thunderbolt23: what are your europeen socialist friends definition of socialism?
and another thing, what type of socialist are they? When ryan say socialism, he meens “the proletarian dictaturship” from marxian doctrin.[/quote]
I have a few minutes, and since you are a new poster asking me a question, I will give a quick response. I have several European friends (from several countries) that call themselves socialists. As for “what kind”, I’ll paraphrase their explanation to me as to what their beliefs/policies are:
Under capitalism, the wealth/means of production get concentrated in the hands of the capitalists at the expense of the working class/non-capitalist
History has favored capitalism because of its dynamism and material progress, but has not acounted for the inhumane inequality and the capitalists certainly won’t account for it/do anything about it
We need to get the working class/non-capitalists in control of the means of production ultimately, but violent revolution won’t do it, so we need democratic action - awaken the interests of the oppressed and build a framework for socialism
That begins with socialist-themed programs to (a) help remedy the injustice and (b) educate the working classes as to what more needs to be done
Doing this democratically uses the strength of capitalism against itself to ultimately end capitalism
Strong social welfare programs most certainly are “socialist” in nature and blessedly so - they are examples of hard-won victories against capitalism. Classifying them as “not really socialist” (as Ryan does for political reasons) is a disgusting concession as to the progress of socialism in the real world, since beating back the capitalists is hard work (they have the money and the power). Therefore, big European welfare programs are shining examples of socialism-at-work by real socialists, not coffeehouse talkers.
Ryan simply refuses to characterize these progams as “socialist” for one reason and one reason only - their unsustainability has caused enormous catastrophe, and he knows it, and if he concedes that they are “socialist”, he then has to concede that “socialism” has some deep flaws that can’t be ignored.
So rather than deal with these (obvious) problems, Ryan simply changes definitions and says “that isn’t socialism so those problems couldn’t have been caused by socialism!”.
Yes, my point was that members of many parties in Europe - Socialist and otherwise - are advocating austerity measures instead of expanding the welfare state as a solution to Europe’s woes. Ryan desperately tried to imply that the Socialists were leading the charge of reform through austerity measures (as opposed to “capitalist” parties, I guess), but a number of parties are advocating a shift from the practices of the past, including Merkel, a non-socialist.
[quote]florelius wrote:
<<< 1: how is it painfully clear that ryan lacks knowledge about economics, but at the same time is able to read and understand marx who wrote “das kapital”. I would guess that it takes some understanding of basic economics to fully understand “das kapital”. the reason I ask is because people to often in here, just make a statement about somebody being wrong or similar, without explaining why they are wrong. ( I know I have said this before, but it obviusly needs repeating ).
So if you could be so nice and explain why ryan dont understand economics? >>>[/quote]
“Understanding” Das Kapital distorts one’s understanding of everything else. Apparently including the clear posts of one of the most capable participants in this forum.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Ryan,
I am sure you will take this as an attack. It is not meant to be.
You have always been an enigma to me. I do not doubt your intellectual capacity. I only marvel at what I see as the misapplication of it.
Reading this exchange between yourself and TB23, a few things have become painfully clear. You are obviously well read on the various flavors of communism and socialism, or at least the theoretical aspects of said ism’s. Equally obvious is your lack of knowledge and understanding of economics and finance.
You fought a valiant fight. You used what you have to the best of your ability. However, in the end thunderbot23 thoroughly dismantled your arguments. This is not simply my opinion. It just became obvious that you do not have the foundation and understanding to defend against or overcome TB23’s knowledge, experience and application.
You are young, intelligent and passionate, yet you lack enough experiential hooks on which to hang your conceptual knowledge.
I am not suggesting you abandon your cause. I am suggesting that you challenge it often and from all angles with all the data you can. In the end, regardless of your conclusions, you will end up a better man.
[/quote]
I dont want to fight ryans battles for him because I dont think he want me to.
but I have a question Jeaton.
1: how is it painfully clear that ryan lacks knowledge about economics, but at the same time is able to read and understand marx who wrote “das kapital”. I would guess that it takes some understanding of basic economics to fully understand “das kapital”. the reason I ask is because people to often in here, just make a statement about somebody being wrong or similar, without explaining why they are wrong. ( I know I have said this before, but it obviusly needs repeating ).
So if you could be so nice and explain why ryan dont understand economics?
[/quote]
You are correct in that Ryan would not want you to fight his battles. He is an idealist and at his age (and yours), there is a certain romanticism in fighting the “good fight” against overwhelming odds…
Except there is no real fight. He has not as of yet entered the ring. He, and I assume you as well, are still on the side lines. You have read, studied, debated and have all of the false confidence that such can generate. To stretch the analogy, you think you know what war is but until you have actually taken up your weapon and entered the battle, been wounded, battered and bruised, you haven’t a fucking clue.
When you are in your twenties, you think you know everything. You two remind me of myself at that time. You also think anyone twice your age is cynical, bitter an moored in the past. What you eventually discover is nothing beats experience.
As to your specific question…
It has been so long ago that I read Marx I hardly remember the specifics. To be honest, nothing in it struck me as worth remembering. I will share an observation, however. I often find it amusing that those with a leftward lean often poke fun at Christians when they back up their beliefs or actions by stating “it says so in the Bible!”
“And…?” the leftists reply. “What relevance does a book of fairy tales have?”
I somewhat understand their response, for I have the same reaction when someone quotes “Das Kapital”.
