|
If you believe what you read in the newspapers and hear from many of the talking heads on television, the current economic crisis spells the end of capitalism. Multitudes of fingers have pointed to business greed and short-sighted speculation, at mismanaged financial markets and irrational investment decisions as “proof” that it is the capitalist system that has gotten us into the fix we are in.
Long rejected theories from the Great Depression years of the 1930s are being resurrected to argue that only far-sighted and wise government interventions and regulations can save us from economic catastrophe and guarantee we never suffer from a similar calamity in the future. Not only is the capitalist system not responsible for the present economic crisis, but any attempt to severely hamstring or regulate the market economy out of existence would only succeed in undermining the greatest engine of economic progress and prosperity known to mankind. Without a doubt the current recession is rapidly turning into one of the worst in post-World War II history. The business slowdown and rising unemployment, now estimated to be more than 7.5 percent of the work force, is starting to affect a growing number of people around the country. But if we are to properly find a cure we have to make sure we understand the cause of the disease. The recession has its origin in years of monetary mismanagement by the Federal Reserve System and misguided policies emanating from Washington, D.C. For the five years between 2003 and 2008, the Federal Reserve flooded the financial markets with a huge amount of money, increasing it by 50 percent or more by some measures. The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has tracked the impact of this monetary expansion on interest rates. For most of those years key market rates of interest, when adjusted for inflation, were either zero or even negative. The banking system was awash in money to lend to all types of borrowers. To attract people to take out loans, these banks not only lowered interest rates (and therefore the cost of borrowing), they also lowered their standards for credit worthiness. To get the money, somehow, out the door, financial institutions found “creative” ways to bundle together mortgage loans into tradable packages that they could then pass on to other investors. It seemed to minimize the risk from issuing all those sub-prime home loans, which we now see were really the housing market’s version of high-risk junk bonds. The fears were soothed by the fact that housing prices kept climbing as home buyers pushed them higher and higher with all of that newly created Federal Reserve money. At the same time, government-created home-insurance agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteeing a growing number of these wobbly mortgages, with the assurance that the “full faith and credit” of Uncle Same stood behind them. By the time the Federal government formally had to take over complete control of Fannie and Freddie last year, they were holding the guarantees for half of the $10 trillion American housing market. Low interest rates and reduced credit standards were also feeding a huge consumer-spending boom that that resulted in a 25 percent increase in consumer debt between 2003 and 2008, from $2 trillion to over $2.5 trillion. With interest rates so low, there was little incentive to save for tomorrow and big incentives to borrow and consume today. But, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, during this five-year period average real income only increased by at the most 2 percent. Peoples’ debt burdens, therefore, rose dramatically. The easy money and government-guaranteed house of cards all started to come tumbling down last year, and with a huge crash during the last six months. Now, the same people in Washington who produced the mess we are in say that they need more regulatory authority to repair the very financial and housing markets their earlier actions so severely undermined. And the same Federal Reserve System that produced the monetary excesses that generated the artificial bubbles that have now burst is busy flooding the financial markets with even more newly created money. Over the last five months they have increased the Monetary Base (cash in the system and bank reserves for loans) by 95 percent and M-1 (cash and checking deposits in banks) by almost 40 percent at an annualized rate. The concern, therefore, should not be deflation, but the likelihood of very serious price inflation over the next few years. It is as if Johnny went to the circus with his Uncle Sam and, while he was watching the elephants in the center ring and the trapeze artists high above, his Uncle Sam kept feeding him lots of cotton candy. Then when Johnny develops a tummy ach from all that sugar when he gets home, his Uncle Sam now says, “Oh, feeling bad, Johnny, here, have some more cotton candy.” The fact is, the U.S. economy and the American citizenry cannot escape a correction process after eating all that easy-money cotton candy. Housing prices were pushed far too high and have to settle down at a more realistic lower level; and some people who just cannot afford the homes they purchased during the bubble period will have to either cut back their spending to keep up their house payments or lose their homes. Companies that got over