Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

[pknopp]

They barely raised them.

Give me some of that: Trump renews call for negative U.S. interest rates

It harms retiree's who were living off their savings.

The overnight cost of funds rose from 0,65% January 2017 up to 2.49% in February 2019. That is a 383% increase. That's barely being raised?

You got me on the call for negative interest rates although, again, President Trump is right. We are in competition with other countries which do have negative interest rates today. In addition, any businessman goes into negotiations asking for more than he'll settle for in the end.

Decades ago I attended a lecture by a renowned authority on raising Bonsai Trees. Someone questioned him about the severity of his pruning. He responded by saying that in the beginning, students did not listen. He went on, to say that when he wanted a branch pruned at the elbow, and he told the student to prune the plant at the elbow, they would prune at the wrist. So he taught to prune the branch at the shoulder which would result in the branch being pruned where he wanted, at the elbow.

The banks and wall street get free money and retiree's get the shaft..........our new capitalistic model.

 

[Mac1958]

This is what I'm talking about.
.

You're talking about something that never happened?

Yes, in your mind.
.

Please supply an example.

The Meltdown. A bright and shining example of the financial system running amuck while Alan Greenspan (who later admitted it) and others refused to regulate it.

But I know. It was all the Dems' fault. I know the talk radio line.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I've learned that trying to communicate with someone who has fallen down the rabbit hole is like trying to communicate with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damascus, or a protest sign-holding Westboro Baptist Church member picketing the funeral of a soldier. It's an abject waste of time.

Believe what you're told to believe, I can't change that. I'm good.
.

Sorry, but deregulation isn't what caused the "melt down." Precisely the opposite is the case. Regulators forcing banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them is what caused it. Democrats created those regulations, so they are responsible.

Believe what you're told to believe, I can't change that. I'm good.

Please answer the clear, specific questions in post 170, below.

Display your knowledge of the Meltdown for us.
.

 

[Mac1958]

We do not practice capitalism. We practice at best crony capitalism propped up with Socialist programs.

And, bingo.

We've somehow managed to combine simplistic, mindless libertarianism with we'll-bail-you-out socialism. The libertarians think regulation is evil, and then we have to bail out the big guys because they took advantage of a lack of regulation. Holy crap.

Meanwhile, wealth disparity increases.

This is what happens when ideology and jingoism replace informed critical thinking.
.

It never happened. No business ever had to be bailed out because of a lack of regulation.

This is what I'm talking about.
.

It's similar to battered spouse syndrome. Always an excuse for bad behavior.

They have been completely conned. They appear to not know 95% of what happened.

Yes, many battered wives are purposely kept isolated, and they've lost their will. You're right. Sad as hell.
.

 

[Mac1958]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

 

[Mac1958]

No doubt those who are pushing socialism appreciate the right wing's abject indifference to our increasing wealth disparities.

In my lifetime, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos acquired nearly a QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS.

Specifically, how much money did that acquisition take out of your pocket? How much richer, what part of that quarter of a trillion dollars would be in your pocket today?

Don't know, don't care.

Millions do, however, and they vote. And mocking them doesn't help.
.

So you agree that the fact that Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, who acquired nearly a QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS did not affect your net worth one dime and very well added to your wealth. How is that a bad thing?

If millions do believe that myth, don't you agree that they should be educated rather than continue to be misled?

Absolutely, and that goes for left wingers and right wingers alike. Both have distorted, isolated views of this.

The problem is that the Trumpsters are terrible, shallow, simplistic, misled, lousy representatives of capitalism.

And, not coincidentally, the interest in socialism grows.
.

 

[Norman]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

And yet I made the same point earlier in this very thread. It's specifically what regulation is being talked about that matters. I do not think there is a SINGLE PERSON that denies this, so I would like to know what your source for this information is.

Of course many Trumpers are for strong regulation on abortions for example, and pro-tariffs, so it seems you really have made up the contents of the rant. It's just usually taken as granted what regulations is being talked about.

 

[Mac1958]

Meanwhile, wealth disparity increases.

.

Assuming wealth disparity is inherently bad that is. Where did you hear of such a thing?

Years ago, i had a roommate. This roommate spent every single penny that they had, from one week to the next. Paid on Friday, broke... and I mean broke down to $10 to their name broke.... by Thursday.

I watched this happen for 2 full years. For two years, I was saving and investing, and had saved up several thousand, while they got poorer, and had nothing.

