the failure of capitalism

[Hraklea]

Capitalism is about free markets. Free markets is about ALLOWING BANKS TO FAIL.

A lot of people seem to have problems to understand this. Saving banks from bankrupt is not "good because then people will have their money". It is bad because once the banks know they will be saved from bankrupt, they will do whatever they want with your money. Just like they did.

[Wikiy]

I guess the people who pays for those services and don't use them feel screwed over.

They don't feel screwed over because they know it's in the best interest of the country itself to have, for example, properly educated students and to have as many of them as possible.

[Dezerte]

It's funny, because here in Sweden we let one of our big car manufactures go bankrupt (Saab).

[mvaliz]

A lot of people seem to have problems to understand this. Saving banks from bankrupt is not "good because then people will have their money". It is bad because once the banks know they will be saved from bankrupt, they will do whatever they want with your money. Just like they did.

...with massive restrictions and regulations being imposed upon them as a result so that it doesn't happen again, not to mention that they have to pay-back the bailout too - and nobody wants debt, even a bank.

I'm MORE than certain they don't want to do that again. If they do that again, the next stage would be to have them replaced from their jobs entirely (which, IMO, should've happened more the first time around).

[Wikiy]

I am from Norway, and sure the government screws you over. Need a CT scan or something to check for cancer? SURE! Free as the air, you just have to wait 6-8 months.

And what, you want me to believe that you don't have private medical firms there as an alternative?

You claim that these basic necessities are free, this is a myth. Have you ever been on holiday to Norway? Bet you havent, going out for a SINGLE pint will cost you 10-14 euros depending on where you go.

How is a pint a basic necessity? Besides, Norwegians make outrageous amounts of money doing even the most menial labor imaginable, so that kind of price doesn't surprise me at all.

[Grummgug]

Democrats lied when they said Bush went to war for oil, and then Obama goes to war for oil in Libya...

Democrats lied when they said trickle-down economics doesn't work, and then employ trickle-down economics when Obama bails out GM with billions, bails out banks with billions, bails out the stock market with billions, and doesn't give ordinary citizens who are deep in debt any money, claiming all the money he gave to the wealthy and powerful will trickle down as justification.

Democrats lied when they said we should protect the filibuster in the Senate in 2005, only to ram thru Obamacare by sidestepping the filibuster and now pushing to eliminate the filibsuter themselves in 2013.

And....SURPRISE.....democrats are lying when they say we should re-regulate the banks......if you elect them, they will not do any such thing.

SURPRISE......democrats feed you pablum that capitalism has failed...to win your vote...but if elected, they will act on the truth that capitalism works....and leave it intact....

[Hraklea]

They don't feel screwed over because they know it's in the best interest of the country itself to have, for example, properly educated students and to have as many of them as possible.

If that's the case, they would donate their money to provide education for the poor with or without government.

[Nadiru]

As opposed to being poor and never being able to afford a CT scan to begin with.

If the scan is too late to pick up a small something before it turns into a big something, that becomes incredibly expensive very quickly. I've got a much better reason for the government to stay out of the healthcare business: It allows the government to put a defined dollar amount on human life. When you've got a budget-per-person that you have to work with, you start finding all sorts of innovative ways to prevent harm from coming to your citizenry. This can be most visible in the UK, where it's effectively illegal to defend yourself, because that would mean the government has to cover two people going to the hospital, instead of one.

[Mayhem]

A lot of people seem to have problems to understand this. Saving banks from bankrupt is not "good because then people will have their money". It is bad because once the banks know they will be saved from bankrupt, they will do whatever they want with your money. Just like they did.

if i´m not mistaking this wouldn´t be possible if glass steagall hasn´t been repealed?

[petej0]

...with massive restrictions and regulations being imposed upon them as a result so that it doesn't happen again, not to mention that they have to pay-back the bailout too - and nobody wants debt, even a bank.

I'm MORE than certain they don't want to do that again. If they do that again, the next stage would be to have them replaced from their jobs entirely (which, IMO, should've happened more the first time around).

Or they can just go bankrupt and other banks learn that they must implement sound banking practices on their own or follow suit. You see banks did have sound home loan practices until government regulated them and said you must make more home loans to subprime borrowers. We all know what happened here.

[IstharaEU]

And what, you want me to believe that you don't have private medical firms there as an alternative?

Sure you do have private medical firms here, but they struggle to survive because of tight regulations. And if you decide to go for the private alternative, you've still paid for the governmental service, hence you are forced to pay for two services. This means that the competition between them are ehm...pretty much non-existent.

How is a pint a basic necessity? Besides, Norwegians make outrageous amounts of money doing even the most menial labor imaginable, so that kind of price doesn't surprise me at all.

You fail to see my point. The reason the pint is so expensive is because the price of it consist of 95% taxes. The same thing goes for everything here, a car costs 2-3 times the original price. You see, making a lot of money does not equal the same increase in prices. Because if it did, there'd be no point in making more money, right?

[Dezerte]

If the scan is too late to pick up a small something before it turns into a big something, that becomes incredibly expensive very quickly. I've got a much better reason for the government to stay out of the healthcare business: It allows the government to put a defined dollar amount on human life. When you've got a budget-per-person that you have to work with, you start finding all sorts of innovative ways to prevent harm from coming to your citizenry. This can be most visible in the UK, where it's effectively illegal to defend yourself, because that would mean the government has to cover two people going to the hospital, instead of one.

You are able to get a doctor meeting the same day or next day, and they will then make an evaluation of your health. If they suspect something serious like cancer, you'll be put ahead in the queue.

If you're not happy with that decision you can always go to private healthcare. Now if we didn't have NHS and you were poor or strapped for money, you'd be fucked.

[petej0]

if i´m not mistaking this wouldn´t be possible if glass steagall hasn´t been repealed?

Glass Steagall made it possible for banks to spread into investments. Banks giving out home loans to people who had no business owning a home is all a product of government involvement.

[Hraklea]

...with massive restrictions and regulations being imposed upon them...

They had restriction and regulations before the crysis. It didn't helped.

[Xarkan]

Democrats lied when they said trickle-down economics doesn't work, and then employ trickle-down economics when Obama bails out GM with billions, bails out banks with billions, bails out the stock market with billions, and doesn't give ordinary citizens who are deep in debt any money, claiming all the money he gave to the wealthy and powerful will trickle down as justification.

Trickle down is irrelevant when it comes to banks. Allowing banks to fail with no security system in place can cause people to loose everything for no fault of their own and with no capacity to prevent it. Also.. While domino theories are usually silly rubbish a domino theory might come into effect as people loose faith in banks capacity to give their saved money any protection and thus take their money back to the mattress, this could lead to banks being forced to aggressively get rid of large amounts of stocks and in the end help the entire house of cards to come tumbling down

An absence of bank bail outs would be potentially dangerous and down right irresponsible

[Hyve]

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism and all forms of Government fail then they're the entire composition of the nations governance. You need a healthy mixture of it all, to be a totally successful nation.

You need a leader who has the fascist strength to actually lead the nation.

You need the capitalist economy that promotes industry, hard working and wealth.

You need the socialist view on providing support and health care to those in need of it.

You need the communist view when ... well, maybe not communism then

[IstharaEU]

Trickle down is irrelevant when it comes to banks. Allowing banks to fail with no security system in place can cause people to loose everything for no fault of their own and with no capacity to prevent it. Also.. While domino theories are usually silly rubbish a domino theory might come into effect as people loose faith in banks capacity to give their saved money any protection and thus take their money back to the mattress, this could lead to banks being forced to aggressively get rid of large amounts of stocks and in the end help the entire house of cards to come tumbling down

An absence of bank bail outs would be potentially dangerous and down right irresponsible

Please give me a good reason why people should just put they're money in a bank without caring about the stability of the bank. Isn't it your own responsibility to give your money to a responsible bank?
Of course you should let failing businesses go bankrupt. If you don't you have to take money away from the successful and productive businesses and give to the ones that lose money, which will give you a hell of a bubble. And in the end, the reason the banks caused such a bubble before the financial crisis was that the FED lowered the interest rates to 0%, now THAT is down right irresponsible and is why no government should attempt to manipulate the economy.

[Grummgug]

You notice, democrats don't scream "capitalism has failed!" in 2009 when they hold the white house and a supermajority in congress. No, no, no, no.... In that situation, they just quietly go about their business, and bail out capitalism as much as possible...

Suddenly, the GOP has the House....and midterms are coming up next year....democrats have an election to win...and now suddenly its about "capitalism has failed!"

Seriously, you have to be a moron to not see this as purely political hackery to win an election and nothing more. Certainly not the formation of any sort of policy they would enact. This is designed to be discarded the wednesday after the election victory...

[Mayhem]

Glass Steagall made it possible for banks to spread into investments. Banks giving out home loans to people who had no business owning a home is all a product of government involvement.

but didn´t the banks put a high rating on those bad investments to sell them for profit?

[Hraklea]

Allowing banks to fail with no security system in place can cause people to loose everything for no fault of their own...

First, banks will be less reckless once they are aware that they will actually fail.
Second, if you gave "everything" to a bad bank, it is your fault. I think you're exagerating a little.