Quote:
Originally Posted by slayda
If you believe this, you haven't been around the US people I generally associate with. I don't like the idea of your universal health (what I call socialized medicine) but I hate the idea of bailing out companies that overpay their CEOs (who have led the failure) and still believing that those same CEOs can now (with our tax paid bailout) lead the company to success. This is socialized business practices, IMO. Although I understand the rationale of "saving the company", I deplore the idea of believing the failed leadership can miraculously lead to success. (Recall that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing but expecting different results.)
|
"Socialized business practices" would've never allowed those banks to get in the amount of trouble they did. The whole point of this crisis is that it was "
liberal", i.e.,
unregulated. The whole idea of being a "socialist" country is to ensure that situations like this don't occur, by creating rules those businesses have to adhere to, and so making sure that they live by more or less the same rules as individuals do. What you mention, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with "socialism", and everything with protectionism (which really is something that is more in favor of
individual corporations than it is in favor of "capitalism").