Debunking the republican free-market myth

[arKangel]

One of the better informed threads I've read on this board.

Except maybe this:

The last 20 years have debunked the idea that there are many conservatives left. None of those 3 are conservative actions. The "conservative" movement in this country is not much more than a different flavor of liberalism today

"Conservative" is a weak ideological label. It is essentially means status quo, no more no less.

I am a liberal. I believe in a free market.

"Conservatives" in 1776 believed we should all bow down to a king, to give our lives and our childrens lives to the whims of kings, tyrants, and all manner of elitist evil.
"Conservatives" today are not all that much different.

Do not play into the Rush Limbaugh re-definition of liberalism. Nor play along with the other marxism spouting media tools who usurp the honorable title of "liberal".
They are not liberal, they are pinko scum.


I implore you,
Drop the labels. You are only playing into the hand of the marxist.

 

[American Horse]

Banks were forced by democrats to make bad loans or face civil rights litigation. The bad loans would be guaranteed by Fannie Mae but democrats had that base covered too. The House Banking Chairman who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae looked Americans in the eye and said Fannie was solvent when it was on the verge of collapse under a democrat majority in both houses of congress. We have learned that politicians are dumber and more dishonest than bankers. The problem seems to be how deeply democrats want to wade into the fascist quagmire and completely control the manufacture and distribution of goods and services.

The banks flinched, buckled under pressure from politicians, and made loans to people who happily signed on the dotted line.

So WHERE does the blame lie?

With the banks who made "easy" credit available to unqualified people?

Or with the people who were stupid enough to overextend themselves and borrow more money than they were capable of repaying?

I say both the banks AND the borrowers are to blame, EQUALLY.

Blame the Democrats. Blame the Republicans. Blame all of the politicians. They ALL deserve to be tarred and feathered!

Everybody flinches under pressure from the central government. Think about it.

 

[Ariux]

The last 20 years have debunked the idea that there are many conservatives left. None of those 3 are conservative actions. The "conservative" movement in this country is not much more than a different flavor of liberalism today.

If conservative is the opposite liberal, conservative died around the mid-20th century. It has just become more obvious in recent times. Conservatives -- neocons -- are just another flavor of liberal. Their opposition to liberalism is mostly superficial.

 

[Texanmike]

One of the better informed threads I've read on this board.

Except maybe this:

The last 20 years have debunked the idea that there are many conservatives left. None of those 3 are conservative actions. The "conservative" movement in this country is not much more than a different flavor of liberalism today

"Conservative" is a weak ideological label. It is essentially means status quo, no more no less.

I am a liberal. I believe in a free market.

"Conservatives" in 1776 believed we should all bow down to a king, to give our lives and our childrens lives to the whims of kings. tyrants, and all manner of elitist evil.
"Conservatives" today are not all that much different.

Do not play into the "Rush Limbaugh" re-definition of liberalism. Nor play along with the other marxism spouting media tools who usurp the honorable title of "liberal".
They are not liberal, they are pinko scum.


I implore you,
Drop the labels. You are only playing into the hand of the pinko.

I agree with you completely about labels. The problem is that you cannot have a discussion with most people and correctly label political ideologies. As a result I try to use the terminology of the person I'm speaking to. The classic "political spectrum" which you are describing is almost extinct in discussion today.

Mike

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't see neoliberalism represented much at all, certainly not as much as corporatism, the dominant mode of government coming out of both major parties.

Corporatism is the basturd offspring of neo-liberalism.

Neoliberalism is a political movement advocating economic liberalizations, free trade, and open markets. Neoliberalism supports privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation of markets, and promotion of the private sector's role in society.

The overall goal of neo-liberalism, is to end the existance of nation-states in the world.

 

[Billo_Really]

If conservative is the opposite liberal, conservative died around the mid-20th century. It has just become more obvious in recent times. Conservatives -- neocons -- are just another flavor of liberal. Their opposition to liberalism is mostly superficial.

