OK, how about you explain it, professor?
Recent Reviews
-
I was given the Ipod nano 6th generation for Christmas 2011. I was starting to take up running and needed something to track my run. since I just started I was only using my Ipod roughly 3 times...
-
I have had the iPad Verizon 4G LTE for a month now, and over all I couldn't be happier with the machine. The only issue I have found so far is when on wifi it has a slower speed in processing...
-
I have owned at least a dozen different Mac laptops over the years, starting with a Powerbook 1400 back in the day. The 13-inch Air is my absolute favorite of the bunch. It's the first laptop...
-
I spent quite a bit of time reading the setup manuals and various Apple articles about manually setting up this device since I have an unusual setup, and the setup manuals indicated I would have...
-
all i have to say is i love it its so much faster and i could just slip it into my purse p.s it has a ton of space for the 64gb
Obama Owns This Economy - Page 2
- Joined: Sep 2008
- Location: .:.Jesus Christ.:.
- Posts: 4,771
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
"“While 14 straight months of private sector job growth, the creation of over two million private sector jobs and a rejuvenated American auto industry belie Mr. Romney’s assessment of the administration’s accomplishments on the ‘Today’ show this morning, what can’t be disputed is that under Mitt Romney, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states in job growth,” said DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan.
*
In addition, in 2005 Romney received a C+ grade on the Pew Center on the States Government Management Report Card and a C on fiscal policy from the Cato Institute in 2004 and 2005."
~ http://www.bet.com/news/politics/201...effective.html
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
As the value of the MBS or CDO go down the insurer needs to put up warrants (aka millions or billions of dollars) on the CDS to insure that the insurance will pay off if a loss is realized. If it's not then the money could come back the insurer.
It was paying the warrants that took down AIG.
Everyone forgets that it was the freeze of the money market fund that really scared the crap out of everyone. That was solved when the FDIC backed all money market fund transactions. It wasn't really caused by the loss in value or MBS or CDO.
Everyone remembers all this right?

How much of the panic was caused by uncertainty in the governments response to backstop some banks and not others. Why scramble to save your bank when if you ride it to oblivion the government may just rescue you?
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: Coatesville, PA
- Posts: 15,546
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User

As the value of the MBS or CDO go down the insurer needs to put up warrants (aka millions or billions of dollars) on the CDS to insure that the insurance will pay off if a loss is realized. If it's not then the money could come back the insurer.
It was paying the warrants that took down AIG.
Different terminology, same basic principle. I was simplifying and attempting to avoid too much inside baseball, so to speak.
Everyone forgets that it was the freeze of the money market fund that really scared the crap out of everyone. That was solved when the FDIC backed all money market fund transactions. It wasn't really caused by the loss in value or MBS or CDO.
Everyone remembers all this right?
[/quote]Yes, that definitely caused panic until FDIC backed the money. But this was not the only element to the crisis to say the least.
How much of the panic was caused by uncertainty in the governments response to backstop some banks and not others. Why scramble to save your bank when if you ride it to oblivion the government may just rescue you?
According to what I've seen, quite a bit. Are you arguing for an "all or nothing" approach?
- e1618978
- will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
- Joined: Jun 2003
- Location: Colorado
- Posts: 5,870
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
Raising the leverage limit
caused Lehmann to over leverage
caused a panic in Lehmann debt when their MBS started to go south
caused the Reserve Primary fund to break the buck
caused a run on money market funds
caused the treasury to guarentee money market funds

