Ron Paul Bailout Article on CNN by AnthonyT

America loves a winner!

And besides, a vote to go to war isn't the same as standing up and saying Saddam is a bad man, and we need to make sure he doesn't do something truly horrific.

But thanks for a complete and total straw man argument, again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So they 'knew' SOOoooooooooo .... well that Hussein had WMD's and was a threat that they voted against disarming him ! Yep.

Is your failure the failure to understand that 'everyone' means no one left on the other side - for example the people who voted against, the people who demonstrated against, and the UN members ? Is it a failure to understand that just b/c people disagree with you they don't disappear off the face of the planet ? Is it a serious problem with numbers - like 95% of 'them' who don't pay taxes, and the 100% who 'knew' Hussein had WMDs ? Is it a failure of logic ?

Or do you just really, really want to be crazy someday ? Keep on at it ! PLEASE ! It would make me happy !

I am SO waiting for you to finally go off the edge !

***************************************************************

BAD DOG ! Quiet !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:12 PM

America loves a winner!

rue,

Nothing you've said addresses the issue that everyone DID know that Saddam was trouble. That they later chose to vote against the war doesn't change one god damn thing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, how am I supposed to interpret I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one? Sounds as if you're suggesting that a choice had to be made.

For starters, you could read the rest of the sentence which went something like "assuming such a choice had to be made". I don't, in fact, see the two as mutually exclusive in any way. Freedom is quite compatible with prosperity. But prosperity is not the point in my view and if I did have to choose one over the other, I'd pick freedom.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Trouble ? Yes. A bad guy ? Yes.

Had WMDs, as in "everyone knew Saddam had WMD" ? no.
Was a threat ? No.

If only you could just keep your own arguments straight !

But, being confused about your own thoughts is first sign of serious mental illness, so, I have hope !

***************************************************************

SIT !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:12 PM

America loves a winner!

rue,

you're the one who attempted to confuse the issue here, not I.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Anyway, AnthonyT, here is the rest of what I have to say about Ron Paul's ahem analysis.

Fannie Mae was created as a government agency in 1938 if memory serves well. (An early error - it has NEVER written loans as Paul claims.) In 1968 Johnson privatized it and it ceased to be a government entity at that time. So all that time - between 1938 and 1968 - that 'excessive' bit of government seemed to function without causing undue problems for people, the government or the economy.

Its companion, Freddie Mac, was created in 1970 to 'compete' with Fannie Mae. It is also not a government entity.

Neither one is or has been a government function for roughly 40 years.

Still, things went along OK for quite a while afterwards.

So, we have two entities in place that performed well without problems for many, many years - 80 and 40, respectively. I would say that long period of good performance argues against them as the cause of the problem.

Could it have been that 'troublesome' Community Reinvestment Act ? Let's take a look at Countrywide. For years it was THE single largest mortgage lender. With roughly 33% of its home loans delinquent, in default, or in foreclosure, and ready to fold, it was bought up by BofA. It's the best example of toxic mortgage indigestion one can find. The only problem - the Countrywide arm making loans was NOT A BANK. Being NOT A BANK it wasn't subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. If Countrywide could do SO badly without the prod of that act, it argues that the CRA was not, and is not, the cause of the problem. Another reason to believe it's not the CRA is the timeline. The CRA was passed in 1977. For the last 30 years it didn't seem to be a problem. So it probably wasn't, or isn't. Finally, many other private lenders also not subject to the CRA went the way of Countrywide. Those facts absolve the CRA as the cause of the problem.

SignyM covered the fact that the Fed is not a government entity, and also that making fresh money available out of nowhere is an inevitable consequence of capitalism.

Some put the problem at the feet of repealing important regulations - for example, repealing the prohibition against commercial banking merging with investment banking in Glass-Steagall Act (1933).

So far, there doesn't seem to be a single example of how that bad government meddling created the current problem. The only thing we have to go on, after all the chaff has been thrown away, is, apparently, Paul's say-so.

If you look at the data, you'll see that most of the toxic mortgages - the ones going belly-up today - were written after 2000. Elliot Spitzer puts the height of predatory lending at 2003.

"In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation."

In 2004 investment banks were freed from onerous capitalization requirements:

"But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control. The agency’s failure to follow through on those decisions also explains why Washington regulators did not see what was coming.

On that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an urgent plea by the big investment banks.

They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments."

Clearly - and I do mean CLEARLY - it was the lack of regulation vs unchecked greed that lead to the problem.

Further, Ron Paul uses religious rhetoric - by calling this a moral problem - to promote a non-answer - let's fix this by doing more of the same !

