|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
About the Bloomberg/Fed disclosure suit:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/racketeering-101-bailed-out-banks-threaten-systemic-collapse-if-fed-discloses-information
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/08/quelle-surprise-fed-uses-scare-tactics.html
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1379-Ah,-The-Game-Is-Afoot!.html
The "collapse" theme should remind us all about the threats thrown to get the 700b bailout.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2de2b29a-9271-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
| Quote: |
Overmighty finance levies a tithe on growth
By Benjamin Friedman
Published: August 26 2009 20:06 | Last updated: August 26 2009 20:06
The protracted debate over how to clean up after the financial crisis � and how to reform our accident-prone financial system to prevent another such episode � is stuck on the problem of how to regulate markets without undermining the benefits they bring.
What is sorely missing is any real discussion of what function our financial system is supposed to perform and how well it is doing that job � and, just as important, at what cost.
The crucial role of the financial system in a mostly free-enterprise economy is to allocate capital investment towards the most productive applications. The energetic growth and technological advance of the western economies suggest that our financial system has done this job pretty well over long periods. The role of start-up companies in this process � Apple, Microsoft, Google and many others � testifies to the success not just of our entrepreneurs, but our financial markets, too. The financially triggered Great Recession of 2008 blemishes this record but does not wipe it away.
Aside from the recession, it is important to ask what this once-admired mechanism costs to run. If a new fertiliser offers a farmer the prospect of a higher crop yield but its price and the cost of transporting and spreading it exceeds what the additional produce will bring at market, it is a bad deal for the farmer. A financial system, which allocates scarce investment capital, is no different.
The discussion of the costs associated with our financial system has mostly focused on the paper value of its recent mistakes and what taxpayers have had to put up to supply first aid. The estimated $4,000bn of losses in US mortgage-related securities are just the surface of the story. Beneath those losses are real economic costs due to wasted resources: mortgage mis-pricing led the US to build far too many houses. Similar pricing errors in the telecoms bubble a decade ago led to millions of miles of unused fibre-optic cable being laid.
The misused resources and the output foregone due to the recession are still part of the calculation of how (in)efficient our financial system is. What has somehow escaped attention is the cost of running the system.
One part of that cost is especially apparent just now as students return to universities. For years, much of the best young talent in the western world has gone to private financial firms. At Harvard more than a quarter of our recent graduates who have taken jobs have headed into finance. The same is true elsewhere. The extent to which employees in the US financial sector are more likely to have college educations than other workers has more than tripled over the last three decades.
At the individual level, no one can blame these graduates. But at the level of the aggregate economy, we are wasting one of our most precious resources. While some part of what they do helps to allocate our investment capital more effectively, much of their activity adds no economic value.
Perversely, the largest individual returns seem to flow to those whose job is to ensure that microscopically small deviations from observable regularities in asset price relationships persist for only one millisecond instead of three. These talented and energetic young citizens could surely be doing something more useful.
The fact that they are not is itself a waste of resources. But the reason they are not � what provides the incentive that attracts so many of our best students into finance � also bears on how well our financial system is serving our economy.
In the US, both the share of all wages and salaries paid by the financial firms and those firms� share of all profits earned have risen sharply in recent decades. In the early 1950s, the �finance� sector (not counting insurance and real estate) accounted for 3 per cent of all US wages and salaries; in the current decade that share is 7 per cent. From the 1950s to the 1980s, the finance sector accounted for 10 per cent of all profits earned by US corporations; in the first half of this decade it reached 34 per cent.
These wages and profits � and the office rents, utility bills, advertising and travel expenses � are all parts of the cost of running the mechanism that allocates our economy�s capital. To recall, what makes a new fertiliser a good deal for the farmer is not just that it delivers greater production per acre but that the added production is sufficient to buy the fertiliser and increase the farmer�s own return.
What makes a more efficient financial system worthwhile is not just that it allows us to achieve greater production and economic growth, but that the rest of the economy benefits. The more the financial system costs to run, the higher the hurdle. Does the increased efficiency our investment allocation system delivers meet that hurdle? We simply do not know.
Economic decisions are supposed to turn on weighing costs and benefits. It is time for some serious discussion of what our financial system is actually delivering to our economy and what it costs to do that.
The writer is an economics professor at Harvard University and author of The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth |
| Quote: |
New jobless claims and total benefit rolls drop
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER (AP) � 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON � The number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for jobless benefits dropped last week, and the number of people remaining on the rolls also fell, evidence that layoffs have eased.
