Unionized hamsters wouldn't be nearly as bad as what you have!

> Simon wrote:

>

Nobody here advocated some extreme position
against all labor laws, such as those concerning
child labor and safety. I'm done being trolled.

"free market", as defined by dictionary.com is "an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies." You advocated free market, so I can only assume you are advocating it in whole, as defined. As I said in post #110, "I'm not saying YOU are pro-child labor. I'm asking you to sort out the inconsistency between hiring whoever you want, yet be limited by the age of a potential hire." Perhaps it will be fruitful for you to define your terms, especially when you're not using them in the sense that they are defined.

Perhaps the inconsistency is explained in that the free market only succeeds with the caveat that the individual has the capacity to make the choice?  Because the benefits of a free market tend to operate under the assumption that an actor is rational (although there are economists who will make the argument that, on the aggregate level, such basic concepts as the law of supply and demand still operate even with irrational buyers), it makes sense to put exceptions in instances where an individual clearly has no capacity to make said market decisions, similar to how we wouldn't allow a person with a serious mental debilitation to manage their own IRA account.

What... did you do?  rofl

http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=176353

There you go, ARFeh!  Now we won't have to worry about spam! 

Same here.  So much more entertaining than actually talking about Spain's internal problems! 

That's sort of... liberal... of you to assume he can't take the personal responsibility to determine his own financial capacity, or lack thereof.

There goes Spain dealing with its -2 Stability problems again X(

*waits for ARFeh to join into the running joke*

If dpeng's wife ever saw these forums, her attorney would be giving him thanks. 

If you're expressing a policy preference against one policy, it means nothing unless you have some alternative stance.  So yes, if you say we should have left it to the FDIC and been willing to back the FDIC with the full faith and credit of the US government... it goes back to the question: how much money is it worth backing the FDIC to allow the banks to fail and avoid the $475 billion in TARP?

Go onto chat in #mod and find a moderator.  Report it there.

Oh, here's some food for thought:

http://www.relbanks.com/top-us-banks/deposits

That is a list of the total amount of deposits each bank has, for comparison.  Now, these are 2011 numbers.  I'm still looking for numbers for 2008.  But they're just here to give perspective in what we're talking about in terms of deposits.  JP Morgan alone has over $1 trillion in deposits.  That is twice the cost of TARP.  And that money would have disappeared.  Bank of America: about the same.  $2 trillion saved.  Wells Fargo: another 800 billion+.  Citibank is literally the only bank with deposits over $500 billion that didn't need a bailout.

I would note, however, that it's likely the numbers were... about equal in size, because if there was a massive bank deposit pullout before TARP started being discussed, the banks would have already failed for reasons entirely separate from what TARP was trying to fix.

Now, banks are required to hold 10% of their deposits in reserve at any given time, so you get that.  However, those are gained on a first come-first serve basis.  So more than likely, the people who can pull their money out of a bank as soon as humanly possible (probably those who also have more than $100,000 and have a greater incentive to pull out their money from the bank since, unlike the regular guy, they aren't covered by the FDIC) would get to it first, so that doesn't help the FDIC very much.  Then whatever you think the FDIC can cover (although the FDIC was never meant to actually bail out everyone in the country).  Everything else, we're footing the bill.