As to why Ryan does not understand economics and finance, well I could not do a better job of explaining this than thunderbolt23 did. His questions and statements were revealing.
And yes, I understand that to just state someone is wrong without a full explanation as to why does little to further the topic. I also understand that sometimes a full explanation would require a scope and scale that is impractical and ultimately useless. Without the experiential hooks on which to hang the explanation, the mountain of text only falls on deaf ears.
thunderbolt23: what are your europeen socialist friends definition of socialism?
and another thing, what type of socialist are they? When ryan say socialism, he meens “the proletarian dictaturship” from marxian doctrin.[/quote]
I have a few minutes, and since you are a new poster asking me a question, I will give a quick response. I have several European friends (from several countries) that call themselves socialists. As for “what kind”, I’ll paraphrase their explanation to me as to what their beliefs/policies are:
Under capitalism, the wealth/means of production get concentrated in the hands of the capitalists at the expense of the working class/non-capitalist
History has favored capitalism because of its dynamism and material progress, but has not acounted for the inhumane inequality and the capitalists certainly won’t account for it/do anything about it
We need to get the working class/non-capitalists in control of the means of production ultimately, but violent revolution won’t do it, so we need democratic action - awaken the interests of the oppressed and build a framework for socialism
That begins with socialist-themed programs to (a) help remedy the injustice and (b) educate the working classes as to what more needs to be done
Doing this democratically uses the strength of capitalism against itself to ultimately end capitalism
Strong social welfare programs most certainly are “socialist” in nature and blessedly so - they are examples of hard-won victories against capitalism. Classifying them as “not really socialist” (as Ryan does for political reasons) is a disgusting concession as to the progress of socialism in the real world, since beating back the capitalists is hard work (they have the money and the power). Therefore, big European welfare programs are shining examples of socialism-at-work by real socialists, not coffeehouse talkers.
Ryan simply refuses to characterize these progams as “socialist” for one reason and one reason only - their unsustainability has caused enormous catastrophe, and he knows it, and if he concedes that they are “socialist”, he then has to concede that “socialism” has some deep flaws that can’t be ignored.
So rather than deal with these (obvious) problems, Ryan simply changes definitions and says “that isn’t socialism so those problems couldn’t have been caused by socialism!”.
Yes, my point was that members of many parties in Europe - Socialist and otherwise - are advocating austerity measures instead of expanding the welfare state as a solution to Europe’s woes. Ryan desperately tried to imply that the Socialists were leading the charge of reform through austerity measures (as opposed to “capitalist” parties, I guess), but a number of parties are advocating a shift from the practices of the past, including Merkel, a non-socialist.[/quote]
ok that makes things a bit clearer.
your friends are reformist-socialists or can also be called leftsocialists. If you havent heard the term leftsocialists before, it is a more radical version of socialdemocratism. In my country it came about as an middle way between the nato-supporting socialdemocrats and the sovjet-supporting communists. My party call itself communist and marxist, but in reality they are leftsocialists. Ryan on the other hand is not, he is as far as I have understod a hardcore marxist, who think reformisme would go nowhere in terms of abolishing capitalisme, and I agree with this. but I still as your socialist friends see the benefit of also working for social reform, because they have and are helping the lower classes out. but I dont think you get socialisme out of it. What ryan think about this I dont know so you must ask him about where he stand on social-reform.
but anyway, you are right in some sense. the welfare state in my country anyways where championed trough by the norwegian labour party. and our welfare state where modelled after the one in USSR. I know you are not a big fan of a welfare state, but I am glad there is a welfare system in my country. and by the way my country are actually not in as much economical mess as the EU countrys. and the norwegian model is more leftist than the EU model. but there is one point to make. If a country have a big welfare state and a mixed economy, its still not socialist. its a capitalist sociaty with a welfare state. I know they are easy to confuse, but they shouldt be.
but the point was that socialist partys have and are positive to social-reform.
but to make things clear: you have socialist who want socialisme as we socialist in this forum have defined it. and you have socialists who just want social-reform in a capitalist framework. the last group are only socialist in name, but in reality they are socialliberals who also want social-reform.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Ryan,
I am sure you will take this as an attack. It is not meant to be.
You have always been an enigma to me. I do not doubt your intellectual capacity. I only marvel at what I see as the misapplication of it.
Reading this exchange between yourself and TB23, a few things have become painfully clear. You are obviously well read on the various flavors of communism and socialism, or at least the theoretical aspects of said ism’s. Equally obvious is your lack of knowledge and understanding of economics and finance.
You fought a valiant fight. You used what you have to the best of your ability. However, in the end thunderbot23 thoroughly dismantled your arguments. This is not simply my opinion. It just became obvious that you do not have the foundation and understanding to defend against or overcome TB23’s knowledge, experience and application.
You are young, intelligent and passionate, yet you lack enough experiential hooks on which to hang your conceptual knowledge.
I am not suggesting you abandon your cause. I am suggesting that you challenge it often and from all angles with all the data you can. In the end, regardless of your conclusions, you will end up a better man.
[/quote]
I dont want to fight ryans battles for him because I dont think he want me to.
but I have a question Jeaton.
1: how is it painfully clear that ryan lacks knowledge about economics, but at the same time is able to read and understand marx who wrote “das kapital”. I would guess that it takes some understanding of basic economics to fully understand “das kapital”. the reason I ask is because people to often in here, just make a statement about somebody being wrong or similar, without explaining why they are wrong. ( I know I have said this before, but it obviusly needs repeating ).
