Capitalism Isn't The Problem

[Neubarth]

It was a lot more worse than One Million houses forclosed on in 2008. Here, read the article from CNNMoney below. We are now seeing a MASSIVE TIDAL WAVE OF FORECLOSURE IN THE USA.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Almost 3 million homeowners received at least one foreclosure filing during 2009, setting a new record for the number of people falling behind on their mortgage payments.

RealtyTrac, the online marketer of foreclosed homes, reported that one in 45 households -- or 2,824,674 properties nationwide -- were in default last year. That's 21% more than in 2008, and more than double 2007's total.
The dramatic, sustained increase occurred despite efforts, such as President Obama's Home Affordable Modification Program, to reduce foreclosure filings.

"As bad as the 2009 numbers are, they probably would have been worse if not for legislative and industry-related delays in processing delinquent loans," said RealtyTrac CEO James Saccacio in a prepared statement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Capitalism can be a good system as it seems to get the best results out of the working class.

Communism has been proven to get the worst results out of the working class.

The greatest cause of failure in both systems is corruption.

The only way to deal with corruption is to be ruthless with it, and execute all who are corrupt. Communist China has been doing this for the past twenty years and is making tremendous headway in cleaning up the criminal element in their society. It does appear that criminal propensity is, to some degree, a genetic trait.

I would have no problem with being on a firing squad that took out all of the Corrupt Big Bankers and Politicians who have brought this country to its knees just like I would have no problem shooting a pedophile who murdered a four year old child after he sexually molested her.

Shit like that needs to be eliminated.

The sooner this nation understands that, the better we will become.

Capitalism can be a good system as it seems to get the best results out of the working class.

That's nice for the capitalists. Not so nice for the working class.

Communism has been proven to get the worst results out of the working class.

Since communism defines a society without class it would seem that any form of professed "communism" that still defines society in class terms isn't communist at all.

China isn't communist, it's state capitalist in the mould of the Stalinist USSR. It's ruled by a totalitarian regime.

Western capitalism has been able to thrive for various reasons but one is that its historical exploitative nature has been ameliorated, ironically enough by governments and unions rather than by the capitalists themselves.

After the GFC - which is possibly still continuing - capitalism has been severely wounded. Unfortunately for the capitalists its true ways have been exposed, the comments in this thread and others show that.

Unfortunately for the critics of capitalism other factors and individuals are being blamed for those excesses, but that's because the system is controlled by the oligarchs who use education and media to airbrush reallity.

The plainest example is the Tea Party movement. All that anger directed at the wrong institutions and people.

"...Not so nice for the working class."
In the United States, the working class is the capitalist class.


But, much of the post is correct.

A balance is necessry. The point of the OP is that we are not living under 'pure' capitalism, not that 'pure' capitalism should be the aim.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. Because you have not only been steeped in the propaganda from the school system, and the main stream media, but have accepted same.
b. Your belief system can only function through the use of what little you are allowed to know, and your conclusions make sense due to this limited knowledge.

It never fails - as soon as you read a post written in this style you can bet the author has never studied the topic at hand, has read very few books on the topic, and relies entirely on extremist blogs for his sources of news.

While "it" never fails, you do.

As soon as one shows a lack of ability to deal with the very specific examples and theses of a post, the only recourse is to imagine, fantasize about the poster.

That, in itself, reveals the lacuna that one tries to hide by an oh-so-transparent ad hominem attack.

In short, your response appears more like an envelope without an address.

 

[Neubarth]

China isn't communist, it's state capitalist in the mould of the Stalinist USSR. It's ruled by a totalitarian regime.

I disagree with you on this point. Though some of China is Capitalist, a substantial portion of China is still run by Communist governors who have not broken up the collectives and state apartment buildings and so on and so forth.

Granted, they have taken a step or two towards capitalism and hopefully sometime in the future democracy, but they are not there yet.

