Originally posted by no1marauderThe current economic crisis was caused by government-promoted speculative lending and a US government that is more interested in social spending and militarism than it is in controlling our borders and constructing appropriate trade agreements that punish nations that violate free trade principles.
It was blind faith in the benefits of unregulated capitalism that were the main causes of the present economic difficulties. Your call for even more blind faith in unregulated capitalism is unconvincing in the extreme.
Originally posted by spruce112358Did you even bother to read the report you cited?
The current economic crisis was caused by government-promoted speculative lending and a US government that is more interested in social spending and militarism than it is in controlling our borders and constructing appropriate trade agreements that punish nations that violate free trade principles.
You are wrong about the first, partially wrong about the second and "free trade principles" are not going to help the US.
Originally posted by normbenignYou've made these claims before citing a book that debunks them. They are nonsense.
Can you support this wildly unsupported assertion? Where was this unregulated capitalism? Was Fannie Mae unregulated? Was HUD unregulated? Was the SEC an unregulatory agency? Is the Federal Reserve an unregulated capitalist entity? Are the nations banks and money lenders unregulated, or held responsible when they behave irresponsibly? Where is all th ...[text shortened]... oodering, and manipulation of government by quasi government businesses, and croney capitalists.
The so-called regulatory atmosphere in the late 1990's and 2000's was completely relaxed. The regulatory scheme of banking put in during the 30's was scrapped allowing the largest banks (who doubled their share of banking assets in a matter of 5 years) to become giant hedge funds. They created $64 trillion of virtually worthless assets that endangered the entire financial system. They encouraged the sale of subprime mortgages so that they could be bundled into said securities (Fannie Mae's share of the market declined by half in the period you want to blame them for the crisis). The SEC during the period was an "unregulatory agency" that did virtually nothing. The Fed was run by Alan Greenspan, a Randian who didn't believe in government regulation at all.
All laissez faire at its finest.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou see government as a tool to take away people's liberty in the name of protecting them from themselves.
You've made these claims before citing a book that debunks them. They are nonsense.
The so-called regulatory atmosphere in the late 1990's and 2000's was completely relaxed. The regulatory scheme of banking put in during the 30's was scrapped allowing the largest banks (who doubled their share of banking assets in a matter of 5 years) t ...[text shortened]... lieve in government regulation at all.
All laissez faire at its finest.
It's a radically archaic view -- but one every tyrant the world has ever know has tried on for size. It's dangerous and you should abandon it.
As long as people don't hurt each other directly, they should have the liberty to do "stupid" things and take "stupid" risks. Government should neither help nor hinder such activities.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe housing bubble was certainly egged on if not entirely caused by government-backed loans and tax breaks.
Did you even bother to read the report you cited?
You are wrong about the first, partially wrong about the second and "free trade principles" are not going to help the US.
Obama even tried more tax breaks explicitly to support house prices, so stop talking nonsense.
Originally posted by spruce112358You see government as a useless appendage that should do nothing while people wallow in poverty and misery because of your misguided belief in a economic philosophy that was obsolete the day it was promoted.
You see government as a tool to take away people's liberty in the name of protecting them from themselves.
It's a radically archaic view -- but one every tyrant the world has ever know has tried on for size. It's dangerous and you should abandon it.
As long as people don't hurt each other directly, they should have the liberty to do "stupid" things and take "stupid" risks. Government should neither help nor hinder such activities.
Your post presents exactly the type of attitude Alan Greenspan and the government "regulators" adopted. Thank you for proving my point; laissez faire loons like you and they see every attempt to control the negative externalities that capitalism inevitably generates as some form of totalitarianism. That is exactly what led to financial disaster.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Supporting house prices NOW would be an excellent idea since the collapse of that market as sharply reduced household wealth, cut consumption and helped stagnant the economy. Here's an interesting proposal from Martin Feldstein, economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, on how to do it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/opinion/how-to-stop-the-drop-in-home-values.html
The housing bubble was certainly egged on if not entirely caused by government-backed loans and tax breaks.
Obama even tried more tax breaks explicitly to support house prices, so stop talking nonsense.
Government backed loans were a small part of the housing market in the 2000's. That's why the banks were going to go under; that had securitized something like $10 trillion worth of mortgages into $64 trillion worth of mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps and other exotic gambling devices.
