Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
If a business wants to succeed it should actually cater to the populace.
|
I agree. What you want to do is hold a gun to a business man's head and tell him to cater. I say that the man should cater and succeed if he wants to. If he doesn't then he doesn't succeed.
Quote:
|
That's not greed Oxford and these businesses (e.g. the auto industry) haven't been making money; in fact they've been losing it. A good deal of Democrats in Wasington (Kucinich for instance) have been strongly against the bail outs and even Clinton's been saying they're going about this wrong and if they are going to do bail out companies they need to (and they only did this with AIG) buy the majority of the stocks and collect enough interest so the tax payers actually make money in the long run.
|
This is attacking a point that I am pretty sure I didn't make. The points I made were:
- The government is forcing taxpayers to pay for a failed business that has nothing to do with me (the individual).
- American liberalism is hypocritical because they don't want to bail out companies that pay taxes to their welfare.
Number two was a generalization, but it is true for a lot of people.
Quote:
|
Once again if a business doesn't even try and cater to a populace it's not going to sell anything. This is basic supply and demand here.
|
Again, I don't want to force businesses into catering to anyone. That is slavery.
Quote:
|
Wrong. For one these bail outs ARE the government meddling with the economy. The causes of these businesses needing the bail outs is do to their own stupidity. In the case of the auto industry it had nothing to do with the government meddling with their business model it has to do with them making ****ty cars. In fact if the government had stepped in like the rest of the world is and told the auto industry to start making smart cars a decade ago they'd be in much better shape. As for the financial industry if During the Clinton years they hadn't repealed Glass-Steagall all these facets of that industry wouldn't be effected. Lack of government regulation and intervention has more do with this then not.
|
Nobody would have to bail out anybody if there was no welfare. The thing is, America runs on the taxes of the upper class/middle class. If the only people who were going to lose out were stockholders/people related to the business then this wouldn't have happened. However, we have entangled each other into our lives with welfare. A lot of people are now depending on other people to work for them. It isn't like it is voluntary either. It is at gun point.
Secondly, freer economies bring more successful businesses. Our economy has never been a completely free economy. In fact, what we live under right now is VERY restricted capitalism. So the notion that businesses fail under capitalism is false because we operate under the absolute worst economic system, moderated capitalism or mixed economy.
Quote:
|
I understand you libertarians want to blame everything on the government being too big but that's simply stupid in this case. Clinton and Bush and the Congress and Senate under them have been getting rid of things set up during the Great Depression for the past ten years as well as deregulating businesses (though this part was more Bush than Clinton.) It clearly hasn't been a good thing. I don't know how you can honestly say these bail outs are the cause of the government meddling with the economy seeing as everything that's happened points to the opposite.
|
They are not deregulating enough. Moderated capitalism is worse than socialism.