- 21,365
- 812
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
good thread, this is where the bread and butter is when it comes to NT. i'll comment more in-depth later, gotta run.
Rexanglorum's Economic Manifesto
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rexanglorum,
- Start date
- 160
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
definitely good insight. ECON majors FTW
- 4,951
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
So am I still allowed to get as rich as I want to be?
- 2,670
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- 538
- 12
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2002
In for later.
- 9,996
- 200
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
wait, so you are saying that central planning did not help South Korea and Taiwan?
- 3,426
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
This is a historic time in the history of modern economics. Much common economic wisdom and decades old practices are being turned on their heads. The Globaleconomy is evolving on the fly at warp speed and when the smoke clears, many new paradigms will emerge on the global landscape. Its truly exciting to me.
A lot of the knee jerk reactions and commentary, that hold rigid and antiquated economic theory close to the chest, is nothing more than empty banter at thispoint. A natural progression is occurring...the 70's - 80's saw employers focus on the effect of labor unionization, that movement collapsed....the1990's then saw the corporation/firm take the reigns, taking on many of the responsibilities long held by unions...inevitably, that movement has nowcollapsed...pushed towards implosion by a lack of critical regulation and/or oversight, festering corruption and the real emergence of globalization kickingdown our doors....now we are almost coming full circle once again. Government regulation is laying the foundation for a new truly global market place and amore streamlined American corporate structure.
The economic framework set by the Obama administration is critically important to American relevance in the 21st century.
A lot of the knee jerk reactions and commentary, that hold rigid and antiquated economic theory close to the chest, is nothing more than empty banter at thispoint. A natural progression is occurring...the 70's - 80's saw employers focus on the effect of labor unionization, that movement collapsed....the1990's then saw the corporation/firm take the reigns, taking on many of the responsibilities long held by unions...inevitably, that movement has nowcollapsed...pushed towards implosion by a lack of critical regulation and/or oversight, festering corruption and the real emergence of globalization kickingdown our doors....now we are almost coming full circle once again. Government regulation is laying the foundation for a new truly global market place and amore streamlined American corporate structure.
The economic framework set by the Obama administration is critically important to American relevance in the 21st century.
- 3,667
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2007
Critically important for whom? Their policy doesn't work and wont work. This isn't a historic time in economics its just history repeating itself,Obama isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before. He and FDR assumed that the Gov't can create jobs which is not true at all, look atFDR's unemployment rate, it never touched lower than 14%, Hoover made the same mistake. FDR aimed a war on his own country by trying to stop wages andprices with severe Gov't intrusion. People are still losing jobs by the hundreds of thousands and he's saying "I'm creating or saving X amountof jobs", it is impossible to measure that. You dont raise taxes in a recession, its a fact when you tax businesses they cut back on labor, people buyless and there you have further cutbacks. The only way to get out of debt is growth and there is not growth, unemployment is at 9.4% and Obama says he wants toincrease the spending? Obama wants to end the war, that's great, but what jobs are their for the soldiers? There isnt any.
GM and the other US car companies went out of business because of regulation on making cars more fuel efficient based on something that cant be proven, highproduction costs, high wages to union workers, and union worker benefits.
Social Welfare:
There was pressure on FDR to start the Social Security program from people who they thought the "people" should have, look back to my original poston page one. Intellectuals fooled the American people, its such a misleading program, it's a program based on a bad tax, like a flat tax on wages up to amaximum with unequal system of giving benefits. Where is the Constitutional authority for it? Where is the representation for it? The Gov't illegallyconfiscated your money to redibstribute to the masses without your consent.
Medicare and Medicaid provided a direct subsidy for medical care. The cost grew much more rapidly than originally estimated-as the cost of any handoutinvariably does. Legislation cannot repeal the nonlegislated law of demand and supply: the lower the price, the greater the quantity demanded; at a zero price,the quantity demanded becomes infinite. Some method of rationing must be substituted for price, which invariably means administrative rationing.