He straw-man's the fix - bailout+requirements - into something it is not - an orgy of endless tax money FREE !

And frankly, so much of his writing was just ideological blah blah blah.

When I see what is presented as an analysis - and it is free of verifiable facts, full of false claims, and loaded with blatant propaganda it puts me on alert. As it should you.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:52 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
I was reading some comments on another article about Ron Paul a couple weeks ago. One stuck with. The author spoke dismissively about Ron Paul. He said "Ron Paul may be right, but he just not a viable candidate. His positions are fringe and not in synch with mainstream public opinion." (emphasis mine)

This was meant to be a criticism of Ron Paul, but I couldn't help but see it as a sad commentary of just how deluded mainstream public opinion can be. Being right is just not popular.

SergeantX

The media is lying. The whole thing is a sham. Everyone supported ron paul, that's why he had more campaign contributors than anyone else. But the system is rigged.

Being right isn't about being popular, but in the end, most people like the guy who is right. It might take some of them some time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:52 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
I was reading some comments on another article about Ron Paul a couple weeks ago. One stuck with. The author spoke dismissively about Ron Paul. He said "Ron Paul may be right, but he just not a viable candidate. His positions are fringe and not in synch with mainstream public opinion." (emphasis mine)

This was meant to be a criticism of Ron Paul, but I couldn't help but see it as a sad commentary of just how deluded mainstream public opinion can be. Being right is just not popular.

SergeantX

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Further, Ron Paul uses religious rhetoric - by calling this a moral problem ...

LOL... you're kidding, right?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort." Ron Paul

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort."

Heh... rue, "moral hazard" is a legal term, with a very specific meaning that has nothing at all to do with religion and is only indirectly related to morality.

googled it for you:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moralhazard.asp

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And then he goes on to use it in a non-legal way:

Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

'Precedent' is not in the legal definition of 'moral hazard'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
'Precedent' is not in the legal definition of 'moral hazard'.

You're just diggin' this hole deeper rue, because, yes, it is.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"moral hazard
n.
A risk to an insurance company resulting from uncertainty about the honesty of the insured."

If you wish to use a recently coined variation it might apply to finance, but it's not part of the definition per se. Further, apparently he sees gradations of moral hazard, because the one HE'S thinking of is a "moral hazard of the worst sort". Not, one guesses, the routine insurance kind, as defined.

Using your link (which you posted after the fact, which is why I feel perfectly free to post this after the fact)

What Does Moral Hazard Mean?
The risk that a party to a transaction has not entered into the contract in good faith, has provided misleading information about its assets, liabilities or credit capacity, or has an incentive to take unusual risks in a desperate attempt to earn a profit before the contract settles.

Investopedia explains Moral Hazard
Moral hazard can be present any time two parties come into agreement with one another. Each party in a contract may have the opportunity to gain from acting contrary to the principles laid out by the agreement. For example, when a salesperson is paid a flat salary with no commissions for his or her sales, there is a danger that the salesperson may not try very hard to sell the business owner's goods because the wage stays the same regardless of how much or how little the owner benefits from the salesperson's work.

Moral hazard can be somewhat reduced by the placing of responsibilities on both parties of a contract. In the example of the salesperson, the manager may decide to pay a wage comprised of both salary and commissions. With such a wage, the salesperson would have more incentive not only to produce more profits but also to prevent losses for the company.

NOTHING here about precedent. NOTHING here about ASSumptions - for example, the ASSumptions he says companies and banks will make about the future interests of the federal govenment. NOTHING about restrictions and requirements the government may place on companies as the price of its involvement.

Using even your loosey-goosey definitions, it's clear Paul is using moral hazard in a moral sense - as a temptation - not as a risk in a contract.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

S,wenyways, does anyone have anything intelligent to say about the lack of cogent facts in Ron Paul's so-called analysis ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:32 PM

Good grief rue. You could just admit you made a mistake and move on. I'm not saying that disproves your entire post or anything. Hell, I'd have probably made the same mistake myself if I'd never heard of the term.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

See my post above. Paul is not using the term 'moral hazard' in an accepted legal sense, which deals with CONTRACTS. He's talking about assumptions and temptations by business. He may THINK he's using a legal term, but he's not. And neither are you.

He would have been better off using the words he needed - assumption and temptation. I suspect he either didn't know the legal definition, or if he did, he used the phrase anyway b/c it had more pejorative impact. Something that resonates with his message, which is his assumption of economic righteousness.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
See my post above. Paul is not using the term in an accepted legal sense, which deals with CONTRACTS. He's talking about assumptions and temptations by business. He may THINK he's using a legal term, but he's not. And neither are you.

