Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We would of profit more if we would of let the forest burn down, and thousans of new smaller trees grown up where these deadly giants used to grow. Now we got banks that are soo big and no smarter than they were when they ruined the economy
That argument doesnt even make sense because what you are proposing did indeed happen and new smaller trees did not grow up.
Hundreds of banks went bankrupt or where on the verge and they either died out or got bought up by larger more stable ones.
Industry is not comparable to trees in the forest, it is more like the animals that live in the forest, the bigger stronger ones survive.
And no, the government would not have made more profit if they had let them fail. By the definition of the word profit, they would have made none.
I do, Solyndria was not a bad investment at the time, the company had a plan that more than 50 people in both Administrations signed off on, then circumstances changed as did the market.
By the way, they never saw all of that 500 million dollars.
I really don't care. The fact is (1) the government shouldn't be involved in "investing" like this and (2) profitability of said action is irrelevant in trying to prove that the government should be involved.
Solyndra is a terrible scandal, because the private sector never ever puts money into ventures that end up failing:
In the private market, nobody is forced into poor, irresponsible investments. There is a difference in reckless spending in the public and private markets.
I really don't care. The fact is (1) the government shouldn't be involved in "investing" like this and (2) profitability of said action is irrelevant in trying to prove that the government should be involved.
Then that is what you should be arguing, but you didnt. You asked if we thought it was a good investment.
If you are going to argue one way or the other, stick to it, dont change it up when someone actually answers your question.
That argument doesnt even make sense because what you are proposing did indeed happen and new smaller trees did not grow up.
Hundreds of banks went bankrupt or where on the verge and they either died out or got bought up by larger more stable ones.
Industry is not comparable to trees in the forest, it is more like the animals that live in the forest, the bigger stronger ones survive.
And no, the government would not have made more profit if they had let them fail. By the definition of the word profit, they would have made none.
That is exactly what has been happening for decades -- big banks swallowing smaller ones, forming banks too big too fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan
I really don't care. The fact is (1) the government shouldn't be involved in "investing" like this and (2) profitability of said action is irrelevant in trying to prove that the government should be involved.
The purpose was to save the banking system so we didn't have a repeat of October 1929 and the Great Depression. The fact that the government not only recovered all the money but earned a profit is a very good thing, regardless of conservative sour grapes crying.
Then that is what you should be arguing, but you didnt. You asked if we thought it was a good investment.
If you are going to argue one way or the other, stick to it, dont change it up when someone actually answers your question.
Um, where did I change my argument? I asked a question, that none of you want to answer, and then said the government shouldn't be involved with these types of investments. That isn't an argument change at all.
Also, no one answered my question. No one has said "it was a bad investment." I want someone from the left to acknowledge that it was a bad investment. Really, is that so hard?
That is exactly what has been happening for decades -- big banks swallowing smaller ones, forming banks too big too fail.
The purpose was to save the banking system so we didn't have a repeat of October 1929 and the Great Depression. The fact that the government not only recovered all the money but earned a profit is a very good thing, regardless of conservative sour grapes crying.
No it really isn't. The government shouldn't be using tax money to invest in the stock of private companies. It shouldn't be taking risks like that.
That argument doesnt even make sense because what you are proposing did indeed happen and new smaller trees did not grow up.
Hundreds of banks went bankrupt or where on the verge and they either died out or got bought up by larger more stable ones.
Industry is not comparable to trees in the forest, it is more like the animals that live in the forest, the bigger stronger ones survive.
And no, the government would not have made more profit if they had let them fail. By the definition of the word profit, they would have made none.
The big banks got even bigger and were then protected in the future for their bad investments with Dodd/Frank. Now if they fail they simply take your money directly as opposed to using the government as the middle man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
