Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 23, 2008 at 1:00 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #227112June 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #226569
justme
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]”unfettered capitalism”
You gotta be kidding me. It’s been as fettered as it gets, led by the fed.
This is the trick played on everyone.
We have an overly regulated system, but we foolishly call it “capitalism” so when the overly regulated system fails, we say “capitalism fails” and therefore need more government intervention.
Stupid as it gets.[/quote]
I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.
Bailouts led by the fed is a sign of regulatory failure, or insufficient or weak/errant regulation. It is not a sign of excess regulation. It is a sign of corporate welfare or pseudo-capitalist welfare.
What is needed is STRICT and HONEST regulation, not the fake stuff that we have.
June 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #226683justme
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]”unfettered capitalism”
You gotta be kidding me. It’s been as fettered as it gets, led by the fed.
This is the trick played on everyone.
We have an overly regulated system, but we foolishly call it “capitalism” so when the overly regulated system fails, we say “capitalism fails” and therefore need more government intervention.
Stupid as it gets.[/quote]
I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.
Bailouts led by the fed is a sign of regulatory failure, or insufficient or weak/errant regulation. It is not a sign of excess regulation. It is a sign of corporate welfare or pseudo-capitalist welfare.
What is needed is STRICT and HONEST regulation, not the fake stuff that we have.
June 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #226694justme
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]”unfettered capitalism”
You gotta be kidding me. It’s been as fettered as it gets, led by the fed.
This is the trick played on everyone.
We have an overly regulated system, but we foolishly call it “capitalism” so when the overly regulated system fails, we say “capitalism fails” and therefore need more government intervention.
Stupid as it gets.[/quote]
I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.
Bailouts led by the fed is a sign of regulatory failure, or insufficient or weak/errant regulation. It is not a sign of excess regulation. It is a sign of corporate welfare or pseudo-capitalist welfare.
What is needed is STRICT and HONEST regulation, not the fake stuff that we have.
June 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #226726justme
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]”unfettered capitalism”
You gotta be kidding me. It’s been as fettered as it gets, led by the fed.
This is the trick played on everyone.
We have an overly regulated system, but we foolishly call it “capitalism” so when the overly regulated system fails, we say “capitalism fails” and therefore need more government intervention.
Stupid as it gets.[/quote]
I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.
Bailouts led by the fed is a sign of regulatory failure, or insufficient or weak/errant regulation. It is not a sign of excess regulation. It is a sign of corporate welfare or pseudo-capitalist welfare.
What is needed is STRICT and HONEST regulation, not the fake stuff that we have.
June 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM in reply to: McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight. #226742justme
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]”unfettered capitalism”
You gotta be kidding me. It’s been as fettered as it gets, led by the fed.
This is the trick played on everyone.
We have an overly regulated system, but we foolishly call it “capitalism” so when the overly regulated system fails, we say “capitalism fails” and therefore need more government intervention.
Stupid as it gets.[/quote]
I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.
Bailouts led by the fed is a sign of regulatory failure, or insufficient or weak/errant regulation. It is not a sign of excess regulation. It is a sign of corporate welfare or pseudo-capitalist welfare.
What is needed is STRICT and HONEST regulation, not the fake stuff that we have.
justme
ParticipantGolfgal, I agree with you.
I usually like to sum the problem up like this:
Women want to be equal to men, but at the same time they want the men (or rather, their own mates) to be better than them.
There’s of course no general solution to finding a mate when such a double standard is applied.
justme
ParticipantGolfgal, I agree with you.
I usually like to sum the problem up like this:
Women want to be equal to men, but at the same time they want the men (or rather, their own mates) to be better than them.
There’s of course no general solution to finding a mate when such a double standard is applied.
justme
ParticipantGolfgal, I agree with you.
I usually like to sum the problem up like this:
Women want to be equal to men, but at the same time they want the men (or rather, their own mates) to be better than them.
There’s of course no general solution to finding a mate when such a double standard is applied.
justme
ParticipantGolfgal, I agree with you.
I usually like to sum the problem up like this:
Women want to be equal to men, but at the same time they want the men (or rather, their own mates) to be better than them.
There’s of course no general solution to finding a mate when such a double standard is applied.
justme
ParticipantGolfgal, I agree with you.
I usually like to sum the problem up like this:
Women want to be equal to men, but at the same time they want the men (or rather, their own mates) to be better than them.
There’s of course no general solution to finding a mate when such a double standard is applied.
justme
ParticipantThis thread is one of the best and most informative in a long time. I knew that it couldn’t possibly be just I that had these problems with difficult agents.
Here’s a twist I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion of: In the boom days, the only way to “get” a house was to enlist the listing agent as a dual agent, or to hire their buddy-from-the-same-office that was babysitting the open house.
This predictably compounded the problem with getting lowball offers written and presented.
How is this situation looking right now?
justme
ParticipantThis thread is one of the best and most informative in a long time. I knew that it couldn’t possibly be just I that had these problems with difficult agents.
Here’s a twist I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion of: In the boom days, the only way to “get” a house was to enlist the listing agent as a dual agent, or to hire their buddy-from-the-same-office that was babysitting the open house.
This predictably compounded the problem with getting lowball offers written and presented.
How is this situation looking right now?
justme
ParticipantThis thread is one of the best and most informative in a long time. I knew that it couldn’t possibly be just I that had these problems with difficult agents.
Here’s a twist I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion of: In the boom days, the only way to “get” a house was to enlist the listing agent as a dual agent, or to hire their buddy-from-the-same-office that was babysitting the open house.
This predictably compounded the problem with getting lowball offers written and presented.
How is this situation looking right now?
justme
ParticipantThis thread is one of the best and most informative in a long time. I knew that it couldn’t possibly be just I that had these problems with difficult agents.
Here’s a twist I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion of: In the boom days, the only way to “get” a house was to enlist the listing agent as a dual agent, or to hire their buddy-from-the-same-office that was babysitting the open house.
This predictably compounded the problem with getting lowball offers written and presented.
How is this situation looking right now?
-
AuthorPosts