Why should there not be disparity? Why should those who act wisely, not have more than those who act foolishly?

I've never understood by people think this is bad.

I realize this may be a little complicated, but what the hell.

This, like most things, lies along a continuum. There might be "more" disparity, there might be "less" disparity.

With me so far?

Additionally, there may be systems in place, or not in place, that allow for the "more" disparity to expand or distort. That's a bit more complicated. But not much.

So no, there's not a thing wrong with disparity. It's the natural order of every country on the planet. It will naturally happen, and in a vacuum, it is not "bad". But there are degrees to this. And at this very moment, the two elements I outline above are such that socialism is become more and more popular with many.

That's as clear as I can make this.
.

 

[Mac1958]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

And yet I made the same point earlier in this very thread. It's specifically what regulation is being talked about that matters. I do not think there is a SINGLE PERSON that denies this, so I would like to know what your source for this information is.

Of course many Trumpers are for strong regulation on abortions for example, and pro-tariffs, so it seems you really have made up the contents of the rant. It's just usually taken as granted what regulations is being talked about.

I already explained. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.

So now you moderate a little. Great job. It may be too late. Thanks loads.
.

 

[Norman]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

And yet I made the same point earlier in this very thread. It's specifically what regulation is being talked about that matters. I do not think there is a SINGLE PERSON that denies this, so I would like to know what your source for this information is.

Of course many Trumpers are for strong regulation on abortions for example, and pro-tariffs, so it seems you really have made up the contents of the rant. It's just usually taken as granted what regulations is being talked about.

I already explained. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.

So now you moderate a little. Great job. It may be too late. Thanks loads.
.

I have not "moderated" anything. My stance is the same as it has been the ENTIRE THREAD!

 

[Mac1958]

The Trumpsters have been conned into believing the Meltdown was just about having to write mortgages. That's it. That's all. That's the whole story.

We don't need financial regulation! It's all the Dems' fault! It was the damn CRA! Barney Frank! It was HIM!

Let's see if anyone can answer these 12 specific questions, one by one, no deflection:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs that didn't even fully INCLUDE shit mortgages?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to SELL OFF those shit mortgages to the banks to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours into a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force Greenspan to admit to CONGRESS after the Meltdown happened that he BLEW it, that markets had FAILED to regulate themselves?
   
8. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
9. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole fucking THING was COLLAPSING?
10. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY EXPECTED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson $2 BILLION?
11. How did the CRA force banks to spin off companies that sold insane synthetic CDOs that had NOTHING to do with mortgages, but FLOODED them with fees & leverage?
    
12. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO fucking reserves - REQUIRED for ANY OTHER insurance product - to back them up?

Looking forward to it. EDUCATE ME. I've posted these questions many times, no luck so far. I'm not surprised.
.

 

[Mac1958]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

And yet I made the same point earlier in this very thread. It's specifically what regulation is being talked about that matters. I do not think there is a SINGLE PERSON that denies this, so I would like to know what your source for this information is.

Of course many Trumpers are for strong regulation on abortions for example, and pro-tariffs, so it seems you really have made up the contents of the rant. It's just usually taken as granted what regulations is being talked about.

I already explained. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.

So now you moderate a little. Great job. It may be too late. Thanks loads.
.

I have not "moderated" anything. My stance is the same as it has been the ENTIRE THREAD!

"Entire thread". One thread. Wow!


.

 

[Norman]

The Trumpsters have been conned into believing this is just about having to write mortgages. That's it. That's all. That's the whole story.

We don't need financial regulation! It's all the Dems' fault! It was the damn CRA!

Let's see if anyone can answer these 10 specific questions, one by one, no deflection:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO reserves to back them up, since that kind of obvious regulation would be "socialism"?

Looking forward to it.
.

I certainly don't think it was only the CRA. That being said the view that it played no part is also wrong.

Perhaps the basic issue here is that the people do not LIKE some elitist leftist telling them how to live. Imagine that... That's probably why these policies are taken out of proportion.

And of course, the government banks were highly involved in the banking crisis, much more than the CRA. So yes, the crisis is an example of FAILURE of regulation.

I doubt many have problem with regulation of some of the financial products which were clear scams.

 

[Mac1958]

The Trumpsters have been conned into believing this is just about having to write mortgages. That's it. That's all. That's the whole story.

We don't need financial regulation! It's all the Dems' fault! It was the damn CRA!