extended will have to dramatically downsize, and in some cases go out of business. Workers who were drawn into unsustainable jobs and wages due to all of that Federal Reserve money sloshing around the economy, and now find themselves temporarily unemployed, will have to search out and shift into more stable and sustainable employments as the dust begins to settle in the market in the months ahead. Trillion-dollar Federal bailouts and “stimulus” packages will only prolong the agony and delay any real economic recovery. Any government-created jobs will be at the expense of private sector employment opportunities, and will disappear as soon as the government projects come to an end. The capitalist system is a great engine of human prosperity. It creates the profit incentives for industry and innovation that over the last half century has literally raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty around the world. The competitive process of supply and demand brings the productive activities of tens of thousands of businesses into balance with the demands of all of us as consumers, both here in America and around the globe. There is no economic system in all of history has had the same ability to do so much material and cultural good as the open, competitive free market. But the capitalist system cannot do its job if government interferes with its operation. Burdensome government taxes, heavy-handed government regulation, misguided government spending, and mismanagement of the monetary system only succeed in gumming up the works like so much sand in the machine. The best pro-active policy the Federal government can undertake right now is to accept that its own past policies have caused the economic crisis we are in, and leave the market alone to rebalance itself and reestablish the basis for sustainable growth and employment in the years ahead. |
A couple of responses. You wrote:
"I just wish people would see the current situation for what it is. It's not a normal free-market economic downturn. We are dealing with a crime, criminal activity. This country has been ripped off by corporate and political criminals and that's why extraordinary actions need to be taken."
Couldn't agree more. There was a segment on "60 Minutes" this past Sunday that bolsters your statement. An elderly woman (who was interviewed) found herself in financial trouble because of re-financing that she could ill afford.
She refinanced 4 times in the last 4 years, receiving $20,000 each time (I'm assuming from equity). She picked
the payment (obviously the lowest) that she wanted which
(I think) ballooned into later payments that surpassed her total monthly income. She was told that in order for her to qualify, her husband's income would need to be factored in.
She agreed, and signed. Now, even if she didn't completely understand the terms, she had to know that something was amiss with the whole thing. The reason........her husband had been dead for quite some time. Although I wouldn't want to see her prosecuted, I would think she also shares in the criminal nature of that particular transaction.
These are the kind of situations encouraged by gov't intervention that I wrote about previously. Intentions/ incentives vs. consequences, i.e.,when the government departs from it's legitimate purpose of refereeing, into
active, political manipulation which distorts the working
of the market.
You wrote:
"We operate under a fractional reserve system...... Thats how the system works. You seem to be implying that we should get rid of the fractional reserve system? That's nonsensical and would severely stunt growth."
All depends on what you want "the system" to do. The Fed was created (in 1913?) to prevent what exactly happened 16 years later, and part of what is happening now. The "growth" you speak of is not real growth but false prosperity built on unsustainable debt expansion that results in recessions, depressions, downturns, etc. in order correct.
To close.....
I do not, and I assume that you do not, print funny money and operate under a "fractional reserve system". Otherwise we both would be in prison.
Regards
Of course Im a free-market capitalist! I just wish people would see the current situation for what it is. It's not a normal free-market economic downturn. We are dealing with a crime, criminal activity. This country has been ripped off by corporate and political criminals and that's why extraordinary actions need to be taken.
I don't mean to try to nail you down to a specific political
label, but I'm just curious as to where you are, more or less,
in the politico-economic scheme of things, just to get an idea
of where you're coming from.
(I'm beginning to think you are secretly a free-market kind of
person who gets his kicks pushing the buttons of a fellow
capitalist, you ol' son-of-a-gun, you!!)
We operate under a fractional reserve system. Deposit facilities expand/contract based on need. Thats how the system works. You seem to be implying that we should get rid of the fractional reserve system? That's nonsensical and would severely stunt growth. I really think you are making a big deal about nothing.
is the most accurate reflection of how it "meets the credit needs of it's entire community", not by the "evaluation" of some third party with no stake in the bank's future.
Other than that.......Hey, you got it!!!!
