Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Muad Dib asks "GM...GW... is there a connection?"

SilverMK2 wrote:

reds8n wrote:..or Games Workshop...

*ducks and covers*

First up against the wall when the revolution comes?

...I thought about it but..

A. I , quiet unashamedly, LOVE GW stuff so no way , and

B. By RAW they'd get a cover save and with my luck...

Frazzled wrote: Thats only one avenue. Bigger does not mean better. Bigger just means bigger. GM was huge...

Well for whatever reason the leaders of the financial system decided that the bigger they got the better off they would be. Thats the trend that we should be working to stop. They are too big, too powerful - the government should step in and break them up before they get too powerful for our - or any - government to regulate.
AF

That only works if you do it in all countries.

If you break up US banks but leave UK banks alone, UK banks will dominate. This historically was the exact case.

Foreign borrowers could go to a variety of US sources with only slightly more trouble than they can currently approach one. The health of the banking system is based on how much capital there is to lend and how regularly it is paid back, not the size of the institutions doing the lending. They will in any case develop their own financial institutions and no longer require us, just as we did and no longer require the british.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Foreign borrowers could go to a variety of US sources with only slightly more trouble than they can currently approach one. The health of the banking system is based on how much capital there is to lend and how regularly it is paid back, not the size of the institutions doing the lending. They will in any case develop their own financial institutions and no longer require us, just as we did and no longer require the british.
AF

You're talking help. I'm talking competitive advantage. A larger bank can lend more to a client and thus gain agencies which themselves bring in additional ancillaries which are the name fo the game. Smaller banks are almost irrelevant now.

the amount of money someone can borrow in a country is limited by how much capital there is available in the country, not by the size of the institutions lending it. We did very well in the 80s with a decentralized financial system I tend to think we could do it again. But if it comes down to it I'd rather sacrifice financial competitiveness abroad than democratic government at home. As it stands these guys can do whatever they want and send us the bill when it goes sour. If a corporation can force the govt to act on its behalf and against my interests and that of my neighbors, then our votes dont count for much. The only solution to this problem is to reduce the size of the financial insitutions so that no one of them will ever be too big to fail again. Unregulated markets caused, they will not solve, this problem.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:the amount of money someone can borrow in a country is limited by how much capital there is available in the country, not by the size of the institutions lending it. We did very well in the 80s with a decentralized financial system I tend to think we could do it again. But if it comes down to it I'd rather sacrifice financial competitiveness abroad than democratic government at home. As it stands these guys can do whatever they want and send us the bill when it goes sour. If a corporation can force the govt to act on its behalf and against my interests and that of my neighbors, then our votes dont count for much. The only solution to this problem is to reduce the size of the financial insitutions so that no one of them will ever be too big to fail again. Unregulated markets caused, they will not solve, this problem.
AF

Thats so wrong its not funny...
EIDIT: I apologize, thats rude.

The amount of money a major company or borrowing entity can receive is tied to its creditworthiness, the economics and ancillaries that can be obtained from the client-both from the oan spreads and from ancillary econmics-the political risk of that nation, and available capacity on a global basis.

For a private or for a govt entity the amount of money they can borrow is limited by both.... obviously you cant borrow more money than is available in the pool (capital) nor can you borrow more than lenders are willing to give you (credit.)

I'm not really sure what you mean by ancillaries. Can you elaborate? It's more risky to lend to govts yes because they can default on their loans and no one can make them pay it back, whereas private entities can be taken to court.

All I'm saying here is that the size of the lending institutions does not restrict the amount of money available in the system to give out to a borrower. ie we can lend the same amount of money with a bunch of little banks as we can with a few big ones. Banks dont create wealth. They just organize it.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:For a private or for a govt entity the amount of money they can borrow is limited by both.... obviously you cant borrow more money than is available in the pool (capital) nor can you borrow more than lenders are willing to give you (credit.)