How do you fix it? Repeal the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care, terminate Medicare and Medicaid, deregulate most insurance, and restrict therole of the government, preferably state and local rather than federal, to financing care for the hard cases. This reform would solve the problem of thecurrently medically uninsured, eliminate most of the bureaucratic structure, free medical practitioners from an increasingly heavy burden of paperwork andregulation, and lead many employers and employees to convert employer-provided medical care into a higher cash wage. The taxpayer would save money becausetotal government costs would plummet.
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
Critically important for America...
Cut the myopia
Globalization is here and its for real. The internet alone is eroding Central Banking influence and traditional methods of currency exchange.
Name another time in history, when the economies of the world's nations were so interdependent?
Soldiers are never out of jobs in this neo-imperialistic climate. They will be moved from Iraq to whatever other far flung corner of the Earth that it makeseconomic sense to occupy.
GM went out of business because they had a poor business model and horrible products that had no appeal to their target demographic.
The Constitutional authority for social security or any other social welfare program is the first two articles of the Constitution backed up courtinterpretation.
As a medical finance professional...your solution to the health care dilemma is laughable at best and reeks of extreme naivety/ignorance like most of yourrants on NT.
If things were that simple...there would be no problems in American society.
America is at the forefront of innovation in many things, including the medical field.
To maintain and support that status and our complex sectors, feasible systems of organization, management and regulation have to be established or chaos wouldreign.
As a very basic example....the burden of world class pharmaceutical and medical supply R&D could not stand on its own and continue to progress at itscurrent pace without government subsidies.
Those critical subsidies alone cause a chain reaction in the price equilibrium balance between medical institutions and pharmaceutical/medical supplycompanies.
Medicaid/Medicare is the great balancer.
Reform is needed, not removal. What is happening in the health care field is that the poisons of politics is seeping into the economic mechanisms and theFederal government is essentially shooting themselves in the foot. "Big Pharma" lobbying is propping up monopolistic practices, siphoning off fundsfor other needy recipients in the industry...In turn they can and do unfairly inflate prices charged to medical providers for exclusive products...Medicalproviders inflate bills, run gamuts unnecessary tests and overcharge the patient to break even...The patient is covered by Medicare/Medicaid and the bill isfooted by the Fed through our tax dollars...a double whammy for the health care budget. The longer that this rackeet continues, the bigger the budget willballoon. Serious reform is needed but you can't take away Medicare/Medicaid/government intervention and expect the quality of care of our Health caresystem to be preserved.
Regulation is a necessary evil fam.
Cut the myopia
Globalization is here and its for real. The internet alone is eroding Central Banking influence and traditional methods of currency exchange.
Name another time in history, when the economies of the world's nations were so interdependent?
Soldiers are never out of jobs in this neo-imperialistic climate. They will be moved from Iraq to whatever other far flung corner of the Earth that it makeseconomic sense to occupy.
GM went out of business because they had a poor business model and horrible products that had no appeal to their target demographic.
The Constitutional authority for social security or any other social welfare program is the first two articles of the Constitution backed up courtinterpretation.
As a medical finance professional...your solution to the health care dilemma is laughable at best and reeks of extreme naivety/ignorance like most of yourrants on NT.
If things were that simple...there would be no problems in American society.
America is at the forefront of innovation in many things, including the medical field.
To maintain and support that status and our complex sectors, feasible systems of organization, management and regulation have to be established or chaos wouldreign.
As a very basic example....the burden of world class pharmaceutical and medical supply R&D could not stand on its own and continue to progress at itscurrent pace without government subsidies.
Those critical subsidies alone cause a chain reaction in the price equilibrium balance between medical institutions and pharmaceutical/medical supplycompanies.
Medicaid/Medicare is the great balancer.
Reform is needed, not removal. What is happening in the health care field is that the poisons of politics is seeping into the economic mechanisms and theFederal government is essentially shooting themselves in the foot. "Big Pharma" lobbying is propping up monopolistic practices, siphoning off fundsfor other needy recipients in the industry...In turn they can and do unfairly inflate prices charged to medical providers for exclusive products...Medicalproviders inflate bills, run gamuts unnecessary tests and overcharge the patient to break even...The patient is covered by Medicare/Medicaid and the bill isfooted by the Fed through our tax dollars...a double whammy for the health care budget. The longer that this rackeet continues, the bigger the budget willballoon. Serious reform is needed but you can't take away Medicare/Medicaid/government intervention and expect the quality of care of our Health caresystem to be preserved.
