Wednesday, September 17, 2008

because a government bailout is better than charity

Seems to me that any company that is this important to the economy, ought to have been better (and more heavily) regulated by the government of that economy, especially when that government is supposedly of the soveriegn People.

Listen to Juli Niemann, a refreshingly honest executive vice president at Smith Moore & Company in Saint Louis, as she tells us how the economy's doing (not terribly well).

The most interesting point: bigger is not better, for the economy or for profit-making. So why is it, do you suppose, that companies want to become bigger? Could it be power, rather than profit? Or compensation for those running the company (there are big bonuses for those who make the deals, you know)?

4 comments:

Unknown said...

AIG plays in both ponds, the regulated and non-regulated one.

The laws passed by Clinton, Reagan and Bush41 deregulated a lot of shit.

Those laws were on the books since the Great Depression...for a fucking reason.

daveawayfromhome said...

Let me rephrase: the only economic entities that should be allowed to become big enough to single-handedly take down the nation's economy should be those which are government controlled, either through heavy regulation, or through outright ownership. Sallie and Freddie never should have been turned over to the private sector, and AIG never should have been allowed to get so huge.

Here's one very good reason why such huge companies should be gov't run: only private organizations tend to have lobbyists (the military doesnt count, plus I'd guess that many of their lobbyists actually work for military contractors).

Anonymous said...

it's hard to object to the government's mass bailouts as similar debt-producing methods were put into action to bring the U.S. out of the Depression... our economy has been supported and driven by debt ever since

daveawayfromhome said...

Actually, I understand the need for the bailouts, and I dont object to them so much as I object to the repeated return to a philosophy that allows a few individuals to amass enormous wealth in an irresponsible manner, and then make taxpayers clean up the mess afterwards, with no penalties to those who caused the mess in the first place (even political ones, apparently).