Architects of Ruin - Real Culprits of the Financial Meltdown

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
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.

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

[/quote]

Gargl?

102

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

That, I do not need to do.

And that it is important how scarce the Fed makes money is self evident.

The rest follows.

103

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
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.

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?
[/quote]

Good point.

However, we libertarians rage against exactly that.

I just do not see though how your “democratic socialism” would change things.

104

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
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.

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]

I am not disagreeing in the least.

People suck.

Which is why I would not want a big government that attracts such parasites.

105

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
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?

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[/quote]

I am no against all forms of “power”.

If someone has something you want that is “power”, absolutely.

That is not a gun to your head though and that is what I call “power”.

106

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
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.

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

[/quote]

Really?

And I thought it all depended on it.