Regulation is a necessary evil fam.
- 36,563
- 11,281
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Rex I decided to post this in the thread to let people read some of my ideas on it (NO CLIFF NOTES) but any what seems to be harsh tonesare not directed at you.
Intro
Harmful
While I do agree that complete socialism is bad, socialism in some areas has been a way of life in America and every civilization (police,fire, social acts (welfare, public housing, some drug rehab centers (not all are gov. sponsored), prisons). Socialism tries to promote equal opportunity inmost cases which something countries like America need and do not adequately give enough of. I think like a 70-80% to a 20-30% capitalism to socialism ratio isnot wrong and is exactly what we need. What we are doing in the economy now is for the most part in the form of socialism. Obama is not a complete socialist byany stretch of the word. Also when did socialism become a bad word like Communism and Fascism? Socialism still breeds inequality of results while trying tobreed equality of opportunity. Something this contry fails to do on the later but communism does equality of both and fascism cuts the chances of both. In noway is socialism close to these two. Anyone who thinks so is a fool. I honestly know you can make the distinction. Obama doesn't want control of the banksor the Big 3 he is trying to get it out of gov. hands ASAP. But things this big and so tied to the success of the country screwed up big time. If we let themgo it will be damaging. Fede fails to acknowledge this at all. No one in these companies seemed to get that they screwed up and people have been telling themthey were screwing up for a while. There was no way out of toning down their influence on the economy and now they have us by the threads and made governmentcontrol of them the only option.
I also think you over analyzed central planning while I think complete central planning will be destructive a good balance is needed.
With the government control of interest there needs to be a max. because no matter if it is houses, cars, credit cars, loans people can be deceived and end upmassively in debt. Credit Card rates can go up as much to high 30's interest no one can sufficiently pay that. Now government shouldn't drop the max to5 but something reasonable that people could pay and companies can still make a profit. Teaser rates should be eliminated and interest rates should go upincrementally by how far you are behind. Not from 5% to 25% in a month because you were a day late.
I think sliding scale taxes would in effect end up being bracket taxes in the end. Something based on personal expenses could easily be cheated. I could bemaking 30 million a year and buy an airplane or rent an airplane for $20mil a year saying I need it because I often fly from city to city in less than a daysnotice for meetings. That leaves $10 mil left to tax then figure out house, food, etc. you could end up only taxing a person making $30 million on $5 million.This isn't just for rich people it can be someone who is making $30k a year saying they need things they don't need, to avoid taxes. In this case weare then left with the government having to step in and determining what people need and don't need and how they should live their life. I think aprogressive bracket tax is the best system we got. I understand where you are coming from with your plan and the general idea I like but will cause unnesscarysquabbling over what is/isn't nesscary and what you do/don't need in life. A flat tax is way to over simplified for tax code. People with obscenewealth often sure off their money to secret banks overseas to avoid a 35% tax, to drop it to say 20%. If we make over $5million dollars a 25% tax, who is tosay they don't hide the money still. It isn't that they are highly taxed it is because they are greedy and don't want to help anyone butthemselves. Greed is the worst thing this country has developed, and has been the cause for many of society's problems.
The rest of part 1 I agree with.
Part 2
It is all subjective what a good standard of living is. To some it is 1.2mil salary 2 houses and 4 cars. To me it is 150k 1 house 2 cars.There was a survey in late 2006 done of 97 countries and their citizens. Many socialists nations have citizens happier than us. Denmark, Sweden, Canada, andSwitzerland. U.S. is 16th and I garuntee that U.S. has slipped further down that list. We have fallen to obscurity in education. Fede thinks putting money intoeducation means that you should stop when a policy didn't work. No Child Left Behind was a foolish policy for education. But at least Bush realized moneyneeded to be spent on education. If your answer to education funding is vouchers you obviously have never lived in a world outside of your head. Inner cityschools need to be fixed not just throw vouchers at them and see what it does. Or sending them to vocational school or more charter schools. Public schoolingneeds to be fixed. What happened was schooling was decent but we didn't think of updating it so we let it go on and go on and when it became a mess peopleassumed kids are dumb now.
