The point is the bankers never lose, heads they win, tails they win, however recklessly they gamble they win - and the wider economy suffers.FEOS wrote:
More than bankers profit under those systems.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well, they work better for the bankers thats for sure.
Yet another fact you conveniently forget when you troll.
Facts are unimportant and utterly irrelevant to Dilbert's worldview, kmar...you know that.Kmar wrote:
Countryside sure as hell lost. Lots of bankers have folded in the last five years. I've seen it happen first hand, to lots of folks.
No, he's arguing from the point of view that you and kmar aren't sticking to your own guns. It's an argument against the American opinion that regulation is bad and bad for business. He's trying to point out a flaw in your viewpoint except he's misinterpreted his audience. The only people arguing for no regulation are market anarchists like Murray Rothbard. Most of us happen to like the idea of the SEC except it tends to be staffed and run by fools which does more harm than good.FEOS wrote:
I just wish he would stick to an argument. Is a free market pure evil or nirvana? He's all over both sides here.
We need to regulate eight ways from Sunday, but we need to have a hands-off policy? He's talking like a schizophrenic.
Except we've always said that a lightly regulated free market is best. Have never wavered from that position. Precisely for the reasons you point out above.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, he's arguing from the point of view that you and kmar aren't sticking to your own guns. It's an argument against the American opinion that regulation is bad and bad for business. He's trying to point out a flaw in your viewpoint except he's misinterpreted his audience. The only people arguing for no regulation are market anarchists like Murray Rothbard. Most of us happen to like the idea of the SEC except it tends to be staffed and run by fools which does more harm than good.FEOS wrote:
I just wish he would stick to an argument. Is a free market pure evil or nirvana? He's all over both sides here.
We need to regulate eight ways from Sunday, but we need to have a hands-off policy? He's talking like a schizophrenic.
To Dilbert: we as Americans hold one truth to be self evident. Our government is incompetent and the less that it touches the better off we all are. Everything it touches turns to shit. That's pretty much the basis for right wing politics here. It doesn't make us anarchists, it simply makes us leery of interventionism and more willing to push back against it than other populaces. No one is arguing for no government.
I'm trying to understand what you guys are saying, the free market is terrific, regulation is bad, but when large Wall Street firms lose on a blatantly stupid gamble the government should help them out?FEOS wrote:
I just wish he would stick to an argument. Is a free market pure evil or nirvana? He's all over both sides here.
We need to regulate eight ways from Sunday, but we need to have a hands-off policy? He's talking like a schizophrenic.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-11-26 23:22:31)
Wow .. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20023918-93.html I like how the senate just sneaks that shot through.AussieReaper wrote:
US Government Seizes Torrent Search Engine DomainSource - Slashdot"This morning, visitors to the Torrent-Finder.com site are greeted with an ominous graphic which indicates that ICE has seized the site's domain.
'My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!' the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning. 'I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy, I noticed the DNS had changed. GoDaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN,' he explained. Aside from the fact that domains are being seized seemingly at will, there is a very serious problem with the action against Torrent-Finder. Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner."
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1309/i … 201011.jpg
I thought Homeland Security was a govermment body designed to fight terrorism?
Scary that they can seize at will any site, and completely bypass the domain host without prior warning.
And again...some regulation is needed and fine. Where you and most Americans disagree is on the amount and level of regulation.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm trying to understand what you guys are saying, the free market is terrific, regulation is bad, but when large Wall Street firms lose on a blatantly stupid gamble the government should help them out?FEOS wrote:
I just wish he would stick to an argument. Is a free market pure evil or nirvana? He's all over both sides here.
We need to regulate eight ways from Sunday, but we need to have a hands-off policy? He's talking like a schizophrenic.
Its like saying that when little people lose at roulette thats tough luck, when rich people with influential friends get high on cocaine and lose everything on one spin of the wheel then the govt should step in and make good their losses.
I'm saying you need either a hands-off policy - and stick with it through thick or thin which would weed out reckless idiots- or you need to regulate against the worst excesses of Wall Street.
I'm sure Lloyd Blankfein and Dick Fuld have done much more serious damage to the US than Bin Laden ever did. In China they'd have been shot.
Money.11 Bravo wrote:
why do most countries not allow (or restrict them) GMO's (genetically modified organisms) but the FDA in our country has approved them with little restriction?
its unknown so far...thats the point. FDA rushed to approve it and NOT tell consumers which was a fucking joke.Kmar wrote:
Are all gmo's inherently bad?
No, they just scare idiots. People afraid of gmo's are right up there with creationists imo.Kmar wrote:
Are all gmo's inherently bad?
like you know better than most scientists and countries.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, they just scare idiots. People afraid of gmo's are right up there with creationists imo.Kmar wrote:
Are all gmo's inherently bad?
What have they allowed into the system? Roundup Ready crops which have proven to do no harm and a genetically altered salmon that will grow twenty times as fast as a normal salmon. Whoopididoooooo.11 Bravo wrote:
like you know better than most scientists and countries.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, they just scare idiots. People afraid of gmo's are right up there with creationists imo.Kmar wrote:
Are all gmo's inherently bad?
