Even though there is more money from fines that taxing drugs, there is a much bigger cost in policing illegal drug trafficking and imprisonment. 2/3rds of prisoners in the US are there because of drug charges. If we were to unilaterally legalize all drugs with restrictions on age or quantity. It would reduce a heavy burden on the US's legal system, put drugs in the hands of pharmecuticals instead of cartels, and we would make money from taxation. I think the biggest problem with the economy right now is what deviliscious got at. The government is putting in too much control on the market and its falling apart. We started to feel the effects of the housing bubble collapsing in early 2008. If we just let it ride the economy would have already rebounded. Instead we put $2.1 trillion at the problem and we are going to be in this mess for years now. Ontop of it, the value of the dollar has significantly decreased. Big government right now is what is standing in the way of economic growth. I can assure you if the government dropped spending to $1.2 trillion and completely got rid of income and capital gains taxes. The economy would be fine in weeks.
Good God...lol.
Free market deregulated capitalism with no social safety nets and no rules led to the bubble. You want the booms of a capitalist market you had better be willing to accept the busts.
And as for the comment of "just get rid of taxes...haw haw"...well, I can only imagine what type of national suicide that would be. Don't get me wrong, no government would ever do it...because most people don't like to destroy their nation. Lol. Some of you people are truly dense.
False. The bubble had nothing to do with deregulated capitalism, but had its origin in the easy money policies of the Fed, as well as government REGULATIONS that encouraged bad loans. It wasn't the packaging of bad loans that was the problem, or the selling of them as securities, it was the making of those loans in the first place.
That was encouraged by Federal Policy all the way.
That wasn't what CAUSED the bubble, but it did direct where the bubble would occur. What caused the bubble was bad monetary policy.
Capitalism doesn't cause booms and busts. Every boom we have ever had can be traced back to government and its actions.
It is not false. Of all people you, Fishermage, should not be posting on this. I thoroughly explained this to you half a year ago or so and all I received back was static.
Let's analyze what you said though:
#1: This had nothing to do with deregulated capitalism but had everything to do with easy money policies. Ahem. So you are trying to say that banks having access to money created the problem? Or that interest rates were too low? Please explain yourself.
#2: This mantra that it was government legislation that caused it is universally untrue. The legislation that existed that removed redlining annoyed the banks for a year or two until they realized, VIA DEREGULATION, how profitable it was to loan to marginal customers. They were not forced...they did it happily. They made billions of dollars off of those customers.
#3: And I think it is hilarious that you think that packaging them up was not part of the problem. You package these esoteric combinations of mortgage loans together, built with financial instruments that no modest economist would ever agree to, and sell them on the open market, and you think that isn't part of the problem?
Here is a hint: banks should not be allowed to invent mortgage terms because they will do anything to entice the consumer. And the lure of real estate inflation will always draw these quarterly profit motivated corporations to squeeze every cent they can every quarter (at the expense of future quarters or predicated on certain market conditions).
The boom was absolutely the product of deregulation on many fronts. To expect consumers to make sound financial decisions about their lives is leading your country to disaster. To blame it on government regulation flies in the face of what any sane economist would ever say.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
100% .. and yea I was here then don;t remember him either lol.
Join in everyone of you! How would you fix the economy? xD
Id take a page from the liberals fantasy world and put a Liberal Marxist in the presidency and put congress at 100% libeal controll. Then id get them to buy some magic fairy dust and sprinkle it at wall street and magically fix the stock markets, because as every liberal knows the reason Bush is failing is not just because he is an idiot but also because he doesant belive in some magic dust that can make the stock markets fix themselves .
At least thats what most liberals believe should be done it seems. So all you worried Americans out there clap your hands and say "I believe", and if you believe hard enough a liberals will come into the presidency and magically the stock markets will fix themselves and any stimulas package will work imediatly.
Hmmm I used my magical fairy dust and rolled us back a few years.
How quickly some people forget beating the magic bullet drum for the past few years when the tables are reversed.
I'm just glad the drum circles and constant Obama propoganda pins/flyers/etc are all over. Now I can lose all of my savings in peace.
Even though there is more money from fines that taxing drugs, there is a much bigger cost in policing illegal drug trafficking and imprisonment. 2/3rds of prisoners in the US are there because of drug charges. If we were to unilaterally legalize all drugs with restrictions on age or quantity. It would reduce a heavy burden on the US's legal system, put drugs in the hands of pharmecuticals instead of cartels, and we would make money from taxation. I think the biggest problem with the economy right now is what deviliscious got at. The government is putting in too much control on the market and its falling apart. We started to feel the effects of the housing bubble collapsing in early 2008. If we just let it ride the economy would have already rebounded. Instead we put $2.1 trillion at the problem and we are going to be in this mess for years now. Ontop of it, the value of the dollar has significantly decreased. Big government right now is what is standing in the way of economic growth. I can assure you if the government dropped spending to $1.2 trillion and completely got rid of income and capital gains taxes. The economy would be fine in weeks.
Good God...lol.
Free market deregulated capitalism with no social safety nets and no rules led to the bubble. You want the booms of a capitalist market you had better be willing to accept the busts.
And as for the comment of "just get rid of taxes...haw haw"...well, I can only imagine what type of national suicide that would be. Don't get me wrong, no government would ever do it...because most people don't like to destroy their nation. Lol. Some of you people are truly dense.
False. The bubble had nothing to do with deregulated capitalism, but had its origin in the easy money policies of the Fed, as well as government REGULATIONS that encouraged bad loans. It wasn't the packaging of bad loans that was the problem, or the selling of them as securities, it was the making of those loans in the first place.
That was encouraged by Federal Policy all the way.
That wasn't what CAUSED the bubble, but it did direct where the bubble would occur. What caused the bubble was bad monetary policy.
Capitalism doesn't cause booms and busts. Every boom we have ever had can be traced back to government and its actions.
It is not false. Of all people you, Fishermage, should not be posting on this. I thoroughly explained this to you half a year ago or so and all I received back was static.
Let's analyze what you said though:
#1: This had nothing to do with deregulated capitalism but had everything to do with easy money policies. Ahem. So you are trying to say that banks having access to money created the problem? Or that interest rates were too low? Please explain yourself.
#2: This mantra that it was government legislation that caused it is universally untrue. The legislation that existed that removed redlining annoyed the banks for a year or two until they realized, VIA DEREGULATION, how profitable it was to loan to marginal customers. They were not forced...they did it happily. They made billions of dollars off of those customers.
#3: And I think it is hilarious that you think that packaging them up was not part of the problem. You package these esoteric combinations of mortgage loans together, built with financial instruments that no modest economist would ever agree to, and sell them on the open market, and you think that isn't part of the problem?
Here is a hint: banks should not be allowed to invent mortgage terms because they will do anything to entice the consumer. And the lure of real estate inflation will always draw these quarterly profit motivated corporations to squeeze every cent they can every quarter (at the expense of future quarters or predicated on certain market conditions).
The boom was absolutely the product of deregulation on many fronts. To expect consumers to make sound financial decisions about their lives is leading your country to disaster. To blame it on government regulation flies in the face of what any sane economist would ever say.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
100% .. and yea I was here then don;t remember him either lol.
Well, hopefully he will be able to find the post where he "thoroughly explained" how it was UNREGULATED, UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM that led to the disaster. I have seen many people make this claim, but it has always shown to be false. What is amusing is that money and banking has always been among the least capitalist and most regulated sectors of our economy, yet it was here that the problems started and ended.
What is amusing is that freddie and fannie have nothing to do with capitalism. They were government created, sponsored, and protected.
In fact, this mess was the result of unregulated, unbridled SOCIALISM. People once again deciding to use goverment for something it is not good for.
Well, hopefully he will be able to find the post where he "thoroughly explained" how it was UNREGULATED, UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM that led to the disaster. I have seen many people make this claim, but it has always shown to be false. What is amusing is that money and banking has always been among the least capitalist and most regulated sectors of our economy, yet it was here that the problems started and ended. What is amusing is that freddie and fannie have nothing to do with capitalism. They were government created, sponsored, and protected. In fact, this mess was the result of unregulated, unbridled SOCIALISM. People once again deciding to use goverment for something it is not good for.
I agree. It is the truth of the matter. The government should not be " backing" these loans, and freddie and fannie should not exist to begin with. That would ensure that the banks make smarter loans. The only purpose for backing the loans is because they want the banks to extend credit to those who should not have credit.
You know, my first 3 cars I saved and bought with cash before I was ever 18. I did not need credit, i just didn;t blow my money. I do not understand why people these days seem to think that they need credit for everything. Save it yourself, if you cannot afford it DON'T BUY IT! I can understand the usage of credit for necessary items, but that is not what most people use it for at all and that is why we are in this situation to begin with. They did not qualify for loans, so the government made it so they did. If they had not changed that fact alone we would not be having any issues at all.
And I don't know if it is socialism that brought US on their knees. And I doubt the maturity of people concerning money ,changes any between socialism and capitalism. Frankly both theories are bollocks imo. I would not want to live in a socialistic state neither on a capitalistic one because both are based on ideas that are good in theory, not so good in practice. Fact is the US is way to big to be controlled by only a goverment that is based on one place. I haven't seen any example that the majority of people given options will spend their money wisely.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Too many corrupt and in power to end the Federal Reserve.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0zEXdDO5JU It's quite intersting imo. And I don't know if it is socialism that brought US on their knees. And I doubt the maturity of people concerning money ,changes any between socialism and capitalism. Frankly both theories are bollocks imo. I would not want to live in a socialistic state neither on a capitalistic one because both are based on ideas that are good in theory, not so good in practice. Fact is the US is way to big to be controlled by only a goverment that is based on one place. I haven't seen any example that the majority of people given options will spend their money wisely.
Actually, the notion that people own one another (socialism) is terrible in theory and practice. Capitalism (the idea that people own themselves) is good in both theory and in practice. To the extent capitalism has been practiced, people have done well, to the extent socialism has been practiced, they have not done well.
There are no societies even remotely pure capitalism, but the more capitalist a society is, the better overall that society fares. We do have nearly pure socialist systems, and the closer they are to pure socialism. the worse the people have fared.
Who are YOU to determine what is wise? Are you saying you know what is best for someone else -- better than they do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0zEXdDO5JU It's quite intersting imo. And I don't know if it is socialism that brought US on their knees. And I doubt the maturity of people concerning money ,changes any between socialism and capitalism. Frankly both theories are bollocks imo. I would not want to live in a socialistic state neither on a capitalistic one because both are based on ideas that are good in theory, not so good in practice. Fact is the US is way to big to be controlled by only a goverment that is based on one place. I haven't seen any example that the majority of people given options will spend their money wisely.
Actually, the notion that people own one another (socialism) is terrible in theory and practice. Capitalism (the idea that people own themselves) is good in both theory and in practice. To the extent capitalism has been practiced, people have done well, to the extent socialism has been practiced, they have not done well.
There are no societies even remotely pure capitalism, but the more capitalist a society is, the better overall that society fares. We do have nearly pure socialist systems, and the closer they are to pure socialism. the worse the people have fared.
Who are YOU to determine what is wise? Are you saying you know what is best for someone else -- better than they do?