Americans don't want 100% capitalism. They want socialism in their lives. Sometimes it makes living day to day for them even possible. People don'twant the Big 3 to fail and the only viable option is gov. intervention. People want socialism where it fits and makes sense. Obama has not done anythingbroadly that hasn't made sense. The logistics we have a conversation but overal no.
Part 3: All I have to say is EXACTLY
Part 4: I agree about regulation that works. But at times the option of choice is not killed by regulation. It is killed by capitalismitself. It is killed because 1 company essentially takes a product or an array of products hostage, while allowing others the chance to duplicate with noavail. The OG product has already cornered and filled the market place. i.e. Apple Ipods. I am not against this and think it is smart business but just lettingit be known.
Too much regulation I agree is bad. It can bring extra cost to the consumer. But at the same time those regulations can keep the cost from getting double whatit's cost to consumers and can also keep the company afloat because without that regulation it will cost them big in 5-10 years (banks)... Things likeinfrastructure do stall things alot but it is for safety. How do we control those costs and keep people safe without cutting minor corners that lead to bigproblems? (Minnesota bridge)
Don't get me started on the military many of those projects are so porked filled it makes pork barrow projects look like toys from the 25cent vendingmachine. They mainly sneak unnessecary bonuses and pay off money around to workers, friends and politicians. Seriously why did Bush or any president need 40presidential Helicopters. 10 maybe. But 40 shows some payoff was going around.
Part 5 : First paragraph in times of good economy and slight recession I agree a monetary policy fueled for maximum employment isdangerous.
Severe or deep recessions/depressions trying to create as much jobs as possible should be done and trying to stabalize your country at the present whileopening up dangers that needs to be dealt with in the futuree is better than leaving it alone to avoid future danger that will cause larger problems in thepresent that will most definately spill into the future.
Price Control- I agree unless it is something that everyone needs (basically all I mean is health care) and things government gives out.
Rent Control- I see your point
Minimum Wage- I agree its intention has not been met 100% and never will be. But the alternative of employers giving whatever wage they want to give is a badidea. It will single handedly kill the retail businesses. It will also lead to anarchy in the economy because millions of jobs will become unworkabale.
Interest Rates- what insurance, credit cards, mortgages, cars, bank loans do is just as bad as loan sharking. They give teaser rates in legal language only thehighly educated and lawyers can understand and if you are late 2 days which could be their error (late mail, company number mistake) your interest can shoot up20%+. If you can't pay for some unforeseen reason your credit is shot and everything is taken. People shouldn't be deceived and spend the rest of theirlives in debt by missing 1 payment.
Also BTW, not sure if this is needed to be directed at you Rex. The CRA has a minute role in the case of the financial collapse. The people that got loans fromthis could still have been rejected and didn't need to be given sub-prime mortgages. Sub-prime is not for the loaners benefit is to boost profit.. Oftentimes the people were tricked into signing these rates even when they could afford paying prime. But the subprime thrives on 1 late payment (that everyone endsup having it happen to them) When the sub prime shot up the interest it killed their credit and made them default or become forclosed. With millions of theseloans that the short sighted banks did at once happened around the same time period it killed the banks bottom line and double take led to the financialcrisis. CRA is not the reason for this current financial crisis. It is the short sighted banks. Every problem of this recession goes back to the banks doingthing for the year's bottom line not caring that it loses 2 dollars for every dollar it made next year.
Back to the matter at hand
Price COntrol- I am not too knowlegable about this in the terms of gas shortage but I see the common sense of the matter. Further in this I absolutely say NOT1 PERSON SHOULD BE HOMELESS OR STARVING IN THIS COUNTRY.
Here is why I hate Reagan and those who believe in his economic philosophy 100% of the time this exact quote "You can't help those who simply will not be helped. One problem that we've had, even in thebest of times, is people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless who are homeless, you might say, by choice."
