A Nullification of the Constitution

[fivepoint]

Looking for thoughts from the community. Personally, for me, it's nice to see states stick up for the rights provided to them by the constitution and push back the Federal government when it attempts to grasp more control than it was intended to have according to the founders.

It's unfortunate that people discuss the 'fairness doctrine' (destruction of freedom of the press), the NAFTA superhighway (sovereignty anyone?), without even thinking of these things... and we have freaking Sen. Chris Dodd standing up and saying that we need "mandatory customer service for all high school students" (slavery again?).

Anyway, take a read for yourself:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d16-Guns-and-the-Constitution-A-legislator-finally-gets-it

“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

“I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

“II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

“III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

“IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

“V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

“VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition…”

-- New Hampshire House Concurrent Resolution 6.

[Ugg]

Libertarianism is dead. Although I expect a lot more of such right wing twaddle in the months ahead.

[jonbravo77]

I don't know. It seems that this stuff always gets brought up when a Democrat is in office. But when a republican gets into office they can do whatever they want ie: The Patriot Act. Let's get rid of that act before we start to talk about some of the other things that our government is doing..

[leekohler]

I don't know. It seems that this stuff always gets brought up when a Democrat is in office. But when a republican gets into office they can do whatever they want ie: The Patriot Act. Let's get rid of that act before we start to talk about some of the other things that our government is doing..

Thank you. Let's get rid of the Patriot Act first. Then we can talk about other things.

[Counterfit]

“II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
Jury duty should be in there too. If you aren't excused, most states/counties/etc. will have a bench warrant issued for your arrest.
“IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

Treaties have ALWAYS superseded national and local law.

[Rt&Dzine]

Libertarianism can be appealing in theory. Reality is another matter. Look what's happened with deregulation. Corporate greed run rampant. Too bad that human beings require so many rules and regulations.

[Thanatoast]

Sounds interesting. As a practical matter, how exactly would they secede? Would they direct employers in the state to stop collecting federal and payroll taxes? And for that matter, wouldn't seceding make them a risky place to do business anyway? How many corporations would or could continue to do business there? There'd be years of wrangling that would surely hurt the economy.

Also, some of those nullification acts seems a little off. As mentioned above, number 4 is already covered by the Constitution itself. Number 3 seems like an overreaction to the volunteer program Obama wants to promote that would trade work for college money - essentially a paid job.

I find 5 interesting and think they'll find it harder to enforce than they believe it will be, with regards to religion. And why "further" limitations on speech and press? What limitations are they currently okay with?

And finally number 6 - I don't think individual citizens need weapons that have the potential to kill hundreds of people. Iraq has showed us quite well that a creative and driven person can be quite effective against a well equipped army with nothing more than an explosive, some cell phones, a garage door opener and his own will.

[szark]

“VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition…”

Cool. Now I can go out and order that F-22 that I've always wanted. :)

[ppc750fx]

Libertarianism can be appealing in theory. Reality is another matter. Look what's happened with deregulation. Corporate greed run rampant. Too bad that human beings require so many rules and regulations.

People love to point to deregulation as an example of the "failure" of the free market -- but all the high profile examples that they pick inevitably serve as far better examples of why governments shouldn't be involved in the market than the reverse.

What companies would you pick as an example of "what's happened with deregulation"?

[Ugg]

What companies would you pick as an example of "what's happened with deregulation"?

Any of the financial companies that have failed in the past year would be a good place to start. Bernie Madoff, Enron, Worldcom......

Anytime a company is allowed to "voluntarily" list its faults, the result will be disastrous. Libertarianism obviously doesn't work. Neither does the form of Communism as practiced by the USSR and US Capitalism has numerous examples over the last 150 years of its always failing in the end.

Regulation is something that needs to be revisited periodically on a non-partisan basis. Putting it in the control of either party in the US will ultimately lead to the current repression we're currently experiencing.

[Desertrat]

Regulations which work toward a level playing field among competing interests, such as with EPA, work fairly well. Regulations which are taken by people to function as replacements for due diligence give us Madoffs. "Caveat emptor" will forever be operative.