For the poster who said that there were no classes in Communism. I'd like to know what country achieved this. As an historian, I have never seen this. There always was a class structure in Communism, especially in Russia and China.

 

[Toronado3800]

Instability plays heck with businesses, especially small businesses. Every one I've worked for has operated on a rather small margin of error. Something goes wrong where xxx company can't build their widgets for my business to sell, or that we've already sold for delivery next week, and we have a problem.

Despite the government's efforts banks apparently work on a similarly small margin. I imagine its something like 1.2% of houses in foreclosure and the bank is fine, 1.8% and oh my lord all of a sudden the securities market which gave banks their capital back to lend again falls apart.

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

Affordable housing for the poor is a much debated topic and the folks who pushed for it were either:
A. short sighted in not limiting it to the bottom x% of houses.
B. just wanting to loosen up regulations on loans so they could borrow more.
C. a combination of both.

On the one hand the government wants to get folks into houses (mortgage interest deductions) since the theory goes those folks will work harder to keep their houses, have collateral in the houses to borrow against to take out small business loans, that type of thing. High owner occupancy rates is generally a good sign when scouting out neighborhoods.

On the other there is only so much margin for default in the banking system. Could the banks have lived if they only applied these new rules to the lowest 5% of the borrowers or houses out there and then only for owner occupancy? These are the 50k houses all over St. Louis.

When the no money down, pretend appraisal to kill your PMI, 110% loan, adjustable rate craze hit short sighted banks applied these rules were to middle class Americans who could afford a house but just wanted more. All of a sudden not only did poor folks have their 50k loans they shouldn't have but myself and all my friends were approved for notes in the 200k to 300k range. NUTS I tell you, and nuts I told my first mortgage broker.

Then here comes the government to spend deficit money stabilizing the banking industry. The pain will be spread out over decades to come. Americans won't starve. There will be no real socialist revolution.

 

[Douger]

The problem is considering out of control usury as an aspect of capitalism.

 

[The Rabbi]

The problem is considering out of control usury as an aspect of capitalism.

Would you care to define "out of control usury"? And could you also define "in control usury"?

 

[midcan5]

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." John Kenneth Galbraith

I never know what capitalism is, is it like beauty in the eye of the beholder? Is it a theory that helps explain something or another? Or is it a rhetorical device used like heaven or nirvana, a untouchable idea used for any purpose you like? I lean toward the last, but family and football keep me too busy to think more. Go Minnesota!


Ralph Nader: The Politics of Distraction in an Age of Gotcha Capitalism

"The man who saw the meltdown coming had another troubling insight: it will happen again
Why capitalism fails - The Boston Globe





Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes

 

[Oddball]

Great...Quote three of history's biggest economic goofballs, who couldn't have been more wrong had their lives depended upon it.

 

[william the wie]

a. Because you have not only been steeped in the propaganda from the school system, and the main stream media, but have accepted same.
b. Your belief system can only function through the use of what little you are allowed to know, and your conclusions make sense due to this limited knowledge.

It never fails - as soon as you read a post written in this style you can bet the author has never studied the topic at hand, has read very few books on the topic, and relies entirely on extremist blogs for his sources of news.

While "it" never fails, you do.

As soon as one shows a lack of ability to deal with the very specific examples and theses of a post, the only recourse is to imagine, fantasize about the poster.

That, in itself, reveals the lacuna that one tries to hide by an oh-so-transparent ad hominem attack.

In short, your response appears more like an envelope without an address.

What was the biggest clue, that his response assumes you are either pre-op TS or a transvestite presumably without knowing you? Or perhaps that he does not recognize the part played by economic competition in mate selection in all species?

 

[Shogun]

"Heroin isn't the problem..." say the junkies.

 

[midcan5]

"3. Let’s be very clear. Capitalism in its simplest configuration is this: profit informs the amount of risk one will take, and loss informs prudence in investment.

a. When government assumes the ‘risk’ element, we are no longer speaking of capitalism. When Congress writes laws to pick winners and loser, that is not capitalism."

