Why Socialism will never work...

[Militants]

Socialism are little like Communists I thinks ....

Of course that's what you think, but you are wrong.

I think Löven in Sweden are socialdemocrat leader and he maybe communists as socialist.

But in U.S. Sanders and Clinton are the same like Löven but they aren't communists well ??

 

[Rustic]

Socialism is for mindless lemmings, who always think the grass is greener on the other side...

Uhmm--your stats prove Matthews point. The european and Asia nations, according to your stats, tend to fill the top part of the rankings in your stats when it comes to GDP per capita.

Except the grass is never greener on the other side... Lol

 

[Rustic]

Socialism are little like Communists I thinks ....

Of course that's what you think, but you are wrong.

I think Löven in Sweden are socialdemocrat leader and he maybe communists as socialist.

But in U.S. Sanders and Clinton are the same like Löven but they aren't communists well ??

??

 

[healthmyths]

I started this thread using single payer health systems as an example of socialism's objective.
The intent was to show how dependency on a state run program will eventually according to the Darwin laws of survival become extinct.
There will never be enough people to service the people that will become wards of the state. It doesn't work.
Again... if womb-to-tomb" is the objective by socialist advocates, who takes care of the 330 million Americans? Using a single payer system as Obama and
others advocate eventually according to the architects of Obama care lead to life terminating at age 75....again according to the following:
Ezekiel Emanuel, archiect of Obamacare and brother of former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, appeared on Morning Joe to promote an article he wrote in The Atlantic where he explained why 75 is the ideal age to die.

EZEKIEL EMANUEL: One of the big American beliefs is this thing called compression of morbidity. That, you know, we're just going to be healthy, healthy, healthy, fall off the cliff, and we won't have any disability.

The reality is, that hasn't been, in the last 25 years, the way it's gone. Disabilities increase every time we live longer. Then there's Alzheimer's.
At 85, between a third and half of the people have Alzheimer's.

Does that sound so desirable to you to live to 100?

Obamacare Architect Ezekiel Emanuel: 75 An Ideal Age To Die
Using Emmanuel, Obama, et.al. objective single payer system... there would be a termination plan in their health plans for all Americans. There has to be!

 

[Slade3200]

Perhaps both beasts were feeding eachother, however, I don't think

Free market capitalism isn't a beast to be fed. It is simply free people making decisions and choices based on their wants, needs and desires... coupled with entrepreneurs who provide for those needs, wants and desires and a mutual transaction between the parties. When left alone, it generally works. The problems arise when someone comes along and begins to tinker with the system by introducing socialized tweaks in a supposed "good faith" effort to make it better.

But here's the analogy... it's like you have a very pristine fresh water aquarium and you decide that you want to have some salt water fish as well... so you set aside one corner of the aquarium and introduce salt water fish and salt water into the system... you've not accomplished what you wanted to... you've ruined the system forever. It's no longer a fresh water system and it can't be a salt water system. When you try to mix free market capitalism with socialism, you get socialist-capitalism, which is corporatism... it breeds corruption and doesn't work.

Free market capitalism is a survival of the fittest situation and without regulation it results in corruption and abuse, wild wild west style. The rich and powerful grow stronger and are capable of effecting the livelihood of the masses. A more accurate fish analogy would be Free Market being one large tank with every species of fish... The stronger and larger fish just end up eating the smaller... In the end you are left with all sharks. By introducing regulatory systems into the aquarium, building separate tanks that include fish that can live peacefully with each other, providing appropriate environments for each tank to thrive, this will make for a more successful aquarium.

How is free market survival of the fittest if it is mutual voluntary transaction between two parties? I have something to sell that you want to buy... you want to buy something I want to sell.... how is that survival of the fittest? If you have something to sell and I have the same thing to sell but I can sell it cheaper, how is that survival of the fittest? If you are willing to pay me more for something that you could buy from someone else for less because you feel you get a better value in a better product... how is that survival of the fittest? If you can buy something less from me than from someone else and cost is the most important aspect to you... how is that survival of the fittest?

I'm sorry, I just don't see your perspective here. True free market capitalism cannot have abuse or be corrupt. Competition keeps that from happening. It is only when you start to mix in elements of socialism and try to let authority regulate free markets that you get a problem with corruption and abuse. Socialism is the shark in your tank. Free market is all fish of the same kind living happily together. Again, it is simply the mutual voluntary transaction between two parties using the principles of competition, and laws of supply and demand.

Come on man, you made solid points up till now, I don't see how you don't get the survival of the fittest thing... The problem isn't competition, it is power and growth crest greed and corruption. For example business A is first to market with their product, they grow rapidly and establish huge distribution networks. They now give the

Perhaps both beasts were feeding eachother, however, I don't think

Free market capitalism isn't a beast to be fed. It is simply free people making decisions and choices based on their wants, needs and desires... coupled with entrepreneurs who provide for those needs, wants and desires and a mutual transaction between the parties. When left alone, it generally works. The problems arise when someone comes along and begins to tinker with the system by introducing socialized tweaks in a supposed "good faith" effort to make it better.

But here's the analogy... it's like you have a very pristine fresh water aquarium and you decide that you want to have some salt water fish as well... so you set aside one corner of the aquarium and introduce salt water fish and salt water into the system... you've not accomplished what you wanted to... you've ruined the system forever. It's no longer a fresh water system and it can't be a salt water system. When you try to mix free market capitalism with socialism, you get socialist-capitalism, which is corporatism... it breeds corruption and doesn't work.

Free market capitalism is a survival of the fittest situation and without regulation it results in corruption and abuse, wild wild west style. The rich and powerful grow stronger and are capable of effecting the livelihood of the masses. A more accurate fish analogy would be Free Market being one large tank with every species of fish... The stronger and larger fish just end up eating the smaller... In the end you are left with all sharks. By introducing regulatory systems into the aquarium, building separate tanks that include fish that can live peacefully with each other, providing appropriate environments for each tank to thrive, this will make for a more successful aquarium.

How is free market survival of the fittest if it is mutual voluntary transaction between two parties? I have something to sell that you want to buy... you want to buy something I want to sell.... how is that survival of the fittest? If you have something to sell and I have the same thing to sell but I can sell it cheaper, how is that survival of the fittest? If you are willing to pay me more for something that you could buy from someone else for less because you feel you get a better value in a better product... how is that survival of the fittest? If you can buy something less from me than from someone else and cost is the most important aspect to you... how is that survival of the fittest?

I'm sorry, I just don't see your perspective here. True free market capitalism cannot have abuse or be corrupt. Competition keeps that from happening. It is only when you start to mix in elements of socialism and try to let authority regulate free markets that you get a problem with corruption and abuse. Socialism is the shark in your tank. Free market is all fish of the same kind living happily together. Again, it is simply the mutual voluntary transaction between two parties using the principles of competition, and laws of supply and demand.

Come on man, you've presented solid arguments till now, how do you not understand the survival of the fittest analogy. The problem isn't competition, it is that power and growth creates greed and corruption. Small and medium sized businesses aren't the major problem, it's the huge corporations that have a tremendous amount of influence over the well being of our people... Competitors play dirty to gain the advantage, so without regulation how do you foster a fair environment? When it comes to the major industries, like our financial sector, health care, environment, and the safety of our citizens, it is imperative that there is oversight as abuse can render disastrous results. Here are two real life examples for you...

1) the housing bust in 2008, please don't tell me you truly believe that over-regulation was the cause of this. It was absolutely a product of corruption, manipulation and abuse by our banks, lenders, and government... Without laws and regulation how do we avoid the exact same thing from happening again?