Still, both figures remain above levels associated with a healthy economy, and analysts expect the unemployment rate to keep rising.
The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time unemployment claims fell to a seasonally-adjusted 570,000, down from an upwardly revised figure of 580,000 the previous week. Analysts expected a slightly larger drop to 565,000, according to Thomson Reuters. |
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gsU_mJONWPn1wElyi0bWwOlG6a8gD9AB7T9O0
You can bet the farm that this data will be "upwardly revised" soon enough.
Is it possible to lie the largest economy in the world back to health? Let's find out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
We haven't talked about Goldman's in a while:
| Quote: |
Tim Geithner claimed the government never did anything to benefit Goldman.
But then he also admitted that Washington had been "forced to do extraordinary things and, frankly, offensive things to help save the economy."
Nobody bothered to ask about those "offensive" things and whether they had anything to do with Goldman.
The most intriguing recent mention of Goldman occurred back in July when a former employee of that company named Sergey Aleynikov was arrested for stealing proprietary computer codes.
The Justice Department snapped right to it, saying in court: "The bank (Goldman) has raised the possibility that there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate the market in unfair ways."
Is that what Goldman was doing with the program? Was it manipulating the market in unfair ways? Why else would it have had such abilities?
Goldman briefly converted itself into a commercial bank last year so it could get taxpayer bailout money.
Yet even as it had our money in its pocket, Goldman continued high-risk trading that earned it a huge profit.
Even Goldman customers, I'm told, are annoyed about so-called "high velocity trading," in which Goldman's computers allow the firm to jump in front of trades coming from inside its own system.
Enough!
Both investors and other firms on Wall Street need to know what's going on, or the financial markets will never be considered fair again.
Some ambitious politician like Andrew Cuomo, New York State's Attorney General, might be up to giving Goldman a full investigation.
But this is really a job that Washington should do.
Either the Congressional Oversight Committee or the Justice Department should start doing their job. And if any investigator gets grief from the Treasury, then we will automatically know that there has been wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, investors should know they could be walking into the third act of a major drama.
And with the stock market in a mini-bubble since March, even without justification in economic fundamentals, be prepared if the curtain suddenly drops.
|
NY Post
High Velocity Trading, or High frequency Trading (HFT), is something that Congress should seriously investigate. But the HFT scam is too profitable for Goldman's and in turn it's profitable for the US Congress. So I have little faith in the way of there being any serious investigation of HFT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few
| Quote: |
Study Says World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few
Companies from US, UK and Australia have the most concentrated financial power.
WASHINGTON -- A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world's finances are in the hands of just a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide financial system's vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis.
A pair of physicists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich did a physics-based analysis of the world economy as it looked in early 2007. Stefano Battiston and James Glattfelder extracted the information from the tangled yarn that links 24,877 stocks and 106,141 shareholding entities in 48 countries, revealing what they called the "backbone" of each country's financial market. These backbones represented the owners of 80 percent of a country's market capital, yet consisted of remarkably few shareholders.
"You start off with these huge national networks that are really big, quite dense," Glattfelder said. �From that you're able to ... unveil the important structure in this original big network. You then realize most of the network isn't at all important."
The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. Paradoxically; these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely-held stocks in the world, with ownership of companies tending to be spread out among many investors. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston's analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market.
�If you would look at this locally, it's always distributed,� Glattfelder said. �If you then look at who is at the end of these links, you find that it's the same guys, [which] is not something you'd expect from the local view.�
Matthew Jackson, an economist from Stanford University in Calif. who studies social and economic networks, said that Glattfelder and Battiston's approach could be used to answer more pointed questions about corporate control and how companies interact.
"It's clear, looking at financial contagion and recent crises, that understanding interrelations between companies and holdings is very important in the future,� he said. "Certainly people have some understanding of how large some of these financial institutions in the world are, there's some feeling of how intertwined they are, but there's a big difference between having an impression and actually having ... more explicit numbers to put behind it."
Based on their analysis, Glattfelder and Battiston identified the ten investment entities who are �big fish� in the most countries. The biggest fish was the Capital Group Companies, with major stakes in 36 of the 48 countries studied. In identifying these major players, the physicists accounted for secondary ownership -- owning stock in companies who then owned stock in another company -- in an attempt to quantify the potential control a given agent might have in a market.
The results raise questions of where and when a company could choose to exert this influence, but Glattfelder and Battiston are reluctant to speculate.
