Friday, November 25, 2011

Crapitalism's Axis of Evil


"The Bigs – Big Wall Street, Big Government, Big Labor, and Big Business – are all protected classes in the American political system."

Wall Street gambling and corporate tax avoidance are direct results of government policy passed and signed into law by Democrats and Republicans.  You can't leave the silo door open and then blame the rats for eating the grain.
Wall Street seems synonymous with capitalism, but few there espouse market principles. Likewise, Big Business rarely eschews state intervention, instead playing willing harlots for Washington’s wiles. The further Leviathan reaches, the more special interests latch to its tentacles. Restricting the state is essential to curtailing corruption and ensuring earnings come honestly. Smaller government affords less power for those with clout to co-opt.
The Crux:
A widening rift between political ideals rends America’s social tapestry. The Right, as embodied by the Tea Party, seeks individual liberty and equality before the law where each may earn as merit warrants. The Left, as evidenced by OWS, demands that government level results regardless of merit. Personal identity yields to collectivized class or demographic consciousness. (Bill Flax – Obama Tears Down his own Wall Street)
Michael Needham and Tim Chapman bring a big, nebulous problem into sharp focus...
The Bigs – Big Wall Street, Big Government, Big Labor, and Big Business – are all protected classes in the American political system.
The tax code, regulatory regime, and campaign finance laws are all written by those powerful enough to hire an army of lobbyists to descend on Washington. Labor unions pushed their way ahead of bond holders when the Establishment bailed out Chrysler. Solyndra got venture funding from the middle class taxpayer after spending $1.9 million lobbying the Establishment.

This corrupt nexus is at the heart of the dissatisfaction across the country towards Washington. 
(The Washington Establishment’s Big Problem)

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Co-opt" is the word central to the problem. Here's what I think has happened:

When government took it upon itself about a hundred years ago to start messing around with the natural order of things in business practices thereby inhibiting and diminishing Industry's ability to make profits, Business couldn't just take it lying down.

"When you can't beat 'em, you join 'em."

Ergo, Business started to co-opt Government not only through lobbying but by joining the ranks of government to work from the inside to mitigate and gain an increasing measure of control whatever damage Government planned to do.

As always it's all about POWER. One can't avoid the cliche. Power Corrupts, and the stronger the power is, the more corrupt and oppressive it becomes.

And that, I think, is probably why we have this Crony Capitalism, which is not Capitalism at all but a sick hybrid -- a monster child -- that came from the wedding of Industry and Government.

The Founders didn't foresee the Industrial Revolution and the resultant concentration of corporate power, and the increasing centralization into crowded, unhealthy, unattractive communities it was bound to bring. As the power of Manufacturing grew exponentially, the laboring class suffered from poor housing, unsafe conditions in the factories and the dreariness that comes with the depersonalization and dehumanization increasing automation brought.

Marxism and the Labor Movement were the natural reaction to the undesirable conditions imposed by the worst aspects of the Machine Age.

"Progressivism" was in my opinion not so much a Marxian phenomenon as something inherently opportunistic. Intelligent individuals in positions of power and influence realized that "something had to give." In order to steal a march on the groundswell of rebellion rising through the ranks, these very smart people decided to co-opt the natural process of resistance and rebellion by joining it -- as leaders, of course.

So, we have upper class individuals born to privilege trying to head off challenges to their supremacy at the pass by effectively joining the rebels and supporting and swelling the ranks of their natural enemies -- the "social critics" and "alarmists" like Thorstein Veblen and Upton Sinclair.

As Progressivism grew in strength and started to take over it became too powerful and eventually transformed itself and adopted the Nanny State mentality most of us on the right find abhorrent.

Wherever we find concentrated blocs of centralized power, we find abuse. The great the power, the more outrageous and injurious the abuse.

DE-CENTRALIZATION, and a return to greater autonomy for individual states, individual communities, independent local businesses and a generally more modest lifestyle would be desirable.

How that might be achieved I don't know. Those who have Power, always want more and more of it, and are loath to give it up for any reason -- no matter how noble.

That Human Nature thing again.

I am certain of one thing. Increasing the control of Centralized Power in ANY form is not going to help anyone but those who already have a lock on Power.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmmmmmph!!!

Didn't know we were playing Farmer in the Dell here today.

The cheese stands alone.
The cheese stands alone.
Hi Ho the Derry-O!
The cheese stands alone.


