Are too big to fail banks coming to an end(Winds changing in Wash.)

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ending-too-big-to-fail-20130403#ixzz2Q1BvrdAn
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook


I'm not exactly a glass is half full kind of guy, but I will applaude the effort at the very least.

What are the chances we actually see too big to fail broken up?

Also:

 

bump...

 

The only way too big to fail will end is if we take the economy completely out of the hands of private banks and create a public center for the economy. As long as we rely on the FED, these banks will always endanger the economy if they fail.

 

bump...

 

Agreed, they will simply shift power from one side to the other. Someone will still be too big to fail, it's just a matter of who.

 

Alright, out of curiousity, how familiar are you with Bernie Sander's platform, and could you accept him as a progressive libertarian with similiar platforms to mine?

 

Vaguely familiar with his stance. To be honest, most of my attention has been focusing in on things that most people are talking about (IE: Gun control & gay marriage). If it's a hot topic, I'm probably read all about it.

Moreover, I think a progressive libertarian can be a good start. However, I still find some of the views a bit more leaning towards government reliance than the backs of hard working citizens. For instance, Bernie Sander's supports government funding for transportation. Why not look into just privatizing the roads? If the case is to be made to create jobs, what better way to create jobs than to give it to private companies in America and get government hands off of it. It continues to leave the door open for more corruption & more waste. However, these are just my views and my beliefs.

In the end, I think folks with a libertarianism mindset is a great start for the country. If we have more folks respecting the rights of others, I don't see how it can possibly be a bad thing. Of course we can debate semantics (Like the one I just noted above) and where I would discuss my view points for varying changes to his policies. Although, my views are libertarianism first, not libertarianism with conservatism mixed in with it, like Rand Paul (Sorry Rand, you're just not like your dad, Ron, in my eyes).

 

I don't think I can ever get over his support of Romney, but the filibuster over drones was a good start.

I think Sanders believes that energy independance, and public transportation are tied together, which may explain this position.

I know Sanders calls himself a socialist, but when I hear him talk about Wall Street, I hear a libertarian talking.

 

Not only that, he supported Romney over his father, kind of a big no-no for me. Not saying it's not right to not support your dad but if you wish to take on more of his stances, the least you should do is support your own position, not someone like Romney.

Bah, the filibuster was a mere moot point so he could flap his hands around and say 'HEY, I'm a Paul too!'. To me, he's got a lot of work to do and with his 'Life At Conception Act' he's proposing, he's not making a good impression in my eyes.

Like more inventions, we don't need government involved to provide them. On one of the other threads, I debated this very thing and 90% of inventions in the world were designed by private companies & 10% was through government funded projects. Even the great internet, that government wishes to say they invented. In all actuality, government started the process, but fell terribly short of accomplishing it. They simply built a centralized network that worked for them. It took private organizations to fully expand it and allow it to grow the way it did. I see no reason why government needs to play a role in either of those ventures (Energy and/or transportation).

Labels/terminology has gotten so convoluted, I don't even know what the hell any of it means anymore. What I do know is that he relies a bit too much of government to prop up a system. Granted, his ideals are in the right place, I just don't know how far he's willing to go to truly limit the power of government. With him still wanting to have government funding for various projects, it invites too much bad deeds for my liking. I want a libertarian to help us out, I don't want one that's going to set us up for another failed attempt at fixing our country.

If libertarians only have one shot at making an impression, it needs to be a damn good one.

 

I disagree with this. I don't believe in the agenda 21 stuff as a fact, or the DHS purchases, but their is something off with this picture, especially when the AG's first response wasn't hell no, we don't have the right to execute an American citizen without trial.

I think you would find government subsidies behind every major industry innovation out there. Now whether it was a direct subsidy with the intent of developing the product, or like the hidden 83 Billion subsidy to the major banks in this article is a different question.

I'm not advocating that NASA needs to bring us the next innovation, but the US highways act was 100% neccassary, and a great investment. Outside the army corp of engineers, it was publically funded, and privately executed.

Government funding doesn't have to mean corruption, but as long as we allow campaign finance and lobbying to exist as they do, it will be the end result. So if the assumption is that we can't fix the root cause of the problem in incentivising corruption, then you are correct, government funding result is a fore gone conclusion.

Hmmm, interesting thought. The first counter point that pops into my head, is my female friends that are looking for the perfect guy, and still single, and getting older by the day.

Not sure which side I fall on here, which is what makes it such an interesting thought.

 

The first bailout was just a practice run. You ain't seen NOTHIN' yet.