I'm not really sure what you mean by ancillaries. Can you elaborate? It's more risky to lend to govts yes because they can default on their loans and no one can make them pay it back, whereas private entities can be taken to court.

All I'm saying here is that the size of the lending institutions does not restrict the amount of money available in the system to give out to a borrower. ie we can lend the same amount of money with a bunch of little banks as we can with a few big ones. Banks dont create wealth. They just organize it.
AF

I'm saying the market is an international market, not a national one.
1. Its internaitonal in terms of capital availability.
2. Its international in terms of competition. Small banks cannot compete vs. larger ones. Its that simple. Citibank can lend more to client than Whittier Bank due to reserve requirements per individual client. You can only stop that if you limit international competition but that runs afoul of lots of treaties in practice.

well larger institutions def. make it easier to lend larger amounts of money in blocks.... I think we could still do it with smaller banks but it would be more difficult.... anyway yes I take your point about that. It's true bigger banks help with international borrowing.

Is that competitive advantage worth the risk of undermining our democratic government? The last time the banks got into trouble they handed us the bill and we paid it, despite almost universal hostility to the TARP program. If, for whatever reason, a private entity is strong enough to get its way in the face of that kind of popular disgust then its clear that the votes of a few banks matter more than the votes of millions of Americans. That should not be acceptable to anyone, but, ironically, the people who clamor the loudest about freedom - the tea partiers - are advocating the policies that undermine it, and decrying the policies - government intervention - that can sustain it.

As far as the smaller banks competing with the little ones, I agree - they cant do it. Since they cant compete with the larger banks, and the existence of banks of that size is not compatible with democratic government or national sovereignty, the solution seems pretty clear - pass legislation that limits the size of banks.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well larger institutions def. make it easier to lend larger amounts of money in blocks.... I think we could still do it with smaller banks but it would be more difficult.... anyway yes I take your point about that. It's true bigger banks help with international borrowing.

Is that competitive advantage worth the risk of undermining our democratic government? The last time the banks got into trouble they handed us the bill and we paid it, despite almost universal hostility to the TARP program. If, for whatever reason, a private entity is strong enough to get its way in the face of that kind of popular disgust then its clear that the votes of a few banks matter more than the votes of millions of Americans. That should not be acceptable to anyone, but, ironically, the people who clamor the loudest about freedom - the tea partiers - are advocating the policies that undermine it, and decrying the policies - government intervention - that can sustain it.

As far as the smaller banks competing with the little ones, I agree - they cant do it. Since they cant compete with the larger banks, and the existence of banks of that size is not compatible with democratic government or national sovereignty, the solution seems pretty clear - pass legislation that limits the size of banks.
AF

We paid it...stupidly. There was no need to.

well.... the people who spend their lives studying that kind of thing thought it was a good idea.... at least for myself I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since I dont have the training or knowledge that they do.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well.... the people who spend their lives studying that kind of thing thought it was a good idea.... at least for myself I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, since I dont have the training or knowledge that they do.

Thats not quite correct. Most of the majors were against it, hence JPM's and Well's open rebellion at the idea. The only major institution needing bailout money was Citigroup. The rest was a cover for that.

EDIT: I should note, I actually like the concept of smaller banks myself. I'm more interested here in the competitive aspect.

ummm.... I believe that the TARP and the govt involvement in banks were 2 different programs. TARP bought the securities, but what city group got was a loan at the price of part govt ownership. It goes without saying that the banks only want the govt to be involved to the extent that their bacon needs saving and no further. But thats the thing - calling in the govt is like calling in the romans. Sure they'll help, but will they ever leave? What I really mean by the people who spend their lives studying it is economic scholars, not bank officers per se.... people who work for a corporation have alot less freedom to speak their minds and stay true to the facts than do people who work for a university.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:ummm.... I believe that the TARP and the govt involvement in banks were 2 different programs. TARP bought the securities, but what city group got was a loan at the price of part govt ownership. It goes without saying that the banks only want the govt to be involved to the extent that their bacon needs saving and no further. But thats the thing - calling in the govt is like calling in the romans. Sure they'll help, but will they ever leave? What I really mean by the people who spend their lives studying it is economic scholars, not bank officers per se.... people who work for a corporation have alot less freedom to speak their minds and stay true to the facts than do people who work for a university.
AF

TARP provded the funds.