Oh well ... Hope y'all had a beautiful Thanksgiving yesterday? I also hope the conspicuous absence of participants today is not because too many are nursing a hangover. If so, you have my sympathy-if-not-my-approval.

Capitalism needs you to remain bright eyed, bushy tailed and ever vigilant at all times.

Cheerio!


~ FreeThinke

Chuck Spears said...

This is complete and utter Right Wing adulterated Bullshit.

Ducky's here said...

I can't take it anymore. I'm tired of all these whiners.

Why don't the just make the effort to enjoy the fruits of the "free market" (LMAO) and attend the Armando Montelongo Live Event.

Learn how to flip condos. Be productive.

Anonymous said...

And that gives rise to another sage, ages-old adage:

"It's better by far to be alone than in bad company."

The silver swan,
Who living had no note,
When death approached,
Unlocked her silent, silent throat.

Leaning her breast
Against the reedy shore
Thus sang her first and last,
Then sang no more:

"Farewell, all joys,
O, Death, come close mine eyes.
More geese than swans now live
More fools than wise."


~ set to music by Orlando Gibbons

All things are passing, but Truth is eternal.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

"I guess nothing ever works for us. we’re fools, of course–
bucking the inside plus a 15 percent take, but how are you going to tell a dreamer there’s a 15 percent take on the dream? He’ll just laugh and say,
is that all?"

--- Charles Bukowski, the Orlando Gibbons of L.A,

98ZJUSMC said...

Smaller government affords less power for those with clout to co-opt.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Silverfiddle said...

It's OK Chuck, there's no such thing as corporate lobbyists buying influence in Washington. It's all just a big rightwing lie...

Now go back to sleep, Uncle Sam will wipe your tears, and your ass, and make it aaaaaaall Okay!

And Ducky, your sarcasm is so opaque I can't determine what your point is.

98ZJUSMC said...

@~ FreeThinke

Agree and well said.

dmarks said...

Anon said: "Ergo, Business started to co-opt Government"

No, this never happened.

"Marxism and the Labor Movement were the natural reaction to the undesirable"

Marxism is hardly a natural reaction to anything. It's one nutty ideology that has so little to do with any reality.

And when implemented, Marxism means mass slaughter and oppression, and rulers with absolute powers that only the ancient pharaohs could even dream of.

One need look no further than Cambodia in the mid 1970s to find the most pure implementation of Marxism that we've seen yet.\


If Marxism is the "natural" state of humanity, we won't make it to the 22nd century.

98ZJUSMC said...

Chuck Spears said...
This is complete and utter Right Wing adulterated Bullshit.


Guess that answers my question.

Fall down the stairs, again?

98ZJUSMC said...

@ dmarks said...

"Marxism and the Labor Movement were the natural reaction to the undesirable"

Marxism is hardly a natural reaction to anything.


It is, because......

It's one nutty ideology that has so little to do with any reality.

......it plays perfectly to the uneducated victim class and allows those who desire to accumulate power, untrammeled access to it. The Industrial Revolution just accelerated that process. Liberals become "interested participants" because their over-emotional thought processes overwhelm their common sense.

dmarks said...

98: Yes, Marxism plays into the worst tendencies of the ruling elites: they can strip people of life and property and get away with it if they use Marxism jargon about doing it for the working class and all that rot.

But under it all Marxism is just fascism with slightly different window dressing. A space alien not knowing the English language, visting Earth in the 20th century would be hard pressed to find any real difference between 'right wing' fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler, and the 'left-wing' fascists such as Lenin and Stalin and Mao.

But when you DO hear the words, you will find that Marxist-style fascism does tend to gain ground just because of the 'we do it for the working class' rhetoric. Right-wing fascists just are more clumsy at this.

And the "uneducated victim class' buys it. And they learn that the best way to succeed is not to work for their living, but to beg for it instead.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, JSMUC. You understood me perfectly. We're on the same wavelength. Rare in these here parts, ain't it?

DMarks seems far more interested in sharing his condemnatory rhetoric than in considering the possibility that what you and I said might just have a point.

When friends and allies don't really listen to one another, the effort to combat enemies and adversaries weakens considerably.

I've done it, myself, of course. Just mention the words Islam, Muslim or Sharia, and you're apt to get an irrational hair trigger response from me lambasting the very idea that Islam has a proper place in the West.

I don't think it does, BUT when the subject came up the other day here at WH, I should have argued more against the specific points others were trying to make than let myself indulge in what-has-become a Standard Boilerplate Tirade for me since the day after 911.

It's fun and possibly good therapy to let off steam, but it rarely adds strength to an attempt at serious discussion.

Interpreting my statement about how and why Marxism got its hold on Western Civilization as a recommendation or approval of this pernicious ideology is simply wrong -- and dare I say it? -- a careless, half-cocked response.

If we're ever to get anywhere, we MUST recognize the error of OUR ways as well as those of our opponents.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. History is nothing but a long long series of events based on Cause and Effect -- a series chain reactions that often lapse into vicious cycles.

The only way to break the chain or get off the not-so-merry-go-round (choose whichever metaphor you like) is to LISTEN with genuine CURIOSITY to what others have to say in hopes of achieving greater understanding.

Easier said than done. of course.

Cheerio!

~ FreeThinke

dmarks said...

Anon said: "DMarks seems far more interested..."

Care to back up your accusation?
'
"careless half-cocked".

I took care with what I said. But your insults... well, you didn't have any substance there. Just insult. It is you who are dragging this conversation down. Care to move up somewhat from the lowbrow level you have established?

--------------

As for this statement: "I've done it, myself, of course. Just mention the words Islam, Muslim or Sharia, and you're apt to get an irrational hair trigger response from me lambasting the very idea that Islam has a proper place in the West."

Of course Islam has a place in the West. As an expression of Constitutional rights. But that also means that Sharia has no place in the US. It can be a personal code of conduct, but it has no place in the law at all.

Anonymous said...

The truth rarely flatters, but that does not make it an insult.

If you had bothered to read my remarks all the way through, you would have learned that my name is FreeThinke not "Anonymous." That is one of the ways I knew you couldn't possibly have digested what I said, but merely picked out a phrase or two you felt you could disagree with.

But hey! I don't come here to fight -- merely to share thoughts. Nevertheless, since I value my considered opinions, I don't like to see them mischaracterized or misunderstood.

You and I are on the same side of most issues. Too bad the urge to be scrappy and disputatious supersedes the reasoning process -- as it so often does on the internet.

Let us save the belligerence for our ideological enemies. It's silly to take offense when no offense has been intended.

Have a good evening!

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Freethinker, are you referring to Marx the political economist or Marx the revolutionary theorist.

We know the marine doesn't have a freaking clue what he's talking about but you may have an opinion why economists from Joseph Schumpeter to Jane Robinson to John Kenneth Galbraith (look them up marine) felt Marx's economic thought had to be effectively countered.

The Libertarians here (that may or may not include you) seem delighted by the though of reverting to laissez-faire and having Kapitalism eats its tail. What's your position or are you as much a dilettante in economics as the arts?

dmarks said...

Duck asked: "Freethinker, are you referring to Marx the political economist or Marx the revolutionary theorist."

It is all one man. The same man who said this:

""What is the object of the Jew's worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money."

As for his political theory, it had little connection to anything having to do with real economics or human nature. His "revolutionary" demand for the ruling class to take all power was a big reversal of centuries of human progress to establish the rights of human beings which could not be taken away by rapacious overlords.


"...felt Marx's economic thought had to be effectively countered."

Not because it had any validity, but because so many people were fooled by how Marx's extremely ill intent was packaged in wrapping paper to make people believe that it was about helping the masses, workers. etc.------


Free: And a good evening to you! Could you find a way to use your own ID instead of the Anonymous name?

Teresa said...

One answer to this fiasco and the corruption of power in Washington could be to end the practice of lobbying. That may have a real possibility of ending favoritism toward all those "Big" entities. In addition we need more transparency with how the government spends taxpayers money.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky is dealing in false dilemmas. No one is talking about returning to Upton Sinclair's Jungle.

The pendulum has swung to far to the statism side. Time to bring it back towards liberty.

Ducky's here said...

Sorry Silverfiddle but that's were laissez-faire goes. Of course Americans (at least white Americans) don't get involved in that hell any longer. We ship it overseas.

There have been some good articles recently about assassinations of leaders trying to mobilize oil workers in Colombia who are working in miserable conditions.

Of course, you chose to employ force to protect Kapitals interest and you talk about not going back to the days of The Jungle? Buy a vowel.

KP said...

Biggus Blogus! I don't want to miss posts by SF, Ducky and others. Keep On Truckin' ...