Why do you think that the money market fund broke the buck? Because it had money in Lehmann debt.
Raising the leverage limit
caused Lehmann to over leverage
caused a panic in Lehmann debt when their MBS started to go south
caused the Reserve Primary fund to break the buck
caused a run on money market funds
caused the treasury to guarentee money market funds
The money market froze because people got scared that money wouldn't get paid back. Lehmann was a small player in the money market.
You guys know what the money market is .... right? So often here complete ignorance of people posting here makes discussion impossible.
- e1618978
- will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
- Joined: Jun 2003
- Location: Colorado
- Posts: 5,870
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
Funny - go ahead, tell us what "the money market" is genius.
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: Coatesville, PA
- Posts: 15,546
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
- e1618978
- will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
- Joined: Jun 2003
- Location: Colorado
- Posts: 5,870
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
I know what it is, I was being sarcastic. The run on the money market funds was caused by a single money market fund breaking the buck. Lehmann wasn't a "player in the money market" - it had issued $500 billion of debt that was bought by money market funds - hence the breaking of the buck.
I was being sarcastic because mr Floorjack was calling a non-existent kettle black.
No, we don't know what would have happened, however, we've established you favor government intervention in private commerce "when it's for our own good." OK!
Following that logic inevitably leads to ObamaCare and illegal wars to end all wars. The elite know what's best for the rest of the lumpenproletariat. Got it.
Cite the Constitutional authority that justified the Treasury's actions in this case, and for "bailout USA" in general.
The deep-rooted problems that led to AIG still exist. Instead of addressing them now, our Clueless Leaders have left them to our children and grandchildren ad infinitum. And of the several Republican would-be challengers to this miserable status quo, only a couple "get it". Vote for Obamney and you'll get more of the same misery. Ditto T-Paw. Don't say I didn't warn you.
If you don't know already stop posting.
- e1618978
- will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
- Joined: Jun 2003
- Location: Colorado
- Posts: 5,870
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: Coatesville, PA
- Posts: 15,546
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
No, I'm saying certain action was necessary to avoid the collapse of the entire financial system. I am a conservative. As such, I tend to oppose government intervention. That does not mean I oppose ALL intervention, however.
Following that logic inevitably leads to ObamaCare and illegal wars to end all wars. The elite know what's best for the rest of the lumpenproletariat. Got it.
Maybe in your mind, but nowhere else I've seen.
Cite the Constitutional authority that justified the Treasury's actions in this case, and for "bailout USA" in general.
Congress has the right to regulate commerce, levy taxes, etc. Had the financial system failed, such commerce would have been severely impacted.
The deep-rooted problems that led to AIG still exist. Instead of addressing them now, our Clueless Leaders have left them to our children and grandchildren ad infinitum. And of the several Republican would-be challengers to this miserable status quo, only a couple "get it". Vote for Obamney and you'll get more of the same misery. Ditto T-Paw. Don't say I didn't warn you.
I disagree. Many of the problems have been addressed. For example, try getting a sub-prime loan right about now. Try bundling bad loans and calling them the "Triple A Mortgage Fund." Try explaining to the government how you want to over-leverage your investment bank.
Speaking of which, what are the deeply-rooted problems of which you speak..specifically?
Sure! As I wrote the immediate consequences would have been devastating. And, temporary. I just hope you can appreciate that there need to be limits with invoking the Commerce Clause for every single collectivist aspiration. I can only ask that you consider the banking "crisis" in light of previous, real crises in American history.
I provided one example of a response that would not have indebted us for generations to come. The AIG bailout was a knee-jerk response in classic big government fashion: throw money at the problem - money we don't have and for which future generations are ill-prepared to provide.
Agreed. However, I question the value of much of the Dodd-Frank banking "reform" legislation. Classic case of shutting the barn door after the horses are long gone. And to extend the bucolic analogy, the same old foxes are guarding the henhouse.
The problem is that government and private enterprise are horribly intertwined, and have been for years. Its inevitable consequences have now become unworkable. We created the beast, and we can kill it. I expect it will take as many years, but if we don't, who will?
The fact that the Obama administration is more in bed with big banks than any other President in history is one.
Here's another:
Speaking of snuggling:
Not to mention - creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau... good idea. Making it a puppet of the Fed... bad idea

