Architects of Ruin - Real Culprits of the Financial Meltdown

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:And that is why us libertarians want it small, so that the inevitable corruption is kept to a minimum because they have very little to be corrupt with.

They have everything private companies want to give them. What are you talking about?

He means if their was no central bank or fractional reserve lending or the authority to set prices, wages, labor laws, what you can put into your own body…
If there was no Patriot Act or war powers act or any interventionist military authority…
If there was no authority to intervene in the market through special tax provisions, incentives, or subsidies…
If the Federal Government didn’t grant themselves the authority to do much of anything to interfere with the private lives of it’s citizens…
There would be nothing to lobby the government for.
Businesses that were too big or inefficient or abusive would be dismantled and restructured in the free market because there would be no power in government to help them survive.

This is all utterly irrelevant. “The government” is not the source of coercive power. Large concentration of wealth is. As long as you leave the concentration of wealth intact, all you’re really doing is changing the frame on an ugly picture.

[/quote]

The government has the power of law under the threat of violence. The accumulation of wealth is only “coorcive” if you have the power to force a transaction, especially with fiat money. Otherwise it’s a voluntary exchange.

62

Here’s a fun game: see if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

63

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:The government has the power of law under the threat of violence. The accumulation of wealth is only “coorcive” if you have the power to force a transaction, especially with fiat money. Otherwise it’s a voluntary exchange.

Here’s a fun game: see if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

[/quote]

Do you mean that the accumulation of wealth by individuals grants them power over those who govern?
I would agree with that. Eventually any government can be bought. All nations eventually fail because a few individuals accumulate enough wealth and as an extension power over the force of government.
However, empowering any group of individuals with fairly distributing wealth will accelerate that process. Humans do not act outside of their own self-interest. If they did, Marx would have been correct in predicting a communist society would emerge. The reality is that all societies destroy themselves because class struggle coalesces and the result is always totalitarianism followed by collapse.
I would argue that limited government is the creative engine of any society and the growth of the state is it’s destructive and inevitable conclusion.

64

You guys have missed the point entirely.

What allowed our government to force banks to make bad loans? What moral justification is there?

“Helping the poor.” It is considered moral to be unselfish and help those in need. The next step then is – “Well, if you refuse to do the right thing, we’ll pass a law making you be moral!!”

It is your moral code, your UNSELFISHNESS that allows these travesties. The government YOU CREATED is simply acting out your moral code.

“You are rich and refuse to help the poor? We will force you to help the poor.”

As long as YOU FUCKING IDIOTS believe that unselfishness is good, then you are ASKING FOR THIS.

So shut the fuck up, bend over, and take what YOU ASKED FOR!!

65

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:And that is why us libertarians want it small, so that the inevitable corruption is kept to a minimum because they have very little to be corrupt with.

They have everything private companies want to give them. What are you talking about?

He means if their was no central bank or fractional reserve lending or the authority to set prices, wages, labor laws, what you can put into your own body…
If there was no Patriot Act or war powers act or any interventionist military authority…
If there was no authority to intervene in the market through special tax provisions, incentives, or subsidies…
If the Federal Government didn’t grant themselves the authority to do much of anything to interfere with the private lives of it’s citizens…
There would be nothing to lobby the government for.
Businesses that were too big or inefficient or abusive would be dismantled and restructured in the free market because there would be no power in government to help them survive.

This is all utterly irrelevant. “The government” is not the source of coercive power. Large concentration of wealth is. As long as you leave the concentration of wealth intact, all you’re really doing is changing the frame on an ugly picture.

[/quote]

You mean a government that is practically defined as claiming a legal monopoly on active violence is not coercive while corporations that have no men under arms are intrinsically violent?

You cannot seriously argue that.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington

66

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:The government has the power of law under the threat of violence. The accumulation of wealth is only “coorcive” if you have the power to force a transaction, especially with fiat money. Otherwise it’s a voluntary exchange.

Here’s a fun game: see if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

[/quote]

He could play endlessly, because there is none.

Your corporatist “power” always relies on government to be coercive yet you always claim wealth.

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

Try to imagine a corporation “wielding” power without government force and see how far you get.

PS:

I think the argument are trying to make is somewhere along these lines. Not that his reasoning is absolutely solid as is pointed out in the comments, but he has some very good point regarding the relationship of governments and corporations.

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html

67

[quote]Dedicated wrote:

Now all that being said, there are white individuals, who if they present themselves a certain way will also get similar treatment from myself. There are white douchebags, black douchebags, mexican douchebags etc… Because the douchebags tend to look and act a certain way, it is not racism for my brain to be aware of that.

V

V, that is the point. I agree the human race is filled with good and bad and everything in between. This applies to all races. What stimulated my input were namely a couple of posters who to me were attributing negative and hostile attributes to a whole race of people. It’s as silly as if I made a judgement on the white/anglos based off of the aryan brotherhood or klu klux klan or Italians on the behavior of the mafia.