They think everyone chose to be poor or didn't bust their butts everyday and when they see where capitalism hurt their own brothers (citizensof the same country) They step over them with no sympathy no caring and say they chose that. Exactly Fede's policy of helping only the individual and notthe group. The way you say your policy you don't care about the individual either. Fede you have no idea what this country is. Fede you have no love foryour country and hate this country. So next time you open your mouth shut it before words even leave.
Part 6
I generally agree that weak corporations should be allowed to fail (before you start this is no contradiction to my last statement)... These banks are ahinderence to us. But they are holding America by the balls in a vice grip. They have to much control on the economy and their simultaneous failure more thanlikely will cause the fail of many countries including the U.S. Great patriotism guys.
This isn't some blip on the radar this is the who side of the ship. If you let it fix itself it will sink and all those aboard will die. If you try to fixit yourself you will need to repair it again soon to keep it from breaking open but all you have is a few casualties and damage for the future fix.
I also 100% agree on a mixed economy but regulation is needed fir more things (keeping the collapse of an entire market, preventing another global economywildfire, keeping deception from consumers)
To Fede
your answer to every problem is less regulation, and less government intervention... It is never the Corporations fault. The bank failure that was governmentregulation too? There were no regulations on cars to be more fuel efficient under Bush. So magicially GM become an unprofitable company from the time Obamacame into office until now?
There is a thing called too much regulation and too little no such thing as zero and any to be the difference between financial expansion and financialregression. You also follow the all or nothing philosophy do you know who holds that kind of philosophy? those who do not know what they are talking about. Allcapitalism or it is all socialism? Do you read these economic books or do you look at the cover and the brief description.
Also it says something about a man to constantly accuse those of something they don't do. You accuse me of the Fox News line all the time. You did it whensomeone called me a hippie liberal and not once did I use the word Fox or News..
At your solution to health care it is so absurd I don't evenwant to respond.
Also did you just halfway say Obama should not bring troops home or end a war because we are in a recession? You do know that will kill American Citizensright? Thumbs up for caring about our troops.
You also doknow the government tries to take care of veterans when they get home right.. I hope you are against that because it is government intervention.. Or are youfor it because they are not poor minorities looking for a "handout"?
Intro
Harmful
While I do agree that complete socialism is bad, socialism in some areas has been a way of life in America and every civilization (police,fire, social acts (welfare, public housing, some drug rehab centers (not all are gov. sponsored), prisons). Socialism tries to promote equal opportunity inmost cases which something countries like America need and do not adequately give enough of. I think like a 70-80% to a 20-30% capitalism to socialism ratio isnot wrong and is exactly what we need. What we are doing in the economy now is for the most part in the form of socialism. Obama is not a complete socialist byany stretch of the word. Also when did socialism become a bad word like Communism and Fascism? Socialism still breeds inequality of results while trying tobreed equality of opportunity. Something this contry fails to do on the later but communism does equality of both and fascism cuts the chances of both. In noway is socialism close to these two. Anyone who thinks so is a fool. I honestly know you can make the distinction. Obama doesn't want control of the banksor the Big 3 he is trying to get it out of gov. hands ASAP. But things this big and so tied to the success of the country screwed up big time. If we let themgo it will be damaging. Fede fails to acknowledge this at all. No one in these companies seemed to get that they screwed up and people have been telling themthey were screwing up for a while. There was no way out of toning down their influence on the economy and now they have us by the threads and made governmentcontrol of them the only option.
I also think you over analyzed central planning while I think complete central planning will be destructive a good balance is needed.
With the government control of interest there needs to be a max. because no matter if it is houses, cars, credit cars, loans people can be deceived and end upmassively in debt. Credit Card rates can go up as much to high 30's interest no one can sufficiently pay that. Now government shouldn't drop the max to5 but something reasonable that people could pay and companies can still make a profit. Teaser rates should be eliminated and interest rates should go upincrementally by how far you are behind. Not from 5% to 25% in a month because you were a day late.