"In this kind of science, complex systems, you're not aiming at making predictions [like] ... where the tennis ball will be at given place in given time," Battiston said. �What you're trying to estimate is � the potential influence that [an investor] has."
Glattfelder added that the internationalism of these powerful companies makes it difficult to gauge their economic influence. "[With] new company structures which are so big and spanning the globe, it's hard to see what they're up to and what they're doing,� he said. Large, sparse networks dominated by a few major companies could also be more vulnerable, he said. "In network speak, if those nodes fail, that has a big effect on the network." |
And why has this concentration of economic power happened? That's the big question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few
| Quote: |
Study Says World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few |
And why has this concentration of economic power happened? That's the big question. |
Now, where have I heard that before? Hmm...
Mises, do you get called a conspiracy theorist much? Actually, I think I've seen you hurl it a couple of times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few
| Quote: |
Study Says World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few |
And why has this concentration of economic power happened? That's the big question. |
Now, where have I heard that before? Hmm...
Mises, do you get called a conspiracy theorist much? Actually, I think I've seen you hurl it a couple of times. |
No. I don't get called that nor do I use it (or at any rate I haven't for a long while).
That economic power has become concentrated isn't a conspiracy but a demonstrable fact. The big question is why. Now, if your on the left you're likely to point to capitalism and if you're a capitalist pig (like me) you're likely to look at corporatism.
Like this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/cnbcs-parent-station-general-electric-q2s-top-lobby-spender-72-million-60-increase-q1
| Quote: |
Among the various pro-cyclical, bull market economic and financial initiatives that GE lobbied for are the following:
* HR 3068, TARP for Main Street Act of 2009
* HJ res 3, Relating to the disapproval of obligation under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
* SJ res 2, Relating to the disapproval of obligation under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
* HR 384 TARP Reform and Accountability Act
* S 414, Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009
* HR 627, Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009
* HR 1606, New Automobile Voucher Act of 2009
* HR 1106, The Helping Families Save their Homes Act of 2009
* HR 786, To make permanent the temporary increase in deposit insurance coverage
* HR 1214, The Payday Loan Reform Act of 2009
* HR 1728, The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009
* S 664, The Financial System Stabilization and Reform Act of 2009
|
The big players get the rules changed for them by buying government. Using a strict definition of a conspiracy what GE and their bought members of government do is conspiratorial except that it isn't all that secret. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
AIG is at 50 bucks. The company is broke. No matter how you look at it, AIG is broke. And it was one of the most heavily traded stocks last week.
| Quote: |
American International Group Inc.�s equity is currently worth zero, whatever manic depressive Mr. Market may say today. It is likely to remain zero based on AIG�s own analysis of its future over the next few years. In fact, its obligations to the U.S. Treasury would trade at a discount today. The only reason AIG�s stock should trade above zero today is if you believe crony capitalism will fund the birth of an AIG clone�in other words if you believe AIG�s future will be a rigged game.
Today�s Wall Street Journal reported that AIG has changed its timetable for selling assets. That was to be expected, because if it sold its assets quickly, shareholders would get nothing, and the government would not get paid in full. It is also AIG�s probable future scenario, albeit the losses may be mitigated.
AIG�s (nyse:AIG) new Chief Executive Robert Benmosche �is willing to wait as long as three years to spin off stakes in two multibillion-dollar foreign units.� He�s waiting for a �fair� price, and he admits that if he sells to soon (or doesn�t get a �fair� price), there will be losers all around.
Benmosche�s own analysis shows AIG �wouldn�t be able to repay the government even if it sold everything.� His strategy is loss mitigation, not a return to AIG�s salad days.
Even the U.S. Treasury, not known for its transparency or candor during this crisis, wrote that its AIG investment is highly speculative.
AIG seems disappointed that its Asia focused life insurance unit, American International Assurance Co. (�AIA�), might only raise more than $5 billion as estimated last spring, especially since AIG valued it at $20-$40 billion in February 2009. AIG is also disappointed with valuations for American Life Insurance Co (�Alico�).
As Mr. Benmosche pointed out: �If the U.S. government doesn�t continue to support AIG, we will fail. We have no right to use the government funding to make a profit; that is inappropriate.�
If the government�s new policy is to be long-term distressed private equity investors in entities like AIG, then the U.S. Treasury should get a share of the profits. The same goes for some former investment banks�now banks�with which we are long-term business partners. We support them with cheap funding and low borrowing costs due to our guarantees and ongoing liquidity support. We should ask for a large share of the profits, if any. |
http://dailybail.com/home/aig-bubble-irrational-exuberance-by-janet-tavakoli.html
I am impressed at how far the state has been able to push this string. It is no small accomplishment to take a company that retarded children know is completely bankrupt and have it trade at 50$. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few
| Quote: |
Study Says World's Stocks Controlled by Select Few |
And why has this concentration of economic power happened? That's the big question. |
Now, where have I heard that before? Hmm...
