[Proculation]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I think the facts pretty much illustrate that most of the activity that brought down the market had Credit Default swaps NOT been legalized. I mean, thats a very recent development. But I undstand your basic point that theres an ideological barrier preventing the free flow of facts here.

Supposedly, these new subprimes that have been issued are secure because they were all issued with govt backing funds that actually exist.

They are still subprimes... not following the interest rates market. That WILL create a new bubble.

$1:

Also, household net borrowing backed by mortgages (ie other consumer debts where mortgage is used as collateral or to consoolidate debt) continues fall. So far, housing prices have not exploded and neither have investments in these funds.

That's normal. The economy has not started to roll again. Bubbles are like inflation: they depend of the movement of the underlying.

$1:

But important questions remain like do these new subprimes have balloon payments that the borrower wont be able to afford in 2 years time? Are the loan applications being scrutinized for accuracy of info? Is this new lending safe?

TO BE FAIR I HAVE MY DOUBTS. Not because I think 'socialism' or leftists have taken over but because I think just as many Democrats have ties to private financial interests. Look at all the resistance to re-regulating the economy. Look at how many Goldman Sachs guys continue to work for or with the Obama administration, remained on after the Bush administration and have close ties to Congressmen and politicians from BOTH parites.

Well, ties between the Obama and bankers who received all this bailout money are quite clear !

$1:

The priorities of Bush, Obama and Congress has been simply to try and make the problem go away, reinflate the bubble and put everything back to the way it was in 2006. They refuse to accept that things were not right then nor for years before that. REAL structural change needs to be made.

There I agree: the "stimulus" was the worst idea to restructure the US economy. Only a short term way to say "Hey look, i'm Obama in charge!". The structural changes is simple: less corporated ties with the government. That means less power to the government, less regulation.

$1:

One could make the argument that America has been and is still operating on the model of private profits first, people second. The politicians may change but it seems the real people who own the US and control its gov't remain regardless of which party is power.

Like I already said, that's human nature and that's totally normal. That's why they need to deregulate and let the market act instead of the corporations and the lobbies putting pressure on the government for more "crony capitalism". Adam Smith was right you know. After 250 years, maybe we should follow his advices.

[BeaverFever]

I dont think that would solve the problem though. First, you cant separate govt from the market. After all, it is government that makes up the very foundations of the market: Contracts, trademarks, copyrights all are goverment-decreed institutions. A contract without government is just promise easily broken. A trademark or copyright would not even exist. Corporations themselves are govt creations where the owners of the business are not legally or financially responsible for the actions of that business. Why? Because govt decided to make it that way one day.

Second, business, especially BIG business is powerful on its own and often does damage to society and citizens as its going about its actity. Right now govt occasionally slaps those businesses on the wrist but often protects those very businesses and sometimes even acts as its enforcer.

What we need is an INDEPENDENT government that responds to people, not business, and is not afraid to stand up to them when then are undermining the public good.

[Proculation]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I dont think that would solve the problem though. First, you cant separate govt from the market. After all, it is government that makes up the very foundations of the market: Contracts, trademarks, copyrights all are goverment-decreed institutions. A contract without government is just promise easily broken. A trademark or copyright would not even exist. Corporations themselves are govt creations where the owners of the business are not legally or financially responsible for the actions of that business. Why? Because govt decided to make it that way one day.

I'm not a so-called "libertarian". I know we need the government to preserve a premise for free-market: the rule of law.

$1:

Second, business, especially BIG business is powerful on its own and often does damage to society and citizens as its going about its actity. Right now govt occasionally slaps those businesses on the wrist but often protects those very businesses and sometimes even acts as its enforcer.

Yes, that's my point. That's why government should not be able to intervene to regulate the economy because they will tend to intervene for lobbies/corporations.

$1:

What we need is an INDEPENDENT government that responds to people, not business, and is not afraid to stand up to them when then are undermining the public good.

Governments are made of people. People loves power. An independent government is almost impossible by the nature of it. That's the reason socialism-based governments always turn big and corrupt or even totalitarian.

[BeaverFever]

Interestingly enough, since we've brought up socialism, Marx argued this same point: That all governments are naturally oppressive and servants of the wealthy elite. Marx argued for the complete abolition of the state altogether - not big government as most people think- snd that people should live in local communities where workers -not government or private investors- should own the farms and factories where they work. Of course, the people who have seized power in the name of Marxism never followed through with those plans once they had power for themselves. In part, because you cant abolish the state when your country is surrounded by other states that you think will invade you if you try do that.