Let's see if anyone can answer these 10 specific questions, one by one, no deflection:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO reserves to back them up, since that kind of obvious regulation would be "socialism"?

Looking forward to it.
.

I certainly don't think it was only the CRA. That being said the view that it played no part is also wrong.

Perhaps the basic issue here is that the people do not LIKE some elitist leftist telling them how to live. Imagine that... That's probably why these policies are taken out of proportion.

Maybe a bigger problem is that wingers are obedient liars.
.

 

[Norman]

The Trumpsters have been conned into believing this is just about having to write mortgages. That's it. That's all. That's the whole story.

We don't need financial regulation! It's all the Dems' fault! It was the damn CRA!

Let's see if anyone can answer these 10 specific questions, one by one, no deflection:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO reserves to back them up, since that kind of obvious regulation would be "socialism"?

Looking forward to it.
.

I certainly don't think it was only the CRA. That being said the view that it played no part is also wrong.

Perhaps the basic issue here is that the people do not LIKE some elitist leftist telling them how to live. Imagine that... That's probably why these policies are taken out of proportion.

Maybe a bigger problem is that wingers are obedient liars.
.

I doubt that many have problem with the regulation of the financial scams (known as CDS) the banks/insurance companies put forward.

The problem with the leftists is whenever they talk about regulation, they MAY talk about regulating the above, but always want to scam the tax payer over for free pork and potentially cause more damage than the regulation was supposed to fix. People know instinctively that whenever new regulations are erected, it just means they are getting screwed, and thus the sentiment.

 

[Mac1958]

We do not practice capitalism. We practice at best crony capitalism propped up with Socialist programs.

And, bingo.

We've somehow managed to combine simplistic, mindless libertarianism with we'll-bail-you-out socialism. The libertarians think regulation is evil, and then we have to bail out the big guys because they took advantage of a lack of regulation. Holy crap.

Meanwhile, wealth disparity increases.

This is what happens when ideology and jingoism replace informed critical thinking.
.

It never happened. No business ever had to be bailed out because of a lack of regulation.

This is what I'm talking about.
.

But he is absolutely, one hundred percent, dead on right.

You're cordially invited to answer the 12 clear & specific questions five posts above, in post 170, and tell me if proper regulations might have been helpful in those cases.

Full disclosure: I will be stunned if you provide specific answers. But I admit, ya never know.

Thanks in advance.
.

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing I said, anywhere in my entire post did I suggest, by any stretch of the most wild or incoherent imagination, that we did not practice capitalism.

No bailing out failed businesses.

Of course not. You seem to be implying that because we have deviated from Capitalism, that this means we do not practice Capitalism. That is ridiculous. That is like saying because we have murder in this country, that we don't practice a right to life.

Fail. If someone is a murderer they do not respect a right to life. Your argument is that because someone else murders someone that does not mean you do not respect a right to life. That would be correct BUT it is the government breaking nearly every aspect of capitalism so it can not be operating on capitalism. It's operating on something else.

No being forced to get permission from the government to trade with your partners.

Agreed.

No Federal Reserve trying to control it all.

Impossible. While ideals would be great, it is not possible to have a system without a Federal Reserve. Simply impossible. Aiming for what is impossible, will discredit attempts to achieve what is possible.

Then we are operating on something other than Capitalism. The Federal Reserve is a system far closer to Socialism.

That is never going to happen but people are going to pretend we are a capitalist society. With that being the case I am going to do all I can to see that everything doesn't get dumped on the poor

We do live in a capitalist society. End of story. End of debate. I can open my own business today, and if successful, I could end up a multi-millionaire. In fact, I could simply save and invest my capital, even with a low income, and become a multi-millionaire. My parents are millionaires, because they saved and invested capital their whole lives.

People in Scandinavian countries that people condemn as socialist nations can't open their own business and be a success?

As far as seeing that everything does not get dumped on the poor, what does this mean? The poor are poor, because they make choices. The rich are rich, because they make choices.

What choices did Trump make to make himself rich? Trump is rich based upon what vagina he came out of. Trump failed and failed only to have daddy bail him out. Trump got banks to go along based upon who his daddy was. Can just anyone make that choice?

When someone makes bad choices in life the lead them to be poor, it's not you dumping on them.... it is them reaping the results of their choices.

You will never change this. Never. You can't force people to be wise. Thus you can not avoid people reaping poverty for bad choices.