The larger problem for libertarianism is that it cannot function if the great majority of a society does not take personal responsibility for the consequences of decisions and actions. IOW, less chance than a snowball in Hell, in the U.S. The copout, "It's society's fault," militates against libertarianism.

All that Resolution 6 is doing is reminding folks that the 9th and 10th amendments do exist, for all that administrations and Congress have largely ignored them for decades. Ignoring them comes easily and naturally to Statists...

'Rat

[pdham]

The larger problem for libertarianism is that it cannot function if the great majority of a society does not take personal responsibility for the consequences of decisions and actions. IOW, less chance than a snowball in Hell, in the U.S. The copout, "It's society's fault," militates against libertarianism.

'Rat

Your idea of a libertarian utopia where everyone "takes personal responsibility for the consequences of decisions and actions" could only ever exist if there was an equal playing field and starting point.... there is not.

[fivepoint]

Libertarianism is dead. Although I expect a lot more of such right wing twaddle in the months ahead.

No, actually, it's not.



I don't know. It seems that this stuff always gets brought up when a Democrat is in office. But when a republican gets into office they can do whatever they want ie: The Patriot Act. Let's get rid of that act before we start to talk about some of the other things that our government is doing..

Actually, those among us who are true constitutionalists and really care about small government, personal rights, private property, etc. have been saying it for years. We fought it when the Republicans and Democrats (including Barack Obama) voted to support it. We fought it then, we fight it now. I will not disagree that many Republicans however seem to be recently 'discovering' their small government roots... it's unfortunate that they often times lose them completely when in power.



Thank you. Let's get rid of the Patriot Act first. Then we can talk about other things.

I agree. Let's get rid of the Patriot Act. But let's not let that keep us from promoting freedom, liberty, small government, and citizens' rights in all aspects of the game. It's all important, RIGHT NOW. We won't WAIT for the Patriot Act to be removed.



The larger problem for libertarianism is that it cannot function if the great majority of a society does not take personal responsibility for the consequences of decisions and actions. IOW, less chance than a snowball in Hell, in the U.S. The copout, "It's society's fault," militates against libertarianism.
'Rat

The problem is that socialistic programs are almost impossible to remove once in place. The reason the founders were so explicit with their instructions and made it clear that liberty and personal responsibility were so important was to stop this train from ever leaving the station. Once people become dependent on government, they cling to it as hard as they can... and the slippery slope towards socialism and fascism begins.

Things have gotten bad... heck, now 40% of the population doesn't even pay income tax. People don't even save for their own retirement any more because they think the government has their back... little do they know that instead of conservative savings and investment, the government is actually participating (talking about social security here) in the world's largest pyramid scheme where current generations' retirements will attempt to be funded by the future working class. The system is unsustainable, and unfortunately will eventually collapse under it's own weight.

Big government statists try to do things for all the right reasons, but what they don't realize is that they do far more damage in the long term than they benefit in the short term. (even though this is very well documented historically and can be learned about by studying Austrian economics (the group who PREDICTED this downturn)) They think they're saving people, but they're really bankrupting them. Look at our debt people... well over 10 Trillion now. It's not difficult to figure out, people. Very similar to how BO is trying to keep the bubble from popping right now. They're trying to patch holes which can't be patched only to find out that their patches will help the bubble to grow and grow further until it pops and does even more damage than it would have if given the change to auto-correct right now.



Your idea of a libertarian utopia where everyone "takes personal responsibility for the consequences of decisions and actions" could only ever exist if there was an equal playing field and starting point.... there is not.

What would you suggest to equal the playing field? Socialism? Communism? Listen, my wife came from some of the poorest conditions possible growing up. She didn't maybe have the best family atmosphere... but you know what, she took it upon herself to succeed and excel. To give it her all in school and in life. And she succeeded because of it. When she graduated from High School, she could have done anything she wanted to... not because some governmental affirmative action plan or the pity police... but because she earned it. Every child in the country has the opportunity to succeed. Every child has an opportunity to grow beyond their upbringing and write their own life story.

Too often kids make the mistake of playing the blame game and complaining about how hard it is. Nothing in life comes easy, nothing in life comes without effort (it shouldn't anyway), and this is the hard truth they would benefit from learning.

[és:]

No, actually, it's not.

Real Libertarianism died a very long time ago. So much so that Libertarianism in American doesn't even mean Libertarianism.


and the slippery slope towards socialism and fascism begins.

Putting Socialism and fascism in the same sentence like that is pretty disgusting.

Every child in the country has the opportunity to succeed.

Whilst I don't agree with that, one thing is for certain: Not every child has an equal chance to succeed.

Every child has an opportunity to grow beyond their upbringing and write their own life story.

Again, I disagree.

Nothing in life comes easy

For some it comes very easy. For some it's impossible.


Sorry if this post is disjointed. I've only just entered the thread and haven't caught up.

[ppc750fx]

Any of the financial companies that have failed in the past year would be a good place to start. Bernie Madoff, Enron, Worldcom......

And? That's what's supposed to happen. If you run a company poorly, it fails. That's not a failing of the free market -- it's the correct operation of the free market.

The problem comes when the government gets involved -- the recent Wall Street crisis wouldn't be nearly as big of a sore point if the government didn't jump in and give the better part of a trillion dollars to companies that had proven they were incapable of managing themselves. Worldcom and Enron received untold millions (if not billions) in government subsidies, grants, and tax breaks.

Subsidizing failure (as the US govt. is wont to do) doesn't fix the problems caused by corporate mismanagement -- it exacerbates them.

[és:]

The problem comes when the government gets involved -- the recent Wall Street crisis wouldn't be nearly as big of a sore point if the government didn't jump in and give the better part of a trillion dollars to companies that had proven they were incapable of managing themselves.

Would you have preferred that they did nothing in this situation? Would you have been happy with the consequences of doing nothing?

[fivepoint]

Would you have preferred that they did nothing in this situation? Would you have been happy with the consequences of doing nothing?

YES. I would. It's called a 'market correction', 'es. They are a necessary and healthy part of the free market economy.

If only it were that simple though. Unfortunately, the biggest reason for this downturn isn't natural by any stretch of the imagination... due to the government's manipulation of the interest rate and pressure put on mortgage organizations all designed to increase home ownership beyond natural free market progression, housing and ownership expanded faster than it should have with people getting houses that had no right doing so. But they kept on trucking with the promise of ever-increasing prices and incredibly low interest rates (which any economist can tell you is impossible to maintain).

When will people learn... when the government tries to manipulate the system and make things happen that aren't natural, bad things happen. Yes, down turns happen in regular markets, but like I said... they are best cured by letting the price fall and get back down to a healthy level.

Say it with me... MARKET CORRECTION. There are too many houses on the market right now. The market needs to auto-correct. All BO's policies are doing is patching the bubble and allowing it to grow further before it can't be patched any more and pops destroying even more profit, and even more families. (Meanwhile putting us even further into egregious debt to the tune of TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars, and expanding socialistic programs which reward the stupid and careless (mortgage bailout, auto bailout, bank bailout))

The free market, capitalism, and property rights have created more wealth than any other system in history. When implemented correctly, prosperity is rampant. When manipulated with fiat money and unconstitutional federal banking systems by a ignorant statist government, it can be deadly.

[és:]

YES. I would.

Well, it's big of you to play fast and lose with other people's lives.

It's called a 'market correction', 'es.

Thanks. I don't know much when it comes to these matters. :rolleyes:

If only I had some education in the relevant area...

Say it with me... MARKET CORRECTION.

Well, I got this far before I decided I didn't need to be patronized any longer, especially by you.


------------------

For others that have any actual interest in hearing what a world class intellectual has to say about Libertarianism in the USA, have a listen to Chomsky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE).

[fivepoint]

Well, it's big of you to play fast and lose with other people's lives.

