24 Sep 08
2 edits
So here is the question. With the recent mortgage crisis threatening to strip us of everything we have worked for in our lives to this point, is the message that owning property is a "bad" thing? In effect, is communism superior to other systems which allow individuals to own property? Should the government now step in and take over any and all property and shuffle us all into row houses? Will this be the next step in our ever expanding government?
Edit: I think the biggest obstacle to this would be the lack of revenue from being unable to charge property taxes. Of course, they could come up with another tax like a tax on air or something comparable.
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by MrHandBut I thought government created entities like Fanny Mae and company were regulating the whole affair? I guess what you mean is "better" regulations set in place?
If it would have been properly regulated in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. (Role of the govt.).
As for the whole communism bit...ludicrous of course... and very short of funny.
The next step is for the govt. to properly regulate our finacial industry.
24 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyHere is an example of deregulation where it was unwise and I would categorize it as poor governance.
But I thought government created entities like Fanny Mae and company were regulating the whole affair? I guess what you mean is "better" regulations set in place?
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
Edit: if you think that Fannie Mae's purpose was to regulate, you really don't understand what you are talking about. They were not even part of the legistlative branch in any shape or form.
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyPeople who have not paid off their house do not own the house; the bank does. That is,
So here is the question. With the recent mortgage crisis threatening to strip us of everything we have worked for in our lives to this point, is the message that owning property is a "bad" thing? In effect, is communism superior to other systems which allow individuals to own property? Should the government now step in and take over any and all property an ...[text shortened]... es. Of course, they could come up with another tax like a tax on air or something comparable.
people who have fully paid off their houses aren't in a crisis right now, nor are people who are
making their mortgage payments (like me, for example).
The banks lend their money in good faith, that the people to whom they lend them will pay them
according to the schedule agreed upon in advance by both parties. Just because you are living in
a dwelling doesn't make it your property, no matter how long you've resided there. If you renege
on your responsibilities, then the bank can take action (an action described in detail in the
particular mortgage agreement signed by both parties).
The problem is two sided, of course. In some cases, the people shouldn't have taken a mortgage
that they were unlikely to be able to meet when the economy shifted (which doesn't require a
PhD in Economics to figure out). In other cases, the bank shouldn't have lent to people who
were unlikely to be able to fulfill their obligation when the economy shifted.
The banks don't benefit when they repossess homes; they lose money. Banks only do that
when they know that more money isn't forthcoming in an effort to cut their losses.
The mortgage crisis only strips people of the property they thought they could afford and can't
(for good or bad reasons). No one is entitled to particular property, just the right to acquire it.
If they can't acquire it, they had no right to it in the first place.
Nemesio
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyWell, you seem to have things mixed up there.
So here is the question. With the recent mortgage crisis threatening to strip us of everything we have worked for in our lives to this point, is the message that owning property is a "bad" thing? In effect, is communism superior to other systems which allow individuals to own property?
Communism doesn't say you can't own property. If you want a TV and you work to get a TV... it's yours. End of story. Communism says nothing about that.
If you're talking about land. Well, that's something else isn't it? It's like water and air. You can't own that. It's ludicrous to even think of a system in which this is possible. It would automatically mean that a few people own a lot of land and everyone else has to beg to be allowed to use it. Ridiculous to the max and unworkable.
Also, if you have the "right" to own land, but "can't" because all the land is already owned... what good is that bloody right then?
See?
Obviously you can own a house, but you can't own land. That's where it all really gets interesting. Because owning the house suddenly doesn't make much sense. So, everyone rents a house instead. Uses an accommodation, if you will.
And like in most countries I know, if someone lives in a house for more than two years and the previous renter leaves (so you've shared for 2 years or more), you automatically become the main "renter".
Sounds so logical to me.
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by NemesioWhat about government involvement? For example, the CRA act legislated by Carter gave low income people access to mortgages that they would not have ordinarily been able to due to their high risk. Should we continue such policies, reform them, or simply sit in awe regarding another welfare program turned "sacred cow" that has fallen flat on its face?
The problem is two sided, of course. In some cases, the people shouldn't have taken a mortgage
that they were unlikely to be able to meet when the economy shifted (which doesn't require a
PhD in Economics to figure out). In other cases, the bank shouldn't have lent to people who
were unlikely to be able to fulfill their obligation when the economy shif ...[text shortened]... ire it.
If they can't acquire it, they had no right to it in the first place.
Nemesio[/b]
24 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI guess this is the way it kinda is in the US. For example, through legislation like that of eminent domain, the government can take land that they want, regardless of your "ownership" and objections. In addition, when you are done paying off your mortgage you continue to pay taxes on the property so, in effect, you are renting it from the government even though the deed may say that you "own" it. I guess it is all smoke and mirrors.
Obviously you can own a house, but you can't own land. That's where it all really gets interesting. Because owning the house suddenly doesn't make much sense. So, everyone rents a house instead. Uses an accommodation, if you will.
And like in most countries I know, if someone lives in a house for more than two years and the previous renter leaves (so yo 2 years or more), you automatically become the main "renter".
