The End of Liberalism

[JakeStarkey]

Corporatism is a totalist viewpoint (making profit for the holders any way it can) by corrupting governments, including democratic ones like ours. Your form of capitalism in our society is a fatal illness for the working classes, PC, not a cure.

However, when regulated, free market forces liberate the working classes. McCain understands that. Obama understands that. So do you, and you tremble at the thought.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Corporatism is a totalist viewpoint (making profit for the holders any way it can) by corrupting governments, including democratic ones like ours. Your form of capitalism in our society is a fatal illness for the working classes, PC, not a cure.

However, when regulated, free market forces liberate the working classes.

qft

 

[PoliticalChic]

Corporatism is a totalist viewpoint (making profit for the holders any way it can) by corrupting governments, including democratic ones like ours. Your form of capitalism in our society is a fatal illness for the working classes, PC, not a cure.

However, when regulated, free market forces liberate the working classes. McCain understands that. Obama understands that. So do you, and you tremble at the thought.

Why do you add such juvenile silliness to an interesting, if flawed, post?

Why would I tremble?

What thought makes me tremble?

You see, you invalidate your own message by inventing meaningless concepts, such as 'corporatism," as though it supported your - and I use the term loosely, 'idea.'

You see the actual corporatism means "groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body."

Please identify such groups in your premise. If you are able.
Or is this a 'red herring.'
(That's laughter you hear.)

For your edification, impossible though it seems, consider healthcare, a regulated-free market, with ever increasing costs, to food, an actual free market, whose costs have fallen over time.

This is why a free market real economy, not the financial markets, which require regulation, is the best way to be sure of the high standard of living for ever working citizen.

The proof is all around you.

Wise up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keep wiggling, PC, like a worm on a hook. It is interesting to watch. Your OP has been shown to be worthless, so I will not worry about it anymore.

But I will ask why you are posting for money on this forum without transparency. Is that not hypocrisy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[lol

Yep. When Freddie and Fannie guaranteed bad loans they effectively took away the risk, thereby encouraging the moral hazard. If you had not both guaranteed the loans, AND demanded they be given to those unable to pay them back you essentially took the bankers off the hook and put the tax payer on it. Combine this by allowing the resale of risky derivatives, creating a phantom investment market that was all but unregulated or ignored by regulators as dangerous (because EVERYBODY was making tons of dough on illusion) you all but guaranteed this disaster with the toxic investment mix.

Now to make matters worse, bail out the insolvent so nobody can be sure how truly bad off companies are, making them even riskier investments. Then sit there and bitch that nobody's lending the money because you're waiting with a hammer to go after the first person who screws up. This is nothing but whipping the horse in it's stall for not pulling the carriage.

You must end the bailouts, enforce all the rules you have in place and get rid of business persecution in government. Punish bad behavior, de-incentivize risky investment and shut down government 'insurance' of loans for investments.

It astounds me how ignorant many people are on the connectivity of actions and consequences of 'good intentions' can lead to disaster. Then they demand safe harbor when they are to blame because their 'heart was in the right place'.[/QUOTE]

Name one bank that was forced to give loans to borrowers who were not qualified. And the evidence to support that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No evidence exist that banks were forced to give loans.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No evidence exist that banks were forced to give loans.

When a ****** with no money doesn't get a loan, ACORN sues and the government backs up the lawsuit

 

[JakeStarkey]

No need for that language, Proletarian. ACORN was not the government, was it? We all have the right to litigate, do we not?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The government enforced Acorn's stupidity with laws like the CRA

 

[JakeStarkey]

But the government did not coerce the bankers. ACORN sued the banks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No evidence exist that banks were forced to give loans.

Because they weren't. But the rightwing has a written in stone myth now that liberals and Democrats caused the real estate meltdown, and that myth joins the others forever in the Big Book of Rightwing Myths.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government enforced Acorn's stupidity with laws like the CRA

Have you ever read the CRA?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Corporatism is a totalist viewpoint (making profit for the holders any way it can) by corrupting governments, including democratic ones like ours. Your form of capitalism in our society is a fatal illness for the working classes, PC, not a cure.

However, when regulated, free market forces liberate the working classes. McCain understands that. Obama understands that. So do you, and you tremble at the thought.

Why do you add such juvenile silliness to an interesting, if flawed, post?

Why would I tremble?

What thought makes me tremble?

You see, you invalidate your own message by inventing meaningless concepts, such as 'corporatism," as though it supported your - and I use the term loosely, 'idea.'

You see the actual corporatism means "groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body."

