Thief13x on 24/3/2009 at 22:33
I'm assuming that post is a joke (the fact that it looks like a drunk lumberjack assembled it kinda gave it away)
Old and Cunning on 25/3/2009 at 00:02
Clearly, Kolya and BEAR do not know the difference betweeen an attempt to define a problem and a claim to have the absolute answer - but then one can expect any conversation that Kolya participates in to become simplified into retarded ASSumptions and pointless insults.
Too bad, too, because this was a pretty interesting string, earlier on.
Aja on 25/3/2009 at 00:56
Quote Posted by old and cunning
I've been groping my through the murk vis a vis allowing the capitalist model the relative freedom to find its own way and still have no reason to change my mind about it. It's still the healthiest way. But I think that we have erred in allowing the financial sector to dictate the rules of engagement.
remember that time you contradicted your entire post in the first paragraph?
Rug Burn Junky on 25/3/2009 at 01:42
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I'm assuming that post is a joke (the fact that it looks like a drunk lumberjack assembled it kinda gave it away)
Oh no, I'm dead serious in saying that you posting that list does absolutely nothing to prove the point you were trying to make.
But then again, you've always been pretty shitty at basic logic skills to begin with.
the_grip on 25/3/2009 at 05:09
Backing way the hell up in the thread...
OP: yes, that was a funny interview. I remember Cramer recommending Jones Soda (JSDA) when the stock was like $20. He had the CEO on, it went to $30. It was the newest thing and everyone had to have a piece of this mom and pop soda. Of course, there is a large contingency that is wise to Cramer and simply shorts his recommendations a few days after they are made. Those are the money makers in the deal. I really don't know why CNBC keeps him on, but then I don't know why CNBC continues to exist. JSDA was up nicely today, 5% to a closing price of eighty-three cents.
A little further in the thread...
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Something seems wrong about the notion of sustainably profitable business. It contains the words sustainable, profit and business - none of which are bad words, so it should be alright, but it isn't. Surely we should be engaging ourselves in sustainable, useful enterprise. I'm not sure how you do that (I suspect it's got something to do with education, publishing, transparency and democracy and so on), but profit (for the person running the enterprise) doesn't seem to be an entirely satisfactory indicator of value or usefulness. You can run a highly profitable, lasting business that has harmful or at least non-beneficial effects on society, the environment and other businesses.
Quote Posted by Morte
I agree, the notion that businesses only have a responsibility to profit marigins has to go. Businesses can't exist in a vacuum, and at the very least have a responsibility to not engage in behaviour destructive to the communities that surround them.
I agree 100% on point 2 (corporate responsibility to community), that is what laws and regulations are for. RE: point 1, I don't think most businesses operate in an "all or none" fashion regarding profits (which I think is what you mean instead of profit margins, but they are really the same in the end I guess). At the same time, I do think it is reasonable to expect that profits will (and should) top the list. Otherwise, why would anyone bother on a large scale? It is possible for folks to make money and benefit society at large... in fact, in a good economic model, both should happen (at least IMO). Most people (excluding idealists and folks who are passionate enough about a concept for its own sake) operate based on incentives. If one wants monetary incentive to change, that's great, but it needs to be a real change on a fundamental level. Until then, people have and will do most things for the loot. That seems to be fundamental to human nature at large and I have no problem with it provided people are not injured in the process.
At any rate, I don't think our current situation means capitalism "failed" - I don't think it has anything to do with capitalism or some other economic system succeeding or failing. Our current situation is 100% business cycle related (and communism and socialism and any other kinds of "isms" adhere to a business cycle, too). That part is normal to life like any ecological cycle is to nature. However, all the shit that people try to do to prevent the explosion from ticking timebombs tends to exacerbate and prolong the process, or at least it can.
Take this AIG debacle. We (the taxpayers and the government) has funneled enormous amounts of money to a mismanaged firm just to keep it afloat. Why not simply backstop those who get hurt and let the big stinker die? With AIG we have two problems: 1. we should not have given them ANY money in the first place and 2. now we are setting a precedent that the government is able to dictate the actions of private firms (which it arguably should be able to do now that it has such a large stake). Both issues would be resolved had all this money been used to backstop folks actually hurt by AIG instead of thinking AIG needed to be saved simply because it exists and is an institution. Regarding point 2, I know many folks will be pleased at this type of government behavior, and I think that's fine. I do not, however, think it promotes long term growth, innovation, and progress.
Or take the latest twist where the government is going to assume all the risk for large hedge funds and the like to buy toxic assets. What a fantastic deal - something like 4 or 8 to 1 leverage for the private money, and the government gets the margin call should it come around. Or at least fantastic for the recipients (but "private" money doesn't include you and me, we don't get to have that bet).
Fast forward my train of thought to get me off my soapbox - we are on track as a country to undo a whole bunch of good things and move those good things to China and other parts of Asia (I actually would love to live in China but the Mrs. won't have it, at least not yet). The U.S. will still be a fine and dandy place to live I'm sure. Nice and pretty just like Monaco and France and Spain complete with all the trimmings they enjoy and the other trimmings they are convinced they enjoy. This has nothing to do with Obama or Bush or Republican or Democrat or whomever, it is all the same wad these days in my mind (although Obama is definitely a likable guy). With all this said, I am pro socialized medicine, pro renewable energy, and pro all the nice things we are dumping a shitload of money on. The problem is we are dumping all these funds irrespective of where the source will come from (well, that's not entirely true... I think it is fairly obvious that the current train of government thought is trying to force financial equilibrium with a whole host of ensuing unintended consequences, but the proof of that largely remains to be seen).
the_grip on 25/3/2009 at 05:23
Quote Posted by the_grip
Our current situation is 100% business cycle related (and communism and socialism and any other kinds of "isms" adhere to a business cycle, too). That part is normal to life like any ecological cycle is to nature. However, all the shit that people try to do to prevent the explosion from ticking timebombs tends to exacerbate and prolong the process, or at least it can.
I should restate this - not 100% business cycle related. To be sure there was some shady shit going on that fueled the enormous financial explosion. I'm referring more to the idea of recession, unemployment, etc. What I should say is that the business cycle happened, but the shit allowed before it turned and the shit going on now are both giving it steroids.
Thief13x on 25/3/2009 at 22:56
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Oh no, I'm dead serious in saying that you posting that list does absolutely nothing to prove the point you were trying to make.
But then again, you've always been pretty shitty at basic logic skills to begin with.
Umm, no and no
If you have a point to make, could you stop trolling and make it? Oh yeah, classic RBJ anti social personality never has much of a point, just a stench. You sound like fucking cheney
Stitch on 25/3/2009 at 23:20
Quote Posted by Thief13x
You sound like fucking cheney
quoted for good times
Rug Burn Junky on 25/3/2009 at 23:22
Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that my very valid criticisms are merely trolling does you no good. Because you are wrong. And, because if you had half the brains that you think you do, you would realize that I DID make a point. Rather than respond to said point, you resort to whining like a little bitch.
Very quickly: The criticism of capitalism/unfettered markets is based on actions leading up to the actual financial crisis. These actions were during the periods PRIOR to 2008. Mainly in the years 1999 - 2007, after the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (and exacerbated by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000).
Your supposed refutation of this argument deals with bailout money, all distributed in the latter half of 2008, well after the damage was done. In short, the evidence you point to is irrelevant for supporting the point you claim you are trying to make.
My original analogy underscores this quite nicely, if only you had the fucking brains to understand it. Corrective measures taken after the fact (ie. bailout money or antibiotics) do not change the nature of the failure in the first place (whether that be an ideological aversion to regulation, or a religious aversion to preventative medicine).
Now, shut the fuck up and run along before I make you look like even more of an ignorant asshole.