2) Look at whats happening with our world trade system. The "free market" performing "free trade" is producing disastrous results. Between the currency manipulation and the imbalance in production/labor costs, countries like China, Japan, and Mexico are killing our industry. Businesses are closing shop in the US and moving to these countries to save a buck. These countries are the sharks and we getting eaten. Companies and products that come from over seas have an advantage over companies that are here. Our companies are getting eaten up... Survival of the fittest.

Over seas companies have P&L statements that are looking great but as a result we are on a path to destroy our economy. This is why it is necessary for there to be an entity that is looking out for the well being of the people to keep the market in check.

 

[Boss]

Perhaps both beasts were feeding eachother, however, I don't think

Free market capitalism isn't a beast to be fed. It is simply free people making decisions and choices based on their wants, needs and desires... coupled with entrepreneurs who provide for those needs, wants and desires and a mutual transaction between the parties. When left alone, it generally works. The problems arise when someone comes along and begins to tinker with the system by introducing socialized tweaks in a supposed "good faith" effort to make it better.

But here's the analogy... it's like you have a very pristine fresh water aquarium and you decide that you want to have some salt water fish as well... so you set aside one corner of the aquarium and introduce salt water fish and salt water into the system... you've not accomplished what you wanted to... you've ruined the system forever. It's no longer a fresh water system and it can't be a salt water system. When you try to mix free market capitalism with socialism, you get socialist-capitalism, which is corporatism... it breeds corruption and doesn't work.

Free market capitalism is a survival of the fittest situation and without regulation it results in corruption and abuse, wild wild west style. The rich and powerful grow stronger and are capable of effecting the livelihood of the masses. A more accurate fish analogy would be Free Market being one large tank with every species of fish... The stronger and larger fish just end up eating the smaller... In the end you are left with all sharks. By introducing regulatory systems into the aquarium, building separate tanks that include fish that can live peacefully with each other, providing appropriate environments for each tank to thrive, this will make for a more successful aquarium.

How is free market survival of the fittest if it is mutual voluntary transaction between two parties? I have something to sell that you want to buy... you want to buy something I want to sell.... how is that survival of the fittest? If you have something to sell and I have the same thing to sell but I can sell it cheaper, how is that survival of the fittest? If you are willing to pay me more for something that you could buy from someone else for less because you feel you get a better value in a better product... how is that survival of the fittest? If you can buy something less from me than from someone else and cost is the most important aspect to you... how is that survival of the fittest?

I'm sorry, I just don't see your perspective here. True free market capitalism cannot have abuse or be corrupt. Competition keeps that from happening. It is only when you start to mix in elements of socialism and try to let authority regulate free markets that you get a problem with corruption and abuse. Socialism is the shark in your tank. Free market is all fish of the same kind living happily together. Again, it is simply the mutual voluntary transaction between two parties using the principles of competition, and laws of supply and demand.

Come on man, you made solid points up till now, I don't see how you don't get the survival of the fittest thing... The problem isn't competition, it is power and growth crest greed and corruption. For example business A is first to market with their product, they grow rapidly and establish huge distribution networks. They now give the

Perhaps both beasts were feeding eachother, however, I don't think

Free market capitalism isn't a beast to be fed. It is simply free people making decisions and choices based on their wants, needs and desires... coupled with entrepreneurs who provide for those needs, wants and desires and a mutual transaction between the parties. When left alone, it generally works. The problems arise when someone comes along and begins to tinker with the system by introducing socialized tweaks in a supposed "good faith" effort to make it better.

But here's the analogy... it's like you have a very pristine fresh water aquarium and you decide that you want to have some salt water fish as well... so you set aside one corner of the aquarium and introduce salt water fish and salt water into the system... you've not accomplished what you wanted to... you've ruined the system forever. It's no longer a fresh water system and it can't be a salt water system. When you try to mix free market capitalism with socialism, you get socialist-capitalism, which is corporatism... it breeds corruption and doesn't work.

Free market capitalism is a survival of the fittest situation and without regulation it results in corruption and abuse, wild wild west style. The rich and powerful grow stronger and are capable of effecting the livelihood of the masses. A more accurate fish analogy would be Free Market being one large tank with every species of fish... The stronger and larger fish just end up eating the smaller... In the end you are left with all sharks. By introducing regulatory systems into the aquarium, building separate tanks that include fish that can live peacefully with each other, providing appropriate environments for each tank to thrive, this will make for a more successful aquarium.

How is free market survival of the fittest if it is mutual voluntary transaction between two parties? I have something to sell that you want to buy... you want to buy something I want to sell.... how is that survival of the fittest? If you have something to sell and I have the same thing to sell but I can sell it cheaper, how is that survival of the fittest? If you are willing to pay me more for something that you could buy from someone else for less because you feel you get a better value in a better product... how is that survival of the fittest? If you can buy something less from me than from someone else and cost is the most important aspect to you... how is that survival of the fittest?

I'm sorry, I just don't see your perspective here. True free market capitalism cannot have abuse or be corrupt. Competition keeps that from happening. It is only when you start to mix in elements of socialism and try to let authority regulate free markets that you get a problem with corruption and abuse. Socialism is the shark in your tank. Free market is all fish of the same kind living happily together. Again, it is simply the mutual voluntary transaction between two parties using the principles of competition, and laws of supply and demand.

Come on man, you've presented solid arguments till now, how do you not understand the survival of the fittest analogy. The problem isn't competition, it is that power and growth creates greed and corruption. Small and medium sized businesses aren't the major problem, it's the huge corporations that have a tremendous amount of influence over the well being of our people... Competitors play dirty to gain the advantage, so without regulation how do you foster a fair environment? When it comes to the major industries, like our financial sector, health care, environment, and the safety of our citizens, it is imperative that there is oversight as abuse can render disastrous results. Here are two real life examples for you...

1) the housing bust in 2008, please don't tell me you truly believe that over-regulation was the cause of this. It was absolutely a product of corruption, manipulation and abuse by our banks, lenders, and government... Without laws and regulation how do we avoid the exact same thing from happening again?

2) Look at whats happening with our world trade system. The "free market" performing "free trade" is producing disastrous results. Between the currency manipulation and the imbalance in production/labor costs, countries like China, Japan, and Mexico are killing our industry. Businesses are closing shop in the US and moving to these countries to save a buck. These countries are the sharks and we getting eaten. Companies and products that come from over seas have an advantage over companies that are here. Our companies are getting eaten up... Survival of the fittest.

Over seas companies have P&L statements that are looking great but as a result we are on a path to destroy our economy. This is why it is necessary for there to be an entity that is looking out for the well being of the people to keep the market in check.

Okay, your post looks a little choppy... not sure what's going on there, but let me take on a few comments...

Come on man, you've presented solid arguments till now, how do you not understand the survival of the fittest analogy.

I explained how. Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties utilizing competition and laws of supply and demand. That has nothing to do with "only the strongest survive."

The problem isn't competition, it is that power and growth creates greed and corruption.

Not with FREE MARKET capitalism. In a free market system, whenever you have a capitalist who is too greedy, another less greedy capitalist comes along and takes his business. GREED enters the scenario when outside forces influence the free market... like the government picking winners and losers... giving some capitalists an advantage over others... allowing some capitalists to do things that others aren't allowed to do... punishing some capitalists through regulation or taxation... that kind of thing. Whenever that starts happening, you no longer have "FREE MARKET" capitalism. You then have what is called "corporatism" and yes... it breeds greed which breeds corruption.

1) the housing bust in 2008, please don't tell me you truly believe that over-regulation was the cause of this.

Certainly it was. Government mandated that financial institutions make loans to people who shouldn't have been given loans. The interference in free market forces caused more unqualified people to purchase houses which drove the price of housing up and when they started defaulting, the whole thing crashed.