Please identify such groups in your premise. If you are able.
Or is this a 'red herring.'
(That's laughter you hear.)

For your edification, impossible though it seems, consider healthcare, a regulated-free market, with ever increasing costs, to food, an actual free market, whose costs have fallen over time.

This is why a free market real economy, not the financial markets, which require regulation, is the best way to be sure of the high standard of living for ever working citizen.

The proof is all around you.

Wise up.

'Corporatism' is a meaningless concept? To whom? People with limited vocabularies?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have as one of my hobbies, reading. You must try it some time.

And a book that I am adding to my 'wishlist' is Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era, by Jean-Francois Revel, (Encounter, 300 pp., $23.95)

From a review of same:
'Revel tried to explain this utopian yearning through Rousseau’s influential doctrine: man was inherently good, society bad. Therefore, as Rousseau had it, reforming society—starting with the suppression of private property—would allow man’s fundamentally good nature to shine forth. Another source of the utopian fantasy, he believed, came from the European Catholic canon: good intentions count most.

He wondered why educated scholars would elevate utopian fantasy above reality? The failures of the Soviet Union, its mass cruelties, had been known in the West since the 1930s: André Gide had denounced them in his book, Return from the USSR. Scholars and journalists in the West did not need to wait for Solzhenitsyn to learn about the existence of the Gulag. Yet these truths had little consequence. Leftist intellectuals rationalized any bad news by explaining that the Soviet Union did not practice “real socialism.”'

I'm guessing that I'll probably read it before you do.

Isn't the European Union socialist? Why try to pretend that the now defunct Soviet Union is the be-all end-all one and only example of socialism?

Why would you suggest that I am 'pretending' anything?

Why not simply make your point, defend it, and deal with the back and forth. Wouldn't that be the adult way?

That you are pretending was my point. You used the USSR as refutation, as one might cite an example of someone drowning as a refutation of the claim that swimming can be good for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No evidence exist that banks were forced to give loans.

When a ****** with no money doesn't get a loan, ACORN sues and the government backs up the lawsuit

You should probably retire to your quarters for a couple months, get some rest, and then come back out. And when you do, get in touch. We'll all be anxiously waiting to find out whether or not you've seen your shadow.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Panic of 1893 was the result of bad economic policy coupled with no regulation. In this we agree. It helped bring about some reforms to the banking and finance system.

The Stock Market Crash of 1929 was ultimately brought about by holes in safe trading practices that brought about the stronger regulations that went, without problem till 2007.

The current financial collapse more accurately set in 2008 to present was brought about by rampant corruption and collusion between government regulators and greedy profiteers and exacerbated by horrid governmental policies that have interfered with proper market function... aka OVER-regulation and inconsistent application thereof.

You try but you fail to blame the Free Market for the machinations of bad government. How're those sweetheart loans going for Chris Dodd and Barney Fwank? Jamie Gorelick profiteer much from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Corruption in government? Nooooooo... couldn't be. Goldman Sachs being too close to the government causing conflicts of interest? Preposterous! Never happen >cough< Bear Stearns >cough<

It was OVER-regulation that caused banks to under-capitalize, over-leverage, and take too much risk?

lol

Yep. When Freddie and Fannie guaranteed bad loans they effectively took away the risk, thereby encouraging the moral hazard. .

So in response to the question of what over-regulation occurred, your answer is that Fannie and Freddie had too much free rein?

lol

Uh, I think that would mean that more regulatory oversight of F and F would have been in order.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Keep wiggling, PC, like a worm on a hook. It is interesting to watch. Your OP has been shown to be worthless, so I will not worry about it anymore.

But I will ask why you are posting for money on this forum without transparency. Is that not hypocrisy?

"why you are posting for money on this forum ..."

What does this mean?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am led to believe that you are being paid to do this. Am I wrong? Terry accused me of this, and I told her she was incorrect. But it happens. A distant relative of mine in California was paid in the last election to blog for both sides. Unethical in my books without disclosure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am led to believe that you are being paid to do this. Am I wrong? Terry accused me of this, and I told her she was incorrect. But it happens. A distant relative of mine in California was paid in the last election to blog for both sides. Unethical in my books without disclosure.

I am not.

Nor have I ever heard of anyone being paid for same.

But, should I be insulted at being accused, or flattered that my posts would qualify me for pay?

Can I ask what led you to believe such?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What led me to believe that you could have been paid? Your steadiness, your output, and your unqualified slant to a particular ideology. I would think all that are characteristic of a blogger who gets paid by the word. OK, you say you are not, and I will accept you at your word.