01 Apr 14
Originally posted by normbenignThe crash of 2008 was not caused by producers over-stocking or indeed by producers producing or not producing. It was caused by the collapse of a poorly regulated financial services industry which has speculated without any anchor in economic reality.
In a nutshell, the west, and the east are bankrupt.
The usual cause of recessions are that in exuberance producers have overstocked sellers. The cure is eventually the overstock is reduced producers go back to work, and another cycle is started. Sometimes prices and wages must be reduced to accomplish this goal quickly. Just giving people money to ...[text shortened]... ugh.
Almost all the governments on the planet are engaging in some level of deficit spending.
Speculative bubbles which preceded 2008 included the dot.com bubble and property / mortgage bubbles. Again nothing to do with producers and everything to do with financial speculation.
01 Apr 14
Originally posted by finneganIndeed this reality seems to have been lost in the willingness to believe ones own propaganda.
The crash of 2008 was not caused by producers over-stocking or indeed by producers producing or not producing. It was caused by the collapse of a poorly regulated financial services industry which has speculated without any anchor in economic reality.
Speculative bubbles which preceded 2008 included the dot.com bubble and property / mortgage bubbles. Again nothing to do with producers and everything to do with financial speculation.
01 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo doubt that the government's push to make sure everyone owns a house was a major part of the problem. Of course I'm talking about the crash, not out of control government debt.
Indeed this reality seems to have been lost in the willingness to believe ones own propaganda.
01 Apr 14
The post that was quoted here has been removedAs I thought, the list clearly shows poorer, sub Saharan African nations have the highest birthrates. Denmark was 204th far below the US, Russia and even Canada which is pretty low.
My point, was only that social programs (especially retirement) rest on an assumption of a growing workforce, who will pay for the benefits of current beneficiaries. A growing workforce may come from natural growth, or from immigration. Without one or the other programs are just the same as Ponzi schemes. Early beneficiaries do well, but later the programs collapse under their own weight.
01 Apr 14
Originally posted by finneganFinancial speculation is why factories get ahead of themselves, just as it is that bankers do. However a close look at the 2008 real estate bubble reveals it was government induced.
The crash of 2008 was not caused by producers over-stocking or indeed by producers producing or not producing. It was caused by the collapse of a poorly regulated financial services industry which has speculated without any anchor in economic reality.
Speculative bubbles which preceded 2008 included the dot.com bubble and property / mortgage bubbles. Again nothing to do with producers and everything to do with financial speculation.
A good read on it is: Reckless Endangerment, by Gretchen Morgenson, no Right Wing radical. The government systematically removed the anchors in reality which used to guide such things as who was approved for a mortgage, and how much they had to put into the deal as downpayment.
01 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenign
Financial speculation is why factories get ahead of themselves, just as it is that bankers do. However a close look at the 2008 real estate bubble reveals it was government induced.
A good read on it is: Reckless Endangerment, by Gretchen Morgenson, no Right Wing radical. The government systematically removed the anchors in reality which used to guid ...[text shortened]... s as who was approved for a mortgage, and how much they had to put into the deal as downpayment.
Financial speculation is why factories get ahead of themselvesWhat you mean by "ahead of themselves" is not clear. That phrase can mean they go out on a limb. However, what I suspect it means is that in order to make progress it is necessary for any business to take risks. These are usually carefully considered decisions but can go horribly wrong of course. For that reason, most businesses will be relatively conservative in their risk taking. One of the features of the speculative insanity leading to the 2008 crash was the extent to which many companies were shifting their money to offshore, poorly regulated environments (not least the Irish Republic) in order to participate in speculation that amounted to little better than gambling. Probably the better managed ones, however, were content just to steal an unfair competitive advantage by evading taxes in the countries where they earned their wealth.
