Let's celebrate
-
Remember Friday March 14 2008: it was the day the dream of global free- market capitalism died.[^]
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
Remember Friday March 14 2008: it was the day the dream of global free- market capitalism died.[^]
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
Remember Friday March 14 2008: it was the day the dream of global free- market capitalism died.[^]
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Can't disagree with the observation. The sentiment isn't shared, however.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Remember Friday March 14 2008: it was the day the dream of global free- market capitalism died.[^]
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Because, after all, the *only* reason socialism has never yet worked is that it has never been applied at the correct scale. Whereas capitalism can be successfully scaled from the personal, to the local, to the regional, to the national, to the global, apparently socialism needs to be global (and universal) to work. And bring us heaven on earth.
-
If that means an end to these stupid "register to read" news sites, then i'm all for it. :sigh:
-
Have you to register to read the article? I did not :~
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
I hadn't to do anything special - Woah, their pro-regulation filters are really efficient :-D
If you kill a whale, you get Greenpeace and Jacques Cousteau on your back, but wipe out sardines and you get a canning subsidy! Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Heh. I don't really have much of an opinion one way or the other. It's always sounded like a sketchy voodoo con to me; evidence that my ignorant opinion happens to match up reasonably well with reality doesn't really make me feel any better about it.
-
Because, after all, the *only* reason socialism has never yet worked is that it has never been applied at the correct scale. Whereas capitalism can be successfully scaled from the personal, to the local, to the regional, to the national, to the global, apparently socialism needs to be global (and universal) to work. And bring us heaven on earth.
Trotsky would be proud.
MrPlankton
-
Can't disagree with the observation. The sentiment isn't shared, however.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The sentiment isn't shared, however.
Which one? That the federal reserve bailout is proof that the free market is not capable of self healing?
led mike
led mike wrote:
Which one? That the federal reserve bailout is proof that the free market is not capable of self healing?
That the abandonment of free market capitalism by the US is cause for celebration. The markets are self healing if the politicians would just keep their hands off of it. Hell, the entire reason this subprime loan bullshit became a problem is because of the government forcing lenders to not discriminate against minorities. If they cannot discriminate against people who are less able to repay loans, they have to get creative in other ways. The problem is clearly over regulation not under regulation.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
led mike wrote:
Which one? That the federal reserve bailout is proof that the free market is not capable of self healing?
That the abandonment of free market capitalism by the US is cause for celebration. The markets are self healing if the politicians would just keep their hands off of it. Hell, the entire reason this subprime loan bullshit became a problem is because of the government forcing lenders to not discriminate against minorities. If they cannot discriminate against people who are less able to repay loans, they have to get creative in other ways. The problem is clearly over regulation not under regulation.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
That the abandonment of free market capitalism by the US is cause for celebration.
Ah, guess I should have figured that out eh?
Stan Shannon wrote:
If they cannot discriminate against people who are less able to repay loans,
:confused: I thought the whole reason for the subprime mortgages was for the purpose of lending to people who are less able to repay the loans.
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That the abandonment of free market capitalism by the US is cause for celebration.
Ah, guess I should have figured that out eh?
Stan Shannon wrote:
If they cannot discriminate against people who are less able to repay loans,
:confused: I thought the whole reason for the subprime mortgages was for the purpose of lending to people who are less able to repay the loans.
led mike
led mike wrote:
I thought the whole reason for the subprime mortgages was for the purpose of lending to people who are less able to repay the loans.
Thats my understanding also. But apparently (if I undestand things correctly) they began bundling these loans into untraceable chunks and selling them (which goes way over my head) to other banks around the world who thought they were buying safe loans. In that way, they were able to turn unprofitable loans into a reveune stream of some kind. I'm not a banker so I don't really understand how any of that works, but the banks were simply trying to deal with unprofitable practices forced upon them by the government. And now the government is using that as an excuse to dismantle capitalism. (BTW, having private corporations, such as banks, dedicated to implementing the state's political and social policies is the very definition of 'corporatsm' as originally envisioned by Musollini, and other fascists)
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
led mike wrote:
I thought the whole reason for the subprime mortgages was for the purpose of lending to people who are less able to repay the loans.
Thats my understanding also. But apparently (if I undestand things correctly) they began bundling these loans into untraceable chunks and selling them (which goes way over my head) to other banks around the world who thought they were buying safe loans. In that way, they were able to turn unprofitable loans into a reveune stream of some kind. I'm not a banker so I don't really understand how any of that works, but the banks were simply trying to deal with unprofitable practices forced upon them by the government. And now the government is using that as an excuse to dismantle capitalism. (BTW, having private corporations, such as banks, dedicated to implementing the state's political and social policies is the very definition of 'corporatsm' as originally envisioned by Musollini, and other fascists)
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
but the banks were simply trying to deal with unprofitable practices forced upon them by the government.