Capitalism is based also in the idea of the free market. Which as I see it is not feasible. Bigger corporations will always drive the competition away, thus negating the whole concept no?
So far I haven't seen any capitalistic societies that "fare well" and by fare well I mean an above average standard of living for the people that live there.
Also in both kind of societies it's the people's fault always if they don't fare well. Sure in a socialistic envirroment the goverment decides a lot of things, but who decided that this goverment should rule? And if they are corrupt why not take it down?
The people always and in every system have the power, but the majority will always trade freedom for safety. No system will change that. Because for every person that finds his way, there are more than can't figure or won't figure things.
To your last question. The good of the many outshines the good of the few. That is the rule I like to exercise in a decision. We don't live in a society by ourselves and not everything should be centered around ONLY our interests. Because your interests at some point will conflict with another person's and who are YOU to say that your interests are more important than his?
Right now I don't support this system because the MANY are suffering for the good of the few and that's the problem.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0zEXdDO5JU It's quite intersting imo. And I don't know if it is socialism that brought US on their knees. And I doubt the maturity of people concerning money ,changes any between socialism and capitalism. Frankly both theories are bollocks imo. I would not want to live in a socialistic state neither on a capitalistic one because both are based on ideas that are good in theory, not so good in practice. Fact is the US is way to big to be controlled by only a goverment that is based on one place. I haven't seen any example that the majority of people given options will spend their money wisely.
Actually, the notion that people own one another (socialism) is terrible in theory and practice. Capitalism (the idea that people own themselves) is good in both theory and in practice. To the extent capitalism has been practiced, people have done well, to the extent socialism has been practiced, they have not done well.
There are no societies even remotely pure capitalism, but the more capitalist a society is, the better overall that society fares. We do have nearly pure socialist systems, and the closer they are to pure socialism. the worse the people have fared.
Who are YOU to determine what is wise? Are you saying you know what is best for someone else -- better than they do?
Capitalism is based also in the idea of the free market. Which as I see it is not feasible. Bigger corporations will always drive the competition away, thus negating the whole concept no?
So far I haven't seen any capitalistic societies that "fare well" and by fare well I mean an above average standard of living for the people that live there.
Also in both kind of societies it's the people's fault always if they don't fare well. Sure in a socialistic envirroment the goverment decides a lot of things, but who decided that this goverment should rule? And if they are corrupt why not take it down?
The people always and in every system have the power, but the majority will always trade freedom for safety. No system will change that. Because for every person that finds his way, there are more than can't figure or won't figure things.
To your last question. The good of the many outshines the good of the few. That is the rule I like to exercise in a decision. We don't live in a society by ourselves and not everything should be centered around ONLY our interests. Because your interests at some point will conflict with another person's and who are YOU to say that your interests are more important than his?
Right now I don't support this system because the MANY are suffering for the good of the few and that's the problem.
No. Bigger corporations can only get so big that they always drive the competition away IF they are empowered to do so by government.
The United states is the most capitalistic nation in history. Until it embraced socialism, it was far and above the most successful society. before that and alongside it was Great Britain, again, until it embraced socialism.
France is more capitalistic than Spain and generally fares better. Germany, more capitalistic than France, and interestingly enough is more capitalistic.
Eastern Europe, more capitalistic than the above, has been growing faster and better than they. at least since they left socialism after the fall of teh Soviet Union.
Among mixed economies, the more capitalist they are, generally, the more successful.
That's among mixed economies.
Every socialist country is a basketcase (USSR, China, East germany, eastern Europe under socialism, and Cuba..next up Venezeula). This is without exception.
"The good of the many outshines the good of the few." Sounds like communism to me, not even socialism. Who are YOU to determine what the good is? What gives you the right to determine what consititutes the good of the many?
At any rate, if you care about the good of the many, the free market wins every time in all places throughout history. Socialism simply can't compete with capitalism on those utilitarian grounds.
I never said we live anywhere by ourselves, capitalism is a social system for people tp live in just as socialism is -- the difference is -- should brute force be the defining of our relationships (socialism) or should voluntary action (capitalism). I say the latter not the former.
No. Bigger corporations can only get so big that they always drive the competition away IF they are empowered to do so by government. The United states is the most capitalistic nation in history. Until it embraced socialism, it was far and above the most successful society. before that and alongside it was Great Britain, again, until it embraced socialism. France is more capitalistic than Spain and generally fares better. Germany, more capitalistic than France, and interestingly enough is more capitalistic. Eastern Europe, more capitalistic than the above, has been growing faster and better than they. at least since they left socialism after the fall of teh Soviet Union. Among mixed economies, the more capitalist they are, generally, the more successful. That's among mixed economies. Every socialist country is a basketcase (USSR, China, East germany, eastern Europe under socialism, and Cuba..next up Venezeula). This is without exception. "The good of the many outshines the good of the few." Sounds like communism to me, not even socialism. Who are YOU to determine what the good is? What gives you the right to determine what consititutes the good of the many? At any rate, if you care about the good of the many, the free market wins every time in all places throughout history. Socialism simply can't compete with capitalism on those utilitarian grounds. I never said we live anywhere by ourselves, capitalism is a social system for people tp live in just as socialism is -- the difference is -- should brute force be the defining of our relationships (socialism) or should voluntary action (capitalism). I say the latter not the former.
Germany and France have a mix yes and that's why they fare well compared to others. As you noticed I don't advocate socialism as the solution. I never agreed that pure socialism work and I have been closer to the coutries that you mention and have seen up close and personal how they fare.
Why do you insist Fisher to put tags in everything? "Sounds like communism"? You did good mentioning the economies that work, don't spoil it by using tags all the time. Is that so hard to understand that some people are actually trying to be objective?
All the mixed economies just held the balance between brute force and voluntary action that's why they work. Have you got any example of PURE capitalist society that works?
The good of the many is decided by many factors both in a micro and a macro level. And to be less cryptic, the people that live nearer to their individual communities can decide what's best of them, not someone that needs to travel 2 hours with a plane.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
No. Bigger corporations can only get so big that they always drive the competition away IF they are empowered to do so by government. The United states is the most capitalistic nation in history. Until it embraced socialism, it was far and above the most successful society. before that and alongside it was Great Britain, again, until it embraced socialism. France is more capitalistic than Spain and generally fares better. Germany, more capitalistic than France, and interestingly enough is more capitalistic. Eastern Europe, more capitalistic than the above, has been growing faster and better than they. at least since they left socialism after the fall of teh Soviet Union. Among mixed economies, the more capitalist they are, generally, the more successful. That's among mixed economies. Every socialist country is a basketcase (USSR, China, East germany, eastern Europe under socialism, and Cuba..next up Venezeula). This is without exception. "The good of the many outshines the good of the few." Sounds like communism to me, not even socialism. Who are YOU to determine what the good is? What gives you the right to determine what consititutes the good of the many? At any rate, if you care about the good of the many, the free market wins every time in all places throughout history. Socialism simply can't compete with capitalism on those utilitarian grounds. I never said we live anywhere by ourselves, capitalism is a social system for people tp live in just as socialism is -- the difference is -- should brute force be the defining of our relationships (socialism) or should voluntary action (capitalism). I say the latter not the former.
Germany and France have a mix yes and that's why they fare well compared to others. As you noticed I don't advocate socialism as the solution. I never agreed that pure socialism work and I have been closer to the coutries that you mention and have seen up close and personal how they fare.
Why do you insist Fisher to put tags in everything? "Sounds like communism"? You did good mentioning the economies that work, don't spoil it by using tags all the time. Is that so hard to understand that some people are actually trying to be objective?
All the mixed economies just held the balance between brute force and voluntary action that's why they work. Have you got any example of PURE capitalist society that works?
The good of the many is decided by many factors both in a micro and a macro level. And to be less cryptic, the people that live nearer to their individual communities can decide what's best of them, not someone that needs to travel 2 hours with a plane.
Sorry, when I see a phrase that fits a tag, I will tag it. I hardly put "tags" on much of anything, but since I am interested in the evolution of ideas I sometimes show relationships between ideas.
That old Spock line is communism, pure and simple (or at least collectivism). To say the needs of the many assumes a great deal -- that anyone could possibly figure out what anyone needs, much less the many. Please, though, how do YOU decide what is good for the many, on a micro and a macro level. Please share the formula.
To then carry that hubris even further and then to imagine that one should use the power of the state to compel such a thing...well, even Spock didn't go that far.
All the mixed economies are not working -- we see the failure of it around us right now. Socialism has failed us -- even partial socialism. These have all been time bombs waiting to happen -- and market economists have been talking about this coming bust in the government manufactured bubble, just as we talked about the ones before this one.
It's what we do, we warn everyone before they do it, tell them just before it happens that it is going to happen, explain it as it is occurring, and then give clear suggestions of how to get out of the situation and how to ensure it won't happen again. Then, the free market economists are ignored.
It's okay though. back in the day no on heard of Ron Paul, or even the word libertarian. With each cycle of failure of socialism from the right and from the left, knowledge of these things has grown. That's something.
No. Bigger corporations can only get so big that they always drive the competition away IF they are empowered to do so by government. The United states is the most capitalistic nation in history. Until it embraced socialism, it was far and above the most successful society. before that and alongside it was Great Britain, again, until it embraced socialism. France is more capitalistic than Spain and generally fares better. Germany, more capitalistic than France, and interestingly enough is more capitalistic. Eastern Europe, more capitalistic than the above, has been growing faster and better than they. at least since they left socialism after the fall of teh Soviet Union. Among mixed economies, the more capitalist they are, generally, the more successful. That's among mixed economies. Every socialist country is a basketcase (USSR, China, East germany, eastern Europe under socialism, and Cuba..next up Venezeula). This is without exception. "The good of the many outshines the good of the few." Sounds like communism to me, not even socialism. Who are YOU to determine what the good is? What gives you the right to determine what consititutes the good of the many? At any rate, if you care about the good of the many, the free market wins every time in all places throughout history. Socialism simply can't compete with capitalism on those utilitarian grounds. I never said we live anywhere by ourselves, capitalism is a social system for people tp live in just as socialism is -- the difference is -- should brute force be the defining of our relationships (socialism) or should voluntary action (capitalism). I say the latter not the former.
Germany and France have a mix yes and that's why they fare well compared to others. As you noticed I don't advocate socialism as the solution. I never agreed that pure socialism work and I have been closer to the coutries that you mention and have seen up close and personal how they fare.
Why do you insist Fisher to put tags in everything? "Sounds like communism"? You did good mentioning the economies that work, don't spoil it by using tags all the time. Is that so hard to understand that some people are actually trying to be objective?
All the mixed economies just held the balance between brute force and voluntary action that's why they work. Have you got any example of PURE capitalist society that works?
The good of the many is decided by many factors both in a micro and a macro level. And to be less cryptic, the people that live nearer to their individual communities can decide what's best of them, not someone that needs to travel 2 hours with a plane.
Sorry, when I see a phrase that fits a tag, I will tag it. I hardly put "tags" on much of anything, but since I am interested in the evolution of ideas I sometimes show relationships between ideas.
That old Spock line is communism, pure and simple (or at least collectivism). To say the needs of the many assumes a great deal -- that anyone could possibly figure out what anyone needs, much less the many. Please, though, how do YOU decide what is good for the many, on a micro and a macro level. Please share the formula.