On the contrary, I think it's YOU who are living fast and loose with other people's lives. Like I said, the bailouts do nothing but patch holes and allow the bubbles to continue to grow. These policies will do nothing but extend the problem, increase the size and scope of the issue, and then bring even more people down with it when it does inevitably burst.

I'm looking out for what's best for everyone in the long run, BO's policies are looking out for those who don't want to experience a bit of hurt now. Those who can't be responsible for their actions and who put us all in risk when they aren't fiscally responsible.

Letting the problem correct now would ensure that LESS people are hurt in the long run and that FEWER people make the same mistakes. It would guarantee a STRONGER market in the future and would build far more prosperity than BO's Robin Hood tactics.




Well, I got this far before I decided I didn't need to be patronized any longer, especially by you.

It's too bad, if you would have kept reading you could have heard me discuss the policies which are putting us even further into egregious debt to the tune of TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars, and expanding socialistic programs which reward the stupid and careless. (mortgage bailout, auto bailout, bank bailout)

BTW, 'es. I'm talking about ideas here. Not nomenclature ornames. I don't care if Chomsky thinks it should be called classical liberalism or whatever else... we're talking about ideas and ideals, philosophies and core beliefs. You're simply trying to lower the quality of the debate by name calling.

[és:]

On the contrary, I think it's YOU who are living fast and loose with other people's lives.

Care to back that up? Considering that you don't know my opinion on this matter it is entirely presumptuous.

[Rt&Dzine]

What do think about this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." —Bill of Rights

Shall we remove the tax-exempt status for religious organizations?

[chrmjenkins]

What do think about this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." —Bill of Rights

Shall we remove the tax-exempt status for religious organizations?

Religious organizations are supposed to be not-for-profit. We don't tax not-for-profit organizations. Should we?

[Rt&Dzine]

Religious organizations are supposed to be not-for-profit. We don't tax not-for-profit organizations. Should we?

FYI for anyone who is interested: One distinction between religious and non-religious. Non-church non-profits that get tax exemptions must annually file a detailed 990 statement. This is waived for churches. So non-church non-profits are subject to IRS audit and public scrutiny.

[chrmjenkins]

FYI for anyone who is interested: One distinction between religious and non-religious. Non-church non-profits that get tax exemptions must annually file a detailed 990 statement. This is waived for churches. So non-church non-profits are subject to IRS audit and public scrutiny.

A justification for that might be that non-profits with profit would use this money to act more like traditional enterprise. With religious organizations, it would be understood anything extra should go towards a charitable purpose, although I know this is not always the case.

For instance, I know that the Mormon church holds many for-profit businesses, and are also directly involved with matters of legislation. I think these would be too egregious to maintain their status.

[Iscariot]

What would you suggest to equal the playing field? Socialism? Communism? Listen, my wife came from some of the poorest conditions possible growing up. She didn't maybe have the best family atmosphere... but you know what, she took it upon herself to succeed and excel. To give it her all in school and in life.

Ignoring that anecdotal evidence is itself a logical fallacy, the idea of a "self-made man" is such a myth that it's presentation here makes me want to chortle mightily. But there might be kids reading this.

Take sports as a good example of something that's supposed to be entirely merit-based, where those who work hard and train succeed, and those who don't, don't. Compare the birth dates of professional players and the cut-off dates for making the team. You'll find an absolutely disproportionate number of people born within a particular time-frame because the cut-off date allowed them to be the oldest players at a time when a difference of six months of age made the difference between being runty and uncoordinated and strong and fast. For the sake of this example the cut-off date is arbitrary, and was certainly not established to tilt the playing field squarely in the direction of the older players, but that is in fact the impact it has had.

There's no such thing as a self-made man because opportunities simply don't exist in a vacuum. You can't just "take it upon yourself" to "succeed", you succeed when you are lucky or privileged enough to be in a position to access those opportunities. Opportunities may not be intentionally safeguarded for the lucky and privileged, and no malice may be intended nor consequences even understood or considered, but it still remains an inescapable fact that they will be inaccessible to many for no fault of their own. Social mobility may have been much more merit based during the 1850s, But that's not the case anymore, and there's no use pretending otherwise. Trying to harken back to the good old days of the frontier is all well and good — if you want dysentery. Otherwise, watching the situation closely and making well-informed attempts to level the playing field is not only necessary, but is in the best interests of every single member of society.

