[romanP]

OPP wrote:

Proculation wrote:

Good ol' socialism... always there it seems even after it has proved to be catastrophic.

Well, the point of the entire article was that it's not the same old as this has yet to be!? Talk about missing the point completely.

Not just missing the point, but likely having no idea what socialism means anyway.

I get really tired of the hearing old Soviet fear dogma that's attached to communism and socialism. The Soviet Union had very little to do with either, they were communist in name only, as is China and pretty much all of the old bloc that called itself socialist or communist.

[romanP]

Proculation wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

Good ol' failing capitalism? Where, pray tell, has capitalism failed us here? It does not promise to save us from all market crashes, but it certainly provides the quickest way to get out of them and the best way to minimize the consequences of such a failure. It's not like capitalism is even responsible for the most recent catastrophes.

People just don't understand that.

It's government intervention that created the crisis, not capitalism.

What government intervention? The past ten years has been about deregulating everything, to the point where bankers were handing out 80-year mortgages to people who couldn't afford a mortgage anyway.

[romanP]

ridenrain wrote:

I didn't find the tube of glue that I'm supposed to smell when I read that so it just sounded stupid. I guess I'll have to ask Jack to explain it to me next time he comes over for a kitchen table chat.

Meanwhile, how's Cuba and Zimbabwe working out for you commies?

I wish I didn't agree with you, but it was pretty horribly written and I stopped reading after about the third paragraph.

[romanP]

ridenrain wrote:

Would you accept it if I took Zimbabwe out and put in North Korea instead? How about Burma?

Not really. North Korea is also communist in name only, since most of the money that exists there is for Kim Jong Il to spend on rockets, fancy cars and Mickey Mouse. Burma has nothing at all to do with communism, their government is a bunch of despots with no interest in feeding their people at all.

[romanP]

Bibbi wrote:

Proculation wrote:

Capitalism is about rule of law, private property and rights.
.

You are in a dream world if you think that Capitalism is about the rule of law.

If there is one thing Proculation has got right in this thread, it's at least the first two points, rule of law and private property. Capitalism without laws turns into what we have today, where large companies unscrupulously buy up smaller companies rather than competing or prevent them from being able to continue to do business at all, as well as banks handing out loans to people who can't afford them.

Quote:

That has never been the case. Out in the country where I spend a lot of my time, it is for example almost standard procedure for small businesses to have two sets of books for accountancy and tax purposes.

Accountability is a part of rule of law.

Quote:

Cash deals are made to avoid paying taxes. The term "income" is used in a very flexible manner and can vary considerably.

People will break laws to get ahead in any financial system. I could cite examples, but then I'd be sitting here all day listing off the financial crimes of every country in the world.

Quote:

There are lots of other examples, but you get the picture. The so called rule of law is broken and/or bent into a complete pretzel.

Not because capitalism has nothing to do with laws, but because the laws themselves had been erased.

[Proculation]

romanP wrote:

Proculation wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

Good ol' failing capitalism? Where, pray tell, has capitalism failed us here? It does not promise to save us from all market crashes, but it certainly provides the quickest way to get out of them and the best way to minimize the consequences of such a failure. It's not like capitalism is even responsible for the most recent catastrophes.

People just don't understand that.

It's government intervention that created the crisis, not capitalism.

What government intervention? The past ten years has been about deregulating everything, to the point where bankers were handing out 80-year mortgages to people who couldn't afford a mortgage anyway.

Google: "Community Reinvestment Act", "Freddie Mac" and "Fanny Mae".

[romanP]

Quote:

Quote:

Proculation wrote:

It's government intervention that created the crisis, not capitalism.

What government intervention? The past ten years has been about deregulating everything, to the point where bankers were handing out 80-year mortgages to people who couldn't afford a mortgage anyway.

Google: "Community Reinvestment Act", "Freddie Mac" and "Fanny Mae".

Oh, you mean after the government deregulated everything and still hasn't really realised what an enormous fuck up of an idea that was!

Ain't timelines a bitch. Cause before effect! Before!

[Proculation]

For me, a law is a regulation. An for me, 90s are before 2007.

If it's different for you, I don't think we can agree !

[hurley_108]

Proculation wrote:

For me, a law is a regulation. An for me, 90s are before 2007.

If it's different for you, I don't think we can agree !

Fanny Mae: 1938
Freddie Mac: 1970
Community Reinvestment Act: 1977
Financial Services Modernization Act: 1999

Boom:



Now, given that the booms of the 70s and 80s were potentially influenced by Fanny, Freddie, and the CRA, but didn't go so long or so far, but the last boom was predominantly post-1999, and far and away bigger than any that came before, I'd say the change of 1999 is the one that really set it off....

[Scape]

Don't forget the fire was then stoked in 2002

We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

[romanP]

Proculation wrote:

For me, a law is a regulation. An for me, 90s are before 2007.

If it's different for you, I don't think we can agree !

Most of the world's neo-liberal governments have been deregulating everything since the 80s. If there is anything a bank did that should have broken a law but didn't, it's because the government wasn't intervening.

[CanadianJeff]

Proculation wrote:

The article is misleading just with the title: bail-outs are NOT capitalism. It is the contrary.

Which is why I've always hated the vast majority of the bailouts. True capitalism dictates we let the weak companies fall so new ones can emerge from the hands of the free market.

[bootlegga]

hurley_108 wrote:

Proculation wrote:

For me, a law is a regulation. An for me, 90s are before 2007.

If it's different for you, I don't think we can agree !

Fanny Mae: 1938
Freddie Mac: 1970
Community Reinvestment Act: 1977
Financial Services Modernization Act: 1999

Boom:



Now, given that the booms of the 70s and 80s were potentially influenced by Fanny, Freddie, and the CRA, but didn't go so long or so far, but the last boom was predominantly post-1999, and far and away bigger than any that came before, I'd say the change of 1999 is the one that really set it off....

Scape wrote:

Don't forget the fire was then stoked in 2002

We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

[romanP]

CanadianJeff wrote:

Proculation wrote:

The article is misleading just with the title: bail-outs are NOT capitalism. It is the contrary.

Which is why I've always hated the vast majority of the bailouts. True capitalism dictates we let the weak companies fall so new ones can emerge from the hands of the free market.

This is why I think these bailouts won't do any good at all. We've been "bailing out" these companies for years, and they keep failing. The only difference is that the price tag is bigger this time. Time for a new strategy! "Business as usual" is what got us here in the first place.