major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
2 edits | That's A Good One
I am laughing uncontrollably over the very idea of investing in the infrastructure because that would never happen in the U.S., especially where infrastructure is concerned. The way it works here is that kind of moohlah, as evidenced by the Bear Stearns bailout, only goes to wealthy corporations and their gullible marks.
BTW, the actual bailout amount was $3.2B, which could have been much better spent elsewhere.
--
The Toll
Shit on Pitt. Let's go Wings!
|
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY | LOL-the "let the market fix everything" crowd must've jizzed in anger over the government bailing out Stearns. What happened to "freemarketeering"?? "Less government"?
What a crock. Hypocrisy knows no boundaries, I suppose. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to major marco
You're basically right. It's important for people to understand the reason.
The estimate is of total benefits to society. But the benefits to the ISPs would be negative: it would cost them more to upgrade than it would bring in revenue. They find it more profitable to increase rates or decrease service (by throttlling, etc.). Building more capacity only makes them more of a commodity, while squeezing customers is cheap and monetizes their monopoly or oligopoly position in each local market.
Thus we have a market failure: a situation where the economically rational course for a company is adverse to the interests of society and its own customers. This can happen only when markets are distorted by anti-market conditions, in this case the local monopolies and oligopolies. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to major marco
said by major marco  :BTW, the actual bailout amount was $3.2B, which could have been much better spent elsewhere. hehe yeah, and when the markets tanked and everyone's retirement accounts lost hundreds of billions of dollars, that 3 billion would be so much piss in the wind. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :I am laughing uncontrollably over the very idea of investing in the infrastructure because that would never happen in the U.S., especially where infrastructure is concerned. The way it works here is that kind of moohlah, as evidenced by the Bear Stearns bailout, only goes to wealthy corporations and their gullible marks. BTW, the actual bailout amount was $3.2B, which could have been much better spent elsewhere. The $30 billion was in Fed guarantees of their debt. So, yes, it could eventually cost the taxpayers $30 billion.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| It was cut down to $29 billion, since JPMorgan raised the price from $2/share to $10/share, and now they have to take the first $1 billion of any losses.
The article linked to in the first post is about Bear Stearns bailing out one of its hedge funds last year and seems rather irrelevant. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to satellite68
said by satellite68 :LOL-the "let the market fix everything" crowd must've jizzed in anger over the government bailing out Stearns. What happened to "freemarketeering"?? "Less government"? Those who believe in freedom are appalled by the bailout - if I am to face the bracing air of my own decisions, why should not Bear Stearns? |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| It's a double edged sword.
I have the mind set that you make your bed, you sleep in it. The government should not be a charity of any sort regardless of wealth and regardless of whether it is for the poor, children, or healthcare. I believe all that should be done by the people that elect to do it.
However, that is a tough pill to swallow for many and for society in general. There are simply positive effects to society in general in helping those in need.
Should we of let Bear Stearns collapse? I say yes, screw them they made the bad choices. However, what would the bigger impact to our economy and ultimately to us be?
I personally say, ALL government charity should be removed PERIOD. It encourages corruption and simply is not why the government was established. Society will figure out how to manage the needs. We always had done that leading up the the 21st century.
This is of course my personal opinion. Your mileage may vary. |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| reply to Steve
said by Steve :said by satellite68 :LOL-the "let the market fix everything" crowd must've jizzed in anger over the government bailing out Stearns. What happened to "freemarketeering"?? "Less government"? Those who believe in freedom are appalled by the bailout - if I am to face the bracing air of my own decisions, why should not Bear Stearns? I agree-I am just pointing out that they did get bailed out, and other industries are not so lucky. Why them, and not housing? |
|