To then carry that hubris even further and then to imagine that one should use the power of the state to compel such a thing...well, even Spock didn't go that far.
All the mixed economies are not working -- we see the failure of it around us right now. Socialism has failed us -- even partial socialism. These have all been time bombs waiting to happen -- and market economists have been talking about this coming bust in the government manufactured bubble, just as we talked about the ones before this one.
It's what we do, we warn everyone before they do it, tell them just before it happens that it is going to happen, explain it as it is occurring, and then give clear suggestions of how to get out of the situation and how to ensure it won't happen again. Then, the free market economists are ignored.
It's okay though. back in the day no on heard of Ron Paul, or even the word libertarian. With each cycle of failure of socialism from the right and from the left, knowledge of these things has grown. That's something.
Hehe thanks for reminding me where I have heard that line before:) I don't know what you do in general or not, but I notice that you distinctly try to classify people and ideas one way or another. It could be an easy way to index some things or just for rhetoric purposes, I am not in a position to know. Please don't use tags with me though because to me they come of as rhetoric or a way to win impressions. Just explain your position and believe me I will do my best to comprehend it. I never say ,and don't twist my words here please, that one person can figure the needs of the many and fullfill them, but a collective of persons that represent their communities can and when the people that are being represented by them actually give a shit to voice their opinions. When most people prefer to sit in front of their TV and passively accept any crap the system doesn't matter. Being active is the key. Giving a damn that officials are being corrupted also. In general honoring the fact that you are a citisen of the country you live in. For how many people Fisher you can say that? How many people actually care about their community and through their actions promote both their interests and improving the place they live in? How many people actually care in what system they live in? As for the last one about the economists. An economist much like a philosopher can prove you that even pure socialism works in theory that is. The fact that socialism failed in many places just means that it is time to try something else not that by default the other side is correct. That's what having an open mind means. To actually be willing to try every idea to improve things all around. Do these "free market" economists say who will be hosed in that kind of system or what you will need to sacrifice to achieve it? And the reason why Fisher nobody had heard of Ron Paul in US or what "libertarian" stands for is only one. Because noone cared. Simple as that. If the people that are part of the country don't give a damn nothing will work.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
Buffetts record speaks louder than his celebrity status. The "Oracle" has scarcely out performed the Dow in the last 20 years. He breaks even. Thats not impressive at all. And as to his statment about the economy falling off a cliff, wow what insight! Pure genius.... not so much. Buffett did very well a few decades ago and has coasted on that reputation ever since, having achieved nothing meaningful since.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
I don't even know who you are, but I imagine you usually flame people instead of discuss things. Your arguments float over my head? amusing, to say the least.
1. There would have been nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities had they not been based upon bad loans. Those bad loans were the product of government regulations.
the packaging of GOOD loans is a great thing, the packaging of bad loans is the bad one. It wasn't the packaging that caused the problem at all.
2. I never said "financial instruments are backed by government" -- that's the part that is patently false.
The banks are backed by government, through the FDIC. Mortgages are as well, through fannie mae and freddie mac -- people felt those operations also were 100% backed by the government (we are seeing such is the case, now)
The government has declared itself creditor of the last resort -- thus government through its REGULATION fostered the atmosphere.
3. Market discipline didn't force them because there was no market discipline. This was removed by government control over the industry. There has been no free market in money and banking for a long time.
You have demonstrated nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing. I at least have shared sources which back up my claims, and I can provide more.
You have provided nothing to back up yours -- not even your own reasoning. All you have done is made unproven assertions, and of course, claimed that your unproven assertions are "above the head" of your opposition.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
I don't even know who you are, but I imagine you usually flame people instead of discuss things. Your arguments float over my head? amusing, to say the least.
1. There would have been nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities had they not been based upon bad loans. Those bad loans were the product of government regulations.
the packaging of GOOD loans is a great thing, the packaging of bad loans is the bad one. It wasn't the packaging that caused the problem at all.
2. I never said "financial instruments are backed by government" -- that's the part that is patently false.
The banks are backed by government, through the FDIC. Mortgages are as well, through fannie mae and freddie mac -- people felt those operations also were 100% backed by the government (we are seeing such is the case, now)
The government has declared itself creditor of the last resort -- thus government through its REGULATION fostered the atmosphere.
3. Market discipline didn't force them because there was no market discipline. This was removed by government control over the industry. There has been no free market in money and banking for a long time.
You have demonstrated nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing. I at least have shared sources which back up my claims, and I can provide more.
You have provided nothing to back up yours -- not even your own reasoning. All you have done is made unproven assertions, and of course, claimed that your unproven assertions are "above the head" of your opposition.
I'll ignore the baiting and address your points:
#1: You do not recognize the connection. The reason why banks started seeking out these subprime borrowers was because they had all this extra money available due to packing of MBSs, or rather Subprime MBSs (SMBSs). They had to do something with this money. So they went and lent it out. You have done nothing to counter the argument that "if they didn't have the money there was no way they could have possibly financed these loans".
Point for me.
Your response in a nutshell is: "the MBS has nothing to do with it, it was the bad loans they made. These bad loans were the result of government regulation." What I'm assuming you are referring to is the Community Reinvestment Act. You know, where the big commercial banks had to lend to the low income communities they set up shop in. Of course, the major and obvious flaw with this argument is that nearly 50% of the subprime loans made were made by mortgage service companies that did not fall under the purview of the CRA. Another 30%? Thrifts and bank affiliates. So 80% of the bad loans that you said only happened due to government regulation happened with no regulation at all.
Point for me...sorry.
#2: You say that, and I quote: "I never said 'financial instruments are backed by government' -- that's the part that is patently false."
Ahem: "Banks will only 'Invent terms' if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
So firstly, I have no idea what you meant by "invent terms" so please explain that to me. Because it sounds like you thought that banks only created financial instruments (those are the only things with terms after all, you know, the mortgages lol) if those financial instruments were backed by the government. If that is not what you meant it is what you typed and I'm not responsible for your inability to communicate properly.
Secondly, let's respond to the substance of what you were trying to say. You said the banks are backed by the FDIC. That protects deposits. That does not protect banks from bad mortgages. So what you say there has nothing to do with banks and has everything to do with the public at large. And it has nothing to do with mortgages at all.
Third, mortgages are not backed by Freddie Mac unless Freddie Mac buys them. And the whole problem came about when these banks, instead of selling them to Freddie Mac, packaged them up on their own (that's deregulation sir) and sold them on the open market. So there was no guarantee. See the problem? And now the government has been forced to be a creditor of last resort and has to introduce new regulations...due to the failed DEREGULATION.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
I don't even know who you are, but I imagine you usually flame people instead of discuss things. Your arguments float over my head? amusing, to say the least.
1. There would have been nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities had they not been based upon bad loans. Those bad loans were the product of government regulations.
the packaging of GOOD loans is a great thing, the packaging of bad loans is the bad one. It wasn't the packaging that caused the problem at all.
2. I never said "financial instruments are backed by government" -- that's the part that is patently false.
The banks are backed by government, through the FDIC. Mortgages are as well, through fannie mae and freddie mac -- people felt those operations also were 100% backed by the government (we are seeing such is the case, now)
The government has declared itself creditor of the last resort -- thus government through its REGULATION fostered the atmosphere.
3. Market discipline didn't force them because there was no market discipline. This was removed by government control over the industry. There has been no free market in money and banking for a long time.
You have demonstrated nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing. I at least have shared sources which back up my claims, and I can provide more.
You have provided nothing to back up yours -- not even your own reasoning. All you have done is made unproven assertions, and of course, claimed that your unproven assertions are "above the head" of your opposition.
I'll ignore the baiting and address your points:
#1: You do not recognize the connection. The reason why banks started seeking out these subprime borrowers was because they had all this extra money available due to packing of MBSs, or rather Subprime MBSs (SMBSs). They had to do something with this money. So they went and lent it out. You have done nothing to counter the argument that "if they didn't have the money there was no way they could have possibly financed these loans".
Point for me.
Your response in a nutshell is: "the MBS has nothing to do with it, it was the bad loans they made. These bad loans were the result of government regulation." What I'm assuming you are referring to is the Community Reinvestment Act. You know, where the big commercial banks had to lend to the low income communities they set up shop in. Of course, the major and obvious flaw with this argument is that nearly 50% of the subprime loans made were made by mortgage service companies that did not fall under the purview of the CRA. Another 30%? Thrifts and bank affiliates. So 80% of the bad loans that you said only happened due to government regulation happened with no regulation at all.
Point for me...sorry.
#2: You say that, and I quote: "I never said 'financial instruments are backed by government' -- that's the part that is patently false."
Ahem: "Banks will only 'Invent terms' if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
So firstly, I have no idea what you meant by "invent terms" so please explain that to me. Because it sounds like you thought that banks only created financial instruments (those are the only things with terms after all, you know, the mortgages lol) if those financial instruments were backed by the government. If that is not what you meant it is what you typed and I'm not responsible for your inability to communicate properly.
Secondly, let's respond to the substance of what you were trying to say. You said the banks are backed by the FDIC. That protects deposits. That does not protect banks from bad mortgages. So what you say there has nothing to do with banks and has everything to do with the public at large. And it has nothing to do with mortgages at all.
Third, mortgages are not backed by Freddie Mac unless Freddie Mac buys them. And the whole problem came about when these banks, instead of selling them to Freddie Mac, packaged them up on their own (that's deregulation sir) and sold them on the open market. So there was no guarantee. See the problem? And now the government has been forced to be a creditor of last resort and has to introduce new regulations...due to the failed DEREGULATION.
Point for me again.
3-0. Response?
No points for you at all. Stll you keep making assertions with nothing to back them up.
Once again you are talking about the deregulation of SOCIALISM, not capitalism. You haven't even dealt with what I am talking about.
You are calling a system something it isn't. Our money and banking system is many things, but it isn't capitalism. It is the most socialist part of our economy. It begins and ends with government.
Anything Freddie and fannie do is essentially government action. Everything the Fed does is government action. None of this has anything to do with capitalism or free markets, or deregulated capitalism. It has to do with the failure of socialist banking and credit systems.
You are missing my whole point, and keep arguing against a straw man. Attack socialism all you want; you just should call it what it is, not attach another name to it so you can attack the thing you don't like.
Sad to see however that you consider this all a game, with points being delivered, instead of a serious discussion of the issues.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
I don't even know who you are, but I imagine you usually flame people instead of discuss things. Your arguments float over my head? amusing, to say the least.
1. There would have been nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities had they not been based upon bad loans. Those bad loans were the product of government regulations.
the packaging of GOOD loans is a great thing, the packaging of bad loans is the bad one. It wasn't the packaging that caused the problem at all.
2. I never said "financial instruments are backed by government" -- that's the part that is patently false.
The banks are backed by government, through the FDIC. Mortgages are as well, through fannie mae and freddie mac -- people felt those operations also were 100% backed by the government (we are seeing such is the case, now)
The government has declared itself creditor of the last resort -- thus government through its REGULATION fostered the atmosphere.
3. Market discipline didn't force them because there was no market discipline. This was removed by government control over the industry. There has been no free market in money and banking for a long time.
