do you "less government" rhetoric lovers think there should be no financial

  • Thread starter Thread starter HybriDSM
  • Start date Start date
H

HybriDSM

Guest
I've been a registered Libertarian for 10 years. I differ with the party stance on several issues though. Ron and Rand Paul are strict pro-life. That flies in the face of Libertarianism.
 
Those were awful decisions but hey it was the 90s and less financial regulation was all the rage
 
We're not in a good spot. But leaving everything alone until the problem finds you is not wise. Checkout what happened in ww2.
 
net neutrality is going to be what ultimately increases costs because on demand providers will not be throttled by ISP and the masses of schmucks will watch on demand video 24/7 and bitch because everything is moving at 17kb/s

goodbye unlimited data plans and hello rationing.
 
i believe there should be some regulations, but there has to be a line drawn into the sand
 
not really. Depends on if you feel there is 1 or 2 lives affected. If there are 2 lives, you are required to protect the baby. Just like laws against child abuse, spousal abuse, etc... are fine with the Libertarian argument.
 
You do realize that corporations are made up of people, right? Those profits are distributed out to shareholders just like you and me...or your little granny sitting in her retirement home. Where do you think that money goes?
 
and by the way, I fully support pointing the finger at the banks who supplied the demand for crappy mortgages. But they're only a small part of the overall problem.

Reducing leverage means that unprofitable deals like a 600K neg-am to an assembly line worker will not get funded. The economy WILL shrink. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, because the alternative is a debt collapse like we are having now, but government intervention to prevent "over leveraging" is going to have the opposite effect in a very bad way.

IOW instead of providing cheap capital that ends up creating bubbles, government is going to make the cost of capital artificially expensive, and the economy will contract more than if everybody just stepped back, took a breath, and let the chips fall where they may.
 
I agree with both you and Off but if they are going to bring people in for the sake of employment why not make use of that personnel stateside and put them to work?
 
There's nothing wrong with protecting your ass by investing in both directions. It's called diverstification. Or do you want to go the enron direction ? invest everything you own in the company you work for




The issue was there was no real way to rate those bundles. They obviously weren't qualified for the AAA rating. If people knew they were rated lower, there wouldn't have been any legal issue. Invest at your own risk.
 
social security ?
medicare ?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
 
Back
Top