Mises, do you get called a conspiracy theorist much? Actually, I think I've seen you hurl it a couple of times. |
No. I don't get called that nor do I use it (or at any rate I haven't for a long while).
That economic power has become concentrated isn't a conspiracy but a demonstrable fact. |
Absolutely. It doesn't really matter what one calls it, as long as it is recognized for what it is. The problem is that some will dismiss that demonstrable fact (and sometimes everything else I say) by calling it a "conspiracy theory" to avoid dealing with the unpleasant realities it forces them to face.
Things will be fine if people will just vote right in the next election.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:41 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
[quote]
Honestly, this is one of the lamest TED lectures I've seen. The beatbox dude wins the high prize.
| Quote: |
The greatest (non wartime) misallocation of resources since the Great Wall (as HK has said). And of late suburbs are a result of lobbying by large home builders who push muni governments to expand development boundaries and draft zoning legislation that favors low-density development rather than mixed-used, mid-high density environments. In the US, these are primarily Toll Brothers and Lennar. Both firms will go broke without a bailout, which is why they're now begging for one:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-for-housing-market-is.html
Though suburbs in the USA have their post-war origins in the National Housing Act/Federal Housing Administration. |
Yup. So then, we are left with your evanescent assertions about the free market v. "corporatism".
You describe "suburbia" as a "crime" committed by Tallman Bros.
I think it would be fair to say that "suburbia", as you describe, covers all 50 states in one form or another. This is particularly apt if you're going to blame a company for suburbia. That is (with references to the post-WWII housing act) what you're trying to insinuate, is it not?
Fair enough, now do explain this in regard to free marketism as opposed to corporatism.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Then, follow it up with your description of Aetna and healthcare in the massive crime of suburbia?
I'll just repost the only thing I've ever posted about America medical insurance firms.
I wrote:
Quote:
That's the question, right? Where does the quality come from? Whatever the answer to that is, you don't want to kill it. But I'm confident it isn't insurance firms that add so much value (I suspect the opposite is true) so then what?
Many medical breakthroughs are government funded. Major universities use government funds for research. Competition between hospitals doesn't exist really. Different hospitals cater to difference income groups in the big cities.
A radical, hyper-capitalist opinion. I know.
Now, if you insist on following me around manufacturing my opinions in your drunken mind, I'll just place you back in my Mondo Pita delete box and you won't receive any replies at all. So, like a child, you have to decide if you are going to change your behaviour or not. |
Good, so would you recommend that Canada change its healthcare system to that of the USA's? If so, why? Wouldn't it be a great victory for the free market if Europe and other nations embraced insurance companies over their own, as you describe, "free ride"?
As a Canadian, do you feel your heathcare is a "free ride"?
Or does that only apply to Europe?
Now, I apologize for disrupting your Lou Dobbs thread for CELTA holders, but I promise not to be a hit-and-run participant here. So, please, don't pussyfoot around the above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
To boil the loony hit and run down, I can see two questions:
q1 Is suburbia a result of state or private action
Both. Toll Bro's and others have pushed policy to an extreme, primarily by lobbying for zoning that favors their business model.
Toll Brother is likely the worst of them all, but not alone.
| Quote: |
| to blame a company |
I do hope you don't teach reading. I didn't blame "a" company but "primarily" two companies. Had I said exclusively Toll, then your reply would have made sense. I didn't even write "exclusively Toll and Lennar". There are national, regional and local development firms. Toll Len are active where suburbia is worst, like Southern California, Texas and the south east.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/oct/09/toll_bros_testing_boundaries/?local_news
The city draws a line in the sand and Toll Bros lobbies to get the line moved. This is repeated all over North America.
q2 Am I opposed to the Canadian system of medical policy
I've long supported universal health insurance. I do not think the current Canadian system is ideally structured. And the Canadian failings are reflected in various global surveys of health systems.