 

I think the problem might be that our economy is simply on life-support. The US is holding the Middle East hostage in a sense. If they can control the ME oil and force other nations to buy in dollars, they can keep them from abandoning the dollar and as long as they can no escape the dollar, they cannot escape the economic pressure the US is able to exert through it.

This is the reason why the US government forces it's will, regardless of legality. They must. Under no condition can they allow autonomy to the Middle East or anyone...anyone...to make a significant display of shifting from the US dollar or else the game of monopoly is over for them...us. I can bet every last bone in my body there will be more peace wars or peace-maintenance campaigns to come. Because like a lover with a short rod, they don't really have an inch to spare and so they have to apply increasing force over every part of the world. We are, in effect, forcing the world to continue to acknowledge the US dollar, and all that you see is the US attacking any sign of independence or abandonment.

 

I'm not sure if China's currency rigging, or our protection of our status as the world's reserve currency started first.

The petro dollar is one of the key pieces of the equation for sure though.

 

The dollar will be dumped summarily.

 

Agreed but I don't necessarily think it was solely because of those concerns. Maybe all of us have these type of concerns, but I think his was mainly riding the coat tail of his father, more than anything else.

Even still, it's not the government whose funding it, it's us. If we allow individuals to determine what's best, where is the harm in that? In regards to the subsidies or any type of government funding, we can probably even dive into malinvestments as well. If folks don't want the innovation, it simply goes away, as it should. If government is propping it up with our tax dollars, whose to state which innovation will lead us to a better place into the future?

Sidebar, NASA is teaming up with a private organization called 'SpaceX'. Space exploration will continue with or without government.

Maybe it was needed, but why did the government need to fund it? According to Wikipedia, it would've costed $425 billion dollars in 2006 inflation. Even if we take the cost of the system, $25 billion, at the time of it's inception, 1956 over 10 years, it's still a big portion of money for that time. As such, tax payers funded this project and then tolls were collected on various roads to pay for the road and maintain it. So not only did tax payers stand up the road, they had to pay back the cost through tolls, and then continue to pay for the maintenance. Pardon me but you find this 100% necessary? I disagree with that.

If the government would've stated 'We need to build this intersection of highways', they could've just brought the private companies into the initial talks. From there, allow the private companies to fork out their own money and begin to collect tolls on it. This way, the tax dollars weren't used and if I didn't wish to drive on the roads, I wouldn't be propping them up. Now since government got involved, I have no choice but to fund it, one way or the other. With privatization of our roads/highways, we, as the consumer, can choose what roads we wish to travel on. It's just like when you go to store to buy something, you have choices. With government funding of roads, you have no choice.

Fair enough but with government funding, it leads to corruption, waste, and fraud. With so much money just sitting in a pool somewhere, folks will try to get their hands on it anyway they can. As such, the more money will allow the government to spend, the more we're going to see it used for bad things. Greedy people will always want more. If government has the most, that's where folks attention is going to be.

I've discussed this point on another board. Very valid thought, by the way. However, if we continue to support every iteration of policy maker, we're simply waiting for a re-hashed version of the same BS we've always gotten. Ron Paul wasn't a pure libertarian, by any stretch of the imagination. However, he was definitely a once in a lifetime policy maker and one we're probably never going to see again. As such, we're now either going to have to face the reality of accepting the same re-hashed politician, or wait for the one again.

In my case, I don't see why I need to keep supporting a re-hash of the same garbage. Look at the masses that marched step for step behind Obama. He was the champion for change and everyone bought into that philosophy. In my eyes, I've yet to see something different, if he's the man for 'Change'. I'll wait for the right one. It may never come. However, at least I know I didn't continue to prop up the failed system that we see today.

 

I'll believe this when I see a Asian middle class emerge.

Right now the whole world economy falls apart without US consumption.

If the dollar is dumped tomorrow, WWIII starts the day after, and both by plan.


Edit: I'll have to get back to you tomorrow Libertarian. Good post's, I don't get alot of real back and forth here.

 

It's the ends justify the means mentality. It doesn't really matter how its done, just get it done. The US has become the terrorist organization of the world. We're no longer looking for peace. Look up defense contractors, you'll be surprised at the massive amount of defense contractors that are out there (IE: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc). These folks only want more wars so the US will continue to buy up more arms so they can continue to lobby for more defense spending.

The system that's been built is eventually going to crash. It's simply a matter of when it's going to crash, what parts of the system are going to crash (If not all), and what are the effects of the crash going to be. Folks who don't believe this is coming, they're simply going to get a rude awakening when the time comes. I only hope/wish more folks will see the impending onslaught rather than continue to stay in denial.

