AIG to be bailed out to the tune of $85 billion

It is NOT a free market. It is a market that is regulated and manipulated to benefit the corporations. It's not a free market when the fed pumps trillions of dollars in liquidty into the markets.

 

It appears people like Hiptastic are only interested in protecting the game they've learned to play. They wish it to be protected so that they can continue to play, to reap profit from the sweat and ignorance of others. This isn't about investing in manufacturing or technology the market is now only about playing a numbers game based on smoke and mirrors.

 

It's a free market until the criminal CEO's fuck up. They rail so hard against regulation until times like these, then they come running back to mother government begging for the taxpayer's billions.

People need to seriously start considering alternatives to capitalism. The modern world is too small and markets are too sensitive for the economy to be controlled solely by motivation for profit.

 

And the moment the Government saiys no, like they did with Lehman Brothers, they are under fire. This is what capitalism gets for just going on motovation of securing their bottom line. What sucks though is that some people actually go upon doing it in a very honest manner and what do they get? Once those CEOs get themselves in trouble, the ripple effect goes out to the little mom and pop buinesses. You know what I'm talkin' about, the piaaz places, the small time convienence stores, the toy shops that have been on the street for the longest time but all of a sudden are forced to close down.

Gotta love capitalism...*sighs*

 

But this isn't even capitalism. It's crony capitalism.

 

I agree. It's a fucked up form of socialism where the socialism only helps rich people and corporations.

 

Whatda? I'm a little confused and fuzzy on how this relates to AIG. It's very difficult to read your posts sometimes.

 

This statement is true. It's not a 100% Socialistic market either, on the flip side of the coin.

 

No, of course it is not 100% socialistic. But what we are seeing is corporatism, which is socialism for the corporations.

 

AKA fascism.

 

Quite the contrary, the guy who went after Greenberg, his name is Elliot Spitzer, he got his due.


.

 

Exactly.

 

No it's not. It's Corporatism. Meaning, it favours Corporations. It's policies and laws geared for corporate control and interest.

It's not the same as Socialism.

EDIT: Pure socialism is when the society owns everything. Corporatism is when corporations and elite own everything. What's happening is top down Socialism and Corporatism occurring simultaneously.

*sigh*

I consider myself to a somewhat of a Socialist, and this bailing out investment banks and forking over more control is not my idea of a social economy.

 

I am not going to argue over formalities. The two are very much related and they result in the same thing. Under corporatism, or corporate fascism, the corporations take over the state. With socialism and communism, the state takes over the corporations. The former is more along the lines of what we see today, though the outcomes for both are very much the same.

And no, society doesn't own anything under socialism. The state does. It's simply sold to the masses in a utopic light under the guise that the people own everything. History has disproved that myth.

 

Corporatism is to fascism the same as socialism is to communism. They are flip sides of the same coin minted by the same people. They both steal from and manipulate the people for the gain of the few. They do it it through different means but in both cases they result in a police state. I would prefer anarchy to either.

 

That's "National Socialism". Not Socialism. But let's not argue familiars.

 

WE had an economic collapse in 1929- followed by a depression -then WW2 FOR 7 YEARS -38- TO 45 & we came out of it
sO now in 2008 we are having an economic collapse - which is being followed by foreclosures,and general financial kaos- we,ve been at war (on 2 fronts for about 8 years)

history repeats itself
godhelpus,
jack

 

Can someone please explain how socialism for Lehman brothers meant letting it collapse and having shareholders lose all their money?

 

/nods The Amero. Bush ratified the process, and McCain will willingly carry this out if elected. Along with that, the Bushes can count on him to stabilize Iraq to concede long-term plans of select investors and one-world government architects. Obama isn't under any obligation to go with yet; if he JFK's his way through this one, assassination is possible. If not, he'll ratify the North American Union (fusion of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico) and carry out the currency by way of gullibility and wanting what‘s best for the people. The as-of-late bail-outs are Federal Reserve-orchestrated to impose a public need for such an amendment; I’m looking into Obama’s victimization of holding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees as campaign cards and bribe-acceptions. Americans (and whomever our next president is) will need a reason and this -- along with soon-to-come orchestrations -- will be it to boost approval ratings; select investors will be the only ones left unaffected, i.e. the Rockefellers. The only past candidate preachy enough against this was Dr. Paul, but this only gave means to be an early red-target, which was probably imposed in past polling engines when actively running. Chairman Bernanke locks these things mentally with p.r. fronts omitted only

 

[Our] great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all of our activites are in the hands of a few men... who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world - no government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

-Woodrow Wilson in regards to his fatal mistake of accepting Federal Reserve-bribery for electoral gain