Teddy 'Trust Buster' Roosevelt - We Need You

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
I want anyone that defrauded someone else punished.
smirk2.gif



Well then, you should be VERY upset at the super capitalists you defend. But you aren't...

How about we allow derivative securities to the 2nd power to peddle the risk of the original attempt of peddling the risk of loaning money onto more suckers.
crackmeup2.gif
 
"People CHOSE to get involved in these things. What they were doing was legal. If they lost money, too bad for them."

So trillions in retirement accounts are lost and too bad, because as you keep implying 'free markets' unfettered by government know best. The markets are pure and holy, and only government is evil. The markets would have treated investors better if they were unshackled from government regulations, as it's only regulations that make the markets greedy, only the inability to do as they wish that prevents the markets from being a good steward of the market.
 
Quote:
Well then, you should be VERY upset at the super capitalists you defend. But you aren't...

NO, I should be very upset with the government for not prosecuting people that defrauded others.

Has anyone from Fanny or Freddie gone to jail? NO.

But it's all capitalism's fault....
smirk2.gif
 
How could the government prosecute people for selling worthless derivative securities to the tune of roughly $50 trillion dollars when it's perfectly legal?

There's a little known market out there of ~ $50 trillion dollars of essentially worthless insurance contracts on investment vehicles.

Thanks Phil Graham

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/business/17swap.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Tempest ..but aren't you a major supporter of the notion that "if you have it ..you most assuredly deserve it"??

smirk2.gif
smirk2.gif

Not if it was begotten by illegal means.

And for at least the 10th time:
Who pays taxes.

Blow your entire world view out of the water. Sorry.


Again, for the umpteenth time, you're assuming that "earned income" equates to "owned income". I've shown you, in the most infantile terms I can come up with, how one may expand one's wealth at several magnitudes of what one assessed in "earned income".

So, while the statistics you cite are "accurate and true" ..they are disingenuous in what they depict. True upper earners get to structure their income to expand their wealth.

btw-How's that "little people" label wearing these days??




crackmeup2.gif



but about the stats ..what would you expect to happen when you push more and more of your population to lower and lower incomes ..even if you maintained the same costs of administration? All costs are paid by producers. Period. Less viable producers? More costs to the viable producers. How complicated is that to figure out??
 
Last edited:
"So we have proof that "regulation" doesn't solve problems."

No, we merely have another example of a modern Gilded Age, with the trusts, concentration of wealth, greed, corruption, and dogma. As a result we have proof that markets are short sighted and selfish, willing to drive the entire world into a depression for more money. We have proof that people of same mind in government will support such a market.

One needs some ethics, at least for long term market health before any regulatory scheme will work, and it appears that it was found wanting.
 
Corruption, greed and the Fed all played a role. There are definitely many reasons why this happened but at the macro level, the Fed holds the most blame IMO. We should have never left the Gold Standard IMO.

This is one painful bubble, but this problem goes beyond the last 8 years.
 
Quote:
One needs some ethics


I believe that this is not an essential element in Natural Law. Those who can ..will. It's that simple. From what I've seen ..stuff is working out exactly as NL dictated. Those who could ..did.

Sounds totally natural to me
21.gif


Comments, Tempest??
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Corruption, greed and the Fed all played a role. There are definitely many reasons why this happened but at the macro level, the Fed holds the most blame IMO. We should have never left the Gold Standard IMO.

This is one painful bubble, but this problem goes beyond the last 8 years.


Totally agree, and if we didn't have a fiat money system of infinite supply, there would be no need nor a market for derivative securities like credit default swaps.
 
There really is no "perfect" economic system IMO. It depends on many things. I prefer free market capitalism to any other, but with corruption and no ethical standards, it won't work as it could. I think this is why most countries end up with mixed economic systems. You end up with a balance. But as you mentioned Drew, our monetary system is really flawed. From what I've read, the gold standard just seems more sensible.

All of this easy money over the years has just inflated our economy. Greenspan's legacy has done a 180 in months. It's somewhat of a phony economy. Borrowing to consume. Throw greed into the mix and you end up with this [censored]. People living way beyond their means etc. Boils down to common sense.

Maybe there will be a Ron Paul revolution in 2012.
27.gif



Why doesn't the current Republican establishment get behind the only true conservative on fiscal issues? Seriously. Do they actually believe they are "conservative"? Otherwise, nothing really changes other than where that money ends up. They are currently being punished for being the frauds that they are.

God forbid Palin getsin. Drudge is already pushing her down our throats. Ridiculous.
 
Please, not the P-word.

Do people really believe that government run things are any less corrupt than things in the free market, as if there is some magical nobility involved? It's all only people. One is allowed to threaten to kill you if you don't buy their product. Other than that, there's no difference. The saying "you can't cheat an honest man" really is true.
 
Originally Posted By: oilyriser

Do people really believe that government run things are any less corrupt than things in the free market, as if there is some magical nobility involved?


Do you really believe that pure capitalism is some form of magic nobility?

IMO, there has to be a happy medium. I've never advocated a purely government solution to things, but history has shown us that pure capitalism leads to failure as well.

Lord knows our system is far from perfect, and it surely has evolved from pure capitalism (does everyone here want to live and work in a company town???) to some form of needed overall regulation. The happy medium has become too corrupt though.

On the grand scale, large corps have bought the government. It's just harder to see with the advent of technology.

I'm sitting fat and happy typing away on BITOG with the TV running in the background...
 
Paraphrasing Churchill, 'capitalism is the worst economic system that we have, except for all others.'

Short of wars and such the role of government is an agreement on who gets what, which has been very apparent in the recent financial crisis. A merket that has the long term health of the market as it's 'primary directive', as it's simple, fundamental ethic, would have people and governments wanting the markets to manage entitlement funds, manage personal and organizational investments, assist in the develop of economies, but instead we seem to just get the market and the government that we deserve :^)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top