I work at a fortune 50 financial company and that's not at all what our CFO gave as an explanation of what happened and why. He just explained the subprime situation like 6-10 weeks ago in a company wide town hall meeting. They did it on their own for profit. That's how the free market works right? Or in this case doesn't work. I hope you understand that I will choose to take the word of a fortune 50 CFO over yours in this regard. However, as always, I am certainly open to learning the truth should you choose to offer any citations substantiating your position.
led mike
-
Remember Friday March 14 2008: it was the day the dream of global free- market capitalism died.[^]
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
Nice one Karl. A govt propping up a private bank? Thats socialism not capitolism.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
A govt propping up a private bank? Thats socialism not capitolism
Only problem is, Bear Sterns wasn't propped up. It got bought on the remainders table at a little over 1 cent on the dollar. As a bank it, for all intents and purposes, has ceased to exist.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
led mike wrote:
Which one? That the federal reserve bailout is proof that the free market is not capable of self healing?
That the abandonment of free market capitalism by the US is cause for celebration. The markets are self healing if the politicians would just keep their hands off of it. Hell, the entire reason this subprime loan bullshit became a problem is because of the government forcing lenders to not discriminate against minorities. If they cannot discriminate against people who are less able to repay loans, they have to get creative in other ways. The problem is clearly over regulation not under regulation.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Gotta say, reading all the messages I've read, all the threads I've seen, this has to be the most racist, ignorant one I've ever read. Did you learn this by attending your weekly KKK meeting? The cause of the problem had absolutely nothing to do with the govt forcing companies to do anything. Other then if you want to say that by the Fed lowering interest rates as far as they did several yrs ago which in turn caused mortgage companies to get extremely greedy, they forced this to occur. From what I understand, many mortgage companies, Countrywide for example, typically bundle up a bunch of their mortgages and sell them to investors. It just so happens that their packages started including many sub-prime mortgages. Which may/may not have been understood by the investors buying these packages. But to say that the cause is the govt forcing companies to sell morgages to minorities is just plain redneck, racist tripe.
-
Gotta say, reading all the messages I've read, all the threads I've seen, this has to be the most racist, ignorant one I've ever read. Did you learn this by attending your weekly KKK meeting? The cause of the problem had absolutely nothing to do with the govt forcing companies to do anything. Other then if you want to say that by the Fed lowering interest rates as far as they did several yrs ago which in turn caused mortgage companies to get extremely greedy, they forced this to occur. From what I understand, many mortgage companies, Countrywide for example, typically bundle up a bunch of their mortgages and sell them to investors. It just so happens that their packages started including many sub-prime mortgages. Which may/may not have been understood by the investors buying these packages. But to say that the cause is the govt forcing companies to sell morgages to minorities is just plain redneck, racist tripe.
perryf_00 wrote:
this has to be the most racist, ignorant one I've ever read.
Yeah? So? Is that like a bad thing on your planet?
perryf_00 wrote:
Did you learn this by attending your weekly KKK meeting?
No. I read it on some ordinary news/opinion site. Don't really remember which one.
perryf_00 wrote:
From what I understand, many mortgage companies, Countrywide for example, typically bundle up a bunch of their mortgages and sell them to investors. It just so happens that their packages started including many sub-prime mortgages. Which may/may not have been understood by the investors buying these packages.
Thats precisely my understanding also. Subprime lending is risky for both lenders and borrowers due to the combination of high interest rates, poor credit history, and adverse financial situations usually associated with subprime applicants. A subprime loan is offered at a rate higher than A-paper loans due to the increased risk. Subprime lending encompasses a variety of credit instruments, including subprime mortgages, subprime car loans, and subprime credit cards, among others.[^] If the government is going to require banking institutions to not discriminate, and if minorities are generally more poor than the majority population, it goes without saying that they will incur additional risk trying to accomodate that requirement. I don't see how merely observing the obvious is racist but I honestly don't really care if it is. I'm sick of playng that game. I'm not defending the practice or the banks. But I feel perfectly confident that this would not have happened without government intervention in the process. Banks exist to make money, not as a means of implementing some political social policy. They should be left alone so that they can do that. If they fail, they fail, and should get no government help.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
but the banks were simply trying to deal with unprofitable practices forced upon them by the government.
I work at a fortune 50 financial company and that's not at all what our CFO gave as an explanation of what happened and why. He just explained the subprime situation like 6-10 weeks ago in a company wide town hall meeting. They did it on their own for profit. That's how the free market works right? Or in this case doesn't work. I hope you understand that I will choose to take the word of a fortune 50 CFO over yours in this regard. However, as always, I am certainly open to learning the truth should you choose to offer any citations substantiating your position.
led mike
I'm sure as hell not going to argue with a CFO, but I don't really see how that contradicts what I said. I am opposed to the government bailing these guys out in any way. Let them work their own problems out. At the same time, however, government should cease trying bring about social change through private entities.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization