Basejumper.com - archive

So ah... with nationalization, that means taxpayers own Citi... so, WE own the buildings too!

BASE BOOGIE!

They have some nice buildings too!
http://search.emporis.com/?search=citicorp

Coco

BTW, if Obama ever wants to make a BASE jump, I’ve got dibs on the pack job. Think I’ll go with slider down... and I’ll be sure to use a BLACK rubber band too!

uh... don't "we" already "own" the National Parks too? How's that been working out?

Good point! Though Aerial Delivery doesn't apply, and it’s no longer trespassing.

Coco

How do I sell my share?

You will need to email Lueo Ping, from the China Regulatory Commission. He will have all the details for ya.

"We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion-$2 trillion, we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys but there is nothing much we can do."

I wonder what our country is going to look like on the 4th of July. Maybe Nicholas Cage can find the Constitution before it is finished going through the shredder.

Coco

Spelling

first, since this really looks like a political discussion, I'm moving it to "The Hangout."

second...
Citigroup essentially failed in the free market. no one wants to buy it. they ran themselves into the ground. only govt aid is keeping it afloat.

would you rather see it crash and burn?

third...
banks failed last year. I read some expect 100 more to fail this year. the FDIC steps forward, seizes the banks, reorganizes them and sells them off. it has been going on for years and protects savings.

do you object to that as nationalization?
do you wish to lose FDIC assurance?

or am I wrong about something?

Anyone who has taken Macro Economics
or seen the old Jimmy Stewart movie:
It Is A Wonderful Life probably knows
that the FDIC is good.

However, it is also a big Moral Hazard.
A moral hazard is anything that provides
a financial incentive to engage in some
undesirable behavior.

Just as bartenders and bar maids (agents)
know that giving away a free shot helps
them get a bigger tip it costs the owner
of the bar (principal) money in inventory.

Same thing every time we the tax payers
go and bail out companies that were run
poorly by over-paid CEOs.

so, do you look at the FDIC seizing banks as Nationalization?

I don't like moral hazards either whether:
banks writing junk loans
people buying homes they can not afford

both suck and contributed to the current mess.

(I also see a moral hazard in people getting money from the govt simply for having children. it doesn't matter if you call it aid or a tax deduction. the govt is poorer because someone bred. that means less money for roads or troops.)

do you look at the FDIC seizing banks as Nationalization?

Yes and No, I mean if we the taxpayer are
giving them money we should definitely
get something for it, shares of common
stock are better than nothing

As for welfare and moral hazard, I would
love a new rule/law that says no one can
have a baby unless they can afford one
but of course there is no way we could
ever pass or enforce such a requirement,
even though it makes total sense.

Just watch Idocracy and you will see why
smart people are being out bred by dumb
people 20 to 1.

Yes. First, there is no free market. Second, if nobody wants to buy it, then why do you think it is such a good idea for the government to force the ¨public¨ to buy it? Third, do you realize that taxes are collected through force and violence? Do you think the initiation of force or violence is a moral justification for getting what you want?

How about instead we just have a law that protects everybody else from being forced to bear the responsibility of others?

*edited for non-green response

there probably has NEVER been a market that fits your definition of "free" of any significant size. if enough money floats around, somebody will try to "get a piece of the action." feel free to cite when one DID exist.

secondly, unless you contend that the constitution no longer applies, "We the people of the United States..." still does. that means the government is the agent of the people, doing the will of the people.

third, without the threat of violence, how do you ensure people behave responsibly? do you really want a cop to yell at a fleeing rapist, "stop, or I'll yell stop again?"

fourth, taxes support the military, police, courts, etc. I kinda like these features. you may not. we all reap benefits from their existence, it seems reasonable that we all should pay. if not taxes, then how?

and since I'd love the economic fallout to ONLY impact the irresponsible, please explain how we manage that. pretty please, with sugar on top?

I think that you will agree that rape is a violent act. Therefore the police are not the ones who have initiated the violence in your example. I ask you again, when is the initiation of violence morally justified? Secondly, since your contention is that the government does the will of the people, how do you explain all the people who disagree with government action? Thirdly, you state that you support taxes for the military, police, and courts. If the goal of the military, police, and courts, is to protect the rights of individuals, then those happen to basically be the only three legitimate roles of government in a "free" society; although these functions can also be provided through private enterprise but that is beyond the scope of our discussion here. As far as paying for anything else, taxes are immoral, since they are collected through the initiation of force and violence by government at the point of a gun. Behind all bureaucracy is a gun, and if you do not believe it, see what happens when you stop paying your taxes. You will likely be thrown into prison, and if you try to escape you will be shot. A moral alternative to taxes is the usage fee whereby you pay for things as you use or consume them. The answer to your last question is to get the government out of the economy. The government bailouts are basically taking money (in the form of taxes) away from profitable business and giving it to unprofitable businesses. I fail to see how that can be anything but disastrous for an economy.