So if you could be so nice and explain why ryan dont understand economics?
[/quote]
You are correct in that Ryan would not want you to fight his battles. He is an idealist and at his age (and yours), there is a certain romanticism in fighting the “good fight” against overwhelming odds…
Except there is no real fight. He has not as of yet entered the ring. He, and I assume you as well, are still on the side lines. You have read, studied, debated and have all of the false confidence that such can generate. To stretch the analogy, you think you know what war is but until you have actually taken up your weapon and entered the battle, been wounded, battered and bruised, you haven’t a fucking clue.
When you are in your twenties, you think you know everything. You two remind me of myself at that time. You also think anyone twice your age is cynical, bitter an moored in the past. What you eventually discover is nothing beats experience.
As to your specific question…
It has been so long ago that I read Marx I hardly remember the specifics. To be honest, nothing in it struck me as worth remembering. I will share an observation, however. I often find it amusing that those with a leftward lean often poke fun at Christians when they back up their beliefs or actions by stating “it says so in the Bible!”
“And…?” the leftists reply. “What relevance does a book of fairy tales have?”
I somewhat understand their response, for I have the same reaction when someone quotes “Das Kapital”.
As to why Ryan does not understand economics and finance, well I could not do a better job of explaining this than thunderbolt23 did. His questions and statements were revealing.
And yes, I understand that to just state someone is wrong without a full explanation as to why does little to further the topic. I also understand that sometimes a full explanation would require a scope and scale that is impractical and ultimately useless. Without the experiential hooks on which to hang the explanation, the mountain of text only falls on deaf ears.
[/quote]
hm… the age argument. If we follow that logic, we should let the oldest person in the world take all political decisions. we could call it “the dictatorship of the old”
anyway, if you need to wright a wall of text to explain why ryan dont get economics and finance. I would read. I promise. maybe I learn something, my knowledge of economics is very basic.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Let me make it simple for you: socialismis not compatible with private ownership of the means of production. The welfare programs you whine about are thoroughly capitalist in nature, enacted by capitalists, and are essential to diffusing tensions within a capitalist society.
[/quote]
I feel there’s some truth to this. As if entitlement programs have become a sort of pay off to keep folks from demanding full blown socialism (ownership of means). Was reading Fault Lines blog, where the author asserts that growing income inequality over the last few dozen years is at the root of the crises we now face. Both parties saw easy credit-homeownership as politically expedient way to band-aid over this development. Democrats get to see lower wage earners get into homes, and Republicans thought they themselves would benefit from a change in attitude the ownership of private property (home) might bring about.
I’d have actually have to read through all the responses to say much else. However, again, I feel there’s some truth to this point, at least. Think of it as a pay off to keep even more revolutionary ideas from taking hold.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Ryan,
I am sure you will take this as an attack. It is not meant to be.
You have always been an enigma to me. I do not doubt your intellectual capacity. I only marvel at what I see as the misapplication of it.
Reading this exchange between yourself and TB23, a few things have become painfully clear. You are obviously well read on the various flavors of communism and socialism, or at least the theoretical aspects of said ism’s. Equally obvious is your lack of knowledge and understanding of economics and finance.
You fought a valiant fight. You used what you have to the best of your ability. However, in the end thunderbot23 thoroughly dismantled your arguments. This is not simply my opinion. It just became obvious that you do not have the foundation and understanding to defend against or overcome TB23’s knowledge, experience and application.
You are young, intelligent and passionate, yet you lack enough experiential hooks on which to hang your conceptual knowledge.
I am not suggesting you abandon your cause. I am suggesting that you challenge it often and from all angles with all the data you can. In the end, regardless of your conclusions, you will end up a better man.
[/quote]
I dont want to fight ryans battles for him because I dont think he want me to.
but I have a question Jeaton.
1: how is it painfully clear that ryan lacks knowledge about economics, but at the same time is able to read and understand marx who wrote “das kapital”. I would guess that it takes some understanding of basic economics to fully understand “das kapital”. the reason I ask is because people to often in here, just make a statement about somebody being wrong or similar, without explaining why they are wrong. ( I know I have said this before, but it obviusly needs repeating ).
So if you could be so nice and explain why ryan dont understand economics?
[/quote]
You are correct in that Ryan would not want you to fight his battles. He is an idealist and at his age (and yours), there is a certain romanticism in fighting the “good fight” against overwhelming odds…
Except there is no real fight. He has not as of yet entered the ring. He, and I assume you as well, are still on the side lines. You have read, studied, debated and have all of the false confidence that such can generate. To stretch the analogy, you think you know what war is but until you have actually taken up your weapon and entered the battle, been wounded, battered and bruised, you haven’t a fucking clue.
When you are in your twenties, you think you know everything. You two remind me of myself at that time. You also think anyone twice your age is cynical, bitter an moored in the past. What you eventually discover is nothing beats experience.
As to your specific question…
It has been so long ago that I read Marx I hardly remember the specifics. To be honest, nothing in it struck me as worth remembering. I will share an observation, however. I often find it amusing that those with a leftward lean often poke fun at Christians when they back up their beliefs or actions by stating “it says so in the Bible!”
“And…?” the leftists reply. “What relevance does a book of fairy tales have?”
I somewhat understand their response, for I have the same reaction when someone quotes “Das Kapital”.
As to why Ryan does not understand economics and finance, well I could not do a better job of explaining this than thunderbolt23 did. His questions and statements were revealing.
And yes, I understand that to just state someone is wrong without a full explanation as to why does little to further the topic. I also understand that sometimes a full explanation would require a scope and scale that is impractical and ultimately useless. Without the experiential hooks on which to hang the explanation, the mountain of text only falls on deaf ears.
[/quote]
hm… the age argument. If we follow that logic, we should let the oldest person in the world take all political decisions. we could call it “the dictatorship of the old”
anyway, if you need to wright a wall of text to explain why ryan dont get economics and finance. I would read. I promise. maybe I learn something, my knowledge of economics is very basic.
[/quote]
Interesting that you chose to focus on age and not the core of the issue, experience.
Anyway, the wall of text already exists. Re-read TB23’s responses. They fully reveal the information you are looking for.
If still hungry for more, do a search of my posts. Got a specific question, post or pm me.
jeaton: you linked experience with age. and you used it against both me and ryan. but ok lets focus on experience. I guess you are aiming at life experience btw. you have two guys, one of the guys is a 30 year old virgin who lives with his mother and he doesnt work. in other words he lacks experience. the other guy is also 30 years, but have been a plummer who have moved around alot and experienced alot of shit. Lets say they both are memebers here on tmusle and they both end up in a debate in this forum, they both make the same arguments in political issues. here is the question: would the more experienced guy`s arguments be more valid because he have more real life experience?
to the other thing: I get the feeling you are trying to dodge my question: why ryan doesnt get economics?
but if you dont want to back up your statement, I am not going to push any more for it.
[quote]florelius wrote:
jeaton: you linked experience with age. and you used it against both me and ryan. but ok lets focus on experience. I guess you are aiming at life experience btw. you have two guys, one of the guys is a 30 year old virgin who lives with his mother and he doesnt work. in other words he lacks experience. the other guy is also 30 years, but have been a plummer who have moved around alot and experienced alot of shit. Lets say they both are memebers here on tmusle and they both end up in a debate in this forum, they both make the same arguments in political issues. here is the question: would the more experienced guy`s arguments be more valid because he have more real life experience?
to the other thing: I get the feeling you are trying to dodge my question: why ryan doesnt get economics?
but if you dont want to back up your statement, I am not going to push any more for it.
[/quote]
Why do you continue to pretend that I did not address our question. Read pages three and four of this thread. Pay close attention the the areas of Monetary policy, GSE’s (gov. sponsored entities such as Freddie and Fannie, the simple fact that Freddi and Frannie did not have to originate liar loans in order to own them (very elementary).
To save time, this:
"This has become ludicrous. Federal policies attempt to influence and incentivize consumer, producer and investor protection on large scales through monetary, fiscal and regulatory policy - out policymakes are obsessed with it. And yet, here we have a credit crisis - and federal policy drives the amount of credit in the system - and your position is that federal policy couldn’t have had anything to do with it? It was purely a private phenomonon, just another speculation-driven bubble that government policy neither added nor subtracted to?
Now you see why no one takes you seriously? “Speculation” is part of human nature and is inherent in a free system that doesn’t outlaw it (even assumuing you could). In the current instance, the spirits of “speculation” were encouraged by government policy, namely, at the outset, artificially low interest rates.
That is a fact - even Greenspan now concedes that he left interest rates too low too long.
For someone who is no friend of “the state”, you are blindly devoted to defense of any actions taken at the state level w/r/t actions “against” capitalism without an ounce of criticism. "
Actually, just save time and read the hole post that contained the above post. While hardly introductory, the basic knowledge shared by TB is a minimum qualification to be discussing such issues. And as I said, Ryan obviously was not quite up to speed on these things.
And neither are you.
Also, your hypothetical is just silly, but lets work on it a bit.
Suppose you had two men.
The first man is in college, living off the largess of his family who I assume have worked hard to give their son an education. He obviously is not required to hold a part time time, as he has copious amounts of time to debate the perceived merits of of his new love; communism. He is passionate, literate, and intelligent, not to mention being a socialist/communist lends him some level of significance that he can use to differentiate himself from the mass of undergrads and may even make him seem interesting to the nubile young coeds.
The second man was finishing his undergrad work about the same time the first man was born. It was a true struggle to get there. Born to a young seventeen year old mother, he grew up poor but happy with a decent support structure with grandparents. Though he qualified for food stamps and free lunches, his family refused. He mowed yards, bailed hay, cleaned a small grocery after hours until fifteen. He then lied about his age and took construction jobs as a framer, rod buster, iron worker and became proficient with post tension cable. Working high rises, he learned to jack material hoists on the side for extra money. He continued this for a year after HS graduation to save every dollar he could to attend college. It is here that he got his first introduction to cancer that is unions.
Once enrolled he got three part time jobs as a bouncer at a night club, a repo man, and furniture delivery man.
He graduates with a double major, takes an electronics rep job and spends the next six years traveling throughout the 48 continental states, Hawaii, Canada, and the orient. When his new fiancee develops cancer, he takes a year off to find the best care he can for her and helps nurse her back. Afterward, he falls into a new “temporary” career in the automotive business. He finds much success, works his way up through the ranks and goes back to school to get his MBA all while working 65 hours a week. He works his way into running stores, and has a first row seat for much of the Asset Bubble that was 1998 to 2008. He sees the insane lending practices that occurred in the mortgage industry happening in automotive, only to be securitized and passed along to suckers down stream.
Now, lets say that these two crossed paths paths many years latter on a BB forum. Though not hostile, their beliefs are antithetical. Given their backgrounds, experiences, which one’s opinions might you hold more valid?
[quote]florelius wrote:
jeaton: you linked experience with age. and you used it against both me and ryan. but ok lets focus on experience. I guess you are aiming at life experience btw. you have two guys, one of the guys is a 30 year old virgin who lives with his mother and he doesnt work. in other words he lacks experience. the other guy is also 30 years, but have been a plummer who have moved around alot and experienced alot of shit. Lets say they both are memebers here on tmusle and they both end up in a debate in this forum, they both make the same arguments in political issues. here is the question: would the more experienced guy`s arguments be more valid because he have more real life experience?
to the other thing: I get the feeling you are trying to dodge my question: why ryan doesnt get economics?
but if you dont want to back up your statement, I am not going to push any more for it.
[/quote]
Why do you continue to pretend that I did not address our question. Read pages three and four of this thread. Pay close attention the the areas of Monetary policy, GSE’s (gov. sponsored entities such as Freddie and Fannie, the simple fact that Freddi and Frannie did not have to originate liar loans in order to own them (very elementary).
To save time, this:
"This has become ludicrous. Federal policies attempt to influence and incentivize consumer, producer and investor protection on large scales through monetary, fiscal and regulatory policy - out policymakes are obsessed with it. And yet, here we have a credit crisis - and federal policy drives the amount of credit in the system - and your position is that federal policy couldn’t have had anything to do with it? It was purely a private phenomonon, just another speculation-driven bubble that government policy neither added nor subtracted to?
Now you see why no one takes you seriously? “Speculation” is part of human nature and is inherent in a free system that doesn’t outlaw it (even assumuing you could). In the current instance, the spirits of “speculation” were encouraged by government policy, namely, at the outset, artificially low interest rates.
That is a fact - even Greenspan now concedes that he left interest rates too low too long.
For someone who is no friend of “the state”, you are blindly devoted to defense of any actions taken at the state level w/r/t actions “against” capitalism without an ounce of criticism. "
Actually, just save time and read the hole post that contained the above post. While hardly introductory, the basic knowledge shared by TB is a minimum qualification to be discussing such issues. And as I said, Ryan obviously was not quite up to speed on these things.
And neither are you.
Also, your hypothetical is just silly, but lets work on it a bit.
Suppose you had two men.
The first man is in college, living off the largess of his family who I assume have worked hard to give their son an education. He obviously is not required to hold a part time time, as he has copious amounts of time to debate the perceived merits of of his new love; communism. He is passionate, literate, and intelligent, not to mention being a socialist/communist lends him some level of significance that he can use to differentiate himself from the mass of undergrads and may even make him seem interesting to the nubile young coeds.
The second man was finishing his undergrad work about the same time the first man was born. It was a true struggle to get there. Born to a young seventeen year old mother, he grew up poor but happy with a decent support structure with grandparents. Though he qualified for food stamps and free lunches, his family refused. He mowed yards, bailed hay, cleaned a small grocery after hours until fifteen. He then lied about his age and took construction jobs as a framer, rod buster, iron worker and became proficient with post tension cable. Working high rises, he learned to jack material hoists on the side for extra money. He continued this for a year after HS graduation to save every dollar he could to attend college. It is here that he got his first introduction to cancer that is unions.
Once enrolled he got three part time jobs as a bouncer at a night club, a repo man, and furniture delivery man.
He graduates with a double major, takes an electronics rep job and spends the next six years traveling throughout the 48 continental states, Hawaii, Canada, and the orient. When his new fiancee develops cancer, he takes a year off to find the best care he can for her and helps nurse her back. Afterward, he falls into a new “temporary” career in the automotive business. He finds much success, works his way up through the ranks and goes back to school to get his MBA all while working 65 hours a week. He works his way into running stores, and has a first row seat for much of the Asset Bubble that was 1998 to 2008. He sees the insane lending practices that occurred in the mortgage industry happening in automotive, only to be securitized and passed along to suckers down stream.
Now, lets say that these two crossed paths paths many years latter on a BB forum. Though not hostile, their beliefs are antithetical. Given their backgrounds, experiences, which one’s opinions might you hold more valid?[/quote]
If I met them here on this forum and had an discussion with them, I would think that the most valid opinion was the one who where backed up by the most coherent arguments. Thats my point all along. you should judge and argument on itself not on the one who makes it, thats irrelevant. but sadly very common on this forum, people get to personal. Thats bad debating culture.
about the other thing, I`m going to reread the debate between Thunderbolt and ryan, and see if I see what you see.
ps. unions are not cancer. they are extremely importent. two examples: In sovjetunion under stalin, who we all know where an totalitarian state, free unions where forbidden. The same in the totalitarian nazi germany, fascist italy and in todays China unions are under the states control. Why doe you think this totalitarian states where so afraid free unions?
And consistently affirm your desire to have the state interfere with the market economy in order to blacken the eye of Evil Capitalism and make life better for the victims of Evil Capitalism
So, what “ism” is that then, exactly? You don’t hate the state - you routinely support the government stepping in with, in your mind, ameliorative policies for the ills of the dreaded capitalism. And, as such, you support actions by and through “the state” to effect some remedy to capitalism.[/quote]
The state does not equal society. I support intervention by society, not the state. This is the critical difference between social democrats and socialists.