I interpret it to mean that the more loans you make then the more deposit facilities you get. What's wrong with that? seems perfectly normal to me.
"Fannie and freddie was not "meddling" by the govt. The bankers did NOT have to make these loans. It was simply an additional program for those who wanted to make different types of loans. They could take it or leave it."
I reiterate:
"The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities."
Yep, they COULD take it or leave it. No doubt about it!! Positively agree, 100% !!
However, a given bank's "deposit facilities", it's MEANS OF GROWTH, is dependent on someone else's (ACORN anyone?) REQUIRED evaluation of its "record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community" , i.e., THE NUMBER OF LOANS it gives, creditworthy or otherwise!
This IS meddling, NOT free market capitalism in action.
Simply an additional program ?
Different types of loans ? I'll give you that.
How do you interpret the CRA Legislation?
The documentation requirements were not lowered! They were raised for people who wanted to buy a house but didnt have 20% to put down. Fannie/freddie was basically created so that those who wanted to buy houses with less than 20% down could do so as long as they provided additional documentation. The loans were not risky as long as the doc. requirements were met.
Leon,
Fannie and freddie was not "meddling" by the govt. The bankers did NOT have to make these loans. It was simply an additional program for those who wanted to make different types of loans. They could take it or leave it.
"My view to all of this is that it is not a legitimate function of government to meddle into what amounts to private transactions and agreements."
I'm merely saying that when the referee, i.e., government, moves from its proper, legitimate role as neutral enforcer of the rules, into an active participant in the proceedings by the force of law, the referee becomes the grantor of favors and wishes to the other special interest participants, and all manner of evil is unleased in the name of "fairness and equality", compromising the original
fairness and equality the neutral enforcer was designed to protect in the first place.
(At last count, there were an estimated 35,000 registered
lobbyists in DC alone.)
In anticipation of a rebuttal that "life is not a game", I
would submit to you that a healthy economy, and for that matter, a free society in general, cannot survive, let alone grow without this strict neutrality of government.
Regards
Not only was the entry requirement for credit lowered, FM/FM were coerced into giving these cheap, risky loans.
Unless you address the actual issue being debated, you will not understand the position from which free-marketeers are arguing.
Those borrowers were NOT high-risk if they provided the PROPER income documentation. The problem was that the bankers saw a huge loophole in the documentation requirements. Had the bankers followed the regulations and spirit of the law then none of this would have happened. For you to absolve the bankers of any in guilt in this, to say in effect "oh its not their fault, they were just tempted by the big bad govt to make risky loans" is just ridiculous. Those bankers knew exactly what they were doing.
FROM THE FANNIE MAE WEBSITE...............
About Fannie Mae
Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) chartered by Congress with a mission to provide
liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets.
Fannie Mae operates in the U.S. secondary mortgage market. Rather than making home loans directly with
consumers, we work with mortgage bankers, brokers, and other primary mortgage market partners to help
ensure they have funds to lend to home buyers at affordable rates. We fund our mortgage investments
primarily by issuing debt securities in the domestic and international capital markets.
FANNIE MAE’S ROLE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
As America continues to grow and change, Fannie Mae will be there to help meet its
growing and changing housing needs. Our commitment to our mission will remain
constant—working with our lender partners to put more families into homes.
We know that many Americans are still being overlooked, underserved, and overcharged
in their search for affordable homeownership and rental housing options. Fannie Mae is
dedicated to helping our partners increase the opportunities for homeownership and affordable
rental housing options for low- to moderate-income individuals and families.
AND FROM THE FREDDIE MAC WEBSITE................
Freddie Mac's Vital Role in the Mortgage Market
As the housing crisis of the past year has unfolded, Freddie Mac continues to fulfill its mission to provide
liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage market, even as other investors
have left the market.
* Freddie Mac is currently in the market buying mortgages and issuing securities, which helps to keep
the conventional conforming market liquid, and mortgage rates low and affordable.
* As Congress directed through the Economic Stimulus Act in February, Freddie Mac has extended the
liquidity and stability we bring to the conventional conforming market to the agency jumbo sector. In
doing so, Freddie Mac has become an active buyer of these mortgages, providing liquidity and driving
rates down. As a result, mortgage money is flowing into high-cost areas.