2) Look at whats happening with our world trade system.
The world trade system is NOT a free market capitalist system.

Between the currency manipulation and the imbalance in production/labor costs, countries like China, Japan, and Mexico are killing our industry.

Exactly! There is nothing "free market" about that!

Companies and products that come from over seas have an advantage over companies that are here. Our companies are getting eaten up... Survival of the fittest.

Exactly! And it's also not FREE MARKET capitalism!

Again... In a free market capitalist system, all the fish are the same... we all play by the same rules... we all have the same environment... the opportunity for competition is equal... trade is mutual and voluntary. It is in THAT system that people thrive and prosper. It is in THAT system we see little or no corruption and greed... it mitigates itself. It's when we move away from free market capitalism we see problems. When we allow government to teak and meddle in the forces of free markets... whether we're doing it for "the good" or not... it is a problem that destroys the free market system and turns it into corporatism.

 

[Slade3200]

I started this thread using single payer health systems as an example of socialism's objective.
The intent was to show how dependency on a state run program will eventually according to the Darwin laws of survival become extinct.
There will never be enough people to service the people that will become wards of the state. It doesn't work.
Again... if womb-to-tomb" is the objective by socialist advocates, who takes care of the 330 million Americans? Using a single payer system as Obama and
others advocate eventually according to the architects of Obama care lead to life terminating at age 75....again according to the following:
Ezekiel Emanuel, archiect of Obamacare and brother of former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, appeared on Morning Joe to promote an article he wrote in The Atlantic where he explained why 75 is the ideal age to die.

EZEKIEL EMANUEL: One of the big American beliefs is this thing called compression of morbidity. That, you know, we're just going to be healthy, healthy, healthy, fall off the cliff, and we won't have any disability.

The reality is, that hasn't been, in the last 25 years, the way it's gone. Disabilities increase every time we live longer. Then there's Alzheimer's.
At 85, between a third and half of the people have Alzheimer's.

Does that sound so desirable to you to live to 100?

Obamacare Architect Ezekiel Emanuel: 75 An Ideal Age To Die
Using Emmanuel, Obama, et.al. objective single payer system... there would be a termination plan in their health plans for all Americans. There has to be!

Whether it is the government with a single payer system or private insurance, we are still talking about the same amount of people and the same amount of medical needs/costs... So, in your opinion , what are the differences between government/private regarding affordability?

 

[healthmyths]

Perhaps both beasts were feeding eachother, however, I don't think

Free market capitalism isn't a beast to be fed. It is simply free people making decisions and choices based on their wants, needs and desires... coupled with entrepreneurs who provide for those needs, wants and desires and a mutual transaction between the parties. When left alone, it generally works. The problems arise when someone comes along and begins to tinker with the system by introducing socialized tweaks in a supposed "good faith" effort to make it better.

But here's the analogy... it's like you have a very pristine fresh water aquarium and you decide that you want to have some salt water fish as well... so you set aside one corner of the aquarium and introduce salt water fish and salt water into the system... you've not accomplished what you wanted to... you've ruined the system forever. It's no longer a fresh water system and it can't be a salt water system. When you try to mix free market capitalism with socialism, you get socialist-capitalism, which is corporatism... it breeds corruption and doesn't work.

Free market capitalism is a survival of the fittest situation and without regulation it results in corruption and abuse, wild wild west style. The rich and powerful grow stronger and are capable of effecting the livelihood of the masses. A more accurate fish analogy would be Free Market being one large tank with every species of fish... The stronger and larger fish just end up eating the smaller... In the end you are left with all sharks. By introducing regulatory systems into the aquarium, building separate tanks that include fish that can live peacefully with each other, providing appropriate environments for each tank to thrive, this will make for a more successful aquarium.

How is free market survival of the fittest if it is mutual voluntary transaction between two parties? I have something to sell that you want to buy... you want to buy something I want to sell.... how is that survival of the fittest? If you have something to sell and I have the same thing to sell but I can sell it cheaper, how is that survival of the fittest? If you are willing to pay me more for something that you could buy from someone else for less because you feel you get a better value in a better product... how is that survival of the fittest? If you can buy something less from me than from someone else and cost is the most important aspect to you... how is that survival of the fittest?

I'm sorry, I just don't see your perspective here. True free market capitalism cannot have abuse or be corrupt. Competition keeps that from happening. It is only when you start to mix in elements of socialism and try to let authority regulate free markets that you get a problem with corruption and abuse. Socialism is the shark in your tank. Free market is all fish of the same kind living happily together. Again, it is simply the mutual voluntary transaction between two parties using the principles of competition, and laws of supply and demand.

Come on man, you made solid points up till now, I don't see how you don't get the survival of the fittest thing... The problem isn't competition, it is power and growth crest greed and corruption. For example business A is first to market with their product, they grow rapidly and establish huge distribution networks. They now give the

Perhaps both beasts were feeding eachother, however, I don't think

Free market capitalism isn't a beast to be fed. It is simply free people making decisions and choices based on their wants, needs and desires... coupled with entrepreneurs who provide for those needs, wants and desires and a mutual transaction between the parties. When left alone, it generally works. The problems arise when someone comes along and begins to tinker with the system by introducing socialized tweaks in a supposed "good faith" effort to make it better.

But here's the analogy... it's like you have a very pristine fresh water aquarium and you decide that you want to have some salt water fish as well... so you set aside one corner of the aquarium and introduce salt water fish and salt water into the system... you've not accomplished what you wanted to... you've ruined the system forever. It's no longer a fresh water system and it can't be a salt water system. When you try to mix free market capitalism with socialism, you get socialist-capitalism, which is corporatism... it breeds corruption and doesn't work.

Free market capitalism is a survival of the fittest situation and without regulation it results in corruption and abuse, wild wild west style. The rich and powerful grow stronger and are capable of effecting the livelihood of the masses. A more accurate fish analogy would be Free Market being one large tank with every species of fish... The stronger and larger fish just end up eating the smaller... In the end you are left with all sharks. By introducing regulatory systems into the aquarium, building separate tanks that include fish that can live peacefully with each other, providing appropriate environments for each tank to thrive, this will make for a more successful aquarium.

How is free market survival of the fittest if it is mutual voluntary transaction between two parties? I have something to sell that you want to buy... you want to buy something I want to sell.... how is that survival of the fittest? If you have something to sell and I have the same thing to sell but I can sell it cheaper, how is that survival of the fittest? If you are willing to pay me more for something that you could buy from someone else for less because you feel you get a better value in a better product... how is that survival of the fittest? If you can buy something less from me than from someone else and cost is the most important aspect to you... how is that survival of the fittest?

I'm sorry, I just don't see your perspective here. True free market capitalism cannot have abuse or be corrupt. Competition keeps that from happening. It is only when you start to mix in elements of socialism and try to let authority regulate free markets that you get a problem with corruption and abuse. Socialism is the shark in your tank. Free market is all fish of the same kind living happily together. Again, it is simply the mutual voluntary transaction between two parties using the principles of competition, and laws of supply and demand.

Come on man, you've presented solid arguments till now, how do you not understand the survival of the fittest analogy. The problem isn't competition, it is that power and growth creates greed and corruption. Small and medium sized businesses aren't the major problem, it's the huge corporations that have a tremendous amount of influence over the well being of our people... Competitors play dirty to gain the advantage, so without regulation how do you foster a fair environment? When it comes to the major industries, like our financial sector, health care, environment, and the safety of our citizens, it is imperative that there is oversight as abuse can render disastrous results. Here are two real life examples for you...

1) the housing bust in 2008, please don't tell me you truly believe that over-regulation was the cause of this. It was absolutely a product of corruption, manipulation and abuse by our banks, lenders, and government... Without laws and regulation how do we avoid the exact same thing from happening again?

2) Look at whats happening with our world trade system. The "free market" performing "free trade" is producing disastrous results. Between the currency manipulation and the imbalance in production/labor costs, countries like China, Japan, and Mexico are killing our industry. Businesses are closing shop in the US and moving to these countries to save a buck. These countries are the sharks and we getting eaten. Companies and products that come from over seas have an advantage over companies that are here. Our companies are getting eaten up... Survival of the fittest.

Over seas companies have P&L statements that are looking great but as a result we are on a path to destroy our economy. This is why it is necessary for there to be an entity that is looking out for the well being of the people to keep the market in check.

Okay, your post looks a little choppy... not sure what's going on there, but let me take on a few comments...

Come on man, you've presented solid arguments till now, how do you not understand the survival of the fittest analogy.

I explained how. Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties utilizing competition and laws of supply and demand. That has nothing to do with "only the strongest survive."

The problem isn't competition, it is that power and growth creates greed and corruption.

Not with FREE MARKET capitalism. In a free market system, whenever you have a capitalist who is too greedy, another less greedy capitalist comes along and takes his business. GREED enters the scenario when outside forces influence the free market... like the government picking winners and losers... giving some capitalists an advantage over others... allowing some capitalists to do things that others aren't allowed to do... punishing some capitalists through regulation or taxation... that kind of thing. Whenever that starts happening, you no longer have "FREE MARKET" capitalism. You then have what is called "corporatism" and yes... it breeds greed which breeds corruption.

1) the housing bust in 2008, please don't tell me you truly believe that over-regulation was the cause of this.

Certainly it was. Government mandated that financial institutions make loans to people who shouldn't have been given loans. The interference in free market forces caused more unqualified people to purchase houses which drove the price of housing up and when they started defaulting, the whole thing crashed.

2) Look at whats happening with our world trade system.
The world trade system is NOT a free market capitalist system.

Between the currency manipulation and the imbalance in production/labor costs, countries like China, Japan, and Mexico are killing our industry.

Exactly! There is nothing "free market" about that!

Companies and products that come from over seas have an advantage over companies that are here. Our companies are getting eaten up... Survival of the fittest.

Exactly! And it's also not FREE MARKET capitalism!

Again... In a free market capitalist system, all the fish are the same... we all play by the same rules... we all have the same environment... the opportunity for competition is equal... trade is mutual and voluntary. It is in THAT system that people thrive and prosper. It is in THAT system we see little or no corruption and greed... it mitigates itself. It's when we move away from free market capitalism we see problems. When we allow government to teak and meddle in the forces of free markets... whether we're doing it for "the good" or not... it is a problem that destroys the free market system and turns it into corporatism.

1) The housing bust...
1995 ACORN/with Obama sued CitiBank forcing them to make loans to people THAT would default on their properties!
1995 ACORN/with Obama as one of the attorneys sued CitiBank forcing them to make loans to people THAT would default on their properties!
Citibank settled out of court but this laid the premise for banks to make sub-prime loans.
So now the banks had a problem.

Forced to make sub-prime loans to people that they were pretty sure not going to pay off the loans they had to do something because the FDIC auditors said all those loans were affecting the banks financial status.

Securitization of loan portfolios..
On one hand courts ordering banks to make bad loans and other hand the bad loans were violating FDIC rules!

2) Banks were forced by FDIC to SELL these TOXIC loans to Fannie/Freddie.. and because in their own words
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an "effective'' federal guarantee, not the "full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajIEoZCommlk

So with Fannie/Freddie backing the loans how could brokers lose?

It didn't take though long for the 6% of the loans to sour the whole process.

GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle

On December 24, 2009, the Treasury Department made an unprecedented announcement that it would be providing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unlimited financial support for the next three years despite acknowledging losses in excess of $400 billion so far.[13]The Treasury has been criticized for encroaching on spending powers that are enumerated for Congress alone by the United States Constitution, and for violating limits imposed by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.[14]
United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It came true!

Sorry folks but those are the FACTS. Bad loans made to poor loan risks
In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank–the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie–admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it. Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us.

Long-term pressure from Frank and his colleagues to expand home ownership connects government housing policies to both the housing bubble and the poor quality of the mortgages on which it is based. In 1992, Congress gave a new affordable housing “mission” to Fannie and Freddie, and authorized the Department of Housing and Urban Development to define its scope through regulations.

Shortly thereafter, Fannie Mae, under Chairman Jim Johnson, made its first “trillion-dollar commitment” to increase financing for affordable housing. What this meant for the quality of the mortgages that Fannie–and later Freddie–would buy has not become clear until now.

On a parallel track was the Community Reinvestment Act. New CRA regulations in 1995 required banks to demonstrate that they were making mortgage loans to underserved communities, which inevitably included borrowers whose credit standing did not qualify them for a conventional mortgage loan.
A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

 

[Slade3200]

Perhaps both beasts were feeding eachother, however, I don't think

Free market capitalism isn't a beast to be fed. It is simply free people making decisions and choices based on their wants, needs and desires... coupled with entrepreneurs who provide for those needs, wants and desires and a mutual transaction between the parties. When left alone, it generally works. The problems arise when someone comes along and begins to tinker with the system by introducing socialized tweaks in a supposed "good faith" effort to make it better.

But here's the analogy... it's like you have a very pristine fresh water aquarium and you decide that you want to have some salt water fish as well... so you set aside one corner of the aquarium and introduce salt water fish and salt water into the system... you've not accomplished what you wanted to... you've ruined the system forever. It's no longer a fresh water system and it can't be a salt water system. When you try to mix free market capitalism with socialism, you get socialist-capitalism, which is corporatism... it breeds corruption and doesn't work.

Free market capitalism is a survival of the fittest situation and without regulation it results in corruption and abuse, wild wild west style. The rich and powerful grow stronger and are capable of effecting the livelihood of the masses. A more accurate fish analogy would be Free Market being one large tank with every species of fish... The stronger and larger fish just end up eating the smaller... In the end you are left with all sharks. By introducing regulatory systems into the aquarium, building separate tanks that include fish that can live peacefully with each other, providing appropriate environments for each tank to thrive, this will make for a more successful aquarium.

How is free market survival of the fittest if it is mutual voluntary transaction between two parties? I have something to sell that you want to buy... you want to buy something I want to sell.... how is that survival of the fittest? If you have something to sell and I have the same thing to sell but I can sell it cheaper, how is that survival of the fittest? If you are willing to pay me more for something that you could buy from someone else for less because you feel you get a better value in a better product... how is that survival of the fittest? If you can buy something less from me than from someone else and cost is the most important aspect to you... how is that survival of the fittest?

I'm sorry, I just don't see your perspective here. True free market capitalism cannot have abuse or be corrupt. Competition keeps that from happening. It is only when you start to mix in elements of socialism and try to let authority regulate free markets that you get a problem with corruption and abuse. Socialism is the shark in your tank. Free market is all fish of the same kind living happily together. Again, it is simply the mutual voluntary transaction between two parties using the principles of competition, and laws of supply and demand.

Come on man, you made solid points up till now, I don't see how you don't get the survival of the fittest thing... The problem isn't competition, it is power and growth crest greed and corruption. For example business A is first to market with their product, they grow rapidly and establish huge distribution networks. They now give the

Perhaps both beasts were feeding eachother, however, I don't think

Free market capitalism isn't a beast to be fed. It is simply free people making decisions and choices based on their wants, needs and desires... coupled with entrepreneurs who provide for those needs, wants and desires and a mutual transaction between the parties. When left alone, it generally works. The problems arise when someone comes along and begins to tinker with the system by introducing socialized tweaks in a supposed "good faith" effort to make it better.

