kelpdiver 2 #26 November 17, 2008 QuoteQuote - that was caused by greed and enabled by deregulation. When you add "de" in front of regulation, it completely reverses the meaning. Did you know? and if you remove both the de and re, you get gulation! Relevance? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 November 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote - that was caused by greed and enabled by deregulation. When you add "de" in front of regulation, it completely reverses the meaning. Did you know? and if you remove both the de and re, you get gulation! Relevance? OK - for the obtuse in the audience "was caused by greed and (encouraged by government regulation and then made worse by even more government interference of the exact same kind that caused the initial problem, and then expected to be fixed by a bailout from government interference that will creates a response much similar to the response to the first two actions that didn't work each of their times)" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,436 #28 November 17, 2008 >Neither of which have anything to do with the housing market collapse >that he is talking about. A 1926 housing bubble and collapse, driven by speculation, greed and overpricing of real estate, has nothing to do with today's problems. You're right - there is nothing to be learned from the past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #29 November 21, 2008 Yes Yes I think you have it... We just outlaw greed. How simple. While we are at it lets outlaw stupidity and we have covered all of our bases. You should run for office! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,436 #30 November 21, 2008 >We just outlaw greed. ?? Greed is what makes our economy work. We just prevent the excesses (i.e. the Shirtwaist company, Standard Oil, Enron) and let people's greed take them where they will.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #31 November 21, 2008 And just who decides how much is too much? The devil is in the details. Should congress decide? Look at the bail out package. Sen. Chris Dodd (D) is complaining that much of the bailout money is going to executive compensation, dividends, and acquisitions. The thing that tempers greed is fear. Fear of loss. If the government covers the loss, it creates an environment where greed can run unchecked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,436 #32 November 21, 2008 >And just who decides how much is too much? You do. Make as much money as you want - provided you do not break any laws, beat up any labor leaders or conspire with other companies to prevent competition. >Should congress decide? No. Congress should pass laws to prevent restraint of trade - and then leave the market alone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #33 November 22, 2008 Quote>And just who decides how much is too much? You do. Make as much money as you want - provided you do not break any laws, beat up any labor leaders or conspire with other companies to prevent competition. [\reply] Which laws did the big 3 break? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,436 #34 November 22, 2008 >Which laws did the big 3 break? Various laws at various times. There have been a few judgments against GM for product liability, labor issues and antitrust laws; however, most such suits have been settled out of court. Why do you ask? Some specifics: R.M. Taylor Company won 21.5 million from GM for unfair trade practices Six people won over a billion in damages due to a defective GM product A worker won 2 million when he sued over unsafe working conditions Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #35 November 23, 2008 Quote>Which laws did the big 3 break? Various laws at various times. There have been a few judgments against GM for product liability, labor issues and antitrust laws; however, most such suits have been settled out of court. Why do you ask? Some specifics: R.M. Taylor Company won 21.5 million from GM for unfair trade practices Six people won over a billion in damages due to a defective GM product A worker won 2 million when he sued over unsafe working conditions I ask because you said companies should be allowed to be as greedy as they want without breaking laws, labor, or trade agreements. The big 3 were punished substantially for their wrongs and continued their business. Now, they're failing misserably. My point is that your suggestion of not allowing them to break laws is already in place and obviously did nothing to stop the current situation from arising. "Stopping the excesses," as you put it, is entirely different than not allowing people to break the law. How do you suggest the excesses are stopped? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,436 #36 November 23, 2008 >My point is that your suggestion of not allowing them to break laws >is already in place and obviously did nothing to stop the current situation >from arising. Right. Law abiding != profitable. >"Stopping the excesses," as you put it, is entirely different than not >allowing people to break the law. How do you suggest the excesses are >stopped? By enforcing anti-monopoly laws, requiring transparency in accounting and protecting workers from greed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 388 #37 November 24, 2008 Protecting the workers (unions) from their own excesses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,436 #38 November 24, 2008 >Protecting the workers (unions) from their own excesses? No. Protecting them from a management who locks the fire doors to prevent workers from taking unauthorized breaks. (For example.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,436 #34 November 22, 2008 >Which laws did the big 3 break? Various laws at various times. There have been a few judgments against GM for product liability, labor issues and antitrust laws; however, most such suits have been settled out of court. Why do you ask? Some specifics: R.M. Taylor Company won 21.5 million from GM for unfair trade practices Six people won over a billion in damages due to a defective GM product A worker won 2 million when he sued over unsafe working conditions Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #35 November 23, 2008 Quote>Which laws did the big 3 break? Various laws at various times. There have been a few judgments against GM for product liability, labor issues and antitrust laws; however, most such suits have been settled out of court. Why do you ask? Some specifics: R.M. Taylor Company won 21.5 million from GM for unfair trade practices Six people won over a billion in damages due to a defective GM product A worker won 2 million when he sued over unsafe working conditions I ask because you said companies should be allowed to be as greedy as they want without breaking laws, labor, or trade agreements. The big 3 were punished substantially for their wrongs and continued their business. Now, they're failing misserably. My point is that your suggestion of not allowing them to break laws is already in place and obviously did nothing to stop the current situation from arising. "Stopping the excesses," as you put it, is entirely different than not allowing people to break the law. How do you suggest the excesses are stopped? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,436 #36 November 23, 2008 >My point is that your suggestion of not allowing them to break laws >is already in place and obviously did nothing to stop the current situation >from arising. Right. Law abiding != profitable. >"Stopping the excesses," as you put it, is entirely different than not >allowing people to break the law. How do you suggest the excesses are >stopped? By enforcing anti-monopoly laws, requiring transparency in accounting and protecting workers from greed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #37 November 24, 2008 Protecting the workers (unions) from their own excesses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,436 #38 November 24, 2008 >Protecting the workers (unions) from their own excesses? No. Protecting them from a management who locks the fire doors to prevent workers from taking unauthorized breaks. (For example.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
