deten you just said the economy is all about risk. Now given the fact that "the economy" provides us with food, clothes, homes, drugs and all kinds of luxuries, I dont think its a good idea to keep a system running that is taking all that at risk.

det, shut the fuck up and pay attention you stupid shit.

das, congrats.

Shev, the economy is all about risk. that is a fact. In order to profit you have to take a risk of some sort. If all everybody did was risk free activity our economy would be stagnant. This is not opinion or a guess. This is an economic fact(Im pretty sure undisputed amongst economists). Granted some risks are larger then others, and some risks are smarter then others.

To put it in kdice terms 8v4 for a split is a very low risk move with a very high reward, but sometimes it fails and the results are disastrous. The point being that yeah there are some risks that companies took that where absolutely retarded. But the Government stepping in and saying they are no longer allowed to take on high risk investments is also retarded. Basically whats happening is we are being told that we are only allowed to play it safe. and the government is getting more and more control over what should be controlled by the private sector.

I'm not saying that we are going towards socialism, but this particular move the Obama is trying to make is a very socialistic move. In case you have read the memo socialism = bad for economy.

if you say making profit is about risk then i agree with you. however economy is not just making profit. it is production, exchange, distribution and consumption of goods and services. profit is just a motivation.

socialism is a term which is very foggy and i usually refrain from using it, since it rarely meets the requirements of the complex political and economical structures of our modern society. its just not that simple. you cant say socialism is left and capitalism is right, because those two points give you only one dimension and i claim that there are more.

"Shev, the economy is all about risk. that is a fact. In order to profit you have to take a risk of some sort. If all everybody did was risk free activity our economy would be stagnant. This is not opinion or a guess. This is an economic fact(Im pretty sure undisputed amongst economists). Granted some risks are larger then others, and some risks are smarter then others."

Im pretty sure some dicers are smarter THAN others too :P

he's right though. to argue against the fact than any investment is considered a risk is pretty retarded shev. there no making money in this economy without taking a chance.

nevermind, just saw that shev agreed that making profit is risk which is all i was saying

Shev you are right there are many aspect to the economy. I think in essence they can all be boiled down to the production and circulation of goods though.

I guess my point is really the same one I've been trying to make all along. As long as a company is not directly harming somebody else, it should be left to it's own devices and be allowed to succeed or fail based on it's decisions and the risks it takes.

Harming somebody else would be a tricky thing to define. There are a few things i think e can all agree on though like physical or property damage or theft. and then some other things that are less obvious like insider trading and monopolies sinking their prices to drive new comers out of buisness.

As for price gouging, which i know hasn't been brought up this thread, there is no such thing, and i don't think we need laws to protect against it.

thrax i might make it. this post is doing pretty well.

Why are all the great economic minds on a kdice forum and not solving our problems already.