But here's the analogy... it's like you have a very pristine fresh water aquarium and you decide that you want to have some salt water fish as well... so you set aside one corner of the aquarium and introduce salt water fish and salt water into the system... you've not accomplished what you wanted to... you've ruined the system forever. It's no longer a fresh water system and it can't be a salt water system. When you try to mix free market capitalism with socialism, you get socialist-capitalism, which is corporatism... it breeds corruption and doesn't work.

Free market capitalism is a survival of the fittest situation and without regulation it results in corruption and abuse, wild wild west style. The rich and powerful grow stronger and are capable of effecting the livelihood of the masses. A more accurate fish analogy would be Free Market being one large tank with every species of fish... The stronger and larger fish just end up eating the smaller... In the end you are left with all sharks. By introducing regulatory systems into the aquarium, building separate tanks that include fish that can live peacefully with each other, providing appropriate environments for each tank to thrive, this will make for a more successful aquarium.

How is free market survival of the fittest if it is mutual voluntary transaction between two parties? I have something to sell that you want to buy... you want to buy something I want to sell.... how is that survival of the fittest? If you have something to sell and I have the same thing to sell but I can sell it cheaper, how is that survival of the fittest? If you are willing to pay me more for something that you could buy from someone else for less because you feel you get a better value in a better product... how is that survival of the fittest? If you can buy something less from me than from someone else and cost is the most important aspect to you... how is that survival of the fittest?

I'm sorry, I just don't see your perspective here. True free market capitalism cannot have abuse or be corrupt. Competition keeps that from happening. It is only when you start to mix in elements of socialism and try to let authority regulate free markets that you get a problem with corruption and abuse. Socialism is the shark in your tank. Free market is all fish of the same kind living happily together. Again, it is simply the mutual voluntary transaction between two parties using the principles of competition, and laws of supply and demand.

Come on man, you've presented solid arguments till now, how do you not understand the survival of the fittest analogy. The problem isn't competition, it is that power and growth creates greed and corruption. Small and medium sized businesses aren't the major problem, it's the huge corporations that have a tremendous amount of influence over the well being of our people... Competitors play dirty to gain the advantage, so without regulation how do you foster a fair environment? When it comes to the major industries, like our financial sector, health care, environment, and the safety of our citizens, it is imperative that there is oversight as abuse can render disastrous results. Here are two real life examples for you...

1) the housing bust in 2008, please don't tell me you truly believe that over-regulation was the cause of this. It was absolutely a product of corruption, manipulation and abuse by our banks, lenders, and government... Without laws and regulation how do we avoid the exact same thing from happening again?

2) Look at whats happening with our world trade system. The "free market" performing "free trade" is producing disastrous results. Between the currency manipulation and the imbalance in production/labor costs, countries like China, Japan, and Mexico are killing our industry. Businesses are closing shop in the US and moving to these countries to save a buck. These countries are the sharks and we getting eaten. Companies and products that come from over seas have an advantage over companies that are here. Our companies are getting eaten up... Survival of the fittest.

Over seas companies have P&L statements that are looking great but as a result we are on a path to destroy our economy. This is why it is necessary for there to be an entity that is looking out for the well being of the people to keep the market in check.

Okay, your post looks a little choppy... not sure what's going on there, but let me take on a few comments...

Come on man, you've presented solid arguments till now, how do you not understand the survival of the fittest analogy.

I explained how. Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties utilizing competition and laws of supply and demand. That has nothing to do with "only the strongest survive."

The problem isn't competition, it is that power and growth creates greed and corruption.

Not with FREE MARKET capitalism. In a free market system, whenever you have a capitalist who is too greedy, another less greedy capitalist comes along and takes his business. GREED enters the scenario when outside forces influence the free market... like the government picking winners and losers... giving some capitalists an advantage over others... allowing some capitalists to do things that others aren't allowed to do... punishing some capitalists through regulation or taxation... that kind of thing. Whenever that starts happening, you no longer have "FREE MARKET" capitalism. You then have what is called "corporatism" and yes... it breeds greed which breeds corruption.

1) the housing bust in 2008, please don't tell me you truly believe that over-regulation was the cause of this.

Certainly it was. Government mandated that financial institutions make loans to people who shouldn't have been given loans. The interference in free market forces caused more unqualified people to purchase houses which drove the price of housing up and when they started defaulting, the whole thing crashed.

2) Look at whats happening with our world trade system.
The world trade system is NOT a free market capitalist system.

Between the currency manipulation and the imbalance in production/labor costs, countries like China, Japan, and Mexico are killing our industry.

Exactly! There is nothing "free market" about that!

Companies and products that come from over seas have an advantage over companies that are here. Our companies are getting eaten up... Survival of the fittest.

Exactly! And it's also not FREE MARKET capitalism!

Again... In a free market capitalist system, all the fish are the same... we all play by the same rules... we all have the same environment... the opportunity for competition is equal... trade is mutual and voluntary. It is in THAT system that people thrive and prosper. It is in THAT system we see little or no corruption and greed... it mitigates itself. It's when we move away from free market capitalism we see problems. When we allow government to teak and meddle in the forces of free markets... whether we're doing it for "the good" or not... it is a problem that destroys the free market system and turns it into corporatism.

Ok, I see where you are coming from now and agree with many of your points. Where I differ is in the fact that we are not in a fair open environment and never will be. Greedy capitalists don't always get beaten by less greedy ones as they can use their power to abuse and manipulate the system. In the housing situation, it wasn't the government mandates to provide affordable housing loans that caused the problem, it was a complete lack of responsibility from the lenders who gave out the loans, dishonesty in rating systems lying about the quality of the loans, and a whole other can of worms we don't need to get into right now... Point is, banks took advantage of deregulation that started in the 1980's and used GSE and CRA mandates to justify giving out reckless loans. These may have been catalysts, however they were not major causes. It proves my point about how the private sector, when abused, has the ability to destroy peoples lives. If we did things your way, right now, and dropped all oversight and regulations, the same thing could happen again... What then would protect us?

What happens to the bridge that was built by the cheapest bidder when it falls apart and kills hundreds of people. Free market tells you that business goes under... But what do you tell the families of the deceased? How do you protect against future accidents... There needs to be a code, standards and regulations in place for our own protection.

Last point... Free market capitalism is an amazing thing and a big part of what makes our country great. It is also necessary to implement social programs that serve the purpose of protecting the people. Capitalism protects the business and optimizes profits, which can often lead to situations that damage our people and economy. Absolute capitalism would be a disaster... Absolute socialism would be a disaster. Its about finding that sweet spot to make the two work together in a way that bests drives our economy and takes care of our people. It's a great debate.

 

[Slade3200]

Free market capitalism isn't a beast to be fed. It is simply free people making decisions and choices based on their wants, needs and desires... coupled with entrepreneurs who provide for those needs, wants and desires and a mutual transaction between the parties. When left alone, it generally works. The problems arise when someone comes along and begins to tinker with the system by introducing socialized tweaks in a supposed "good faith" effort to make it better.

But here's the analogy... it's like you have a very pristine fresh water aquarium and you decide that you want to have some salt water fish as well... so you set aside one corner of the aquarium and introduce salt water fish and salt water into the system... you've not accomplished what you wanted to... you've ruined the system forever. It's no longer a fresh water system and it can't be a salt water system. When you try to mix free market capitalism with socialism, you get socialist-capitalism, which is corporatism... it breeds corruption and doesn't work.

Free market capitalism is a survival of the fittest situation and without regulation it results in corruption and abuse, wild wild west style. The rich and powerful grow stronger and are capable of effecting the livelihood of the masses. A more accurate fish analogy would be Free Market being one large tank with every species of fish... The stronger and larger fish just end up eating the smaller... In the end you are left with all sharks. By introducing regulatory systems into the aquarium, building separate tanks that include fish that can live peacefully with each other, providing appropriate environments for each tank to thrive, this will make for a more successful aquarium.

How is free market survival of the fittest if it is mutual voluntary transaction between two parties? I have something to sell that you want to buy... you want to buy something I want to sell.... how is that survival of the fittest? If you have something to sell and I have the same thing to sell but I can sell it cheaper, how is that survival of the fittest? If you are willing to pay me more for something that you could buy from someone else for less because you feel you get a better value in a better product... how is that survival of the fittest? If you can buy something less from me than from someone else and cost is the most important aspect to you... how is that survival of the fittest?

I'm sorry, I just don't see your perspective here. True free market capitalism cannot have abuse or be corrupt. Competition keeps that from happening. It is only when you start to mix in elements of socialism and try to let authority regulate free markets that you get a problem with corruption and abuse. Socialism is the shark in your tank. Free market is all fish of the same kind living happily together. Again, it is simply the mutual voluntary transaction between two parties using the principles of competition, and laws of supply and demand.

Come on man, you made solid points up till now, I don't see how you don't get the survival of the fittest thing... The problem isn't competition, it is power and growth crest greed and corruption. For example business A is first to market with their product, they grow rapidly and establish huge distribution networks. They now give the

Free market capitalism isn't a beast to be fed. It is simply free people making decisions and choices based on their wants, needs and desires... coupled with entrepreneurs who provide for those needs, wants and desires and a mutual transaction between the parties. When left alone, it generally works. The problems arise when someone comes along and begins to tinker with the system by introducing socialized tweaks in a supposed "good faith" effort to make it better.

But here's the analogy... it's like you have a very pristine fresh water aquarium and you decide that you want to have some salt water fish as well... so you set aside one corner of the aquarium and introduce salt water fish and salt water into the system... you've not accomplished what you wanted to... you've ruined the system forever. It's no longer a fresh water system and it can't be a salt water system. When you try to mix free market capitalism with socialism, you get socialist-capitalism, which is corporatism... it breeds corruption and doesn't work.

Free market capitalism is a survival of the fittest situation and without regulation it results in corruption and abuse, wild wild west style. The rich and powerful grow stronger and are capable of effecting the livelihood of the masses. A more accurate fish analogy would be Free Market being one large tank with every species of fish... The stronger and larger fish just end up eating the smaller... In the end you are left with all sharks. By introducing regulatory systems into the aquarium, building separate tanks that include fish that can live peacefully with each other, providing appropriate environments for each tank to thrive, this will make for a more successful aquarium.

How is free market survival of the fittest if it is mutual voluntary transaction between two parties? I have something to sell that you want to buy... you want to buy something I want to sell.... how is that survival of the fittest? If you have something to sell and I have the same thing to sell but I can sell it cheaper, how is that survival of the fittest? If you are willing to pay me more for something that you could buy from someone else for less because you feel you get a better value in a better product... how is that survival of the fittest? If you can buy something less from me than from someone else and cost is the most important aspect to you... how is that survival of the fittest?

I'm sorry, I just don't see your perspective here. True free market capitalism cannot have abuse or be corrupt. Competition keeps that from happening. It is only when you start to mix in elements of socialism and try to let authority regulate free markets that you get a problem with corruption and abuse. Socialism is the shark in your tank. Free market is all fish of the same kind living happily together. Again, it is simply the mutual voluntary transaction between two parties using the principles of competition, and laws of supply and demand.

Come on man, you've presented solid arguments till now, how do you not understand the survival of the fittest analogy. The problem isn't competition, it is that power and growth creates greed and corruption. Small and medium sized businesses aren't the major problem, it's the huge corporations that have a tremendous amount of influence over the well being of our people... Competitors play dirty to gain the advantage, so without regulation how do you foster a fair environment? When it comes to the major industries, like our financial sector, health care, environment, and the safety of our citizens, it is imperative that there is oversight as abuse can render disastrous results. Here are two real life examples for you...

1) the housing bust in 2008, please don't tell me you truly believe that over-regulation was the cause of this. It was absolutely a product of corruption, manipulation and abuse by our banks, lenders, and government... Without laws and regulation how do we avoid the exact same thing from happening again?

2) Look at whats happening with our world trade system. The "free market" performing "free trade" is producing disastrous results. Between the currency manipulation and the imbalance in production/labor costs, countries like China, Japan, and Mexico are killing our industry. Businesses are closing shop in the US and moving to these countries to save a buck. These countries are the sharks and we getting eaten. Companies and products that come from over seas have an advantage over companies that are here. Our companies are getting eaten up... Survival of the fittest.

Over seas companies have P&L statements that are looking great but as a result we are on a path to destroy our economy. This is why it is necessary for there to be an entity that is looking out for the well being of the people to keep the market in check.

Okay, your post looks a little choppy... not sure what's going on there, but let me take on a few comments...

Come on man, you've presented solid arguments till now, how do you not understand the survival of the fittest analogy.

I explained how. Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties utilizing competition and laws of supply and demand. That has nothing to do with "only the strongest survive."

The problem isn't competition, it is that power and growth creates greed and corruption.

Not with FREE MARKET capitalism. In a free market system, whenever you have a capitalist who is too greedy, another less greedy capitalist comes along and takes his business. GREED enters the scenario when outside forces influence the free market... like the government picking winners and losers... giving some capitalists an advantage over others... allowing some capitalists to do things that others aren't allowed to do... punishing some capitalists through regulation or taxation... that kind of thing. Whenever that starts happening, you no longer have "FREE MARKET" capitalism. You then have what is called "corporatism" and yes... it breeds greed which breeds corruption.

1) the housing bust in 2008, please don't tell me you truly believe that over-regulation was the cause of this.

Certainly it was. Government mandated that financial institutions make loans to people who shouldn't have been given loans. The interference in free market forces caused more unqualified people to purchase houses which drove the price of housing up and when they started defaulting, the whole thing crashed.

2) Look at whats happening with our world trade system.
The world trade system is NOT a free market capitalist system.

Between the currency manipulation and the imbalance in production/labor costs, countries like China, Japan, and Mexico are killing our industry.

Exactly! There is nothing "free market" about that!

Companies and products that come from over seas have an advantage over companies that are here. Our companies are getting eaten up... Survival of the fittest.

Exactly! And it's also not FREE MARKET capitalism!

Again... In a free market capitalist system, all the fish are the same... we all play by the same rules... we all have the same environment... the opportunity for competition is equal... trade is mutual and voluntary. It is in THAT system that people thrive and prosper. It is in THAT system we see little or no corruption and greed... it mitigates itself. It's when we move away from free market capitalism we see problems. When we allow government to teak and meddle in the forces of free markets... whether we're doing it for "the good" or not... it is a problem that destroys the free market system and turns it into corporatism.

1) The housing bust...
1995 ACORN/with Obama sued CitiBank forcing them to make loans to people THAT would default on their properties!
1995 ACORN/with Obama as one of the attorneys sued CitiBank forcing them to make loans to people THAT would default on their properties!
Citibank settled out of court but this laid the premise for banks to make sub-prime loans.
So now the banks had a problem.

Forced to make sub-prime loans to people that they were pretty sure not going to pay off the loans they had to do something because the FDIC auditors said all those loans were affecting the banks financial status.

Securitization of loan portfolios..
On one hand courts ordering banks to make bad loans and other hand the bad loans were violating FDIC rules!

2) Banks were forced by FDIC to SELL these TOXIC loans to Fannie/Freddie.. and because in their own words
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an "effective'' federal guarantee, not the "full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajIEoZCommlk

So with Fannie/Freddie backing the loans how could brokers lose?

It didn't take though long for the 6% of the loans to sour the whole process.

GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle

On December 24, 2009, the Treasury Department made an unprecedented announcement that it would be providing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unlimited financial support for the next three years despite acknowledging losses in excess of $400 billion so far.[13]The Treasury has been criticized for encroaching on spending powers that are enumerated for Congress alone by the United States Constitution, and for violating limits imposed by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.[14]
United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It came true!

Sorry folks but those are the FACTS. Bad loans made to poor loan risks
In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank–the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie–admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it. Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us.

Long-term pressure from Frank and his colleagues to expand home ownership connects government housing policies to both the housing bubble and the poor quality of the mortgages on which it is based. In 1992, Congress gave a new affordable housing “mission” to Fannie and Freddie, and authorized the Department of Housing and Urban Development to define its scope through regulations.

Shortly thereafter, Fannie Mae, under Chairman Jim Johnson, made its first “trillion-dollar commitment” to increase financing for affordable housing. What this meant for the quality of the mortgages that Fannie–and later Freddie–would buy has not become clear until now.

On a parallel track was the Community Reinvestment Act. New CRA regulations in 1995 required banks to demonstrate that they were making mortgage loans to underserved communities, which inevitably included borrowers whose credit standing did not qualify them for a conventional mortgage loan.
A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

I'd love to dive into this with you but I just got finished with a lengthy debate about the housing crash and need a mental break from it You make good points, some I agree with and others I think have more that needs to be considered. Simple point is, The government did institute mandates to try and raise our middle class by allowing them to become home owners. It had good intentions but was somewhat of an overstep in my opinion. However, the private sector and banking system completely dropped the ball on execution. They abused their power and took advantage of our people. They got rich while doing so. We should be outraged at wall street and our government for what happened.

 

[Boss]

In the housing situation, it wasn't the government mandates to provide affordable housing loans that caused the problem, it was a complete lack of responsibility from the lenders who gave out the loans...

They were ORDERED (aka: MANDATED) to give out the loans... they didn't have any choice in the matter! In a "free market system" they wouldn't have made the loans.

If we did things your way, right now, and dropped all oversight and regulations, the same thing could happen again... What then would protect us?

We need very limited oversight or regulation on free markets. As little as possible. Just enough to ensure public safety and prevent monopolization. To ensure fairness in the free market system and that it operates as it should.

What happens to the bridge that was built by the cheapest bidder when it falls apart and kills hundreds of people.

So should we not accept the cheapest bids? Should we say... bid, but make sure you're not the cheapest because that is going to be rejected because we're going to assume your cheap bridge will be unsafe? OR... maybe... we establish certain guidelines and conditions for safety that have to be met within the bid price?

 

[Slade3200]

In the housing situation, it wasn't the government mandates to provide affordable housing loans that caused the problem, it was a complete lack of responsibility from the lenders who gave out the loans...

They were ORDERED (aka: MANDATED) to give out the loans... they didn't have any choice in the matter! In a "free market system" they wouldn't have made the loans.

If we did things your way, right now, and dropped all oversight and regulations, the same thing could happen again... What then would protect us?

We need very limited oversight or regulation on free markets. As little as possible. Just enough to ensure public safety and prevent monopolization. To ensure fairness in the free market system and that it operates as it should.

What happens to the bridge that was built by the cheapest bidder when it falls apart and kills hundreds of people.

So should we not accept the cheapest bids? Should we say... bid, but make sure you're not the cheapest because that is going to be rejected because we're going to assume your cheap bridge will be unsafe? OR... maybe... we establish certain guidelines and conditions for safety that have to be met within the bid price?

They were ORDERED (aka: MANDATED) to give out the loans... they didn't have any choice in the matter! In a "free market system" they wouldn't have made the loans.
They were mandated to give a certain percentage of loans. They were not mandated to toss their ethics and fiscal responsibility out the window and be as reckless as they were. Not sure why you are standing up for these people... They do not deserve a pass on this.

We need very limited oversight or regulation on free markets. As little as possible. Just enough to ensure public safety and prevent monopolization. To ensure fairness in the free market system and that it operates as it should.
agreed

So should we not accept the cheapest bids? Should we say... bid, but make sure you're not the cheapest because that is going to be rejected because we're going to assume your cheap bridge will be unsafe? OR... maybe... we establish certain guidelines and conditions for safety that have to be met within the bid price?
You said the answer... guidelines and conditions for safety are necessary. This is the purpose of government oversight and regulation. It can and has been abused and overbearing in some instances and has also kept higher standards, safety, and protection for the people in other instances. It is a balancing act.

 

[Contumacious]

Most of what is called socialism these days is actually distributism.

Or, it's constitutionally-enumerated powers being implemented for the collective as was brilliantly designed into our NON-Socialist system.

Care to clarify?

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lays out specific enumerated powers of Congress to provide for certain collective needs of the citizenry. Pro-Socialists will often mistakenly cite these things as examples of how we are Socialists. But this is not Socialism. It is a part of a NON-Socialist Constitutional Republic.

HUH?

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lays out specific enumerated powers of Congress to provide for certain collective needs ?!?!?!?!?

Explain

 

[bripat9643]

Red Herring. There are no pure "ism's". Combinations and blendings of all the major economic and social systems are used throughout the world. Anytime a pure system of capitalism, socialism, fascism or communism has been tried they have failed. Corporatism and capitalism proponents hate socialism blended into the system because it challenges the ideology corporatism which relates to a modern day form of feudalism and challenges the rule of plutocrats.

Bullshit. Pure capitalism has never failed.

 

[Camp]

Red Herring. There are no pure "ism's". Combinations and blendings of all the major economic and social systems are used throughout the world. Anytime a pure system of capitalism, socialism, fascism or communism has been tried they have failed. Corporatism and capitalism proponents hate socialism blended into the system because it challenges the ideology corporatism which relates to a modern day form of feudalism and challenges the rule of plutocrats.

Bullshit. Pure capitalism has never failed.

Maybe it depends on an arbitrary definition of "fail", but it seems reasonable to include depressions, recessions and economic rescues by governments as being examples of failures.
What nation would you describe as having a pure capitalism system?

 

[Contumacious]

Red Herring. There are no pure "ism's". Combinations and blendings of all the major economic and social systems are used throughout the world. Anytime a pure system of capitalism, socialism, fascism or communism has been tried they have failed. Corporatism and capitalism proponents hate socialism blended into the system because it challenges the ideology corporatism which relates to a modern day form of feudalism and challenges the rule of plutocrats.

Bullshit. Pure capitalism has never failed.

Maybe it depends on an arbitrary definition of "fail", but it seems reasonable to include depressions, recessions and economic rescues by governments as being examples of failures.
What nation would you describe as having a pure capitalism system?

Identify one, una, ein, une, 1, depression caused by Capitalism, ie, the government was not involved in some way fashion or form ------ONE.


.

 

[Boss]

Most of what is called socialism these days is actually distributism.

Or, it's constitutionally-enumerated powers being implemented for the collective as was brilliantly designed into our NON-Socialist system.

Care to clarify?

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lays out specific enumerated powers of Congress to provide for certain collective needs of the citizenry. Pro-Socialists will often mistakenly cite these things as examples of how we are Socialists. But this is not Socialism. It is a part of a NON-Socialist Constitutional Republic.

HUH?

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lays out specific enumerated powers of Congress to provide for certain collective needs ?!?!?!?!?

Explain

Well what the fuck man? You want me to post the entirety of the text and explain what each individual word of it means or something?

Enumerated powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
— Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
============================================================

These are the enumerated powers outlined in Article I Sec. 8 of the Constitution. These specific things are assigned to federal government to do on behalf of the collective whole. (That means, all of us citizens as one.) For example, the military who protects us and provides for our national security is something that benefits us all equally as a group. These things are often misinterpreted and misrepresented by pro-socialists as examples of Socialism... but they're NOT. They merely have a common attribute with socialist policy, in that, they are done for the collective by the central authority. But... they are intentionally designed this way by the framers as a crucial part of a Constitutional representative republic... not a Socialist system. And that is the difference, they are not Socialism, they are Constitutionally-enumerated powers ratified by the people in a democratic manner as part of a representative republic system.... not a Socialist system.

"Enumerated" means the complete ordered listing of all items in a collection. In a Socialist system, there is no enumeration required because everything is controlled by the central authority. There is no question as to whether this or that is privy to government control, it ALL is under a Socialist system, there is no other option. In OUR system, we have set aside these particular items in a collection and grant authority to government for the handling of them on our collective behalf. So there CAN be a question as to whether this or that should be controlled by government and the answers are found in Article I Section 8.

Have I adequately explained this to where you can now understand what I mean?

 

[Contumacious]

Most of what is called socialism these days is actually distributism.

Or, it's constitutionally-enumerated powers being implemented for the collective as was brilliantly designed into our NON-Socialist system.

Care to clarify?

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lays out specific enumerated powers of Congress to provide for certain collective needs of the citizenry. Pro-Socialists will often mistakenly cite these things as examples of how we are Socialists. But this is not Socialism. It is a part of a NON-Socialist Constitutional Republic.

HUH?

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lays out specific enumerated powers of Congress to provide for certain collective needs ?!?!?!?!?

Explain

Well what the fuck man? You want me to post the entirety of the text and explain what each individual word of it means or something?

Enumerated powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
— Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
============================================================

These are the enumerated powers outlined in Article I Sec. 8 of the Constitution. These specific things are assigned to federal government to do on behalf of the collective whole. (That means, all of us citizens as one.) For example, the military who protects us and provides for our national security is something that benefits us all equally as a group. These things are often misinterpreted and misrepresented by pro-socialists as examples of Socialism... but they're NOT. They merely have a common attribute with socialist policy, in that, they are done for the collective by the central authority. But... they are intentionally designed this way by the framers as a crucial part of a Constitutional representative republic... not a Socialist system. And that is the difference, they are not Socialism, they are Constitutionally-enumerated powers ratified by the people in a democratic manner as part of a representative republic system.... not a Socialist system.

"Enumerated" means the complete ordered listing of all items in a collection. In a Socialist system, there is no enumeration required because everything is controlled by the central authority. There is no question as to whether this or that is privy to government control, it ALL is under a Socialist system, there is no other option. In OUR system, we have set aside these particular items in a collection and grant authority to government for the handling of them on our collective behalf. So there CAN be a question as to whether this or that should be controlled by government and the answers are found in Article I Section 8.

Have I adequately explained this to where you can now understand what I mean?

You threw me off with the "collective needs" wording.

 

[Boss]

In the housing situation, it wasn't the government mandates to provide affordable housing loans that caused the problem, it was a complete lack of responsibility from the lenders who gave out the loans...

They were ORDERED (aka: MANDATED) to give out the loans... they didn't have any choice in the matter! In a "free market system" they wouldn't have made the loans.

If we did things your way, right now, and dropped all oversight and regulations, the same thing could happen again... What then would protect us?

We need very limited oversight or regulation on free markets. As little as possible. Just enough to ensure public safety and prevent monopolization. To ensure fairness in the free market system and that it operates as it should.

What happens to the bridge that was built by the cheapest bidder when it falls apart and kills hundreds of people.

So should we not accept the cheapest bids? Should we say... bid, but make sure you're not the cheapest because that is going to be rejected because we're going to assume your cheap bridge will be unsafe? OR... maybe... we establish certain guidelines and conditions for safety that have to be met within the bid price?

They were ORDERED (aka: MANDATED) to give out the loans... they didn't have any choice in the matter! In a "free market system" they wouldn't have made the loans.
They were mandated to give a certain percentage of loans. They were not mandated to toss their ethics and fiscal responsibility out the window and be as reckless as they were. Not sure why you are standing up for these people... They do not deserve a pass on this.

We need very limited oversight or regulation on free markets. As little as possible. Just enough to ensure public safety and prevent monopolization. To ensure fairness in the free market system and that it operates as it should.
agreed

So should we not accept the cheapest bids? Should we say... bid, but make sure you're not the cheapest because that is going to be rejected because we're going to assume your cheap bridge will be unsafe? OR... maybe... we establish certain guidelines and conditions for safety that have to be met within the bid price?
You said the answer... guidelines and conditions for safety are necessary. This is the purpose of government oversight and regulation. It can and has been abused and overbearing in some instances and has also kept higher standards, safety, and protection for the people in other instances. It is a balancing act.

You need to go read the legislation again... they were mandated to make the loans... not a percentage. They were forbidden from considering their ethics or anything else...that's what a MANDATE means. You are ORDERED to do something, whether you want to do it, think it's wise to do it, have a different idea about it or what.... MANDATED means you HAVE to do it.... no choice. AGAIN.... THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

You said the answer... guidelines and conditions for safety are necessary. This is the purpose of government oversight and regulation. It can and has been abused and overbearing in some instances and has also kept higher standards, safety, and protection for the people in other instances. It is a balancing act.

I have never had any problem, and I don't think anyone who isn't insane has a problem, with having reasonable guidelines and safety measures or government oversight to ensure those measures are being followed. However, we must understand that "reasonable measures" can quickly become a slippery slope whereby corporatists can corrupt the free market system in order to favor their crony-capitalistic agenda. The LESS of this stuff we have, the better... generally speaking. Now... me calling for less regulation is somehow being perverted into the insane notion that we should have NO regulation or oversight on anything! It IS a balancing act and one we should always approach from the understanding that the less government interferes with free market capitalist forces, the better off the people are. The more we encroach on those principles, the more open we are to corruption, corporatism, unethical practices, cronyism and generally bad things for us, the individual.

People say... Oh, you can't have unfettered free market capitalism! We've NEVER fucking had it! It has been "fettered" from Day One! The idea is to "fetter" it as little as possible and still keep people relatively safe and reasonably protect our environment. There is a HUGE difference between allowing a mining company to use water cannons to blast away mountains, changing water tables and causing environmental calamity... and preventing a multi-million dollar factory which might employ thousands from being constructed because the land is habitat for the endangered snail-darter.

 

[bripat9643]

Red Herring. There are no pure "ism's". Combinations and blendings of all the major economic and social systems are used throughout the world. Anytime a pure system of capitalism, socialism, fascism or communism has been tried they have failed. Corporatism and capitalism proponents hate socialism blended into the system because it challenges the ideology corporatism which relates to a modern day form of feudalism and challenges the rule of plutocrats.

Bullshit. Pure capitalism has never failed.

Maybe it depends on an arbitrary definition of "fail", but it seems reasonable to include depressions, recessions and economic rescues by governments as being examples of failures.
What nation would you describe as having a pure capitalism system?

The depressions and recessions are almost all caused by government intervention. The last one is a classic example. "Economic rescue" is another name for crony capitalism. Government causes a financial panic and then it "rescues" it's favored crony capitalists, and then people like you blame it on capitalism.

All dogs have fleas. That doesn't mean the fleas are good for the dog.