The founding fathers were slave owners

My comments always have meaning. I shouldn't have to spell this one out, especially to someone of your age who has lived in the South. Almost always, it' the conservatives who ban books, not the liberals. From what you've said, you may have been in Atlanta when Marietta conservatives had a huge book burning on the square. The controversy over censorship has been raging on for decades. It's a party line issue.

.

 

I was born in the South, lived and worked a portion of my life there, and traveled quite extensively in my work. I'm not aware of the book burning you mention, and wonder what books it was that were burned. While I can neither deny nor confirm that Liberals do not burn books, it would appear, in my opinion, that they do write books and teach from books which have a quite biased view of history. I'm certain your opinion is totally opposite, which I respect as being your right.

 

indie

This is a myth being promoted by the same neo-liberal free marketers whose ideas actually caused the crisis.

And the problem is it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny –

(edited pieces from earlier threads)

This is all over the more right wing/free market type news and blogs sites and seems to be the stance taken by the same free market think tanks that advocated neoliberal policies (and I’m sure the lobbyists for the same cause will be whispering it in a lot of politician’s ears).

And I’m not the only one that’s noticed –

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf.../usa.mortgages

As it points out “economic conservatives will not roll over and surrender just because of a financial crisis. Instead, if history is a guide, they will blame regulation for the crisis. That was Milton Friedman's modus operandi when he launched the modern era of deregulation and animus to government with his false claim that the Fed caused the Great Depression.”

**

Or how about this article from the Wall Street Journal -

“The GOP Blames the Victim”

“I asked Bill Black, a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and an authority on the Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980s, what he thought of the latest blame offensive. He pointed out that, for all their failings, Fannie and Freddie didn't originate any of the bad loans -- that disastrous piece of work was done by purely private, largely unregulated companies, which did it for the usual bubble-logic reason: to make a quick buck.
Most of the mistakes for which we are paying now, Mr. Black told me, were actually made "by four entities that under conservative economic theory should have exercised effective market discipline -- the appraisers, the originators of the mortgages, the rating agencies, and the investment banking firms that packaged the subprime mortgage-backed securities." Instead of "disciplining" the markets, these private actors "served as the four horsemen of the financial apocalypse, aiding the accounting fraud and inflating the housing bubble." It is they, Mr. Black says, who "turned a crisis into a catastrophe."”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222...googlenews_wsj

**

Basically this smear job is just another case of neoliberal misdirection and those with an ideological or financial stake in holding onto a failed and failing neoliberal structure are all going to go along with it.

Given the number of ‘free-marketeer’ think tanks, lobbyists and media outlets I’m sure the ‘government is to blame’ mantra will be pushed on the public with some very great vigour, and of course many unquestioning souls will just accept it because it fits in with their prejudices and dogma

But there are other, more realistic voices out there, even amongst the business press -

“There’s a dangerous — and misleading — argument making the rounds about the causes of our current credit crisis. It’s emanating from Washington where politicians are engaging in the usual blame game but this time the stakes are so high that we can’t afford to fall victim to political doublespeak. In this fact-free zone, government sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the real estate bubble and subprime meltdown. It’s completely false. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims of the credit crisis, not culprits”
http://www.businessweek.com/investin...e_mae_and.html

**

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.
http://www.businessweek.com/investin...g_blogspotting

*

Paul Krugman, the economist and long time critic of the free-market mantra’s of the neo-liberals was awarded the Nobel Prize recently.

So let’s get his opinion on blaming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -

Fannie, Freddie and You
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

*

 

I thought in the other thread you’d reached a new low tide mark in unthought through ideas but I see it has competition.

Most people don’t have the knowledge, knowhow, inclination, time or experience to deal with the often complex issues surrounding regulation.

Your simplistic and rather immature view that a consumer can decide to buy or not to buy works fine when down at the greengrocers when a person can decide to buy the fresh fruit over the rotten, but if begins to fall apart when things get more complex. And it must be remembered that there are interested parties that want to obscure, manipulate and misdirect away from what would be prudent regulation because it serves them to do so.

Normal tax payers (consumers) around the world are going to have to pay for the excess and speculative gambling of a few. And although many warned of this and counselled against deregulation, others especially from the right wing think tanks claimed everything was fine and actively promoted limited regulation of the ‘free market’.

Thing is that before the meltdown a lot of people (consumers) had never heard of the myriad of speculative products been traded on the world markets let alone how dangerous they were or realised just how ‘leveraged’ a lot of financial institutions were.

And it still surprises me just how many still cling unquestioningly to the deeply flawed ideas of the ‘free market’ ideology, but given the amount of money been spend to con the unquestioning and the gullible maybe I shouldn’t be.

 

That's a number of opinions, and they appear to support the opinion you find acceptable. So we are at an impasse in that all I could do is produce a number of opinions that I find acceptable, and we would just perpetually argue over who's opinions were correct.

 

Indie

Yes it is the opinion of many analysts, business people and economists and yes there are other views and I’ve read many and some make interesting reading but I don’t think they stand up.

