Is capitalism obselete?

[Truthmatters]

In my lifetime the productive change has come mostly from the Democratic party.

They are not perfect but they are not the total disastor the repubublican party has been all my life.

 

[mascale]

The Democrats mostly don't advocate, or benefit from, government ownership of the means of production and distribution in the U. S. economy. The Democrats are more famous for understanding that poverty is actually bad for business, and so take steps to assure that the rich are kept rich, even at their own expense. The Democrats take from the rich, and give to the poor--who then spend and make even more people rich.

"He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich: Shall surely come to ruin:" More or less expresses the sense of an ancient Jewish Proverb. Even Republicans can read all about it: But generally do not. Moses had previously--and as is generally well known, fairly decisively--commanded just measures, just weights, just hins and just ephas, and just whatever the hell they are: During his lifetime. Moses is an original prohet of the Jews and Jews are often alleged to know a thing or two about money and banking(?). The Jewish community has a knack for survival over time.

As opposed to the way that our Modern Ivy League understands it, people with no money--do not make other people rich. There is actually, "injustice" if in fact there is poverty.

I myself am a philosophical anarchist, of a concept of "Widespread Wealth Worldwide,' which plays on the ancient commandments just noted, and more importantly of the pantheon of the Greeks, and their religion of the Pythagoreans. By the time of Jesus, the pantheon deities, and deitresses, had conquered all of Israel not just once, but in fact twice. There was superior technology clearly involved. The Civilization is now called, "Hellenistic," but when Jesus tried to set himself up in the more Hellenistic tradiiton, then the rest became history. On the one hand, a sense of "justice" and "Injustice" could not embrace idolatory, or the foreign religion(s). In fact, the pantheon was more tolerant than the monotheistic tradition. "Ecce Homo" was variously matched with, "Crucify Him!" Jesus had set himself as an idol in heaven at his trial before the Jewish elders. Then it was off to see the gov'ner, the Wonderful Gov'ner of Rome.

The matter of ownership of any means of production or distribution is of less importance, historically, then is the matter of justice versus injustice. The owners come and go, but the concepts and justice injustice tend to pervade all the way through.

Economics is better thought of in terms of justice and injustice, anyone concludes: And for proof there is current events. The rich got richer. The poor got poorer. That appears to not have worked out very well at all.

Now there came calls for public ownership, as opposed to private ownership. No sense of "justice," or "injustice," has been offered or dicussed--Except that Santelli's people don't seem to want to own a load of crap: Even at a commodities exchange.

 

[AllieBaba]

Perhaps if we look to the other European countries, such as Britan, Sweden, France and so on, perhaps it's time to consider their methods of partial-nationalization of our banking industry to prevent another Great Depression. We've seen what a lack of regulation can do to our economy... if the government controlled the decisions of the businesses that are critical to our economy, perhaps the whole idea recessions and depressions will become obselete.

What do you think?

You want us to look at countries with higher unemployment, lower productivity and more government control? Do you remember why people left Europe to come to the New World in the first place?

Regardless, the US will become like a European country in short-order simply because the government has gotten too big and intrusive. We've reached critical mass and we can't go back.

Yes, that's what the idiot wants.

It makes perfect sense for the most productive, successful, powerful, and free country to emulate countries which cannot defend themselves, can't keep their people employed, flounder continually, and are being taken over by Muslim extremists.

Wow. Let's hear it for "civilization".

Capitalism is not dead, despite the efforts of leftist assholes who are attempting to eliminate freedom of speech, freedom of religion, our justice and voting systems so they can push their WILDLY unpopular politics on an unwilling and unsupportive public.

 

[Truthmatters]

Man facts just wont get in your brains will they?

 

[eots]

perhaps if we look to the other european countries, such as britan, sweden, france and so on, perhaps it's time to consider their methods of partial-nationalization of our banking industry to prevent another great depression. We've seen what a lack of regulation can do to our economy... If the government controlled the decisions of the businesses that are critical to our economy, perhaps the whole idea recessions and depressions will become obselete.

