100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Let's talk about the problem... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 07/13/11 03:51 PM
|
|
s1owhand:
I think blaming our societal ills on "Corporationism" is far too simplistic. There are problems everywhere in the system. No argument here. It would serve us well to carefully parse things out. Corporationism and all that it entails is a very large portion, and reflective of more fundamental issues, not the least of which being accountability. Companies are not the source of all evil. It is the people making the decisions who are responsible for waste, fraud and abuse.
Again, no argument here. Companies have no agency. Systems have no agency. People do. A system's success is only as good as it's correct implementation. If a system is designed in such a way that it dissolves personal accountability for the disasterous effects of personal decision making we have a problem. It can be argued that our government has done a lot wrong in terms of mismanagement, deficit spending and lax regulation.
But the extremely regulated opposite of "Corporationism" is the also flawed Communist model which instead of handing political power to the proletariat actually created a political ubercorp of sorts. 1. The Marxist model is not flawed in such a way that it required the implentation to fail in the manner(s) that it did, 2. neither am I, nor would I argue for a 'pure' communist model which necessitates a temporary dictatorship. Certainly our education system is doing a poor job in preparing our kids for intellectual excellence.
About 7k per year per public student. Numbers ranging between 30k and 70k per year per federal inmate. Our society needs productive jobs, food, housing, a decent standard of living and medical care but not as a nanny state.
What constitutes being "a nanny state"? We need to strive to find better and more efficient ways always to be both productive and compassionate. We need to find ways to offer decent jobs with decent wages for everyone and better ways to attack problems of poverty, greed, crime, fraud and abuse.
Find or implement the known ways? The ways that work, that have shown to have worked. Sure corporations can be abusive but they are not the ultimate evil and are not responsible for all of the problems and eliminating corporate structure or private enterprise will not solve our problems. Idealistic Communism was the latest approach to getting rid of private enterprise but it has also been a failure.
Private enterprise is good. Corporate structure is not. Public enterprise is better. As I've noted previously... a system is only as good as it's implementation. There is a basic argument underlying the OP, and it is one of necessity. The issues are complex and varied and can't be addressed with
simple fixes. It does not follow from the fact that the problems have grown complex, that there are no simple solutions. We need to improve on all fronts.
Accountability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gotta love the "nanny state" ideology...lol
The idea that the government offering help to the down trodden, disabled, elderly, etc... creates all these lazy no goods that never work and just want to live off the government. Not saying that there are not a few people who may be like this but majority of people who get help really need it and there is no reason to stigmatize them and make yourself look bad in the process....lol I think some also use this terminology for the government regulating everything. Which is necessary, a good example is the housing bubble that burst. No regulation there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The housing bubble had regulations, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of loans that actually followed the regulations were not the ones that initially defaulted causing the collapse. Now, it's been a while since I looked at the numbers, so they may have changed in the past couple years. But the collapse itself did not begin from loans following the regs. Greed and the quick profit regardless of the consequences... no accountability. That was the problem.
Some loan officers, and many if not most mortgage brokers, knowingly offered unqualified citizens a mortgage that they would never be able to afford. So, because they recognized this very high probability for default, they began selling those bad loans to hedge fund managers who again sold the bad loans on the market. All the while making money hand over fist. The loans went into default... as expected, the shareholders went belly up, the undisciplined banks went belly up, and the merchants walked away with incredible profits and no accountability. That was the problem. There was no vested interest in the success of the loans to begin with by those who were setting them up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gotta love the "nanny state" ideology...lol The idea that the government offering help to the down trodden, disabled, elderly, etc... creates all these lazy no goods that never work and just want to live off the government. Not saying that there are not a few people who may be like this but majority of people who get help really need it and there is no reason to stigmatize them and make yourself look bad in the process....lol I think some also use this terminology for the government regulating everything. Which is necessary, a good example is the housing bubble that burst. No regulation there. What was Tim Geithner's job at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? The Federal Reserve Bank of New York works within the Federal Reserve System and with other public and private sector institutions to foster the safety, soundness and vitality of our economic and financial systems. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is one of 12 regional Reserve Banks which, together with the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., make up the Federal Reserve System. The Fed, as the system is commonly called, is an independent governmental entity created by Congress in 1913 to serve as the central bank of the United States. It is responsible for formulating and executing monetary policy, supervising and regulating depository institutions, providing an elastic currency, assisting the federal government's financing operations, and serving as the banker for the U.S. government. http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/whatwedo.html You say there was no regulation? I find it interesting that the person responsible for regulation is now the Treasury Secretary. Ironic isn't it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The housing bubble had regulations, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of loans that actually followed the regulations were not the ones that initially defaulted causing the collapse. Now, it's been a while since I looked at the numbers, so they may have changed in the past couple years. But the collapse itself did not begin from loans following the regs. Greed and the quick profit regardless of the consequences... no accountability. That was the problem. Some loan officers, and many if not most mortgage brokers, knowingly offered unqualified citizens a mortgage that they would never be able to afford. So, because they recognized this very high probability for default, they began selling those bad loans to hedge fund managers who again sold the bad loans on the market. All the while making money hand over fist. The loans went into default... as expected, the shareholders went belly up, the undisciplined banks went belly up, and the merchants walked away with incredible profits and no accountability. That was the problem. There was no vested interest in the success of the loans to begin with by those who were setting them up. Regulation on who got a loan would have stopped that and also made the initial banks responsible before they loaded it off to someone else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps Dragoness...
