SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Here it comes !

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Here it comes ! (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=149719)

I know many of you think Im crazy when I talke about the slow march to socialisim but...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...302830_pf.html

Let the buisness fail, goverment should stay out of private industry.

I agree that the company should fail but it is being put under the guise of protecting the economy if the company fails. Seems to me perhaps they are over reaching the Constitutional bounds....much like Bush was blamed for.

Yes we all agree the company should fail. So then why don't they fail? Is governemnt chaining these executives and laborers to their desks and saying get to work? Are employees now on government payroll? That to me is a seizure.

Or are these companies welcoming government into their scheme of things? Lets say you are failing and your uncle comes to you says he can loan you the money to stay in business. Of course now in order to protect his investment you have to do certain things his way. What do you do say no thanks we want to fail? Or do you say sure uncle whatever you want just make the deposit to this account and keep going?

I do think business was being pressured into these situations but they always had the option to fail they just CHOOSE to rollover and take the bailout, it's easy money, just sell their souls to uncle to get.

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 1071084)

Are employees now on government payroll? That to me is a seizure.

Thats the plan.

Back in the day it was called bankruptcy. That is no longer in use. Just have the government give you money. It has become a sad reality.

"The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan."

1. I am assuming the article is referring to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board. (sigh, I remember when journalists actually did research)

2. Of these nine people (SecTreas, POTUS, and BoG) only one of them is elected. Seems like a whole lot of power to be invested in eight non-elected people of which seven of them are in an independent Agency.

3. Am I supposed to think that the FED is interested in the well-being of the citizens instead of the well-being of the banking industry? IMHO the FED is part of the problem, not the solution.

4. SecTreas needs only to consult the POTUS and to receive a recommendation from the FED BoG? Where is the oversight? Is there a requirement that the SecTreas has to follow the consultation of the POTUS/BoG?

In situations like this, I think the words of Lyndon Johnson are worth remembering.

“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”

The next step is to get control of the media

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...52N67F20090324

For gods sake, if the print media cant turn a profit let them fail !

A nation needs newspapers. Simple as. Decent article from last weeks' Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1649488.html

Obvious point is that a newspaper writer will encourage this. THey're all communists anyway.

Quote:

A recent study in The Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation found that one of the biggest single factors in reducing corruption in a country is "the free circulation of daily newspapers per person." Go to any country, and you'll find that the lower the newspaper circulation, the higher the corruption. If nobody's watching, anything goes.
As inky news-gatherers vanish, there is a vacuum that online journalists are not able to fill. With less advertising cash and no upfront payments from the readers at all, they have far less money to send out foreign correspondents, assign people to tricky investigations, or do the long slog that journalism so often requires. Look at the best political site, the Huffington Post, for which – in the interests of full disclosure – I should point out I write. As they are the first to admit, HufPo pays nothing to its contributors, and it knows what is happening in the world only because newspapers send out correspondents. If they vanish, blogs will be left in an airless cabin, talking only about themselves.
This doesn't have to happen. Many people in the increasingly frantic newspaper industry whisper about potential techno-solutions. Some say an easy system of online micro-payments – an i-Tunes for the news – will save us. Others invest hope in the Kindle, the hand-held device on which you can buy a newspaper. But we can't afford to wait for them to go mainstream: journalism's accumulated structures, brands and wisdom could be lost forever by then.
There is a better way. In an age of bailouts, several European governments are experimenting with ways to support the world of news-gathering so it will survive for the 21st century. The best plan has come from French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He has launched a programme where every French citizen, on her 18th birthday, will be given a year's free subscription to a newspaper of her choice. The effects are subtle. Many young readers will develop a newspaper habit. In turn, newspapers will compete harder to capture this lucrative guaranteed market, and make their product accessible and fresh. A benevolent whirl replaces the current death-spiral.
Of course there is a terrible danger in making newspapers dependent on the government's actions. Nobody wants that. But there are ways to avoid this trap. In 1971, the Swedish government set up a system of subsidies to newspapers allocated by an independent body on the basis of circulation and revenue data. Intriguingly, the Swedish press became more adversarial and critical after it was introduced, not less.

Federal Goverment now (evidently) has the power to fire private corporation employees.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090330/D978B77O0.html

Yep, I saw that this AM and wondered who the Treasury Department was going to appoint:hmmm:

Totally off topic, but the Southpark episode on the economy was hilarious (and oh too true).

"Wagoner said in a statement early Monday that he was asked to "step aside" during a meeting with Obama administration officials on Friday, and he consented."

I sure would like more information on this. This is a bit vague. Far be it for me to suggest that a reporter would deliberately write vague statements in an attempt to lead the reader to make an inference. No that would be wrong.

I wonder if we will ever get the full details on this conversation. :shifty:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake (Post 1074717)

Federal Goverment now (evidently) has the power to fire private corporation employees.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090330/D978B77O0.html

GM is a private corporation?

The administration said that if GM wanted to receive any more bailout money, Wagoner had to go. If they were still General Motors instead of Government Motors, then the White House would have no place to say he needs to go. But that's not the case.

See, that's the thing with going to the biggest guy in the prison for protection. He gets to make you his b*tch.

Goverment Motors.. thats a good one :rotfl:

Thats exactly the problem it reminds me of people whom borrow money from the mob.

Im sure Goverment motors will be a highly profitable sucessful orginization, espically with a bunch of lawyers with zero buisness background at the helm.

Oh thats right the adminstration "has no interest in running the company" :06: So uhhh why 'ask' the CEO to step aside?

Looks like Ford will be in the drivers seat now.

Wagoner was smart to go while the getting was good. No way will GM turn it around in the 60 days Obama has given them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1075126)

Wagoner was smart to go while the getting was good. No way will GM turn it around in the 60 days Obama has given them.

You know thats a very good point. Almost makes one wonder if there isnt a little collusion going on.

Im sure Wagoner is not going to be 'hurting' after his early retirement.