He would have been better off using the words he needed - assumption and temptation. I suspect he either didn't know the legal definition, or if he did, he used the phrase anyway b/c it had more perjorative impact

LOL... ok. Have it your way. You clearly are never wrong.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:44 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
rue,

you're the one who attempted to confuse the issue here, not I.

How is Rue attempting to confuse the issue here?

Did you or did you not post this:

Quote:

Aside from your petty attempts to toss insults mixed in w/ your revisionist history, I'll remind you EVERYONE "thought " Saddam had WMD, not just the so called 'war mongers' or Neo Cons.

EVERY gorram one thought that. Stop a moment and let that sink in for a bit.

EVERY gorram one.

So introducing solid evidence that bluntly contradicts your claim that 100% of the people on Earth thought Saddam had WMD is "attempting to confuse the issue"?

Interesting.

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"LOL... ok. Have it your way. You clearly are never wrong."

No - clearly the problem is you think Ron Paul is never wrong - such as your attempt to explain that he didn't really write this, because he must have meant the opposite: "For years they (many Americans) thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing."

***************************************************************

Ron Raul is sloppy. His facts are non-existant, his language is sloppy, his logic is flawed, his rhetoric propagandized.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No - clearly the problem is you think Ron Paul is never wrong - such as your attempt to explain that he didn't really write this, because he must have meant the opposite: "For years they (many Americans) thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing."

Rue, you saw "moral hazard" and interpreted it as "religious rhetoric". You either didn't know the term, in which case it was an honest mistake, or you are deliberately equivocating (I can look that one up for you too, if you like).

I don't have a clue what your issue is with the second quote. Many Americans did think that. It was illusory, as he goes on to point out. I suppose you stopped reading where your quote ends and went off half-cocked. Anyway, once again, I'm done talking to you.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:49 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

(CNN) -- Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. http://www.isae.it/not_cons_ing_02_09.pdf
see p1 Consumer confidence dropped steeply in 2002 and never recovered. This assertion is clearly a lie which can be uncovered by the most casual of searches. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.
Is this a thesis, or an unsupported assertion?

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply deeply is an unsupported and pejorative word in housing policy and developed numerous numerous is an unsupported and pejorative word programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market this is lie, as neither agency made loans, and is an attempt to paint the agencies as being responsible for the problem, especially especially is clearly the wrong word here, as it was exclusively the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed bestowed is an unsupported and pejorative word upon them by the federal government.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing forcing is an unsupported and pejorative word banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.This is a lie, as NO bank was 'forced' into unsafe lending, NO bank was 'forced' into predatory lending, and NO non-bank lending agencies - who were the biggest part of the problem - were covered by the CRA.

These governmental governmental is an lie measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The only way he can make this case is by lying about Fannie, Freddie and the CRA, which he did in every case. The key measure by which the Fed presenting the Fed as a government agency is a lie caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money this is an unsupported assertion and not from demand from consumers this is an unsupported assertion, the result is malinvestment this is an unsupported assertion, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand this is an unsupported assertion. (Basically, the entire paragraph is fiction.)

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate this is an unsupported assertion. (What he is describing is capital looking for a profit. It happens whether or not loans are made to peons.) When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically. But this is not the essence of the problem. The problem is that too many predatory loans were written and then sold. When defaults started to occur, it crashed both the lending market and the housing market. Banks found they didn't know if they could lend money to each other or to borrowers. Tight credit and repossessions crashed the real estate market. People who had prudently played by the rules found themselves owing more than their homes were worth. It wasn't an oversupply of housing with no one to buy that caused the problem, it was an effect of it.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance this is an unsupported assertion, equalizing supply and demand this is an unsupported assertion. This economic adjustment this is an unsupported assertion putting a positive light on his preferred outcome means, however that there are some winners this is an unsupported assertion -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products this is a blatant lie as most people who were given predatory loans qualified for normal ones, and some losers this is an unsupported assertion -- builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn't like this this is an unsupported and pejorative assertion, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially artificially is an unsupported and pejorative word inflated inflated is an unsupported and pejorative word. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was this is an unsupported and pejorative assertion.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson this is an unsupported and pejorative assertion, that prices must adjust to economic reality economic free-fall. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme scheme is a pejorative word all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless worthless is a lie and a pejorative word assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far far is a pejorative word in excess of what any any is an unsupported and pejorative assertion buyer would be willing to pay.

Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard moral hazard is a lie and a pejorative phrase of the worst sort worst sort is an unsupported and pejorative phrase. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes schemes is an unsupported and pejorative word is increased this is an unsupported assertion , because they now know this is an unsupported assertion that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless worthless is a lie and a pejorative word, illiquid assets illiquid is a lie and a pejorative word - these are an unsupported assertions.

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory illusory is a lie and a pejorative word short-term short-term is a lie and a pejorative phrase security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability this is an unsupported assertion in the financial system in the long term.

I got tired of this. But as you can see, Ron Paul's screed is filled with pejorative phrasing of the scolding moralistic kind, not technical terms. And it's also loaded with lies, assumptions and propaganda. I have no doubt that he used the phrase b/c of the feeling it evoked, not because it was an appropriate technical term (which, btw, it isn't.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Crapo, you've said over and over again "everyone" thought that Saddam had WMD. So Rue comes up with quite a few Congressional names who DIDN'T think Saddam has WMD, and you shift the argument!

A billion flies eat shit and you're one of them. Just don't get all tweaked when not "everyone" cares to share your meal!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
For starters, you could read the rest of the sentence which went something like "assuming such a choice had to be made". I don't, in fact, see the two as mutually exclusive in any way. Freedom is quite compatible with prosperity. But prosperity is not the point in my view and if I did have to choose one over the other, I'd pick freedom.

But that's a little like saying if I had to choose between rice and the color orange... I'm trying to figure out your definition of freedom, because you used the word in a very puzzling way.

---------------------------------
Ron Paul is an idiot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm trying to figure out your definition of freedom, because you used the word in a very puzzling way.

How so?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 1:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

Actually the concept of a moral hazard is that a precedent has been set that causes people to do something dangerous, believing they'd be bailed out. The bailout of the savings and loans crisis (caused by the deregulation of that industry, just saying) arguably set a precedent of government bailout of those that make risky financial decisions, thereby providing a moral hazard for this recent market crisis.

Moral Hazard is pretty much exactly that, a precedent. The reason the bailouts have constituted a moral hazard, is because:
a) The people who should be thrown to wall are being insulated by them. The bailouts are supposed to protect everyone else from their bad decisions, they should still be hurt by them. Any business that required a bailout should have been forcibly restructured. If it requires a bailout, it's on the verge of collapse. If it collapses, management loses their jobs, and the Shareholders lose their investment. They should gain nothing from the Government stepping in to protect us from their decisions.
b) At the same time as tacitly saying, we'll pick up the tabs for your fuck ups, we also deregulated. So we told these greedy fuckers "feel free to make really stupid decisions gambling on short term gain, not only will we not stop you, we let you keep the winnings and we'll cover your losses!"

What the fuck did people really expect was going to happen? We extended a group of compulsive gamblers an inexhaustible line of other peoples credit, sent them to Vegas, and told them they could keep the winnings. Now we're all acting surprised that these fuckers spanked it all on Roulette? Hello?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 5:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Aside from your petty attempts to toss insults mixed in w/ your revisionist history, I'll remind you EVERYONE "thought " Saddam had WMD, not just the so called 'war mongers' or Neo Cons.

EVERY gorram one thought that. Stop a moment and let that sink in for a bit.- Rapo

Every gorram one- Kwicko

Let THAT sink in a bit!

Now, Rapo... man up. Don't just slink out of this thread like you always do, only to reappear later with the same delusions that you carry around with you like a sack of rotted heads. Admit you were WRONG... WRONG. Admit it, like you say you do. (heh heh heh)

SAY IT RAPO: I WAS WRONG. NOT "EVERYONE" KNEW SADDAM HAD WMD. Say it loud, say it proud! And move on.

Now's your chance to be a man.

Don't blow it.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Did rapo bail on yet another thread?

Did one of his pet delusions get handed to him on a platter? Is he too invested in his delusion to admit that it was mistaken??? Or will he learn from experience? Tune into to our NEXT episode of...

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:47 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

"...SignyM covered the fact that the Fed is not a government entity, and also that making fresh money available out of nowhere is an inevitable consequence of capitalism.

Some put the problem at the feet of repealing important regulations - for example, repealing the prohibition against commercial banking merging with investment banking in Glass-Steagall Act (1933).

So far, there doesn't seem to be a single example of how that bad government meddling created the current problem. The only thing we have to go on, after all the chaff has been thrown away, is, apparently, Paul's say-so.

If you look at the data, you'll see that most of the toxic mortgages - the ones going belly-up today - were written after 2000. Elliot Spitzer puts the height of predatory lending at 2003.

"In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation."