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/...ault-line.html
http://www.thenation.com/article/161...es-wall-street
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: Coatesville, PA
- Posts: 15,546
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
I don't know that they would have been temporary. They may have lasted years, or longer.
I agree. But you asked. I don't know that their justification was. This is academic anyway. The government has been overly involved in our currency and financial system for a 100 years. I don't like it...but it is what it is.
for every single collectivist aspiration. I can only ask that you consider the banking "crisis" in light of previous, real crises in American history.
Just because the government has abused the Commerce Clause in the past doesn't mean it's not valid in any industry. And I consider this crisis to be a "real" crisis. My hunch is the millions who have lost their jobs and homes might agree with me.
I provided one example of a response that would not have indebted us for generations to come. The AIG bailout was a knee-jerk response in classic big government fashion: throw money at the problem - money we don't have and for which future generations are ill-prepared to provide.
Letting AIG fail would have been a disaster. It would have taken down the whole system.
Agreed. However, I question the value of much of the Dodd-Frank banking "reform" legislation. Classic case of shutting the barn door after the horses are long gone. And to extend the bucolic analogy, the same old foxes are guarding the henhouse.
I can't disagree with that.
The problem is that government and private enterprise are horribly intertwined, and have been for years. Its inevitable consequences have now become unworkable. We created the beast, and we can kill it. I expect it will take as many years, but if we don't, who will?
They can't be detached completely. In fact, it seems to me that you're arguing for more regulation. And intertwinement is not always bad. Take Medicare (Part D) for example. It gives qualified people money to use in the private market place. This is much better than the government just providing the payment.
No doubt, but their Government has helped them... how?
I keep hearing that... "taken down the whole system". What does that mean to you? Could you elaborate? You mean the system of corrupt, broken, concentrations of wealth known as large commercial banks run by inept managers in bed with Washington? How would such failure manifest itself? Another Great Depression? Well, we lived through that and we would again. Tell me why a more robust, equally effective private banking "system" would not arise from the ruins of a collapsed, corrupt banking "system". I can't conceive of this not happening.
I sincerely respect your opinions SDW but to hear "taking down the whole system" repeated again and again simply sounds like a scare tactic to me. Scare tactics are the predictable refuge of the desperate collectivist. Just because Congress and our President fell for it doesn't mean you have to.

I keep hearing that... "taken down the whole system". What does that mean to you? Could you elaborate? You mean the system of corrupt, broken, concentrations of wealth known as large commercial banks run by inept managers in bed with Washington? How would such failure manifest itself? Another Great Depression? Well, we lived through that and we would again. Tell me why a more robust, equally effective private banking "system" would not arise from the ruins of a collapsed, corrupt banking "system". I can't conceive of this not happening.
I sincerely respect your opinions SDW but to hear "taking down the whole system" repeated again and again simply sounds like a scare tactic to me. Scare tactics are the predictable refuge of the desperate collectivist. Just because Congress and our President fell for it doesn't mean you have to.
*sits back* *grabs popcorn and soda*

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: Coatesville, PA
- Posts: 15,546
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User

No doubt, but their Government has helped them... how?
I keep hearing that... "taken down the whole system". What does that mean to you? Could you elaborate? You mean the system of corrupt, broken, concentrations of wealth known as large commercial banks run by inept managers in bed with Washington? How would such failure manifest itself? Another Great Depression? Well, we lived through that and we would again. Tell me why a more robust, equally effective private banking "system" would not arise from the ruins of a collapsed, corrupt banking "system". I can't conceive of this not happening.
I sincerely respect your opinions SDW but to hear "taking down the whole system" repeated again and again simply sounds like a scare tactic to me. Scare tactics are the predictable refuge of the desperate collectivist. Just because Congress and our President fell for it doesn't mean you have to.
What does taken down the whole system mean? It means basically the end of the world. Let me restate: Let's say AIG and all 5 of the major investment banks failed. Next:
1. The commercial paper market dries up completely.
2. In a week, big business cannot function. The stock market plummets.
3. Manufacturers and transportation of goods are hit next. They cannot get the food, clothing and consumer goods to the stores.
4. In three weeks, retail has no stock and cannot pay its employees anyway. Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, Boscov's, Costco, Sam's Club (etc), grocery stores all close.
5. People panic. There is a run on savings banks. The banks fail.
6. In four weeks: Civl unrest, followed by martial law (<---edited...I was a fool and wrote "marshal!"--doh!) People loot, smash ATMs, and generally go nuts.
That's what we were facing. No, I can't prove it. But I do know for a fact that business that had nothing to do with investment banking started to have problems. Those that had some exposure saw their finance arms infect their entire business. Some were already talking about not being able to fund their operations within a week.
It's not hard to see how this could have happened. But I guess you guys think it's all just a scare tactic.