Bubbles of this sort are endemic to capitalism; periods of over investment in one industry until there is excess capacity and the prices of the assets tumble.
Originally posted by no1marauderThey are endemic to Central banking schemes, and the notion of creating money out of thin air. Every bubble has as its genesis inflation of money by easy credit.
Supporting house prices NOW would be an excellent idea since the collapse of that market as sharply reduced household wealth, cut consumption and helped stagnant the economy. Here's an interesting proposal from Martin Feldstein, economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, on how to do it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/opinion/how-to-stop-the-drop-in-home-valu ...[text shortened]... nvestment in one industry until there is excess capacity and the prices of the assets tumble.
Originally posted by normbenignMoney is always created out of "thin air" as it is a Man made contrivance.
They are endemic to Central banking schemes, and the notion of creating money out of thin air. Every bubble has as its genesis inflation of money by easy credit.
Bubbles are inevitable features of the capitalist system and have existed in every one of them regardless of the level of centralized banking.
Originally posted by no1marauderI see government as a mechanism to guarantee those personal liberties which ensure that we never wallow in poverty except by our own choosing -- liberty to do what you want.
You see government as a useless appendage that should do nothing while people wallow in poverty and misery because of your misguided belief in a economic philosophy that was obsolete the day it was promoted.
Your post presents exactly the type of attitude Alan Greenspan and the government "regulators" adopted. Thank you for proving my poin ...[text shortened]... bly generates as some form of totalitarianism. That is exactly what led to financial disaster.
The economic philosophy that you deride is the closest, philosophically, to that political system -- liberty to do what you want with your property.
These are the philosophies that founded the prosperity of the modern world.
Socialists like you ignore the forest for one tree that happens to have fallen over. Then you desperately cut down 10 trees to try to prop up one and in the process destroy more of the forest than you help.
Originally posted by spruce112358I had no idea I was a socialist. Thanks for letting me know.
I see government as a mechanism to guarantee those personal liberties which ensure that we never wallow in poverty except by our own choosing -- liberty to do what you want.
The economic philosophy that you deride is the closest, philosophically, to that political system -- liberty to do what you want with your property.
These are the philosophies ...[text shortened]... down 10 trees to try to prop up one and in the process destroy more of the forest than you help.
The prosperity of the modern world was based on the progressive reforms of the capitalist system put into place in the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's. Before they existed, capitalism was a Dickensian nightmare of poverty and want with even children being compelled to work 14 hour days, 6 days a week. But they had "personal liberty" to do so (or the personal liberty to die).
Originally posted by no1marauderThe application of capital to production made possible the greatest advances in the human condition. Pooh on your "progressive reforms". Without capitalism, they'ld have had nothing to reform.
I had no idea I was a socialist. Thanks for letting me know.
The prosperity of the modern world was based on the progressive reforms of the capitalist system put into place in the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's. Before they existed, capitalism was a Dickensian nightmare of poverty and want with even children being compelled to work 14 ...[text shortened]... s, 6 days a week. But they had "personal liberty" to do so (or the personal liberty to die).
Originally posted by normbenignThere was little advance in the average person's life under capitalism until those progressive reforms. In fact it's fair to say that most of those living in the lap of industrial 19th Century laissez faire in places like London were worse off than subsistence farmers or even hunter gatherers in the Natural State.
The application of capital to production made possible the greatest advances in the human condition. Pooh on your "progressive reforms". Without capitalism, they'ld have had nothing to reform.
Originally posted by normbenignCapitalism was only an improvement over mercantalism and fuedalism. It's not in any way perfect.
The application of capital to production made possible the greatest advances in the human condition. Pooh on your "progressive reforms". Without capitalism, they'ld have had nothing to reform.
Wages in the US are stagnant not because of tax policies or "the rich" but because of worldwide labor-glut. Given what was coming, it made little sense to keep borrowing to buy ever-higher priced homes -- but we did. So now we have a hangover that only greater Chinese consumption will cure![/b]We are living in a global world.
We have 2 billion extra customers as wells as workers.
Demand is what the world is short of - and here we have the extra consumers.
We have got fat in the West - we have failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining but we are still living in the West - we still have lots of opportunity, to learn, to work, to travel.
Lets stop whinging and develop products and services to delight these billions of new people!