In 2004 investment banks were freed from onerous capitalization requirements:

"But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control. The agency’s failure to follow through on those decisions also explains why Washington regulators did not see what was coming.

On that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an urgent plea by the big investment banks.

They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments."

"...while some are surprised at the current national and world economic crisis, others, including Brown, had seen it coming.

In “Web of Debt,” Brown explains our current “debt-based” private banking monetary system and its history, and the ominous role the private bankers have played in shaping national and world events for their own benefit, amassing great wealth and power, and the myth of the free market and the current events on Wall Street, all with fascinating, highly referenced, and understandable detail. She explains that much of history has been a struggle between the public interest and private banks, connecting the dots with a tale of intrigue that leaves the reader enlightened with how the world really works.

Brown explains that the current financial crisis is an end of a 300-year Ponzi scheme known as “Fractional Reserve Banking” run by the private banks, including the Federal Reserve. She further states that this is an opportune time to change the system now that it is collapsing -- to a system where the people, i.e., Congress, take back the constitutional authority to create money (currently residing unconstitutionally in the hands of private bankers) for the good of the people, with the possibility of funding the government with fees and reasonable profits from public banking in lieu of the income tax.

Since the subject matter of “Web of Debt” is so vitally important and absolutely relevant to the current debate associated with the economic crisis, included below is a brief summary of some of the topics and points that Brown makes in her book.

Coins, dollars, and “computer entries.” Regarding the money supply, Brown states, “Except for coins, the government does not create money. Dollar bills (Federal Reserve Notes) are created by the private Federal Reserve, which lends them to the government. Tangible currency (coins and dollars bills) together make up less than 3 percent of the US money supply. The other 97 percent exists only as data entries on computer screens, and all of this money was created by banks in the form of loans.”

Money created “out of thin air.” To understand how 97 percent of our current money supply is created “out of thin air” by banks when they give out loans, consider the following example. When a borrower takes out a $200,000 mortgage loan to buy a house, the bank, upon receipt of a signed IOU, issues a $200,000 check (or, wire transfer, etc.), in US-backed currency, created “out of thin air” as a bookkeeping entry, to purchase the house. The $200,000 check is not drawn on reserves held by the bank, as one might assume, but is just created “out of thin air.” As Brown states, “They merely ‘monetize’ the borrower’s promise to repay.” Brown provides many references attesting to this fact, from the bankers themselves, including the Federal Reserve’s own revealing pamphlet, “Modern Money Mechanics,” which is no longer published but available on the Internet.

The problem of “interest.” As explained by Brown: “The problem is that banks create only the principal and not the interest necessary to pay back their loans. Since bank lending is essentially the only source of new money in the system, someone somewhere must continually be taking out new loans just to create enough ‘money’ (or ‘credit’) to service the old loans composing the money supply.” Thus, the private bankers’ system of “debt-based” money requires a continuous inflationary cycle of loans to increase the money supply to pay the interest."

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4427.shtml#top

Making 'fresh money' available out of nowhere isn't a consequence of capitalism , but it is the result of Congress abdicating its role to create Lawful Money and turning control of the peoples' Treasury over to Private Banksters...

In the face of private control of 'monetary' policy , it's completely delusional to blame either 'capitalism' or
the 'free market'...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SARGE

Quote:
... if you recognise you need rules and laws to prevent government from passing laws to take away a freedom, then you also need laws to prevent people other than governments taking your freedom. That the only threat to freedom isn't a tyrannical government, so removing all laws won't mean everyone is free. It'll mean a small group has 100% freedom, while everyone else has 0%. But there'll still be no laws.- Citizen

Ok, I see what you mean. I totally agree.- Sagre

I'm trying to figure out your definition of freedom, because you used the word in a very puzzling way.-Signy

How so?- Sarge

Umm... I guess to me there's no such thing as abstract freedom. It's always in context: Freedom from (freedom from hunger, fear, oppression) or freedom to (freedom to think, acquire, associate.) So, when you antithetically juxtapose "freedom" and "prosperity" that means you're defining "freedom" in such as way that the two could be mutually exclusive... even if only hypothetically.

My interpretation is that you use the word "freedom" primarily to mean the freedom to disassociate from an economic activity. I think the reason why you like capitalism is not because its necessarily fairer (it doesn't reward love, friendship or moral insight) or because it offers greater prosperity to everyone but because it offers a way to interact with people on a VERY LIMITED basis: the "marketplace", which one presumably enters into by choice. So the connection YOU see between "freedom" and "prosperity" is that in some way you recognize that greater prosperity, greater technological advances, even greater "fairness" might come at the cost of losing that freedom to disassociate. Is my interpretation correct?

