Customize

#OWS Econ Thread: Keynes, Taxes, Banks, n Stuff

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by DeathHamster, Oct 13, 2011.

  1. ItchyScratchy Member

    This is what I always find funny about the rationalized "I don't have recourse" whining and moaning people do and I'm not saying your post is one big gigantic justification for why you don't like the world you live in.

    So the heart of the matter, every election, board meeting, zoning review, and countless other ways to make yourself heard you are given an opportunity to put forth your views. One of the "contracts" of living in a democracy (representative or direct) is that there might be things you are in the minority about and this those things don't happen. Doesn't make you wrong or right, it's just the way it works.

    So your bitching that taxation by the government leaves you no recourse. You're wrong, it might leave you no immediate recourse but you through an electoral process have those tax codes changed. You can go on and on about what's better, what's worse. It doesn't make a lick of difference in the morality question nor are taxes theft if the majority disagrees with you (just as a function of the definition of theft in a society with consensus laws).

    So you've laid out this rationalized complex argument that off the bat is a straw man/logical fallacy because your initial assumption is incorrect, that being that you have no recourse.

    So go back to the drawing board with the thought that thought in mind and formulate a fresh rationalization for the immorality of taxes.
  2. adhocrat Member

    So how exactly do I get my government to stop killing people? I don't want to stop after another 1000 people are killed. I don't want them to stop after another 100 are killed. I want them to stop killing people now, no more killed.

    Call me idealistic, but I think that would be a good thing, to stop the US from engaging in foreign adventures.

    SO tell me, how more should be killed before the government listens? One? Ten? A hundred? Where does it stop? How many more murdered innocents are you comfortable with?
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Mitsu Too Member

    1800-1913 greatest period of wealth and freedom ever seen.......REALLY!? For whom do you speak? I would beg to difer that anyone of color or female gender would not agree with your opinion. Read any history much on what happened to the emancipated slaves after the Civil War and how many black people were made to disappear on trumped up charges, jailed and literally bought and sold by the Barons of Industry in the mines, railroads, and other industries to create all that wonderful wealth and freedom of which you speak?
    You can start with Douglas Blackmon's book "Slavery by Another Name. The re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II" as a real primer on such a great period in history.

    And what is your so call expertise on economics anyway other than your obvious libertarian manifesto coz anon is right you accuse others of being ignorant at the same time you cry foul on anyone who disagrees with your view.

    And I'm sorry but your 45 years of research is somewhat suspect as you seem to only value opinion and facts that support your theory.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ItchyScratchy Member

    Get out there and protest, vote and do what this country was based on. Your participation in its democratic process.

    It's why you have to support OWS, TP and any other people who are voicing their concerns. You don't have to like them but you have to support them for doing it.

    It's why I don't understand why people would want to demonize the opposing points of view when not all the facts are in.

    I kinda watched last nights debate and I liked something Rong Paul said about the Guantanamo prisoners. How do you know they are guilty if they've never been tried? Personally I think they should have been executed on the battlefield as either combatants or traitors but then I'm merciful.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. ItchyScratchy Member

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/b...nts-to-global-risks.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

    http://www.goldmansachs.at/investor-relations/financials/index.html

    Coupled with:



    Woohoo go free market!!! Or in less sarcastic terms, since rarely do the players have complete and total knowledge of all the transactions, they end up doing stupid shit.

    I'm more curious as to why the regulators haven't forced the counter parties to properly insulate themselves from these risky investments. Oh wait I know why because some how government and regulations are a bad thing, kinda like science and should be shunned because some dude on the radio told me the communists would take over this country and kill me in my sleep.

    Well I guess it was time for europe to go through it's own great depression.

    Enjoy!


    • Like Like x 1
  6. adhocrat Member

    free market! now with more regulators!!!

    lol
  7. Anonymous Member

    Usually lending out more money than you actually have would be called fraud.

    If banks and investment companies don't like that there are rules where they have to weigh the risks, spell them out to customers, and have at least some coverage when things go sour, then they don't have to play that game.

    It used to be that people's long-term retirement savings and investments were kept separate from the money that the banks were gambling with. Now those are used as human shields for "too big to fail" bailouts.

    Bankers need to go back to stogy and boring rather than the current hookers and blow lifestyle.
  8. adhocrat Member

    lol
    sort of missing the point. If there are thousands of regulations already in place when this happened, then maybe just maybe those regulations were worthless in the first place.

    and a free market doesn't have government regulators. You can have one or the other, not both.

    The job of regulation is better done by the free market, the one without government regulators, the one where every consumers votes with their dollars, giving immediate feedback to the system.

    So when I hear that the free market failed because there weren't enough regulations, I know I am listening to an economically and logically challenged person.
  9. Anonymous Member

    Lol, ideologue.

    Explain Canada.

