What was the name of Metallica's first album?

pick a hundred of the most visible complicit people and have them burned at the stake. between this and the farcical election run-up, the onlooker concludes that the US way of living is insane and unsustainable and its morals shallow

Edited by laplace - September 25 2008 at 02:15

Henry Plainview wrote: It is necessary, unless you libertarian people want another Great Depression. npjnpj wrote: I'm not really a great believer in conspiracies (apart from 9/11, say) Did I just read that? Please tell me I didn't just read that correctly. rushfan4 wrote: They also said that the bailout amounts to $10,000 per household. Personally, instead of giving $700 billion to Wall Street I would prefer that they write me a check for $10,000. I suspect I could do some pretty good damage with $10,000. But what good is $10,000 if you have nothing to spend it on? I don't think you people understand the magnitude of all our banks collapsing when you so cavalierly say NO MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE! But that doesn't mean I think they're doing a good job, that quote from the spokesperson is unbelievable.

I say "Let them banks rot"! They take all the profits when playing hazard at the stock market without giving any of the money back to the community but want the state, which of course means the community, to take the risk. No way! One should not fear an economy crisis; there is no such thing as long as there is an abundance of goods around. Now when the means of production all broke down for some reason, that would be a crisis! But money can't be eaten; it is just an easy way of evaluating goods.

NaturalScience wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: You might be interested in this: http://www.gata.org/node/6469 "William Greider: The Fed is the problem, not the solution Submitted by cpowell on Mon, 2008-08-04 18:36. Section: Daily Dispatches Economic Free-Fall? By William Greider The Nation magazine, New York Wednesday, July 30, 2008 Very good article, agreed with a lot of the suggestions.

He doesn't really spell it out. Half way thru. The Fed is the culprit. The monetary policies for the last 15 years completely irresponsible. Strangely, Clinton is mentioned but again, just a hint. To be fair, it started gatherung speed under Reagan with the balooning deficits, but the Fed tried to contain inflation at the time.  Government intervention was the last resort. I t all changed when Clinton nominated Robert Rubin as the Treasury secretary. The unnecessary pumping of the economy took us from crisis to crisis. We cover one bubble with another. It's like putting out a fire with gasoline. High grade. Nobody knows how much money has been created to stave off the Asian crisis in 97, the LTCM in '98, the bubble burst in 2000, 9/11. Now they have to buy real assets, that's why they need an approval from congress. Otherwise it would have been primed quietly the way the Bear Sterns deal was. The Fed and the government are fully responsible for the calamity. The banks did just what anyone would do under the circumstances. If one is given a lot of money he spends it.

NaturalScience wrote: The bail out funds come from the American public, or rather that we borrow the money and need to pay it back. No one is happy about the proposed plan, but almost every economist agrees that failure to act and shore up the financial/credit system will hurt so much more - the most pain going to the "little guy" if businesses start failing.

THat's the unfortunate thruth

The Doctor wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: It is necessary, unless you libertarian people want another Great Depression. npjnpj wrote: I'm not really a great believer in conspiracies (apart from 9/11, say) Did I just read that? Please tell me I didn't just read that correctly. rushfan4 wrote: They also said that the bailout amounts to $10,000 per household. Personally, instead of giving $700 billion to Wall Street I would prefer that they write me a check for $10,000. I suspect I could do some pretty good damage with $10,000. But what good is $10,000 if you have nothing to spend it on? I don't think you people understand the magnitude of all our banks collapsing when you so cavalierly say NO MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE! But that doesn't mean I think they're doing a good job, that quote from the spokesperson is unbelievable.   NO MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE!     Seriously,  I think the first thing the government should do is seize all of the assets of the directors and managers of the banks and use that money as part of the bailout.  No, it probably won't amount to $700 billion or enough to save the banks, but maybe the people who run banks in the future will be a bit more responsible with the way they run them, if they know they will be held personally liable for failure.  Why should everyone else be responsible for bailing out the banks and not those who had a direct hand in the banks' failures.

Personal liability won't work here. If a good faith effort can be shown, the risk-taking is legitimate. Wall Street must be heavily regulated as opposed to totally deregulated. And the regulation must begin with the Fed. The Fed Reserve is their partner.

We should have learned the lesson in 1630:

BaldFriede wrote: No, there will be no real harm done if these banks collapse, even if a lot of firms collapse in their wake.

How do you think the Great Depression happened in this country?

laplace wrote: pick a hundred of the most visible complicit people and have them burned at the stake. between this and the farcical election run-up, the onlooker concludes that the US way of living is insane and unsustainable and its morals shallow

Some people are already predicting that this election won't be decided til January. What fun times again if that happens.

Burning at the streak is too good for them. Make them live and work in the inner cities away from their palaces and see how they like living like the vast majority does.