Attention: The forums will be placed on read only mode this Saturday (Oct. 20, 2018)

During this outage (6:30 AM to 8 PM PDT) the forums will be placed on read only mode. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here to read details

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism?

by James Denison / May 6, 2010 11:40 PM PDT

Seems Geithner wants even a bigger govt "fix" in Wall Street, with unprecedented power to make decision on which corporations they can kill off or allow to continue. Of course remember, some are "too big to fail", receiving special govt handling and coddling, while others will be forced out if Geithner gets his way, by means other than normal market forces. Grab more power, grab all the power you can, make govt more centralized, make govt do more than just regulate to insure honesty, let govt be the one who decides can stay and who must go out of business. Give more and more power to the Federal Govt. Time for a change in govt???

The two leading architects of the financial bailout made the case Thursday that Congress must give regulators more power to curb risk-taking on Wall Street.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a special panel investigating the financial crisis that the government should have acted more aggressively ahead of the crisis. He used his testimony to push for the Obama administration's financial regulatory overhaul, which has reached a critical point in the Senate.

The government "didn't move quickly enough and forcefully enough to try to contain the damage," Geithner said.

He warned that big banks now expect the government to bail them out for the good of the broader system, a dangerous precedent set by the government's reaction. (jd- yeah? who caused that perception? the same ones now wanting to do the "fix"?)

Geithner said the focus must be on making failures less damaging.(jd-obviously he doesn't understand the word "failure" yet.) The legislation would create new rules allowing regulators to dismantle large financial companies at risk of collapse. (jd-stupid. what will that cause? Investors to dump at risk companies even quicker) It would be similar to the way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. closes small banks, but financed through money collected from banks and investors. (jd-no, it won't, this is entirely different than insuring deposits, there's no insurance of a stock price)

A fundamental cause of the crisis, Geithner insisted: the lack of authority for regulators to restrain risk-taking by financial firms operating outside traditional rules. The legislation before Congress would help fix that by giving regulators authority over firms in the so-called "shadow" banking system, he said. (jd-no, it will make every corporation become wards of the all powerful state, which is Communism)

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Was the US Capitalist or Socialist or Communist from 1945 to
by Ziks511 / May 7, 2010 8:47 AM PDT

1980? It was a Capitalist system with Regulation. As soon as Reagan and Voodoo Economics became the rule, the US entered a period of instabillity, the 1987 Crash, the Savings and Load Crisis various other minor disasters and then the Bush II Crash. All of them dependent on the de-regulation of financial markets under Reagan and his successors.

If "the Invisible Hand" wasn't attached to the arms of people in whose interest manipulating the market was vested, then one could do without regulation. The dishonesty of those involved in the Stock and Bond Markets and the Auditorial and Ratings Agencies has been proved clearly.

You can choose between 35 years of a safe and predictable Investment Sector, or you can choose the return to 30 years of unsafe manipulated, crooked Markets. It's a choice based upon proven track records of two different systems of regulation for handling the US Economic System.

I'd hardly characterise (yeah, I learned to spell it characterize too) either Geithner )formerly Goldman Sachs and others) or Paulsen as raving Communists or Socialists. They are both the product of the American economic system of the last 30 years. It's just that they seem to have decided to open their eyes after the plane crash, rather than to keep them shut and keep dreaming the plane was still in the air. De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.


Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!