Speaking of socialists
-
The only lesson to be learned from any of this is that the economy is too complex to be micro-managed by any kind of centralized authority. It needs to be left alone to manage itself. The attempts to do so failed here, and they failed in China, and they will continue to fail as long as they are attempted.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only lesson to be learned from any of this is that the economy is too complex to be micro-managed by any kind of centralized authority. It needs to be left alone to manage itself. The attempts to do so failed here, and they failed in China, and they will continue to fail as long as they are attempted.
Thus endeth the reading of the word. Mrs. Agnes Girdle will sing the offertory while the ushers pass among you with the offering plate. Remember to give generously to the bailing out of the investment banks and rest assured that we will continue to line the pockets only of those who shower before work, not those who shower after work. For was it not Jesus himself that said "Yea, verily, it will be easier for a rich man to enter Heaven than a poor man to buy a needle to sew up the holes in his clothes."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Friday, December 26, 2008 8:27 AM
-
The only lesson to be learned from any of this is that the economy is too complex to be micro-managed by any kind of centralized authority. It needs to be left alone to manage itself. The attempts to do so failed here, and they failed in China, and they will continue to fail as long as they are attempted.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It needs to be left alone to manage itself.
Like a headless chicken - lacking in direction? The economy is complex. It has to be, but checks and balances have their place alongside some degree of control from Statutory authorities. If these deals are upright and honest then problems will be minimized but when you have toxic assets being sold on as a "good investment", then people, organisations and countries need to be protected from such, thus the need for transparency, good practices, and necessary Statutory legislation for enforce such. Plus a good dose of common-sense knowing that there doesn't exist a bottomless pit of credit and overexposure to debt is a problem that isn't going to go away any time soon after you sign the credit card slip.
-
Oakman wrote:
Snow, Paulson, Bernanke and Stan's nominee for national hero: George W. Bush.
Along with nearly every other politician for the last 60 years.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Morality of potential fraudulent activities?
Nope. The guys I know well enough to talk with are true believers like Stan. They think there's something holy about a totally unregulated capitalistic system - especially if it's world-wide, thus destroying the standard of living in this country. I have no idea whether Bernanke, Paulson, et all were bright enough to understand the fraud they were perpertrating on the USA or just ideologues enough to think that the more redistribution of wealth from the many to the few was actually a good idea.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The guys I know well enough to talk with are true believers like Stan
Stan is a very small cog in a very big wheel. But as soon as people realise the fact that if the potential for good investments exists, there also exists the potential for massive fraud to happen. Thus my comment to Stan below.
Oakman wrote:
I have no idea whether Bernanke, Paulson, et all were bright enough to understand the fraud they were perpertrating on the USA or just ideologues enough to think that the more redistribution of wealth from the many to the few was actually a good idea.
The balance sheets and so forth told them. I rather think they knew exactly what they were doing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It needs to be left alone to manage itself.
Like a headless chicken - lacking in direction? The economy is complex. It has to be, but checks and balances have their place alongside some degree of control from Statutory authorities. If these deals are upright and honest then problems will be minimized but when you have toxic assets being sold on as a "good investment", then people, organisations and countries need to be protected from such, thus the need for transparency, good practices, and necessary Statutory legislation for enforce such. Plus a good dose of common-sense knowing that there doesn't exist a bottomless pit of credit and overexposure to debt is a problem that isn't going to go away any time soon after you sign the credit card slip.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The economy is complex. It has to be, but checks and balances have their place alongside some degree of control from Statutory authorities. If these deals are upright and honest then problems will be minimized but when you have toxic assets being sold on as a "good investment", then people, organisations and countries need to be protected from such, thus the need for transparency, good practices, and necessary Statutory legislation for enforce such. Plus a good dose of common-sense knowing that there doesn't exist a bottomless pit of credit and overexposure to debt is a problem that isn't going to go away any time soon after you sign the credit card slip.
Government merely needs to enforce a few basic laws, but otherwise let those who make bad business decisions suffer the consequincies for it. The fewer, and more basic they are, the better. The market itself maintains its own sure and inescapable system of justice. Capitalistic system are characterized by completely natural cycles of boom and busts. Those cycles need to be left alone by government and allowed to play themselves out naturally. The only reason for the current mess is government attempts to manage the economy in such a way that it minimizes any possibility of anyone getting hurt ever. There exists no formula by which any government can make an economy function better than it does when left to its own natural mechanisms. All government action can do is mess up the works entirely.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
The guys I know well enough to talk with are true believers like Stan
Stan is a very small cog in a very big wheel. But as soon as people realise the fact that if the potential for good investments exists, there also exists the potential for massive fraud to happen. Thus my comment to Stan below.
Oakman wrote:
I have no idea whether Bernanke, Paulson, et all were bright enough to understand the fraud they were perpertrating on the USA or just ideologues enough to think that the more redistribution of wealth from the many to the few was actually a good idea.
The balance sheets and so forth told them. I rather think they knew exactly what they were doing.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Stan is a very small cog in a very big wheel.
I'm not even sure he can be classified as a cog at all. The guys I'm thinking of were certainly further up the food chain than he'll ever hope to be and I would call them very small cogs.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Thus my comment to Stan below
'Twas well said and well reasoned. Of course, Stan will never understand it, because he refuses to try.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The balance sheets and so forth told them. I rather think they knew exactly what they were doing.
I don't want to believe you, mostly because I suspect you are right. Certainly it has come to light that a number of people did know and spoke up about what was going on, only to be silenced by the poqwers-that-be.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The economy is complex. It has to be, but checks and balances have their place alongside some degree of control from Statutory authorities. If these deals are upright and honest then problems will be minimized but when you have toxic assets being sold on as a "good investment", then people, organisations and countries need to be protected from such, thus the need for transparency, good practices, and necessary Statutory legislation for enforce such. Plus a good dose of common-sense knowing that there doesn't exist a bottomless pit of credit and overexposure to debt is a problem that isn't going to go away any time soon after you sign the credit card slip.
Government merely needs to enforce a few basic laws, but otherwise let those who make bad business decisions suffer the consequincies for it. The fewer, and more basic they are, the better. The market itself maintains its own sure and inescapable system of justice. Capitalistic system are characterized by completely natural cycles of boom and busts. Those cycles need to be left alone by government and allowed to play themselves out naturally. The only reason for the current mess is government attempts to manage the economy in such a way that it minimizes any possibility of anyone getting hurt ever. There exists no formula by which any government can make an economy function better than it does when left to its own natural mechanisms. All government action can do is mess up the works entirely.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Capitalistic system are characterized by completely natural cycles of boom and busts. Those cycles need to be left alone by government and allowed to play themselves out naturally.
Then we need a better system. Q.E.D.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The economy is complex. It has to be, but checks and balances have their place alongside some degree of control from Statutory authorities. If these deals are upright and honest then problems will be minimized but when you have toxic assets being sold on as a "good investment", then people, organisations and countries need to be protected from such, thus the need for transparency, good practices, and necessary Statutory legislation for enforce such. Plus a good dose of common-sense knowing that there doesn't exist a bottomless pit of credit and overexposure to debt is a problem that isn't going to go away any time soon after you sign the credit card slip.
Government merely needs to enforce a few basic laws, but otherwise let those who make bad business decisions suffer the consequincies for it. The fewer, and more basic they are, the better. The market itself maintains its own sure and inescapable system of justice. Capitalistic system are characterized by completely natural cycles of boom and busts. Those cycles need to be left alone by government and allowed to play themselves out naturally. The only reason for the current mess is government attempts to manage the economy in such a way that it minimizes any possibility of anyone getting hurt ever. There exists no formula by which any government can make an economy function better than it does when left to its own natural mechanisms. All government action can do is mess up the works entirely.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
When the Bank of England says 'did not understand crisis'[^] then something is very wrong with the system - namely - how is was functioning. As such, "let those who make bad business decisions suffer the consequincies for it" clearly is not a policy that is working right. Those who made the bad business decisions are essentially still there and those paying the consequences are ordinary folk who now have additional millstones around their neck thanks to Governments having to bail-out those who have perpetrated this "fraud" Sorry Stan, but I believe you are wrong in your defence of unregulated financials.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Morality of potential fraudulent activities?
Nope. The guys I know well enough to talk with are true believers like Stan. They think there's something holy about a totally unregulated capitalistic system - especially if it's world-wide, thus destroying the standard of living in this country. I have no idea whether Bernanke, Paulson, et all were bright enough to understand the fraud they were perpertrating on the USA or just ideologues enough to think that the more redistribution of wealth from the many to the few was actually a good idea.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
destroying the standard of living in this country.
