Perhaps It's Too Late For Capitalism

so let me get this straight

A couple of fucking morons get a loan and then pay no principle only interest for years.

They didn't bother to sit down with a crayon and a scrap of paper and do a little second grade addition and subtraction to see whether they could actually afford to make the payments. they didn't bother to use a little fifth grade deductive reasoning and ask the questions,

"If my income doesn't go up in the next few years will I be able to afford the payments?"

"If the house doesn't appreciate in value in the next few years, will I be able to refinance and get better terms?"

"Why is an ARM my best choice?"

or how about this question

"Can we really afford to buy this big expensive house when we can barely pay the mortgage at the low end of the ARM?"

So these fucking morons don't bother to think and sign a contract, they then renege on that contract and rack up penalties and interest and it's somehow not their fault?


For Christ Fucking sake people how moronic can you be?

BTW What do people who take a minute to plan their finances and make sound purchasing decisions get for a reward?

How about handing out a little grief to the judge.

The Judge is a fucking horse's ass

we should go back to electing judges. No more of this lifetime cushy job shit for these assholes.
 
What kind of "free market exchange" can capitalism not deliver? Capitalism IS the free market. Every other system involves some outside force, like governments, monkeying with the market.

Capitalism is an economic system that has always and will always entail a substantial degree of government intervention, with "free markets" never being present in the capitalist economy. That's why market socialism is desirable to those with an interest in the maximization of legitimately free and competitive market exchange. By eliminating the market and wealth concentration present in the capitalist economy and establishing workers' ownership and management of firms and enterprises, the need for state presence in the economy is also reduced.
 
What kind of "free market exchange" can capitalism not deliver? Capitalism IS the free market. Every other system involves some outside force, like governments, monkeying with the market.

Capitalism is an economic system that has always and will always entail a substantial degree of government intervention, with "free markets" never being present in the capitalist economy. That's why market socialism is desirable to those with an interest in the maximization of legitimately free and competitive market exchange. By eliminating the market and wealth concentration present in the capitalist economy and establishing workers' ownership and management of firms and enterprises, the need for state presence in the economy is also reduced.

Not surpisingly the very opposite of what you've written is the truth. Capitalism does not entail any government intervention. "Market socialism" is an oxymoron. What is a "market concentration"?? "Workers' ownership" is called communism and has been an abject failure every place it's been tried.
But why should I expect knowledge and rationality from a terrorist?
 
"Market socialism" is an oxymoron.
The idea that the market means capitalism is inconsistent with basic political economy.

What is a "market concentration"??
The important aspect is how market structure impacts on firm behaviour. Thus, an industry showing market concentration enables firms to adopt cost-plus pricing methods. Those methods, without interventionism, will generate crisis in capitalism.

"Workers' ownership" is called communism and has been an abject failure every place it's been tried.
Whilst you're obviously innocent of what communism means, we certainly can tut at the work ownership remark. Worker ownership, according to the available empirical evidence, is found to increase productivity. That doesn't surprise me, given its quite consistent with neoclassical analysis into the problems generated by the partial divorce of ownership and control.
 
While I would agree the only rational definition for a free market is one completely free of government influence I do not agree in the concept of completely rational free markets.

Markets are not independent laws of nature with predictable results, they are simply collective human behavior in the economic sphere, and as with all human behavior, collective or not, there is often as much fear, greed, or ignorance driving decision making as there is a rational assessment of self interest.

Economic power is power, and like all power if there are no Madisonian checks and balances such power either concentrates and kills economic freedom or implodes from the choas of competing interests .

We want to be free to drive, but most rational people want some government control on driving conditions otherwise our freedom to drive would be diminished by the danger of the anarchy on completely free roads.

So markets need some minimal government checks and balances to keep them from imploding in anarchy of freedom which leads not to freedom but rather chaos or economic monopoly.
 
"Market socialism" is an oxymoron.
The idea that the market means capitalism is inconsistent with basic political economy.


The important aspect is how market structure impacts on firm behaviour. Thus, an industry showing market concentration enables firms to adopt cost-plus pricing methods. Those methods, without interventionism, will generate crisis in capitalism.

"Workers' ownership" is called communism and has been an abject failure every place it's been tried.
Whilst you're obviously innocent of what communism means, we certainly can tut at the work ownership remark. Worker ownership, according to the available empirical evidence, is found to increase productivity. That doesn't surprise me, given its quite consistent with neoclassical analysis into the problems generated by the partial divorce of ownership and control.
Wow first post and you've already proven yourself a noob.
 
So markets need some minimal government checks and balances to keep them from imploding in anarchy of freedom which leads not to freedom but rather chaos or economic monopoly.
The intervention is about maintaining capitalism's inefficiency. The implosion would be about the end of the capitalist paradigm and therefore the elimination of the economic rents generated by coercive labour relations. Quite unthinkable
 
Wow first post and you've already proven yourself a noob.
First post that you can't actually respond to? Perhaps not. However, I'd be most grateful if you at least least tried. Refer perhaps to an error in my economic comment?
 
Wow first post and you've already proven yourself a noob.
First post that you can't actually respond to? Perhaps not. However, I'd be most grateful if you at least least tried. Refer perhaps to an error in my economic comment?

The idea that the market means capitalism is inconsistent with basic political economy.


The important aspect is how market structure impacts on firm behaviour. Thus, an industry showing market concentration enables firms to adopt cost-plus pricing methods. Those methods, without interventionism, will generate crisis in capitalism.
Maybe you can explain what this jargon-laden turd means.
 
Maybe you can explain what this jargon-laden turd means.
If you need to be helped with basic economics, I do think it would be unforgivable if that wasn't taken into account . Where did you get lost in my comment(s)? Was it something as simple as cost-plus pricing? (where firm behaviour reflects a behaviour inconsistent with the standard storyline that they use technical relations to profit maximise)
 
So markets need some minimal government checks and balances to keep them from imploding in anarchy of freedom which leads not to freedom but rather chaos or economic monopoly.
The intervention is about maintaining capitalism's inefficiency. The implosion would be about the end of the capitalist paradigm and therefore the elimination of the economic rents generated by coercive labour relations. Quite unthinkable


Not only is it not unthinkable, it is how humans actually behave.

I am not really concerned with how many Adam Smith anuses you can fit on the head of a pin, or how you can not live with the fact labor is only worth what human beings are willing to pay for it, I am not on either side of an idiot theoretical coin, economic "capitalist paradigms" or marxist theories about such bare as much relationship to economic reality, how human beings actually behave when they are acquiring or spending money as theology does to how we evolved as a species.

There never has been a totally free market; there never will be, and there will always be economic stratification because humans are not rational enough to be totally and completely free or totally equal.
 
Last edited:
Not only is it not unthinkable, it is how humans actually behave.
The idea that we are all rent seekers is reliant on a simple version of rational economic man, where our behaviour can be understood purely in terms of constrained maximisation. Whilst this is the standard assumption amongst the capitalist fans, it is shockingly inconsistent with basic economic psychology.

I am not on either side of an idiot theoretical coin, economic "capitalist paradigms" or marxist theories
Marxism provides a means to understand capitalism. If one is a practical sort, it shouldn't encourage one to take a negative tone.

There never has been a totally free market; there never will be, and there will always be economic stratification because humans are not rational enough to be totally and completely free or totally equal.
Laissez faire is obviously a myth, becoming a means for the snake oil merchant to homogenise right wingers. Whilst I'll agree that there will always be economic stratification, I'll also note that quite artificial mechanisms are used in capitalism. Those against market socialism become slaves to human resource management, without knowing it of course.
 
Maybe you can explain what this jargon-laden turd means.
If you need to be helped with basic economics, I do think it would be unforgivable if that wasn't taken into account . Where did you get lost in my comment(s)? Was it something as simple as cost-plus pricing? (where firm behaviour reflects a behaviour inconsistent with the standard storyline that they use technical relations to profit maximise)

Yup, jargon spewing. First sign of mental illness. A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
In fact, I'm feeling so mean this AM you're gone to iggy. So long, asshole.
 
Yup, jargon spewing.
Basic economics isn't a difficult business, so I don't think you should be so fearful. Take cost-plus pricing. Given monopoly power enables firms to maintain a profit level despite falling demand, it leads to macroeconomic instabilities such as stagflation. See it as a combination of Post-Keynesianism and Marxism.
 
The funniest thing about all this is the marketistas want us to believe that a problem created by markets run amok is a sign of the failures of government.
 
The funniest thing about all this is the marketistas want us to believe that a problem created by markets run amok is a sign of the failures of government.
I'd suggest that invalid comment on this issue has been encouraged by the laissez faire myth. With capitalism, we cannot divorce markets and government. Indeed, markets typically exist because of the implications of government coercion.

We're currently victims of neo-liberalism. On the face of it, this is all about enabling greater economic freedom. For example, its used to refer to labour market flexibility where wages hypothetically adapt to eliminate excess supply. In reality, its about coercing a result where we live under the hegemony of the financial class. This coercion has led to negative spillovers, such as a greater tendency of capitalism to suffer from severe crisis
 
The funniest thing about all this is the marketistas want us to believe that a problem created by markets run amok is a sign of the failures of government.

Well yeah actually it was.
If Bernanke had not kept rates so low for so long there would have been no housing boom to bust.
People respond rationally to circumstances as they appear. It appeared that a) low rates would continue forever; b) borrowing money from the Fed, lending it to home buyers, packaging the mortgages as bonds and selling them to the Chinese was a ticket to riches; and c) Real Estate prices always go up so there was little risk in that.
All of those things made sense at the time.
 
The funniest thing about all this is the marketistas want us to believe that a problem created by markets run amok is a sign of the failures of government.

Well yeah actually it was.
If Bernanke had not kept rates so low for so long there would have been no housing boom to bust.
People respond rationally to circumstances as they appear. It appeared that a) low rates would continue forever; b) borrowing money from the Fed, lending it to home buyers, packaging the mortgages as bonds and selling them to the Chinese was a ticket to riches; and c) Real Estate prices always go up so there was little risk in that.
All of those things made sense at the time.

Low interest rates made it possible to expand lending, but banks made the choice all by themselves to hand out loans like candy and not care about the ability of borrowers to repay. And packing mortgages as bonds isn't an example of government failure. It's an example of what kind of crooked crap bankers will do when they realize no one is watching.
 
Last edited:
If Bernanke had not kept rates so low for so long there would have been no housing boom to bust.
The idea that we can refer to marginal changes in interest rates to understand the crisis is of course quite vacuous. More pertinent is the high home ownership rates amongst the poor. Whilst this reflects economic rationality (given the private insurance possibilities from housing tenure), it intensifies instabilities in the housing market
 

Forum List

Back
Top