SC gov: "We're moving close to a 'savior-based' economy"

[ThaBigP]

Damn. And I though *I* could be sarcastic. I'll have to start using that line.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...based-economy/

[arglebargle]

Because those big corporations have shown they are so much better?

The big companies are not interested in any sort of real free market thing. They love big government, because it allows them to fix the game and socialize the losses. While walking away with the bonuses.

[ThaBigP]

Originally Posted by arglebargle

Because those big corporations have shown they are so much better?

The big companies are not interested in any sort of real free market thing. They love big government, because it allows them to fix the game and socialize the losses. While walking away with the bonuses.

YES! The free market does not reward fiscal clumsiness at best, and outright corruption at worst. It has its own way of dealing with the problem...failure. We're preventing that from happening...effectively institutionalizing fiscal clumsiness at best, and outright currption at worst.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Originally Posted by ThaBigP

YES! The free market does not reward fiscal clumsiness at best, and outright corruption at worst. It has its own way of dealing with the problem...failure. We're preventing that from happening...effectively institutionalizing fiscal clumsiness at best, and outright currption at worst.

I'm scratching my head as to why GM and Chrysler didn't fail. You seem to be justifying the institutionalization of corporate corruption by saying the system punishes them. When in fact, when it comes to the biggest corporations and the most corrupt; they don't do anything.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by CowboyMcCoy

I'm scratching my head as to why GM and Chrysler didn't fail. You seem to be justifying the institutionalization of corporate corruption by saying the system punishes them. When in fact, when it comes to the biggest corporations and the most corrupt; they don't do anything.

if needing billions of $$$ in loans isn't a sign of failure, what would be?

[ThaBigP]

Originally Posted by CowboyMcCoy

I'm scratching my head as to why GM and Chrysler didn't fail. You seem to be justifying the institutionalization of corporate corruption by saying the system punishes them. When in fact, when it comes to the biggest corporations and the most corrupt; they don't do anything.

To second Ice's reply, their lack of failure was due to Uncle Sam handing them bridge loans. To keep them afloat. In spite of their insolvency. And I don't see how you think I'm justifying institutionalized corruption - I actually am quite against it. In the free market, corrupt (or merely incompetent) companies fail...precisely because they're *allowed* to fail. Or put another way, a company teetering on the brink of failure through a combination of corruption and/or incompetence will not be bailed out with taxpayer money, but will be forced to sink or swim on the merits of its own balance sheet.