One of two things are going to inevitably happen. Either we are going to be drug down to the rest of the world's standard of living, or the rest of the world is going to rise up to our standard of living. There is no other possible long range scenario. The latter can only happen if the entire world adopts a free market, free trade economic system. Any effort to manage the process by anyone, the notion that one nation can exist in some kind of an independent economic bubble or that some sort of tightly controlled centralized authority has any hope of mananaging something as granular and complex as the international economy, will result inevitably in the former.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
When the Bank of England says 'did not understand crisis'[^] then something is very wrong with the system - namely - how is was functioning. As such, "let those who make bad business decisions suffer the consequincies for it" clearly is not a policy that is working right. Those who made the bad business decisions are essentially still there and those paying the consequences are ordinary folk who now have additional millstones around their neck thanks to Governments having to bail-out those who have perpetrated this "fraud" Sorry Stan, but I believe you are wrong in your defence of unregulated financials.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Sorry Stan, but I believe you are wrong in your defence of unregulated financials.
I'm not saying unregulated, I'm saying minimal regulation. There should be laws governing finance just as there are laws governing every other sector of human activity. But government should not regulate or manage business itself. It should clearly define concepts such as 'fraud' and enforce laws pertaining to those concepts.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Capitalistic system are characterized by completely natural cycles of boom and busts. Those cycles need to be left alone by government and allowed to play themselves out naturally.
Then we need a better system. Q.E.D.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Then we need a better system.
And God should have created a more perfect planet, but he didn't.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Stan is a very small cog in a very big wheel.
I'm not even sure he can be classified as a cog at all. The guys I'm thinking of were certainly further up the food chain than he'll ever hope to be and I would call them very small cogs.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Thus my comment to Stan below
'Twas well said and well reasoned. Of course, Stan will never understand it, because he refuses to try.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The balance sheets and so forth told them. I rather think they knew exactly what they were doing.
I don't want to believe you, mostly because I suspect you are right. Certainly it has come to light that a number of people did know and spoke up about what was going on, only to be silenced by the poqwers-that-be.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
silenced by the poqwers-that-be
Money talks, or is it the threat of a visit from a Hitman - after all, "accidents" do happen
Oakman wrote:
Of course, Stan will never understand it, because he refuses to try
No doubt in my mind that Stan will take some persuasion. [joke]Hitman anybody :laugh: [/joke]
-
Oakman wrote:
destroying the standard of living in this country.
One of two things are going to inevitably happen. Either we are going to be drug down to the rest of the world's standard of living, or the rest of the world is going to rise up to our standard of living. There is no other possible long range scenario. The latter can only happen if the entire world adopts a free market, free trade economic system. Any effort to manage the process by anyone, the notion that one nation can exist in some kind of an independent economic bubble or that some sort of tightly controlled centralized authority has any hope of mananaging something as granular and complex as the international economy, will result inevitably in the former.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Do you cut and paste things you wrote earlier or is there a site called capitalismfordunces.com that you get your answers from? Either way, desperately repeating the same mantra when reading the WSJ gives the lie to everything you write, seems, imho, to be a waste of your time.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Then we need a better system.
And God should have created a more perfect planet, but he didn't.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And God should have created a more perfect planet, but he didn't.
God may or may not have invented the Earth, but, though I hate to destroy your illusions, God did not invent capitalism.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Sorry Stan, but I believe you are wrong in your defence of unregulated financials.
I'm not saying unregulated, I'm saying minimal regulation. There should be laws governing finance just as there are laws governing every other sector of human activity. But government should not regulate or manage business itself. It should clearly define concepts such as 'fraud' and enforce laws pertaining to those concepts.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm saying minimal regulation.
What are your thoughts about "a little bit pregnant?" How about a treatise on "almost a virgin?"
Stan Shannon wrote:
But government should not regulate or manage business itself.
Why not? As long as it it done by representatives of the peepul? You trust these self-same reprepresentatives to manage everyone's bedroom activity - why not their boardroom activity? Seems to me more people get fucked in the boardroom than in the bedroom . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
silenced by the poqwers-that-be
Money talks, or is it the threat of a visit from a Hitman - after all, "accidents" do happen
Oakman wrote:
Of course, Stan will never understand it, because he refuses to try
No doubt in my mind that Stan will take some persuasion. [joke]Hitman anybody :laugh: [/joke]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
No doubt in my mind that Stan will take some persuasion
You want I should talk to me brudder, Vito the Bonecrusher from New Joisey?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And God should have created a more perfect planet, but he didn't.
God may or may not have invented the Earth, but, though I hate to destroy your illusions, God did not invent capitalism.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Sorry Stan, but I believe you are wrong in your defence of unregulated financials.
I'm not saying unregulated, I'm saying minimal regulation. There should be laws governing finance just as there are laws governing every other sector of human activity. But government should not regulate or manage business itself. It should clearly define concepts such as 'fraud' and enforce laws pertaining to those concepts.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.