Republicans Admit Free Market Does Not Work

[sealybobo]

More like, "Government telling Banks who to loan to" doesn't work.

It is very sad that things can get this ugly and you still won't admit when you are wrong. What news channels are you watching/listening to?

You don't matter. You are one of those 25% of the voters who will vote for the GOP no matter how far they shove it up your ass.

If this were the Dems fault, believe me, you'd be hearing Boehner & McCain making that case.

Anytime the GOP wants to work in a bi partisan way, they screwed up big time.

So the solution to the dems bad bills from the 80's is not to undo those bad bills between 2000-2006, the solution is to deny there are any problems until NOW and then bail out the banks with socialism? Only don't socialize the profits, just the losses? WOW, you are a hoot.

We did not control any branch of government for 6.5 of the 8 years. When we did control the legislature, Bush veto'ed everything or the GOP filabustered.

You need an education.

 

[sealybobo]

Yup has nothing to do with the Democrats creating the ability of the Lending and banking system to make loans to people that did not qualify and could not pay back those loans. You guys amaze me with your heads in the sand. Not only did the dems create the ability they forced the institutions to do so with more regulations.

The socialists are the ones that created this mess by insisting people that could neither qualify or afford loans should get them.

Carters bill didn't say give loans to people who could not afford them.

And I assure you that it didn't say put them in a loan that would DOUBLE in the next year. They would have been put into 30 year fixed mortgages that could be paid off provided they didn't lose their job.

Just like all of us dipshit. If you lost your job, you too could lose your home, you insensitive prick. Then you would blame the dems for allowing the banks to give you a loan? Because no one is above potentially losing their home. Could happen to any of us.

So you ignore everything Delay and Bush did between 2000-2006 and focus on what Carter did in the 80's. What a dope.

Seriously, you need your ass kicked for being so fucking dumb.

 

[Bern80]

The article says that despite all the rhetoric about free market solutions, the government is not letting the free market play out. Nationalizing industries is what socialist European countries do. This is a tenant of socialism - owning industries. This is most definitely NOT what free markets do.

I agree. But the government is not the Republicans.

 

[politicalguy]

Yup has nothing to do with the Democrats creating the ability of the Lending and banking system to make loans to people that did not qualify and could not pay back those loans. You guys amaze me with your heads in the sand. Not only did the dems create the ability they forced the institutions to do so with more regulations.

The socialists are the ones that created this mess by insisting people that could neither qualify or afford loans should get them.

I agree completely. If we are going to have a free market than we cannot allow the government to interfere with the loan process in the future. In the past the government denied certain "red-lined" neighborhoods loans, but trying to correct this wrong does not imply we should loan money to individuals who are not qualified. Now who has to pay for it? Us- the loyal tax payers.

But there were two wrongs to this matter. Number one, pushing these financial firms into lending out money to those who do not have the funds to pay it back is dangerous on its own. Number two, these executives who allowed this to happen are at fault as well. The very last thing I want to see is more money going into those hands. As John Gambling said today on his 710 radio show, these executives who are refusing to aid this crisis without the million dollar compensation are embarrassments to the country. We are in the midst of bailing them out and yet they would rather not bail us out unless they get the dough. A free market CAN work, but when in a situation like such- intervention is necessary even if in the past regulation impeded upon economic growth.

 

[Care4all]

I agree. But the government is not the Republicans.

if paulson did not ask for the 700 billion dollar bailout, would there even be a bailout being discussed today?

wouldn't have the market had to deal with the hand they maneuvered themselves?

 

[Bern80]

if paulson did not ask for the 700 billion dollar bailout, would there even be a bailout being discussed today?

wouldn't have the market had to deal with the hand they maneuvered themselves?

Yes it would have. That's kind of the point. What a lot of people like Ron Paul or so pissed about is that essentially is a knee jerk move. It will calm the masses for the immediate future, but has the potential to be detrimental in the long run. We have talked in other threads about these people who's salaries can't keep up with the rising costs of goods. To paraphrase what Paul said to Bernanke yesterday, how do you expect to fight inlfation with more inflation. Because the bailout essentially keeps the market from working on the price of goods and services. In this case it will keep housing prices, for example, from falling to where they should be.

In theory (and I mean that with all the trepdation 'in theory' implies) if we let this go something would have to give. Companies like AIG would go out of business (which would take care of those greedy CEOs as well) or maybe merger, and it will definatley hurt more now in the immediate future for those that are not financially sound. But what would eventually have to give is the price of goods and services, they would simply be forced to fall. When that happens is when you would begin to see a turnaround in the economy.

 

[gonegolfin]

Yes it would have. That's kind of the point. What a lot of people like Ron Paul or so pissed about is that essentially is a knee jerk move. It will calm the masses for the immediate future, but has the potential to be detrimental in the long run. We have talked in other threads about these people who's salaries can't keep up with the rising costs of goods. To paraphrase what Paul said to Bernanke yesterday, how do you expect to fight inlfation with more inflation. Because the bailout essentially keeps the market from working on the price of goods and services. In this case it will keep housing prices, for example, from falling to where they should be.

Precisely. It is a form of price fixing. Not totally unlike the price fixing that occurred in the Great Depression era when crops were being plowed under (by order of the federal government) such that higher prices for food could be had (they thought this was an appropriate mechanism to fight deflation). Prices must be allowed to fall (or rise) to their natural level, else you cannot have a free market as you have price distortions.

Brian

 

[Paulie]

Yes it would have. That's kind of the point. What a lot of people like Ron Paul or so pissed about is that essentially is a knee jerk move. It will calm the masses for the immediate future, but has the potential to be detrimental in the long run. We have talked in other threads about these people who's salaries can't keep up with the rising costs of goods. To paraphrase what Paul said to Bernanke yesterday, how do you expect to fight inlfation with more inflation. Because the bailout essentially keeps the market from working on the price of goods and services. In this case it will keep housing prices, for example, from falling to where they should be.

In theory (and I mean that with all the trepdation 'in theory' implies) if we let this go something would have to give. Companies like AIG would go out of business (which would take care of those greedy CEOs as well) or maybe merger, and it will definatley hurt more now in the immediate future for those that are not financially sound. But what would eventually have to give is the price of goods and services, they would simply be forced to fall. When that happens is when you would begin to see a turnaround in the economy.

The only thing I would worry about in that scenario is the deflation part. With all the debt in this country, just imagine a deflationary period where dollars became more scarce. There would be hoarding, and it would probably lead to panic and increases in crime out of survival.

Those would be the times when the case for the 2nd amendment would be the absolute strongest, in my opinion. People positioned to survive through it would have to defend themselves from the imminent invasion from people with less.

The pain would be well worth the final outcome of the truely robust and prosperous economy that would eventually ensue. Especially if it finally led to sound monetary policy. It could open up so many possibilities for REAL and TRUTHFUL politicians and economists swooping in to replace this poor excuse for a government.