Originally posted by whodeyTurning yourself into a Soviet vassal state no longer works? What a shock.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_fidel_castro
Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model does not work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspiciuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.
The fact that things are not working efficie ...[text shortened]... his domestic affairs in Cuba perhaps he can help other nations turn to socialism.
Castro squandered his chances. His sole remaining value is as a symbol of resistance to U.S. global hegemony.
Originally posted by whodeyEntire life's work in vain?... Back in the 30's we realized that American model of laissez fair capitalism wasn't working for us anymore. Does that mean that our work up until then was in vain? History is full of these sorts of realizations. If your main interest wasn't just ripping on Castro, you might prefer to call it progress.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_fidel_castro
Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model does not work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspiciuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.
The fact that things are not working efficie ...[text shortened]... his domestic affairs in Cuba perhaps he can help other nations turn to socialism.
Originally posted by mrj0hn50nActually Castro's admission has been interpreted by many to by a plea for the US to end sanctions against Cuba. You know, they want some of that money from the failed country you call the United States.
Entire life's work in vain?... Back in the 30's we realized that American model of laissez fair capitalism wasn't working for us anymore. Does that mean that our work up until then was in vain? History is full of these sorts of realizations. If your main interest wasn't just ripping on Castro, you might prefer to call it progress.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou have two options. You either prohibit corporatoin from becoming "too big to fail" or you allow them to fail. Those are your only two options to prohibit this from happening again. Unfortunately, the federal government thinks that neither option is viable.
has the Tea Party put forth any proposals that will seriously address the "Too Big to Fail" dilemma?
When you ask if the Tea Party has any proposals, what you are really asking is how government can "fix" corporate America? So if the answer is that government should not get involved, they are looked upon as the party of "no". In other words, if they do not engulf themselves in statism by positioning government to control all aspects of the corporate structure prevent future failure, they have no answers.
The bottom line is that people fail all the time. This includes those in the private sector as well as government. The real question is what answers work best for society? Always remember, the higher the risks the higher the rewards. Are we going to negate the rewards by neutering the risks?
As for the governments role, many tried to sound the alarm that the credit crisis was coming. In fact, Barney Frank and company oversaw Freddie and Fannie all the way to insolvency. It then seems to me that both the corporate and government entities failed. Why then do we only focus on corporate reform? In fact, the tax payers will be payed back by corporate America for the money they took but we can't say that about Fannie and Freddie. In fact, we are still paying for them and will continue to do so. Why then is the focus first on corporate America while these quasi-governmental entities remain as is?
Originally posted by whodeyHe ended the vassalage of Cuba to the US and turned right around and became a vassal of the Soviet Union. He then adopted all the shortcomings of that model. He should have rejected Soviet patronage and made Cuba a non-aligned state. Cuba would have been far better off in the long run for it.
What exactly about its socialist model failed?
Originally posted by rwingettWhat were the specific shorcomings of the model?
He ended the vassalage of Cuba to the US and turned right around and became a vassal of the Soviet Union. He then adopted all the shortcomings of that model. He should have rejected Soviet patronage and made Cuba a non-aligned state. Cuba would have been far better off in the long run for it.
Originally posted by whodeyFor about the 100th time, Freddie and Fannie were PRIVATE corporations, not GOVERNMENT entities.
You have two options. You either prohibit corporatoin from becoming "too big to fail" or you allow them to fail. Those are your only two options to prohibit this from happening again. Unfortunately, the federal government thinks that neither option is viable.
When you ask if the Tea Party has any proposals, what you are really asking is how government c ...[text shortened]... he focus first on corporate America while these quasi-governmental entities remain as is?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd for the 101th time they did not start out that way. They were government created entities that became too debt heavy to be included in the federal debt numbers. So what did the geniuses do to solve the problem? They made them "private" run companies with government oversight so as to cook the federal government books. In that regard they were quasi-government run entities. The dirty little secret is, however, that the tax payers were still on the hook for all that debt no matter how it was packaged. In addition, Barney Frank and company are directly responsible for the lack of oversight over the two companies. Of course, its hard to do when you are banging one of their CEO's I suppose.
For about the 100th time, Freddie and Fannie were PRIVATE corporations, not GOVERNMENT entities.
I suppose in the mind of a statist that once they create a Frankenstien they are no longer responsible for it once it leaves their property even though they are by all rights still a dependent.
Originally posted by whodeyThose are just outright lies as has been pointed out to you numerous times. One was NEVER part of the government at all. The other wasn't running a deficit when it was privatized. The law specifically stated the government WASN'T responsible for their debts, anymore then they were legally responsible for the debt of the Wall Street firms.
And for the 101th time they did not start out that way. They were government created entities that became too debt heavy to be included in the federal debt numbers. So what did the geniuses do to solve the problem? They made them "private" run companies with government oversight so as to cook the federal government books. In that regard they were quasi-go ...[text shortened]... le for it once it leaves their property even though they are by all rights still a dependent.
You know all this. Why do you insist on continually lying about it?
Originally posted by no1marauderwhich bailout was bigger, private corps or quasi-private corps?
Those are just outright lies as has been pointed out to you numerous times. One was NEVER part of the government at all. The other wasn't running a deficit when it was privatized. The law specifically stated the government WASN'T responsible for their debts, anymore then they were legally responsible for the debt of the Wall Street firms.
You know all this. Why do you insist on continually lying about it?