Czuch: In your first reply you missed the point, and in your second. I gave you examples.

It's called history of how some collapses have affected a town... another such example would be the dust bowl problem that happened in the USA in the 20th C.

And I am sticking to the debate, and what I'm saying is relevant and part of the debate as I learnt from economic classes at school and from observing economists talking on depressions and collapses of the past.

And you have no proof that the auto industry will not collapse... and are you willing to let all those jobs be put at risk with no evidence you are right? I've not seen you bring anything to the debate to support your opinion.

(V): ghost towns from the collapse of the local supporting industry when such towns population have been reliant on one industry.

You said it will lead to the collapse of the whole industry, not of a town... thats where you have no proof... there is no evidence to prove that if you let a few car giants die that the whole auto industry will collapse because of it, try to stick with one debate at a time

(V): others have been caught up in all the mess and failed of no fault of their own.

You seem to believe we all have a God given right to be successful???

Thats where we dont agree... Success is a condition of many factors, some of it in our control, some of it not, like timing and luck.

Try to start a computer company during the great depression and you would fail... not because of the depression, but because the internet had not yet been invented, not a bad business idea really, but just not the right time in history.

Try to start one now, and you will likely fail as well... too late, bad timing, not the fault of a depression, should the government support you?

There are plenty of car companies thriving right now, and banks as well, the smart ones.....

Point is, we do not have any right, nor is it the responsibility of the government to make sure we are all successful

Czuch: No proof or history... ghost towns from the collapse of the local supporting industry when such towns population have been reliant on one industry. Never heard of this Czuch?

And AD's example is not relevant, it was not caused by a depression but a change in competition rules. If you cannot understand the difference then study economics

If the auto industries go under it's not just them that will suffer, but again you'd need to know economics to understand this... look under supporting and related industry and services.

"Its a I cant keep up with the times or run a business correctly related collapse"

Which has led to a depression. The causes I agree can apply to certain companies, but others have been caught up in all the mess and failed of no fault of their own.

Imsoaddicted: Sah - Keh

Thats how we pronounce it here....

(V): not the same as a depression related collapse.




Its NOT a depression created collapse!!!! Its a I cant keep up with the times or run a business correctly related collapse You put out too many loans to too many people who cannot afford to pay them back, thats just a poor business decision.... not anything to do with a depression!

Again, AD already told you examples where many banks are doing just fine.... why do you ignore these facts?

(V): and that collapse of one segment can lead to the whole being severely weakened to the point of collapse.


This is your theory, maybe, but you have no proof, or historical record to back that up!

You just dont get that things are always in constant change.... the climate for one, but you just want governments to stop it anyway.

AD, just gave you a real life example of a huge industry change, when ATT split up... we recovered from that, and got stronger even.
You will push to stop burning fossil fuels, but you want to save the industry that makes cars that burn them?

Then, on the other side, you could care less if some oil exec. goes to the poor house, along with all his employees, right?

I just dont get it?

Czuch: Um... you do know that eating snot is comparable to eating a McD's.

Something about the flavour and make up of the fats and sugars!! Or so the scientists say!!!!

Artful Dodger: Btw.. a service being split is not the same as a company busting through worldwide economic depression. Such a comparison is not relevant.

We've had services privatised or put into competition (rail travel, post, etc) and a certain amount of rearranging is normal. People will lose jobs, jobs will be created.... That is a normal event well known to those who've studied economics and not the same as a depression related collapse.

Do you understand this?

Bernice: yep we pronounce it sarkee to

Czuch: and we pronounce it "sarkee"
I also have friends that have a chinese restaurant, I rang them and asked (they are chinese) and they pronounce it the same....
but I guess if you have a plum in your mouth you would pronounce it "saw-kee" kinda like being a snob.

Tuesday: It's that there seems to be no recognition of history and economics that gets me, and that there is no understanding that a country is a big economy built of various segments of industry from various areas and that collapse of one segment can lead to the whole being severely weakened to the point of collapse.

** and I refer everyone else to this answer in reply to their replies **

Saves me time typing

Czuch: Back in 85 I lost my job due to the government's intrusion into AT&T's business. They split up the phone company and I lost my job along with 24,000 other workers. No one bailed me out. Thousands more lost their jobs after the breakup. I was 34 and had two children. Along with my wife's help, I put myself through college, landed a teaching job, and started a new career. I went on to get my master's degree and that put me way up on the pay scale. No government help. No bailouts.