Whatever happened to the William F. Buckley conservatives?

 

[flacaltenn]

You know when Republicans found out about free markets and civil liberty? When Bush started acting like a big Govt fool.. Up to that point, I NEVER heard Limbaugh or Hannity or REP candidates talking about freedom and free market principles. Hardly freakin' ever..

NOW -- the economic and domestic freedom ideas of the Cato Institute and Stossel and Ron Paul are Tea Party mainstream. And all those CongressCritters giving out those "green credits" to industry better wise up..

NOBODY likes Govt/Corporate Collusion.. Except an elected politician..

And NOBODY likes a nanny state except busybodies and elected politicians....

 

[American Horse]

The banks flinched, buckled under pressure from politicians, and made loans to people who happily signed on the dotted line.

So WHERE does the blame lie?

With the banks who made "easy" credit available to unqualified people?

Or with the people who were stupid enough to overextend themselves and borrow more money than they were capable of repaying?

I say both the banks AND the borrowers are to blame, EQUALLY.

Blame the Democrats. Blame the Republicans. Blame all of the politicians. They ALL deserve to be tarred and feathered!

I say we break up the big banks and make them little banks, much like we did with the phone company.

What created the problem was not "banks and government". What caused the problem is the fractional lending system. If you allow banks to create "currency" on the basis of a signature and without actual capital then the system will eventually crash. We should have let the whole thing come crashing down. Instead we propped up a failing system in which you and 5000 other people go borrow money from a bank that doesn't have it. The bank gets to loan money that was created when you agreed to pay it back to other banks who can then loan out several times as much fake money as was created when you signed a paper saying you would pay them that money. The system is fundamentally flawed.

Mike

Mike, there's really nothing wrong with the fractional reserve system, as long as the politicians don't tamper with it like with the CRA and Fannie & F. That system insures that there is enough money (sometimes in the form of obligations and promises to pay) for the nations business to take place, and allocates the money where it will operate most efficiently, and productively. Some risk is involved, but if banks are allowed to use due diligence in lending, losses are manageable with very little loss of value to the dollar. Promissory notes are not fake money; they are obligations due over time.

 

[dblack]

I don't see neoliberalism represented much at all, certainly not as much as corporatism, the dominant mode of government coming out of both major parties.

Corporatism is the basturd offspring of neo-liberalism.

Neoliberalism is a political movement advocating economic liberalizations, free trade, and open markets. Neoliberalism supports privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation of markets, and promotion of the private sector's role in society.

The overall goal of neo-liberalism, is to end the existance of nation-states in the world.

Look at what government actually does. Look at what conservatives (and liberals) actually do when in power. Corporatism is the term that better describes the dominant governing style. Neoliberalism may be the rallying cry for a subset of the conservative movement, but - as you point out in the OP - it's certainly not driving policy decisions of either major party.

 

[Ariux]

NOW -- the economic and domestic freedom ideas of the Cato Institute and Stossel and Ron Paul are Tea Party mainstream. And all those CongressCritters giving out those "green credits" to industry better wise up..

Ron Paul only managed roughly 10% of the GOP vote in the primaries. How is that mainstream? The Tea Party is basically a one-issue party, tax cuts, yet tax plans that would RAISE their taxes are the most popular with them (flat tax, fair tax, 9-9-9 tax), and keep in mind that tax cuts are an illusion without smaller government.

The tea party is worthless. Ron Paul is retiring.

Cato Institute and Stossel are minority voices, and only limited to libertarian economics, not conservativism.

 

[flacaltenn]

NOW -- the economic and domestic freedom ideas of the Cato Institute and Stossel and Ron Paul are Tea Party mainstream. And all those CongressCritters giving out those "green credits" to industry better wise up..