    Revise the regulations, streamline them if possible, but make them work, and let the bankers know that they next time that they bet widows' pensions at the race track that they're going to jail for a long time. (That will give them the incentive to scream and refuse the next time politicians "force" them to do something risky and stupid.) While you're at it, get some election spending laws with teeth.
  10. adhocrat Member

    My point was that 'free market' and 'regulations' are mutually exclusive.

    But I would ask if Canada passed a Community Reinvestment Act. If it didn't then that begins to explain things. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of ideology. (BTW, for those wondering, the "lol ideologue" is another of those marvelous thought stopping methods used to stop discussion. So cute. So darling. So desperate.
  11. James Spader Member

    Renamed thread.
  12. adhocrat Member

    Thanks for replying. Yes, the situation was bad for many players. But that doesn't change the fact that more wealth was created during that time than at any other time in history. And it is true that slavery ended when the free market was ascendant. there's a reason for that. And that women first got the vote during the ascendancy of the free market. If memory serves it was in Wyoming in the 1870s. but I may be wrong.

    As for not accepting other views, that is true, if those other views are based on violence and illogic.
    I have seen no arguments against the fact that the social contract is not a contract, it cannot be in fact a 'contract' in the generally accepted use of the word. Until someone can come up with a logical argument for the social contract then I will continue to say it is immoral. Which means that the current system of governing is immoral.

    A basic objection is the fact that one of the implicit signatories is also the guarantor of the contract.
    Can we say conflict of interest?

    I was wondering about that. I knew I had quit watching the other one.
  13. Anonymous Member

    (Lol again. You don't like the established fact that Canada's tighter regulated banks weren't allowed to lose the widows' pensions on the ponies and then raid the nation, so you segue into ad homs. Again.)

    I don't believe that Canada has an equivalent of the Community Reinvestment Act. (Nor the ancient and sacred American holy entitlement of a tax write-off on mortgage interest.)

    The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 (Carter, of course.) But why did it take 31 years for that time-bomb to explode, enk?

    http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
    ^^ now I don't claim to be an expert on economics, so before you pull out all sorts of evidence that the writer is biased, talking through his hat, and using old discredited models, I'll just say that those seem to be good points worthy of an honest rebuttal.

    I'll point out that I blame Wall St and Washington equally. They're involved in an incestuous chicken and the egg relationship with far too much laws, cash and favors floating back and forth.
  14. adhocrat Member

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

    There is more to it that you think, since the bill keeps getting changed.

    If the government orders you to make bad loans and also tells you not to worry, we'll save you, then then is a serious problem. The government created the conditions that led to the banking crisis. This is called a moral hazard in economics.

    One function of government is to prevent moral hazards, since they are inherently inequitable. But here the government created one for its own benefit. Funny how that works. People in government more interested in their careers than in the people they are supposed to represent.
  15. WMAnon Member

    1) Your argument is that the total wealth created is more relevant than the distribution of said wealth? Even though you cite some forward progress for women and minorities at that time, you can't deny that the wealth still belonged overwhelmingly to a small group of robber barons, and the improvements in society on a whole were largely due to resources and land that were stolen from another minority group (native americans) during that time frame.

    2) You seem to be saying that morality is more important than functionality, and using your own very narrow definition of what is moral. As we discussed privately, I disagree on the notion of absolute morality in any form, so I think you're going to have a very long uphill battle convincing anyone that this is a viable starting point for your arguments.
  16. WMAnon Member

    QFT
    • Like Like x 2
  17. adhocrat Member

    First, yes, the way we treated Indians, women, blacks and many others was deplorable. But 200 years ago people understood the world in a different way. We have come a long way (baby) from that place. We now (theoretically) respect women, don't discriminate according to race, color, sex, place of origin, etc, all of which I find to be wonderful advancements. This came about because of the breakdown of established ways of thinking. The social contract and natural rights came about to counter the Divine Rights of Kings. None of us (I hope) believe in the divine rights of Kings anymore.

    And now, with the flaws in the Social Contract theory becoming apparent then a new paradigm needs to be used to explain what the current theory cannot explain. The non aggression principle is one theory that explains much more about society than the Social Contract theory.

    A libertarian cannot discriminate and follow the principles of libertarian thought since we hold that only the individual, not the group, exists. The group is a mental construct, a concept, useful for thinking about a topic, but not to be confused with the reality.

    I am saying that there is no conflict between the moral and functional. That which is moral is functional, that which is immoral is dysfunctional.

    If taxes were moral, they wouldn't be used to kill people in foreign lands against the will of the people who pay those taxes. Since this clearly happens, taxes cannot be moral.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. ItchyScratchy Member

    Heh, you missed the point, the securatization market is unregulated. Hence free market.

    See how well it worked with lehman and now the Dexia and how well AIG has done!

    It's awesome, the free market works and it helps people.