I think sliding scale taxes would in effect end up being bracket taxes in the end. Something based on personal expenses could easily be cheated. I could bemaking 30 million a year and buy an airplane or rent an airplane for $20mil a year saying I need it because I often fly from city to city in less than a daysnotice for meetings. That leaves $10 mil left to tax then figure out house, food, etc. you could end up only taxing a person making $30 million on $5 million.This isn't just for rich people it can be someone who is making $30k a year saying they need things they don't need, to avoid taxes. In this case weare then left with the government having to step in and determining what people need and don't need and how they should live their life. I think aprogressive bracket tax is the best system we got. I understand where you are coming from with your plan and the general idea I like but will cause unnesscarysquabbling over what is/isn't nesscary and what you do/don't need in life. A flat tax is way to over simplified for tax code. People with obscenewealth often sure off their money to secret banks overseas to avoid a 35% tax, to drop it to say 20%. If we make over $5million dollars a 25% tax, who is tosay they don't hide the money still. It isn't that they are highly taxed it is because they are greedy and don't want to help anyone butthemselves. Greed is the worst thing this country has developed, and has been the cause for many of society's problems.
The rest of part 1 I agree with.
Part 2
It is all subjective what a good standard of living is. To some it is 1.2mil salary 2 houses and 4 cars. To me it is 150k 1 house 2 cars.There was a survey in late 2006 done of 97 countries and their citizens. Many socialists nations have citizens happier than us. Denmark, Sweden, Canada, andSwitzerland. U.S. is 16th and I garuntee that U.S. has slipped further down that list. We have fallen to obscurity in education. Fede thinks putting money intoeducation means that you should stop when a policy didn't work. No Child Left Behind was a foolish policy for education. But at least Bush realized moneyneeded to be spent on education. If your answer to education funding is vouchers you obviously have never lived in a world outside of your head. Inner cityschools need to be fixed not just throw vouchers at them and see what it does. Or sending them to vocational school or more charter schools. Public schoolingneeds to be fixed. What happened was schooling was decent but we didn't think of updating it so we let it go on and go on and when it became a mess peopleassumed kids are dumb now.
Americans don't want 100% capitalism. They want socialism in their lives. Sometimes it makes living day to day for them even possible. People don'twant the Big 3 to fail and the only viable option is gov. intervention. People want socialism where it fits and makes sense. Obama has not done anythingbroadly that hasn't made sense. The logistics we have a conversation but overal no.
Part 3: All I have to say is EXACTLY
Part 4: I agree about regulation that works. But at times the option of choice is not killed by regulation. It is killed by capitalismitself. It is killed because 1 company essentially takes a product or an array of products hostage, while allowing others the chance to duplicate with noavail. The OG product has already cornered and filled the market place. i.e. Apple Ipods. I am not against this and think it is smart business but just lettingit be known.
Too much regulation I agree is bad. It can bring extra cost to the consumer. But at the same time those regulations can keep the cost from getting double whatit's cost to consumers and can also keep the company afloat because without that regulation it will cost them big in 5-10 years (banks)... Things likeinfrastructure do stall things alot but it is for safety. How do we control those costs and keep people safe without cutting minor corners that lead to bigproblems? (Minnesota bridge)
Don't get me started on the military many of those projects are so porked filled it makes pork barrow projects look like toys from the 25cent vendingmachine. They mainly sneak unnessecary bonuses and pay off money around to workers, friends and politicians. Seriously why did Bush or any president need 40presidential Helicopters. 10 maybe. But 40 shows some payoff was going around.
Part 5 : First paragraph in times of good economy and slight recession I agree a monetary policy fueled for maximum employment isdangerous.
Severe or deep recessions/depressions trying to create as much jobs as possible should be done and trying to stabalize your country at the present whileopening up dangers that needs to be dealt with in the futuree is better than leaving it alone to avoid future danger that will cause larger problems in thepresent that will most definately spill into the future.
Price Control- I agree unless it is something that everyone needs (basically all I mean is health care) and things government gives out.
Rent Control- I see your point
Minimum Wage- I agree its intention has not been met 100% and never will be. But the alternative of employers giving whatever wage they want to give is a badidea. It will single handedly kill the retail businesses. It will also lead to anarchy in the economy because millions of jobs will become unworkabale.