I missed your example of 1 market of size, in the history of mankind, that you consider "free."


fine. ignore the crime in particular. although I dislike violence myself, I will still ask "without the threat of violence, how do you ensure people behave responsibly?"


they got outvoted. ya just can't make everyone happy.


unfortunately, you can't look at a policeman writing you a ticket and say, "but I disagree with THAT law." life is a compromise. by choosing to live here, you essentially agree to be bound by the laws. representatives of the people write and uphold the laws. without the laws, anarchy reigns. is that your idea of "freedom?"


I'm a big fan of clean air. do you suggest I ought to pay a fee for breathing? how would that user fee work? who would charge it? maybe I lack imagination, but I don't see anyone that stepped forward to remove air pollution except the government. at one time, in some cities the days were black with soot. no more. thanks to govt. yeah!


that is the moral hazard I detest. BUT banks that made unreasonable loans also made decent ones to fine, upstanding citizens. those folks will also suffer if the bank is permitted to fail. heck, they might have taken out the loan 20 years prior under completely different management. so, you seem content to let those folks suffer as well as the irresponsible parties? getting the government out of regulation will NOT help them. I'm still waiting to hear how you limit the suffering to the irresponsible.

I really don't get your logic.

not that I LIKE the current situation, but I haven't studied economics, so what do I know?

I note you keep mentioning "moral." I will agree if people acted morally, the need for government decreases rapidly. but who would define "moral" anyway? do you want a religious leader making the definitions? they do it that way in Iran. is that better?

Since the right to life exists for the individual, therefore violence can be justified in self-defence of that right. When a crime against the rights of individuals is committed, that is the initiation of violence, which is always immoral and evil. The use of violence in self defence can be justified, but self defense is never the initiation of violence. If someone or group is polluting the air, then they ought to be held responsible to clean the air or pay to have it cleaned. The role of the government in this example, in a free society, is to protect the rights of individuals to the quality of air found in nature, and hold responsible those who have polluted it. As to your point about getting outvoted, it is important to realize that democracy is evil when it can be used to vote away the rights of the minority, and the individual is the smallest minority. Otherwise you should have no problem with for example legalized rape if there is one more man who wants (and therefore votes for) legalized rape than women (and men) against it. As was discussed previously, rape is a violent act and is an infringment of human rights, and is therefore evil. But hey its a democracy, right? So you think it must be good?

the world is not perfect.
the world does NOT function as I would like.

I believe you agree with both statements.

I'm still waiting to hear when any of your beliefs has ever existed or been practical. I'm still waiting for some reason to believe your dreams could become reality.

it doesn't matter how pretty the picture, if you can't translate it into reality.

and yes, generally to live amongst others, some rights of individuals are relinquished for the greater benefit. it's how it has always worked, whether I agree or not.

another reality is that 3 died yesterday.
I have no more energy for this unless you offer some concrete examples of your vision. in an ideal world, these deaths would NOT occur, but they did. as a BASE jumper, I must deal with realities at hand. you seem to avoid historical realities for your ideology. my experience says that is a path of frustration. good luck.

Tyranny of the Majority

There are many times in history where the majority
was totally wrong and the minority were made to
suffer at their hands and their ignorance:

flat-world believers, earth at the middle of the universe,
the many incarnations of slavery, burning witches, etc.

As much as this bothers me I can not think of a way
of living in groups, where we enjoy electricity, plumbing,
and ready access to food, without having this problem.

Many of the intelligent people on this forum probably
know how it is to be independent and disagreed with.


As for Adam's favorite two gripes with government:
Taxes and Meddling --- sure, I agree theoretically.
I'd like less taxes and more freedoms since I can
make it on my own without government programs
and occasionally have to break laws in the pursuit
of my happiness (of course never affecting others).

However, when you have a democracy you will get
some whacky outcomes --- suppose most people are
afraid of dragons well then the GROUP will vote to
defend US against the dragons that scare them.

While we just shake our heads, get less disposable
income, and laugh to keep from crying.

In 1929, there was 4% government involvement in the market. Not long ago, it was at 33% and it’s obviously rising. No, it’s not a truly free market. Especially when we have things like subsidies for corn ethanol. Something that is burning up our food supplies, raising the cost of food, and takes 1.1 gallons of gasoline to make 1 gallon of Ethanol. Go Government! Woo Hoo!

I have not read everything that has been said in this post, but what I have read is far from the true problems we are facing. FDIC insurance is the least of our concerns.

The problem is, are we doing the right things?

Does This Sound Reasonable?
http://www.basejumper.com/...;;page=unread#unread

Coco

here is an article worth reading. it talks of Banks sharing the risk with the borrowers. unfortunately, the US is NOT in the lead.

clicky