DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
It is fine, you have yet to refute on assertion I have made.
In the end. True Capitalism > All.
Capitalism: The real cure all
- Thread starter DAdams91982
- Start date
It is fine, you have yet to refute on assertion I have made.
In the end. True Capitalism > All.
southpaw23
Well-known member
Truth be told I think you refuted yourself, I just sat back and watched. But hey I love the effort in researching your own claims, I mean wow a youtube video IMPRESSIVE...who made that video your neighbor?
We can end it here, but for future reference I think it's important to be able to substantiate one's own claims, it speaks to credibility and knowledge on a given issue, it shows a depth of knowledge, not simply an attempt to rehash TALKING POINTS. Good luck.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I do not need pointers from someone so very condescending.
What exactly are you looking for? You have made no statements yet.
I said the CRA was the initiator of the crisis... you said, no it was not. There really is nothing there. You presented no real argument. I posted a video because I agree with it, not as evidence.
So get off your high horse there and bring an actual argument, or move on... instead of "No it didn't, you don't understand".
stxnas
Well-known member
When a wise man argues with a fool it becomes difficult for on-lookers to distinguish one from the other.
...and he who stand on toilet, is high on pot.
~Confucius
I don't think either of you are idiots, but I believe you both get my point.
How about you two agree to disagree. You're filling up my inbox, lol!
...and he who stand on toilet, is high on pot.
~Confucius
I don't think either of you are idiots, but I believe you both get my point.
How about you two agree to disagree. You're filling up my inbox, lol!
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
When a wise man argues with a fool it becomes difficult for on-lookers to distinguish one from the other.
...and he who stand on toilet, is high on pot.
~Confucius
I don't think either of you are idiots, but I believe you both get my point.
How about you two agree to disagree. You're filling up my inbox, lol!
Man with hand in pocket feeling ****y!
southpaw23
Well-known member
Perfect we have come to realization that you were merely representing your opinions, as facts, and to support those opinions you sourced a youtube video.
For future reference, no one is going to substantiate your opinions for you, that is your job and your job only (this isn't the movie my cousin vinny).
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
In the future, refute something someone says so they can present you with the information you want... saying you are wrong adds nothing to the conversation.
Glad we could clear that up.
southpaw23
Well-known member
My mother called me an idiot once...once. =)When a wise man argues with a fool it becomes difficult for on-lookers to distinguish one from the other.
...and he who stand on toilet, is high on pot.
~Confucius
I don't think either of you are idiots, but I believe you both get my point.
How about you two agree to disagree. You're filling up my inbox, lol!
southpaw23
Well-known member
Not sure how to intelligently refute an opinion, but in any case wanna hug it out?
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
CDB
Registered User
There is no such thing as pure capitalism just as there is no pure socialism, which is probably what Nitrox was getting at. Practical implementation and success. And capitalism at its core is about private property, not growing business or any such thing. Private property and security in that property inevitably leads to voluntary exchanges as people attempt to accomplish goals, and that's how wealth grows. However, saying capitalism is about the expansion/growth of business is exactly the kind of misinterpretation of the system that leads to corporatism.
southpaw23
Well-known member
There is only way to fix this friendship, we have to go see the Expendables...twice.How about a little Kumbaya?
CDB
Registered User
A nation that relentlessly plunders other nations will have a high standard of living, at least for a while. Does that make that a desirable model to follow? What's more, how does one measure a standard of living? Like all other economic indicators, it's a purely subjective judgement with a shroud of jargon and Greek symbols to make it look 'objective' and 'scientific'. The US enjoyed one of the highest standards of living for the last century while we were on course to destroy ourselves.
In light of the above, so what? I'm assuming you are refering to the largely Scandanavian countries, if so here's Invalid Link Removed. More to the point, the countries considered more socialist than the US are often so only in concept, not in reality. One example not brought up in that line of posts as I recal is Britain and insurance, where rules for the latter are much freer and innovation has been much greater than in the US. Which is why if you want unusual insurance, you go to Europe. Nor can it be ignored that before many of them made the turn to heavily mixed systems like we have in the US, they almost all experienced great surges of industrialization similar to the US and built a nice foundation of captial which they are, like us, currently eating through.
CDB
Registered User
This is a poor analysis because it is incomplete. Presumably greed is operative at all times in all sectors, the question needs to be asked how it got so far in this one area.
No, it didn't. Clinton/Greenspan gave us the bubble that popped and that required a new bubble to stave off. Looking at the boom and the bust in isolation is incorrect since the loose policies which generate the boom sew the seeds for the bust. Giving Clinton/Greenspan a pass would be like beating the crap out of a car, selling it once it was on the verge of falling apart, and then blaming the latest owner for the sum total of all the abuse it received and the results of that abuse.
All due respect, if you honestly believe the budget was balanced I have a bridge to sell you. Toll booths and all.
Clinton's balanced budget and 'surplus' were based on projections that the boom he and Greenspan started would go forever. Which everyone except congress and Paul Krugman seemed to know was not going to happen.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Which started under Clinton with the NASDAQ crash. People seem to forget the NASDAQ still isn't at the same level it was in 99-2000....The Internet bubble was based on perception much like the real estate bubble. It had nothing to do with economic philosophy. It had to do with people on Wall Street being smarter than the legislature (they exploited the CRA). This idea that Clinton balanced the budget is a joke. Clinton did absolutely nothing to create a surplus. He balanced the budget the same way Bush had 52 straight months of job growth....an economic bubble created when both Wall Street and the government profited on perception....which created massive amounts of tax revenue. The the bubbles burst.
Wall Street could not have done the damage it did if it did not have the backing of the federal government guaranteeing mortgages.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
southpaw23
Well-known member
You're saying a lot here, so I'll start with the first question. Explain the bubble that you believe Clinton and Greenspan created, how was it created, by implementation of what policies SPECIFICALLY?
Fluctuations in the economy are expected, since it is cyclical. I'm not sure I follow your logic, you're criticizing the economic boom under Clinton, or conversely his approach in achieving those results?
With respect to greed, I agree it's not something that's tangible or easily measured, it would have to be judged against certain policies in place at the time, allowing for such abuses.
southpaw23
Well-known member
Everything is based on speculation, that's how the market operates. That is why there has been these wild fluctuations throughout the past years. Fear and uncertainty drive the markets, so investors bail and these companies, which are public holdings are devalued. It's the nature of the game.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
When Fannie and Freddie own more than half of the 11 trillion dollar mortgage market, you eliminate a large chunk of that speculation.
Come down here in SWFL and count the number of houses that are Fannie and Freddie owned selling for more than half of what they were bought for and tell me its the free market in operation.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
I think we all took it in the Fannie on this one.
CDB
Registered User
Specifically the ridicuous expansion of money and credit during the Clinton years which specifically fed the stock market bubble, which you'll recall was foundering at the time Bush took office. Bush, an equal dip**** to Clinton, set about making sure we had a nice shallow recession by doing whatever he could by himself and via the fed to feed the housing bubble. See Invalid Link Removed for a nice summary.
Boom sews the seeds for bust. Lots of free money and credit and stupid policies as to where that money gets directed makes people feel rich for a while. Stock market booms, consumers buy ten flat screens a piece, or ten homes a piece as 'investments', etc. Eventually the free money and credit has to stop flowing or the Fed would have to explain why a Snickers bar costs $1000. Once the money and credit stop flowing: consumers find they're in over the heads in debt; companies have begun investment projects they can't continue, the economy pops like a balloon and does fart circles around the country while Democrats and Republicans blame each other for what they both did and always do at the first availabl opportunity: take every possible action to pop up an illusory 'prosperity' even if i means mortgaging the next thousand generations to pay for it.
You missed the point. Greed is operative everywhere and at all times. So the issue isn't greed, the issue is the policy. Our modern world would collapse without computers, yet Intel and its competitors don't seem to be demanding all that much per processor, nor are their actions leading the world to ruin. We all need food to survive, yet it remains affordable despite the well demonstrated greed of farmers over the centuries. What's more, greed is counterbalanced by fear of loss. The greedy don't just want more, they want to keep what they have. It's the latter that engenders caution and stops greed from destroying and otherwise sound process of voluntary exchange in other areas in the economy.
Now, if the greedy were to have been enabled, say by someone not to be mentioned... the government/Fed... giving them the ability to manufacture ****loads of bad debt, flooding the market with easy money and credit to allow for the purchasing of said bad debt, making consumers not give a **** about what banks do with their money by 'insuring' it through the FDIC, and then applying a balmy implicit bailout for the fat cats when the inevitable **** storm hit, well then yeah, under those circumstances greed could be a problem.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
After stating the stock market was suffering from "irrational exuberance" in 96 he basically sat by and did nothing. He didn't raise rates until the year 2000.
Its pretty easy for the fed to create a nice bubble keeping rates so low. Add government backing to those loans at low rates and you get a nice real estate bubble.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Clintons Surplus:
Notice a trend?
Invalid Link Removed
NASDAQ
Invalid Link Removed
One third of ALL revenue came form capital gains taxes. That's how you create a "surplus". Clinton did nothing to create it...he rode the back of an emerging industry that didn't exist in the 80's...and it was based on bull**** valuations.