-- Invictus, Not ironic so much as very problematic. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps Dragoness... -- Invictus, Not ironic so much as very problematic.
I agree 100%. Government Sachs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The housing bubble had regulations, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of loans that actually followed the regulations were not the ones that initially defaulted causing the collapse. Now, it's been a while since I looked at the numbers, so they may have changed in the past couple years. But the collapse itself did not begin from loans following the regs. Greed and the quick profit regardless of the consequences... no accountability. That was the problem. Some loan officers, and many if not most mortgage brokers, knowingly offered unqualified citizens a mortgage that they would never be able to afford. So, because they recognized this very high probability for default, they began selling those bad loans to hedge fund managers who again sold the bad loans on the market. All the while making money hand over fist. The loans went into default... as expected, the shareholders went belly up, the undisciplined banks went belly up, and the merchants walked away with incredible profits and no accountability. That was the problem. There was no vested interest in the success of the loans to begin with by those who were setting them up. Regulation on who got a loan would have stopped that and also made the initial banks responsible before they loaded it off to someone else. thats funny... they had such regulations before clinton, and clinton and fanny mae got together and changed the regulations for it... 12 years later, an 800 billion dollar stimulus has to save fannie mae, then they use that money to give the top execs. bonusus... nice liberal way of doing things... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The housing bubble had regulations, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of loans that actually followed the regulations were not the ones that initially defaulted causing the collapse. Now, it's been a while since I looked at the numbers, so they may have changed in the past couple years. But the collapse itself did not begin from loans following the regs. Greed and the quick profit regardless of the consequences... no accountability. That was the problem. Some loan officers, and many if not most mortgage brokers, knowingly offered unqualified citizens a mortgage that they would never be able to afford. So, because they recognized this very high probability for default, they began selling those bad loans to hedge fund managers who again sold the bad loans on the market. All the while making money hand over fist. The loans went into default... as expected, the shareholders went belly up, the undisciplined banks went belly up, and the merchants walked away with incredible profits and no accountability. That was the problem. There was no vested interest in the success of the loans to begin with by those who were setting them up. Regulation on who got a loan would have stopped that and also made the initial banks responsible before they loaded it off to someone else. thats funny... they had such regulations before clinton, and clinton and fanny mae got together and changed the regulations for it... 12 years later, an 800 billion dollar stimulus has to save fannie mae, then they use that money to give the top execs. bonusus... nice liberal way of doing things... You need to get over the liberal boogie man, he doesn't exist or didn't your mama tell you? Bush did the stimulus, is he a liberal? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 07/13/11 10:20 PM
|
|
eeeeeny meeny miney:
thats funny... they had such regulations before clinton, and clinton and fanny mae got together and changed the regulations for it Apparently the following was missed? The housing bubble had regulations, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of loans that actually followed the regulations were not the ones that initially defaulted causing the collapse. Now, it's been a while since I looked at the numbers, so they may have changed in the past couple years. But the collapse itself did not begin from loans following the regs.
The changes in the regs were not the problem. The regs not being followed caused the problem. The fact that the loan agents held no personal accountability, nor vested interest in the loans being satisfiable was the problem. For if a loan agent has some vested interest in created successful loans, they would be much less likely to offer a loan to s/he who does not qualify. Vested interest. Accountability. Union. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nation first. A nation is group of people working cooperatively at the betterment of the nation as a whole.
We're on the wrong path. Wake up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The housing bubble had regulations, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of loans that actually followed the regulations were not the ones that initially defaulted causing the collapse. Now, it's been a while since I looked at the numbers, so they may have changed in the past couple years. But the collapse itself did not begin from loans following the regs. Greed and the quick profit regardless of the consequences... no accountability. That was the problem. Some loan officers, and many if not most mortgage brokers, knowingly offered unqualified citizens a mortgage that they would never be able to afford. So, because they recognized this very high probability for default, they began selling those bad loans to hedge fund managers who again sold the bad loans on the market. All the while making money hand over fist. The loans went into default... as expected, the shareholders went belly up, the undisciplined banks went belly up, and the merchants walked away with incredible profits and no accountability. That was the problem. There was no vested interest in the success of the loans to begin with by those who were setting them up. Regulation on who got a loan would have stopped that and also made the initial banks responsible before they loaded it off to someone else. thats funny... they had such regulations before clinton, and clinton and fanny mae got together and changed the regulations for it... 12 years later, an 800 billion dollar stimulus has to save fannie mae, then they use that money to give the top execs. bonusus... nice liberal way of doing things... You need to get over the liberal boogie man, he doesn't exist or didn't your mama tell you? Bush did the stimulus, is he a liberal? bush wasn't, but clinton was why are you trying to get off track here? republicans didn't cause the housing bubble to burst, it was all liberals... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...republicans didn't cause the housing bubble to burst, it was all liberals...