And what of all those workers who also lost their jobs? If they looked, they found new work. As a result of the breakup of the phone company, many more businesses were formed. Some grew at fantastic rates!

So here's the government breaking up a "BIG" company on the one hand, and then helping a "BIG" company on the other.

Let the market take care of it. After the phone company breakup, new business started. More jobs were created than were lost. I don't recommend it because it was government intrusion that caused the problem (and I could have my stats wrong). Either way, the government should do it's job and ONLY its job. Follow the mandates of the Constitution and stay out of our lives. They try to RUN everything but they RUIN it instead.

Big government = less freedom = less quality of life = less potential = weakness.

Tuesday: sorry... I just have an image of some poor Chinese kid, up to his thighs in rice paddy, runny nosed on a cold morning, thinking how wonderful his government is because they can afford to buy the debt of the US......

Tuesday: oh... and I pronounce it like... saahkay

(V): "snot eaters" ........... is that what you call Chinese people??


not really, I just made that up for effect, but I ate some snot before when i was a lad, out on a cold morning... its not very becoming

(V): we are all descendants of conquerors and those who did terrible things in the past.

... ahhh, so you are saying that the Chinese are on the correct path, just going through some growing pains, based on the fact that the US had some of its own???

(V): The current situation is not normal.

Just because something hasnt happened in your lifetime, doesnt make it paranormal...


Yes, some people will always suffer when jobs are lost and certain industries fail, and some jobs will gain when new industries rise....


You dont seem to care about oil jobs being lost, since they are causing global warming, its no different from a car company that isnt keeping up with the times.

(V): the US is not like a big company. And no, it shouldn't be bailed out. California is a good example of this. They are a government. They operated against sound economic principles. They are a very liberal State and they simply gave too much money away. YOu can't offer free this and free that to people that don't contribute and then scratch your head when the money runs out. No bailouts for California. They dug their own hole even while they were being warned. They ignored the warnings. You touch the hot stove, you get burnt. Deal with it.

As for the auto industry: if they fail, they fail. More people have lost their jobs in small businesses than could ever lose their jobs in the auto industry. Big business doesn't make the US. It's the small ones that do. The big ones suck up to the government. When "Ma Bell" was dismantled, competitive businesses sprung up everywhere. Sure, thousands lost their jobs when the telephone company split. Many more thousands found jobs as a result of newly developing businesses.

On Banks: if they are insured, you get your money back. If not, oh well. It's not the job of the government to bail out people who make bad investments.

As to Bernie Madoff: The government was warned over and over about that man and the government ignored it. Seriously, he should be hung in the city square for all to see, along with any others who were participants in the theft.

But bailouts? No. Who is going to give me the thousands I've lost when the market lost money? No one. That's the way the ball bounces.

eh?

Tuesday: Well. to call a people downtrodden and names in the same breath...

Oh well

Czuch: No. I'm saying No country is perfect...

"dont even know what a doctor is?" please... They use both western and chinese medicine And if you are in China dial 120!!

And please what about our own pasts as mentioned? Us British invented the concentration camp I believe during the Boer war, we massacred Iraq's before Saddam was even born. British Imperials stole Rhodesia off the native African people and worked them just as we had slaves as your country did at one time.

You've ignored this. I was making a point about history and that we are all descendants of conquerors and those who did terrible things in the past.

Even our country's main religions (as in USA and UK) hands are stained in blood.

"snot eaters" ........... is that what you call Chinese people??

Tuesday:*sigh* I know what rice wine is....it was Czuch's change of wine from champagne to "saw-kee"

***Bernice: It's called sake....saw-kee.***

Artful Dodger: So... the USA being a big company of sorts should never be bailed out......

Guess those loans better be called in then.

And many banks failed or are just scraping by, and many people lost their life savings. Have no pensions from the results of what's happened. Like those who invested with Madoff.

And yes.. many small businesses fail, but that is normal and not relevant to the current situation. The current situation is not normal.

Ok, say we let you make the decision that all the automotive businesses in America should go under.. And then stand in on a podium in front of all the workers, look them in the eye and say "Your jobs are gone".

Czuch: @rice wine

Czuch: ...uh sorry... I meant rice wine, not champagne...

(V): You just never cease to amaze me.... Now you want to compare Americans with no health care coverage (doesnt mean they dont get medical attention when they need it, and free care when they cant afford it) to Chinas millions who eat their own snot out in the rice paddies, and dont even know what a doctor is?

...and you say they are at their peak???? Really??? I am sure if I had a billion people working for me who I could steal from(their productivity wise) I could assume a bunch of the US debt as well.... I guess you should be the one to break the news to the snot eaters that their country is at its peak, and they should uncork the campaign, because happy days are here!

(V): "And regarding the employees and investors and the effect on the moral of the nation of such falls? No business is perfect, they are run by humans"

So what? Small business have employees too. When they fail, they fail. If you lose money on an investment, you lose. That's the way it works. If you can't compete, you die. Never should a company be bailed out. Make it or die.

Many banks didn't fail and MANY banks made tons of money. Mine is one of them. They refused to issue bad loans.

Czuch: Really!!! Can you explain that more, especially in relation to cold war activities?

"actually making it sound like your point is that their economics are even better than the US?"

No... They've just developed and reached their peak(?) at the right time to able to help you guys in the USA out.

"direct expense of their own people, where billions are in poverty, again, hardly the shining example you seem to think they are"

One.. they do not have billions of people, about a billion last I read.. 2) Red Indians. ... 3) Millions of USA people are without healthcare, and while the American healthcare companies are creaming it, they suffer.... 4) Slavery... and the carrying on of segregation in the USA in areas even into the 20th C..

It's rare that a country looking back at it's past (if not impossible) can say it's always been good to it's or another people!!

IE... No system is without fault. This "shining example" thing.. which country or country's live up to it... honestly.

And as for why I say socialism.. because of Karl Marx. You've heard of him??

(V): Well any of our so called "shady" actions have nothing to do with our economics directly..... You pointed out how Chinas socialism ( I say communism) cant be a bad economic system since it affords them the ability to buy a lot of US debt, actually making it sound like your point is that their economics are even better than the US?


My point is that their economics might allow their government to buy US debt, but it is at the direct expense of their own people, where billions are in poverty, again, hardly the shining example you seem to think they are

Czuch: I was talking economic models and policy. I was talking about governments ripping off it's own people and others.

No confusion here. There is no remit (it's a UK joke ) here.

(V):
Please... The USA has acted in manners where such an argument is very shady.

You always seem to be able to confuse debates... we are talking economics and policy right now... you used China as an example of a 'socialist' country with a good economic model , and used the fact that they are well off enough economically to even buy the debt of the US, to back up that claim!

Well, if you think that the government ripping off its own people in order to be able to afford to buy debt from the US as a good thing, well again, thats why we are having this discussion in the first place

Czuch: I wasn't. I was just showing them as an example.

"if I am a corrupt government and have the ability to take most of the money from my minions, and leave most of them in poverty"

Please... The USA has acted in manners where such an argument is very shady. Interfering with countries, supporting dictators to replace elected governments who's only crime was not fitting in.

"and leave most of them in poverty, of course i should have tons of extra cash lying around"

And pure capitalism is? Or at least some peoples idea of?? As mentioned before.. extremism is to be avoided.

"What, you think 'majority rules'" ... when it is a REAL majority. That is one of the stinks over here over the current voting system, due to voting figures.

Artful Dodger: I cannot agree with that, especially after certain incidents with judges over here.

"Banks that failed should have been left to rot. Same with the auto industry."

And regarding the employees and investors and the effect on the moral of the nation of such falls? No business is perfect, they are run by humans

Czuch: The majority of the jobs in the US are made by small business entrepreneurs. But the government puts its money in the big business even though that's NOT where the jobs are. Meanwhile, hundreds of Chrysler franchises were closed even though they were making money. Some franchises that were built up, were closed and consolidated (given to another) with another franchise. The government essentially took one man's business and gave it to another man.

This is the President that the people voted for.

And now his campaign promise of not raising taxes is out the window. He's now talking about raising taxes on the very people he PROMISED would not see tax increases.