The article wasn't about capitalism, it was about assigning blame. It posited an imaginary ideal, 'capitalism,' and then whenever this imaginary thing failed, it looked for the reasons and lo and behold, guess what, it found them. So unoriginal, so boring, reminds me of our last president and the failure of conservatism. Now we learn he really wasn't a conservative. Egad, the wonders of spin never ceases to amaze.

And think for a moment if capitalism is only about 'profit' and 'risk' then we need to find another ism for profit and risk hardly rebuild bridges or roads as our deteriorating infrastructure so well demonstrates. But some would argue rebuilding them would involve profit and risk? But for whom and who pays, ah there's the rub. And the risk was?

So what finally is capitalism? Allow me to define it for those who would disagree with me. Capitalism is a concept, an abstraction, historically it represents an economic system that is an ideal as most social science grand theories are. In reality it never works perfectly, as in order for any social endeavor to work, it must have boundaries, rules, laws, structure, and regulations. And in order for it to fail it only requires people and profit. See Enron if you doubt that. The Real Reasons Enron Failed - Lessons for Directors | Professional Services > Accounting Professionals Center from AllBusiness.com But at least admit failure.

SSRN-Realthe Reasons Enron Failed by Bennett Stewart
Enron: Who's Accountable? - TIME

So lesson for today, whenever you want to beat up on someone just create an imaginary ideal: Freedom, capitalism, democracy, just war, etc, then add in a foe, assign blame, cite examples that are too complex to easily pin down, next finger point, that bad ogre Government or liberals or etc are really at fault. Works every time.

Meanwhile...The Conservative Nanny State

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Nanny-State-Wealthy-Government/dp/1411693957/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263834425&sr=1-3]Amazon.com: The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer (9781411693951): Dean Baker: Books[/ame]


PS All economies are mixes, it is the proportions that matter.


"Wisdom is distinct from cleverness or mental efficiency. Wisdom is about getting the big things right. A prerequisite is the ability to recognize what the big things are, i.e., a sense for proportion, for what is important." Nick Bostrom

 

[Toro]

Why do you believe that the free enterprise/ capitalistic system is to blame for Wall Street and Mortgage Meltdown?

These sort of articles remind me of the articles posted by ideologically dogmatic Marxists who say that Marxism and Communism didn't work because those countries that were Communist were in fact infected by impure "state capitalism" rather than doctrinaire Marxism, which is in fact true, though certainly irrelevant.

There is no doubt that the government has some blame behind this mess, but absolving capitalism and the capital allocation by those acting freely because there was government interference is a canard.

 

[Toro]

Capitalism is a self-correcting system. Abuses end with bankruptcy and dissolution. No need to put anyone up against a firing squad.

Capitalism is usually a self-correcting mechanism. It isn't always. If it were, there wouldn't be structural unemployment.

And when large amounts of people are put out of work for an extended period of time, the results can be catastrophic.

 

[Truthmatters]

Capitalism can be a good system as it seems to get the best results out of the working class.

Communism has been proven to get the worst results out of the working class.

The greatest cause of failure in both systems is corruption.

The only way to deal with corruption is to be ruthless with it, and execute all who are corrupt. Communist China has been doing this for the past twenty years and is making tremendous headway in cleaning up the criminal element in their society. It does appear that criminal propensity is, to some degree, a genetic trait.

I would have no problem with being on a firing squad that took out all of the Corrupt Big Bankers and Politicians who have brought this country to its knees just like I would have no problem shooting a pedophile who murdered a four year old child after he sexually molested her.

Shit like that needs to be eliminated.

The sooner this nation understands that, the better we will become.

Capitalism can be a good system as it seems to get the best results out of the working class.

That's nice for the capitalists. Not so nice for the working class.

Communism has been proven to get the worst results out of the working class.

Since communism defines a society without class it would seem that any form of professed "communism" that still defines society in class terms isn't communist at all.