You have demonstrated nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing. I at least have shared sources which back up my claims, and I can provide more.
You have provided nothing to back up yours -- not even your own reasoning. All you have done is made unproven assertions, and of course, claimed that your unproven assertions are "above the head" of your opposition.
I'll ignore the baiting and address your points:
#1: You do not recognize the connection. The reason why banks started seeking out these subprime borrowers was because they had all this extra money available due to packing of MBSs, or rather Subprime MBSs (SMBSs). They had to do something with this money. So they went and lent it out. You have done nothing to counter the argument that "if they didn't have the money there was no way they could have possibly financed these loans".
Point for me.
Your response in a nutshell is: "the MBS has nothing to do with it, it was the bad loans they made. These bad loans were the result of government regulation." What I'm assuming you are referring to is the Community Reinvestment Act. You know, where the big commercial banks had to lend to the low income communities they set up shop in. Of course, the major and obvious flaw with this argument is that nearly 50% of the subprime loans made were made by mortgage service companies that did not fall under the purview of the CRA. Another 30%? Thrifts and bank affiliates. So 80% of the bad loans that you said only happened due to government regulation happened with no regulation at all.
Point for me...sorry.
#2: You say that, and I quote: "I never said 'financial instruments are backed by government' -- that's the part that is patently false."
Ahem: "Banks will only 'Invent terms' if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
So firstly, I have no idea what you meant by "invent terms" so please explain that to me. Because it sounds like you thought that banks only created financial instruments (those are the only things with terms after all, you know, the mortgages lol) if those financial instruments were backed by the government. If that is not what you meant it is what you typed and I'm not responsible for your inability to communicate properly.
Secondly, let's respond to the substance of what you were trying to say. You said the banks are backed by the FDIC. That protects deposits. That does not protect banks from bad mortgages. So what you say there has nothing to do with banks and has everything to do with the public at large. And it has nothing to do with mortgages at all.
Third, mortgages are not backed by Freddie Mac unless Freddie Mac buys them. And the whole problem came about when these banks, instead of selling them to Freddie Mac, packaged them up on their own (that's deregulation sir) and sold them on the open market. So there was no guarantee. See the problem? And now the government has been forced to be a creditor of last resort and has to introduce new regulations...due to the failed DEREGULATION.
Point for me again.
3-0. Response?
No points for you at all. Stll you keep making assertions with nothing to back them up.
Once again you are talking about the deregulation of SOCIALISM, not capitalism. You haven't even dealt with what I am talking about.
You are calling a system something it isn't. Our money and banking system is many things, but it isn't capitalism. It is the most socialist part of our economy. It begins and ends with government.
Anything Freddie and fannie do is essentially government action. Everything the Fed does is government action. None of this has anything to do with capitalism or free markets, or deregulated capitalism. It has to do with the failure of socialist banking and credit systems.
You are missing my whole point, and keep arguing against a straw man. Attack socialism all you want; you just should call it what it is, not attach another name to it so you can attack the thing you don't like.
Sad to see however that you consider this all a game, with points being delivered, instead of a serious discussion of the issues.
This is classic. I'm not going to say anything more on this beyond this one quote:
"YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DEREGULATION OF SOCIALISM NOT CAPITALISM"
Because capitalism is not strengthened by the removal of government interference, right? Lol! So when the government privatized a function of finance and let 1000's (literally) of mortgage lenders, investment and commercial banks compete with each other to package these MBSs it was not capitalism?
You obviously and truly do not know what you are talking about. I think you have this notion that you can't have "true" capitalism if money has any component that is controlled by the government. Like for example having the money supply controlled by a government agency or a federally chartered institution.
I think that is a bizarre notion and is so outside the realm of the normal conversation on these matters (that is, your fringe outlook on American banking being socialist because there is a Federal Reserve) that I really can't have a rational conversation with you.
It really is akin to talking to someone about who is the better sports team: the Patriots or the Giants and you start talking about the roster being filled with aliens and therefore you can't judge them properly at all.
And yes, your views are THAT out there. Judging the financial crisis through the filter that because these unregulated mortgage companies and thrifts and investment banks were part of a socialist system because there is a Federal Reserve and because there were methods for the government to insure mortgage loans is ludicrous to the extreme.
You know, there are plenty of 21st century examples of pure unfettered capitalism out there. Go to Africa or South America where there are no government rules that restrict what you can do. Choose your interest rate and make a loan to anyone. Income taxes, capital gains taxes? Please...no paper work there. And see how your unfettered capitalist system works.
Governments need to set up the infrastructure to allow capitalism to breathe and to promote vitality. Your black and white approach to it is not pragmatic and does not work and even worse, to then criticize the only system that breeds true capitalism as being socialism is hilarious.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
I don't even know who you are, but I imagine you usually flame people instead of discuss things. Your arguments float over my head? amusing, to say the least.
1. There would have been nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities had they not been based upon bad loans. Those bad loans were the product of government regulations.
the packaging of GOOD loans is a great thing, the packaging of bad loans is the bad one. It wasn't the packaging that caused the problem at all.
2. I never said "financial instruments are backed by government" -- that's the part that is patently false.
The banks are backed by government, through the FDIC. Mortgages are as well, through fannie mae and freddie mac -- people felt those operations also were 100% backed by the government (we are seeing such is the case, now)
The government has declared itself creditor of the last resort -- thus government through its REGULATION fostered the atmosphere.
3. Market discipline didn't force them because there was no market discipline. This was removed by government control over the industry. There has been no free market in money and banking for a long time.
You have demonstrated nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing. I at least have shared sources which back up my claims, and I can provide more.
You have provided nothing to back up yours -- not even your own reasoning. All you have done is made unproven assertions, and of course, claimed that your unproven assertions are "above the head" of your opposition.
I'll ignore the baiting and address your points:
#1: You do not recognize the connection. The reason why banks started seeking out these subprime borrowers was because they had all this extra money available due to packing of MBSs, or rather Subprime MBSs (SMBSs). They had to do something with this money. So they went and lent it out. You have done nothing to counter the argument that "if they didn't have the money there was no way they could have possibly financed these loans".
Point for me.
Your response in a nutshell is: "the MBS has nothing to do with it, it was the bad loans they made. These bad loans were the result of government regulation." What I'm assuming you are referring to is the Community Reinvestment Act. You know, where the big commercial banks had to lend to the low income communities they set up shop in. Of course, the major and obvious flaw with this argument is that nearly 50% of the subprime loans made were made by mortgage service companies that did not fall under the purview of the CRA. Another 30%? Thrifts and bank affiliates. So 80% of the bad loans that you said only happened due to government regulation happened with no regulation at all.
Point for me...sorry.
#2: You say that, and I quote: "I never said 'financial instruments are backed by government' -- that's the part that is patently false."
Ahem: "Banks will only 'Invent terms' if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
So firstly, I have no idea what you meant by "invent terms" so please explain that to me. Because it sounds like you thought that banks only created financial instruments (those are the only things with terms after all, you know, the mortgages lol) if those financial instruments were backed by the government. If that is not what you meant it is what you typed and I'm not responsible for your inability to communicate properly.
Secondly, let's respond to the substance of what you were trying to say. You said the banks are backed by the FDIC. That protects deposits. That does not protect banks from bad mortgages. So what you say there has nothing to do with banks and has everything to do with the public at large. And it has nothing to do with mortgages at all.
Third, mortgages are not backed by Freddie Mac unless Freddie Mac buys them. And the whole problem came about when these banks, instead of selling them to Freddie Mac, packaged them up on their own (that's deregulation sir) and sold them on the open market. So there was no guarantee. See the problem? And now the government has been forced to be a creditor of last resort and has to introduce new regulations...due to the failed DEREGULATION.
Point for me again.
3-0. Response?
No points for you at all. Stll you keep making assertions with nothing to back them up.
Once again you are talking about the deregulation of SOCIALISM, not capitalism. You haven't even dealt with what I am talking about.
You are calling a system something it isn't. Our money and banking system is many things, but it isn't capitalism. It is the most socialist part of our economy. It begins and ends with government.
Anything Freddie and fannie do is essentially government action. Everything the Fed does is government action. None of this has anything to do with capitalism or free markets, or deregulated capitalism. It has to do with the failure of socialist banking and credit systems.
You are missing my whole point, and keep arguing against a straw man. Attack socialism all you want; you just should call it what it is, not attach another name to it so you can attack the thing you don't like.
Sad to see however that you consider this all a game, with points being delivered, instead of a serious discussion of the issues.
This is classic. I'm not going to say anything more on this beyond this one quote:
"YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DEREGULATION OF SOCIALISM NOT CAPITALISM"
Because capitalism is not strengthened by the removal of government interference, right? Lol! So when the government privatized a function of finance and let 1000's (literally) of mortgage lenders, investment and commercial banks compete with each other to package these MBSs it was not capitalism?
You obviously and truly do not know what you are talking about. I think you have this notion that you can't have "true" capitalism if money has any component that is controlled by the government. Like for example having the money supply controlled by a government agency or a federally chartered institution.
I think that is a bizarre notion and is so outside the realm of the normal conversation on these matters (that is, your fringe outlook on American banking being socialist because there is a Federal Reserve) that I really can't have a rational conversation with you.
It really is akin to talking to someone about who is the better sports team: the Patriots or the Giants and you start talking about the roster being filled with aliens and therefore you can't judge them properly at all.
And yes, your views are THAT out there. Judging the financial crisis through the filter that because these unregulated mortgage companies and thrifts and investment banks were part of a socialist system because there is a Federal Reserve and because there were methods for the government to insure mortgage loans is ludicrous to the extreme.
You know, there are plenty of 21st century examples of pure unfettered capitalism out there. Go to Africa or South America where there are no government rules that restrict what you can do. Choose your interest rate and make a loan to anyone. Income taxes, capital gains taxes? Please...no paper work there. And see how your unfettered capitalist system works.
Governments need to set up the infrastructure to allow capitalism to breathe and to promote vitality. Your black and white approach to it is not pragmatic and does not work and even worse, to then criticize the only system that breeds true capitalism as being socialism is hilarious.
Are you koo-koo for Coco Puffs or something?
It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system.
Givernments don't need to set up a socialist system to support capitalism -- they merely need to set up a consitutional limited republic and protect individual rights. The rest is up to the people. That's capitalism. A system based upon human rights and not the ownership of people through the ownership or control of provate property and commerce.
What are the three most socialistic enterprises in the US? Education, Money, and Health Care. I find it interesting that those are the three biggest basket cases within our economy. Nothing unbridled, unregulated, or capitalist about any of those three.
Anyway since you seem more interested in making personal attacks than actually having a discussion, I'll leave you to your myths about unfettered, unregulated capitalism and I'll just enjoy my Koo-koo for cocoa puffness, as you so cleverly described me and my mental conditin, again instead of actually having a mature discussion.
Now in an attempt to go beyond personal attacks and appeal to ridicule, here's a nice discussion of what happened, and how it is not the result of free, unfettered capitalism, but rather, it is the result of direct action by the government -- or free, unfettered socialism, as I like to call it.