Bankers are rich beyond rich but they failed. They failed but yet the government gave them billions and billions more. Right now the Federal Reserve still is. How much of the billions and billions being pumped is going to the country as a whole? Why should only a small percentage get the largest portion of this while the rest get very little?

How exactly is that capitalism?

That would be correct BUT it is the government breaking nearly every aspect of capitalism so it can not be operating on capitalism. It's operating on something else.

Really? So if I open a business tomorrow... does the government not protect my rights? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I make a profit off of my business, and grow my capital, does government not respect my property? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I change how I do business, say the product, or how I distribute the product, does the government not respect my property? Yes it does.

Please explain how the above being true, is not mutually exclusive to claiming government breaks nearly every aspect of capitalism?

People in Scandinavian countries that people condemn as socialist nations can't open their own business and be a success?

They are capitalist. They have some socialist aspects, yes. But the basic foundation of their economy is capitalist by any measure.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Iceland is actually higher on the economic freedom index than the US. They are Capitalist.

Some of the biggest capitalist profit driven companies in the world are in the those countries. And the idea that they are socialist is ridiculous. The rich there, live like rich people. The poor there, live like poor people. Legos is based out of Denmark, and the daughter of the multi-billionaire executive team, owns an entire horse ranch with a thousand acres of land, because... she likes to take ponies to the pony shows, and win medals.

The rich are rich. The poor are poor. It's a capitalist based economy like any other.

What choices did Trump make to make himself rich? Trump is rich based upon what vagina he came out of. Trump failed and failed only to have daddy bail him out. Trump got banks to go along based upon who his daddy was. Can just anyone make that choice?

80% of all millionaires and billionaires are first generation rich. 80%. Yes, there are a few people who are born wealthy.

Further, maybe you are bit ignorant of how most things work, but nearly all successful people fail a bunch of times. Bill Gates, completely failed in his first business venture. So did Henry Heinz.
15 Highly Successful People Who Failed On Their Way To Success

Must successful people fail, sometimes multiple times, before they become successful. This is normal.

Bankers are rich beyond rich but they failed. They failed but yet the government gave them billions and billions more. Right now the Federal Reserve still is. How much of the billions and billions being pumped is going to the country as a whole? Why should only a small percentage get the largest portion of this while the rest get very little?

Well again, I'm a capitalist. I'm against government giving money to anyone.

But your entire statement is completely flaws. The rest get very little? What are you smoking?
70% of all government revenue goes to transfers to individuals. Roughly 15% of the entire economy, is being collected and redistributed to individual US citizens.

By any possible measure, the amount of money we gave to the banks, is a tiny fraction of how much is given out in government hand outs.

Again, that does not justify giving any money to anyone. But to claim that bankers are getting the bulk of the money, when over two Trillion dollars is being handed out EVERY SINGLE YEAR to the public... you are being just ignorantly absurd. Just totally insane.

Nothing I said, anywhere in my entire post did I suggest, by any stretch of the most wild or incoherent imagination, that we did not practice capitalism.

No bailing out failed businesses.

Of course not. You seem to be implying that because we have deviated from Capitalism, that this means we do not practice Capitalism. That is ridiculous. That is like saying because we have murder in this country, that we don't practice a right to life.

Fail. If someone is a murderer they do not respect a right to life. Your argument is that because someone else murders someone that does not mean you do not respect a right to life. That would be correct BUT it is the government breaking nearly every aspect of capitalism so it can not be operating on capitalism. It's operating on something else.

No being forced to get permission from the government to trade with your partners.

Agreed.

No Federal Reserve trying to control it all.

Impossible. While ideals would be great, it is not possible to have a system without a Federal Reserve. Simply impossible. Aiming for what is impossible, will discredit attempts to achieve what is possible.

Then we are operating on something other than Capitalism. The Federal Reserve is a system far closer to Socialism.

That is never going to happen but people are going to pretend we are a capitalist society. With that being the case I am going to do all I can to see that everything doesn't get dumped on the poor

We do live in a capitalist society. End of story. End of debate. I can open my own business today, and if successful, I could end up a multi-millionaire. In fact, I could simply save and invest my capital, even with a low income, and become a multi-millionaire. My parents are millionaires, because they saved and invested capital their whole lives.

People in Scandinavian countries that people condemn as socialist nations can't open their own business and be a success?

As far as seeing that everything does not get dumped on the poor, what does this mean? The poor are poor, because they make choices. The rich are rich, because they make choices.

