occupying wall street - will it do any good

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







Occupy Wall Street goes World-Wide!







occupying wall street - will it do any good



Answer: It already has...






.

[bobevenson]

Occupy Wall Street goes World-Wide!


occupying wall street - will it do any good
Answer: It already has...

It already hasn't, and never will!

[Arising_uk]

Bailouts are wrong in America or anywhere else, and have nothing to do with free-market capitalism.

But your 'free-market' bankers seem happy to take handouts and you appear to support them?

[chaz wyman]

The trouble with you is that you seem to think that the rich get rich by stealing from the poor. I suppose you think that great Americans like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs became billionaires this way. What an idiot you are! Now you take the Queen of England, I think she's a billionaire and never did a lick of work in her life. Talk about stealing from the poor!

It's not about them - but about the freeloading banks in your free market system.

[artisticsolution]

Bailouts are wrong in America or anywhere else, and have nothing to do with free-market capitalism.

But your 'free-market' bankers seem happy to take handouts and you appear to support them?

Hi Bob,

I agree with you. But what I can't understand is why you would condone a system where free market capitalism is allowed to get as huge as it wants...where it can literally bring down a nation when or if it goes bankrupt and then allow it to do just that. Think about it this way...suppose our country was a corporation....would it be responsible to allow the whole country to fail based on a principal that bailouts are fundamentally wrong?

Why set up a system that is designed for failure from the get go. The reality is companies go under....no business is fail safe. And when they do all their employees are out of a job. So if said employees are whole country of people, is it ethical to allow them all to go under?

As I see it there are only 2 options...

1. either set limit as to how big a company can get so if it goes under it doesn't take the whole country with it.

or

2. let them get as big as they want and then bail them out when they go under. (which I think we can agree is not sustainable.)

[bobevenson]

I agree with you. But what I can't understand is why you would condone a system where free market capitalism is allowed to get as huge as it wants...where it can literally bring down a nation when or if it goes bankrupt and then allow it to do just that. Think about it this way...suppose our country was a corporation....would it be responsible to allow the whole country to fail based on a principal that bailouts are fundamentally wrong?

Why set up a system that is designed for failure from the get go. The reality is companies go under....no business is fail safe. And when they do all their employees are out of a job. So if said employees are whole country of people, is it ethical to allow them all to go under?

As I see it there are only 2 options...

1. either set limit as to how big a company can get so if it goes under it doesn't take the whole country with it.

or

2. let them get as big as they want and then bail them out when they go under. (which I think we can agree is not sustainable.)

I'm afraid you've got the wrong orientation. You seem to think free-market capitalism is some kind of corporation. It's millions of people and companies attracting capital to produce goods and services that people want to buy. Capitalism is a system, it's not something that can get too big. Companies go out of business all the time, and employees move on to other jobs that are more productive and can be sustained in a free market. That's how things improve over time. Socialism is a static situation where people and companies keep doing the same thing over and over again with the continued support of the government. There is no rebirth of anything, including new ideas, products and services. A good example is free-market Hong Kong, and when socialist China took over, it began to see the light, and learned why Hong Kong was so successful compared to mainland China.

[bobevenson]

It's not about them - but about the freeloading banks in your free market system.

What do you mean by "freeloading banks"? Specifically, what do you object to?

[artisticsolution]

I'm afraid you've got the wrong orientation. You seem to think free-market capitalism is some kind of corporation. It's millions of people and companies attracting capital to produce goods and services that people want to buy. Capitalism is a system, it's not something that can get too big. Companies go out of business all the time, and employees move on to other jobs that are more productive and can be sustained in a free market. That's how things improve over time. Socialism is a static situation where people and companies keep doing the same thing over and over again with the continued support of the government. There is no rebirth of anything, including new ideas, products and services. A good example is free-market Hong Kong, and when socialist China took over, it began to see the light, and learned why Hong Kong was so successful compared to mainland China.