[ppc750fx]

Would you have preferred that they did nothing in this situation? Would you have been happy with the consequences of doing nothing?

Yes. I would.

Unfortunately, we don't want to risk any drastic changes to our lifestyles. The thought of a depression scares us, so we call to the government to bail out our banks, to subsidize our automakers, and to pay for the mistakes that our corporations have made. Doing so takes money from the citizens, gives it to businesses that have demonstrated that they are incapable of managing their own funds, and ensures that the coming depression (when it arrives) will be worse than if we simply let the market weed out those companies unable to perform.

We have weakened our economy, driven ourselves even deeper into debt, and worsened our nation's economic outlook, and for what? To pad the coffers of a few failed companies? To ensure that some executives can keep up their lavish lifestyles? You want to talk about "corporatism run amok," *this* is a great example -- the United States government is so wildly corrupt that they're giving away billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars to private interests just to maintain the status quo for a select few.

[fivepoint]

Care to back that up? Considering that you don't know my opinion on this matter it is entirely presumptuous.

Perhaps you could share your opinions instead of simply attacking mine with sarcastic comments ("Well, it's big of you to play fast and lose with other people's lives. ") and things would be a bit more clear?

[és:]

Perhaps you could share your opinions instead of simply attacking mine with sarcastic comments ("Well, it's big of you to play fast and lose with other people's lives. ") and things would be a bit more clear?

You're doing a great job of telling me what my opinions are and teaching me what 'MARKET ADJUSTMENT' (come on 5p01nt, say it with me...) is.

You said you're happy to accept the consequences of doing nothing? I assume you know what would have happened, or you wouldn't have said it, so you will know exactly what my reply meant.

[BoyBach]

Cool. Now I can go out and order that F-22 that I've always wanted. :)


Bugger the fighter plane, you could buy a nuclear submarine! :eek:

[fivepoint]

You're doing a great job of telling me what my opinions are and teaching me what 'MARKET ADJUSTMENT' (come on 5p01nt, say it with me...) is.

You said you're happy to accept the consequences of doing nothing? I assume you know what would have happened, or you wouldn't have said it, so you will know exactly what my reply meant.

Which is it, either I "don't know your opinion on this matter it is entirely presumptuous" or I "know exactly what your reply meant"? It can't be both.

I'm WAS working under the assumption that you didn't agree with me that 'doing nothing' would be better than what BO did... then you corrected me and said that I had no idea what your opinion was. And now I should know exactly what your reply meant?

Anyway, it's no matter, again you're posting nothing of substance. No intellectual debate can be had if all you do is criticize what I say and egging me on without providing an alternative thought process or idea on the topic. Correct? I'm trying to have a conversation with people, discuss the actual merits of these ideas and convey my general disdain for the policies currently being put in place... while you seem to be just heckling from the corner.

For the record 'es, as I've said before, please post your thoughts. We'd all like to hear them. I am genuinely interested in your beliefs on this topic.


I said that: There are too many houses on the market right now and that the market needs to auto-correct. Do you agree?

I said that: BO's policies are doing is patching the bubble and allowing it to grow further before it can't be patched any more and pops destroying even more profit, and even more families. Do you agree?

I said that: the free market, capitalism, and property rights have created more wealth than any other system in history, and that when implemented correctly, prosperity is rampant. On the converse, when manipulated with fiat money and unconstitutional federal banking systems by a ignorant statist government, it can be deadly. What is your position on the matter?


Let's have a conversation about the issues, 'es.

[és:]

Which is it, either I "don't know your opinion on this matter it is entirely presumptuous" or I "know exactly what your reply meant"? It can't be both.

They were entirely different things. So it's really easy to have both. You don't know my opinion on this matter and you know what my reply meant. Both are facts, but we know how much contempt you show for those.