Interest Rates- what insurance, credit cards, mortgages, cars, bank loans do is just as bad as loan sharking. They give teaser rates in legal language only thehighly educated and lawyers can understand and if you are late 2 days which could be their error (late mail, company number mistake) your interest can shoot up20%+. If you can't pay for some unforeseen reason your credit is shot and everything is taken. People shouldn't be deceived and spend the rest of theirlives in debt by missing 1 payment.
Also BTW, not sure if this is needed to be directed at you Rex. The CRA has a minute role in the case of the financial collapse. The people that got loans fromthis could still have been rejected and didn't need to be given sub-prime mortgages. Sub-prime is not for the loaners benefit is to boost profit.. Oftentimes the people were tricked into signing these rates even when they could afford paying prime. But the subprime thrives on 1 late payment (that everyone endsup having it happen to them) When the sub prime shot up the interest it killed their credit and made them default or become forclosed. With millions of theseloans that the short sighted banks did at once happened around the same time period it killed the banks bottom line and double take led to the financialcrisis. CRA is not the reason for this current financial crisis. It is the short sighted banks. Every problem of this recession goes back to the banks doingthing for the year's bottom line not caring that it loses 2 dollars for every dollar it made next year.
Back to the matter at hand
Price COntrol- I am not too knowlegable about this in the terms of gas shortage but I see the common sense of the matter. Further in this I absolutely say NOT1 PERSON SHOULD BE HOMELESS OR STARVING IN THIS COUNTRY.
Here is why I hate Reagan and those who believe in his economic philosophy 100% of the time this exact quote "You can't help those who simply will not be helped. One problem that we've had, even in thebest of times, is people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless who are homeless, you might say, by choice."
They think everyone chose to be poor or didn't bust their butts everyday and when they see where capitalism hurt their own brothers (citizensof the same country) They step over them with no sympathy no caring and say they chose that. Exactly Fede's policy of helping only the individual and notthe group. The way you say your policy you don't care about the individual either. Fede you have no idea what this country is. Fede you have no love foryour country and hate this country. So next time you open your mouth shut it before words even leave.
Part 6
I generally agree that weak corporations should be allowed to fail (before you start this is no contradiction to my last statement)... These banks are ahinderence to us. But they are holding America by the balls in a vice grip. They have to much control on the economy and their simultaneous failure more thanlikely will cause the fail of many countries including the U.S. Great patriotism guys.
This isn't some blip on the radar this is the who side of the ship. If you let it fix itself it will sink and all those aboard will die. If you try to fixit yourself you will need to repair it again soon to keep it from breaking open but all you have is a few casualties and damage for the future fix.
I also 100% agree on a mixed economy but regulation is needed fir more things (keeping the collapse of an entire market, preventing another global economywildfire, keeping deception from consumers)
To Fede
your answer to every problem is less regulation, and less government intervention... It is never the Corporations fault. The bank failure that was governmentregulation too? There were no regulations on cars to be more fuel efficient under Bush. So magicially GM become an unprofitable company from the time Obamacame into office until now?
There is a thing called too much regulation and too little no such thing as zero and any to be the difference between financial expansion and financialregression. You also follow the all or nothing philosophy do you know who holds that kind of philosophy? those who do not know what they are talking about. Allcapitalism or it is all socialism? Do you read these economic books or do you look at the cover and the brief description.
Also it says something about a man to constantly accuse those of something they don't do. You accuse me of the Fox News line all the time. You did it whensomeone called me a hippie liberal and not once did I use the word Fox or News..
Also did you just halfway say Obama should not bring troops home or end a war because we are in a recession? You do know that will kill American Citizensright? Thumbs up for caring about our troops.
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
To Fede
There is a thing called too much regulation and too little no such thing as zero and any to be the difference between financial expansion and financial regression. You also follow the all or nothing philosophy do you know who holds that kind of philosophy those who do not what they are talking about. All capitalism or it is all socialism? Do you read these economic books or do you look at the cover and the brief description.