Citi needed it. The other majors didn't and didn't want it for exactly that reason. They were strong armed into it.

I think the idea was to get them lending again....

Socialize Health Care, remove health insurance companies/ make health care non-profit.
Make plans for return/colonization of the moon, and manned exploration of the solar system.
Increase funding for the space program.
Educate people that religion/nationalism/racism/sexism are detrimental to the well being of humanity.
Reduce/cancel aid to Israel unless they stop illegal settlements.
Legalize prostitution, it's going to happen regardless and legalizing it will allow tax profit, and possibly easier tracking of disease.
Legalize Stem Cell research offer grants to promising researchers.
Promote research into alternative energy sources.
Institute a two child limit, the planet can only sustain so many people.
Ban mention of creationism/religion in public schools.
Remove the word "god" from the pledge of allegiance.
Close religious schools/churches/etc.

First thing as Supreme Dictator of Canada is pay-off all of Canada's financial debts (yeah I know boring ). That's all for now will come up with some stuff if I'm in the mood.

First thing I do
<-------------------------
:3

Probably the first thing I'd do is sit back and marvel at the mess we're in.

Step 1 would be to implement a stimulus that ACTUALLY repairs and replaces infrastructure. I was under the impression this was what the initial stimulus was for (Shovel-ready projects my ass), but it seems Michigan at least used it to plug budget shortfalls rather than actually build anything. High speed internet connections, sidewalks, and bridges would be the primary focus.

Step 2 would be to smack higher education on the hand and reign in the cost of public universities. Private can raise the costs of tuition and whatnot as much as they darn well please, but public universities shouldn't be raising tuition at the rate of 10% a year every year for a few decades. And no, I don't care how much student aid you give to compensate. This would go hand-in-hand with massive education reform. All calculators would be BANNED from elementary schools in an effort to increase ability in mathmatics. Students must demonstrate minimal proficiency in math, writing, and civics (I could be easily swayed to include science/history in here as well but I suppose I should start small). Failure to do so would lead to mandatory after-school/summer school remediation. Continued failure to succeed would lead to being transplanted out of your current enviroment to a boarding school. High school/Middle school would no longer subscribe to the creed of "Everybody goes to college". Emphasis would be placed on technical training/job training. Apprenticeships would the norm for senior and possibly junior years.

Step 3 would be to figure out how to disentangle ourselves from China. As I understand it, they've loaned us enough money that they could essentially kill our economy if they so choose (With the understanding it would also be detrimental to their own economy). I have no idea how this would work or what could be done. Part of me thinks repealing things like NAFTA and whatnot might be good, but I suspect it's only going to be good for the short-term and not the long.

Step 4 would be to open up primaries to all voters. No more of this "You can vote in one partie's primary" crap. This should have a mellowing effect on the candidates and reduce the partisan gridlock/nonsense we've had since the mid 90's.

Step 5 would be to gas the maximum security prisons. I'll probably be considered a monster for the remainder of history, but it would go a long way to smoothing out our criminal justice system, even if it was a one-time thing.

Step 6 would be to address health-care costs. I've always considered the insurance industry a sort of strawman for the actual problem. It's ridiculous if I go into an ER and need 4 stiches (which takes maybe 15 minutes of the PA's/Nurses time) and get charged $800 for the service. Set up programs where you can go to med-school on the government's dime. Successful completion of your training means you don't owe a darn thing. In return, health care prices will be regulated to something more reasonable. I suppose private hospitals can try and make a go of it and charge what they'd like, but they wouldn't be competing on a level playing field.

Probably some more if I sat and thought about it.

I would pimp the presidential limo.
just saying.....

I would make everyone in the states take out a 10 dollar bill and burn it.

Then I would put america on the coal standard and prevent the burning of coal.

Then I would pass legislature saying that companies must pay the overseas equivalent of minimum wage. So if 1 american dollar is .90 non american dollars then they must pay (7.25 x .90) non american dollars.

Then I would invade south america.

I like all imperial commandos ideas, you guys should put him in charge!

If you gave me sweet, sweet liquor you could be in charge!

1. Axe Obamacare and enact a universal Tort reform. Texas has clearly shown that tort reform is noting but a boon for the economy. Health care costs among doctors in Texas dropped from 21% to 50%.

2. Privatize Social Security. If there is one universal truth about politicians, it's that they will steal your money. Give the people the option to place their "Social Security" in private accounts that the gov cannot access. I honestly wish this hadn't been stonewalled a few years ago. As it stands right now, I won't have any of the SS that I've been paying my whole adult life. I'll have to solely rely on my pension, and other savings, while everyone else gets to rely on my dollar.

3. Lower corporation taxes so they stop fleeing overseas. We punish our own companies, while trying to entice foreign companies to come here. I say, why not have the best of both worlds. Make it so everyone, US or Foriegn owned companies has competitive tax rates that makes it enticing to keep the jobs in the US.

Thats just a start, but I think it would be a pretty good one.

djones520 wrote:
2. Privatize Social Security. If there is one universal truth about politicians, it's that they will steal your money. Give the people the option to place their "Social Security" in private accounts that the gov cannot access. I honestly wish this hadn't been stonewalled a few years ago. As it stands right now, I won't have any of the SS that I've been paying my whole adult life. I'll have to solely rely on my pension, and other savings, while everyone else gets to rely on my dollar.

unfortunately people trust the stock market even less than the govt...... the truth is you cant safely give anyone a gigantic pile of cash and trust them to not spend it.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

djones520 wrote:
2. Privatize Social Security. If there is one universal truth about politicians, it's that they will steal your money. Give the people the option to place their "Social Security" in private accounts that the gov cannot access. I honestly wish this hadn't been stonewalled a few years ago. As it stands right now, I won't have any of the SS that I've been paying my whole adult life. I'll have to solely rely on my pension, and other savings, while everyone else gets to rely on my dollar.

unfortunately people trust the stock market even less than the govt...... the truth is you cant safely give anyone a gigantic pile of cash and trust them to not spend it.
AF

You can if they are legally obligated to do so...

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

djones520 wrote:
2. Privatize Social Security. If there is one universal truth about politicians, it's that they will steal your money. Give the people the option to place their "Social Security" in private accounts that the gov cannot access. I honestly wish this hadn't been stonewalled a few years ago. As it stands right now, I won't have any of the SS that I've been paying my whole adult life. I'll have to solely rely on my pension, and other savings, while everyone else gets to rely on my dollar.

unfortunately people trust the stock market even less than the govt...... the truth is you cant safely give anyone a gigantic pile of cash and trust them to not spend it.
AF

Actually, my 401k has grown over the last couple of years. I just kept all my money in the safest, but lowest growth investments. So while everyone tanked, I did fine. I'd do the exact same with my SS.

But the key point about this is giving the people the choice. I do not trust the government to tell me what is best for me, and no one else should either.

I start by abolishing any part of the federal goverment that was orginally called for in the US Constitution. I pay off the national debt and then lower taxes for those that currently pay taxes and dont get it all back. I install some sort of minimum tax payment, it will be a token sum, but this way everyone pays something.

Once the debit is paid down and my tax plan goes into effect I build a giant dome over the entire United States, with smaller domes over Alaska and Hawaii. Once the dome is finished I begin pumping all of the oxygen into the dome, while at the same time, putting all our waste and a steady supply of Agent Orange outside the dome. I wait 50 years and declare a planatary goverment.