Architects of Ruin - Real Culprits of the Financial Meltdown

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]orion wrote: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.[/quote]

Well, it’s sort of pointless, as the government is there to give their power legitimacy, but if they can’t have the government they’ll do it themselves, such as in the Homestead strike. Such as the Ludlow Massacre.

82

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote: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?

[/quote]

So you’re saying you disagree with socialist policies because they destroy the economy. Well, Hallelujah! Glad you’ve seen the light. Welcome on board. Our job is done here.

83

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Well, it’s sort of pointless, as the government is there to give their power legitimacy, but if they can’t have the government they’ll do it themselves, such as in the Homestead strike. Such as the Ludlow Massacre.
[/quote]
Exactly. They behave just like little Communist countries.
Can’t wait for a State monopoly where they have all that, murder millions of people AND back it up with the power and legitimization of the State! Enemies of the State, BEWARE. All serve the State or DIE!

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
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.[/quote]

I’m going to let you in on a secret.

Men are not truly equal. And therefore socialism is impossible.

It’s human nature. Tough. There will always be someone in power. You are just demanding to be the next one in line, spouting the same utopian nonsense that spawned impoverished slave states and destroyed the economy. Somehow that does not inspire confidence. If you want to go back to the Stone Age you are free to do so.

84

[quote]orion wrote:

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? [/quote]

Nah, I’m just poking fun mate. You posted something silly; I just pointed it out. Honestly, I agree with most principles of the ideology. But as with any ideology, taken to its extreme I don’t think it works at all. So if you claim that wealth has no power w/o government… well… poke

85

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:Do you mean that the accumulation of wealth by individuals grants them power over those who govern?

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.

However, empowering any group of individuals with fairly distributing wealth will accelerate that process.

Incidentally, Marx never proposed this.

Humans do not act outside of their own self-interest.

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.

If they did, Marx would have been correct in predicting a communist society would emerge.

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

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.

OK. Good luck with that.

[/quote]

If we disagree on how humans behave fundamentally, then I see no reason to have an argument on human action as it pertains to economics or the role of the state.
Sorry for wasting both our time.

86

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you define yourself by your culture, you have a right to be upset with the comments in this thread. But then others have the right to associate with the conduct of others in your culture.

This is where, in my mind, multi-culturalism makes no sense. To do away with all stereotypes is to do away with culture. To preserve cultural identity is to identify with stereotypes. The fact that some of these stereotypes get label as a positive and fall under the word “culture” is semantics.

Not all Mexicans like spicy things, so the “cultural heritage” of spicy Mexican food, is in fact nothing more than a stereotype. To you, it’s culture if you a personally proud of it, and racism if it offends you. When in fact both are nothing more than statistical generalizations of a population.

Either you identify yourself with the statistical generalization of a group, or you don’t. This current PC mess of only doing it when considered convenient is complete BS. You don’t want stereotypes, fine, do away with all culture.
[/quote]

Very very clear thinking post here.

People like to associate themselves with the nobler aspects of their culture, but become pissy when someone so much as mentions the well documented statistical participation of members of that culture in the undesirable aspects.

Truth is we have brought this on ourselves. Here’s a clue. When you gain a well deserved reputation as a rich powerful nation that tolerates and in some cases encourages the arrival of anybody from anywhere, legal or not with the allure of freebies at the host nation’s expense, guess who shows up?

It’s not all or even most Mexicans are bad people. It’s that our idiotic policies of “diversity and tolerance” tend to skim disproportionate numbers of low specimens. This goes for any other group as well.

We have practically invited the leeches and lowlife’s of the world to take up residence here and then racism is thrown around as the explanation for somebody pointing out an activity participated in by significant percentages of those groups.

87

[quote]valiant knight wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote: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?

So you’re saying you disagree with socialist policies because they destroy the economy. Well, Hallelujah! Glad you’ve seen the light. Welcome on board. Our job is done here. [/quote]

What socialist policies are you referring to? The institution of collective ownership and workplace democracy? The abolition of the stock market? I’m not really sure what you’re referring to.

Or are you just a typical American republican lapdog, who doesn’t even know what socialism is, and uses it as a pejorative for whatever policy he doesn’t like?

88

[quote]valiant knight wrote:Exactly. They behave just like little Communist countries.
Can’t wait for a State monopoly where they have all that, murder millions of people AND back it up with the power and legitimization of the State! Enemies of the State, BEWARE. All serve the State or DIE![/quote]

You can’t wait? That’s OK, you don’t have to. The free market has given you just that. The United States has killed just as many people as any “Communist” country you choose. I guess it’s OK as long as capitalists do it.

Besides, these events predate any “Communist” countries, so your diatribe doesn’t really even make sense.

[quote]I’m going to let you in on a secret.

Men are not truly equal. And therefore socialism is impossible.[/quote]

I’m going to let you in on something that should not be a secret, but apparently it is:

no socialists that I am aware of advocate equality of compensation. This is something that you have invented to complain about.

More refutations of arguments no one is making. Do you even know what we’re talking about?

89

[quote]limitatinfinity wrote:If we disagree on how humans behave fundamentally, then I see no reason to have an argument on human action as it pertains to economics or the role of the state.
Sorry for wasting both our time.[/quote]

How do you know we disagree fundamentally? The area in which I disagreed with you doesn’t constitute the whole of human nature. And as I said, it’s not really even that important in this discussion. It seems like you’re repeating the myth that Marx was some uber-idealist thinker, and had a proposed utopia all planned out. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, he harshly criticized the socialist movement at the time, which WAS very idealistic and utopian (this early brand, associated with Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and others, is now even called utopian socialism). Without commenting on the veracity or falsehood of his theories, he undoubtedly did much to plant socialist thinking on a much more realistic foundation.

90

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:If we disagree on how humans behave fundamentally, then I see no reason to have an argument on human action as it pertains to economics or the role of the state.
Sorry for wasting both our time.

How do you know we disagree fundamentally? The area in which I disagreed with you doesn’t constitute the whole of human nature. And as I said, it’s not really even that important in this discussion. It seems like you’re repeating the myth that Marx was some uber-idealist thinker, and had a proposed utopia all planned out. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, he harshly criticized the socialist movement at the time, which WAS very idealistic and utopian (this early brand, associated with Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and others, is now even called utopian socialism). Without commenting on the veracity or falsehood of his theories, he undoubtedly did much to plant socialist thinking on a much more realistic foundation.

[/quote]

I’ve read much of Marx’s work including Kapital, The CM, and other essays. I evaluate Marx, “Marxism”, and “Socialism” differently than you have stated here.
If you do not agree that every person always acts in their own self-interest then we can not agree on economic truths because my perception of human action is based on that philosophical axiom.
I really don’t evaluate what should be done. Instead I hypothesize on what would occur under one model or another. I am most certainly only interested in myself and don’t delude myself into caring about “realistic” economic models.
All nations and economic models are temporary and I evaluate them based on their value to my own self-interest.

It’s currently in my self-interest that the fiat currency does not collapse as long as I am participating in its use. Limited government is in my evaluation constructive to postponing the collapse of the USD and Fractional reserve banking is destructive to that end.
I’m done here.

91

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, it was all the poor people’s fault. Those poor giant investment banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, honest! They are the victims! There there, take a $1 billion bonus. That’s better. BAD POOR PEOPLE!

You guys are siding with the rapist. Not that this is new. Anything to justify privilege. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:

"Many policy makers and ordinary people blame the rise of foreclosures squarely on subprime mortgage lenders who presumably misled borrowers into taking out complex loans at low initial interest rates. Those hapless individuals were then supposedly unable to make the higher monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset upwards.

But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began – the third quarter of 2006 – during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)

Sharing the blame in the popular imagination are other loans where lenders were largely at fault – such as “liar loans,” where lenders never attempted to validate a borrower’s income or assets."

Not that facts affect your analyses, but whatever.[/quote]

Wrong. As of 3rd quarter 2008 1.5% of Prime loans were <60 days delinquent, but 11% of sub-prime loans were. http://www.occ.treas.gov/mortgage_report/2008/q3/mortgages_delinquent.htm

Also 1.8% of Prime loans were in foreclosure, but 5.5% of sub-prime loans were. http://www.occ.treas.gov/mortgage_report/2008/q3/foreclosures_in_process.htm

Not that facts affect your analysis…

92

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Valor wrote: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.

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

[/quote]

Again, you could not be more wrong if you tried. http://www.occ.treas.gov/mortgage_report/2008/q3/seriously_delinquent_mortgages.htm

So, STFU.

93

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
valiant knight wrote:Exactly. They behave just like little Communist countries.
Can’t wait for a State monopoly where they have all that, murder millions of people AND back it up with the power and legitimization of the State! Enemies of the State, BEWARE. All serve the State or DIE!

You can’t wait? That’s OK, you don’t have to. The free market has given you just that. The United States has killed just as many people as any “Communist” country you choose. I guess it’s OK as long as capitalists do it.

[/quote]

Your ignorance is startling.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

94

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
valiant knight wrote:Exactly. They behave just like little Communist countries.
Can’t wait for a State monopoly where they have all that, murder millions of people AND back it up with the power and legitimization of the State! Enemies of the State, BEWARE. All serve the State or DIE!

