.

The solution is obvious - fire, and lots of it! :D

The solution is obvious - fire, and lots of it! :D

You think?

You think?

Well, of course not! It's a mad idea! I didn't think! :D

Well, of course not! It's a mad idea! I didn't think! :D

Right right.

Right right.

Left left. :)

http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/ani079.gif


But seriously.

What do you all feel must be done to fix the economy?

Personal i say we let the bankrupt companies rott, and seize the assets of the CEO's.

While at the same time using that bailout money everyones talking about to fund social programmes and infanstructure development, as well as giving a large gift to Co-operative companies, so they can expand and offset unemployment, which are STRANGELY doing really well off the recession...because they aren't greedy companies.

Your thoughts?

Or we could not make like the Soviet Union...

The best thing for the government to do about the economic crisis is to do nothing at all... Let the markets readjust themselves.

Believe it or not, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.