And if you ever need a giggle, remember the life of Bryan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8_jgiNqUc

Anonymous said...

"...felt Marx's economic thought had to be effectively countered."

"Not because it had any validity, but because so many people were fooled by how Marx's extremely ill intent was packaged in wrapping paper to make people believe that it was about helping the masses, workers. etc. ..."

NOW, we're on the same page again, DMarks. I'm not one-hundred percent sure, however, that Marx's intent was purely evil. He may honestly have meant well, because conditions for the laboring class and the "lower orders" really were in desperate need of reform. It's not as though Marx and other early leftists were fabricating their arguments out of whole cloth. As has so oft been said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Unfortunately, the Law of Unintended Consequences is always at work.

From what I had personally experienced with the nature of Marxists it's easy to say most of them are motivated more by contempt for and sour disapproval of upper-class rank and privilege than by any genuine affection for The Common Man.

I think JUSMC expressed it beautifully when he said,

"... [Marxism] plays perfectly to the uneducated victim class and allows those who desire to accumulate power, untrammeled access to it. The Industrial Revolution just accelerated that process. Liberals become "interested participants" because their over-emotional thought processes overwhelm their common sense."

I would only add once again, as I said above, that the early "Progressives" were more interested in securing, maintaining and aggrandizing their own grip on power than anything else.

When someone shouts "More Power to the People," he really means "More Power to the People Who Shout 'More Power to the People.'"

When anyone says, "I want to help you," beware. What they usually mean is "I want to own and operate you for purposes of my own in the guise of helping you.

If Karl Marx really said what you quoted him saying about the Jews, it would be ironic to the point of being downright comical, because he, himself, was an ethnic Jew who had rabbis in his immediate family. And yes, I know, Karl's father "converted" to Lutheranism, and all that, but ethnicity stubbornly remains a factor in such cases, and remains a very powerful influence, indeed.

At any rate, whether Marx had evil intent or not, his work has produced disastrous results of incalculable proportion, and in my way of looking at the world RESULTS ARE ALL THAT COUNT.

Whatever horrors Upton Sinclair may -- or may not -- have found in the Chicago Meat Packing Industry [polemicists, and wild-eyed fanatics are after all highly prone to exaggeration since their object is always to prevail at any and all costs] I am morally certain the atrocities committed in the Russian and Chinese Communist Revolutions -- and the iron-fisted regimes established in their wake -- were far worse than any injustices and regrettable working conditions produced in by Western Christian Capitalist Civilization.

And you are right in equating Communism with Fascism. A dictatorship is a dictatorship is a dictatorship no matter what else you try to call it.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

We can't end lobbying, Teresa, without also ending the First Amendment.

I know how you feel. There are lots of people I'd love to shut up once and for all, myself, but it's un-American even to think of such a thing.

In a true free marketplace of ideas all points of view must be heard no matter how obnoxious, outrageous and potentially destructive we think they might be.

The best defense against rotten ideology would to give the people a superior education. But that process too has been hopelessly corrupted largely because it is publicly funded. As a result, public education has been turned into little more than a Propaganda Mill designed to protect state Interests at the expense of liberty and individualism.

"Knowledge is power."

"Know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."

What better way could there be to keep a population forever helpless, dependent -- and malleable -- than to deprive them of true knowledge while filling their heads with poisonous poppycock?

Remember it was once a crime to teach any black how to read.

Now what do you suppose could possibly have been the reasoning behind that?

~ FreeThinke

Teresa said...

Ending lobbying would not even infringe on a person's First Amendment rights. They would still have the right to free speech. I just think ending bribery and corruption for payment to this or that organization would be a good thing. This would end legalized criminal behavior but not freedom of speech. You don't have to be paid to have First Amendment rights.

Jersey McJones said...

"You can't leave the silo door open and then blame the rats for eating the grain."

Yes, you can. You can blame Wall Street for gaming and then taking advantage of the system. THEY THE ONE'S WHO PAID TO OPEN THE SILO DOOR!

JMJ

dmarks said...

Jersey: In terms of the economic collapse, and the mortgage crisis that caused, it was the direct result of government policies. Interventions in the free market. Government forcing the silo door open; forcing banks to make bad mortgage loans. The federal government forced banks to behave badly.

Ducky's here said...

dmarks, that's pantload.

Did Alan Greenspan regulate Countrywide or Ameriquest when he had the power? No.

Did Greenspan later admit that the free market failed to be self correcting? Yes.

Did government regulation force the investment banking industry to leverage bad paper at 50 or 60 to 1? No.

Do fringe right wingers who have nothing but a kneejerk response to the issue know their ass from their elbow? No.

Silverfiddle said...

The "free market" did not self correct because the keynesians and monetarists have snuffed the signals that trigger a self-correction, and if they see a self-correction happening (like a housing bubble bursting) they throw billions of taxpayer money trying to reverse the correction.

The federal government offered these mortgage giants free money, and then threatened them with discrimination charges if they didn't loan to everybody who walked in the door. That is not a free market, but it is an excellent example of how government intervention wrecks the market.

Check your facts before puking out your leftwing marxist propaganda, Ducky.

dmarks said...

Ducky: No. it's true. The feds had a specific policy to make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "Back" bad loans. Which strongly encouraged banks to make loans to undeserving/unqualified people. The banks were only doing what these government agencies wanted them to do.

There are some rather damning quotations from Barney Frank about how good this was and how it was no problem at all.

And it ended up causing the economic collapse.

"Did government regulation force the investment banking industry to leverage bad paper at 50 or 60 to 1? No."

Actually, it did.

"Do fringe right wingers who have nothing but a kneejerk response to the issue know their ass from their elbow? No."

Sorry, I am sticking to the facts here. And actually there are no fringe right wingers here. We are all mainstream. Except for perhaps you?

I suggest you read the Village Voice article describing how the policy of encouraging loans to undeserving people caused the economic collapse. And the Voice is a left-wing newspaper.

Not that it matters. I'm only concerned with the facts, not 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'

Ducky's here said...

You're full of crap.

I assume you're referring to CRA loans. These loans were made by REGULATED banks and did not incur a higher than normal default rate. I wonder if you believe the financial system did not have enough liquidity to absorb a higher than normal default rate in this relatively small category of loans. What's you're answer?

Barney Frank, you forgot Chris Dodd. How did a minority member of the banking committee under the hammer of a Tom Delay speakership manage to push all that through, big mouth. Answer please.

The CEO of Fannie and Freddie decided to get in on the fan and stated that he was going to double the share price within a matter of a few years. This was in 2004. They started cooking the books and paying the bonuses like any Wall Street firm. The free market at its best.
However they still couldn't keep up with the volume of crap that unregulated agencies (Silverfiddle: N.B. Unfreaking regulated, von Mise at his best) such as Ameriquest and Countrywide. They started doing riskier business in order to pump up the share price. Even so, they were slowy guaranteeing fewer and fewer mortgages.

So stick with your belief. You wouldn't know the facts if the bit your unit.

The market FAILED. MARKETS FAIL, learn it Hayek boys.

Silverfiddle said...

OK, Ducky. Frank was in the majority when much of this legislative sausage was made, and government coerced banks into making bad loans in the name of fairness. CRA wasn't the only big government tentacle in the game.

Even Paul Volker has said as much.

Unregulated: There are literally thousands of pages of bank regulation. You're the one who needs to learn.

Your big government at work caused this. DC is having orgies with Wall Street with your money.

Cut them loose! But your beloved big government won't do that because the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats can't make any money doing that.

You're naive and immature. Grow up.

Silverfiddle said...

And another thing, it was bi-partisan progressivism that has collapsed the economy, so get lost with your partisan team sports. That doesn't fly here.

dmarks said...

Ducky: Thank you for describing the destructive and dishonest operations of two government agencies.

"The free market at its best."

No, that wasn't the free market at at all. You were describing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: both government agencies. You yourself described how these government agencies ".... decided to get in on the fan....in 2004. They started cooking the books and paying the bonuses like any Wall Street firm."

No, they were not any Wall Street firm. They were the government. They are the government. And they forced Wall Street firms to behave badly.

The market did not fail. Government regulation, in the form of the actions of these government agencies, drove the market into the ground.

Silver: You are correct. Also, even when in the minority, minority leaders like Frank and Dodd have the power to block regulation and needed reforms. And they did.

Ducky is lying, pure and simple. He has this belief (the ruling class/government good, the people/private sector bad) that colors his judgments.

Anonymous said...

The left has their facts. The right has its facts.

Kipling had it right about east and west. The same logic probably applies to left and right as well.

Right is Right and Left is Wrong, and never the twain shall meet.

Thanks, Silver and DMarks both for your solid refutation of aggressive Stalinist-style propaganda.

It never ceases to amaze me how articulate leftists are in perfect command of so much knowledge that isn't true. (Thank you Ronald Reagan!)

However, I think Freddie and Fannie may have begun their lives as government entities, but were privatized before the Fit Hit the Shan. I seem to remember reading words to that effect. It looks like both were a product of this murky, nefarious marriage de convenance between Government and Business.

I wish Fintann were here to affirm or refute that claim, because he either knows or can find out the facts about everything in ways I cannot.

Hope y'all had a great day yesterday?

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

All right here's some information that might help clarify the specific identities of Fannie and Freddie. It looks as though DMarks was right, and so am I.

From an article written in 2003 for George Mason University’s History News Network:

”The Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, nicknamed Freddie Mac, have operated since 1968 as government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This means that, although the two companies are privately owned and operated by shareholders, they are protected financially by the support of the Federal Government. ...”

” ... Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. ...”

” ... Initially, Fannie Mae operated like a national savings and loan, allowing local banks to charge low interest rates on mortgages for the benefit of the home buyer. This lead to the development of what is now known as the secondary mortgage market. ...”

” ... For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a veritable monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. In 1968, due to fiscal pressures created by the Vietnam War, Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE, generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing ...”

” ...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the only two Fortune 500 companies that are not required to inform the public about any financial difficulties that they may be having. In the event ... of financial collapse within either of these companies, U.S. taxpayers could be held responsible for hundreds of billions of dollars in outstanding debts. ...”

http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html

Thanks, guys, for inspiring me to get off my duff, and look this up.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Ducky is lying, pure and simple

-----------

Lying about what, short bus?

Fannie and Freddie were government agencies until 1968 when they were privatized.

Government agencies don't trade on the NYSE, short bus.

In fact, they did their job very well up to the point they were privatized. It's not clear why that was done but it was apparently an accounting trick to make things look a little better as we paid for the disaster in Vietnam.

Ducky's here said...

However, I think Freddie and Fannie may have begun their lives as government entities ...

-------

No shit. If you aren't sure you aren't qualified to enter this conversation.

dmarks said...

Ducky: Fannie and Freddie STILL were government agencies. With government employees with salaries in the many tens of millions.

A GSE is a type of government agency. And F&F still are. FreeThinke gave detailed links how they are still government agencies to this day.

As for whether or not they did their job well, they always were unnecessary.

Privatizing them was an excellent idea, as privitization turns control from ruling elites over to the people. However, these government agencies were not completely privatized. That is what caused stuff to go haywire. If F&F had been 100% free market privatized, there would be no problem. They'd have had no government power behind them, and no ability to force banks to do bad things.

"...short bus..."

I am not surprised that you are a bigot who bashes the mentally disabled. I suppose you were one of those who cheered when Rahm Emanual called them "fu**ing retards".

The "short bus" term and related terms bashing the mentally disabled are extremely bigoted.


---------------

FreeThinke also said: "” ... For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a veritable monopoly over the secondary mortgage market."

Thanks, Free, for more evidence that monopolies are primarily a problem created by the government. Entire government agencies operate as monopolies, or government regulations interfere in the private sector to cause them to exist there as well.

Now, why don't we competely privatize Fannie and Freddie? Get rid of the government involvement entirely. Then we can prevent further meltdowns.

Anonymous said...

Yes, DMarks, I think it's the hybrid nature of F&F -- their being semi-private and semi-government with a privileged status true private entities do not enjoy -- that caused the problem.

Don't mind Ducky. He's been around for years and years. He always gets ruder, snottier, haughtier, and more contemptuous, dismissive and disdainful when he knows he's on perilously shaky ground. -- like the Prophets of Baal who, despite all their shouting and incantation, could not get their illegitimate god to light fire on the altar.

Basically, despite his apparent erudition, he's little more than a name-caller and a bomb-thrower. There are times, however, when he can be intelligent and informative about areas outside the realms of politics and economics. This makes his pervasive combativeness and childish name-calling rather poignant -- as though there were a lack of genuine friendship and emotional involvement in his life.

Seen in proper perspective, he's quite harmless.

~ FreeThinke

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

So, what you are saying is, that Ducky's frequent combination of complete misunderstanding of subjects, lack of critical thought concerning major subjects and juvenile rage/lashing out... is not all it is quacked up to be?