* For delinquent mortgages we own, Freddie Mac is continuing to help troubled borrowers avoid
foreclosure and keep their homes. We are also active in supporting industry efforts to help prevent
foreclosures.
Our Mission
Freddie Mac's mission is to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the housing market.
Congress defined this mission in our 1970 charter, which lays the foundation of our business and the
ideals that power our goals.
Our mission forms the framework for our business lines, shapes the products we bring to market and
drives the services we provide to the nation's housing and mortgage industry. Everything we do comes
back to making America's mortgage markets liquid and stable and increasing opportunities for
homeownership and affordable rental housing across the nation.
Our mission strives to create:
* Stability: Freddie Mac's retained portfolio plays an important role in making sure there's a stable
supply of money for lenders to make the home loans new homebuyers need and an available supply of
workforce housing in our communities.
* Affordability: Financing housing for low- and moderate-income families has been a key part of
Freddie Mac's business since we opened our doors. Freddie Mac's vision is that families must be able both
to afford to purchase a home and to keep that home.
* Liquidity: Freddie Mac makes sure there's a stable supply of money for lenders to make the loans new
homebuyers need. This gives everyone better access to homefinancing, raising the roof on
homeownership opportunity in America.
AND FINALLY, FROM THE CRA WEBSITE...........
The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit
needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods,
consistent with safe and sound operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is
implemented by Regulation BB (12 CFR 228). The regulation was substantially revised in May 1995, and
was most recently amended in August 2005.
Evaluation of CRA Performance
The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire
community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's
application for deposit facilities.
----------------------------------------------
Not withstanding that banks are, by law, inextricably connected with the Federal Reserve and it's
infernal tinkering with the printing press, interest rates, etc., banks, like any other private business,
are in business to make a profit, otherwise there would be no point in private entities starting them
to begin with. This process involves loaning money to the borrower in the hope that that money, plus
interest, the fee, if you will, for using their money, is paid back according to the agreement. The bottom
line for the bank in all of this is RISK, the risk to the bank of the borrower defaulting on the loan. (Not
good for business)
Under normal circumstances, banks have built-in criteria for assessing this risk. Banks will not do
business with potential borrowers whose risk level is not acceptable to the bank. (Good business
practice.)
The whole point for the existence of FM/FM is to address these HIGH-RISK potential borrowers who
fall short of this criteria. In their well-intentioned zeal to make as many people as possible homeowners
(whether or not they can afford it) politicians have perverted the process. Not only are the banks Not
risking their own funds, as shown repeatedly above, their future plans, 'deposit facilities' if you will, are
subject to approval of the CRA.
Banks that would normally act responsibly, i.e., in their own interest, by taking steps thought necessary to
protect their assets and investments, are now encouraged to act otherwise, since their own "funds" are
not in jeopardy and the risks are passed on to others, thanks to FM/FM. In my opinion "greed", whatever
that may be, is irrelevant. It was FM/FM that set the stage for what would not have happened normally, or
at least on such a large scale. After many continuous years of increasing real estate values, the now
sudden drop of those values is a good indication of the hidden, festering condition that has been
going on for a long time, and now the bubble has burst.
My view to all of this is that it is not a legitimate function of government to meddle into what amounts
to private transactions and agreements. The road to Hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.
Intentions of laws, as opposed to the actual consequences of those laws, are not nesessarily the same,
regardless of who is in the White House or Congress, or regardless what one's opinion is of the level
of "oversight and regulation". Just one more government boondoggle.
Regards
"It was the fact that fanny and freddie EXIST
in the first place."
Not true. Fannie and freddie worked fine for the first 10yrs. There was no sub-prime crisis in the 90s right? It wasnt until lax oversight and regulation under the Bush administration that things began to fall apart. The banks weren't under any pressure to make those loans, nobody was holding a gun to their head and forcing them to make loans. The only pressure was their own greed.
You wrote:
>>
Hi again. Ok BillG, let's talk about nature. Not a single other living thing on the entire planet... uses economies, ownership, bills, invoices, timecards, contracts, mercantiling, advertising, lawsuits, shall I go on? There is nothing natural about economies.
for food, drive off weaker competitors and avoid stronger ones ... or die from starvation. In a very real way, that is an economy. It is not an economy of rational decision but of instinct. Man does not, or should not, live by brute instinct and thus we have a decision-based economy that uses the tools you mention.
You may not like all this but that is quite beside the point of whether or not it is true and necessary.
Bill G
Man, I couldn't have said it any better myself. Thank you.
I've been composing this reply in bits and pieces this afternoon, so it will
probably be redundant, so please bear with me......
For Alex42 who wrote:
"It was the lack of regulation of fannie and freddie that caused the current
crisis. The criminals came out in droves."
Unfortunately, it was not the lack of regulation of fanny and freddie that
caused the current crisis. It was the fact that fanny and freddie EXIST
in the first place. Without the pressure from governmental interests to
make these loans, and fannie and freddie to buy these loans (and hence, the
risk, at the taxpayer's expense, thank you very much) most of these loans
would have never been made. Banks are not in business to go bankrupt!
For Wingnut (post #13)
When I re-read my first post (post #11) after I sent it, I realized that
I gave the wrong impression of what I was trying to say. You are absolutely
correct to question "Why is force (extortion) needed AT ALL".
I AGREE 100%..........
NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO GET A JOB !!!!! In fact, so long as a person
is not forcibly interfering with anyone else's life, no one should be forced to
do, or refrain from doing, anything (either politically, or by the criminal element,
which I find indistinguishable most of the time) against their will. However, I hope you
would agree that parents have, at the very least, a moral, if not "legal" obligation
to care for the various needs of their children up to a certain age, whatever that
age may be. My point was that at some time, that individual will most likely find
himself "forced" if you will, not politically, but out of necessity, to, if I may be
harsh, to fend for himself. I have no problem with "asking folks to do stuff" .
If they have no problem freely (i.e., without coercion) granting your request, then
all is fine.
The problem is that you will come across people unwilling or unable, for whatever
reason, to satisfy your desires. What then? If you use force yourself, or sit back
and let others, i.e., the government, do your coercive bidding for you to get from
these people what you want, then you have destroyed the very premise for which
you profess to stand. I submit that if an individual does not have the right to use
coercive force against others, it is illogical to assume that he has the power to
grant that right to anyone else, including government, a power that he himself does
not possess.
There IS a "cost of living". The cost of living existed long before there was such a
thing as capitalism, money, pricetags, etc. EVERYTHING HAS A COST. That cost
in not necessarily "money". Whether you tie your shoes, brush your teeth, or construct
a skyscraper, there is a "price" to pay. TIME and ENERGY MUST be expended in order
to make these things happen. They WILL NOT happen on their own. Time and energy
are the basic "costs" of accomplishing anything and someone MUST PAY THEM in order
for ANYTHING to be accomplished, whether it's you or someone else doing the "paying".
What you wish for is UTOPIA, an existence that has been attempted time and again with
dismal failure. Before there was money there was bartering. Money is only a medium of
exchange to make bartering easier. How much manual labor would you perform for free
before you said "Wait a minute. My time and energy Must be worth SOMETHING. And
besides, I'm getting a bit hungry"? If you were refused any type of compensation for
your effort, my guess is you would be out of there in a heartbeat, and I wouldn't blame
you one bit!
By the way, I WISH the USA military was a moneyless supply system. Otherwise all those
billions of dollars extracted from taxpayers is going down a rat hole!
Regards
You are right, no other living thing has any of the things you listed. Are we to assume that you would rather live like them in a more literal "survival of the fittest" way? That would be ironic.
"There is no link between a free-market and criminals"
You can't be serious can you? Even Alan Greenspan said he now regrets his 'regulation is not necessary' philosophy. It was the lack of regulation of fannie and freddie that caused the current crisis. The criminals came out in droves. Too little regulation is just as bad as too much regulation. The optimal solution lies somewhere in between.
"The inflationary nature of loans"
What's wrong with a little inflation? We had a lot of inflation in the 70's and notice how in the 80's and 90's nobody complained about the 70's inflation? Why was that? It was because it was long forgotten once people realized the upside, the booming economy, the incredible innovations, new products and services that came about as the result of spending some money to prevent collapse. Why should we tie our economic future to some shiny rock in the ground (gold)? That seems primitive to me.
I bet I know where this is going next. Darwinism.
Best Regards!
"And what causes 'cost of living'?"
Nature. Or more precisely, the nature of life in a fallen world. Every living organism in the universe has the "cost to live" of getting off its ass and working, even at thievery, imposed upon it by the reality of scarcity. Refusing to acknowledge this makes it no less true.
In your own argument, the arbitrariness of targeting the requirement of work in capitalism as "servitude" is apparent. Why not rail against the tyranny of apple trees in requiring "servitude" by "forcing 18 year olds" to reach up and pick apples and you and your MaStar cohorts can put all of your efforts into forging a world where all one has to do is open one's mouth and chewed up apple will appear on the tongue?
BillG
"Why is force (extortion) needed AT ALL?"
It absolutely is not. Free-market capitalists in the mould of Mises and Rothbard would argue that aggression is not a necessity to any libertarian society.
"Why not ask folks to do stuff, instead of forcing them?"
Folks would be asked, their participation would not be forced. However, assuming that the free-market arrived before a specific person, their choice would be between living within the laws that support said society or opting out and divesting themselves of property rights. The free-market is borne of the logical right to self and private property.
"Why is "support" needed at all? Is it because capitalists have created a "cost of living"?"
No, support - which I interpret here as welfare - is a disincentive to work and requires expropriating one group of people (those who do work) in order to foot the welfare bill. Hence taxes.
"And what causes "cost of living"? Could it be... capitalism-invented pricetags blocking the survival goods?"
There is no collusion in order to create prices in a free-market. Any attempt to do so would be unsustainable. Prices are a natural market end, not a means of unfairly extracting money from someone. Were there a market for survival goods, because of low wages for a certain group, one would be catered for by entrepreneurs because of the profit-motive. It would not happen because of some ubiquitous, collective, brother-love.
"Haven't I been talking-of removing money and ownership and pricetags from the face of the planet? Sure, a type of "support" is needed to wellbeing all the living things on the planet."
Well, mixing sentient humans with "all living things" is an affront to rationality so I would question your motives on that. In your removal of ownership - which I align with property rights - would you remove ownership of the self?
"Is bill-issuing (invoicing) going-on amongst the members of a family (team)?"
I think it does on a much smaller scale. Chores are a form of work, remuneration being the roof over the child's head.
"So why not make the entire world "all on the same team" and quit invoicing each other over ownership of stupid green pieces of paper, stupid entitlement pieces of paper, and stupid store receipts piece of paper?"
Explain, using a reasoned argument, how you would fairly apportion the natural resources of the world. Free-market capitalism is a meritocracy. From each according to their ability, to each according to their ability. See that inherent balance?
"Anyone bought into the empowerment of pieces of paper... is truly conned into a religious movement."
I whole-heartedly agree that these pieces of paper are a misleading con. We should return to a commodity standard, most likely gold.
"Burdensome government taxes"
Obama is lowering taxes not raising them, duh?
"
The argument being made is that government is interfering with the free market, which would get along fine if left alone. There was no argument that Obama was raising taxes. That there are aggression-enforced taxes at all is part of the issue.
"
"heavy-handed government regulation"
Nothing heavy handed about patching up the loopholes that the bankers drove trucks through, thats just smart.
"
Well, it's heavy handed in that it is significant government interference. The feedback loop goes: the answers the economy delivers are disliked by special-interest group X, government interferes with regulation package Y causing answers that another special-interest group Z dilike causing government more intervention.
"
"misguided government spending"
Most stimulus is just loans. Thats not spending, thats a profitable business deal.