Not quite sure who you’re talking about. The main people I hear talk about social justice are social democrats, or American-style liberals. But for over 100 years, “socialist” has meant one thing. Redefine it however you wish, but then your statements become inaccurate.
I’m not the one trying to redefine a century-old word to try to save my ideology. Get real.
Your sloppy thinking is really becoming comical. A fairer distribution of income is indeed a goal, but besides the fact that “wealth redistribution” is not “collective ownership of the means of production,” the primary goal is to establish a sustainable economy. So you’re wrong again.
Please illustrate my inconsistencies, instead of just making empty allegations. You’ll find none.
There is nothing lazy or cheap about maintaing the definition that socialists have used for over 100 years. Sack up and admit you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Find me the collective ownership of the means of production and the planned economy. Until then, you are talking out of your ass and you know.
Please find the relevant section in any of my posts where I have said that government policy had nothing to do with it. You will not find it, and if you look, you’ll even find a section where I explicitly agree that government policy had a hand in the matter. I simply do not take the step of saying “Well, the government was involved. That proves it was entirely their fault.” In other words, I do not do like you, and take the comfortable way out.
Who are you talking to? It can’t be me, as I just made the point (though somewhat implicitly) in my last post that speculation is always present.
Quit pulling things out of your ass. I explicitly stated before that the government was not innocent. I simply do not place disproportionate blame on the government, especially when there is so much evidence against such a hasty and dismissive interpretation.
Simply because the fact offends your ideology does not give you grounds to dismiss it. Your claims are laughable. Don’t come in here accusing me of ignoring facts and then dance right around this hole in your story. Look at this graph:
Poor correlation. Deal with it.
No one here is saying that the Fed Funds rate has no influence whatever on mortgage rates, but the correlation is far too tenuous and inconsistent to support the argument that “the Fed did it!”
Your insults fall somewhat flat in light of your dismissal of evidence.
[quote]I never said other factors didn’t influence low interests rates - given that borrowing can so easily occur acrodd national borders, other countries’ monetary policy certainly affect our rates. And other central banks engaged in a number of very loose policies that contributed to the crisis - and the Fed was one of them.
Oh, by the way, you should actually read the articles you provide as “proof” of your points. From your article:
But to the extent that the federal government is to blame, the main fed culprits are the beefed up Community Reinvestment Act and the run-amok Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All played a key role in loosening lending standards.
Hilarious. Well done, junior. You can’t get a coherent theme of an argument going to save your life.[/quote]
I did read it. When did I say I agreed with everything in the article? I provided it as support for a statement I made. Nice try, though.
[quote]Not at all true, because ordinary risk is not the same as “moral hazard”, genius. Wall Streeters (and everyone else) are inclined to accept ordinary risk commesurate with return - moral hazard occurs when a patry gets insulated from the ordinary risk that they would otherwise and they therefore act differently in response to that insulation from risk.
My God, man - you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? The market has “moral hazard” built right into it? This has become comical - you don’t even have th ebasic concepts down to have an informed opinion.[/quote]
Please do not criticize me for your inexact thinking and subsequent confusion. It is becoming a theme here. Your mistake: note that I nowhere said “the market” has moral hazard built into it. You just can’t help building strawmen, can you? I don’t blame you, it comes in handy as a right winger. What I did say, is that some moral hazard is built into the financial system, which is certainly true. Executive compensation is a good example: make some large short-to-moderate term profit, get a big bonus! Bankrupt the company, you’re not personally liable for the losses.
[quote]Come on, be serious. You have been shown exactly what you are looking for. Why would banks or morgage companies issues these extremely risky mortgages to risky borrowers if they have to keep the loans on their books? Why would they? They wouldn’t. I can tell you, I’ve worked with banks and I understand how they manage their balance sheets. These loans would not have been made if they didn’t have the incentive to immediately turn them over to Fannie Mae, et al.
It’s an economic fact. It is called a “credit bubble” for a reason - government policy drove (along with other factors to be sure) the bubble.[/quote]
Of course the government was a contributor. No one is denying that. What I AM denying is your childish “HE did it!” story that neglects lots of details. Whether or not you intend it, you across as saying “Look, this never would have happened without the government. Bankers would never risky loans for large profits. They never could have miscalculated the risk in their capital structures.” It’s too simple for such a complicated event.
But the fact is, the GSEs did not buy the majority of the risky instruments. Many institutions miscalculated or misunderstood the amount of risk they were taking. And, some didn’t worry about it that much because they thought they were protected in the event of a decline in asset prices.
Sorry, when I have to constantly remind you of important factors you have ignored, that’s not ignorance on my part.
Thanks for the entertainment. Your haughtiness in the face of repeated correction is quite amusing. Please continue.
See above paragraphs for the corrections of your oversimplifications and omissions.
Your turn to see above.
Once again, no one is saying we should. But you continue to try to weasel out of laying any blame at the feet of the market. If all you want to say is that government action made an existing situation worse, then I agree with you, but it shouldn’t cause you to be resistant to admitting the market’s role.
[quote]And yet another yawning straw man - I never said that “it could never happen without a government promise” - why do you consistently invent positions I don’t have? I have argued that government intervention (not all, a certain kind) exacerbates the inherent problem of boom and bust in an economy, i.e., it encourages it and makes it worse.