I'm trying to have a conversation with people

Is that why you decided to ignore my first post in it's entirety? In the interest of conversation, was it?

For the record 'es, as I've said before, please post your thoughts. We'd all like to hear them.

Don't pretend, not even for a second, that you speak for more than anyone other than yourself. Certainly not 'we'.

Let's have a conversation about the issues, 'es.

Well, you can start by responding to my original post and we'll take it from there.

[Counterfit]

Trying to harken back to the good old days of the frontier is all well and good — if you want dysentery.
http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Oregon_Trail_You_Have_Died_of_Dysentery-T-link.jpg
Bugger the fighter plane, you could buy a nuclear submarine! :eek:

Virginia-class: $1.8 billion
F-22 Raptor: $137.5 million

[chrmjenkins]

Trying to harken back to the good old days of the frontier is all well and good — if you want dysentery.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/oregon-trail.jpg

[mactastic]

And? That's what's supposed to happen. If you run a company poorly, it fails. That's not a failing of the free market -- it's the correct operation of the free market.

The problem comes when the government gets involved -- the recent Wall Street crisis wouldn't be nearly as big of a sore point if the government didn't jump in and give the better part of a trillion dollars to companies that had proven they were incapable of managing themselves. Worldcom and Enron received untold millions (if not billions) in government subsidies, grants, and tax breaks.

Subsidizing failure (as the US govt. is wont to do) doesn't fix the problems caused by corporate mismanagement -- it exacerbates them.
See, the problem comes in when you demand the right to create these huge corporations, despite concerns over their size; and then when these behemoths that small government corporatists create go belly-up, complain that they are "too big to fail" and demand help. That is a direct failure of the free market.

Why do we allow corporations to get "too big to fail" in the first place?

[fivepoint]

See, the problem comes in when you demand the right to create these huge corporations, despite concerns over their size; and then when these behemoths that small government corporatists create go belly-up, complain that they are "too big to fail" and demand help. That is a direct failure of the free market.

Why do we allow corporations to get "too big to fail" in the first place?

I don't think he's saying that they are 'too big to fail'. He's saying they SHOULD be allowed to fail. That's what all true free-marketers think.

[Ugg]

I don't think he's saying that they are 'too big to fail'. He's saying they SHOULD be allowed to fail. That's what all true free-marketers think.

How did they get to the point where they should be allowed to fail? Lax government oversight, an irrational belief in the "free market", human greed? Why should those at the top take down everyone else with them?

It's time to stop the robber barons.

[yg17]

<kitty picture>


Epic win.

[mactastic]

I don't think he's saying that they are 'too big to fail'. He's saying they SHOULD be allowed to fail. That's what all true free-marketers think.
But how do they get "too big to fail" in the first place? That's thanks to the "true free-marketeers" who argue that government has no place in deciding how big a corporation can get, right?

[ppc750fx]

But how do they get "too big to fail" in the first place? That's thanks to the "true free-marketeers" who argue that government has no place in deciding how big a corporation can get, right?

My point is that there's nothing inherently wrong with that. As soon as you make a practice of bailing out companies, you change the game -- large companies will take bigger risks because they know that the government will be there with taxpayer dollars to bail them out if it goes tits up. Once you offer any bailouts, you no longer have a free market, as you've removed one of the crucial feedback mechanisms of the free market.

Large companies don't want to risk bankruptcy: the top priority of any company is to stay in business, thus any large corporation has a vested interest in ensuring that it is sustainable. The "too big to fail" problem isn't really a problem, as it will manage itself -- provided that there is still an incentive not to fail. As soon as you take away that incentive, as soon as companies become aware that mommy and daddy government will run to their rescue when they screw up, then (and only then) is their size a concern.

[mactastic]

My point is that there's nothing inherently wrong with that. As soon as you make a practice of bailing out companies, you change the game -- large companies will take bigger risks because they know that the government will be there with taxpayer dollars to bail them out if it goes tits up. Once you offer any bailouts, you no longer have a free market, as you've removed one of the crucial feedback mechanisms of the free market.