Ron Paul only managed roughly 10% of the GOP vote in the primaries. How is that mainstream? The Tea Party is basically a one-issue party, tax cuts, yet tax plans that would RAISE their taxes are the most popular with them (flat tax, fair tax, 9-9-9 tax), and keep in mind that tax cuts are an illusion without smaller government.

The tea party is worthless. Ron Paul is retiring.

Cato Institute and Stossel are minority voices, and only limited to libertarian economics, not conservativism.

Crap -- I thought I was pessimistic about political prospect. You win that title..

Nawww -- The TP had the whole fiscal conservative thing right. Don't think that they got owned by Grover Norquist. They are ALL smart enough to know that SPENDING is the problem and taxation is not the 1st priority solution to that. I believe that TParty members KNOW the difference between a tax and taking away a subsidy. Grover Norquist and Mainstream REP party leadership doesn't.


I've watched all those REP parrots suddenly start watching the legal and structural damage from the War on Drugs. Beginning to understand the civil rights erosion that they started in the courts with asset forfeiture and searches/seizures. I've seen an increased awareness of protecting basic liberties by the reactions to imminent domain abuses.

And THEY (the REPS) have made these discoveries RECENTLY. Like in the past 8 yrs.
The INCREASING acceptance of the Paul message and the fact that the left isn't even bothering to attack CATO and Stossel as much as HERITAGE and LIMBAUGH --- leads me to believe I'm in the right place for the future political majority in this country..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The republican's keep saying how much they want a limited government, but there are examples all over the place showing they believe in the opposite. Here are 3 of those examples...

1. Government support of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF):
...why would any market-oriented opponent of big government support the existence of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF)? These TBTF banks operate with an implicit subsidy from the government. Lenders expect the government to step in to back up these banks' debt if they fail, as happened on a massive basis in 2008. As a result, TBTF banks can borrow money at lower interest rates than would be possible in a free market.

2. Government support of prescription drug companies:
...drug patents raise the price of prescription drugs by close to $270 billion a year above their free-market price. Patents are government granted monopolies. Since prescription drugs often are necessary for a person's health or even life, people will pay almost anything for a drug if they can afford it or can get their insurance to pick up the tab. Patents imply very big government since the government will imprison anyone who produces a drug without the patent holder's consent.

3. Government support of licensing restrictions:
...conservatives support, highly paid professionals (e.g. doctors, dentists and lawyers) use licensing restrictions to limit both foreign and domestic competition. While the government has been using the banner of "free trade" to drive down the wages of manufacturing workers, it has simultaneously been increasing the protection afforded doctors in order to prevent any similar downward pressure on their wages.

Right-wing hypocrisy, knows no bounds.

1. TARP failed its first vote in Congress because Republicans opposed it.
2. Patents and copyrights are written into the Constitution and are intended to promote the progress of science. There are many problems with the patent system as it currently exists, the idea that patents are a product of big government is absurd.
3. I agree that licensing protections are absurd, just not sure why you want to exclusively blame the Republicans for that one.

 

[bripat9643]

The federal government never told the banks to dish out loans to people who could not afford it.

Yes, it did, you stupid turd. What do you think the CRA says?

 

[bripat9643]

The last 5 years has debunked quite a few conservative ideals. But denial is one of their strong suits. Denial and madness.

Liberalism is all that's been debunked. It also showed how easy it is for liberals to lie.

 

[FA_Q2]

The republican's keep saying how much they want a limited government, but there are examples all over the place showing they believe in the opposite. Here are 3 of those examples...

1. Government support of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF):
...why would any market-oriented opponent of big government support the existence of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF)? These TBTF banks operate with an implicit subsidy from the government. Lenders expect the government to step in to back up these banks' debt if they fail, as happened on a massive basis in 2008. As a result, TBTF banks can borrow money at lower interest rates than would be possible in a free market.

