Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (116043)	9/27/2008 6:21:44 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 132070

I am surprised that this bailout seems to violate the basic rule of capitalism: there will eventually be only one winner, and, if it isn't you, you are a worthless loser. I see cos. that haven't been hurt as badly as others, but I don't see any real winners.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (116043)	9/28/2008 3:09:06 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

skeeter, >i'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how all that deregulation (ie, closer approximation to free market) worked on wall street.< I already expressed my thoughts on this. Once a country chooses to have a central bank and activist government that makes laws that favor certain businesses, business decisions, investment decisions etc..., it ceases to have free markets or a sound monetary system. So the question of whether the lack of regulation caused this is irrelevant to free markets. We don't have free markets PERIOD! I think you have to regulate a system like we have because the errors of government and central bankers combined with unsound money allow the creation of extraordinary excesses and wealth transfer by greedy and corrupt people inside government and the private sector. If we had sound money, the excesses would have been short circuited by higher interest rates years ago no matter how corrupt, greedy and unregulated the system was. We would have had a short minor correction. The "real" reason we switched to this ass backwards monetary system was to avoid the limits on excess and wealth transfer that a truly free market would put on corrupt government and financial elites. You can't beat up and blame something we don't have for the failings of what we do have.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (116043)	9/28/2008 5:04:28 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	1 Recommendation Respond to of 132070

Skeeter, I'd strongly recommend that you read about monetary policy and the Fed Reserve at www.mises.org and www.lewrockwell.com. You can also basically just listen to anything Ron Paul says on the subject. Once you understand what the Fed's real purpose is (socialize banking and silently transfer money to government via inflation because taxation is difficult to pass), you will begin to understand the failings of our hybrid system. Initially, many of our economic problems were related to the unsound practice of fractional reserve banking. But rather than fix that system at its core, they put a bandaid on it an created a bigger problem (The Fed). When that started to blow up, they took us off the international gold standard and made matters even worse. Now we have the worst of all worlds.