Said Michael
Fundamentally Flawed
I’m not the first person to say this, but I’m in a frustrated mood today, so I’ll say it anyways. We’re paying the banks billions of dollars, but it’s just going to get worse as unemployment increases and people can’t pay off their debt. Why aren’t we just directly paying off people’s debt? Taxpayer money helping taxpayers. Sure, it was their irresponsibility for taking on too much debt, but I don’t see how it’s any more irresponsible than what the banks did to get bailed out.
We’re basically paying banks so that they can keep charging people interest on their debt. I don’t see how that can possibly work out.
This already feels like a stupid, futile post before I even hit the “Create post” button. Sorry to waste your time.
If they’re both at fault why should we throw money at either of them? Why do we even make it possible for the banks or the irresponsible to recieve “help”?
Reblogged from dalasverdugo
I’ve been worried all along that Castlevania Judgment was going to just be bad. It didn’t even occur to me that it may turn out hilariously awful.
Some of the dialogue in here may qualify as the 2K8 edition of “Mankind ill needs a savior such as you,” except that the dialogue in Symphony of the Night was fairly sensible stuff translated poorly. This is conceptually ridiculous.
“Those are a sacred gift!”
Did you hear that? SACRED
ahahahahahahahaha
Reblogged from benhuber
It has been focusing on larger and larger trucks and SUVs—apparently unaware that gas prices were likely to go up. Did a spike in gas prices surprise anybody? Or, rather, anybody who doesn’t live in Detroit? The Prius has been selling incredibly well. It’s not a particularly new car. But it still has no American competition. Apparently, somebody in Detroit looked at the huge profit margins from huge cars and decided that they should focus exclusively on the gas guzzlers.
It’s unfair to put most of that blame on the manufacturers. They made a bunch of giant gas-guzzlers because that’s what people demanded. It was consumers, not manufacturers, who irresponsibly or ignorantly chose large, inefficient vehicles. Consumers aren’t known for incredible foresight, and at the time of purchase, gas wasn’t very expensive. They demanded SUVs en masse for whatever reason — utility, image, perceived luxury — and any automaker would have been irresponsible not to offer them.
Their general failings in the econo-car market aren’t because they “focus” on SUVs. It’s because they haven’t produced a car that a lot of people wanted to buy for over a decade. That’s not because they spent all of their resources on SUVs — their SUVs suck just as much as their cars. But people who buy SUVs aren’t incredibly concerned with efficiency and value.
It’s much harder to compete in the cutthroat econo-car market if you don’t provide good efficiency, reliability, and value. And it’s damn tough to compete with Honda and Toyota here. This, truly, is where the Detroit car companies have failed miserably. Nobody buys a Mustang or a Hummer or a 300 sensibly — they buy them for the name, the image, or the experience. And when the economy suffers, people tend to be a bit more sensible and conservative with large purchases.
The Detroit companies’ response over the last few years has been to offer tons of sales and rebates to make their mediocre cars more appealing. This has had a massive impact on their finances. They also tend to lease a lot, with high sales relying on favorable lease terms, and their leasing divisions have been hurt badly by the financial-industry problems. Through various financial tricks, rather than making a better product, they just keep cutting prices.
Clearly, this is a systemic problem in Detroit. A bailout, even with terms, is likely to just fund them to effectively continue on the same path. They might need to fail.
If the economy is in a downturn (or if it stays in one) it is a sign you are doing something wrong. We need to stop endorsing bad decisions and let people learn from their mistakes.
Reblogged from marco
I would have voted for you Ron Paul!
Obama can identify the problems all he wants, but it’s you who also saw the solutions. +1 for doing all that you could for this election.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
I’m voting Democrat because I think lawyers should run the country, because the last two years under their control has gone so well, because the government has done such a great job with FEMA that they should also be in charge of our school choices, health care choices, and retirement choices, because they protect me from crime so well that I don’t need a gun, because I want to pay more taxes (especially Capital Gains), because unions need to be stronger against evil corporations, because trade with foreign corporations is anti-American and we need to protect American jobs, and mostly because I’m tired of having so many choices and want someone else to make them for me.
Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country.
When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank.
You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!
You are a den of vipers and thieves.
Reblogged from dalasverdugo
-
Following