"
Who profits from this business deal? The people being 'loaned from' will certainly benefit, whereas the people who are doing that loaning - the government as a facade for voters - will lose out in the long term. The inflationary nature of loans backed by fractional-reserve banking start bubbles. See yet how the incumbents are fighting fire with fire, poisoning the poisoned?
"
"mismanagement of the monetary system"
I have no idea what they mean by that and neither do they.
"
The author is alluding to fractional-reserve banking, government interference and the general mixed nature of the economy. Amercan monetary policy is confused at best, maliciously mismanaged at worst.
"
"and leave the market alone"
Why? So we can have a repeat of what happened? Let the criminals run free and encourage others to do the same?
"
There is no link between a free-market and criminals. What is prevalent in America is big government spending, price controls extending into every industry and wealth expropriation. The bubble was created by the proliferation of cheap credit due to artificially low interest rates. The Fed and, more generally, the government are to blame for this because they distorted markets, encouraging investment in areas of the economy which had a veneer of health but were decrepit internally.
Hi Leon. Let me ask YOU these questions in reciprocity. Why is force (extortion) needed AT ALL? Why not ask folks to do stuff, instead of forcing them? Why is "support" needed at all? Is it because capitalists have created a "cost of living"? And what causes "cost of living"? Could it be... capitalism-invented pricetags blocking the survival goods? Haven't I been talking-of removing money and ownership and pricetags from the face of the planet? Sure, a type of "support" is needed to wellbeing all the living things on the planet. But think about this. Is bill-issuing (invoicing) going-on amongst the members of a family (team)? No. They instead take care of each other... just like they do in the USA military with ITS moneyless supply system and all-on-the-same-team sharing. So why not make the entire world "all on the same team" and quit invoicing each other over ownership of stupid green pieces of paper, stupid entitlement pieces of paper, and stupid store receipts piece of paper? Anyone bought into the empowerment of pieces of paper... is truly conned into a religious movement. Shake off capitalism and its "order" and "afford" phenomenons... and get back to Christianity/altruism where we all belong. The tug-o-wars over empowerment papers will lead you to a collapsed rat-racing system... and pieces of paper not worth anything... as they always were. Best regards and thanks for the comments. Wingnut
Obama is lowering taxes not raising them, duh?
"heavy-handed government regulation"
Nothing heavy handed about patching up the loopholes that the bankers drove trucks through, thats just smart.
"misguided government spending"
Most stimulus is just loans. Thats not spending, thats a profitable business deal.
"mismanagement of the monetary system"
I have no idea what they mean by that and neither do they.
"and leave the market alone"
Why? So we can have a repeat of what happened? Let the criminals run free and encourage others to do the same?
.
In your initial post you wrote the following;
"SlaveCorp parents (bottom 1/3 of pyramid scheme)... kick their kids into "the great sharktank" when they turn 18 years old (forced to get a job aboard the free marketeers pyramid scheme, OR ELSE)!"
Assuming that you are serious in your stated beliefs, my question to you is this.... At what age do you feel that a person should be forced to get a job and stop living off his parents?
Additionally, should his parents, for whatever reason, be unable to support him before this age is reached, who else
should be coerced into to supporting him in the mean time?
At what age should you yourself be forced to step up to the plate and support someone else until the proscribed age?
Just curious.
Apparently my jesting didn't have the intended effect. I was actually trying to point out the irony that the 'servitude' that Mr. Wendlandt observes as an inherent trait of capitalism is in fact cooperative (given proper institutions to defend against fraud and coercion) regardless of egoist or altruist motives, and thus serves not only as the crux of its efficiency for productivity, but also as its moral vindication.
Definitely sarcasm. I can't imagine the man who reads Mises and still falls victim to that sort of anti-capitalist ranting.
Wingnut, you need to check your premises because what you are talking about is not free-market capitalism. Your post is also somewhat garbled and difficult to decipher. It is full of ad hominem and strawman arguments and is, generally, unreasoned.
I can't believe Mises and all those other free market people never realized that "Capitalism is infested with servitude".