How do you think I felt as someone of Mexican heritage reading the following which was posted in another thread:

"you are right, many Latino cultures despise Mexicans because they give all Latinos a bad names. Typically speaking, they are the most crass, crude, an vulgar of the Latino people. I have known many people from Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua who are very nice and pleasant people. They do not like to be associated with people of Mexico. "

This isn’t calling out the behavior of ignorant people ie gangsters, criminals, or loan cheaters, this is painting a whole race of people under a vile and ugly brush. If that isn’t bigoted I don’t know what is. I’d be just as offended If someone from Mexico made a negative generalization about a white person like that.

Poverty a lack of education, ignorance, affects people the same whether their white, brown, black, or yellow.

D

[/quote]

All they did was point out the FACT that certain groups are defaulting on loans at a rate more than twice that of others… If you cant handle the truth…then STFU.
Its people like you that refuse to see the ugly in yourself that stop the debate from producing anything productive.

68

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:Exactly! If the gov’t was not involoved, the free market would have not allowed people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them. Had the Federal Reserve not artificially held down interest rates, there never would have been a housing bubble and subsequent crash. Don’t point the finger at people trying to work the system, point the finger at the system! We get the gov’t we deserve. If you are pissed of, VOTE! Vote for smaller less intrusive gov’t. Vote for personal responibility over the nanny state. Throw the bums out, regardless of party. It’s time to start over.

The free market DID allow people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them. The federal funds rate has virtually 0 to do with long term interest rates.

Try again.
[/quote]

it wasn’t the free market… It was Frank, Clinton ect ect ect that FORCED the banks hand’s.

69

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:Exactly! If the gov’t was not involoved, the free market would have not allowed people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them. Had the Federal Reserve not artificially held down interest rates, there never would have been a housing bubble and subsequent crash. Don’t point the finger at people trying to work the system, point the finger at the system! We get the gov’t we deserve. If you are pissed of, VOTE! Vote for smaller less intrusive gov’t. Vote for personal responibility over the nanny state. Throw the bums out, regardless of party. It’s time to start over.

The free market DID allow people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them. The federal funds rate has virtually 0 to do with long term interest rates.

Try again.
[/quote]

We have not had a free market in the housing industry since the creation of the federal reserve, freddie mac and fannie mae. If you think the fed rate doesn’t influence long term interest rates, you willfulyy ignorant.

70

[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:The government has the power of law under the threat of violence. The accumulation of wealth is only “coorcive” if you have the power to force a transaction, especially with fiat money. Otherwise it’s a voluntary exchange.

Here’s a fun game: see if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

He could play endlessly, because their is none.

Your corporatist “power” always relies on government to be coercive yet you always claim wealth.

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

Try to imagine a corporation “wielding” power without government force and see how far you get.
[/quote]

Corporate power always relies on government, huh?

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

I hear corporate power especially relied on the government of Honduras.

I’m sure you couldn’t possibly imagine a way a wealthy person could “wield” power without a government. unpossible.

71

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:The government has the power of law under the threat of violence. The accumulation of wealth is only “coorcive” if you have the power to force a transaction, especially with fiat money. Otherwise it’s a voluntary exchange.

Here’s a fun game: see if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

He could play endlessly, because their is none.

Your corporatist “power” always relies on government to be coercive yet you always claim wealth.

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

Try to imagine a corporation “wielding” power without government force and see how far you get.

Corporate power always relies on government, huh?

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

I hear corporate power especially relied on the government of Honduras.

I’m sure you couldn’t possibly imagine a way a wealthy person could “wield” power without a government. unpossible.
[/quote]
But a corporation does not have legal authority to do this and therein lies the difference.

Government is force, as orion said. Business cannot expect to stay in business using coercion because they have no legal authority and no person would give them that authority over their life.

The question is why do people willingly allow the coercive authority of government over their lives but not businesses?

72

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:The government has the power of law under the threat of violence. The accumulation of wealth is only “coorcive” if you have the power to force a transaction, especially with fiat money. Otherwise it’s a voluntary exchange.

Here’s a fun game: see if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

He could play endlessly, because their is none.

Your corporatist “power” always relies on government to be coercive yet you always claim wealth.

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

Try to imagine a corporation “wielding” power without government force and see how far you get.

Corporate power always relies on government, huh?

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

I hear corporate power especially relied on the government of Honduras.

I’m sure you couldn’t possibly imagine a way a wealthy person could “wield” power without a government. unpossible.

[/quote]

Well I could.

He could build a private army and start to form a quasi government like the Mafia.

That is exactly why I am a libertarian and not an anarchist.

I believe that one of governments very few arguably legitimate functions is to prevent exactly that.

73

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:Exactly! If the gov’t was not involoved, the free market would have not allowed people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them. Had the Federal Reserve not artificially held down interest rates, there never would have been a housing bubble and subsequent crash. Don’t point the finger at people trying to work the system, point the finger at the system! We get the gov’t we deserve. If you are pissed of, VOTE! Vote for smaller less intrusive gov’t. Vote for personal responibility over the nanny state. Throw the bums out, regardless of party. It’s time to start over.

The free market DID allow people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them. The federal funds rate has virtually 0 to do with long term interest rates.

Try again.
[/quote]

Excusez moi, that is also wrong, behold the interest curve that follows the base rate of the FED.