But and it is a big but, the thing is that in the end the mistakes made on both sides still all seemed to come back to similar neo-liberal thinking and attitudes that to me were very deeply flawed.

Just as your consumer as regulator idea seems deeply flawed.

 

We each have analysts, business people and economists who present views we agree with.
I suppose it boils down to what it is you wish to accomplish. I've never felt forced in any way by business, although government has a way of imposing upon me things I would not do of my own free will.

 

'WE EACH HAVE ANALYSTS ,BUSINESS PEOPLE AND ECONOMISTS WHO PRESENT VIEWS WE AGREE WITH."

Ipso-facto YOUR economists were wrong, as see where we are now and where we have gotten in this last decade. I find it very interesting that Balbus, an Englishman, knows more about how this country operates than most Americans. Right-wingers would sink this country with no regrets as long as the transferance of capital continues to flow upward from the middle and lower classes to the top few. It's a despicable bunch of power hungry individuals that care not a whit about the suffering of anyone,including our own countrymen,women and children.

 

What questions do you ask when searching for facts?
Capital tends to move in the direction of the products and services most needed and desired, and ultimately into the pockets of those who provide them. In the case of the most expensive products and services, which requires the labors of many, capital can only move from those who possess large amounts, and not the poor or middle class. Jobs, for the poor and middle classes are often created by those who have adequate capital to risk. Capital does flow both ways.
Why is it that Left-wingers are always trying to place the blame for their own or others sufferings on someone else? Everyone would be wealthy if just someone, perhaps government, were to give them wealth. Wealth can be had in one of two ways, it can be earned or it can be stolen. While you may prefer to steal it, I prefer to earn it, and feel that my right to keep what I earn outweighs your assumed right to steal it.
The country becomes more divided each day, and it is not rich vs. poor, as there are a mix of both on each side. The fact that there appears to be a greater number of the wealthiest on the Left leaves me wondering what the true agenda is. If it is simply to share their wealth with the poor and/or middle classes do they really need laws passed in order to allow that to happen, or might the laws provide them means to acquire even greater wealth and power while appearing philanthropic?

 

Indie

Again we come back to the issue that you’re refusing to discuss elsewhere.

To repeat - The problem with the free market system that you seem to support is it would always seem to strengthen the power and influence of wealth and that it would use that power to bring in regulations and laws that would serve its own self interest.

For example many business interests lobbied for deregulation of the financial sector which lead to the financial crisis and forced the government to prop the system up. And as a consequence of that the government is forced to raise taxes and cut spending which will have a disproportionally adverse effect on the disadvantaged in society.

Yes it goes without saying that there are analysts, business people and economists with differing opinions, the thing is you are not actually contending that what I’ve presented is wrong.

Could you please explain why you think it’s wrong?

*

 

Indie

Or inherited, as I’ve pointed out to you, it is possible to inherit advantage which gives you the distinct possibility of earning more than someone born into disadvantage. And so by your logic since those advantages were not earned but come about by a simple accident of birth, you must think them stolen?

Well as I said I think you’re a teenager with little or no knowledge of the real world let alone earning power, but putting that aside and looking at the issue from a general perspective.

It goes back to the questions raised in the other thread that you seem to be refusing to tackle just touched on above -

No person can choose who they are going to be born to, so the baby cannot be blamed for been born into riches or poverty, it can’t even be blame for the decisions of the parents to have it.

But by the same token neither can if be commended.

A child born into poverty did nothing to deserve the disadvantages associated with it but also the child born into wealth did nothing to deserve the advantages it receives.

The question then arises is it justified for the person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages it didn’t deserve rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged.

OH NO its all a left wing conspiracy shock horror…you’re beginning to sound like my old John Birch society mate Pressed Rat.

 

Perhaps we should examine the politicians we elect more closely. There are lobbyists for both the left and the right, and when large sums of money is given to support a candidates campaign, it should be obvious that something in return will be expected. Money will always be a means of buying politicians support in creating laws and regulation beneficial to the donor, and I don't know how that could be eliminated.
Do you really think banks wanted to make loans to persons who were obviously high risks, and likely to default? The CRA, 1977 (Jimmy Carter) encouraged banks to reduce discriminatory practices, provide loans otherwise considered risky, in low income neighborhoods. Federal agencies were then allowed to oversee and take actions they, the federal agencies, decided necessary and proper when banks required their approval for in doing their business. While the banks on one hand were not required to make high risk loans they could find it difficult to business if they did not. So the banks reacted in a way that lessened their individual risk, passing it on to others which allowed them to make even more risky loans and increase their standing with the government regulatory agencies. Bad loans which never should have been made, and probably would not have been made except because of government regulatory actions allowed for a bubble to come into existence, and eventually burst. In my early life I worked in the loan department at a bank, and such loans would never have been made at that time, 50 years ago. The bank I worked at made it difficult to get an uncollateralized loan except for a small amount when you had no credit record, or had previously defaulted on a loan, and even then only at a high interest rate. Persons who had a loan record, and a record of late payments often had little trouble obtaining a loan and at a low interest rate. Persons who always repaid their loans on time or early often were charged a little higher interest rate.

When government begins to create rights, someone has to pay the bill. Houses and medical care can be quite costly.

 

1. You have a way of twisting my words into something I have not said. I eliminated inherited purposely as that money was also either earned or stolen in the first place. Inherited money is a gift to the recipient, from the individual(s) who earned or stole it. While you may call it an advantage gained through the accident of birth, I would look at it as an advantage, but one gained by having a responsible parent. What is the purpose of having children? At one time it may have been a necessity to provide the needs of the family and the parents in their old age, but in todays world that no longer makes sense.

 

Indie

So why don’t you give it some thought and get back to us?

New York Times book review of Fools Gold by Gillian Tett

But although neat and simplistic that doesn’t actually fit in with what was done and what happened.

Could you please supply the evidence you’re basing this view on?

You could try reading Fool’s Gold by Gillian Tett on when, how and why derivatives were developed

New York Times book review of Fools Gold by Gillian Tett
The book itself is a lot better.

You mean when all the regulation to stop many of the practices that brought about the crash were still in place?

 

Indie

But someone cannot choose who their parents are going to be so you can’t choose to be born to parents that will give you a gift or ones that will not. So how justified are you in keeping the gift rather than sharing it with people who through no fault of their own were not born to such a gift?

 

No need to give it any thought, I accept it to be a fact of life, and something that we can only adapt to by holding elected politicians feet to the fire.

I don't usually pay that much attention to journalists, and prefer to instead read economists explanations. Thomas Sowell is one I respect and hold in high regard. The events that occurred were easily predictable by most anyone, and didn't affect me in the least. Same with the 1987 stock market crash, which I took advantage of. Money can be made in both good and bad times, if you just pay attention. Ask Liberal, and Obama supporter, George Soros. Didn't he make some money by shorting the pound sterling back around a couple of decades ago?

 

Sometimes you have to work with what you have.
Next time you get a gift I'll expect to receive a share of it. The person receiving a gift is totally justified in keeping the gift or to share it as they wish. What justifies another or a governments taking any part of a gift from one person to another person? Under those circumstances I would be willing to give up any form of government protection and assume full responsibility myself. If government has a responsibility to protect you from thieves, why should you allow government to exempt itself?
Taking without permission to me equates to theft. I'm not saying that I'm against any form of taxes, but a strong Federal government allows for all forms of taxes to be imposed and that is why the U.S. was not founded as a Democracy but instead a Constitutional Republic. Sovereignty of the the individual should be supreme, except where the individuals decide to transfer it in accordance with the Constitution. The whole point is to assure that a majority cannot rule over a minority, which is where Democracy leads to failure.

 

Indie

I’ve read a couple of books and many articles of Thomas Sowell (on Townhall etc) and the problem is that he is so obviously partisan and biased that his judgement and credibility is deeply flawed or totally lacking.

This is a man who’s claimed that the only commentators worth listening to are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy because of their wide and deep knowledge.

Who equated voting for Obama with voting a Hitler or Mao.

And has claimed that the only thing that could save America from liberal thinking is a military coup.

*

This bias means that many of the things he presents are disingenuous or misleading, meaning that often the ‘evidence’ he puts forward when looked at can be a lot more ambiguous than he likes to present it.

This is a trait that has been noticed by many others for example this review of one of his books-

Intellectuals and Society, by Thomas Sowell (Basic Books, £17.99)
"Intellectuals" are here defined as those whose "end product" is ideas, and Sowell is wryly persuasive in his discussion of the structural incentives that encourage them to say "sweeping, reckless or even foolish things". The problem is that he blames them, often absurdly, for innumerable ills while neglecting to say clearly that when he writes "intellectuals", he means only liberals. In this sorry tale, leftish intellectuals were responsible for the second world war (recourse to the Hitler example is tellingly frequent); they also caused the US to lose in Vietnam, and cheered on "judicial activism" and other sundry outrages. One would hardly suspect from this book, meanwhile, that there exists a cadre of right-wing opinionistas who spout at least as much pernicious nonsense.
Sowell rightly inveighs against speaking of people as abstract groups, yet throughout imagines "the intelligentsia" as homogeneous; he disdains intellectuals' habit of speaking on matters outside their expertise, yet he, an economist, pontificates on legal matters, the efficacy of prisons and the state of "music, art and literature" today. The best chapter is one in which he intelligently demonstrates the way inferences can be skewed by varying interpretations of statistics. The rest of his disingenuously tribalist book is an exemplary illustration of what it seeks to denounce.

*

I think it may be possible that the only reason you respect and hold Thomas Sowell in high regard is because you share his prejudices and bias.



*

 

Indie

Sorry it still doesn’t address the issue I’ve raised.

To clarify I’m not talking about inheritance from a will, such legacies can be given to anyone, a charity or even a favoured pet and may even exclude relatives.

No I’m talking about the advantages that come to someone through an accident of birth. And the point being that no one can choose to be born into such a gift, so are they justified in having it when someone else through no fault of their own is born disadvantaged.

 

stop by the jails and drug rehabs and see all the slave there are today.. stop by the high school and see the future slaves of tomorrow ...