    What do you think, should we let dexia tank or bail them out? I mean some one has to cover the hedges might as well socialize it.

    But carry on with the free market knows best!
  19. adhocrat Member

    To say that there were no regulations in place to cover all this is absurd. It ignores the mounds of regulations on the books. I would appreciate a little more rigor in your thinking.

    Free market means NO government regulation. What we have is a mixed market, in point of fact, what we have is a nascent fascism. Mussolini called for 'corporate capitalism' which is what we have now, and what none of us want.

    Let me repeat that: not one person on this board wants the current crony capitalism system we have now. The issue is what to replace it with.

    But there is NO free market in the US. Period, so to blame any of this on the free market is to say what isn't so. The free market died around 1890 and hasn't been seen since. What we are seeing now is the end result of government meddling in the economy. Calling it the free market doesn't make it so.

    Ask yourself, if you could print US currency in your basement, wouldn't you do it? Maybe not if you were working, but when you lost your income, the baby is crying, you WILL print money in your basement.

    That is all that government is doing. Printing currency, which destroys the currency. This has been shown throughout history. Inflate the currency and you will destroy the economy.
    Keynesian is simply a way to loot the country and have justification for it.

    Get the government out of currency, let the market do what it is the most capable of doing, namely allocating resources in the most equitable manner possible.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Anonymous Member

    Changing, yes, and what was the critical change after 31 years that finally led to the explosion?
    http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

    I don't see that you've addressed that Canada's tighter laws prevented the banks from pulling stupid stuff.

    "Orders you to make bad loans" = "Waaah, the government is forcing us to make bad loans (for 31 years) and we can't say no, scream about it, use our influence or contribute to their opponents' election fund." Oh wait, they did the last one and got the new politicians to loosen the restrictions to allow making lots more really bad loans.

    As I said, chicken and the egg. To say that the bankers and brokers were cruelly forced to blow up the American economy by politicians (and then award themselves massive bonuses for a job well done) is to shift half of the blame. "Moral hazard", lol! That's like a stupid violent addict blaming the dealer who sold him the drugs. The Savings and Loan meltdown in the 80s should have been a clue that the industry has a real problem with scam addiction that needs outside intervention. Sure, people can shift their moneywhen they know that fraud is occurringafter it's been discovered, it's too late.

    Now, the politicians, they have their fair share of blame too. As well as not keeping an eye on those banker junkies, what the heck was that crap about funding two wars off the books all about? Did they think that the bill for that was never going to come due? Irresponsible accounting on that scale, a massive hidden tax on the economy, should have been grounds for impeachment. (Remember when the Cold War ended and there was talk of a "peace dividend" in reduced military spending, less taxes, lots of money to spend on other things like schools and kidney machines? Yeah, what happened to that?)

    You talk about a free market economy. Bankers and brokers are just bookies and loan-sharks with government protection, hardly a free market. If they don't want some rules, then they can do without the protection too. (And people can settle their complaints in the back alleys.)

    Libertarians and anarchists are like electrons and positrons: The same thing, but with the opposite spin.
  21. Anonymous Member

    Maybe more regulation isn't needed.

    The next time, let everyone know that rather than an automatic bailout, all the personal assets of corporate officials, starting with the board of directors and working down, will be seized to try and keep the company afloat under trustees. After all, they either knew what was going on, or they were supposed to as part of their responsibilities, so how can the people in charge not have personal liability? Let them know that they've got skin (and reproductive organs) in the game. If that's not enough money, then look at a bailout, but only after. If anyone thinks that's unfair, tell it to the people whose long-term, low-risk life-savings were poisoned by toxic bad debt.

    A nice side effect would be that all those ex-congress types who collect honorary board positions, in return for past favors, would think twice about it.
  22. Anonymous Member

    ^^ D'oh! Ex-congress and executive cabinet types too.
  23. subgenius Member

    When your only weapon is a hammer, the whole world is a nail.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Anonymous Member

    Oh, burrrrrrn.
  25. adhocrat Member

    When a hammer is your only weapon, you're in the wrong profession. Like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Best not to support war in the first place. ie, best not to support taxes.

    And yes, let's have the players with skin in the game. If you've invested money, it should be 'losable', you shouldn't have a guaranteed profit. That is obscene. And it is the government that makes it happens. Only government has access to tax money (whether you think taxes are moral or not, it is still money derived from our work) which is what fuels wars.

    If i want a new car, I first look at my budget to see if i can afford it. If not, then drive the clunker for another year. Ever notice that the government gets into things without ever coming up with a realistic cost estimate? Why? Because they can print all the money they need, right up until the currency collapses.

    and if someone advocates war, then, let them go fight. That should weed out the overly aggressive right smartly. Leave the rest to our peaceful desires and wants and lives.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Well....at least until the winners of the fight show up to rape and pillage your whole village.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins