[kj] Killing joke and Communism

[B. Oliver Sheppard]

Hey Frank Frik --

I can see why your last name is "Frik": you and Mr. Black enjoy playing 
Fric and Frac with each other, it looks like.

I didn't accuse Mr. Black of being pro-govt. He claimed he supported 
government bailouts, not me.

But it's interesting that he supports them selectively: when it's 
bankers that need them. Otherwise the govt. should remain aloof, I 
guess? Pretty interesting govt. there. Wonder why anyone would support it?

And the picture he paints of bankers being these sort of noble martyrs 
is hilarious ... makes me want to reach for the world's smallest violin. 
Pretty tragic, their lot. I can't imagine their pain and suffering, I 
guess.

-Brian



Frank Frik wrote:

> Hey, Oliver, rich and only rich ALWAYS are taking risks .

>  

> You are accusing Mister Black og 'pro=gov' . Rubbish .

>  

> You are just concentrating in sticking names on people here and can 

> not hold a debate but going straight to a feud .

>  

> Grow up!

>  

> Frank

>

> */"B. Oliver Sheppard" <bigblackhair at sbcglobal.net>/* wrote:

>

>     Okay, so you are not a free market fanatic who believes the

>     government

>     has no role in getting into the economy -- that's good. There are

>     a lot

>     of free market enthusiasts who say the government needs to clear the

>     way, get out of the economy, let free markets work ont heir own, etc.

>

>     But have basically said the government needs to come in and bail out

>     banks. So you are pro-govt. intervention intot he economy.

>

>     However, one big aspect of our current economic system is risk. Risk

>     means nothing if it means youd on't pay the price for it if the risk

>     turns out to be bad. These subprime lenders took a risk. Well, as

>     happens with risks, sometimes they go bad. So -- the public (me

>     and you)

>     should now come in and pay the price for them taking a risk? How

>     about

>     the folks at the top of these corporations be bled dry first, and

>     then

>     if there's still money needed to bail out the common folks, the

>     public

>     pitches in? That seems a just way to do it to me.

>

>     But for the government to come into the picture automatically on the

>     side of the banks, instead of the folks who fell for the loan sharks'

>     promises, seems more like a nanny state for the rich to me. Let

>     the rich

>     take the risk -- and if it doesn't pay off, let them suffer the

>     consequences. That's good old capitalism, right?

>

>     -Oliver

>

>

>

>     Mister Black wrote:

>     >

>     > Well , it was the people who borrowed money and couldn't repay

>     it that

>     > caused the banks to fail in the first place . People burrowed on

>     the

>     > strength of their property price , property prices fall and the

>     > birrowers are left with negative equity and cannot pay back the

>     loan .

>     > The Banks would have too take the property back and auction them

>     off

>     > on order to get said moneys back , this would cause property

>     prices to

>     > slump even further causing a depression in the economy , a downward

>     > spiral.

>     >

>     > So Governments prop up the Banks to stop the economy sliding

>     further

>     > , also , if the banks went bust , it would be the people who have

>     > savings that lose out , peoples pensions and savings would be

>     lost ,

>     > so it could be argued that the Government is helping the people

>     with

>     > savings in the said bank , if the bank goes under , then its the

>     > savers who will lose and NOT the people who took loans out

>     >

>     >

>

>