What choices did Trump make to make himself rich? Trump is rich based upon what vagina he came out of. Trump failed and failed only to have daddy bail him out. Trump got banks to go along based upon who his daddy was. Can just anyone make that choice?

When someone makes bad choices in life the lead them to be poor, it's not you dumping on them.... it is them reaping the results of their choices.

You will never change this. Never. You can't force people to be wise. Thus you can not avoid people reaping poverty for bad choices.

Bankers are rich beyond rich but they failed. They failed but yet the government gave them billions and billions more. Right now the Federal Reserve still is. How much of the billions and billions being pumped is going to the country as a whole? Why should only a small percentage get the largest portion of this while the rest get very little?

How exactly is that capitalism?

That would be correct BUT it is the government breaking nearly every aspect of capitalism so it can not be operating on capitalism. It's operating on something else.

Really? So if I open a business tomorrow... does the government not protect my rights? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I make a profit off of my business, and grow my capital, does government not respect my property? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I change how I do business, say the product, or how I distribute the product, does the government not respect my property? Yes it does.

Please explain how the above being true, is not mutually exclusive to claiming government breaks nearly every aspect of capitalism?

It isn't always true.

Proposed Senatobia roundabout may force businesses to close

You only discuss vast generalizations, not the reality.

People in Scandinavian countries that people condemn as socialist nations can't open their own business and be a success?

They are capitalist. They have some socialist aspects, yes. But the basic foundation of their economy is capitalist by any measure.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Iceland is actually higher on the economic freedom index than the US. They are Capitalist.

Some of the biggest capitalist profit driven companies in the world are in the those countries. And the idea that they are socialist is ridiculous. The rich there, live like rich people. The poor there, live like poor people. Legos is based out of Denmark, and the daughter of the multi-billionaire executive team, owns an entire horse ranch with a thousand acres of land, because... she likes to take ponies to the pony shows, and win medals.

The rich are rich. The poor are poor. It's a capitalist based economy like any other.

What choices did Trump make to make himself rich? Trump is rich based upon what vagina he came out of. Trump failed and failed only to have daddy bail him out. Trump got banks to go along based upon who his daddy was. Can just anyone make that choice?

80% of all millionaires and billionaires are first generation rich. 80%. Yes, there are a few people who are born wealthy.

Further, maybe you are bit ignorant of how most things work, but nearly all successful people fail a bunch of times. Bill Gates, completely failed in his first business venture. So did Henry Heinz.
15 Highly Successful People Who Failed On Their Way To Success

Must successful people fail, sometimes multiple times, before they become successful. This is normal.

Bankers are rich beyond rich but they failed. They failed but yet the government gave them billions and billions more. Right now the Federal Reserve still is. How much of the billions and billions being pumped is going to the country as a whole? Why should only a small percentage get the largest portion of this while the rest get very little?

Well again, I'm a capitalist. I'm against government giving money to anyone.

But your entire statement is completely flaws. The rest get very little? What are you smoking?
70% of all government revenue goes to transfers to individuals. Roughly 15% of the entire economy, is being collected and redistributed to individual US citizens.

By any possible measure, the amount of money we gave to the banks, is a tiny fraction of how much is given out in government hand outs.

Again, that does not justify giving any money to anyone. But to claim that bankers are getting the bulk of the money, when over two Trillion dollars is being handed out EVERY SINGLE YEAR to the public... you are being just ignorantly absurd. Just totally insane.

I keep on providing examples and you keep on using the excuse that you do not support that. It's irrelevant if you support it or not. It is what we do in the name of "capitalism" and there is nothing capitalistic about it.

But we're not doing that in the 'name of capitalism'.

What a dumb thing to say. Really? So Obama stood up there and said "In the name of Capitalism, I'm using tax money to bailout GM, and sell it to the Unions, for their political support!"

Do you realize how incompetent that sounds? Who did that? No one. Not a single person.

When Clinton sent Andrew Cuomo to sue banks to force them to make bad sub-prime loans... was he saying "In the name of Capitalism, we're going to dictate what loans banks make!"? Of course not.

What dumb comment.

Internet poster "Government did this!"

Me " That's not capitalism, and Capitalist like me oppose it"

Internet poster "you are making excuses!"

What?? Your arguments are dumb sir. Really dumb.

You only discuss vast generalizations, not the reality.

Basing your entire argument on the exceptions, is bad logic.
Life is not defined by the exceptions.