Thus, there is no contradiction to explain - it is simply a matter of bettering your reading comprehension. Pathetic.[/quote]
Ah, finally the admission. He has to seal it with an insult, but that’s OK.
It IS your problem when you base your argument on a relationship that is nothing like the one you use in your explanation. Again, you simply assume your problems away.
[quote]“Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. ThatÃ?¢??s right Ã?¢?? most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or FreddieÃ?¢??s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrowerÃ?¢??s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.”
Good try, by 2008, Fannie Mae owned $5.1 trillion on housing mortgage loans. And, they bought loans they couldn’t originate themselves. Thus, the took them off the books of banks and other lenders and underwrote the risk. Then, of course, when borrowers started having problems paying back loans (subprime and otherwise), Fannie Mae was on the hook to back loan packages it securitized, even if it had not made the loans themselves. That, genius, is why Fannie Mae, et al. had to go into consrevatorship - they couldn’t back the promises they made when they underwrote the risk.
Let’s also not forget that in the early 2000s, Fannie Mae began buying Alt-A mortgages under pressure from HUD - risky mortgages to risky buyers (created by a loosening of policies) that Fannie Mae previously refused to own in the 1990s. Fannie Mae began to make the market for risky loans and explosed the demand for them. Thus, banks and mortage lenders rushed in with a supply and made easy money.[/quote]
But Fannie Mae largely started buying riskier mortgages after they began to lose market share, and after Countrywide threatened to stop doing business with them unless they bought their (Countrywide’s) riskier mortgages as well.
In addition, though a GSE, Fannie Mae is a corporation, with private stockholders and investors, who were among those pressuring the company to take more risks.
As usual, the information you leave out is key to arriving at the conclusion you desire.
See above. Your whole criticism is based on the notion that Fannie Mae is not subject to the same market forces as other firms.
Poked at, not answered.
[quote]I have lost patience with you. I’ve given you the tale and I lay the blame at the feet of several institutions, public and private.
Like a child, you ignore all of it, plug your ears with your fingers and whine “you haven’t told me anything! You haven’t told me anything!”.[/quote]
You haven’t told me anything. One of the main questions I have asked, why you are so certain that government policies in particular drove the bubble, when asset bubbles are perfectly possible all on their own, you still refuse to answer.
You ask you for facts, and when I bring up important ones that you don’t like, you insult me and ignore them.
Again, forgive me for taking you less than seriously when I have to constantly fill in the gaps of your simplistic excuse for an explanation of the crisis. Please feel free to continue insulting me, but you should know that when you ask for facts, and then wave away all of them that you don’t like, it’s not me that looks foolish.
Sorry, you’re dead in the water, and you always will be as long as ideology takes precedence over accuracy in your description of events. Your desperation to be done with the argument gives it away.
And on the contrary, I hope people DO read my posts, since they correct your deficient account of things.
Oh yes, storm off, the evidence is beginning to weigh against you. Save face by muttering something about my “ignorance.” No one will bring up the fact that you exited the argument by ignoring or assuming away everything I said. And the best part? The irony will be totally lost on you.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Let me make it simple for you: socialismis not compatible with private ownership of the means of production. The welfare programs you whine about are thoroughly capitalist in nature, enacted by capitalists, and are essential to diffusing tensions within a capitalist society.
[/quote]
I feel there’s some truth to this. As if entitlement programs have become a sort of pay off to keep folks from demanding full blown socialism (ownership of means). Was reading Fault Lines blog, where the author asserts that growing income inequality over the last few dozen years is at the root of the crises we now face. Both parties saw easy credit-homeownership as politically expedient way to band-aid over this development. Democrats get to see lower wage earners get into homes, and Republicans thought they themselves would benefit from a change in attitude the ownership of private property (home) might bring about.
I’d have actually have to read through all the responses to say much else. However, again, I feel there’s some truth to this point, at least. Think of it as a pay off to keep even more revolutionary ideas from taking hold.[/quote]
hmmm, I say the part where he is right is that fact that socialism and capitalism are incompatible. As for the folks who enacted welfare being capitalists, I say that is a debatable point. And welfare is clearly incompatible with capitalism. If you look at the effects of welfare on it’s recipients, it had largely the same effect on those people as pure communist/ socialists governments had on its people. It gives them just enough so that if they were to steps to get themselves off of it, they actually be in worse shape financially. This is where it’s incompatible with capitalism, it keeps people poor by making them dependent on somebody else’s good graces. That is biggest problem in practice with communism, it creates dependence. If you are forced to be dependent on someone else, you are little more than their slave because they have you and your family by the balls. For instance, my family in Czechoslovakia was force to work on the farm even though they were educated for medicine and teaching respectively. They chose not to give up religion, so they cut their pay and force them in to farming to keep them away from other people.
If you depend on others for your survival, you have no control over your own life.
Again, I understand that capitalism has it’s flaws and I a all for a better way, but I won’t revert to a worse way because there are some bad things about capitalism. It is simply the kind of economy that emerged from a free society. It was never written into the constitution that all people must be capitalists, it very naturally evolved and for the most part works rather well.
A system’s streangth and validity is verified during bad times not just good. We hit the skids, but we’re comming out of it. The USSR hit the skids and crumbled.
