senseinobaka said:
Both options are not great, but one leads to more problems. We have a situation here where these banks and investment houses have thrived and advocated for a free market. And now that the free market is telling them to go screw themselves, they cry for government help. It doesn't work like that. Even worse, bailing out businesses that fail causes more problems down they road. To name one, it gives no incentive to correct or fix the problem. To name another, smaller more innovative organizations (read: less corrupt and more responsible) are not given the chance to fill in the gaps, instead they are obstructed by government intervention.
|
The free market actually caused this problem, you know, because there weren't enough government regulations on unscrupulous lending practices.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