I mean, it seems obvious from this elegant exponentiation that there is a definitive gap between cooperation and servitude. And I guess am most disappointed by the fact that I was all along blinded by Mises' ridiculous babbling about consumers' democracy and subjective values. He had me thinking that capitalism was a cooperative system, which made me think that the 'servitude' inherent in capitalism lined up with the teachings of Christ. I am only amazed that until now I never realized that capitalism was the coercive system rather than socialism.
Oh well, I guess I'm still learning.
There is a lot that you nned to know on this subject. For a start, may I suggest one of my websites: http://zaptheirs.ning.com/profile/CactusClef
Just follow the links, especially the video clips about the Federal Reserve.
Best Regards
Pretty, eh? SlaveCorp parents (bottom 1/3 of pyramid scheme)... kick their kids into "the great sharktank" when they turn 18 years old (forced to get a job aboard the free marketeers pyramid scheme, OR ELSE)! Conversely, rich parents build their kids a house on family land and start an account for them. tsk tsk. Some NICE equality we have going there, eh? What happened to freeing the slaves? When are we going to finish THAT project?
Maybe someday the Christian groups will notice the servitude-infestation in capitalism, and maybe someday we'll ALL remember a childhood farmyard lesson taught by gramma. When failing-at building servitude-infested pyramids, the upper 1/3 is "heads in the clouds" while the children on the bottom ALWAYS GET HURT from having the weight of the world's knees in their backs. Mighty anti-Christian! WE ALL know better than to condone, promote, and/or join such a thing.
When is the USA Center for Disease Control going to ANNOUNCE the enjoyment addiction and the shopping addiction? That would help immensely. Then someone else needs to say "Hey, competition ISN'T HEALTHY AT ALL (never was)... and it is the OPPOSITE of a phenomenon called cooperation." Then the DOJ needs to wake up and BUST this illegal and immoral thing. Forcing 18 year olds to join-or-else (join or die) is forced religion (competer's church) and totally kills membership in the cooperator's church (Christianity). Join or die... is felony extortion. Speaking of felony extortion, is anyone seeing the widespread "pay up or lose your wellbeing" Chicago mob-like felony extortion widespread within capitalism? Sure we are. We need to abolish economies worldwide, and right now. Servitude should have been illegal in the USA LONG AGO!! See, AmWay (capitalism) got the exclusive (legal tender) on the TYPE of survival greenstamps (money) allowed/accepted in USA supply depots (stores). That's pretty illegal, too. Apparently, ANY religious cult can print up money and have it be legal tender, as that's exactly what AmWay did. I think some religious group should print their own money and hand it out like leafs falling from trees (cooperator's church-like)... and scream bloody murder if that new money is discriminated against whatsoever, as far as legal tenderness. That'd be the end of capitalism (hooray).
STOP PYRAMIDING, AMERICA!!! See the pyramids out in the dessert? Symbols, anyone?? PAY ATTENTION!! When you condone, promote, and join capitalism... when you "bought-into" the free marketeers.... you bought into a sham. And now there's a runaway compete-a-thon and enjoyment addiction going-on, There's also a distrust-a-thon and isolation (nation unto selves) festival happening, and a lot of forcing and servitude. There's one HELL of a lot of materialism and self-absorbtion JUNKIES!!! Nice job, America! Real intelligent! Ever heard of rank-by-intelligence or rank-by-morals... instead of rank-by-gouging-abilities? Terrible, atrocious, disgusting system!
Capitalism is infested with servitude, and its easy to see with the massive use of the term "order" within capitalism. When someone "orders" a burger, it sends forced-to-be-there slavecorp folks into action, OR ELSE! That's felony extortion. It is illegal to force folks to join the Free Marketeers church of competing. (So much for FREEDOM for our 18 year olds). Some are born set-for-life, and some are born set-for-servitude. Why, I wonder? Duh... its a controlism con. I suggest competer's take a look at the opposite... cooperating/Christianity/altruism.
Larry "Wingnut" Wendlandt
MaStars - Mothers Against Stuff That Ain't Right
(anti-capitalism-ists)
Bessemer MI USA