You should notice, if you teach reading, that I don't use the phrase "free market". That is a platitude. There are few free markets (farmers markets might be one actually 'free market'). Like "Free trade" the use of "free" is misplaced. I use the phrase "the market", which includes the limitations placed on commerce by the state that are included in prices and economic calculation. The market is able to function just fine within a sensible regulatory framework. That's your econ 101 lesson for today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I do hope you don't teach reading. I didn't blame "a" company but "primarily" two companies. Had I said exclusively Toll, then your reply would have made sense. I didn't even write "exclusively Toll and Lennar". There are national, regional and local development firms. Toll Len are active where suburbia is worst, like Southern California, Texas and the south east. |
Oooh, hope I don't teach reading, eh?
Here is what you said:
| Quote: |
| CNN says Toll Brothers (a construction company.. the bastards behind the massive crime of suburbia and who bribe every city council in the USA) |
Now, you can try to parse that into two companies or mitigating words like "primarily" or "worst", but the above is what you said.
What we're missing here is an explanation as to how you delineate the above as corporate and market actions. Specifically, if they can freely lobby for zoning, then what is your "market" solution? That municipalities don't govern zoning? Then who does? You want business out of government? I'm missing your solution.
| Quote: |
| I've long supported universal health insurance. |
You mean the "free ride" that Europe is on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSSP47327420090831
| Quote: |
Beijing's derivative default stance rattles banks
* State-owned firms may default on commodity hedges - report
* Bankers dismayed, confused by report; seek more details
* Lawyers question legality of the move
* Traders suspect lurking losses may have prompted warning (Adds analysts comments)
By Eadie Chen and Chen Aizhu
BEIJING, Aug 31 (Reuters) - A report that Chinese state-owned companies will be allowed to walk away from loss-making commodity derivative trades provoked anger and dismay among investment bankers on Monday as they feared it may set a damaging precedent.
The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, the regulator and nominal shareholder for state-owned enterprises (SOEs), told six foreign banks that SOEs reserved the right to default on contracts, Caijing magazine quoted an unnamed industry source as saying in an article published on Saturday.
While the details of the report could not be confirmed, it was Monday's hot topic in financial circles from Shanghai to Singapore as commodity marketers feared that companies holding underwater price hedges could simply renege on the deals, costing banks millions of dollars in profit.
The warning from SASAC follows a series of measures from Beijing this year to crack down on the sale of derivative products by foreign banks to Chinese enterprises, principally big consumers, who bought protection against higher prices last year only to watch the market collapse -- leaving them with losses.
While many companies including top airlines have come clean on the losses, some analysts fear another wave may follow.
"I wouldn't be surprised if more state firms emerge with big derivatives trading losses, otherwise SASAC wouldn't come out with such a radical move," said a Hong Kong-based derivatives analyst, who like most other industry officials and bankers declined to be named due to the high sensitivity of the issue.
A SASAC media official said on Monday that he was waiting for the "relevant department's" official comment before he can clarify to media. A government official said that the Bureau of Financial Supervision and Evaluation under SASAC was handling the issue. The official declined to be named and did not elaborate.
Spokespersons at Goldman Sachs (GS.N) and UBS (UBSN.VX) declined comment, and media officials at Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and JPMorgan (JPM.N) were not immediately available for comment. All are major global providers of commodity risk management.
No bank were named in the Caijing report. The SASAC media officer also declined to identify any specific banks.
"It's a handful of companies who are being encouraged by regulators to re-negotiate," said a second banking source. "It's outrageous, but it's China, so everyone is treading very carefully." |
Good idea.
Larry Summers spent several months before being hired by Hope and Change peddling these contracts to the Chinese. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:19 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Right, so...."the market" is really to blame for the crime/tragedy of suburbia?
Or, wait, is that "corporatism"?
q1
If "corporatism" is to blame for the crime/tragedy of suburbia, then what did "the market" have in mind as an alternative? Please explain the difference.
q2
Are you getting a "free ride" on healthcare? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/farewell-america-switzerland
| Quote: |
| From Switzerland With No Love - Wegelin Bank Says Goodbye |
In the link there is an 8 page essay on the US. Wegelin is a bank for people who don't want to have it known they're dealing with a bank, so their comments have to be taken with that in mind. But the general theme is solid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:35 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Right, so...."the market" is really to blame for the crime/tragedy of suburbia?
Or, wait, is that "corporatism"?
q1
If "corporatism" is to blame for the crime/tragedy of suburbia, then what did "the market" have in mind as an alternative? Please explain the difference.
q2
Are you getting a "free ride" on healthcare? |
Pansy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And then there are those who this piece collectively describes as the "Failure Caucus"..
http://www.slate.com/id/2226921/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