What do you think?

i think there has been a amazing yet terrifying campaign of mind control through the controlled media to get people to off handily say things like...perhapes capitalism, is obsolete and sheepishly accept socialism and....its working

 

[elvis]

What about when Clinton put pressure on the banks to divvy out loans to people who could not afford them, in exchange for deregulation?

one mo' time... that was never the requirement of the law. the requirement was that minority areas not be redlined... not that the banks forego their own risk assessments.

if you believe otherwise, it's really time for someone to provide proof of it instead of just repeating the same misstatement over and over and over and over and over....

and if I were to provide proof, what would you say of the source?

 

[elvis]

What about when Clinton put pressure on the banks to divvy out loans to people who could not afford them, in exchange for deregulation?

one mo' time... that was never the requirement of the law. the requirement was that minority areas not be redlined... not that the banks forego their own risk assessments.

if you believe otherwise, it's really time for someone to provide proof of it instead of just repeating the same misstatement over and over and over and over and over....

I have made this statement once before, I think. this is the first response I have received.

 

[Agnapostate]

No.

Capitalism is the greatest force for wealth creation in history. Of course it is not dead.

Do you speak specifically of "wealth" creation or does this also pertain to generation of efficiency gains?

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh yeah, you're right. Because it was the federal government that made all of these bad loans and sold them overseas as securities, right? It was the federal government that caused this recession, right?

What about when Clinton put pressure on the banks to divvy out loans to people who could not afford them, in exchange for deregulation?

And those loans created next to no problems in the ecvonomy until Gramm Leach Bliely act 1999 took effect.

I answered you here.

 

[elvis]

What about when Clinton put pressure on the banks to divvy out loans to people who could not afford them, in exchange for deregulation?

And those loans created next to no problems in the ecvonomy until Gramm Leach Bliely act 1999 took effect.

I answered you here.

This is the first time it's gotten ANY response.

 

[AllieBaba]

What about when Clinton put pressure on the banks to divvy out loans to people who could not afford them, in exchange for deregulation?

one mo' time... that was never the requirement of the law. the requirement was that minority areas not be redlined... not that the banks forego their own risk assessments.

if you believe otherwise, it's really time for someone to provide proof of it instead of just repeating the same misstatement over and over and over and over and over....

It's not a misstatement. It's what happened, and it's how FM & FM got their foothold. I provided reams of proof months ago.

Which were conveniently ignored by those who remembered well when it happened and who supported it.

 

[mascale]

There was nothing technically wrong with the mortgage bankers making home loans affordable where home ownership had been out of the question.

The actual wrong with the plan was that the Reagan-Bush-Bush economy was different from the Clinton economy. Reagan came into office, and recession was commencing and under way. Defense spending rose, federal deficit financing rose--defense engineers prospered--minority youth unempolyment soared, social spending decreased: And finally the stock market crashed. By Bush I, Term I, the unemployment rate was starting to reach for the sky.

In Bush II, Term I--he came into office, recession was commencing and under way. Bush cut taxes, but by then only for the rich--There had been Clinton Administration tax cuts in between. No stimulus happened. Bush Cut Taxes II. No Stimulus happened. Osama bin laden cut loose. Federal Deficit Military procurements could prosper, and engineers prosper--even though the troops in the two phony wars would have to forage for weapons and body armor on their own. Finally there was a stock market crash, and then the unemployment rate was reaching for the sky: Bush II, Term II. And what of minority opportunites under Bush II? Sub-prime mortgages! These were not Reagan-Bush-Bush engineers, and their supportive neighborhoods.

Reagan-Bush-Bush were not like Clinton I and II. In Clinton I and II, Lower income households did begin to prosper, and there were avenues created for advancement. That was the economy on which the sub-prime mortgage planning could rely.

In the interim time, there had been an election. None of that would happen ever again, even now. Bush II was not Clinton I and II The requirement that the areas not be redlined--made sense if there was income, upward mobility. The bankers would actually miss out on a profitable loan base: If redlining were allowed to continue.

The economy, however, would change after that. Had there been redlining to match the reality of the Bush II, Regan-Bush-Bush economy: Then the severity of the downturn would have manageable last spring. Bush II, Terms I and II, was Reagan I and II, and Bush I, term I: The Replay. There is an actual arithmetic order to it.