What does taken down the whole system mean? It means basically the end of the world. Let me restate: Let's say AIG and all 5 of the major investment banks failed. Next:
1. The commercial paper market dries up completely.
2. In a week, big business cannot function. The stock market plummets.
3. Manufacturers and transportation of goods are hit next. They cannot get the food, clothing and consumer goods to the stores.
4. In three weeks, retail has no stock and cannot pay its employees anyway. Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, Boscov's, Costco, Sam's Club (etc), grocery stores all close.
5. People panic. There is a run on savings banks. The banks fail.
6. In four weeks: Civl unrest, followed by marshal law. People loot, smash ATMs, and generally go nuts.
That's what we were facing.
That's what we were told we were facing.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Well, now you've lost me SDW. Go join Harold Camping's cult.
Marshal Law... let me guess, some character on Bonanza, right?

Martial Law
Yes, I do. Absolutely.
Look, suffice it to say we'll never know what would have happened, and to speculate is a fruitless endeavor. But as far as "the end of the world..." I'm not only unconvinced, I'm unimpressed with your logic.
Doesn't mean we can't be friends.
I agree. We weren't really told anything specific...just that the sky was falling and we need a ton of loot RIGHT NOW or we're all gonna die!!!!
The airlines did the same thing the day after 9/11.
GM and Chrysler (really the UAW) did it.
It's getting old.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
That's a little different, in that every single US airline was specifically prevented from doing business as a direct result of a government directive. They'd argue it was a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment, and they'd be right.
As I recall they were compensated for lost revenue for that period of time, and no more.
Had they done the same when facing insolvency (as almost all have at one time or another) then yes, it would have been the same thing. Instead they did it the old fashioned, legal way: reorganization under the bankruptcy code. Very much unlike UAW and the car companies, for which the scare tactics prevailed.
Their toll on bank income and balance sheets keeps rolling out: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's demand for $20 billion in a foreclosure settlement; a $12 billion annual transfer from the banks to retailers in new debit card price controls; derivatives rules that may drive that lucrative business to less regulated markets overseas; and that's even before we learn what new intrusiveness will be required if you qualify as a "systemically important" institution. ...
You get the idea.
Oh, yeah. We've fixed everything!

Tarullo's Capital Idea: A better way to build safer banks than Dodd-Frank's regulations
- e1618978
- will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
- Joined: Jun 2003
- Location: Colorado
- Posts: 5,870
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
I agree that something is starting up again, but it won't quite be the same. I think we're in a period of stagnation. There hasn't been any real growth despite what the numbers claim. This is going to be like the 1970's in the US or the 1990's in Japan.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Has there been any positive news? Somehow I've missed it. I mean, 9.1% unemployment is worse than had been predicted were there no attempts to fix it, and that's before it gets revised upward (which it will... unexpectedly)

Proposed under the faulty assumption that the government can spend its way out of a recession, Congress passed the $666.4 billion spending bill in February of 2009. Claiming this massive spending package would “save or create” millions of American jobs while keeping the unemployment rate down, the quivering economy fails to illustrate the success of this policy.
The massive spending package passed under the guise of economic “stimulus” fails to acknowledge that the government does not exist in a vacuum - each dollar spent is extracted from the economy in the form of taxes, and then redistributed vis-Ã*-vis spending policy. It is hardly surprising, then, that the “stimulus” succeeded in none of its intended goals.
Some of us have been saying that for over two years now.
Estimates including those more or less permanently out of work bring that to 18 to 20%.
Follow Up: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and The "Stimulus"
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: Coatesville, PA
- Posts: 15,546
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
Is there proof we were lied to? Of any kind? I mean, how do we know anything is true?

Well, now you've lost me SDW. Go join Harold Camping's cult.
Marshal Law... let me guess, some character on Bonanza, right?