 

All countries do a fair amount of currency rigging. That's ancient in nature, but countries have tried to get away from the dollar for some times now. Decades. It's the reason why you keep hearing little blips about nations flirting with a gold standard pop up here and there. The US doesn't have and cash, but it has a lot of arsenal and I think it just pulled off a stick up of the world economy.

It's a little interesting. I wonder how it will play out in the rest of my lifetime...

 

One wonders...

In either case, I doubt people will be able to do much. As long as the police and military side with the top, they have no chance. And even if they did and you managed to topple all the evil people at the top, it would just be replaced with more people who might even start of good, but eventually would turn as corrupt as the rest. I could be wrong, but anger, outrage, revolution...it's happened before. Gods become kings. Kings become presidents...What pretty name will our next masters call themselves?

 

So when is the next massive, casino bailout? Mid summer maybe?

 

Mid summer? I thought you said:

Are those goalposts heavy?

 

I have no issue with this in theory, it is in practice that I have the issue. For instance, I do not believe we can become energy independant without government subsidization.

If you could present a path forward, that accomplishes this with the ideals you espouse, I am all ears.

My issue is that I don't like ideology. I know that liberty is the ideal path, and I try and stay as true to that ideology as I can, while still being a pragmatic prblem solver.

I love the SapceX project and fully support the privatization of space exploration. I have serious questions if it could exist today without the original government investment.

There are plenty of potentially innovative, proffitable business opportunities today that could change the face of this planet if someone was willing to risk 425 Billion dollars to do so. This is why the government subsidizing this project was neccassary.

In this case I believe it is best to work backwards from the ideal of liberty.

Liberty includes opportunity that those roads provided, and there was no path for private funding for a project of this size.Reality dictated that if the goal was to be accomplished, government would need to assist. Today I believe only energy meets this criteria.

Tolls to drive where?

There was no road to connect to on the other side.

If it were proven after we addressed lobbying and campaign finance, that the system still did not function in problem solving, I could accept this.

The idea to me that government has to be limited in scope to the point that no one would bother to influence it, is a canard. There is zero logic in this idea. We have to have insider trading laws, we have to have seperation of powers, we have to have environmental regulations. This is influence worth purchasing. Government officials will always have the power to pass laws, and will therefor always be the target of bribes, and corruption.

Cutting funding of essential government functions will do nothing to address this.

100% agree. I don't listen to what any of these SOB's say anymore, it is only their actions I am concerned with.

 

"Too big to fail" is a phrase concocted by the MEDIA/BLACK BLOCK VOTE/BUSINESS political alliance. It is the equivalent of "when racism once again raises it's ugly head"...................etc.....It is designed to throw off people of their common sense.

 

LMAO, in what way propagandist?

Too big to fail has a very specific definition:

If TBTF doesn't exist, then why did whatever party you support authorize the 700 billion TARP bailout?

 

Like all of the companies that went bankrupt with the latest green energy initiatives right? http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/as-many-as-fifty-obama-backed-green-energy-companies-bankrupt-or-troubled/

Sorry, I'd rather have my portion of the $90 billion that was given to these companies and I'll invest it in green energy myself. If the government can pick companies that go bankrupt, why don't just give us the same decision?

This type of thing occurs all the time. Look at the website KickStarter.com for instance. Private investments are made all of the time and new innovations are put onto the market. Private company started up to help start up more private innovations.

Now, if we wish to expand on this, we could have government aide in this process. They could sit down with private organizations and they could discuss how technology and the world is moving in the future. Work with them to get things moving in the right direction. Public funding isn't something that must be on the table. I don't care what Obama says about how government 'invented' the internet, where the military started it, but it only became a centralized network. A very simplistic idea and then it took for folks at Xerox to get it going. Oh and Apple to create a GUI for it.

However, with the amount of regulation and legislation, we'll also never know what innovations could've been on the market without government interfering. We'll never be able to know, it's an improbability. So I'll be stuck defending something that will hard to defend without any true facts. I think we can agree that government definitely plays a little too much of a role in our lives, that can definitely put more of a hamper on things than help.

I can see your line of thinking and it has validity to it. Here's my disagreement with it though. Let's put an example onto this. Let's say you and I are the only ones left on an island. It's up to us to design of an overall structure that works. Be it government, technology, protection, whatever. I would go at this from an ideal perspective that I feel works. Maybe I'd say we don't need anything centralized and we simply invent things that only benefit us. We can build off of each other ideas and design a solid framework that we both can use and enjoy.