Notice a trend?
Invalid Link Removed
NASDAQ
Invalid Link Removed
One third of ALL revenue came form capital gains taxes. That's how you create a "surplus". Clinton did nothing to create it...he rode the back of an emerging industry that didn't exist in the 80's...and it was based on bull**** valuations.
southpaw23
Well-known member
I agree with you to a certain extent. A lot of people took out loans which they could not afford, or did not fully understand at the time. Unfortunately our economy subsists off of revolving credit. There is a lot of blame to go around. The majority of those who took out loans were first time home buyers, many of whom didn't fully understand how credit works or what they were getting themselves into. Were they victims or just uninformed? I think it's a combination of both. It's a complicated issue. You can employ many different strategies in order to stimulate the economy, one of which is spending, or enhancing existing infrastructure with up to date technologies. A lot of skilled labor would be put to use, or sit back and allow the free markets to ride it out, which again would force more people out of there homes, since unemployment is still high. A domino effect would be begin, and health care costs would rise exponentially, further exacerbating the problem. We need to develop a new model or augment the existing model. We need to start manufacturing goods again and invest in technology which is at the heart of innovation.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Its amazing that you suggest more spending when its been a complete and utter failure.
southpaw23
Well-known member
That's not at all what I said, but feel free to interpret it that way. I simply stated that spending was one option, out of many.
I prefer to examine all viable options. From the conservative side, it appears the only plan in place, is to sit tight and ride it out. It's okay to be critical of a plan, that's part of a healthy democracy, however, it's quite another thing to be critical of a plan, when you yourself (repubs) don't have one to begin with. I'll play devil's advocate...more tax cuts for wealthiest among us, hoping that with that incentive, they will then hire more people. In theory that should work, in practical terms we saw how that played out under Bush. In any event, no one party has the "answer" to get us out of this mess. I know for certain when the repubs pick up seats, things will still be the same or worse...mark my words we'll talking about this months from now.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
You do know the tax will remain for families making 250K or more? Realize that 250K isn't what most think it is, and it will hurt small businesses incredibly. How many small business owners fall above that 250K, and how many people they employ? The left plays like 250K is the magic number of the rich.
Spending has not helped us, how can you spend your way out of debt? Something you wouldn't practice in your own household, why is it magically the answer for the country? Doing nothing is the thing to do... LET CAPITALISM do what it does best and phase out the weak like it should have done in the first place. I refer everyone back to post 1.
southpaw23
Well-known member
In the meantime companies will continue to lay off skilled labor, resulting in loss of benefits including health care, which drives up insurance premiums, while people continue to foreclose on their homes, that sounds like a great plan, living the dream there. That is of course unless you make less than 250,000 a year.
Things begin to look a little different when viewed in there proper context. I work for a small investment firm and it's been growing rapidly for the past 2 years. I had a father who was laid off from a major securities firm, that was bought out at the height of the recession, consequently he lost his health care benefits and he's a diabetic. I have a mother whose company was recently bought out by an international company, and she along with many others will be laid off as a result. You now have a couple a few years shy of retirement age, with no health insurance, both with medical problems. You oversimplify the approach of "lets allow capitalism to devour the weak and new markets will begin to emerge". And to all these people who did things the right way, how do you explain that theory to them, when they are in dire straits now?
The repubs will get their turn soon enough, and I guarantee you they won't be successful with respect to turning around the economy, recent history points to that.
southpaw23
Well-known member
If they aren't republicans, they certainly take a conservative approach to these issues. Libertarians might be more extreme in certain instances.
southpaw23
Well-known member
Sounds ominous...foreshadowing to a bad sequel. I'm kidding of course. Look there has to be a viable plan in order to foster economic growth and then sustain it. I will support any party candidate with a plan that seems reasonable in approaching those goals, however, I will not support any party that offers "no plan" apart from just saying..."NO".
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
That IS what you said. You just said it again. You think spending is an option and I'm amazed that you think it still is considering the complete failure its been. Its not a matter of interpretation.... you said its an option!
Guess you haven't read Paul Ryans plan. Don't let the facts get in the way...
Once again, you are mistaken simply because you haven't researched the subject adequately.
Do you ignore history or the facts?
Bush's tax cuts lowered the rates among all brackets. Over 50% of Americans DON'T PAY TAXES. Lower and middle class brackets pay less now then they ever have within the past 80 years.
Trickle down economics had nothing to do with the bubble bursting on the real estate market. You sound like a pundit repeating political talking points.