Martial Law
Crap. I knew I had completely the wrong spelling there. My bad. You didn't have to be an ass about it.
Yes, I do. Absolutely.
Look, suffice it to say we'll never know what would have happened, and to speculate is a fruitless endeavor. But as far as "the end of the world..." I'm not only unconvinced, I'm unimpressed with your logic.
Doesn't mean we can't be friends.
My logic?. You mean to tell the above is not logical? I really don't know what to tell you on that one. I agree it could all be lies, but to say my scenario above is not logical? That doesn't make a lot of sense. That in itself is illogical.
Again, this is what's illogical. You're saying "It's crap! Everything would have been fine!" You're calling every player involved a liar. That's fine, but it would be nice if you had some backing whatsoever for your position.
Let me ask: What if we didn't have TARP and didn't bail out anyone. What would have happened in your estimation?
The airlines did the same thing the day after 9/11.
GM and Chrysler (really the UAW) did it.
It's getting old.
Yes, but those companies failing wouldn't have taken down the entire economy. That is the difference, and why we should have let them go Chapter 11. Having 5 investment banks and the largest reinsurer on the planet go Chapter 11 would have had catastrophic consequences. I find it odd that you make no distinction here. Size matters. If run a business and it goes Chapter 11, that's fine. If Chrysler goes Chapter 11, fine. But when banks that are involved in literally every sector of the economy (and hold billions if not trillions in personal assets) go under, it's like a cancer.
What you're saying is that any body part that gets the cancer should be cut off. If it's a 1 inch diameter section of skin on your thigh, fine. If it's your finger or your hand, fine. And if it's all your internal organs, fine. There is a limit to what the body (financial system) can handle, and this was it.
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: Coatesville, PA
- Posts: 15,546
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User

That's a little different, in that every single US airline was specifically prevented from doing business as a direct result of a government directive. They'd argue it was a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment, and they'd be right.
As I recall they were compensated for lost revenue for that period of time, and no more.
Perhaps for that event, yes. But the government has propped them up for years. It's one reason they have no idea how to run their businesses. Other, smaller airlines (well...they used to be small) have figured it out. But the legacy players were (and are to some extent) a disaster.
Had they done the same when facing insolvency (as almost all have at one time or another) then yes, it would have been the same thing. Instead they did it the old fashioned, legal way: reorganization under the bankruptcy code. Very much unlike UAW and the car companies, for which the scare tactics prevailed.
That I agree with. However, I'm OK with the initial loan guarantees at least, given the impact the attack had on them.

SDW I gave you one alternative to the mess that has become. It's too late for that now, but it's not too late for this:
You get the idea.
Oh, yeah. We've fixed everything!

Tarullo's Capital Idea: A better way to build safer banks than Dodd-Frank's regulations
When in the hell did I claim "everything is fixed?" I said I supported TARP and the AIG bailout. That doesn't mean I agree with all parts of it, nor does my support extend to all measures taken..especially those sponsored by people who helped create the problem to begin with.
Very possible, unless we make some real changes...and fast.
To be fair there has been some. Growth, though anemic, is marginally positive. That's about all. Employment is a mess, and The Uncertainty Game is killing business investment/expansion.
Some of us have been saying that for over two years now.
Estimates including those more or less permanently out of work bring that to 18 to 20%.
Follow Up: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and The "Stimulus"
I have some issues with that article. First, it's biased (in a way I happen to agree with, but nevertheless). Secondly, it makes some pretty outrageous claims, like the one that TARP may end up costing "23.7 trillion." WTF?
The most egregious one in my opinion is that it paints TARP and the Porkulous bill as being one in the same..."slush fund" so to speak. TARP definitely grew in scope (in ways I do not support), but the "stimulus" is another matter. The stimulus was an unmitigated waste of a trillion dollars. It really WAS a slush fund. Sold as a Keynesian approach (which I don't support anyway), it was nothing of the kind. It contained billions for programs that weren't going to stimulate growth--even in the short term. And speaking of timing, a lot of it was backloaded. It was a mess. Fortunately, most people have figured that out.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36544.html
Yes, absolutely. You made the classic error of performing a static analysis, concluding the failure of AIG would result in specific results assuming no other entities could possibly arise to address the investment needs and obligations of an otherwise perfectly intact and functional economy. AIG and the investment banks would fail, and then complete and utter anarchy? No. I don't buy it.
I'm not calling members of Congress liars, though most of them are experts at it. They're simply inept. The only tool they know how to use is Treasury's (empty) checkbook. Using it has not, and will not, fix anything.
Furthermore, I never wrote "everything would have been fine." Far from it. Go back and read again.
I apologize for being an ass SDW, but really... "The end of the world" will not be seriously entertained here.

