My view on why our economy is pure shit.

[kwc57]

So, I have realized that since the Occupy movement, quite a few people do not understand capitalism. OWS was convinced that capitalism was the cause of their problems and personal failures. Unfortunately, they succumbed to mistaking capitalism for corporatism. If you do not know the difference, please google it. If you think corporatism is capitalism, you will seek government intervention in a way that surpasses corporatism, and that is socialism. These OWSers have it backwards, as do many of Americans.

Capitalism is not the problem, it is the solution. Capitalism has not existed for a century. How about we give it another shot? Get government out of the subsidy game, get government out of anything involving business. Government's only job is to regulate currency and they can't even get that right (see article 1 section 8).

Corporatism is not capitalism...and socialism is not the answer. Get the government out. Restore capitalism.

Thank you.

Perhaps the reason you think America is shit is because you have no ability to "reason"?

Nothing like an ignorant person to rant against the beliefs they assigned to others. Stupid beliefs that simply don't exist in anywhere except their tiny mind.

rdean would know, he wrote the book on it.

 

[Moonglow]

Even beforer govt. intervention there were panics, recessions and depressions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bottom-line, Mitt Romney should not be paying a lower tax rate than I do. .

of course he should, his contribution is far greater? How many American companies, jobs and products did you save?

The more you demonstrate that you can contribute like that the more money you should have to do it!! Of course its perfectly backwards and liberal to take money from those who know how to use it best and transfer it to those who know how to use it least. NOw you can see why the liberals spied for Stalin.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Even beforer govt. intervention there were panics, recessions and depressions.

if so you would give us your best example!!

 

[Big Fitz]

Even beforer govt. intervention there were panics, recessions and depressions.

if so you would give us your best example!!

Financial Panics of the 19th Century

There ya go.

Nowadays, we go by the much more comfy word: "Recessions". Same damn thing just a little slower in some ways, faster in others.

More information regarding recessions/depressions/panics pre-interventionism of the Wilsonian era forward (with the exception of the depression of 1920).

Long Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Even beforer govt. intervention there were panics, recessions and depressions.

if so you would give us your best example

Financial Panics of the 19th Century

There ya go.

actually the USA had a government in the 18th century and it was heavily involved with the economy.

 

[Big Fitz]

Even beforer govt. intervention there were panics, recessions and depressions.

if so you would give us your best example

Financial Panics of the 19th Century

There ya go.

actually the USA had a government in the 18th century and it was heavily involved with the economy.

if you're going to be deliberately obtuse... not much I can do for you. Read any of those links?

Government =/= Intervention

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Even beforer govt. intervention there were panics, recessions and depressions.

if so you would give us your best example

There ya go.

actually the USA had a government in the 18th century and it was heavily involved with the economy.

if you're going to be deliberately obtuse... not much I can do for you. Read any of those links?

Government =/= Intervention

do any of them indicate to you that there was no government intervention?? If so please identify your best example.

 

[Big Fitz]

if so you would give us your best example




actually the USA had a government in the 18th century and it was heavily involved with the economy.

if you're going to be deliberately obtuse... not much I can do for you. Read any of those links?

Government =/= Intervention

do any of them indicate to you that there was no government intervention?? If so please identify your best example.

oh so you're playing for ideological purity. Gotcha, Mr. Alyinsky. Lemme guess, if government is involved anywhere, even if it is just to monitor, it somehow disqualifies it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

do any of them indicate to you that there was no government intervention?? If so please identify your best example.

oh so you're playing for ideological purity. Gotcha, Mr. Alyinsky. Lemme guess, if government is involved anywhere, even if it is just to monitor, it somehow disqualifies it?

In short, you said there was no government intervention but still recessions/depressions in the 19th Century as a means to attack the free market. I asked for your best example. You have not given it.
I don't wonder why.

 

[Big Fitz]

do any of them indicate to you that there was no government intervention?? If so please identify your best example.

oh so you're playing for ideological purity. Gotcha, Mr. Alyinsky. Lemme guess, if government is involved anywhere, even if it is just to monitor, it somehow disqualifies it?

In short, you said there was no government intervention but still recessions/depressions in the 19th Century as a means to attack the free market. I asked for your best example. You have not given it.
I don't wonder why.

i give you a selection. you say none are good enough and want me to pick one.

Yeah, can we say deliberately ignorant? I thought we could. You set the bar at total ideological purity. One that doesn't exist as long as there is a market and a government. You need a government for money, and a market is it's natural result. Otherwise we're talking barter, and I'd love to see you pull records up on THAT.

If this is not true, why don't you explain YOURSELF on what you really want proven, and quit making men of straw.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If this is not true, why don't you explain YOURSELF on what you really want proven, and quit making men of straw.

for the 5th time I'm asking you for your best example of a 19th century recession/depression during which there was no government intervention!! Simply enough???

 

[Big Fitz]

If this is not true, why don't you explain YOURSELF on what you really want proven, and quit making men of straw.

for the 5th time I'm asking you for your best example of a 19th century recession/depression during which there was no government intervention!! Simply enough???

Please provide your definition of "NO government intervention".

 

[Big Fitz]

If this is not true, why don't you explain YOURSELF on what you really want proven, and quit making men of straw.

for the 5th time I'm asking you for your best example of a 19th century recession/depression during which there was no government intervention!! Simply enough???

Please provide your definition of "NO government intervention".

Still formulating an impossibly stringent definition to load the discussion?

Let me point this out too. Every financial crisis has caused a change in our government one way or another. Often resulting in regulation that is very much needed. Kind of like changing the rules in a sport to protect the players, fair play and general 'whiff-whaff' that can go on that often spawns the crisis in the first place. This is NOT government intervention. This is the job of government, protecting it's citizens from the problems that unregulated (and shall we just be honest and say, DANGEROUS) free market capitalism can pose?

So, I await your impossibly stringent definition if you haven't posted it already.

 

[The Professor]

I don't watch entertainment and label it as news, no. And THEY would be ME in this instance since I live alone in my own house.

Surely your parents and doctors are very proud of this major victory. You would not be so quick to support total deregulation if you found out all the money in your bank account was gone because the bank was crooked.... if you had a bank account, that is.

Surely you understand nothing about economics.

You also obviously do not know what deregulation means.

Now, being that you can not address what i'm saying with any intellectual prowess and resort to ad hominem, I'm only left to believe I've been debating politics/economics (and living on my own) while you were still smearing shit on your face. Run along son, use your google search and come back with an actual argument.

I have not done a lot of debating in the areas of politics/economics. I prefer to debate such subjects as religion and the Bible. However, I do have an MBA and I agree with everything you've said.

I believe the only regulations a business needs are the normal criminal statutes and a free market. Consumers are the ultimate and most powerful policing agent around. When left to make free choices, they will weed out the incompetent and the greedy. They will get the products they need at the best prices possible. Government regulations that attempt to control choices or which favor one business over another do not help the consumer.

Let me give some free market critics an example. Liberals say that bankers are greedy, so let's assume this is true. Since bankers are greedy and they make money by making mortgage loans, they will of course make loans to everyone they believe will repay them. Since bankers are really, really greedy they will even make loans to some people who might not be able to repay them. Bankers will access the total risk of making mortgage loans to certain groups of individuals and if the the overall repayment probability will result in a profit they will make the loans. This is exactly the way it should be. Government does not have to mandate bankers to do what they would naturally do becomes of their enormous greed.

What bankers will not do is lend money to someone they are reasonably certain will not repay the loan. The problem comes when the government requires banks to lend money to such high risk individuals. The mortgage crisis did not occur because of the free market. It happened because of government regulation and manipulation of the free market. I have never heard of a financial crisis being caused by people buying houses they could afford.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Surely your parents and doctors are very proud of this major victory. You would not be so quick to support total deregulation if you found out all the money in your bank account was gone because the bank was crooked.... if you had a bank account, that is.

Surely you understand nothing about economics.

You also obviously do not know what deregulation means.

Now, being that you can not address what i'm saying with any intellectual prowess and resort to ad hominem, I'm only left to believe I've been debating politics/economics (and living on my own) while you were still smearing shit on your face. Run along son, use your google search and come back with an actual argument.

I have not done a lot of debating in the areas of politics/economics. I prefer to debate such subjects as religion and the Bible. However, I do have an MBA and I agree with everything you've said.

I believe the only regulations a business needs are the normal criminal statutes and a free market. Consumers are the ultimate and most powerful policing agent around. When left to make free choices, they will weed out the incompetent and the greedy. They will get the products they need at the best prices possible. Government regulations that attempt to control choices or which favor one business over another do not help the consumer.

Let me give some free market critics an example. Liberals say that bankers are greedy, so let's assume this is true. Since bankers are greedy and they make money by making mortgage loans, they will of course make loans to everyone they believe will repay them. Since bankers are really, really greedy they will even make loans to some people who might not be able to repay them. Bankers will access the total risk of making mortgage loans to certain groups of individuals and if the the overall repayment probability will result in a profit they will make the loans. This is exactly the way it should be. Government does not have to mandate bankers to do what they would naturally do becomes of their enormous greed.

What bankers will not do is lend money to someone they are reasonably certain will not repay the loan. The problem comes when the government requires banks to lend money to such high risk individuals. The mortgage crisis did not occur because of the free market. It happened because of government regulation and manipulation of the free market. I have never heard of a financial crisis being caused by people buying houses they could afford.

What bankers did is loan money to high risk borrowers, bundle the loans and sell them to others, who sold them to others. It's the money game, none dare call it 'investing', in truth it is white collar crime. Who benefits? See the link below.