Smaller companies go out of business all the time. The big ones don't or can't because they would take the country down with them. Big companies have a winner take all attitude...they merge with other big ones and gobble up the competition. They become "too big to fail." What that means is that they employee so many people that to allow them to fail would put a devastating amount of people out of work. Devastating to our countries economy and safety that is..

We need to make sure businesses can't get to big to fail so we can just let them fail ...so that capitalism can work for the greater good. There needs to be consequences and rewards for capitalism to work for the people.

[Arising_uk]

... A good example is free-market Hong Kong, and when socialist China took over, it began to see the light, and learned why Hong Kong was so successful compared to mainland China.

Your talking about communism not socialism. China learnt more from Singapore's democractic socialist capitalist model than from HK.

[bobevenson]

I'm afraid you've got the wrong orientation. You seem to think free-market capitalism is some kind of corporation. It's millions of people and companies attracting capital to produce goods and services that people want to buy. Capitalism is a system, it's not something that can get too big. Companies go out of business all the time, and employees move on to other jobs that are more productive and can be sustained in a free market. That's how things improve over time. Socialism is a static situation where people and companies keep doing the same thing over and over again with the continued support of the government. There is no rebirth of anything, including new ideas, products and services. A good example is free-market Hong Kong, and when socialist China took over, it began to see the light, and learned why Hong Kong was so successful compared to mainland China.

Smaller companies go out of business all the time. The big ones don't or can't because they would take the country down with them. Big companies have a winner take all attitude...they merge with other big ones and gobble up the competition. They become "too big to fail." What that means is that they employee so many people that to allow them to fail would put a devastating amount of people out of work. Devastating to our countries economy and safety that is..

We need to make sure businesses can't get to big to fail so we can just let them fail ...so that capitalism can work for the greater good. There needs to be consequences and rewards for capitalism to work for the people.

That's all bullshit. There is no company too big to fail, and the U.S. government has no business bailing any of them out. Other companies will come in to pick up the pieces and business will be back to normal. Just because a company goes bankrupt, the factories and workers are still there. Maybe they have to have a company with better management or make new products, but the productive capacity is still there. Please don't try to make a boogeyman out of capitalism, it's your own personal nightmare unrelated to reality.

[bobevenson]

... A good example is free-market Hong Kong, and when socialist China took over, it began to see the light, and learned why Hong Kong was so successful compared to mainland China.

Your talking about communism not socialism. China learnt more from Singapore's democractic socialist capitalist model than from HK.

Neither communism nor socialism allows free-market capitalism with full regard to human rights. By the way, they flog people in Singapore, don't they?

[Arising_uk]

You are dreaming, my friend! As far as I can see, you have a bunch of malcontents trespassing on private property, causing a disturbance, and not having the slightest idea of what they are doing or why. It's a mob mentality that will lead nowhere.

Its not private property. Its public space.

[Arising_uk]

Bailouts are wrong in America or anywhere else, and have nothing to do with free-market capitalism.

So effectively America is not, as you claim, the home of free-market capitalism then?

[artisticsolution]

That's all bullshit. There is no company too big to fail, and the U.S. government has no business bailing any of them out. Other companies will come in to pick up the pieces and business will be back to normal. Just because a company goes bankrupt, the factories and workers are still there. Maybe they have to have a company with better management or make new products, but the productive capacity is still there. Please don't try to make a boogeyman out of capitalism, it's your own personal nightmare unrelated to reality.

Then please tell me why both Bush and Obama bailed out these companies?

[bobevenson]

That's all bullshit. There is no company too big to fail, and the U.S. government has no business bailing any of them out. Other companies will come in to pick up the pieces and business will be back to normal. Just because a company goes bankrupt, the factories and workers are still there. Maybe they have to have a company with better management or make new products, but the productive capacity is still there. Please don't try to make a boogeyman out of capitalism, it's your own personal nightmare unrelated to reality.

Then please tell me why both Bush and Obama bailed out these companies?

Because they are incompetent with incompetent advisors who don't understand economics. Unfortunately, politicians are generally incompetent, and most of them are willing to spend their own money to get elected to jobs that don't pay enough money to attract competent candidates.