> RoMunn wrote: > in that kind of situation, i have no problem with wiping out the > shareholders, taking away the managers' bonuses, and jailing the > guilty. i'd put the company into govt ownership, hire a new management > team to fix it, and sell the fixed company to the highest bidder. not > ideal, but better than letting it fail from a macro perspective, and > it doesn't reward the original bad betting. >
"that kind of situation" is called "the US economy" And your suggested solution, with the exception for asking for the profiteers money back (since tracking down the profits is impossible), is exactly what the government is doing with Freddie/Fannie. So essentially you've just voted for more gov't oversight and regulation; you just haven't made the logical leap yet that others have: If the gov't is going to step in and save the day AFTER the storm - i.e., the purveyors and creators of the storm don't suffer - then why ever have the storm? Put the regulation in up front and ensure proper oversight, regulation, and accountability. Put another way you agree exactly with Sarah Palin on windfall profits. She led the charge to give Alaskans a cut of ALL oil money in her state. Her family alone gets $22,000/yr in windfall taxes of oil companies. Congratulations! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:268426 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