It is true that the long term rates have some independence but to argue that long term interest even can be independent of said base rate is a minority position, to put it mildly.

74

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:The government has the power of law under the threat of violence. The accumulation of wealth is only “coorcive” if you have the power to force a transaction, especially with fiat money. Otherwise it’s a voluntary exchange.

Here’s a fun game: see if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

He could play endlessly, because their is none.

Your corporatist “power” always relies on government to be coercive yet you always claim wealth.

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

Try to imagine a corporation “wielding” power without government force and see how far you get.

Corporate power always relies on government, huh?

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

I hear corporate power especially relied on the government of Honduras.

I’m sure you couldn’t possibly imagine a way a wealthy person could “wield” power without a government. unpossible.

Well I could.

He could build a private army and start to form a quasi government like the Mafia.

That is exactly why I am a libertarian and not an anarchist.

I believe that one of governments very few arguably legitimate functions is to prevent exactly that.

[/quote]

Did you just: [quote]Try to imagine a corporation “wielding” power without government force and see how far you get.[/quote]

75

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:The government has the power of law under the threat of violence. The accumulation of wealth is only “coorcive” if you have the power to force a transaction, especially with fiat money. Otherwise it’s a voluntary exchange.

Here’s a fun game: see if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

He could play endlessly, because their is none.

Your corporatist “power” always relies on government to be coercive yet you always claim wealth.

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

Try to imagine a corporation “wielding” power without government force and see how far you get.

Corporate power always relies on government, huh?

Seems like you ignore what is glaringly obvious.

I hear corporate power especially relied on the government of Honduras.

I’m sure you couldn’t possibly imagine a way a wealthy person could “wield” power without a government. unpossible.

Well I could.

He could build a private army and start to form a quasi government like the Mafia.

That is exactly why I am a libertarian and not an anarchist.

I believe that one of governments very few arguably legitimate functions is to prevent exactly that.

Did you just: Try to imagine a corporation “wielding” power without government force and see how far you get.
[/quote]

If you want to put every caveat of libertarian ethics in very post I make it would make for very lengthy posts.

How about a standard disclaimer?

76

If you have the wealth (and it can get to a point where you quite literally can have power of life and death over others), you have the power. I don’t understand why you must continue to bring government into the equation. Government can be oppressive, but so can other entities.

Incidentally, Marx never proposed this.

Capitalists have a notoriously poor understanding of “human nature.” But even if your statement were true, it wouldn’t matter one jot, because it IS in the interest of the people to strive for socialism.

As above, your critique is based on an inadequate understanding of the subject which you are criticizing.

OK. Good luck with that.

77

[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:Exactly! If the gov’t was not involoved, the free market would have not allowed people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them. Had the Federal Reserve not artificially held down interest rates, there never would have been a housing bubble and subsequent crash. Don’t point the finger at people trying to work the system, point the finger at the system! We get the gov’t we deserve. If you are pissed of, VOTE! Vote for smaller less intrusive gov’t. Vote for personal responibility over the nanny state. Throw the bums out, regardless of party. It’s time to start over.

The free market DID allow people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them. The federal funds rate has virtually 0 to do with long term interest rates.

Try again.

Excusez moi, that is also wrong, behold the interest curve that follows the base rate of the FED.

It is true that the long term rates have some independence but to argue that long term interest even can be independent of said base rate is a minority position, to put it mildly.

[/quote]

Then please do explain to us how short-term securities can dramatically alter the rate on a 30-year loan. Of course it will have an effect, but quite indirectly. Find another boogeyman.

78

[quote]orion wrote:You mean a government that is practically defined as claiming a legal monopoly on active violence is not coercive while corporations that have no men under arms are intrinsically violent?

You cannot seriously argue that.[/quote]

I can seriously argue that, when you know as well as I that the main function of the state is to protect wealth and privilege. Why else is it even there? When has a state ever sprung up in the absence of private property?

I can seriously argue that, when time and time again the state has appeared (and yes, used its guns) to protect the interests of private corporations.

I can seriously argue that, when the state has started wars and invaded countries to protect its domestic industries.

I can seriously argue that, when it’s not so uncommon in history for the actual corporations to have their own guns.

No men under arms? Since when?

79

[quote]Valor wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:Exactly! If the gov’t was not involoved, the free market would have not allowed people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them. Had the Federal Reserve not artificially held down interest rates, there never would have been a housing bubble and subsequent crash. Don’t point the finger at people trying to work the system, point the finger at the system! We get the gov’t we deserve. If you are pissed of, VOTE! Vote for smaller less intrusive gov’t. Vote for personal responibility over the nanny state. Throw the bums out, regardless of party. It’s time to start over.

The free market DID allow people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them. The federal funds rate has virtually 0 to do with long term interest rates.

Try again.

it wasn’t the free market… It was Frank, Clinton ect ect ect that FORCED the banks hand’s.

So you’re saing that these banks RESISTED actions that made them billions of dollars? I’ll give you another chance: is this honestly what you are saying?

80

Yeah, they’re called prime loans. If you can’t handle that, then STFU.