grant richard wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 22:54 |
Communism? Really? Are you still able to buy what you want? When you want? Where you want? Lets not exaggerate.
|
Not true communism, like I say
faux capitalism--the worst aspects of capitalism (greed at the top), for enablement of failure (socialism). They've learned how to swing both methods around to suit whatever benefits them the best, and that is a scary, scary tenet of the Republican rule of the last 8 years. They're the ones that de-regulated.
Quote: |
The bailout hasn't failed yet. It's only just begun. We can't expect it to have a magical effect to restore the economy to that of 1998 overnight. It will take time and a lot of undoing.
Just gotta give it more than a week.
|
How many weeks do you want to give it and how many tax dollars do you want to sink into it to find out "when it's going to work?". Their whole economy is built on a false foundation--people that couldn't afford their houses, cars, etc. And when that happens, layoffs and downsizing are an inevitable part of something that was never there to begin with....because when you can still qualify for bailouts, what's the penalty for failure? Ultimately you have to ask yourself what type of system this is that teaches people that it's alright to fail, that you'll get bailed out.
Russia collapsed because that just did not work and their economy was a shambles. Socialism benefits only those at the bottom or the top. The people in the middle (read: us, the middle/ working class) don't. They fund those at the bottom or the top. At least capitalism benefits those that are at the top....but with this system, failed businesses that are at the bottom work their way back to the top, that would have otherwise went under in a true capitalist economy to let others that are more competitive and offer better products. If they get back up there, that is, but not without huge government (read: your tax money) bailouts.
That's the whole thing--there's companies that
aren't in trouble, that offer better services, plans, products.....but the ones that have shot themselves in the feet (ie: GM, with high interest rates) never saw the forest for the trees, and i'd have to say "to hell with them" and let a better company rise from the ashes; one that realizes that electric vehicles--and the dependence on oil--needs to be abolished. The oil companies actually helped sink GM and the other car manufacturers--yet GM, with their clout, didn't do much about it. Cars meant to run on hydrogen and water were developed; the auto makers bought them out because they were at the tit of the oil companies. Even smaller car companies were squelched and bought out (if not threatened)--look at the Tucker story. The big auto makers and oil companies haven't wanted anything to compete with them for decades, and they've bought out all the successful technology, bought out all the prototypes that were meant to provide us with a better product, threw them in the garbage, and now they want a bailout? Fuck 'em, let 'em rot.
Look at Chrysler and how many sub-lines that they've bought out--Daimler, Jeep, etc. You have to be
much more afraid of the mega conglomerates that succeed.....because if they fail, down goes all the otherwise independent manufacturers that could have been designing their own vehicles and offering competition to make better vehicles and products. The mega conglomerates have long got so complacent by buying out the competition, that they've put all of the customer's eggs in one basket.
Enter however many more years of bad decisions for those companies up ahead. It doesn't look good. The word "if", funded on your tax dollars, should make you angry. There's a good amount of businesses that do great business, offer great products, but are
realistic--they don't employ thousands of employees based around a financial myth. In amongst all this Wall Street crashing hoopla, the public is neglecting to put emphasis on all the businesses that are doing great.