Nonsense. What would it take for this claim to be true? Every human activity involved would have to have been acted out by a "liberal", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Again with the divisiveness that flows from a literal ignorance of the situation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...republicans didn't cause the housing bubble to burst, it was all liberals...
Nonsense. What would it take for this claim to be true? Every human activity involved would have to have been acted out by a "liberal", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Again with the divisiveness that flows from a literal ignorance of the situation.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...republicans didn't cause the housing bubble to burst, it was all liberals...
Nonsense. What would it take for this claim to be true? Every human activity involved would have to have been acted out by a "liberal", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Again with the divisiveness that flows from a literal ignorance of the situation. like i care what you believe, smartass. all you have to do is look it up, instead of being a smartass with me... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Thu 07/14/11 09:38 PM
|
|
I need not look up anything to know that that claim is false, because I know what it would take for it to be true. That part must have been missed.
I appreciate it when someone knows how to string words together in an intelligible and coherent fashion. It is even better when we can know whether or not they are true. 
Edit: There's my grammar again... I gotta quit saying that, cause every time I do I misspell something.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's talk about the housing bubble, what set it up to happen and how, what actions caused the inflated pricing, what actions increased it, who benefitted from it, who actively pursued it's benefits, who argued for it, who argued against it.
Who made money from it, and who lost their ***. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 07/15/11 02:34 PM
|
|
Gotta love the "nanny state" ideology...lol The idea that the government offering help to the down trodden, disabled, elderly, etc... creates all these lazy no goods that never work and just want to live off the government. Not saying that there are not a few people who may be like this but majority of people who get help really need it and there is no reason to stigmatize them and make yourself look bad in the process....lol I think some also use this terminology for the government regulating everything. Which is necessary, a good example is the housing bubble that burst. No regulation there. Federal assistance is not what we mean when we say the "nanny state". A nanny takes care of you, knows whats best, and answers that you should do something because he/she says so, not becuase it is the logically best decision. In many things the government has turned into a police state, where all things are regulated by the state. We are told what to wear, or not wear, we are told the police have no obligation to protect us but stripped us our ability to protect ourselves, we are told to go to court to settle our grievances, but the poor cannot afford proper representation. We are told what we can not eat, not smoke, not drink, we are told we cannot sell lemonade on the street without a permit. The state is all powerful, and you cannot argue with them, the answer is always becuase I said so . . . Not becuase it makes sense. The rich and powerful have all the say no matter the logic behind it. All "wars" need to end, the war on drugs, the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. We need to stop this police the world mentality and think about what is best right here in our own backyards. THAT is the nanny state mentality, it dulls the senses, it takes away personal responsibility, and makes us meek. --Creative is right however, we have to stop thinking in terms of liberal, and conservative. For two real reasons, one is division will not fix our country, the second is that these terms really have almost no meaning anymore, anyone on both sides is a mixture of political ideology anyways. Let's talk about the housing bubble, what set it up to happen and how, what actions caused the inflated pricing, what actions increased it, who benefitted from it, who actively pursued it's benefits, who argued for it, who argued against it. Who made money from it, and who lost their ***. One facet is the artificial lowering of interest rates. The fed can artificially keep interest rates low when really the markets cannot support more lending. When leading gets risky, it should dry up. Prices will then drop becuase new purchases are not occurring. Supply and demand kicks in and will settle the market into a natural medium, this however does not benefit the rich only the stability of the market. It is the very instability of the market which allows for GIANT profits. However that is only one facet of the problem. One of the guiding principles of proper capitalism is that when you take risk, you should have to deal with the consequences. I am not saying the bail outs did not help, but it is like taking a pen and doing a street side Tracheotomy becuase some guy tried to eat his entire sandwich in one bite. The guy shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place, but since he is we have to do the Tracheotomy. We cannot allow to big to fail to occur, we need to enforce anti trust laws in the financial markets, the insurance markets, and all markets. Many small holders of capital mean more completion, better pricing for the low income of us, and no too big to fail which brings back the caution that risk provides. We are currently NOT enforcing many of the regulation laws that are on the books . . . why? The corporatism, the corrupt, NPR had a good interview the other day that described this issue. Our politicians are WAY too in bed with big corporate interests, they scare the prosecutors into inaction for fear of rocking the boat of big business. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In short, todays supply and demand 'capitalism' is socialism for the very wealthy and capitalism for the rest of us.
All we must do is look. |
|
|
|
|