And they believed him.

Oh yeah, Obama just blames Bush by saying he inherited this mess. Not so fast, he's creating a bigger mess. History will tell.

Artful Dodger: compete or die.

Its funny, these liberal types seem to understand this concept very well when it comes to industry that they loath, like the oil companies, you dont see them feeling bad that soon enough oil companies will be as extinct as dinosaurs!

How many libs are out there trying to get the government to buy out the oil companies? Its obvious that in the next 100 years or so that we will be on other energy than oil, and at some point these big oil companies will go bankrupt because of this, but is anyone going to feel bad for them and ask the government to help them out????? I bet not!

What about McDonalds, for example??? There will likely be some time when they are no longer a viable company. It might be hard to imagine right now, but some day Mc Donalds will be lost... unless the government buys them out?

Point is, that business is always a risk reward scenario,
Some make it and some do not, some make it for a long time and bust some make it for a short time and bust, but my guess is that over hundreds of years, most will change with the times or bust...

point is, compete or die, oil companies will be dust one day, as will the McDonalds as we know it today... its all good

Czuch: The more I think about this the more I really wonder.... why would we even bother to have legislation through some form of democracy, if there are smarter people out there who know whats best already, and only serve to tell us when we have made bad legislation?????

Like AD said, yes there are constitutional issues etc, but, if we really need some judge to tell us when we made bad legislation, then why not just let these judges make all of our legislation for us??? Why not just be communists?

(V): especially if the legislation is wrong.

Thats one area where we disagree, for sure!

Legislation is never wrong in a democracy, not wrong enough where one person sitting on a bench can tell us how wrong it is..... judges arent meant to override 'bad' choices from a majority....

I mean, why even bother having votes and majority rules, if there are judges that know whats best anyway?????


What, you think 'majority rules' is just some made up fantasy to keep us all happy, until we make a "stupid" choice, and then the really smart people sitting on a bench will make things right for us????

(V): A FACT that the USA has borrowed much from China and imports many 'cheap' goods from China.

Sure we do, and they have as well, thats capitalism at work, but dont tell me that China is some shining example because they can afford to buy all our debt, if I am a corrupt government and have the ability to take most of the money from my minions, and leave most of them in poverty, of course i should have tons of extra cash lying around... You could go to China yourself, maybe, talk to the people there, really, ask them, and my guess is that 90% of them, maybe more, would not tell you a story of how great their lives are!

(V): My bank is safer. They have made money when other bank issued reckless loans. I've lost money in mutual funds; made money in the bank. I'm choosy on the bank I do business with.

Banks that failed should have been left to rot. Same with the auto industry. compete or die.

(V): "Sorry, but if they feel there is an exception, etc to the law, or the law is wrong they will speak up. Many judges do and that is how reforms come about, especially if the legislation is wrong."

It doesn't matter what they "feel." If the law violates precedent then yes, the courts can act (based on precedent). If the law violates existing law, then yes the courts can act (based on existing law). If the law violates constitutional principles, then yes the courts can act (based on a violation of a constitutional principle). But in now way do they act on how they "feel."

Artful Dodger: You are not everyone.... or a business.

As for banks being safer..... Not over here from what we've seen. They can make very BIG mistakes you know... I gave a hint on this by mentioning the RBS and mentioning how they messed up. They took part in the buying of another bank without accurate accounts from them and ignored warnings from their own risk assessment people.

Joe Public bailed them out.</b>

Artful Dodger: Sorry, but if they feel there is an exception, etc to the law, or the law is wrong they will speak up. Many judges do and that is how reforms come about, especially if the legislation is wrong.

(V): The economy is not like a car in anyway. It is not analogous. What you need is to show how in principle spending money can get one out of debt. The lottery will get you out of debt too. But only a few people. The vast majority of people spend with NO return.

Investments won't get you out of debt. I know. I've lost thousands. The banks are safer as they protect my principle.

When I spend money, it's gone. When I spend more than I make, I have to cut back somehow to catch up. That is a fact of life. You can NEVER show where governments can consistently spend more than is taken in and MAKE MONEY. It's never happened. Ever. Anywhere. Spending money NEVER gets one out of debt. Ever. Never. Nada.