You can’t wait? That’s OK, you don’t have to. The free market has given you just that. The United States has killed just as many people as any “Communist” country you choose. I guess it’s OK as long as capitalists do it.

Your ignorance is startling.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

[/quote]

He doesn’t care.

95

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
valiant knight wrote:Exactly. They behave just like little Communist countries.
Can’t wait for a State monopoly where they have all that, murder millions of people AND back it up with the power and legitimization of the State! Enemies of the State, BEWARE. All serve the State or DIE!

You can’t wait? That’s OK, you don’t have to. The free market has given you just that. The United States has killed just as many people as any “Communist” country you choose. I guess it’s OK as long as capitalists do it.

Besides, these events predate any “Communist” countries, so your diatribe doesn’t really even make sense.

I’m going to let you in on a secret.

Men are not truly equal. And therefore socialism is impossible.

I’m going to let you in on something that should not be a secret, but apparently it is:

no socialists that I am aware of advocate equality of compensation. This is something that you have invented to complain about.

It’s human nature. Tough. There will always be someone in power. You are just demanding to be the next one in line, spouting the same utopian nonsense that spawned impoverished slave states and destroyed the economy. Somehow that does not inspire confidence. If you want to go back to the Stone Age you are free to do so.

More refutations of arguments no one is making. Do you even know what we’re talking about?
[/quote]

Well well well. I turn around and you’ve agreed with everything I’ve said. You’ve disavowed Communism and accepted human nature. Very good then. I guess we are done here

96

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote: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?

So you’re saying you disagree with socialist policies because they destroy the economy. Well, Hallelujah! Glad you’ve seen the light. Welcome on board. Our job is done here.

What socialist policies are you referring to? The institution of collective ownership and workplace democracy? The abolition of the stock market? I’m not really sure what you’re referring to.

Or are you just a typical American republican lapdog, who doesn’t even know what socialism is, and uses it as a pejorative for whatever policy he doesn’t like?

[/quote]
O I am a proud imperialist running dog, of that you may be sure. But since you are not for equality of compensation, then surely you do not propose to put the poor into homes they can’t afford. Therefore there is no issue here.

But now here you go off the deep end. “Collective” ownership? Workplace democracy? LMAO!

97

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, it was all the poor people’s fault. Those poor giant investment banks had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, honest! They are the victims! There there, take a $1 billion bonus. That’s better. BAD POOR PEOPLE!

You guys are siding with the rapist. Not that this is new. Anything to justify privilege. Anyway, here’s an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article:

"Many policy makers and ordinary people blame the rise of foreclosures squarely on subprime mortgage lenders who presumably misled borrowers into taking out complex loans at low initial interest rates. Those hapless individuals were then supposedly unable to make the higher monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset upwards.

But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began – the third quarter of 2006 – during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)

Sharing the blame in the popular imagination are other loans where lenders were largely at fault – such as “liar loans,” where lenders never attempted to validate a borrower’s income or assets."

Not that facts affect your analyses, but whatever.

Why must I take responsibility for the bad decisions of both sides – the lender and the borrower?

It isn’t like these loans were forced on poor people and it isn’t like lenders were forced to make these loans. Quit oversimplifying.

You fail again![/quote]

Poor you , why don’t you move to Somalia

98

[quote]orion wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Regular Gonzalez 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.

I love how so many “Libertarians” want to see an end to fractional reserve banking, not realising the fact that this would actually require government intervention.

WHAT? Seriously? That was a very good attempt at being cute, unfortunately, it’s 100% completely false. How do you live with yourself.

V

Unless you make it illegal, fractional reserve lending will continue. This law would need to be enforced by the government, hence government intervention would be necessary to bring an end the practice.

It may continue, but it would be held in check by competition.

I might also choose not to use or accept a currency that is issued and used in such a way. The way and the extent it is used now is entirely dependent on government intervention.

Also, if there is only one government monopoly money, fractional reserve banking is essentially fraud, you promise to pay back more money than you have so there are good reasons to insist that that kind of fraud is prevented like all other kinds of frauds.

[/quote]

Your fail safe is flawed; it does not consider that people and businesses can collaborate

99

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Economically “connected” (rich) = politically well-connected. The rich are the government. Stop seperating the government and private industry, as the one exists to protect and serve the other.

Yes, and your ideology reinforces it.

What else happens in this fascinating world you live in?

[/quote]

He charges a toll for people crossing his mystical land called (Lifticvsmaximville)

100

[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]

That would require reasoning ability, not just reciting rhetoric