Perhaps for that event, yes. But the government has propped them up for years. It's one reason they have no idea how to run their businesses. Other, smaller airlines (well...they used to be small) have figured it out. But the legacy players were (and are to some extent) a disaster.
Airlines haven't been "propped up" since deregulation. Their business model is fundamentally flawed in many ways, not the least of which is that airlines must constantly grow to meet ever-expanding labor costs. Small airlines can't remain small - they must either grow, or die. Stagnation is death. Given a market as hyper-competitive and saturated as much of it is, growth can only occur through mergers and acquisitions. Otherwise, it's the reset button of Chapter 11, and they're not done with either one of those strategies yet. As I say... fundamentally flawed.
That wasn't directed at you SDW.
Got to go fix the rest of the world. More later.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
- e1618978
- will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
- Joined: Jun 2003
- Location: Colorado
- Posts: 5,870
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...142140899.html
there you have it folks...
Quite astonishing.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
- NoahJ
- Sinister?
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: A Safe Distance
- Posts: 4,457
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...142140899.html
there you have it folks...
The last words of that phrase should be " should have a harder time selling that idea " as the american people should be clear on who has the reigns at this time. If they cannot see the responsibility now, they truly should by then.
\"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: Coatesville, PA
- Posts: 15,546
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User

Yes, absolutely. You made the classic error of performing a static analysis, concluding the failure of AIG would result in specific results assuming no other entities could possibly arise to address the investment needs and obligations of an otherwise perfectly intact and functional economy. AIG and the investment banks would fail, and then complete and utter anarchy? No. I don't buy it.
I'm not calling members of Congress liars, though most of them are experts at it. They're simply inept. The only tool they know how to use is Treasury's (empty) checkbook. Using it has not, and will not, fix anything.
Furthermore, I never wrote "everything would have been fine." Far from it. Go back and read again.
I apologize for being an ass SDW, but really... "The end of the world" will not be seriously entertained here.
Other entities? Like whom? You say my logic doesn't hold up, yet you just grab your ankles and hope "some other entity" would step up. You're forgetting something important: There is no other entity with the resources needed. That's why the government had to get involved in the first place.
Airlines haven't been "propped up" since deregulation. Their business model is fundamentally flawed in many ways, not the least of which is that airlines must constantly grow to meet ever-expanding labor costs. Small airlines can't remain small - they must either grow, or die. Stagnation is death. Given a market as hyper-competitive and saturated as much of it is, growth can only occur through mergers and acquisitions. Otherwise, it's the reset button of Chapter 11, and they're not done with either one of those strategies yet. As I say... fundamentally flawed.
That wasn't directed at you SDW.
Got to go fix the rest of the world. More later.