Also, I've read several books on the subject, from all sides (as I always do whenever I want to learn more about anything, I always look for the BEST arguments from each position), and the best one I have found that discusses this is "Meltdown" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system. Givernments don't need to set up a socialist system to support capitalism -- they merely need to set up a consitutional limited republic and protect individual rights. The rest is up to the people. That's capitalism. A system based upon human rights and not the ownership of people through the ownership or control of provate property and commerce. What are the three most socialistic enterprises in the US? Education, Money, and Health Care. I find it interesting that those are the three biggest basket cases within our economy. Nothing unbridled, unregulated, or capitalist about any of those three. Anyway since you seem more interested in making personal attacks than actually having a discussion, I'll leave you to your myths about unfettered, unregulated capitalism and I'll just enjoy my Koo-koo for cocoa puffness, as you so cleverly described me and my mental conditin, again instead of actually having a mature discussion. Have fun laughing. You're still wrong.
And I quote: "It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system."
Did you start to drink? That makes no sense.
Anyways, I guess I'm teasing you because I find it offensive that you insist on responding with incoherent drivel. I mean do you even think about what you type?
You say the three most socialist components of the US economy are education, money, and Healthcare. Right. I completely forgot about your government healthcare program! I guess you don't have the option to buy private health insurance there since its so heavily socialized right? Your employer can't choose either I would imagine.
And the government controlled banks. You know, the ones you can buy stocks from on the NYSE. Oh...wait...
And education...ya. It would be horrible if there were private universities. Imagine if Harvard or Yale was private? Social control I say, they aren't allowed to make any decisions on their own because of Affirmative Action...thus the whole system is socialist mess!
Newsflash: Just because the government makes laws that through an administration are turned into regulations, does not make the entire system socialist.
It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system. Givernments don't need to set up a socialist system to support capitalism -- they merely need to set up a consitutional limited republic and protect individual rights. The rest is up to the people. That's capitalism. A system based upon human rights and not the ownership of people through the ownership or control of provate property and commerce. What are the three most socialistic enterprises in the US? Education, Money, and Health Care. I find it interesting that those are the three biggest basket cases within our economy. Nothing unbridled, unregulated, or capitalist about any of those three. Anyway since you seem more interested in making personal attacks than actually having a discussion, I'll leave you to your myths about unfettered, unregulated capitalism and I'll just enjoy my Koo-koo for cocoa puffness, as you so cleverly described me and my mental conditin, again instead of actually having a mature discussion. Have fun laughing. You're still wrong.
And I quote: "It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system."
Did you start to drink? That makes no sense.
Anyways, I guess I'm teasing you because I find it offensive that you insist on responding with incoherent drivel. I mean do you even think about what you type?
You say the three most socialist components of the US economy are education, money, and Healthcare. Right. I completely forgot about your government healthcare program! I guess you don't have the option to buy private health insurance there since its so heavily socialized right? Your employer can't choose either I would imagine.
And the government controlled banks. You know, the ones you can buy stocks from on the NYSE. Oh...wait...
And education...ya. It would be horrible if there were private universities. Imagine if Harvard or Yale was private? Social control I say, they aren't allowed to make any decisions on their own because of Affirmative Action...thus the whole system is socialist mess!
Newsflash: Just because the government makes laws that through an administration are turned into regulations, does not make the entire system socialist.
It is impossible to offend me. As always, I am merely amused by your need to pepper everything you post with appeals to ridicule and personal attacks. I am even more amused that you think I am offended when I am merely pointing out what you are doing here.
Once again you don't actually ANSWER what i say, merely use it as a springboard for more personal attacks.
Also, you have done nothing to disprove anything I said. Showing that a socialist system is capable of aping what capitalism looks like in no way makes it capitalism.
Comments
Good God...lol.
Free market deregulated capitalism with no social safety nets and no rules led to the bubble. You want the booms of a capitalist market you had better be willing to accept the busts.
And as for the comment of "just get rid of taxes...haw haw"...well, I can only imagine what type of national suicide that would be. Don't get me wrong, no government would ever do it...because most people don't like to destroy their nation. Lol. Some of you people are truly dense.
False. The bubble had nothing to do with deregulated capitalism, but had its origin in the easy money policies of the Fed, as well as government REGULATIONS that encouraged bad loans. It wasn't the packaging of bad loans that was the problem, or the selling of them as securities, it was the making of those loans in the first place.
That was encouraged by Federal Policy all the way.
That wasn't what CAUSED the bubble, but it did direct where the bubble would occur. What caused the bubble was bad monetary policy.
Capitalism doesn't cause booms and busts. Every boom we have ever had can be traced back to government and its actions.
It is not false. Of all people you, Fishermage, should not be posting on this. I thoroughly explained this to you half a year ago or so and all I received back was static.
Let's analyze what you said though:
#1: This had nothing to do with deregulated capitalism but had everything to do with easy money policies. Ahem. So you are trying to say that banks having access to money created the problem? Or that interest rates were too low? Please explain yourself.
#2: This mantra that it was government legislation that caused it is universally untrue. The legislation that existed that removed redlining annoyed the banks for a year or two until they realized, VIA DEREGULATION, how profitable it was to loan to marginal customers. They were not forced...they did it happily. They made billions of dollars off of those customers.
#3: And I think it is hilarious that you think that packaging them up was not part of the problem. You package these esoteric combinations of mortgage loans together, built with financial instruments that no modest economist would ever agree to, and sell them on the open market, and you think that isn't part of the problem?
Here is a hint: banks should not be allowed to invent mortgage terms because they will do anything to entice the consumer. And the lure of real estate inflation will always draw these quarterly profit motivated corporations to squeeze every cent they can every quarter (at the expense of future quarters or predicated on certain market conditions).
The boom was absolutely the product of deregulation on many fronts. To expect consumers to make sound financial decisions about their lives is leading your country to disaster. To blame it on government regulation flies in the face of what any sane economist would ever say.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Id take a page from the liberals fantasy world and put a Liberal Marxist in the presidency and put congress at 100% libeal controll. Then id get them to buy some magic fairy dust and sprinkle it at wall street and magically fix the stock markets, because as every liberal knows the reason Bush is failing is not just because he is an idiot but also because he doesant belive in some magic dust that can make the stock markets fix themselves .
At least thats what most liberals believe should be done it seems. So all you worried Americans out there clap your hands and say "I believe", and if you believe hard enough a liberals will come into the presidency and magically the stock markets will fix themselves and any stimulas package will work imediatly.
Hmmm I used my magical fairy dust and rolled us back a few years.
How quickly some people forget beating the magic bullet drum for the past few years when the tables are reversed.
I'm just glad the drum circles and constant Obama propoganda pins/flyers/etc are all over. Now I can lose all of my savings in peace.
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
Good God...lol.
Free market deregulated capitalism with no social safety nets and no rules led to the bubble. You want the booms of a capitalist market you had better be willing to accept the busts.
And as for the comment of "just get rid of taxes...haw haw"...well, I can only imagine what type of national suicide that would be. Don't get me wrong, no government would ever do it...because most people don't like to destroy their nation. Lol. Some of you people are truly dense.
False. The bubble had nothing to do with deregulated capitalism, but had its origin in the easy money policies of the Fed, as well as government REGULATIONS that encouraged bad loans. It wasn't the packaging of bad loans that was the problem, or the selling of them as securities, it was the making of those loans in the first place.
That was encouraged by Federal Policy all the way.
That wasn't what CAUSED the bubble, but it did direct where the bubble would occur. What caused the bubble was bad monetary policy.
Capitalism doesn't cause booms and busts. Every boom we have ever had can be traced back to government and its actions.
It is not false. Of all people you, Fishermage, should not be posting on this. I thoroughly explained this to you half a year ago or so and all I received back was static.
Let's analyze what you said though:
#1: This had nothing to do with deregulated capitalism but had everything to do with easy money policies. Ahem. So you are trying to say that banks having access to money created the problem? Or that interest rates were too low? Please explain yourself.
#2: This mantra that it was government legislation that caused it is universally untrue. The legislation that existed that removed redlining annoyed the banks for a year or two until they realized, VIA DEREGULATION, how profitable it was to loan to marginal customers. They were not forced...they did it happily. They made billions of dollars off of those customers.
#3: And I think it is hilarious that you think that packaging them up was not part of the problem. You package these esoteric combinations of mortgage loans together, built with financial instruments that no modest economist would ever agree to, and sell them on the open market, and you think that isn't part of the problem?
Here is a hint: banks should not be allowed to invent mortgage terms because they will do anything to entice the consumer. And the lure of real estate inflation will always draw these quarterly profit motivated corporations to squeeze every cent they can every quarter (at the expense of future quarters or predicated on certain market conditions).
The boom was absolutely the product of deregulation on many fronts. To expect consumers to make sound financial decisions about their lives is leading your country to disaster. To blame it on government regulation flies in the face of what any sane economist would ever say.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Well, hopefully he will be able to find the post where he "thoroughly explained" how it was UNREGULATED, UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM that led to the disaster. I have seen many people make this claim, but it has always shown to be false. What is amusing is that money and banking has always been among the least capitalist and most regulated sectors of our economy, yet it was here that the problems started and ended.
What is amusing is that freddie and fannie have nothing to do with capitalism. They were government created, sponsored, and protected.
In fact, this mess was the result of unregulated, unbridled SOCIALISM. People once again deciding to use goverment for something it is not good for.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I agree. It is the truth of the matter. The government should not be " backing" these loans, and freddie and fannie should not exist to begin with. That would ensure that the banks make smarter loans. The only purpose for backing the loans is because they want the banks to extend credit to those who should not have credit.
You know, my first 3 cars I saved and bought with cash before I was ever 18. I did not need credit, i just didn;t blow my money. I do not understand why people these days seem to think that they need credit for everything. Save it yourself, if you cannot afford it DON'T BUY IT! I can understand the usage of credit for necessary items, but that is not what most people use it for at all and that is why we are in this situation to begin with. They did not qualify for loans, so the government made it so they did. If they had not changed that fact alone we would not be having any issues at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0zEXdDO5JU
It's quite intersting imo.
And I don't know if it is socialism that brought US on their knees. And I doubt the maturity of people concerning money ,changes any between socialism and capitalism. Frankly both theories are bollocks imo. I would not want to live in a socialistic state neither on a capitalistic one because both are based on ideas that are good in theory, not so good in practice. Fact is the US is way to big to be controlled by only a goverment that is based on one place. I haven't seen any example that the majority of people given options will spend their money wisely.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Too many corrupt and in power to end the Federal Reserve.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Actually, the notion that people own one another (socialism) is terrible in theory and practice. Capitalism (the idea that people own themselves) is good in both theory and in practice. To the extent capitalism has been practiced, people have done well, to the extent socialism has been practiced, they have not done well.
There are no societies even remotely pure capitalism, but the more capitalist a society is, the better overall that society fares. We do have nearly pure socialist systems, and the closer they are to pure socialism. the worse the people have fared.
Who are YOU to determine what is wise? Are you saying you know what is best for someone else -- better than they do?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Actually, the notion that people own one another (socialism) is terrible in theory and practice. Capitalism (the idea that people own themselves) is good in both theory and in practice. To the extent capitalism has been practiced, people have done well, to the extent socialism has been practiced, they have not done well.