2. Government support of prescription drug companies:
...drug patents raise the price of prescription drugs by close to $270 billion a year above their free-market price. Patents are government granted monopolies. Since prescription drugs often are necessary for a person's health or even life, people will pay almost anything for a drug if they can afford it or can get their insurance to pick up the tab. Patents imply very big government since the government will imprison anyone who produces a drug without the patent holder's consent.

3. Government support of licensing restrictions:
...conservatives support, highly paid professionals (e.g. doctors, dentists and lawyers) use licensing restrictions to limit both foreign and domestic competition. While the government has been using the banner of "free trade" to drive down the wages of manufacturing workers, it has simultaneously been increasing the protection afforded doctors in order to prevent any similar downward pressure on their wages.

Right-wing hypocrisy, knows no bounds.

There is RW hypocrisy to be found, to bad your OP does not have one shred of it anywhere at all. Particularly when you start bringing thing in from the LEFT and then claiming RW hypocrisy....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The federal government never told the banks to dish out loans to people who could not afford it.

Yes, it did, you stupid turd. What do you think the CRA says?

To be fair, the CRA doesn't actually tell banks to loan money to people who can't pay it back, it just tells them t hat if they keep loaning money to white people' who happen to be rich, and don't loan money to black people, even if they are poor, they will be racists and not get their liberal stamp of approval every year.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Ugh. These kinds of arguments are tedious.

The "myth" is that there is such a thing as a "free market". Anyone who actually thinks there is such a thing is betraying a mix of naivete, ideology and ignorance. There has always been regulation, at least since sometime after the freakin' Stone Age. Good grief. The question is finding the proper balance between markets and regulation.

Another myth is that "more" regulation means "better" regulation. The 2008 meltdown exposed an abject inability for current regulators and regulation to keep up with financial markets, particularly new products.

Show me better, more efficient, more effective regulation and we'll talk. As of today, our "leaders" have their heads too far up their collective ass to create such regulation. It can be accomplished, but not in this environment.

.

 

[dblack]

The "myth" is that there is such a thing as a "free market".

Nah... that's silly. It's like saying that, because there are laws, "freedom" is a myth. Are you under the impression that advocates of the free market are anarchists? Because we're not. Laws are needed to protect our freedom in the market place. That's what a free market is all about. It becomes something else when we allow a regulatory regime to manipulate behavior for ulterior motives (e.g. telling us what size sodas we can buy, or what kind of insurance we must purchase).

Another myth is that "more" regulation means "better" regulation. The 2008 meltdown exposed an abject inability for current regulators and regulation to keep up with financial markets, particularly new products.

Well said. Likewise, less laws doesn't necessarily mean more freedom.

 

[bripat9643]

The federal government never told the banks to dish out loans to people who could not afford it.

Yes, it did, you stupid turd. What do you think the CRA says?

To be fair, the CRA doesn't actually tell banks to loan money to people who can't pay it back, it just tells them t hat if they keep loaning money to white people' who happen to be rich, and don't loan money to black people, even if they are poor, they will be racists and not get their liberal stamp of approval every year.

In other words, exactly what I said. When are politicians ever honest about the purpose of their legislation?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes, it did, you stupid turd. What do you think the CRA says?

To be fair, the CRA doesn't actually tell banks to loan money to people who can't pay it back, it just tells them t hat if they keep loaning money to white people' who happen to be rich, and don't loan money to black people, even if they are poor, they will be racists and not get their liberal stamp of approval every year.

In other words, exactly what I said. When are politicians ever honest about the purpose of their legislation?

yep it's tyranny in all forms. Now we have affirmative action loans. YAY. if a certain percentage arent black, they it HAS to be racism, uh......have you seen an inner city? IT's not full of folks that can afford much, which is why they're on government assistance and since they have that they dont improve themselves and well you know about the underclass.

Washingtonpost.com: Welfare Reform Report


It's an old story, but a positive one, but those stats are horrible. Then there is the contrast between one that got a job and self respect vs one that is hooked on entitlement crack.

Families in generational poverty form their own culture -- GazetteXtra