China isn't communist, it's state capitalist in the mould of the Stalinist USSR. It's ruled by a totalitarian regime.

Western capitalism has been able to thrive for various reasons but one is that its historical exploitative nature has been ameliorated, ironically enough by governments and unions rather than by the capitalists themselves.

After the GFC - which is possibly still continuing - capitalism has been severely wounded. Unfortunately for the capitalists its true ways have been exposed, the comments in this thread and others show that.

Unfortunately for the critics of capitalism other factors and individuals are being blamed for those excesses, but that's because the system is controlled by the oligarchs who use education and media to airbrush reallity.

The plainest example is the Tea Party movement. All that anger directed at the wrong institutions and people.

Bingo!

 

[Diuretic]

Capitalism is a self-correcting system. Abuses end with bankruptcy and dissolution. No need to put anyone up against a firing squad.

Capitalism is usually a self-correcting mechanism. It isn't always. If it were, there wouldn't be structural unemployment.

And when large amounts of people are put out of work for an extended period of time, the results can be catastrophic.

But is actual full employment an anathema to capitalism?

 

[william the wie]

Why do you believe that the free enterprise/ capitalistic system is to blame for Wall Street and Mortgage Meltdown?

These sort of articles remind me of the articles posted by ideologically dogmatic Marxists who say that Marxism and Communism didn't work because those countries that were Communist were in fact infected by impure "state capitalism" rather than doctrinaire Marxism, which is in fact true, though certainly irrelevant.

There is no doubt that the government has some blame behind this mess, but absolving capitalism and the capital allocation by those acting freely because there was government interference is a canard.

How are economic downturns in the human species in any way different other than being less lethal from selection in any species? That many apologists for capitalism shy away from talking about non or lowest lethal selection being what capitalism is about that is what it is about and it does the best job in that department. This may not make the deluded and psychopathic happy but so what?

 

[Toro]

Capitalism is a self-correcting system. Abuses end with bankruptcy and dissolution. No need to put anyone up against a firing squad.

Capitalism is usually a self-correcting mechanism. It isn't always. If it were, there wouldn't be structural unemployment.

And when large amounts of people are put out of work for an extended period of time, the results can be catastrophic.

But is actual full employment an anathema to capitalism?

No, not at all.

Over the long run, wages are set by productivity levels. The greater the level of productivity, the higher the wages. Excess levels of unemployment creates an output gap and retards the accumulation of human capital, which is a drag on economic growth. Capitalism benefits more in a full employment environment than it does during high levels of unemployment.

 

[The Rabbi]

Capitalism is a self-correcting system. Abuses end with bankruptcy and dissolution. No need to put anyone up against a firing squad.

Capitalism is usually a self-correcting mechanism. It isn't always. If it were, there wouldn't be structural unemployment.

And when large amounts of people are put out of work for an extended period of time, the results can be catastrophic.

No, it is ALWAYS self-correcting. Exceptions occur as a result of gov't policy, like extended unemployment benefits and minimum wage rules.

 

[Bfgrn]

Capitalism is a self-correcting system. Abuses end with bankruptcy and dissolution. No need to put anyone up against a firing squad.

Capitalism is usually a self-correcting mechanism. It isn't always. If it were, there wouldn't be structural unemployment.

And when large amounts of people are put out of work for an extended period of time, the results can be catastrophic.

No, it is ALWAYS self-correcting. Exceptions occur as a result of gov't policy, like extended unemployment benefits and minimum wage rules.

So does the jungle, but that is was not the intentions of our founding fathers...

During the great depression the FDR administration increased funds to FERA, and added additional programs to get people back to work and revitalize the American economy. Harry Hopkins his relief administrator and the Brain Trust were criticized for excessive spending by conservative members of Congress. They claimed the economy would sort itself out in the long run. To which Hopkins replied, "People don't eat in the long run, they eat every day."

There is NEVER any human capital in your right wing solutions...

Maybe you should move to Haiti...they have NO government...