By your analogy raising taxes on that bracket causes the same thing when the tech bubble burst due to Clintons economic policies.
You can't have it both ways. THe point is irrelevant and has no bearing on anything. In addition nobody is stating more tax cuts for the wealthy...they are for keeping in place EXISTING tax law which will effect EVERYONE.
Of course you will if you actually believe anything significant would happen in "months".
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
southpaw23
Well-known member
Ironic how a party can come up with a plan,when elections are right around the corner.Look, a whole site dedicated to NO
Invalid Link Removed
When Bush was in office and prior to Dems having the majority in both the House and Senate, those same plans appeared to be the best kept secret in America, since there were no plans to implement them.
southpaw23
Well-known member
Invalid Link RemovedLook, a whole site dedicated to NO
Invalid Link Removed
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I don't understand how anyone can think we can spend out of debt. No one would do that in their own household but feel okay spending our childrens money to give the ol college effort on the national stage.
Again, letting the market eat the weak and finally be allowed to reach homeostasis is the only way to have long term stability. Capitalism has it's own internal controls for this very problem. This propping up a business to appease the minority while hurting the majority is like dripping Heparin on an open wound to close it.
As for republicans with a plan... please research Ron Paul, he has proposed plans time and time again.
It is time to get away from the notion of inequality and start taxing everyone equally. Stand up the Fair Tax already and tax everyone at the register, the deficit will start shrinking pretty rapidly since we don't have to pay out to the unconstitutional IRS and more funds will be garnered that way.
And to bring up employment, why would a company expand right now with their top tier facing more taxes, more health care cost, possible energy taxes on the horizon, and even a VAT proposed a few months ago.. there is no incentive there and a reason jobs are taken across sea's which widens the trading deficit even more contributing more to the problem. Not to mention capital gains raising from 15% to 23%.
Again, letting the market eat the weak and finally be allowed to reach homeostasis is the only way to have long term stability. Capitalism has it's own internal controls for this very problem. This propping up a business to appease the minority while hurting the majority is like dripping Heparin on an open wound to close it.
As for republicans with a plan... please research Ron Paul, he has proposed plans time and time again.
It is time to get away from the notion of inequality and start taxing everyone equally. Stand up the Fair Tax already and tax everyone at the register, the deficit will start shrinking pretty rapidly since we don't have to pay out to the unconstitutional IRS and more funds will be garnered that way.
And to bring up employment, why would a company expand right now with their top tier facing more taxes, more health care cost, possible energy taxes on the horizon, and even a VAT proposed a few months ago.. there is no incentive there and a reason jobs are taken across sea's which widens the trading deficit even more contributing more to the problem. Not to mention capital gains raising from 15% to 23%.
southpaw23
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Wait... did you just link to the huffington post? You got all uppity when I liked a video?
Also, i have been saying all along to offset the cost... less spending. How our deficit has over quadrupled each year since Bush left office is beyond me. With all that spending unemployment still went up, and now we enter stagnation/deflation. Yet we still keep tacking the costs on the bottom line.... I believe we are entering the definition of insanity at some point.
southpaw23
Well-known member
It's simply reporting on an interview conducted on Meet the Press, with Alan Greenspan, which is already public record, quite different than a youtube video created by your neighbor/plumber.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
BS... using the huffington post... my plumber neighbor has quite a bit more credibility. Why not just ask Rachel Maddow, add's just as much credibility to your argument.
southpaw23
Well-known member
I'll take the "educated" opinion of a Rhodes Scholar over that of a plumber. Additionally, disregard the huffingtonpost as being the source, simply refer to the interview transcripts of Alan Greenspan recently on Meet the Press.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Oh lord.. there you go with your logical fallacy of poisoning the well again when you know nothing about the creator of said video, and backing an opinion columnist when earlier you said opinions were useless.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Alan Greenspan doesn't even need to be discredited as he has been a major driving force in the problems we have today. Why not ask hitler how to fix the religous issues we face today while we are at it?
southpaw23
Well-known member
And by backing an opinion columnist, are you referring to Alan Greenspan, because the only intent behind that article was to convey the thoughts of Greenspan regarding the Bush Tax Cuts, which he made clear on Meet the Press, another misinterpretation of a source which you clearly did not read.
Actually I said "your" opinions are useless, as they are all grounded in some rigid ideology.
southpaw23
Well-known member
Right
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Right
Glad we could agree on something.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Once again, you're wrong. People such as Ron Paul and many libertarian groups have been stating the same thing since 2004...as well as many Republicans who were not fans of the "compassionate conservative".
Just because you don't read about it or see it on huffington post doensn't mean it didn't exist.