Let us examine the other causes of the crisis that you conveniently failed to mention. How about the fact that people like Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank made it their crusade to see that 'everyone could achieve the American dream of owning a home'? They extorted banks and big lenders into writing mortgages for poor people who never should have qualified for them. They told banks and lenders that they would investigate them for 'racist lending practices' if they did not make these bad loans. And ACORN worked with Rangel and Frank, picketing and calling for boycotts against any bank or lender who would not write mortgages for the totally unqualified.
Another huge factor was Freddie and Fannie. They went in and bought up or insured bad mortgages as fast as lenders could write them. What lender would not write all the bad loans they could when they had a pseudo-private government corporation buying up all the risk, leaving them with zero exposure? By the time the crisis broke, more than half the mortgages in America were owned or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie. Is this your 'unrestrained capitalism'?
No, massive government intervention in markets is what created the huge overburden of toxic debt. The Glass-Stegal repeal allowed the use of depositor funds to create SIVs, but those SIVs would not have collapsed were they not made of government-created toxic debt. The government created the collapse. Wall Street and greed certainly played its part, but placing all the blame on Wall Street and 'unrestrained capitalism' is simply an ignorant viewpoint.
----------So New Deal massive overspending kept unemployment levels at the highest level in American history for a decade, but they were a 'success'? And you really believe that? Then I can see why you think that Obama's stimulus is something of a 'success', and would be much better if we just threw even more taxpayer money down the same rathole.As for New Deal economic initiatives, several crucial measures including GNP, consumption, investment and employment had improved substantially since 1933—the low point of the depression. This was even before the added investment in the economy brought by government war expenditures.
----------Bullsh1t. The source of the quote is not Fulsom's text. The source of the quote is a transcript of private meeting at the Treasury Department, May 9, 1939, that exists in the F.D. Roosevelt Presidential Library. Do the math, professor.Oh, and the Morgenthau quote is likely bogus. Do the math, professor; Roosevelt's administration began in 1933. In 1939 he had been in office for six years, not eight. Outside of wikipedia and the media echo chamber, a single, un-sourced reference exists for this supposed quote—Burton Fulsom's flawed history “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America."
----------As a liberal, of course he would feel that way.... which proves absolutely nothing other than he was a liberal.. >*obvious*<But, hey, since you like quoting Morgenthau so much, you should know that he regarded the Social Security program as his greatest success.
----------Not liberal enough for you?As for Obama's stimulus, I thought it half-a$$ed to begin with, then it got further watered down and hamstrung in congress, like everything does. I haven't even followed it that closely because, frankly, Obama disgusts me.
----------I will stick with accepted popular usage instead of your self-serving manufactured 'definitions', thanks.So, the single biggest example of corporate welfare is simply not to be referred to as "corporate welfare." Yeah, um... no.
----------I may call your argument dumb, but I have not called *you* dumb. That is the difference between fair debate and ad hominem.Pot meet kettle? Your debating style is not gentle, so I'm not sure why you're complaining now. Anyhow, I'm just going by what you've been saying in this particular thread.
----------Laissez faire capitalism is what created and built America. Now, as we have ever-increasing government intervention in markets, and massive overspending sucking the very lifeblood out of our economy, not surprisingly we are in an extended recession that is in danger of becoming a massive economic collapse. History and current events put the lie to your silly claim. Free markets with minimal regulation are the only thing that has ever worked.The bottom line for me is that a laissez faire approach to Capitalism would be a recipe for a return to a kind of feudalism, and we all know how enjoyable and productive those times were.
----------Tell us about all the centrally planned economies that have been so successful. This oughta be good.Also, government investment and planning can provide an effective impetus to the economy. It's been proven countless times. Even Herr Goebbels knew that!
Last edited by Ought Six; 06-10-2012 at 03:47 PM.
The point is this. What is your experience managing any group of people involved in business?
Have you managed any business with personnel exceeding 5 people? I know there are folks around here with those qualifications and yet you do NOT hear them talking. But somehow we hear always the same usual suspects (including me).
You can offer what ever insight you have, while you actually base it in open source info. You can even pontificate on it, it that is your personal experience. But actually debating without intrinsic experience of management, even the slightest one, looks like parroting. On both sides.
So then, no one can have any sort of valid opinion on economics if they have not run a business? Well then, your 'logic' certainly would require you to support Romney (an experienced businessman) over Obama (who never ran a business or managed anyone) to get America back on the right economic track. Glad you have finally seen the light.
I thought there was a chance from 07-09 to unseat at least one party but found that human habit of slavery is near unbreakable as yet again, two seemingly at war, polar opposite social groups of US voters instantly united when an upstart grass roots political movement threatened their “other people’s money” rice bowl. Their black hats moved blazingly fast, were amazing to observe in action, and the destruction was total.
My guess is that people need to suffer a bit more too wise up to the he said, she said shell game. The problem is that choice one and two, a deeper collective built on the bones of others is so oft chosen. I prefer option three; going the other way redistributing “some” federal powers back down the state, local and individual food chain.
Mhh this is no appeal to authority, just saying we hear always the same folks. NONE is to my understanding self-employed, none has experience in managing groups of people yet every one speaks like they were experts including you. So I will greatly emphasize on my previous point. What are your credentials in managing a group of people in manufacturing, proofing and marketing goods and services? If you have NONE, then allow me to take your opinion on the same level that everyone else.
BTW I am not taking any one's word for gospel, just asking for real businesspeople to come forward and share their experiences.
----------If that is what you had actually said, we would not be talking about this. But it is not. You said:BTW I am not taking any one's word for gospel, just asking for real businesspeople to come forward and share their experiences.And before that, you said:You can offer what ever insight you have, while you actually base it in open source info. You can even pontificate on it, it that is your personal experience. But actually debating without intrinsic experience of management, even the slightest one, looks like parroting.You clearly sought to dismiss out of hand the opinions of those without direct business experience as invalid instead of addressing the actual points, facts and logic put forward; a clear 'appeal to authority' fallacy, your empty denials notwithstanding. Using such rhetorical tricks is usually a sign of not having any truly valid arguments to put forward.Refrain from that. We have potential heads of state in here. Your input, good or irrelevant is simply a waste of your time. They know better, see better, do better.
Yet I have to see one of them self employed or managing more than a dog and a cat.
So getting back to the actual subject, do you think that with local, state and the federal government already sucking up 40% of GDP, that governments diverting even more money out of the free market into wasteful, inefficient government programs that have failed miserably to help our economy is the path out of this ongoing economic malaise? Is that not exactly what Japan tried to do? How did that work out for them?
You know if Congress actually cared...maybe they'd ram a budget through the whitehouse and not the reverse.
I am no american voter, I do not support anyone.
I specifically included myself in the critic...therefore I did not seek to exclude anyone. You have a peculiar way of understanding what is written. I said that he should refrain from debating with obviously more qualified people. You tend to put yourself forward as the more literate poster here, discarding every dissenting opinion and line of thought that does not follow your own. Therefore I was offering an opinion to a like-minded member, just to prevent him from being frustrated at your own litteral thickness.