There are no societies even remotely pure capitalism, but the more capitalist a society is, the better overall that society fares. We do have nearly pure socialist systems, and the closer they are to pure socialism. the worse the people have fared.
Who are YOU to determine what is wise? Are you saying you know what is best for someone else -- better than they do?
Capitalism is based also in the idea of the free market. Which as I see it is not feasible. Bigger corporations will always drive the competition away, thus negating the whole concept no?
So far I haven't seen any capitalistic societies that "fare well" and by fare well I mean an above average standard of living for the people that live there.
Also in both kind of societies it's the people's fault always if they don't fare well. Sure in a socialistic envirroment the goverment decides a lot of things, but who decided that this goverment should rule? And if they are corrupt why not take it down?
The people always and in every system have the power, but the majority will always trade freedom for safety. No system will change that. Because for every person that finds his way, there are more than can't figure or won't figure things.
To your last question. The good of the many outshines the good of the few. That is the rule I like to exercise in a decision. We don't live in a society by ourselves and not everything should be centered around ONLY our interests. Because your interests at some point will conflict with another person's and who are YOU to say that your interests are more important than his?
Right now I don't support this system because the MANY are suffering for the good of the few and that's the problem.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
DOW up 380 today. He needs to speak more often.
The Official God FAQ
Actually, the notion that people own one another (socialism) is terrible in theory and practice. Capitalism (the idea that people own themselves) is good in both theory and in practice. To the extent capitalism has been practiced, people have done well, to the extent socialism has been practiced, they have not done well.
There are no societies even remotely pure capitalism, but the more capitalist a society is, the better overall that society fares. We do have nearly pure socialist systems, and the closer they are to pure socialism. the worse the people have fared.
Who are YOU to determine what is wise? Are you saying you know what is best for someone else -- better than they do?
Capitalism is based also in the idea of the free market. Which as I see it is not feasible. Bigger corporations will always drive the competition away, thus negating the whole concept no?
So far I haven't seen any capitalistic societies that "fare well" and by fare well I mean an above average standard of living for the people that live there.
Also in both kind of societies it's the people's fault always if they don't fare well. Sure in a socialistic envirroment the goverment decides a lot of things, but who decided that this goverment should rule? And if they are corrupt why not take it down?
The people always and in every system have the power, but the majority will always trade freedom for safety. No system will change that. Because for every person that finds his way, there are more than can't figure or won't figure things.
To your last question. The good of the many outshines the good of the few. That is the rule I like to exercise in a decision. We don't live in a society by ourselves and not everything should be centered around ONLY our interests. Because your interests at some point will conflict with another person's and who are YOU to say that your interests are more important than his?
Right now I don't support this system because the MANY are suffering for the good of the few and that's the problem.
No. Bigger corporations can only get so big that they always drive the competition away IF they are empowered to do so by government.
The United states is the most capitalistic nation in history. Until it embraced socialism, it was far and above the most successful society. before that and alongside it was Great Britain, again, until it embraced socialism.
France is more capitalistic than Spain and generally fares better. Germany, more capitalistic than France, and interestingly enough is more capitalistic.
Eastern Europe, more capitalistic than the above, has been growing faster and better than they. at least since they left socialism after the fall of teh Soviet Union.
Among mixed economies, the more capitalist they are, generally, the more successful.
That's among mixed economies.
Every socialist country is a basketcase (USSR, China, East germany, eastern Europe under socialism, and Cuba..next up Venezeula). This is without exception.
"The good of the many outshines the good of the few." Sounds like communism to me, not even socialism. Who are YOU to determine what the good is? What gives you the right to determine what consititutes the good of the many?
At any rate, if you care about the good of the many, the free market wins every time in all places throughout history. Socialism simply can't compete with capitalism on those utilitarian grounds.
I never said we live anywhere by ourselves, capitalism is a social system for people tp live in just as socialism is -- the difference is -- should brute force be the defining of our relationships (socialism) or should voluntary action (capitalism). I say the latter not the former.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Germany and France have a mix yes and that's why they fare well compared to others. As you noticed I don't advocate socialism as the solution. I never agreed that pure socialism work and I have been closer to the coutries that you mention and have seen up close and personal how they fare.
Why do you insist Fisher to put tags in everything? "Sounds like communism"? You did good mentioning the economies that work, don't spoil it by using tags all the time. Is that so hard to understand that some people are actually trying to be objective?
All the mixed economies just held the balance between brute force and voluntary action that's why they work. Have you got any example of PURE capitalist society that works?
The good of the many is decided by many factors both in a micro and a macro level. And to be less cryptic, the people that live nearer to their individual communities can decide what's best of them, not someone that needs to travel 2 hours with a plane.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Germany and France have a mix yes and that's why they fare well compared to others. As you noticed I don't advocate socialism as the solution. I never agreed that pure socialism work and I have been closer to the coutries that you mention and have seen up close and personal how they fare.
Why do you insist Fisher to put tags in everything? "Sounds like communism"? You did good mentioning the economies that work, don't spoil it by using tags all the time. Is that so hard to understand that some people are actually trying to be objective?
All the mixed economies just held the balance between brute force and voluntary action that's why they work. Have you got any example of PURE capitalist society that works?
The good of the many is decided by many factors both in a micro and a macro level. And to be less cryptic, the people that live nearer to their individual communities can decide what's best of them, not someone that needs to travel 2 hours with a plane.
Sorry, when I see a phrase that fits a tag, I will tag it. I hardly put "tags" on much of anything, but since I am interested in the evolution of ideas I sometimes show relationships between ideas.
That old Spock line is communism, pure and simple (or at least collectivism). To say the needs of the many assumes a great deal -- that anyone could possibly figure out what anyone needs, much less the many. Please, though, how do YOU decide what is good for the many, on a micro and a macro level. Please share the formula.
To then carry that hubris even further and then to imagine that one should use the power of the state to compel such a thing...well, even Spock didn't go that far.
All the mixed economies are not working -- we see the failure of it around us right now. Socialism has failed us -- even partial socialism. These have all been time bombs waiting to happen -- and market economists have been talking about this coming bust in the government manufactured bubble, just as we talked about the ones before this one.
It's what we do, we warn everyone before they do it, tell them just before it happens that it is going to happen, explain it as it is occurring, and then give clear suggestions of how to get out of the situation and how to ensure it won't happen again. Then, the free market economists are ignored.
It's okay though. back in the day no on heard of Ron Paul, or even the word libertarian. With each cycle of failure of socialism from the right and from the left, knowledge of these things has grown. That's something.
fishermage.blogspot.com
What did he say exactly that caused the market to go up?
Germany and France have a mix yes and that's why they fare well compared to others. As you noticed I don't advocate socialism as the solution. I never agreed that pure socialism work and I have been closer to the coutries that you mention and have seen up close and personal how they fare.
Why do you insist Fisher to put tags in everything? "Sounds like communism"? You did good mentioning the economies that work, don't spoil it by using tags all the time. Is that so hard to understand that some people are actually trying to be objective?
All the mixed economies just held the balance between brute force and voluntary action that's why they work. Have you got any example of PURE capitalist society that works?
The good of the many is decided by many factors both in a micro and a macro level. And to be less cryptic, the people that live nearer to their individual communities can decide what's best of them, not someone that needs to travel 2 hours with a plane.
Sorry, when I see a phrase that fits a tag, I will tag it. I hardly put "tags" on much of anything, but since I am interested in the evolution of ideas I sometimes show relationships between ideas.
That old Spock line is communism, pure and simple (or at least collectivism). To say the needs of the many assumes a great deal -- that anyone could possibly figure out what anyone needs, much less the many. Please, though, how do YOU decide what is good for the many, on a micro and a macro level. Please share the formula.
To then carry that hubris even further and then to imagine that one should use the power of the state to compel such a thing...well, even Spock didn't go that far.
All the mixed economies are not working -- we see the failure of it around us right now. Socialism has failed us -- even partial socialism. These have all been time bombs waiting to happen -- and market economists have been talking about this coming bust in the government manufactured bubble, just as we talked about the ones before this one.
It's what we do, we warn everyone before they do it, tell them just before it happens that it is going to happen, explain it as it is occurring, and then give clear suggestions of how to get out of the situation and how to ensure it won't happen again. Then, the free market economists are ignored.
It's okay though. back in the day no on heard of Ron Paul, or even the word libertarian. With each cycle of failure of socialism from the right and from the left, knowledge of these things has grown. That's something.
Hehe thanks for reminding me where I have heard that line before:)
I don't know what you do in general or not, but I notice that you distinctly try to classify people and ideas one way or another. It could be an easy way to index some things or just for rhetoric purposes, I am not in a position to know. Please don't use tags with me though because to me they come of as rhetoric or a way to win impressions. Just explain your position and believe me I will do my best to comprehend it.
I never say ,and don't twist my words here please, that one person can figure the needs of the many and fullfill them, but a collective of persons that represent their communities can and when the people that are being represented by them actually give a shit to voice their opinions. When most people prefer to sit in front of their TV and passively accept any crap the system doesn't matter. Being active is the key. Giving a damn that officials are being corrupted also. In general honoring the fact that you are a citisen of the country you live in.
For how many people Fisher you can say that? How many people actually care about their community and through their actions promote both their interests and improving the place they live in? How many people actually care in what system they live in?
As for the last one about the economists. An economist much like a philosopher can prove you that even pure socialism works in theory that is. The fact that socialism failed in many places just means that it is time to try something else not that by default the other side is correct. That's what having an open mind means. To actually be willing to try every idea to improve things all around. Do these "free market" economists say who will be hosed in that kind of system or what you will need to sacrifice to achieve it?
And the reason why Fisher nobody had heard of Ron Paul in US or what "libertarian" stands for is only one. Because noone cared. Simple as that. If the people that are part of the country don't give a damn nothing will work.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
Buffetts record speaks louder than his celebrity status. The "Oracle" has scarcely out performed the Dow in the last 20 years. He breaks even. Thats not impressive at all. And as to his statment about the economy falling off a cliff, wow what insight! Pure genius.... not so much. Buffett did very well a few decades ago and has coasted on that reputation ever since, having achieved nothing meaningful since.
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
I don't even know who you are, but I imagine you usually flame people instead of discuss things. Your arguments float over my head? amusing, to say the least.
1. There would have been nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities had they not been based upon bad loans. Those bad loans were the product of government regulations.
the packaging of GOOD loans is a great thing, the packaging of bad loans is the bad one. It wasn't the packaging that caused the problem at all.
2. I never said "financial instruments are backed by government" -- that's the part that is patently false.
The banks are backed by government, through the FDIC. Mortgages are as well, through fannie mae and freddie mac -- people felt those operations also were 100% backed by the government (we are seeing such is the case, now)
The government has declared itself creditor of the last resort -- thus government through its REGULATION fostered the atmosphere.
3. Market discipline didn't force them because there was no market discipline. This was removed by government control over the industry. There has been no free market in money and banking for a long time.
You have demonstrated nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing. I at least have shared sources which back up my claims, and I can provide more.
You have provided nothing to back up yours -- not even your own reasoning. All you have done is made unproven assertions, and of course, claimed that your unproven assertions are "above the head" of your opposition.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I was up 15% today.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
I don't even know who you are, but I imagine you usually flame people instead of discuss things. Your arguments float over my head? amusing, to say the least.