The government systematically removed the anchors in reality which used to guide such things as who was approved for a mortgageYes I agree with that and I agree the role of government was vital. But the role it was playing here came under the general heading of "deregulation," and that was in response to demands from the free market wing on the right, not the left. You know, if it is socialist to impose regulations, it is surely not also socialist to remove regulations? Otherwise you win the argument every way around and that's getting silly. Let us agree on something more - the problem is bad government and the requirement is for better government. The idea that one can dispense with government is just not a serious one and I know you don't propose that.
04 Apr 14
Originally posted by finnegan"Yes I agree with that and I agree the role of government was vital. But the role it was playing here came under the general heading of "deregulation," and that was in response to demands from the free market wing on the right, not the left"Financial speculation is why factories get ahead of themselvesWhat you mean by "ahead of themselves" is not clear. That phrase can mean they go out on a limb. However, what I suspect it means is that in order to make progress it is necessary for any business to take risks. These are usually carefully considered decisions but can go horribly ...[text shortened]... at one can dispense with government is just not a serious one and I know you don't propose that.
Hardly. Read the book. Banks were told to give mortgages to people without verifiable income, and without any down payment. It was a case of government regulation gone off the tracks. Liberal Congressmen literally pulled the rug from under a variety of regulatory agencies that tried to do their jobs.
04 Apr 14
Originally posted by normbenignI don't know why these leftist nut jobs can't remember the big George Bush and Democrat push to make everyone a home owner.
"Yes I agree with that and I agree the role of government was vital. But the role it was playing here came under the general heading of "deregulation," and that was in response to demands from the free market wing on the right, not the left"
Hardly. Read the book. Banks were told to give mortgages to people without verifiable income, and without any ...[text shortened]... iterally pulled the rug from under a variety of regulatory agencies that tried to do their jobs.
04 Apr 14
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEveryone should, but do you pretend that everyone can make the payments? That's what the government pushed and we suffered the consequences.
Everyone should be a homeowner. The problem is that capitalists are buying up all the land and driving up the price.
Now lefties want to blame the banks, when the banks were just doing what the government told them to do.
04 Apr 14
Originally posted by EladarWell this is interesting. George Bush is now on the left is he? Welcome in, George, we like to operate a big, inclusive tent on the left. I'm told he is a very agreeable guy. George would also be welcome into the big tent of those opposed to unjust wars and to torture of innocent people that the C.I.A. dislikes.
I don't know why these leftist nut jobs can't remember the big George Bush and Democrat push to make everyone a home owner.
The Democrats may represent a U.S. style "left" but not one that would be recognized as "Left" in Europe or other parts of the world.
The push for a property owning democracy in Britain was led by Maggie Thatcher and has resulted in the sale of a huge proportion of social housing. Some remains as owner occupied stock but a significant proportion - especially in high cost areas like London - are now owned by landlords and rented out at market rents to those of the poor for whom affordable social housing is no longer available. In other words, we have replaced accountable and responsible social landlords for unaccountable slum landlords. As they are charged "market rents" and not "affordable" social housing rents, the difference is often made up out of state benefits (typically not to the unemployed, but to working people, who cannot possibly earn enough to pay the rents demanded) and the ongoing costs are astronomical, so of course the government is now seeking to punish the people they think are responsible. No - not the Tories and not New Labour, but the poor tenants.
Why are the properties not the basis for a property owning democracy? Because there is more to owning a house than the purchase price - which can be seriously discounted to hand it over to people unable to buy otherwise. What we observe over time is that marginal home owners cannot afford the costs of maintenance and the periodic re-investment without which any property will deteriorate and lose its value.
So no. The push to persuade people into owning their own home is part of a right wing fantasy about the property owning democracy. The Left recognizes that what people on low and insecure incomes require is affordable rented housing with responsible and imaginative social landlords.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by AThousandYoungA tremendous amount of land is owned or protected by the government from building. This is the single factor causing explosive inflation of home prices. It is worst where the government limits the most land.
Everyone should be a homeowner. The problem is that capitalists are buying up all the land and driving up the price.