Romney reports tax bill of $6.2 million for 2010-11 - Yahoo! News

 

[editec]

Everything that the current laisse faire cons want today was in place in the 19th century.

There were no taxes, no captial gain taxes, no intrusive environmental laws, no fair labor laws, no unions and an EXTRMELY small government.

Nevertheless. there were financial setbacks including: the Panic 1819, Panic 1837, Panic 1873 and the Panic of 1901.

Now clearly no creeping SOCIALISM caused the panics, folks.

What cause these financial downturns were the changing conditions of their day.

Each panic has its own explanation,

And that is the nature of economies, folks.

As the world changes, so too do the economic conditions change.

Sometimes those changing conditions lead to golden ages, sometimes they lead to financial downturns.

There are no always right answers to their causes , there is not hard and fast solutions to that unique economy.

Each economic situation is different because each economic event is different.

Economics is NOT chemistry, or physics, kids.

There are no formulas that will keep an economy from vasilating as conditions in the world change.

 

[samjones]

I do have an MBA ...

What bankers will not do is lend money to someone they are reasonably certain will not repay the loan. The problem comes when the government requires banks to lend money to such high risk individuals. The mortgage crisis did not occur because of the free market. It happened because of government regulation and manipulation of the free market. I have never heard of a financial crisis being caused by people buying houses they could afford.

File this one under "An MBA ain't worth shit".

Subprime loans and mortgage defaults may have been a symptom of the Housing Bubble, but it's pretty clear that the housing bubble affects pretty much all of us, including those of us who bought houses we could afford and those of us (not me) who would like to buy a house now if only we could find a band to loan us the money.

Better to stick with the theological debates.

 

[Big Fitz]

Everything that the current laisse faire cons want today was in place in the 19th century.

There were no taxes, no captial gain taxes, no intrusive environmental laws, no fair labor laws, no unions and an EXTRMELY small government.

Nevertheless. there were financial setbacks including: the Panic 1819, Panic 1837, Panic 1873 and the Panic of 1901.

Now clearly no creeping SOCIALISM caused the panics, folks.

What cause these financial downturns were the changing conditions of their day.

Each panic has its own explanation,

And that is the nature of economies, folks.

As the world changes, so too do the economic conditions change.

Sometimes those changing conditions lead to golden ages, sometimes they lead to financial downturns.

There are no always right answers to their causes , there is not hard and fast solutions to that unique economy.

Each economic situation is different because each economic event is different.

Economics is NOT chemistry, or physics, kids.

There are no formulas that will keep an economy from vasilating as conditions in the world change.

I'm impressed. I agree with most of this, with the exception of:

Economics is NOT chemistry, or physics, kids.

Economics is a hard science. Maybe not diamond hard because it deals with more mushy things than the immutable laws of physics and subject to more variation at times based on the erratic behavior of man. But it is a science none the less.

 

[kwc57]

Surely you understand nothing about economics.

You also obviously do not know what deregulation means.

Now, being that you can not address what i'm saying with any intellectual prowess and resort to ad hominem, I'm only left to believe I've been debating politics/economics (and living on my own) while you were still smearing shit on your face. Run along son, use your google search and come back with an actual argument.

I have not done a lot of debating in the areas of politics/economics. I prefer to debate such subjects as religion and the Bible. However, I do have an MBA and I agree with everything you've said.

I believe the only regulations a business needs are the normal criminal statutes and a free market. Consumers are the ultimate and most powerful policing agent around. When left to make free choices, they will weed out the incompetent and the greedy. They will get the products they need at the best prices possible. Government regulations that attempt to control choices or which favor one business over another do not help the consumer.

Let me give some free market critics an example. Liberals say that bankers are greedy, so let's assume this is true. Since bankers are greedy and they make money by making mortgage loans, they will of course make loans to everyone they believe will repay them. Since bankers are really, really greedy they will even make loans to some people who might not be able to repay them. Bankers will access the total risk of making mortgage loans to certain groups of individuals and if the the overall repayment probability will result in a profit they will make the loans. This is exactly the way it should be. Government does not have to mandate bankers to do what they would naturally do becomes of their enormous greed.

What bankers will not do is lend money to someone they are reasonably certain will not repay the loan. The problem comes when the government requires banks to lend money to such high risk individuals. The mortgage crisis did not occur because of the free market. It happened because of government regulation and manipulation of the free market. I have never heard of a financial crisis being caused by people buying houses they could afford.

What bankers did is loan money to high risk borrowers, bundle the loans and sell them to others, who sold them to others. It's the money game, none dare call it 'investing', in truth it is white collar crime. Who benefits? See the link below.

Romney reports tax bill of $6.2 million for 2010-11 - Yahoo! News

Now tell the class WHY bankers loaned money to high risk borrowers.