If I met them here on this forum and had an discussion with them, I would think that the most valid opinion was the one who where backed up by the most coherent arguments. Thats my point all along. you should judge and argument on itself not on the one who makes it, thats irrelevant. but sadly very common on this forum, people get to personal. Thats bad debating culture.
[/quote]
Don’t you mean, the one that was more in line with your teachings?
I think what JEATON is saying is, your too inexperienced (in comparison) to have a valid view in this arena because you do not know anything else. You grew up in a socialist country and have studied socialism , but you have not studied laisse faire capitalism, Austrian Economics, or have lived or worked in a highly capitalistic country. You have not spent time on the other side of the coin. You are just parroting your learnings. You may ocassionally spake the truth, but it’s not from you.
Once again, no one is saying we should. But you continue to try to weasel out of laying any blame at the feet of the market. If all you want to say is that government action made an existing situation worse, then I agree with you, but it shouldn’t cause you to be resistant to admitting the market’s role. [/quote]
Here is why this conversation is over - read the above. From the outset, I have stated that there are a number of factors: government-induced moral hazard, Wall Street/market excesses, and even cultural issues (consumers biting off more than they can chew).
I haven’t even gotten to my criticism of Wall Street/market excesses because I have been too busy trying to explain to you the basic interplay between the interest rates, Fannie Mae and banks - which, as everyone can read, you simply had no clue about.
I lay plenty of blame on private actors, and have always said so. But, in true fahsion, you invent yet another straw man, saying I have been “weaseling” out of any culpability of private actors (the market, Wall Street, etc.). It’s nonsense, as usual, and just another smokescreen to attempt to hide your deficiencies on the topic.
The primary cause of this housing crisis was, in fact, government-induced moral hazard. Banks and mortgage companies would not have lent the way that they did (subprime and otherwise) in the absence of that moral hazard. The policies encouraged people to speculate in an area where there is little reason they would have speculated (to that degree) as before. We had ordinary homeowners speculating on the value of their house due to these policies; not only would they not have speculated without these government policies, they could not have. We had banks churning out loans they would never have to face the risk of; not only would they not have speculated without these government policies, they could not have.
But government policy was not the the only cause, as stated earlier.
But, your clownish antics and near incoherent flailing has made you unsuited to any meaningful discussion on the topic. Oh well. I’ll go in search of someone who knows what they are talking about.
Oh yes, storm off, the evidence is beginning to weigh against you. Save face by muttering something about my “ignorance.” No one will bring up the fact that you exited the argument by ignoring or assuming away everything I said. And the best part? The irony will be totally lost on you.
[/quote]
If I met them here on this forum and had an discussion with them, I would think that the most valid opinion was the one who where backed up by the most coherent arguments. Thats my point all along. you should judge and argument on itself not on the one who makes it, thats irrelevant. but sadly very common on this forum, people get to personal. Thats bad debating culture.
[/quote]
Don’t you mean, the one that was more in line with your teachings?
I think what JEATON is saying is, your too inexperienced (in comparison) to have a valid view in this arena because you do not know anything else. You grew up in a socialist country and have studied socialism , but you have not studied laisse faire capitalism, Austrian Economics, or have lived or worked in a highly capitalistic country. You have not spent time on the other side of the coin. You are just parroting your learnings. You may ocassionally spake the truth, but it’s not from you.
[/quote]
well the funny thing is that my country is not socialist, its capitalist. So have am I able to parrot what I learned from a society that doesnt see eye to eye with me on political issues.
but in a sense we are all victims for the line of thinking thats most commmon in our society. that goes for all of us, not just me.
in the end, even if I where from a socialist country, it would not make my arguments for it invalid.
[quote]florelius wrote:
1: how is it painfully clear that ryan lacks knowledge about economics, but at the same time is able to read and understand marx who wrote “das kapital”.
[/quote]
Marx was also ignorant of economics so anyone who relies solely on the words of Marx for their education will be just as ignorant about it as he was.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:Here is why this conversation is over - read the above. From the outset, I have stated that there are a number of factors: government-induced moral hazard, Wall Street/market excesses, and even cultural issues (consumers biting off more than they can chew).
I haven’t even gotten to my criticism of Wall Street/market excesses because I have been too busy trying to explain to you the basic interplay between the interest rates, Fannie Mae and banks - which, as everyone can read, you simply had no clue about.[/quote]
But you have been in error, as I have shown, at least in the way you have phrased your statements thus far. No one doubts that government policy made a bad situation worse, but you zero in on government errors and omit many important pieces of information in order to reach your desired conclusion, that the government was the primary cause of the bubble. As if the market hasn’t clearly established its ability to form bubbles by now.
Rationalize and distort the facts any you wish, as it is clear you will never question your ideology. Just don’t ask me to share in your delusions.
[quote]florelius wrote:
1: how is it painfully clear that ryan lacks knowledge about economics, but at the same time is able to read and understand marx who wrote “das kapital”.
[/quote]
Marx was also ignorant of economics so anyone who relies solely on the words of Marx for their education will be just as ignorant about it as he was.[/quote]
Funny thing is - every example of an economy based on marist/socialist/communism principles has been a bust - our resident “expert” claims that’s because no perfect implementation of socialism has ever occurred - so doesn’t that make their assumptions and theories just unproven assumptions and theories then - they can’t prove they work, so what’s the point of listening to them spout their unproven opinions about unpoven theories. . . (rhetorical question)