1. There would have been nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities had they not been based upon bad loans. Those bad loans were the product of government regulations.
the packaging of GOOD loans is a great thing, the packaging of bad loans is the bad one. It wasn't the packaging that caused the problem at all.
2. I never said "financial instruments are backed by government" -- that's the part that is patently false.
The banks are backed by government, through the FDIC. Mortgages are as well, through fannie mae and freddie mac -- people felt those operations also were 100% backed by the government (we are seeing such is the case, now)
The government has declared itself creditor of the last resort -- thus government through its REGULATION fostered the atmosphere.
3. Market discipline didn't force them because there was no market discipline. This was removed by government control over the industry. There has been no free market in money and banking for a long time.
You have demonstrated nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing. I at least have shared sources which back up my claims, and I can provide more.
You have provided nothing to back up yours -- not even your own reasoning. All you have done is made unproven assertions, and of course, claimed that your unproven assertions are "above the head" of your opposition.
I'll ignore the baiting and address your points:
#1: You do not recognize the connection. The reason why banks started seeking out these subprime borrowers was because they had all this extra money available due to packing of MBSs, or rather Subprime MBSs (SMBSs). They had to do something with this money. So they went and lent it out. You have done nothing to counter the argument that "if they didn't have the money there was no way they could have possibly financed these loans".
Point for me.
Your response in a nutshell is: "the MBS has nothing to do with it, it was the bad loans they made. These bad loans were the result of government regulation." What I'm assuming you are referring to is the Community Reinvestment Act. You know, where the big commercial banks had to lend to the low income communities they set up shop in. Of course, the major and obvious flaw with this argument is that nearly 50% of the subprime loans made were made by mortgage service companies that did not fall under the purview of the CRA. Another 30%? Thrifts and bank affiliates. So 80% of the bad loans that you said only happened due to government regulation happened with no regulation at all.
Point for me...sorry.
#2: You say that, and I quote: "I never said 'financial instruments are backed by government' -- that's the part that is patently false."
Ahem: "Banks will only 'Invent terms' if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
So firstly, I have no idea what you meant by "invent terms" so please explain that to me. Because it sounds like you thought that banks only created financial instruments (those are the only things with terms after all, you know, the mortgages lol) if those financial instruments were backed by the government. If that is not what you meant it is what you typed and I'm not responsible for your inability to communicate properly.
Secondly, let's respond to the substance of what you were trying to say. You said the banks are backed by the FDIC. That protects deposits. That does not protect banks from bad mortgages. So what you say there has nothing to do with banks and has everything to do with the public at large. And it has nothing to do with mortgages at all.
Third, mortgages are not backed by Freddie Mac unless Freddie Mac buys them. And the whole problem came about when these banks, instead of selling them to Freddie Mac, packaged them up on their own (that's deregulation sir) and sold them on the open market. So there was no guarantee. See the problem? And now the government has been forced to be a creditor of last resort and has to introduce new regulations...due to the failed DEREGULATION.
Point for me again.
3-0. Response?
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
I don't even know who you are, but I imagine you usually flame people instead of discuss things. Your arguments float over my head? amusing, to say the least.
1. There would have been nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities had they not been based upon bad loans. Those bad loans were the product of government regulations.
the packaging of GOOD loans is a great thing, the packaging of bad loans is the bad one. It wasn't the packaging that caused the problem at all.
2. I never said "financial instruments are backed by government" -- that's the part that is patently false.
The banks are backed by government, through the FDIC. Mortgages are as well, through fannie mae and freddie mac -- people felt those operations also were 100% backed by the government (we are seeing such is the case, now)
The government has declared itself creditor of the last resort -- thus government through its REGULATION fostered the atmosphere.
3. Market discipline didn't force them because there was no market discipline. This was removed by government control over the industry. There has been no free market in money and banking for a long time.
You have demonstrated nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing. I at least have shared sources which back up my claims, and I can provide more.
You have provided nothing to back up yours -- not even your own reasoning. All you have done is made unproven assertions, and of course, claimed that your unproven assertions are "above the head" of your opposition.
I'll ignore the baiting and address your points:
#1: You do not recognize the connection. The reason why banks started seeking out these subprime borrowers was because they had all this extra money available due to packing of MBSs, or rather Subprime MBSs (SMBSs). They had to do something with this money. So they went and lent it out. You have done nothing to counter the argument that "if they didn't have the money there was no way they could have possibly financed these loans".
Point for me.
Your response in a nutshell is: "the MBS has nothing to do with it, it was the bad loans they made. These bad loans were the result of government regulation." What I'm assuming you are referring to is the Community Reinvestment Act. You know, where the big commercial banks had to lend to the low income communities they set up shop in. Of course, the major and obvious flaw with this argument is that nearly 50% of the subprime loans made were made by mortgage service companies that did not fall under the purview of the CRA. Another 30%? Thrifts and bank affiliates. So 80% of the bad loans that you said only happened due to government regulation happened with no regulation at all.
Point for me...sorry.
#2: You say that, and I quote: "I never said 'financial instruments are backed by government' -- that's the part that is patently false."
Ahem: "Banks will only 'Invent terms' if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
So firstly, I have no idea what you meant by "invent terms" so please explain that to me. Because it sounds like you thought that banks only created financial instruments (those are the only things with terms after all, you know, the mortgages lol) if those financial instruments were backed by the government. If that is not what you meant it is what you typed and I'm not responsible for your inability to communicate properly.
Secondly, let's respond to the substance of what you were trying to say. You said the banks are backed by the FDIC. That protects deposits. That does not protect banks from bad mortgages. So what you say there has nothing to do with banks and has everything to do with the public at large. And it has nothing to do with mortgages at all.
Third, mortgages are not backed by Freddie Mac unless Freddie Mac buys them. And the whole problem came about when these banks, instead of selling them to Freddie Mac, packaged them up on their own (that's deregulation sir) and sold them on the open market. So there was no guarantee. See the problem? And now the government has been forced to be a creditor of last resort and has to introduce new regulations...due to the failed DEREGULATION.
Point for me again.
3-0. Response?
No points for you at all. Stll you keep making assertions with nothing to back them up.
Once again you are talking about the deregulation of SOCIALISM, not capitalism. You haven't even dealt with what I am talking about.
You are calling a system something it isn't. Our money and banking system is many things, but it isn't capitalism. It is the most socialist part of our economy. It begins and ends with government.
Anything Freddie and fannie do is essentially government action. Everything the Fed does is government action. None of this has anything to do with capitalism or free markets, or deregulated capitalism. It has to do with the failure of socialist banking and credit systems.
You are missing my whole point, and keep arguing against a straw man. Attack socialism all you want; you just should call it what it is, not attach another name to it so you can attack the thing you don't like.
Sad to see however that you consider this all a game, with points being delivered, instead of a serious discussion of the issues.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
I don't even know who you are, but I imagine you usually flame people instead of discuss things. Your arguments float over my head? amusing, to say the least.
1. There would have been nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities had they not been based upon bad loans. Those bad loans were the product of government regulations.
the packaging of GOOD loans is a great thing, the packaging of bad loans is the bad one. It wasn't the packaging that caused the problem at all.
2. I never said "financial instruments are backed by government" -- that's the part that is patently false.
The banks are backed by government, through the FDIC. Mortgages are as well, through fannie mae and freddie mac -- people felt those operations also were 100% backed by the government (we are seeing such is the case, now)
The government has declared itself creditor of the last resort -- thus government through its REGULATION fostered the atmosphere.
3. Market discipline didn't force them because there was no market discipline. This was removed by government control over the industry. There has been no free market in money and banking for a long time.
You have demonstrated nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing. I at least have shared sources which back up my claims, and I can provide more.
You have provided nothing to back up yours -- not even your own reasoning. All you have done is made unproven assertions, and of course, claimed that your unproven assertions are "above the head" of your opposition.
I'll ignore the baiting and address your points:
#1: You do not recognize the connection. The reason why banks started seeking out these subprime borrowers was because they had all this extra money available due to packing of MBSs, or rather Subprime MBSs (SMBSs). They had to do something with this money. So they went and lent it out. You have done nothing to counter the argument that "if they didn't have the money there was no way they could have possibly financed these loans".
Point for me.
Your response in a nutshell is: "the MBS has nothing to do with it, it was the bad loans they made. These bad loans were the result of government regulation." What I'm assuming you are referring to is the Community Reinvestment Act. You know, where the big commercial banks had to lend to the low income communities they set up shop in. Of course, the major and obvious flaw with this argument is that nearly 50% of the subprime loans made were made by mortgage service companies that did not fall under the purview of the CRA. Another 30%? Thrifts and bank affiliates. So 80% of the bad loans that you said only happened due to government regulation happened with no regulation at all.
Point for me...sorry.
#2: You say that, and I quote: "I never said 'financial instruments are backed by government' -- that's the part that is patently false."
Ahem: "Banks will only 'Invent terms' if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
So firstly, I have no idea what you meant by "invent terms" so please explain that to me. Because it sounds like you thought that banks only created financial instruments (those are the only things with terms after all, you know, the mortgages lol) if those financial instruments were backed by the government. If that is not what you meant it is what you typed and I'm not responsible for your inability to communicate properly.
Secondly, let's respond to the substance of what you were trying to say. You said the banks are backed by the FDIC. That protects deposits. That does not protect banks from bad mortgages. So what you say there has nothing to do with banks and has everything to do with the public at large. And it has nothing to do with mortgages at all.
Third, mortgages are not backed by Freddie Mac unless Freddie Mac buys them. And the whole problem came about when these banks, instead of selling them to Freddie Mac, packaged them up on their own (that's deregulation sir) and sold them on the open market. So there was no guarantee. See the problem? And now the government has been forced to be a creditor of last resort and has to introduce new regulations...due to the failed DEREGULATION.
Point for me again.
3-0. Response?
No points for you at all. Stll you keep making assertions with nothing to back them up.
Once again you are talking about the deregulation of SOCIALISM, not capitalism. You haven't even dealt with what I am talking about.
You are calling a system something it isn't. Our money and banking system is many things, but it isn't capitalism. It is the most socialist part of our economy. It begins and ends with government.
Anything Freddie and fannie do is essentially government action. Everything the Fed does is government action. None of this has anything to do with capitalism or free markets, or deregulated capitalism. It has to do with the failure of socialist banking and credit systems.
You are missing my whole point, and keep arguing against a straw man. Attack socialism all you want; you just should call it what it is, not attach another name to it so you can attack the thing you don't like.
Sad to see however that you consider this all a game, with points being delivered, instead of a serious discussion of the issues.
This is classic. I'm not going to say anything more on this beyond this one quote:
"YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DEREGULATION OF SOCIALISM NOT CAPITALISM"
Because capitalism is not strengthened by the removal of government interference, right? Lol! So when the government privatized a function of finance and let 1000's (literally) of mortgage lenders, investment and commercial banks compete with each other to package these MBSs it was not capitalism?
You obviously and truly do not know what you are talking about. I think you have this notion that you can't have "true" capitalism if money has any component that is controlled by the government. Like for example having the money supply controlled by a government agency or a federally chartered institution.