Got it. I agree with most of that. Of course, they have been propped up, but other than that...agreed.Understood. Only government has the resources to thwart the Apocalypse. As I wrote earlier, OK!
Look SDW, you're either an advocate for free market capitalism or you're not. You're either a rugged individualist or you're not. I don't have to ask which you are since you've already removed any uncertainty I may have had.
Though they were written over twenty years ago, I submit the above would be an apt description of AIG's collapse. May I assume you agree?
Here's more. It's from the same speech.
But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?
We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding. We are going to begin to act, beginning today.
The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
We hear much of special interest groups. Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we are sick - professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, "We the people," this breed called Americans.
Well, this administration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunity for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this "new beginning" and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America at peace with itself and the world.
So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.
It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work-work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.
If we look to the answer as to why, for so many years, we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here, in this land, we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.
It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We are not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we are in a time when there are no heroes just don't know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter... and they are on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They are individuals and families whose taxes support the Government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet but deep. Their values sustain our national life.
I have used the words "they" and "their" in speaking of these heroes. I could say "you" and "your" because I am addressing the heroes of whom I speak: you, the citizens of this blessed land. Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the dreams, the hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God.
We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?
Can we solve the problems confronting us? Well, the answer is an unequivocal and emphatic "yes." To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy.
In the days ahead I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity. Steps will be taken aimed at restoring the balance between the various levels of government. Progress may be slow - measured in inches and feet, not miles - but we will progress. It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles, there will be no compromise.
---
The above was written a long time ago. It is still relevant today. Given recent events it's only likely to become more relevant in the future.
You either agree with it you don't SDW. If not, you ought to turn in your Conservative card because you're not worthy of it.
To be clear: the current debacle was born way before AIG and the circumstances that led to its collapse. It was the predictable, inevitable, and direct result of government intervention in free markets. The path to prosperity is less intervention, not more. To (almost literally) paper over the systemic problems that still exist is no solution at all.
Enjoy your vacation from reality in Disneyland. Sounds like it began some time ago though.
...or am I just being an ass again?

- Obama Owns This Economy
Recent Discussions
- › Judge says evidence will likely show Apple culpable in e-book price... 14 minutes ago
- › Editorial: Apple's billions are building an empire for the future 17 minutes ago
- › Apple's 'iWatch' to come in late 2014 with focus on biometrics,... 21 minutes ago
- › app 28 minutes ago
- › Apple airs new iPhone ad, continues brilliant 'quiet' TV campaign 30 minutes ago
- › Google's new 3D Maps destroy Manhattan in the wake of Apple's Flyover 34 minutes ago
- › AT&T to reportedly add Apple's iPhone to GoPhone prepaid lineup 2 hours, 1 minute ago
- › Apple: Samsung shirked FRAND obligations, filed suit before making... 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
- › Microsoft caught lying about tablet size in comparison to Apple's iPad 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
- › New Microsoft Windows 8 ad turns Apple's Siri against her maker 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
Recent Reviews
- › Apple iPod nano - 16GB, Silver MC526LL/A (6th Generation) by cc420
- › Apple iPad with Retina Display Wi-Fi + Verizon/Sprint 4G - 64GB,... by Aaron Krahn
- › 13.3-inch Apple MacBook Air MD231LL/A (Mid-2012) by ahilal
- › Apple Time Capsule - 2TB (MD032LL/A) by biyahero
- › Apple iPad Wi-Fi - 64GB, White (MD330LL/A) by raeganapril
- › Apple Magic Trackpad (MC380LL/A) by WisdomSeed
- › Aperture 3 by bcbcbroderick
- › 17-inch Apple MacBook Pro MD311LL/A (Late 2011) by bcbcbroderick
- › Apple iPod touch - 32GB, Black MC544LL/A (4th Generation) by bcbcbroderick
- › Apple iPod touch - 8 GB, White MD057LL/A (4th Generation) by bcbcbroderick
New Apple Wikis
- › 2013 'Modified' iPod touch by Mikeycampbell81
- › 2013 MacBook Pros by Mikeycampbell81
- › iPad mini 2 with Retina display by Mikeycampbell81
- › 2013 iPhone 5S by Mikeycampbell81
- › Trade in your old devices for holiday cash by Mikeycampbell81
- › How to sell your old iPad for cash by Mikeycampbell81
- › How to offset the cost of a new iPhone by... by Mikeycampbell81
- › How to save money on AppleCare extended... by Kasper
- › How to offset the cost of a new iPad mini by... by Mikeycampbell81
- › Apple Prototypes by Mikeycampbell81
About AppleInsider | Join the Community | Advertise
© 2013 AppleInsider is powered by Huddler Tech | FAQ | Support | Privacy/TOS | Site Map