Now YOUR idea is that "the marketplace" under capitalism is voluntary. I think that "the marketplace" under capitalism is a great deal more coercive and offers far fewer real choices than you think because of the very real differences in power between the players. That there are more forms of "power" than the gun, and one of those forms is economic power. (Another is power over modes of communication.) But that's another story.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 8:03 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2009-03-02
Excerpt

At first sight, the budget proposal has all the appearances of an expansionary program, a demand oriented "Second New Deal" geared towards creating employment, rebuilding shattered social programs and reviving the real economy.
The realities are otherwise. Obama's promise is based on a mammoth austerity program. The entire fiscal structure is shattered, turned upside down.
To reach these stated objectives, a significant hike in public spending on social programs (health, education, housing, social security) would be required as well as the implementation of a large scale public investment program. Major shifts in the composition of public expenditure would also be required: i.e. a move out of a war economy, requiring a movement out of military related spending in favour of civilian programs.
In actuality, what we are dealing with is the most drastic curtailment in public spending in American history, leading to social havoc and the potential impoverishment of millions of people.
The Obama promise largely serves the interests of Wall Street, the defence contractors and the oil conglomerates. In turn, the Bush-Obama bank "bailouts" are leading America into a spiralling public debt crisis. The economic and social dislocations are potentially devastating.
Obama's budget submitted to Congress on February 26, 2009 envisages outlays for the 2010 fiscal year (commencing October 1st 2009) of $3.94 trillion, an increase of 32 percent. Total government revenues for the 2010 fiscal year, according to preliminary estimates by the Bureau of Budget, are of the order of $2.381 trillion.
The predicted budget deficit (according to the president's speech) is of the order of $1.75 trillion, almost 12 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product.
War and Wall Street
This is a "War Budget". The austerity measures hit all major federal spending programs with the exception of: 1. Defence and the Middle East War: 2. the Wall Street bank bailout, 3. Interest payments on a staggering public debt.
The budget diverts tax revenues into financing the war. It legitimizes the fraudulent transfers of tax dollars to the financial elites under the "bank bailouts".
The pattern of deficit spending is not expansionary. We are not dealing with a Keynesian style deficit, which stimulates investment and consumer demand, leading to an expansion of production and employment.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12517

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 8:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

O2B

Quote:
The problem of “interest.” As explained by Brown: “The problem is that banks create only the principal and not the interest necessary to pay back their loans. Since bank lending is essentially the only source of new money in the system, someone somewhere must continually be taking out new loans just to create enough ‘money’ (or ‘credit’) to service the old loans composing the money supply.” Thus, the private bankers’ system of “debt-based” money requires a continuous inflationary cycle of loans to increase the money supply to pay the interest."

We should be able to do without "credit" altogether (or at least the lending of money which the lender does not have) by requiring 100% capitalization. The EU, which has done so many things right, did one thing terribly wrong... under Basel It allowed even lower capitalization rates than the US banks! US banks have 20:1 debt ratios- which I thought was horrific to begin with. But the EU banks allowed an astounding 35:1!! And, they are paying for it!!!

However, I DO see the necessity of "interest". Even if bank loans are 100% capitalized, there is no guarantee that the money it loans out will be returned. Some businesses fail, for example. So the bank maybe should charge an interest rate which reflects the average return, accounting for potential losses.

I don't see any other way out of that dilemma, do you???

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 8:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RAPO... are you bailing out of YET ANOTHER thread?

Are you too afraid to admit that one of your pet mantras... that "everyone" thought that Saddam had WMD... was WRONG?

Just as you couldn't admit that I had predicted the meltdown?

And that the final UN Resolution on Iraq (UN R1441) rescinded all previous resolutions and was therefore the only one that legally counted?

Do something different. Don't just weasel out, take your lumps. Man up.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 8:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
US banks have 20:1 debt ratios- which I thought was horrific to begin with.

Actually major US banks averaged 30:1 capitalisation.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:05 AM

Signym,

I'm speaking of freedom in the political sense - i.e. freedom of action, freedom from constraint aka "liberty". Obviously, in any society consisting of more than one person, there's no such thing as unlimited freedom. Giving up some freedom is the sacrifice required to enjoy the advantages of civilized society. The libertarian ideal is that you retain the freedom to act as you please as long as your actions don't interfere with anyone else's freedom to do likewise.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
when you antithetically juxtapose "freedom" and "prosperity" that means you're defining "freedom" in such as way that the two could be mutually exclusive... even if only hypothetically.

The whole point of the post where this came up was just that we have different priorities in terms of basic values. Some of us are more concerned with freedom, some more concerned with security, some with prosperity, etc... It's possible, even common, that government policy sacrifices certain values in favor of others. I could imagine a plan that, while it might lead to national prosperity, would crush much of what we consider basic liberty. Fascism is an example of a something that might afford us greater prosperity at the cost of freedom.

That's not always the case. In fact, I tend to think it's the opposite - free societies tend to be more prosperous. But that's mostly an irrelevant perk to me in terms of government policy. Naturally I'd choose prosperity over poverty, all things being equal. But from my point of view, prosperity should not be a primary goal of government.

Quote:
My interpretation is that you use the word "freedom" primarily to mean the freedom to disassociate from an economic activity.]

That's only a small part of the overall concept, but the freedom to choose who we associate with seems pretty fundamental.

Quote:
I think the reason why you like capitalism is not because its necessarily fairer (it doesn't reward love, friendship or moral insight) or because it offers greater prosperity to everyone but because it offers a way to interact with people on a VERY LIMITED basis: the "marketplace", which one presumably enters into by choice.

That seems a fair characterization, with the slight modification that I like it because it offers the right to choose how much you associate - as much or as little as you like. I don't think it's fair to assume that anyone who argues for this right is doing so out of anti-social motivation. In fact, my motivation is somewhat the opposite. I think the right to make this call (otherwise known as "voluntary association") is vital to healthy social interaction.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

mmm. Okay. I thought they were required by banking regulations at 20:1 'cause the USA never bought into Basel II. But was apparently worse that I thought.

Also, 'cause of deregulation, a lot of complex financial products like Credit Default Swaps were traded "off books", so the REAL debt ratio was prolly more like 40:1. That's one of the reasons why the banks really DON'T know how "at risk" they are: the accounting is simply too complex and the interparty risk too (deliberately) hidden to make any sense out of the hash.

That's why when peeps like Ron Paul point to "government" and "regulation" as the source of the problem, I just want to bang my head into a wall. Clearly, he never did any research into to actuality of the situation, either now or in 1929 (when banks and businesses were even LESS regulated than they are now).

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
mmm. Okay. I thought they were required by banking regulations at 20:1 'cause the USA never bought into Basel II. But was apparently worse that I thought.

I don't know about what they were allowed, but I've looked at the official reports of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and a few others, and they range from 25:1 to 35:1, and it averages out at a little over 30:1.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge: You haven't answered my question. Perhaps I wasn't too clear. WHAT KIND of freedom are you talking about?

Civil?

Religious?

Economic?

Intellectual?

It makes a difference. "Freedom from want" might conflict with "freedom from taxes". Intellectual freedom might conflict with religious freedom. "Freedom from government" might conflict with "freedom to enforce contracts". So what is YOUR definition of freedom?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't know about what they were allowed, but I've looked at the official reports of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and a few others, and they range from 25:1 to 35:1, and it averages out at a little over 30:1.

Ah, I see. Those are (or, were) investment banks, not depository (FDIC insured) institutions. So their debt ratio was allowed by the SEC to go pretty much as high as they thought they could bear, by a 2004 SEC decision which was pushed by none other than Henry "Hank" Paulson, Bush's appointed Treasury Scy, who was then head of Goldman Sachs.

Nice hand-in-glove relationship, huh???

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I don't know about what they were allowed, but I've looked at the official reports of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and a few others, and they range from 25:1 to 35:1, and it averages out at a little over 30:1.
Ah, I see. Those are (or, were) investment banks, not depository (FDIC insured) institutions. So their debt ratio was allowed by the SEC to go pretty much as high as they thought they could bear, by a 2004 SEC decision which was pushed by none other than Henry "Hank" Paulson, Bush's appointed Treasury Scy, who was then head of Goldman Sachs.

Well, since the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act there's really no real difference between an investment bank and a depository. I assume the difference is similar to our Building Societies and Banks, and the Margaret Thatcher Era breaking of the walls between the two has been similarly disastrous.

But the ones I looked at were the big ones that were at the heart of this whole mess, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, etc.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge: You haven't answered my question. Perahps I wasn't too clear. WHAT KIND of freedom are you talking about?

Civil?

Religious?

Economic?

Intellectual?

As I said, freedom of action in general. All of the above fit that definition. "Freedom from want" doesn't, as it isn't a "freedom of action" and really just means "having everything you want" which no government can guarantee people as a general rule.

When conflicts occur, you can usually determine the initiated action that caused the conflict, which would be the point where the basic concept is violated. As I said, the base stipulation is that you can't claim as a right something that violates the rights of others, unless the other party has voluntarily given up certain rights - as in a contractual obligation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge, there are apparently two different views of "freedom", as has been told to me by non-Americans. They see freedom as "freedom from": freedom from oppression, freedom from want. We (Americans) see "freedom as "freedom to". To some extent, the two are antithetical. "Freedom to" often impinges on others' "freedom from". ie The freedom to swing your fist conflicts with my noses' freedom from violence. The freedom to acquire conflicts with my freedom from theft, force, or fraud. It's all abut finding a balance between the two.

Your view of "freedom of action" doesn't seem to take into account that your action may impinge on other's freedom FROM your action. In fact, I find that you consistently express your views of freedom oppositely: not as "freedom of action" but more as "freedom FROM action". And your "freedom from action" might conflict with other's "freedom to" attain a goal. So, I find your views rather confusing, but in sum it seems to wrap up all in taxes and government. True?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge: You haven't answered my question. Perhaps I wasn't too clear. WHAT KIND of freedom are you talking about?

Civil?

Religious?

Economic?

Intellectual?

It makes a difference. "Freedom from want" might conflict with "freedom from taxes". Intellectual freedom might conflict with religious freedom. "Freedom from government" might conflict with "freedom to enforce contracts". So what is YOUR definition of freedom?

I think it encompasses all and none

. I think Sarge is talking about freedom from other people constraint, which is over arching.

Personally I want a balance. Removing all laws and regulations (and I think sarge agrees here) won't make us free. I'd use the (somewhat inadequate) analogy of saying there's only a finite amount of freedom in a society. What I mean is that say Soviet Russia was just as free as the United States, but the freedom was held by a small group, while the freedom in the US was spread around everyone. In Soviet Russia the upper party could do whatever they wanted, Stalin for instance was completely and utterly unconstrained. He was free in away that most people could barely even imagine, but his exercising of his freedom meant everyone else in Russia had none. So I say freedom is a finite resource, and we want to find away of giving everyone equal freedom, rather than just handing it all to one person or group.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 10:06 AM

America loves a winner!

Sig

Everyone knew.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 10:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig- Everyone knew.- rapo

Not me.

Now, are you going to tell ME what I did and didn't know? Are you going to tell me that (despite my many argument against invading Iraq) that I am now twisting my words to mean "anything I want them to mean", just like I was twisting my tagline "Let's party like it's 1929" to fit the circumstances?

So, let me tell you flat out: I did NOT "know" that Saddam had WMD (in 2001)

So there.

Either call me a liar or admit you were wrong.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, there are apparently two different views of "freedom", as has been told to me by non-Americans. They see freedom as "freedom from": freedom from oppression, freedom from want.

Ok, so in that sense I would say that the freedom I'm concerned with (the one I'm calling 'freedom of action', or 'liberty') is a subset of the "freedom from" category, essentially being "freedom from external constraint" or "freedom from the interference of others". That's the only one I think is an appropriate concern of government since the political concept of rights pertains to the actions of people. The freedoms you mention that don't have to do with the actions of people ("freedom from want" for example), are existential in nature.

Quote:
Your view of "freedom of action" doesn't seem to take into account that your action may impinge on other's freedom FROM your action.

That's why the corollary is necessary - you have freedom (of action) in all things that don't constrain the freedom (of action) others.

Quote:
And your "freedom from action" might conflict with other's "freedom to" attain a goal.

I suppose, though I'd say it thusly: "the actions of others actions might interfere with my freedom from constraint".

Quote:
So, I find your views rather confusing, but in sum it seems to wrap up all in taxes and government. True?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I will say that I think our disagreement generally crops up when you're dealing with the existential "freedom froms" - freedom from want, freedom from hunger, freedom from suffering etc... These freedoms don't pertain to the actions of others and imply very different policies to maintain.

"Freedom from constraint" imposes a very simple requirement on society. All we need to do to maintain it is agree not to act in ways that impose on others. The requirement is prohibitive rather than proactive. If you sit by yourself in your room you're probably not going to be violating anybody's liberty.

The existential freedoms are another matter. While they represent the best intentions - we'd all love to do away with hunger, suffering, etc.. - they imply a proactive component to maintain. It's when we attempt to establish these existential freedoms as "rights" that run into potential conflict with liberty.

The "right to health care" is a good example. If we're going to say that such a right is something that society should maintain, in particular if we're going to say it's a right that government should ensure, it's a direct proactive imposition on other people. When you say that you have the right to health care, you're saying that someone else owes it to you as a service. That IS antithetical to liberty and it's why I bristle at the idea.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 11:01 AM