2013-02-23, 03:35 | Link #242 | |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
The last two banking crises were the S&L scandal and the CDS bubble. Both were largely the result of relaxed or repealed FDR legislation that had previously erected barriers between savings and investment banking. It didn't help that the second crisis was compounded by two factors: the creation of the bundled loan product, and the push by government for home ownership. Ratings agencies were giving AAA credit scores to junk bundles, they swapped hands so many times no one really knew the true value of them, took out insurance to cover that, and the insurance companies never expected, or didn't care, about a possible run on them if people started to panic. Toss in bad business practices like robosigning and you have a property collapse were no one really knows who owns what (still true today), and a financial collapse brought on by an overvalued market in the trillions that can't be paid for. We don't learn our lessons though, and we certainly haven't resolved this. We've actually made it worse. What that means going forward is that we've created a bigger future problem to temporarily alleviate a current one. The banking system will collapse again, and the next time the government cannot afford to bail it out. It has no monetary or political capital to do so. And the public certainly can't weather another financial crisis, because those assets are drained (the majority of Americans are one crisis from personal financial ruin). Compounded with real world problems, like the weakened worldwide economy, climate change, and the downslope of oil production, and we're in for serious problems that the government has so far refused to take seriously. I can't predict when this will coalesce into "the big one", or what the trigger will be, but it won't be too long from now. The fallout will be immense.
__________________
|
|
2013-02-23, 04:27 | Link #243 | |
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
But it is popular in our country to metaphorically burn people's places down and then claim that you are a self made person.
__________________
|
|
2013-02-23, 06:39 | Link #244 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
One issue could be is if companies try to use artificial competitive advantages like law changes to outcompete their rivals, rather then proper advantages like, say, making a better product.
A successful free market economy is dependent on their being a state of continuous competition, with no one ever "winning". If someone wins, then the government has to step into split the winner up. It becomes really bad when governments get into the habit of "helping" private enterprises. Their needs to be a level playing field, and bad ideas have to be propped up. For instance, the world would be in better shape today if countries hadn't legislated against Japanese imports in the 80s. They instead should have forced their companies to adapt or die. Bad companies need to go out of business. I might make an exception for certain extraordinary circumstances though. For instance, the bailout of the Auto industry was probably a good idea, as that was an unusual drop in sales. A one time bailout isn't too bad, but continuous subsidies is (IE, the government should get those automakers into good financial health again, and then leave them to fend for themselves). |
2013-02-23, 06:52 | Link #245 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
It's time for these subsidies to be shut down. If they threaten increased gas prices, the public will react to it; but the public will always adjust to it too.
__________________
|
|
2013-02-23, 09:18 | Link #247 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 38
|
Depends on how much the price of gas goes up. For example, gas prices in Japan back in 2008 were around $1.67 per liter. Note, liter, not gallon. That'd be about $6.32 a gallon. Gas in the US at least is around the same price now that it was back then, but I'm not sure if we're paying more in subsidies to bring it down comparatively. And unlike Japan, America does not have an alternative means of local mass transport. A lot of people wouldn't be able to afford doubling their monthly gas expenses.
|
2013-02-23, 12:11 | Link #248 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-02-23, 12:31 | Link #249 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
So if you want to lower taxes you are going to have to lower it somewhere else. You are paying massively cheaper gas/petrol than the rest of us in the Western world.
__________________
|
|
2013-02-23, 13:04 | Link #250 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Nice posts, Solace.
Quote:
The American identity is critical to many Americans. Maybe Europeans live longer, get more vacation, are happier overall (if you buy into those "happiness indices" that come into the news here and there), and are just as productive - if not more so - than Americans are. Well, we're America, which makes us better than those socialists in Europe. If we're not better, it doesn't mean that our system is at fault, it just means we need to tweak it and work harder to get better. It just means we need to elect better leaders, it just means that God is trying to tell us something. The general sentiment is "screw you if you want to make America more like Europe, go move there if you think it's so great." Nobody wants the perceived uniqueness of America to be touched. Quote:
Demand also creates new solutions. Carpool programs have become a bit more prominent in recent years. If the demand were there, train and bus service would increase and possibly be expanded. Worst-case scenario, people would move closer to their jobs. Bicycle lanes and parking could become more prominent. The interest in 100% electric cars would likely grow, and with it, lower prices on those vehicles and increased prominence of charging stations. It would be a very painful transition, to be sure, but there are plenty of options. We're headed that way anyhow, but the key to limiting the pain is to make the transition as smoothly and slowly as possible.