Large companies don't want to risk bankruptcy: the top priority of any company is to stay in business, thus any large corporation has a vested interest in ensuring that it is sustainable. The "too big to fail" problem isn't really a problem, as it will manage itself -- provided that there is still an incentive not to fail. As soon as you take away that incentive, as soon as companies become aware that mommy and daddy government will run to their rescue when they screw up, then (and only then) is their size a concern.
Sure, in a perfect world that would work fine.

However, in the real world, you will always have unscrupulous people who will be willing to ignore the immense risks they are taking with the well-being of their company, it's workers -- and indeed even the nation once you start talking about these massive banking companies -- just so long as they are able to enrich themselves.

Counting on people to be cognizant of some greater good all on their own is a fool's errand. Remember why communism fails? Exactly. Because you can't trust people to give two ***** about anyone else.

[jonbravo77]

I to believe that companies should be allowed to fail, but we need to remember the big picture. If a company that is tied into the world economy fails it is not just America that gets affected. Also, for those who feel the bail out is a waste of money and that government should not interfere with these big corporations failing what do you want to do about the 10's of thousands or more people who will lose there jobs globally? Just out of curiosity.

[ppc750fx]

However, in the real world, you will always have unscrupulous people who will be willing to ignore the immense risks they are taking with the well-being of their company, it's workers -- and indeed even the nation once you start talking about these massive banking companies -- just so long as they are able to enrich themselves.

Counting on people to be cognizant of some greater good all on their own is a fool's errand. Remember why communism fails? Exactly. Because you can't trust people to give two ***** about anyone else.

You seem to be missing the concept of capitalism.

If I'm a greedy executive of a company, it is in my best interest for my company to stay afloat. If it fails, I stop getting money. I like money, thus this is bad. Therefore, it is in my best interest to keep the company profitable.

I don't count on people to be cognizant of some greater good -- in fact, that's the exact reason that I advocate capitalism: I'm not as willing as some to trust the government to be altruistic.

The problem with the bailout is that it rewards the exact behavior that you're so afraid of. Capitalism (yes, even in the "real world") has a feedback mechanism that I described above. This deters greedy executives from destroying a company, if only out of self interest. When you reward this failure by donating taxpayer money to said company, you remove this feedback mechanism. Now these "unscrupulous people" don't have to worry about the personal consequences of running a company into the ground -- they know that their personal financial future will be insured by very the government that you've so blithely trusted to "fix capitalism".

I to believe that companies should be allowed to fail, but we need to remember the big picture. If a company that is tied into the world economy fails it is not just America that gets affected. Also, for those who feel the bail out is a waste of money and that government should not interfere with these big corporations failing what do you want to do about the 10's of thousands or more people who will lose there jobs globally? Just out of curiosity.

I fully expect them to lose their jobs. Yes, I'm probably included in that figure.

At this point, we are entering a depression whether or not we continue to bail out companies. Sorry, but it's already happening -- we should stop lying to ourselves, and stop listening to the sweet words of every congressman that tells us that the answer is to give away another part of our paycheck.

So if we're entering a depression, if these companies are going to go bankrupt, doesn't it make sense to just let them fail and let the rest of the market take up the slack? Sure, people will lose their jobs in the short run -- but that's going to happen whenever they fail. The "bailouts" and "stimulus packages" will delay the problems by throwing money at them, but in the end the companies will still be in financial distress.

The end result will be pretty much the same. It's really a question of whether or not you want to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars, stimulate inflation, and push the country even further into debt to prolong it for a short while. Unfortunately, when you're hellbent on reelection and continuing your political career, that "short while" is just what you need to grab and keep a bit more power.

[Counterfit]

If I'm a greedy executive of a company, it is in my best interest for my company to stay afloat. If it fails, I stop getting money. I like money, thus this is bad. Therefore, it is in my best interest to keep the company profitable.

Enron, WorldCom, Tyco

[fivepoint]

You seem to be missing the concept of capitalism...


