mf - story #4546 - What would you do if you were given $700 billion and exemption from legislative or judicial oversight?

What would you do if you were given $700 billion and exemption from legislative or judicial oversight?
posted by dennisn on September 25th, 2008 at 12:25AM

Inspired by kuro5hin's http://www.kuro5hin.org/s.../9/22/144256/641 great post, here are some options. Feel free to add to the list:

(A) Distribute it evenly among the american taxpayers
(B) Buy an island and workers to supply you with http://www.kuro5hin.org/c...144256/641/10#10 concubines and drugs
(C) http://www.kuro5hin.org/c...144256/641/37#37 Hire (female) assassins for $116.66 per kill, to leave only yourself and 602M other females
(D) Purchase diplomatic recognition of Taiwan from China
(E) Continuously beat your wife and then post bail
(F) Burn it

Poll: What would you do if you were given $700 billion and exemption from legislative or judicial oversight?

Do You Think There Should Be A Bailout? (1/1) 100%

(The title of your last reply gets polled.)

Link

Do you think there should be a bailout?
posted by dennisn on September 30th, 2008 at 9:25PM

Just to make sure we're on the same page.

Poll: Do you think there should be a bailout?

No (1/3) 33%

Yes (2/3) 67%

(The title of your last reply gets polled.)

Link

Yes
posted by Driusan on October 1st, 2008 at 5:58PM

It's completely wrong philosophically and is very unpopular, but absolutely necessary to ensure enough further damage down the road to bring upon the collapse of the american empire.

Link

posted by rick on October 2nd, 2008 at 2:23AM

If you're looking for a catalyst to a revolution, wouldn't a complete and utter collapse of the economy serve that purpose as well?

Link

posted by Driusan on October 2nd, 2008 at 10:56PM

Yes. I guess I wasn't clear.

I think the bailout will ensure that the economy recovers for a bit in the short term, but there's a depression or outright collapse in the long term. The obvious alternative (no bailout) would mean that there's a recession in the short term, but people learn and the market eventually corrects itself in the long term.

Therefore, I support the bailout in order to have it act as a catalyst.

Link

posted by dennisn on October 1st, 2008 at 11:46PM

Why do you want to force such a dramatic and violent revolution?(--even though a revolution is far from guaranteed. It could just as easily, if not more easily, revert back to the same old injustice.) And how can you accept enslaving millions of people in the process. In the unlikely event that freedom should be at the end of your proposed violent tunnel, would history look back upon you as a promoter of freedom, or sadism?

Link

yes
posted by rick on October 1st, 2008 at 4:25PM

It's completely wrong philosophically and is very unpopular, but absolutely necessary to prevent an economic collapse.

Link

posted by dennisn on October 1st, 2008 at 8:15PM

Sigh. Do you not like individual liberty? Don't you respect the "right to one's own life"? How can you possibly promote the violation of other people's liberties for OTHER people's mistakes?

There is NO justification for such a violation of our most fundamental social contract!!

Link

posted by rick on October 2nd, 2008 at 2:21AM

I already said that I disagree with it on a philosophical level. It's absurd that the bailout will, at least initially, benefit the financial institutions that created this mess, rather than going to the individuals who will suffer the consequences the most.

But I think the spiralling effect of the collapse of those financial institutions is a greater evil that needs to be addressed.

Link

No--it is most definitely NOT by dennisn on October 2nd, 2008 at 9:38AM.

First of all, market != people by rick on October 2nd, 2008 at 10:00AM.

Well, the conventional pedestr by dennisn on October 2nd, 2008 at 10:11AM.

I think the bailout takes away by rick on October 2nd, 2008 at 5:36PM.

by rick on October 3rd, 2008 at 5:12PM.

You know Ricky, you're a reall by dennisn on October 2nd, 2008 at 6:20PM.

Right. So it was wrong for the by rick on October 3rd, 2008 at 5:13PM.

>And it was wrong for consumer by dsk on October 7th, 2008 at 8:30AM.

Some random researching led me by rick on October 9th, 2008 at 5:09AM.

No argument here. That's consi by rick on October 7th, 2008 at 8:09PM.

>The investment banks successf by dsk on October 8th, 2008 at 12:26AM.

The problem is two-fold: The b by rick on October 9th, 2008 at 4:32AM.

Ricky, are you a part of the g by dennisn on October 9th, 2008 at 10:08AM.

I don't think anyone is in the by rick on October 9th, 2008 at 4:51PM.

Well, you seemed to be suggest by dennisn on October 9th, 2008 at 5:30PM.

>If we didn't have the balls t by story on October 9th, 2008 at 6:35PM.

If you can somehow say, with a by dennisn on October 10th, 2008 at 11:54AM.

>thus digging themselves into by dsk on October 9th, 2008 at 9:39AM.

No. The the banks did not beha by dennisn on October 7th, 2008 at 10:24PM.

>Housing prices were rising, w by dsk on October 9th, 2008 at 9:56AM.

Yes and no. The banks knew th by rick on October 9th, 2008 at 5:02AM.

As I said before, there are tw by dennisn on October 3rd, 2008 at 7:21PM.

NO
posted by dennisn on September 30th, 2008 at 9:25PM

Get government the fuck out of our pockets. (And, by inference, out of the god damned economy.)

Link

B
posted by dennisn on September 26th, 2008 at 12:20AM

Link

posted by rick on September 25th, 2008 at 3:33AM

I'm pretty sure you meant /Taiwan/ for (D) ... :)

Link