Ron Paul 10 yrs ago!!!! Looks like Dr. 'No' is actually Dr.' Know'.

[CityGirl]

Looks like Dr. 'No' is actually Dr.' Know'.
[video=youtube;m-8XYF0LLrk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8XYF0LLrk&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

 

[Minor Axis]

My impression is that what Ron Paul wants is for the U.S. to take it's medicine. According to this Newsweek article- Double Dip Depression, what made the Depression "great" was not the first event, it was how banks and the U.S. government reacted to it. I don't claim to be a monetary expert, but based on this article, I am suspect of Ron's Paul's approach to solve the problem. The author says that Ron Paul's solution would be the same thing they did back in 1931, with the same result. Anyone think that tearing apart the economy and starting from scratch is a good idea? The author contends that easing monetary policy is the way to prevent a 1931 style crisis.

Republican presidential wannabe Ron Paul warned that the Fed was “flooding the world with money created out of thin air.” Paul’s remedy for our financial ills is to go back on the gold standard.

People often forget that the Great Depression was like a soccer match—there were two halves. The first half was dominated by the aftermath of the 1929 U.S. stock-market crash. The second half, which made the depression truly “great” in both its depth and its extent, began with the European banking crisis of 1931.

 

[Accountable]

There's no need to tear apart the economy. Just let it collapse on its own. I can't remember - weren't you against the bailouts?
Had we kept corporations defined as property and kept their money from flooding Washington, we arguably wouldn't have this huge recession. We definitely wouldn't have allowed Bush to give away almost a trillion dollars out the front door while Bernanke poured additional trillions out the back door.

So yes, letting the propped up mega-corporations fall on their faces would have opened up huge opportunities for new businesses, spurring growth, employment, and competition - none of which have been accomplished using the Bush/Obama method.

 

[Minor Axis]

There's no need to tear apart the economy. Just let it collapse on its own.

An overall collapse, means tearing it apart with the most pain suffered at the bottom of the economic spectrum. Lost jobs, later found jobs at lower incomes, just what big business rejoices over. That is exactly what is behind strategic bankruptcies, something like American Airlines is currently doing. You see no pay reductions at the top of the economic spectrum, just bonuses for a job well done stomping the shit out of employees. This is why capitalism CAN suck. There is no requirement for those in charge to display any morality. The only worship going on is to the golden calf.

Yes, this is me whining. I don't see a good solution that won't result in pain. The question is which solution that guaruntees the pain across the spectrum? You know the GOPers and the wealthy will be fighting hard to hang on to what they got, making excuses why the wealthy deserve to be above the suffering faced by mortal humans.

Yes, I was against the wallstreet bailouts.

 

[Accountable]

The situation you describe in your first paragraph can only happen with gov't assistance. Take away the gov't assistance and you see the rich fall much farther.

Here's the thing about pay in a corporate structure: There are greedy, paranoid people infesting the top tiers all watching each other. They don't have each others' backs the way we peons do. The only way they would let one of their own get paid millions is if they themselves also get paid, meaning the company would need to make a profit. I don't pretend to know the calculations they go through to figure out a fair salary for the top executives, but I do pretend to understand greedy paranoia.

Does money trickle down? Only when a coin squeezes out of their tight grip. The time that the engine of a company gets paid well is when someone with a long-term plan is in charge. Large corporations don't go for the long-term. The greedy paranoid people think of their own personal long-term plans. That's why they are diversified throughout the market. No, just about the only time someone with a long-term plan is in charge is when the owner is in charge. Think of Wal-mart. Sam had the vision. His kids don't. Steve Jobs has the vision. We'll see about his successor. Same with Bill Gates, Oprah, etc. Their people get paid very well. Wal-mart employees used to be treated very well.

My point is that rescuing mega-corporations actually harms the working stiff. Allowing them to collapse opens the field for new companies, with new owners, owners who thing long-term and know that the only way to survive the long haul is to take care of your people.

 

[Minor Axis]

My point is that rescuing mega-corporations actually harms the working stiff. Allowing them to collapse opens the field for new companies, with new owners, owners who thing long-term and know that the only way to survive the long haul is to take care of your people.

I guess it depends on your perspective, if you are a spectator or the one losing your job. Don't confuse this for a statement of support for rescuing large corporations. In the long term, you could be right, but only if those with the power possess morality. If letting the corporation fail is a management orchestrated guerrilla tactic designed to knock down wages and take away benefits while they hand themselves bonuses, then there is no morality. In many (most?) cases that is what Chapter 13 bankruptcy is used for today.