[commanderkai]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Interestingly enough, since we've brought up socialism, Marx argued this same point: That all governments are naturally oppressive and servants of the wealthy elite. Marx argued for the complete abolition of the state altogether - not big government as most people think- snd that people should live in local communities where workers -not government or private investors- should own the farms and factories where they work.

The problem with Marx is he ignores human nature, and the reality of the planet we're on (aka, natural society). There's an interesting introduction of a book called "Pre-Industrial Societies" by Patricia Crone which simplifies it. I'll quickly summarize it. Humans, even in our beginnings, have two "classes" of people. Farmers, and warriors. Farmers who produce the food, and paid soldiers to protect them from other soldiers as well as natural threats like elephants, tigers, wolves, whatever. Whenever a famine occurred, farmers tried to horde more of whatever food is created for themselves. Soldiers did not like that and took the horded food from the farmers, leaving them enough food so they can be alive for next planting and harvest. Thus creating the first "class structure"

But, even IF we all came together as human beings, and there were no foreign governments to worry about, each community, controlling their local production, will still have problems. If a famine occurs within a region, the farming collective will trade (give, donate, blah blah blah) less food for the factory collective. The factory collective will suffer because most of them are devoted to producing...I don't know, pots and pans at the local factory. The farming collective can survive without a new set of pots and pans for that year, while many in the factory collective won't survive because they have no food. So therefore, that factory collective will go grab their pots and pans, bonk the farmers on the head, and take their horded food. The cycle resets, and the bits of organization of government and class structure begins.

[BeaverFever]

True, the real problem is that humans are not gods gift to earth but his curse upon it, I am under no illusion about that. It doesnt matter what system we create for ourselves to live under, we are still predisposed to finding reasons to hate eachother and deny ourselves a peaceful world where we can all live quality lives. Garbage in = garbage out.

Marx did suggest that there would be committes appointed by the collectives or communities to deal with conflicts but this treads a fine line with restablishing the very oppressive government that the system was trying to avoid. Even if we accept the argument that Marxs system would reduce conflict and class struggle to times of scarcity, humans are naturally grudge-bearing self-righteous dopes and the honeymoon period of marxism would disappear forever after the very first period of scarcity.

[commanderkai]

Which brings me to this point. Communism can only be created when Star Trek replicators are made.

[BeaverFever]

Even then, we'll find a way to fuck it up. Youll only get 10 replications a month from your replicator service provider, then everything above that will cost you a hundred space dollars per use, plus a 6.95 service access fee...and thats IF you sign a three earth-year contract.

[commanderkai]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Even then, we'll find a way to fuck it up. Youll only get 10 replications a month from your replicator service provider, then everything above that will cost you a hundred space dollars per use, plus a 6.95 service access fee...and thats IF you sign a three earth-year contract.

I'd more go with...the people with the energy, in an energy shortage, will hog more energy for themselves. Everyone else bonks them over the head and replicates with their horded energy. Lol

[Apollo]

Newsbot Newsbot:

Title: Free market flawed, says survey
Category: Political
Posted By: BeaverFever
Date: 2009-11-09 06:09:36

Lets try this poll again after the Dow hits 20,000. I bet the result will be very different.

[BeaverFever]

LOL ya, and the whole star trek notion that people will continue to work and pursue knowledge just for the advancement of common good and spritual self fulfilment flies in the face of everything we know about humans.

So I'm a cynic, but that doesnt mean Im a "let them eat cake," "kill or be killed," "were all fucked anyway so I might as well get mine" kind of cynic. I feel more like I'm supporting the referee in a game where everybodys cheating and ignoring the rules but he still calls the fouls anyway just on principle; and every once in a while his calls actually matter and for a moment make some small difference to somebody.

[BeaverFever]

Apollo Apollo:

Newsbot Newsbot:

Title: Free market flawed, says survey
Category: Political
Posted By: BeaverFever
Date: 2009-11-09 06:09:36

Lets try this poll again after the Dow hits 20,000. I bet the result will be very different.

Depends whether youre a worker or an investor. Unemployment continues to climb even as stocks climb. If youre unemployed and facing real financial trouble, I bet you dont give a rats ass about how much the hedge funds and investment firms have profited by eliminating your job.

[Pseudonym]

Workers and investors are not discrete, separate groups. While I grant that people in general will be pissed about unemployment regardless of the state of the Dow, an enormous number of those people have retirement accounts and investments tied to the market. Typifying all the beneficiaries as fat cat bankers is incorrect.

[BeaverFever]

I dont typify them as fat cat bankers, but anyone who is more pleased about the Dow being up than they are displeased about unemployment being up is probably in the 'inveswtor' category. For a laid off worker, learning that their RRSP is performing better as a result of their unemployment is really cold comfort and not much of a silver lining.