The Reagan-Bush-Bush economy was simply, and lawfully: Not even the same as the other economies! That is is the law.

 

[AllieBaba]

In my lifetime the productive change has come mostly from the Democratic party.

They are not perfect but they are not the total disastor the repubublican party has been all my life.

You poor brainwashed turdette.

 

[Truthmatters]

Sub prime was not a money maker so they were written in small numbers. Once the industry consolidation took place provided by the GLBact 1999 they industry could then package off more and more subprime loans into their other securities products and that made them profitable. Once they found a way to make money off them they wrote them in larger and larger numbers. It was not just governmnet covered sub prime entities that wrote them. If GLB act 1999 had never been passed by a republican congress it would have never been signed by Clinton. Clinton would not have likely signed it if he had not used it to get other things from the Rs in exchange for signing it. If you remember he vetoed many bills and the Rs excoriated him all the time for doing so. He was wrong to sign it. Phil Gramm was wrong to chase its passage for a decade or more. The Bush admin was wrong to not fix the situation. Bush admin was wrong to fight the states who TRIED to pass state regs.

The Rs could have fixed this and instead turned their heads to what little regulation power they had over these entities.

Rs shoulder the mass of the blame for this one.

Deregulation is their baby not the Dems.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not according to Bill Clinton.

 

[Agnapostate]

There's little difference between the general economic turmoil caused by the Democrats and the Republicans. Bill Clinton was responsible for a good deal of trade liberalization, after all.

 

[Truthmatters]

Go get his quote on it.

 

[elvis]

There's little difference between the general economic turmoil caused by the Democrats and the Republicans. Bill Clinton was responsible for a good deal of trade liberalization, after all.

agreed

 

[AllieBaba]

A running cliché of the political left and the press corps these days is that our current financial problems all flow from Congress's 1999 decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated commercial and investment banking. Barack Obama has been selling this line every day.Bill Clinton signed that "deregulation" bill into law, and he knows better.

APIn BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton's reply: "No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

"But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."....

"But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment."


Bill v. Barack on Banks - WSJ.com

3. Republicans have favored financial regulation where it was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough regulatory bill for Fannie and Freddie over the unanimous opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its enactment impossible.

Barack Obama did nothing; John McCain endorsed the bill in a speech on the Senate floor.

4. The subprime and other junk mortgages that Fannie and Freddie bought--and the market in these mortgages that their buying spawned--are the underlying cause of the financial crisis. These are the mortgages that the Treasury Department is asking for congressional authority to buy. If the Democrats had allowed the Fannie and Freddie reform legislation to become law in 2005, the entire financial crisis might have been avoided.
The Weekly Standard


Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.
The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship....
The proposed deregulation will increase the degree of monopolization in finance and worsen the position of consumers in relation to creditors. Even more significant is its impact on the overall stability of US and world capitalism. The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile US stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the US financial system.

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

 

[elvis]

A running cliché of the political left and the press corps these days is that our current financial problems all flow from Congress's 1999 decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated commercial and investment banking. Barack Obama has been selling this line every day.Bill Clinton signed that "deregulation" bill into law, and he knows better.

APIn BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton's reply: "No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

"But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."....

"But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment."


Bill v. Barack on Banks - WSJ.com

3. Republicans have favored financial regulation where it was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough regulatory bill for Fannie and Freddie over the unanimous opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its enactment impossible.

Barack Obama did nothing; John McCain endorsed the bill in a speech on the Senate floor.

4. The subprime and other junk mortgages that Fannie and Freddie bought--and the market in these mortgages that their buying spawned--are the underlying cause of the financial crisis. These are the mortgages that the Treasury Department is asking for congressional authority to buy. If the Democrats had allowed the Fannie and Freddie reform legislation to become law in 2005, the entire financial crisis might have been avoided.
The Weekly Standard


Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.
The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship....
The proposed deregulation will increase the degree of monopolization in finance and worsen the position of consumers in relation to creditors. Even more significant is its impact on the overall stability of US and world capitalism. The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile US stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the US financial system.

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

your sources will be scrutinized.