Sounds so logical to me.[/b]
25 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyI'm opposed to governmental involvement. I'm certainly no fan of Carter or the CRA act. I
What about government involvement? For example, the CRA act legislated by Carter gave low income people access to mortgages that they would not have ordinarily been able to due to their high risk. Should we continue such policies, reform them, or simply sit in awe regarding another welfare program turned "sacred cow" that has fallen flat on its face?
think a bank shouldn't be coerced by government into accepting an application from someone
they would otherwise deny. So?
That doesn't change the fact that your first post about people losing 'their' property is some sort
version of pre-communism was complete BS.
Nemesio
25 Sep 08
Originally posted by NemesioI was just opening the door to those who think communism is the best thing since sliced bread to weigh in on the situation. After all, there are a few around here on these boards and I am sure they feel largely vindicated by this crisis in many regards due to their disdain for capitalism.
I'm opposed to governmental involvement. I'm certainly no fan of Carter or the CRA act. I
think a bank shouldn't be coerced by government into accepting an application from someone
they would otherwise deny. So?
That doesn't change the fact that your first post about people losing 'their' property is some sort
version of pre-communism was complete BS.
Nemesio
As for your opposition to the CRA act, good for you!! I am glad you are not a liberal drone. In fact, for what it is worth, from my interactions with you in the past I judge you have to much intellectual honesty to buy into all that nonesense.
25 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyBut your post was incoherent. You were suggesting that the banks were taking other people's
I was just opening the door to those who think communism is the best thing since sliced bread to weigh in on the situation. After all, there are a few around here on these boards and I am sure they feel largely vindicated by this crisis in many regards due to their disdain for capitalism.
'hard-earned property.' The fact of the matter is, it's not their property; it's the banks'
property. That's not communism, it's capitalism. One of the tenets of communism is that
property is state owned; that's not what's at work here when banks repossess homes.
The message isn't: Owning property is a bad thing; the message is: Don't borrow money to buy
things you can't reasonably predict you'll be able to afford. A good deal of the blame is on those
people who borrowed money with adjustable rates with the misguided notion that the economy
was going to remain 'robust.' (Indeed, President Bush's most recent State of the Union said
that in order to 'grow our economy' and 'keep our economy growing,' we had to pass an
economic stimulus package (which passed under big-mouth Pelosi's leadership the day after
the Address). That is, the Congress did precisely what the President wanted.) A smaller part
of the blame rests on the banks themselves who gave loans to people who couldn't reasonably
be predicted to successfully meet the payments if the rate moved more than a few quarter points.
Irresponsible banks (trying to get rich) and even more irresponsible borrowers (trying to purchase
homes beyond the reach of their pursestrings): that's what this mess is about. And there's
nothing socialist about that aspect of things, and certainly no message about the idea of property
being 'bad.'
Nemesio
25 Sep 08
2 edits
Whodey:
We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the
markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer
to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and
opportunity for all.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Economy.htm
If Republicans actually voted on the platform they used to back in the 50s, I'd very likely be a
Republican, with a strong but sensible approach to economy and especially labor. But they
don't even support that which they claim to support earlier in the year.
Nemesio
25 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe problem is that if you only couch the problem in binary terms of capitalism or communism, you always end up only seeing the limitations of either. Some other OECD economies try to marry a little of both into a form of social democracy that does work remarkably well if you are willing to take of your either or blinkers of capitalism is good communism is evil.
I was just opening the door to those who think communism is the best thing since sliced bread to weigh in on the situation. After all, there are a few around here on these boards and I am sure they feel largely vindicated by this crisis in many regards due to their disdain for capitalism.
Put it this way, the biggest problem with communism is that over time a lack of incentive or motivation may affect your workforce as there may be no real incentive to do really well at anything.
On the other hand in a capitalist system with inflation and other movements in the economy, your work can be systematically devalued such that what took an average person 20 years to own 50 years ago, might take an average person 30 years to own today, with no guarantee that after 30 years of working hard and doing the right thing by keeping up with all of their mortgage repayments, they would actually secure a future that they could enjoy, without constantly worrying that all that labour could be flushed down the tubes by the wanton mismanagement of a few greedy men.
25 Sep 08
Originally posted by kmax87Capitalism = Inflation?
The problem is that if you only couch the problem in binary terms of capitalism or communism, you always end up only seeing the limitations of either. Some other OECD economies try to marry a little of both into a form of social democracy that does work remarkably well if you are willing to take of your either or blinkers of capitalism is good communism is ev ...[text shortened]... all that labour could be flushed down the tubes by the wanton mismanagement of a few greedy men.
There is no inflation in communist nations?
Wrong
In a free society i.e. a capitalist society, you are free to form any collectives you like. This way everyone (except the busybodies) is happy.
25 Sep 08
Originally posted by WajomaWhen has capitalism not devalued labour through inflationary spiral?
Capitalism = Inflation?
There is no inflation in communist nations?
In a free society........[text shortened]....... you are free to form any collectives you like. This way everyone (except the busybodies) is happy.