If I look at your statement, I would be more inclined to believe that you would take a more pragmatic approach and say we'd need to setup a government to oversee everything, they need to provide us with basic functions, and the rest will follow thereafter. We can expand on this but I think you can see where I'm going with that. As such, just because folks only go off of what they know works, doesn't mean that's the ONLY thing that will work. My beliefs is that, because, libertarianism is an ideology, if more people accept that ideology, there would be no need to worry about focusing on things that worked from experience only. We can come up with better solutions that will work for all, rather than just give power to folks who build solutions for the select few off of our dollar.

SpaceX, maybe. However, Virgin is the first ever privately funded space exploration. I'm not sure how many others are out there, without government funding, but I know at least Virgin is leading the way.

Why was government subsidizing this project necessary? Why couldn't government setup a plan and allow private companies to do the same thing?

Of course roads need to be there, before roads, there was railroads that covered the entire US. These railroads were privately owned as well. Soon, they began to go bankrupt because it was a dying industry, as most innovations succumb to. As such, this is where, if folks wish to say government should play a role, government can get involved with the private organizations and determine the next best route. Now, folks would rather see government scoop up these technologies and foster them. Amtrak is right now owned by the government. How many people do you know travel by train these days? I'm fairly certain it's few, far, and in between. Most will either fly or drive to their destination. Even the speed rail, that government is pushing for isn't even that fast and it's still slower compared to just driving to your destination.

What I look at is why does the government prop these things up? If folks aren't using it and companies are going bankrupt because of it, that should be a sign in of itself. I don't need the government using my money to hold up a technology that's dying off. It's the evolutionary cycle of technology. We started off with main frame computers that only the rich could own and only the highly smart could use. Now we have tablets & smart phones that our children can use. Things evolve, we need to allow our country work as such. If folks keep allowing the government hold onto these old technologies, we'll always be behind the most advanced countries in the world.

However, if the government would've worked with private organizations, who knows what would've been accomplished. More times than not, government simply states that in order to get it done, government needs to fund it. How about just working with the private sector and see what's feasible or not?

You misunderstood my point. If the government would've worked with the private organizations, setup a plan on how the roads would be laid out, the private organizations would spend their money to build these roads. As such, the private organizations would need to find a way to collect money from them. This is where tolls would come into play. If not that, some other method they could've designed to use to be able to collect payments for the build of the road and continual maintenance of the road.

Fair enough.

I thought the same thing, as you did. I never did understand why limited government would be the answer and wanted to push legislation all against the government. I wanted to strip away all of their power by getting legislation passed to limit their power. Then I thought about it, this is what I came up with.

Insider trading laws are already on the books and it's against the law. The only difference is, the folks who are doing the insider trading are the ones who are stuffing the pockets of policy makers and law enforcement. As such, they just turn a blind eye to them. Ask for all the laws you want on that, it won't change anything as they'll continue doing it.

Separation of power is already there. We have three branches of government (Judical, Legislative, Executive) that are there for that sole purpose. The only difference is the law makers have given one branch more power than they should. This comes with limiting the power of the government. NDAA & Patriot Act's are prime examples of such laws giving too much power.

Sure, we need to have environment regulations, that's a given. Not to the point where it's unworkable and we simply have Exxon & BP running the show. I think I saw an article somewhere that stated around ~50% of all leases & land are unused right now, that are government owned. We can address this in various angles (IE: The amount of money required to buy leases/lands), but when you also tack on gas taxes & energy taxes to the consumer, you're simply controlling these energy source. Big oil companies set their price by only extracting a certain amount of oil to produce, government pushes for taxes to pay for the roads, it all comes out of the pockets of the individual. Make it easier for smaller businesses to buy up some of these leases, introduce some competition into that market, privatize the roads, we won't need to worry about gas/energy taxes either. You can still adequately do this with serious regulation that limits the amount of pollution introduced into the planet.

In the end, I will not buy that I ALWAYS need a government around to start things up. More times than not, government is the sole reason for the issues in our country. You're stating that you want to limit government by asking for those three things (Probably more than that, but for the sake of argument, we'll go with the three you mentioned), in yet, you believe government still plays a role and needs to subsidize things. You're looking to limit the power of government but still give them power. In my eyes, that's essentially giving someone an exercise machine and telling them you can only work out once every so often and expect them to follow suit. Knowing, once you walk out of their house, they're free to do as they please.

The only way we can see limited government, get them out of the private sector and out of our lives. Less control sir, less control.

Agreed but I've never advocated as such. I can have $1 trillion dollars in my bank account right now. If you tell me I can only buy thumbtacks with my money, I'm fairly certain most of my money will be in the bank. Limiting power is what's required, I don't care how much money the government pulls in. If they can't do anything with it, they can surplus $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 dollars for all I care (Most likely the Federal will just print it out for them, but you get my point).

Couldn't agree more.