- 1,296
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
Rex, curious what college did you go to? What'd you study? Just askin cause you kinda sound like an old professor of mine...
- 21,365
- 812
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
- 4,122
- 640
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
just finished reading it. rex what did you mean about the healthcare and insurance thing? is it a good thing or bad thing?
- 2,670
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
^Obama will RUIN health care if he gets his way, mark my words on that.
- 36,563
- 11,281
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
yeah because we pay the most for healthcare and get the 37th best care.... Yup he will ruin health care.
- 6,823
- 10
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
You're a joke.
How does Fede not know what this country is?
Clearly you need to read some history books & read some things the founding fathers wrote and discover what this country is actually about... becauseapparently you don't know.
If anyone hates this country its liberals.... they are the ones who want to CHANGE it and make it into something that the United States is NOT.... they want tochange into a socialist society, like various European countries
And about your Reagan quote.... if you don't think there are people like that out there then you are very ignorant..... this country gives opportunity toeveryone and some people choose to disregard that and throw it to the side.
- 2,670
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- 6,823
- 10
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
Yes, actually he will ruin health care..... it will make it worse then the "37th best care"
While in the process ruining Americans freedom, or shall we say taking some of it away
Not too mention then having not to raise taxes.... and do we really need to be spending MORE moeny???
- 36,563
- 11,281
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Instead of pulling WHO world rankings, which are skewed, why don't you explain HOW you think he's going to help it? And I'm going to laugh if you say, "He's going to help more Americans get their insurance"...actually, I hope you do.
Well there is 3 options
1. Doing nothing, and barely lower cost as much as 3%..
2. Single Payer... Which Obama is not proposing. Like Canada. Gov. Providing health care for everyone.. Still private insurance companies can still existdepending on how it is structured.
3. Public Health Care policy.. The position Obama is leaning towards and the moderate choice. You can take the private insurance or a similar insurance fromthe government. Either way you pay for it. Public option is a competitor of private insurance and if you don't like the public insurance you can choose theprivate insurance. If NO1 wants it, it doesn't work and gets shut down. Has 4 advantages 1. Government doesn't try to make a profit so things likepre-existing conditions are not an excuse to keep people from health care.And generally charge what the medicine costs instead of 40% increase. Privateinsurance has 12% overhead, this public option needs 1-2% overhead.. 2. They do not market it so it saves the cost for marketing. 3. They also use governmentpower for negociation benefits to lower cost. 4. They leave it as an option so if you don't want it you don't need it. (Really ruins freedomdoesn't it)
And YES Fede has no idea what this country is and is unpatriotic stop projecting your hope for this country to go downhill on liberals....
Also you sir are the joke I could post the story about the deficit and who is to blame but it is just a liberal smear article so I will not post it.
And
- 2,670
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
^You said it yourself man, it costs LOWER than private insurance, and will eventually dominate the market. Not to mention, with lower revenues flowing throughthe hospital systems, what do you think is going to happen? Cut backs in staffing (nurses AND doctors)....cut backs in technologies...and an overall cut backin quality. Sure, will MORE people have insurance? Yes. But it's going to have the opposite effect: even though more people have insurance, the revenuessimply won't be there to maintain healthcare as we know it now. I'm currently living in Europe, and Obama wants a very similar system to the UK. Trustme when I say the US >>>> anywhere else in the world for health care.
- 6,823
- 10
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
Exactly
- 9,996
- 200
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
you need to start reading books like Global Political Economy and not elementary history books for children
- 36,563
- 11,281
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Well the public health care policy give competition to private insurances whose costs are astronomical. Hmmmm free market capitalism is not good whengovernment participates without adding regulation but when it doesn't participate in promoting free market then yeah all for it.
I live in the U.S. my mother works for a hospital the billings department and my aunt is a nurse, best friend is about to become a surgeon.. US is not betterthan everyone.. In damn near anything anymore..
So back to TBone.. If this America you love is the one where we slide in happiness, education, health care, $ per capita then enjoy it. The quote is "ifit ain't broke don't fix it." Well America is broke time to get fixing.
Similar threads