I think that is a bizarre notion and is so outside the realm of the normal conversation on these matters (that is, your fringe outlook on American banking being socialist because there is a Federal Reserve) that I really can't have a rational conversation with you.
It really is akin to talking to someone about who is the better sports team: the Patriots or the Giants and you start talking about the roster being filled with aliens and therefore you can't judge them properly at all.
And yes, your views are THAT out there. Judging the financial crisis through the filter that because these unregulated mortgage companies and thrifts and investment banks were part of a socialist system because there is a Federal Reserve and because there were methods for the government to insure mortgage loans is ludicrous to the extreme.
You know, there are plenty of 21st century examples of pure unfettered capitalism out there. Go to Africa or South America where there are no government rules that restrict what you can do. Choose your interest rate and make a loan to anyone. Income taxes, capital gains taxes? Please...no paper work there. And see how your unfettered capitalist system works.
Governments need to set up the infrastructure to allow capitalism to breathe and to promote vitality. Your black and white approach to it is not pragmatic and does not work and even worse, to then criticize the only system that breeds true capitalism as being socialism is hilarious.
Are you koo-koo for Coco Puffs or something?
I don't remember you. Would you please show me the post?
Sorry, you are flat out wrong when you say that deregulation caused it. Over regulation caused it.
Banks will only "Invent terms" if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
That's government regulation (in this case government guarantees of the loans) causing the problem, not deregulation.
What you are implying is that bureaucrats and governments make sounder decisions with other people's money than individuals can make with their own. This has been shown to be false time and again. Where do you get such faith in government?
Fine, as usual, the good arguments float over your head and you ignore them. Let's do this again.
#1: This is why deregulation caused it. Deregulation of who could package Mortgage Backed Securities and sell them on the markets has to be responsible. Because if they were not allowed to package these MBS together and sell them to raise the additional capital needed to lend to almost anyone, this could not have happened.
So please tell me Fishermage...where would the banks found the capital to lend to these subprime borrowers if they did not have the money? Deregulation of asset backed securities was a necessary component of this crisis and could not have happened otherwise, because they would not have had the money to create the bubble. Please answer this fully and completely without straying off-topic to some unnecessary tangent.
#2: The financial instruments created were not backed by the government. So that statement is patently false. Please show how new financial instruments were guaranteed by the government.
#3: Market discipline didn't stop them, so it is pretty silly to say that it would have. I've demonstrated in #1 that this was not caused by market over-regulation...so this statement of yours is also untrue unless you can sufficiently rebuke #1.
I'll be waiting.
I don't even know who you are, but I imagine you usually flame people instead of discuss things. Your arguments float over my head? amusing, to say the least.
1. There would have been nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities had they not been based upon bad loans. Those bad loans were the product of government regulations.
the packaging of GOOD loans is a great thing, the packaging of bad loans is the bad one. It wasn't the packaging that caused the problem at all.
2. I never said "financial instruments are backed by government" -- that's the part that is patently false.
The banks are backed by government, through the FDIC. Mortgages are as well, through fannie mae and freddie mac -- people felt those operations also were 100% backed by the government (we are seeing such is the case, now)
The government has declared itself creditor of the last resort -- thus government through its REGULATION fostered the atmosphere.
3. Market discipline didn't force them because there was no market discipline. This was removed by government control over the industry. There has been no free market in money and banking for a long time.
You have demonstrated nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing. I at least have shared sources which back up my claims, and I can provide more.
You have provided nothing to back up yours -- not even your own reasoning. All you have done is made unproven assertions, and of course, claimed that your unproven assertions are "above the head" of your opposition.
I'll ignore the baiting and address your points:
#1: You do not recognize the connection. The reason why banks started seeking out these subprime borrowers was because they had all this extra money available due to packing of MBSs, or rather Subprime MBSs (SMBSs). They had to do something with this money. So they went and lent it out. You have done nothing to counter the argument that "if they didn't have the money there was no way they could have possibly financed these loans".
Point for me.
Your response in a nutshell is: "the MBS has nothing to do with it, it was the bad loans they made. These bad loans were the result of government regulation." What I'm assuming you are referring to is the Community Reinvestment Act. You know, where the big commercial banks had to lend to the low income communities they set up shop in. Of course, the major and obvious flaw with this argument is that nearly 50% of the subprime loans made were made by mortgage service companies that did not fall under the purview of the CRA. Another 30%? Thrifts and bank affiliates. So 80% of the bad loans that you said only happened due to government regulation happened with no regulation at all.
Point for me...sorry.
#2: You say that, and I quote: "I never said 'financial instruments are backed by government' -- that's the part that is patently false."
Ahem: "Banks will only 'Invent terms' if the government backs their risk. Without that government regulation, market discipline would stop them.
So firstly, I have no idea what you meant by "invent terms" so please explain that to me. Because it sounds like you thought that banks only created financial instruments (those are the only things with terms after all, you know, the mortgages lol) if those financial instruments were backed by the government. If that is not what you meant it is what you typed and I'm not responsible for your inability to communicate properly.
Secondly, let's respond to the substance of what you were trying to say. You said the banks are backed by the FDIC. That protects deposits. That does not protect banks from bad mortgages. So what you say there has nothing to do with banks and has everything to do with the public at large. And it has nothing to do with mortgages at all.
Third, mortgages are not backed by Freddie Mac unless Freddie Mac buys them. And the whole problem came about when these banks, instead of selling them to Freddie Mac, packaged them up on their own (that's deregulation sir) and sold them on the open market. So there was no guarantee. See the problem? And now the government has been forced to be a creditor of last resort and has to introduce new regulations...due to the failed DEREGULATION.
Point for me again.
3-0. Response?
No points for you at all. Stll you keep making assertions with nothing to back them up.
Once again you are talking about the deregulation of SOCIALISM, not capitalism. You haven't even dealt with what I am talking about.
You are calling a system something it isn't. Our money and banking system is many things, but it isn't capitalism. It is the most socialist part of our economy. It begins and ends with government.
Anything Freddie and fannie do is essentially government action. Everything the Fed does is government action. None of this has anything to do with capitalism or free markets, or deregulated capitalism. It has to do with the failure of socialist banking and credit systems.
You are missing my whole point, and keep arguing against a straw man. Attack socialism all you want; you just should call it what it is, not attach another name to it so you can attack the thing you don't like.
Sad to see however that you consider this all a game, with points being delivered, instead of a serious discussion of the issues.
This is classic. I'm not going to say anything more on this beyond this one quote:
"YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DEREGULATION OF SOCIALISM NOT CAPITALISM"
Because capitalism is not strengthened by the removal of government interference, right? Lol! So when the government privatized a function of finance and let 1000's (literally) of mortgage lenders, investment and commercial banks compete with each other to package these MBSs it was not capitalism?
You obviously and truly do not know what you are talking about. I think you have this notion that you can't have "true" capitalism if money has any component that is controlled by the government. Like for example having the money supply controlled by a government agency or a federally chartered institution.
I think that is a bizarre notion and is so outside the realm of the normal conversation on these matters (that is, your fringe outlook on American banking being socialist because there is a Federal Reserve) that I really can't have a rational conversation with you.
It really is akin to talking to someone about who is the better sports team: the Patriots or the Giants and you start talking about the roster being filled with aliens and therefore you can't judge them properly at all.
And yes, your views are THAT out there. Judging the financial crisis through the filter that because these unregulated mortgage companies and thrifts and investment banks were part of a socialist system because there is a Federal Reserve and because there were methods for the government to insure mortgage loans is ludicrous to the extreme.
You know, there are plenty of 21st century examples of pure unfettered capitalism out there. Go to Africa or South America where there are no government rules that restrict what you can do. Choose your interest rate and make a loan to anyone. Income taxes, capital gains taxes? Please...no paper work there. And see how your unfettered capitalist system works.
Governments need to set up the infrastructure to allow capitalism to breathe and to promote vitality. Your black and white approach to it is not pragmatic and does not work and even worse, to then criticize the only system that breeds true capitalism as being socialism is hilarious.
Are you koo-koo for Coco Puffs or something?
It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system.
Givernments don't need to set up a socialist system to support capitalism -- they merely need to set up a consitutional limited republic and protect individual rights. The rest is up to the people. That's capitalism. A system based upon human rights and not the ownership of people through the ownership or control of provate property and commerce.
What are the three most socialistic enterprises in the US? Education, Money, and Health Care. I find it interesting that those are the three biggest basket cases within our economy. Nothing unbridled, unregulated, or capitalist about any of those three.
Anyway since you seem more interested in making personal attacks than actually having a discussion, I'll leave you to your myths about unfettered, unregulated capitalism and I'll just enjoy my Koo-koo for cocoa puffness, as you so cleverly described me and my mental conditin, again instead of actually having a mature discussion.
Have fun laughing. You're still wrong.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Now in an attempt to go beyond personal attacks and appeal to ridicule, here's a nice discussion of what happened, and how it is not the result of free, unfettered capitalism, but rather, it is the result of direct action by the government -- or free, unfettered socialism, as I like to call it.
mises.org/story/3165
Also, I've read several books on the subject, from all sides (as I always do whenever I want to learn more about anything, I always look for the BEST arguments from each position), and the best one I have found that discusses this is "Meltdown" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
fishermage.blogspot.com
And I quote: "It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system."
Did you start to drink? That makes no sense.
Anyways, I guess I'm teasing you because I find it offensive that you insist on responding with incoherent drivel. I mean do you even think about what you type?
You say the three most socialist components of the US economy are education, money, and Healthcare. Right. I completely forgot about your government healthcare program! I guess you don't have the option to buy private health insurance there since its so heavily socialized right? Your employer can't choose either I would imagine.
And the government controlled banks. You know, the ones you can buy stocks from on the NYSE. Oh...wait...
And education...ya. It would be horrible if there were private universities. Imagine if Harvard or Yale was private? Social control I say, they aren't allowed to make any decisions on their own because of Affirmative Action...thus the whole system is socialist mess!
Newsflash: Just because the government makes laws that through an administration are turned into regulations, does not make the entire system socialist.
And I quote: "It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system."
Did you start to drink? That makes no sense.
Anyways, I guess I'm teasing you because I find it offensive that you insist on responding with incoherent drivel. I mean do you even think about what you type?
You say the three most socialist components of the US economy are education, money, and Healthcare. Right. I completely forgot about your government healthcare program! I guess you don't have the option to buy private health insurance there since its so heavily socialized right? Your employer can't choose either I would imagine.
And the government controlled banks. You know, the ones you can buy stocks from on the NYSE. Oh...wait...
And education...ya. It would be horrible if there were private universities. Imagine if Harvard or Yale was private? Social control I say, they aren't allowed to make any decisions on their own because of Affirmative Action...thus the whole system is socialist mess!
Newsflash: Just because the government makes laws that through an administration are turned into regulations, does not make the entire system socialist.
It is impossible to offend me. As always, I am merely amused by your need to pepper everything you post with appeals to ridicule and personal attacks. I am even more amused that you think I am offended when I am merely pointing out what you are doing here.
Once again you don't actually ANSWER what i say, merely use it as a springboard for more personal attacks.
Also, you have done nothing to disprove anything I said. Showing that a socialist system is capable of aping what capitalism looks like in no way makes it capitalism.
fishermage.blogspot.com