Rug Burn Junky on 25/3/2009 at 23:34
Quote Posted by the_grip
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.
This is patently incorrect and irresponsible, which is why no serious economist has suggested anything of the sort. We are not talking about a mom and pop diner, letting AIG fail would have far wider consequences, and would cause instability and failure of other institutions that would be more damaging, and harder to fix.
But, beyond that, this statement is entirely hypocritical on its face. Why is it OK to "backstop" the counterparties, rather than achieve this goal through AIG? (Never mind the fact that that's exactly what happened - the money was injected into AIG so that it could cover collateral calls by their counterparties based on their deteriorating credit rating.) After all, if banks like Goldman underestimated the counterparty risk of dealing with AIG, why does this deserve assistance from the government, when AIG's failure to estimate market risk does not? I can't imagine you truly understand the issues when you make statements like that.
Rather than covering collateral calls, and enabling AIG to wind down the positions in an orderly fashion, your proposal would require the instant termination of these positions. Which would cost far more to cover, and would leave many institutions unhedged and improperly collateralized, forcing further failures, and moving these losses throughout the system in a domino fashion, in a way that may not be containable or reparable. It is the height of folly.
Thief13x on 25/3/2009 at 23:40
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
BLAHL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH LOOK HOW STUPID I'M ABOUT TO LOOK..
Now, shut the fuck up and run along before I make you look like even more of an ignorant asshole.
lmao you're a funny kid
I assumed this was your 'point' which ironically proves that you are the idiot and didn't get
my point. I guess I have to spoon feed you.
My assumption: The economically damaging actions were done prior to the bailouts starting in 2008 (sound familiar?)
My Point: The bailouts were initiated to prevent the resulting economic damage (short circuiting capitalism by preventing inevitable bankruptcy/failure).
Conclusion: Don't blame capitalism when it's not being implemented in the first place
are you stoned? Even BEAR got it the first time.:joke:
now fucking read my posts before you waste my time again, and wake the fuck up. Oh and,
shut the fuck up and run along before I make you look like even more of an ignorant asshole.
Rug Burn Junky on 25/3/2009 at 23:50
You're not helping yourself. I have read your posts, and they do not say what you think they do.
Quote:
I especially like the phrase "failure of an Ideology," ... thrown around so much by numbnuts, spouting off like this didn't happen ....
{list of bailouts}
The failure referred to by any of said numbnuts are the actions prior to the bailouts.
If you're trying to say that the bailouts somehow disprove statements about the failure of an ideology (ie, the plain reading of what you actually wrote), then you are indeed attempting to make a point, and failing spectacularly at it.
If you are trying to show that the bailouts responded to this failure, you aren't even making a point.
Chade on 25/3/2009 at 23:58
Yeah RBJ, stop blaming capitalism for a failure that only happened because we stopped capitalism from failing harder.
Idiot.
Thief13x on 26/3/2009 at 00:00
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
If you're trying to say that the bailouts somehow disprove statements about the failure of an ideology (ie, the plain reading of what you actually wrote), then you are indeed attempting to make a point, and failing spectacularly at it.
If you are trying to show that the bailouts responded to this failure, you aren't even making a point.
Man this has got to stop or I'm going to need a cigarette. Can you please fucking support your statements? both of your points...NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, NO ATTEMPT TO PROVE YOUR POINT , it's like I'm a fucking kid being lied to about santa clause. Yes that IS my point, and yes it DOES show the bailouts were a response to this failure! holy shit It's like I'm arguing with an INFANT!
Quote Posted by Chade
Yeah RBJ, stop blaming capitalism for a failure that only happened because we stopped capitalism from failing harder.
Idiot.
Hey I neither support nor am against the bailout. Like most people, I don't know! all I'm saying is that you can't call this capitalism.
Quote:
The failure referred to by any of said numbnuts are the actions prior to the bailouts.
So now we're back to the same question that I already asked (and got no response to) about 5 posts ago. Are you saying that a business that is about to fail because of bad business practices is the definition of failed capitalism? I think not, I think it is a necessary consequence of said business practices
Kolya on 26/3/2009 at 00:17
RBJ, I pointed this out right after Thief13x posted his list:
Quote Posted by Kolya
Oh and those capital injections (long list is long) were all made
after capitalism failed or whatever happened, so what's your point Thief13x?
And guess what he did? He didn't get it.
Thief13x, after your latest posts it seems you propose we just let shit slide because that's the natural course of capitalism: Let bad business practices die. Unfortunately it's not just numbers going down the drain here. It's a lot of peoples lives. You may not call this a failure of capitalism but that's just because you miss the point of any economical system: It should work for the benefit of society as a whole and not just a few wankers who screw up the rest of us.
Rug Burn Junky on 26/3/2009 at 00:21
Quote Posted by Thief13x
So now we're back to the same question that I already asked (and got no response to) about 5 posts ago. Are you saying that a business that is about to fail because of bad business practices is the definition of failed capitalism? I think not, I think it is a necessary consequence of said business practices
I'm going to be nice about this now, because if you're asking questions like this, you really don't even understand enough to attempt to make the points you tried to earlier, and I can only beat up on the infirm so much before I must take pity. That doesn't change the fact that your point was incoherent, and incorrect. I was merely pointing out the utter and complete logical failure contained there-in. Seeing you say this, however, just helps me to understand that you don't have nearly the basis to argue with me on this.
For the record, I think that that "capitalism failed" is a lazy, unhelpful, and incorrect critique. Laissez faire capitalism and deregulation failed and other aspects of the system broke down, but at the heart, I'm probably more of a free market capitalist than any of you people here.
But nobody is really just saying simply "capitalism failed," that's a strawman that your list of bailouts couldn't even knock down with the help of a strong breeze on a windy day. People are generally saying that there is a market failure of capitalism because it allowed bad business practices to flourish, so to the extent your confusion stems from trying to make a distinction between the failure of capitalism and bad business practices, it's meaningless, they are necessarily intertwined, and you can't simply make that distinction. The credit bubble, the overleveraging, the eventual bust were all emergent properties of a system that had weaknesses.
At the end of the day, the fact that the weaknesses caused a need step in to fix the problem before reaching the endgame, does not change the fact that they put us on that path in the first place, which is why your conclusion is wrong. The failure of the ideology happened long before the bailout, regardless of when the effects were ultimately felt, and actions taken in response do not change that fact.
Chade on 26/3/2009 at 00:21
EDIT: Reply to Thief13x ... you guys are fast!
Look, I most certainly can't claim to be an economics expert. But you know, there has been a solid number of economists blogging about this stuff as it happened. I've seen plenty of posts from economists who aren't happy with certain aspects of whatever plan is being cooked up at any one time, but I don't think I've seen any from economists who just flat out think it was a good idea to let institutions like AIG fail.
RBJ may be overly abrasive, but he is also way better qualified then you or I. What he is saying basically mirrors the content of every economist blog I have looked at. You should listen to him.
Remember: these institutions run the medium that the rest of the economy functions in. If they fail, so does everything else ... the idea of creative destruction is all well and good, but generally when you say that you are implicitly assuming that the entire economy isn't going to tank on the way down.
Thief13x on 26/3/2009 at 00:23
Quote Posted by Kolya
Unfortunately it's not just numbers going down the drain here. It's a lot of peoples lives.
You talk about lives, Koyla, may I ask about those of your children and grandchildren? If anyone should pay the price for the shit we got ourselves into, should it really be another generation? Won't they have their own shitheads?
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
I'm going to be nice about this now, because if you're asking questions like this, you really don't even understand enough to attempt to make the points you tried to earlier
This is just flat out wrong, I understand this mess quite well.
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
But nobody is really just saying simply "capitalism failed," that's a strawman that your list of bailouts couldn't even knock down with the help of a strong breeze on a windy day. People are generally saying that there is a market failure of capitalism because it allowed bad business practices to flourish, so to the extent your confusion stems from trying to make a distinction between the failure of capitalism and bad business practices, it's meaningless, they are necessarily intertwined, and you can't simply make that distinction. The credit bubble, the overleveraging, the eventual bust were all emergent properties of a system that had weaknesses.
Okay. Again, RBJ, if you would have read my posts, particularly my second response to BEAR, you wouldn't have wasted your breath because 'failure of an ideaology' is exactly that, rejection of capitalism in favor of (usually) socialism. This is what is being past around a LOT, do a little bit of research, talk to everyday people about their thoughts on capitalism. This is what I'm opposed to, the idea that capitalism as a whole needs to be sacked. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the opinions of alot of people these days who don't quite understand this mess.
Quote Posted by Chade
I've seen plenty of posts from economists who aren't happy with certain aspects of whatever plan is being cooked up at any one time, but I don't think I've seen any from economists who just flat out think it was a good idea to let institutions like AIG fail.
Quite true, but I also havn't seen a single economist within the past six months say to get out of the stock market, infact, they've been saying since November's initial plunge that it's the best time to buy. My point is, it may not be the wrong advice, but both peices of advice given in the other direction would have the same consequences, they're bad for Wallstreet.
Kolya on 26/3/2009 at 00:33
I didn't get myself into this shit, nor did most of the people who are paying to keep the economy alive now. A bunch of people did get stupidly rich though and they won't feel the consequences of this natural downturn - as you see it - quite so hard, if at all. Sow what's keeping them from making the same mistakes again, if we don't do it?
