Story Comments

Posted by: flyonthewallzz 11 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

100%
flyonthewallzz11 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

My prime criticism is that it seems to lack bold creativity.
The status quo is crippled and I am not seeing new seeds.
I wonder if there is a way the government can encourage new companies to rise from the bottom and take out the industries that are "Too big to fail" instead of considering them entitled to their profits.
I have no faith in anti-trust laws and it seems that the bailout money is being used to create even bigger Juggernauts, that lay-off thousands of folks while they play with the billions.
I think large publicly owned corporations need to have a different set of rules than a small business. Maybe even treated like a foreign entity to tariff.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
1 Reply

loading ...
- 100%
  Beau789011 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  I agree about what you call the bold creativity, though I have to admit I can't figure out a way to stimulate the economy either that would ever get through Congress. I'd like to see the government start up a WPA/CCC-type program, but I can't imagine how that's gonna happen--there'd be opposition from unions on the left and small-government types on the right. I'm very disappointed with the way Congress works these days, and I'm not sure how that's ever going to change...
  
  More to your point about replacing the companies that are "too big to fail," I've come to the conclusion that the short-term thinking of large public corporations is also virtually impossible to surmount. It seems to me that the way the stock market works, boards of directors and company officers will always look to the short term--if they were to take losses in the short run in order to invest in R and strengthen their long-term prospects, stock prices will fall and shareholders will vote the directors and officers out. It seems an inherent problem with publicly run corporations.
  
  But I know you're smart...any ideas?
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  0 Replies
  
  loading ...