This is like claiming that the entire Soviet Union was Capitalist... because a few dozen farms were in fact privately owned for profit businesses. The massive socialized farms in the USSR, were failing so bad, that even Stalin allowed a small collection of private for-profit capitalist farms.

It's a ridiculous claim. The soviet union was socialized. They had a few splatterings of capitalism, but they were very much socialized.

The US is a capitalist based economy. We have a few splatterings of socialism, and we fight against them. But we are capitalist in nature by any possible measure.

If those running the economy are not running it under capitalism, we are not a capitalistic nation.

Under capitalism the government doesn't run the economy, dumbass.

 

[Mac1958]

bripat9643, please answer the 12 clear, specific questions in post 170 above.
.

 

[bripat9643]

The Trumpsters have been conned into believing the Meltdown was just about having to write mortgages. That's it. That's all. That's the whole story.

We don't need financial regulation! It's all the Dems' fault! It was the damn CRA! Barney Frank! It was HIM!

Let's see if anyone can answer these 12 specific questions, one by one, no deflection:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs that didn't even fully INCLUDE shit mortgages?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to SELL OFF those shit mortgages to the banks to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours into a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force Greenspan to admit to CONGRESS after the Meltdown happened that he BLEW it, that markets had FAILED to regulate themselves?
   
8. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
9. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole fucking THING was COLLAPSING?
10. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY EXPECTED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson $2 BILLION?
11. How did the CRA force banks to spin off companies that sold insane synthetic CDOs that had NOTHING to do with mortgages, but FLOODED them with fees & leverage?
    
12. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO fucking reserves - REQUIRED for ANY OTHER insurance product - to back them up?

Looking forward to it. EDUCATE ME. I've posted these questions many times, no luck so far. I'm not surprised.
.

Thomas Sowell on the root causes of the mortgage lending crisis

 

[Mac1958]

The Trumpsters have been conned into believing the Meltdown was just about having to write mortgages. That's it. That's all. That's the whole story.

We don't need financial regulation! It's all the Dems' fault! It was the damn CRA! Barney Frank! It was HIM!

Let's see if anyone can answer these 12 specific questions, one by one, no deflection:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs that didn't even fully INCLUDE shit mortgages?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to SELL OFF those shit mortgages to the banks to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours into a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force Greenspan to admit to CONGRESS after the Meltdown happened that he BLEW it, that markets had FAILED to regulate themselves?
   
8. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
9. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole fucking THING was COLLAPSING?
10. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY EXPECTED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson $2 BILLION?
11. How did the CRA force banks to spin off companies that sold insane synthetic CDOs that had NOTHING to do with mortgages, but FLOODED them with fees & leverage?
    
12. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO fucking reserves - REQUIRED for ANY OTHER insurance product - to back them up?

Looking forward to it. EDUCATE ME. I've posted these questions many times, no luck so far. I'm not surprised.
.

Thomas Sowell on the root causes of the mortgage lending crisis

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Don't you have any curiosity left? Has your ideology stolen ALL of it from you?

Anyone else want to try?
.

 

[bripat9643]

The Trumpsters have been conned into believing the Meltdown was just about having to write mortgages. That's it. That's all. That's the whole story.

We don't need financial regulation! It's all the Dems' fault! It was the damn CRA! Barney Frank! It was HIM!

Let's see if anyone can answer these 12 specific questions, one by one, no deflection:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs that didn't even fully INCLUDE shit mortgages?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to SELL OFF those shit mortgages to the banks to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours into a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force Greenspan to admit to CONGRESS after the Meltdown happened that he BLEW it, that markets had FAILED to regulate themselves?
   
8. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
9. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole fucking THING was COLLAPSING?
10. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY EXPECTED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson $2 BILLION?
11. How did the CRA force banks to spin off companies that sold insane synthetic CDOs that had NOTHING to do with mortgages, but FLOODED them with fees & leverage?
    
12. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO fucking reserves - REQUIRED for ANY OTHER insurance product - to back them up?

Looking forward to it. EDUCATE ME. I've posted these questions many times, no luck so far. I'm not surprised.
.

Thomas Sowell on the root causes of the mortgage lending crisis

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Don't you have any curiosity left? Has your ideology stolen ALL of it from you?

Anyone else want to try?
.

That's about a 6 page homework assignment. Sorry, I don't do homework assigned by leftwingers.

Obviously you didn't read the link I posted or you would have your answers.