Opinion"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-07-07 at 14:20:56   (15 comments)

On 2009-07-07 at 14:21:29, DigitalBoss wrote...
A beautiful quote.
On 2009-07-07 at 18:28:26, Baslisks wrote...
Most people who follow her haven't read her books....
On 2009-07-07 at 18:31:30, DigitalBoss wrote...
Read "Atlas Shrugged". It will be good for you. I have read it.
On 2009-07-07 at 18:35:43, Baslisks wrote...
yeah.... Selfishness as a virtue... I don't really believe in that shit. Being selfish only makes you a shitty human being completely dependent on others without making you aware of your dependence.
On 2009-07-07 at 19:07:06, DigitalBoss wrote...
That's funny. That is not what I got out of it.
On 2009-07-08 at 01:15:00, BorgClown wrote...
Ha ha, agreed, but not only the government does that. Every entity in a position of power will abuse its power, giving unearned benefits to some entities at the expense of others. So nothing new there, we all knew that.
On 2009-07-09 at 14:41:58, DigitalBoss wrote...
The main plot of the story is happening now. The what I call "movers and shakers" that make our economy run, the entrepreneurs, investors, and businessmen, are holding or shrinking much of their business plans because they are unsure about the tax plans of our current administration. They know he is against free market enterprise and for higher taxes and income redistribution. People that were going to hire, are holding back. People that were planning to expand, are holding back. In the book, the movers and shakers left when their government looters started telling them how to run their business.
On 2009-07-09 at 14:51:29, DigitalBoss wrote...
Case in point: http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/07/open_thread_302.html#comments
On 2009-07-10 at 20:29:55, BorgClown wrote...
Come on, you can't squarely blame Obama for the shoddy situation. Why didn't Bush bail the banks while he was there? Because it was easier to let the next one take care of the shitmess he and his band of looters did. Something similar happened in Mexico in 1994, where the exiting president, Carlos Salinas, fucked the economy real good just before leaving. He and his looters made millions while our currency lost 75% of its value and lots of credits tied to inflation and USD were lost, at a profit from the banks. That was the infamous "December Mistake". The incoming president was Ernesto Zedillo, also an economist (fortunately). He struggled for years to get it reasonably stable, even if our growth was almost zero. Today Ernesto Zedillo is doing quite well as an economist, he's the current Director of the Center for the Study of Globalization at Yale University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Zedillo#Post-presidency
On 2009-07-10 at 20:30:31, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: That was in response to your "movers and shakers" post.
On 2009-07-13 at 13:39:03, DigitalBoss wrote...
Obama is claiming that he is trying to restart the economy. However, he is doing all the wrong things toward that purpose. His stimulus plan was not an economic stimulus plan, it was a big-government spending plan. It is taking too long and is not targeted toward the one group that could really create more jobs: small business.
On 2009-07-13 at 13:42:51, DigitalBoss wrote...
Bush did get the process started for stabilizing the banking system. It would have been much worse had he not. Business owners that would like to grow or expand now are very cautious and waiting because of Obama's tax promises during the election. A substantial amount of our economy is on hold right now because of Obama's anti-business policies and beliefs.
On 2009-07-14 at 00:58:19, BorgClown wrote...
Effing banks, messing their pants and asking to be cleaned. I insist, whatever happened in USA and every country that bailed out their banks was planned by the bankers themselves. Do you know why Mexico didn't need to "rescue" his banks? We already did, in 1991. The banks suddenly cried wolf and they managed to get a handsome amount of cash for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobaproa Pray tell me, why the economies of the countries that didn't bail out their bank systems haven't collapsed?
On 2009-07-14 at 11:48:44, DigitalBoss wrote...
I think that Bush felt like the government was responsible for the situation the banks were in because of the ridiculous lending standards that were imposed on them by the Democrats with the Community Reinvestment Act. Of course, Bush had a hand in increasing the Act somewhat, but the Democrats under Jimmy Carter were the ones that started it, and Bill Clinton really expanded the Act.
On 2009-07-15 at 06:57:14, BorgClown wrote...
I really can't argue USA economics and politics, as I ignore most of your situation. What I can tell for my experience is that credit institutions are desperate to loan money just before a crash of this type. They know what's happening, and let it happen anyway. In my country (geez, I feel like the Star Trek aliens who say "my people" =) the bankers started to lend money to everyone, irrespective of their capability to pay back. They even loaned money to friends and themselves. Our bailout was planned, and so was yours. Imagine what would happen if financial institutions were completely unregulated.