Excellent post, ppc750x. Some people haven't even been taught about the true nature of capitalism, You cleared up some of the important misconceptions.

[és:]

Some people haven't even been taught about the true nature of capitalism

Well, that is certainly true. Although I fear we're coming at it from a different angle.

[mactastic]

You seem to be missing the concept of capitalism.

If I'm a greedy executive of a company, it is in my best interest for my company to stay afloat. If it fails, I stop getting money. I like money, thus this is bad. Therefore, it is in my best interest to keep the company profitable.
No it's not. Not if you have a giant golden parachute to catch you if you drive the company into the ground. The only people who get hurt are the little guys, so what's your incentive to be cautious?

I don't count on people to be cognizant of some greater good -- in fact, that's the exact reason that I advocate capitalism: I'm not as willing as some to trust the government to be altruistic.
I don't trust the government either, what gives you that impression? Or are you just making assumptions based on your ideology?

I don't trust PEOPLE. People happen to run both corporations AND the government. Thus, neither one is intrinsically morally superior to the other. Saying that you don't trust government, therefore you'll trust private enterprise is just naive.

The problem with the bailout is that it rewards the exact behavior that you're so afraid of. Capitalism (yes, even in the "real world") has a feedback mechanism that I described above. This deters greedy executives from destroying a company, if only out of self interest. When you reward this failure by donating taxpayer money to said company, you remove this feedback mechanism. Now these "unscrupulous people" don't have to worry about the personal consequences of running a company into the ground -- they know that their personal financial future will be insured by very the government that you've so blithely trusted to "fix capitalism".
Well, personally I'd like to see the bailout come with such punitive strings that only the most desperate companies who truly need assistance will take up the offer. They need to prove that they are more interested in saving their company than in making a couple hundred million dollars.

And, as I described above, the feedback mechanism that you count on has been subverted by these very same people who are now asking you and I to bail them out. In the real world, there is little incentive NOT to take extraordinary risks with your company, and in fact there is often great reward for doing so.

At this point, we are entering a depression whether or not we continue to bail out companies. Sorry, but it's already happening -- we should stop lying to ourselves, and stop listening to the sweet words of every congressman that tells us that the answer is to give away another part of our paycheck.

So if we're entering a depression, if these companies are going to go bankrupt, doesn't it make sense to just let them fail and let the rest of the market take up the slack? Sure, people will lose their jobs in the short run -- but that's going to happen whenever they fail. The "bailouts" and "stimulus packages" will delay the problems by throwing money at them, but in the end the companies will still be in financial distress.
Well, you're really talking about two entirely different things when you put bailouts and stimulus in the same sentence like that. Bailouts I don't particularly like, and only see as necessary because the government -- prodded by industry-backed free-marketeers -- completely failed in their duty to regulate industry so as to prevent companies from "getting to big to fail" and from engaging in shady business practices that created a shadow market worth several times national GDP where mortgage-backed securities were traded with little oversight to ensure that valuations were in line with reality.

I would be more than happy to stop bailing out these companies once we've cut them down to a size where their failure doesn't threaten the national economy.

Stimulus, OTOH, would be going to companies who *aren't* in danger of going bankrupt. Not at all the same thing.

The end result will be pretty much the same. It's really a question of whether or not you want to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars, stimulate inflation, and push the country even further into debt to prolong it for a short while.
This is hardly a universally accepted idea. All one has to do is look at how FDRs spending began to bring us out of the Great Depression to see that it can be effective if we don't let conservatives water down the stimulus with tax cut provisions -- which are far less effective job creators than direct government spending.

Unfortunately, when you're hellbent on reelection and continuing your political career, that "short while" is just what you need to grab and keep a bit more power.
Unfortunately, when your political ideology is based on the idea that "government is the problem", anything that proves otherwise must be drowned in the bathtub before it sees the light of day.

And when you're hellbent on regaining electoral power and contributing to your future (2010?) political career, you'll even allow the US economy to go down the drain in your mad pursuit of just a bit more power.