larryselbows
Banned
wait. . . . . socialism? Isn't that supposed to be where the Government takes significant control of private property/business/production to pretend to take care of the people while winking at their elitist buddies who pay for re-election expenses?
yeah. . . . I know. . . the government is an expendable tool when the elitists can get their way directly.
Huh? Not sure if being sarcastic...
Either way, I think we can agree that most people are unhappy with the current economic conditions. One group thinks we can resolve our hardships with governmental intervention (occupy wall street movement) and the other does not (tea party)...
I recognize that there is an infinite array of beliefs in between the two extremes, which is where I fall, but what I do agree with some of the tenants of the occupy wall street movement, in that there should be some regulation.
"Regulation" in a sense that government is not taking advantage of the private sector, rather in a sense similar to any other entity that must utilize rules to survive. Tariffs, elimination of monopolies, etc. were put in place to maintain that people play by the rules, without them, it is my belief that most will not --if large sums of money are at stake. I just don't understand how anyone can contend against that idea.
Obviously wall street dropped the ball in '08 and a lot of that has to do unscrupulous investing strategies (derivatives, ARM's, etc.) that were not illegal, rather immoral. You can contend that the free market will eventually correct itself, and I would respect your opinion, but I won't agree with it.