5 ms·
One of the more stupider suggestions I've seen in this whole mess. Of course, Mark Cuban doesn't care, he's got f*ck you money.
by lrm242 18y ago
One of the more stupider suggestions I've seen in this whole mess. Of course, Mark Cuban doesn't care, he's got f*ck you money.
- logjam 18y agoI don't. And everyone I know is demanding something a little more intellectually rigorous and just than still more trickle down excrement.
- martythemaniak 18y agoIt's very simple. If you're "Too Big To Fail", that means: a) You're too big to be private, so you'll have to be taken over. b) You'll need to socialize your losses, so we'll need to socialize your profits.
- bdittmer 18y agoOr we can not socialize either and let companies who make poor decisions fail.
- biohacker42 18y agoIf their failure hurts us more then not allowing them to fail, then we should really be rational. But bailing everyone out who's too big to fail just encourages them to get big. So as the above poster said, we should have an almost automatic break up, or be nationalized law when ever anything gets "too big to fail"
- Prrometheus 18y agoI don't think anyone that is now arguing that some firms are too big to fail are also arguing that we would have been better off if those firms were run by the government in the intervening decades in which they did not fail.
- biohacker42 18y agoI should clarify what I left unspecified. By nationalize I mean the government would take over, and then slowly but steadily shut down operations. This would allow smaller competitor to take up the slack. It would also encourage companies to break up rather then be nationalized, it wouldn't be much of a choice.
- netcan 18y agoYou wouldn't need to nationalise them. You'd just need the equivalent of antitrust legislation.
- Prrometheus 18y agoAh, communism. You are aware of case against it made by 150 years of theoretical and empirical economics, right?
- stuaxo 18y agoNot the same thing as socialism, would could include some nationalised industries, like most countries had until they sold them off in the 80s, and some still have now. Then we have new socialist policies like nationalising banks and mortguage lenders happening as we speak, so not dead at all.
- anthonyrubin 18y agoI would like to point out that we do tax profits.
- tjic 18y ago> One of the more stupider suggestions Agreed.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- timr 18y agoI've long argued for something similar, just in the housing market: the short-term capital gains tax on homes should be 95%. The government got into the home-loan business under the pretense that it needed to encourage home ownership to promote community and stability. Then, it allowed flippers to go crazy speculating on home price increases, and effectively subsidized the process via Fannie and Freddie. If we had been taxing short-term home owners at a rate near 100% of their profits, it would have killed the flipping market dead, served to keep home prices in check, and encouraged the values that the agencies were designed to uphold. (Problem is, of course, that this never could have happened -- for the last three years, the sole pillar of our economic growth has been home price increases. There's no way that congress or the White House would have allowed that pillar to be knocked down. Everyone is conveniently forgetting this today, but it's still true.)