__________________
|
||
2013-02-23, 13:11 | Link #251 | |||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
TBH, the real reason that the gas tax can't really be lowered is that it's pretty much what states depend on for maintaining and fixing roads. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by kyp275; 2013-02-23 at 13:30. |
|||
2013-02-23, 13:16 | Link #253 | |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-02-23, 13:40 | Link #254 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
So, all I can do is try to reason and convince those around me, and hope it spreads. That we can have a "socialist" health care program that is cheaper and provides better care. That we can reduce guns by banning them and thus reduce gun death. That we can shift emphasis and funds to schooling and training and away from the military, and it will make our country stronger, healthier, and more free. But American has too many selfish extremists, who would rather grab onto their guns, would rather shaft people into the ER, and would rather pump money into our military and worship the "free market" rather than follow real world evidence that shows what works and what doesn't. America is one that relies on faith, not evidence, and that's the most damning, scary thing about our country. We put ourselves first, and screw anyone who isn't me. I don't care about anyone else who dies. THAT is the attitude you have to change. From a "ME ME ME! FAITH!" attitude, to a "we're in this together, so let's put belief aside when evidence contradicts it, and follow science." And if you spent any time in the gun thread, you would have realized that is impossible. |
|
2013-02-23, 13:43 | Link #255 | |
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
On the other hand, I would hold the government accountable for much of the fearmongering and bad allocation of funds. As for the whole Socialism fear, where did that come from? Propaganda. Because people think it's a slippery slope towards communism. (MCcarthy still lives). Though as I've tried to post that little test, that taking a socialist policy does not mean we're sliding towards communism. Nor do people understand what communism is. [I don't want it either, but it's not the infamous stawman people label it as. And it certainly is not China or the former Soviet Union] The world doesn't work on a binary scale, and ultimately this black and white thing doesn't work. I mean to take things in perspective, some of the greatest flattering of capitalism comes from The Communist Manifesto. But much like Darwin, one's words get twisted by the extremists. This doesn't necessarily mean we shall immediately be like "ban all guns" or "tax the rich into oblivion". Those aren't practical solutions, but some would have you believe these are the only alternatives. Which they are not.
__________________
Last edited by Archon_Wing; 2013-02-23 at 13:57. |
|
2013-02-23, 13:51 | Link #256 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
It's going to be difficult to deduct it via other means though. At least with cutting petrol taxes you would know for sure that you are only changing the price of petrol. But income tax changes would be uneven. People who don't drive much would benefit while people who drive for a living might suffer, because the tax break wouldn't cover their price increase.
__________________
|
2013-02-23, 14:01 | Link #257 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Especially when multiple societies and countries have shown us where the limits already are. We'd be doing nothing different than other countries have done. Quote:
|
||
2013-02-23, 14:57 | Link #259 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
But to the current subject, government must have funds to function. I think everyone can agree on that. It needs to collect that from it's citizens somehow, without putting undue hardship on people, ie, taking away money that someone needs to feed themselves. Thus, you have to exclude a certain minimum of income and declare it as needing to sustain basic living. Everything above that, is fair game. Now, having gone that far, we have to realize one other aspect: the vast majority of wealth has concentrated into the hands of the few. Many more people have been forced down either below, or just above, that basic living wage, just barely able to sustain themselves. If we have a deficit, and cannot then extract more wealth from the poor and middle class (which are struggling to survive), then we must logically extract it from the rich, who can afford it. If we don't, our government gets further into debt(and thus beholden to third parties). We have no other choice. If we tax the poor and middle class, we actually cause a lot of harm. The rich are the only target. And if the rich insist on having the majority of the wealth, then it is only fair that they pay the majority of the taxes. There is, of course, the argument to reduce spending, and that holds some weight. But in times like this, people depend on government assistance to get them through. I, myself, needed government assistance for awhile after I lost my job in the recession. Without it, I would have lost my meager home, and perhaps turned to stealing to get what I needed. or just become homeless. Government assistance allowed me to stay a working, productive member of society. Society benefited by giving me help (as did Mitt Romney's parents and Paul Ryan). So spending needs to stay as is. The only thing left to us, is to raise taxes. And the only place to do that, is on the rich. |
|
2013-02-23, 15:51 | Link #260 | ||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
The whole thing w/ "foreign oil" is just missing the point IMO. It's an international market, it's not as if the oil we produce are staying inside the country. Foreign oil, domestic oil, they all go into the same pile that is the international market. The only way to change that would be to nationalize the oil industry and/or severely restrict/ban oil exportation. As far as renewables go, solar and wind are nowhere near advanced enough to replace coal in the US, and the only one that can - nuclear, gets all the bad press. Quote:
Quote:
Ultimately what you need is growth, without which nothing else you do will be enough. Last edited by kyp275; 2013-02-23 at 16:04. |
||||
|
|