I wasn't familiar with Father Richard Neuhaus until I read his obituary in the Economist. I then found this archive of his writings . I read a few articles and enjoyed them, even though I disagree with is perspective and conclusions. In his article about athiesm and citizenship, he seemed to have an intimate (and accurate) understanding of his opponent's worldviews, which made his critiques tolerable, even if they were unconvincing (to me, who wasn't really part of his intended audience anyway).
Can anyone tell me what the "seven demons of secularism" are?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
If you have the link to where he states that, I'll give it a shot. Was it in the citizenship article?
The article on atheism and citizenship , from 1991, was worth reading, full of references and examples that might be of interest to some here. It also shows how difficult it is to fully explore such a question even on a blog that allows for long posts.
I am not certain I agree with his final conclusion either, although I think he was perhaps leaning more to the idea that such a person would not acknowledge the State as a legitimate source of external rules because that person refused to recognize any other such external source (such as a deity, not necessarily even a Christian one). I did like this bit, although it sounds rather quaint today:
A good citizen does more than abide by the laws. A good citizen is able to give an account, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part. He is able to justify its defense against its enemies, and to convincingly recommend its virtues to citizens of the next generation so that they, in turn, can transmit the regime to citizens yet unborn. This regime of liberal democracy, of republican self-governance, is not self-evidently good and just. An account must be given. Reasons must be given. They must be reasons that draw authority from that which is higher than the self, from that which is external to the self, from that to which the self is ultimately obliged.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
There was, he wrote in 1984, a “naked public square” from which religion had been banished, and which “seven demons”, all secular, now competed to control.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
That's the name of the book it is from. If this link works the way I hope it will, you can see the full context of the quote. It doesn't seem to explain anything about the seven demons.
Edit: Oh well, ampersands not working right in the link. You can copy/paste this and it should work:
Thanks for the help finding the source. My original impression was that this was something that Neuhaus had invented himself in "the public square". However, as the book (as presented in Google Books...probably abridged) just mentiones them as though the reader should know what they are, that suggests that he was referring to something that had been described previously. So maybe it is a reference to the seven sins. Maybe I'll find the answer some day.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Thus did the defenders of religion set faith against the doubt that is integral to the life of faith.
How can doubt of something be construed as further proof? If I was told that I'm see an all-powerful uncreated creator shape shifting humanoid if I just believe, then looking around the corner and seeing a human is not proof of The Thing. That level of proof is the less than the level of proof needed to believe one is in the Matrix.
He is able to justify its defense against its enemies, and to convincingly recommend its virtues to citizens of the next generation so that they, in turn, can transmit the regime to citizens yet unborn.....Reasons must be given. They must be reasons that draw authority from that which is higher than the self, from that which is external to the self, from that to which the self is ultimately obliged.
That sounds more like a reason to feign belief, than to know a truth as he stated earlier. Isn't that just another way of saying that "it is how it is, because it is, and don't rock the boat even if one has good evidence we're going towards an iceberg, because we're all on it." Blind allegiance to a false truth, is no truth at all, just look at the Westboro Baptist Church.
I am well aware that there are those who will agree with the gravamen of this argument but for quite different reasons. They do not themselves believe, but they recognize the importance of religion as a “useful lie” essential to securing this kind of public order. But of course they are right about religion and this public order.
Sounds nice until the public order of one country fears the public order of another country is out to get them.
A cynic would be thinking that the author made a true statement of the people with fake belief only to hide something and make his claims have the intended impact.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
People haven't gotten over the euphoria of the Inauguration and the election, but you know what? It''s going to wear off sooner or later, and, people're already making excuses for the fact that our new President Obama has just sent some drones over into Pakistan to kill more people, and anytime somebody points that out, they affectively and subtly or not so subtly get labeled as a racist. What a load of crap. That's particularly galling, considering all that President Obama claims to stand for. Once again, the American people voted for charism. Hey, America, wake up..this ain't the movies.
I don't trust President Obama any more than I trust politicians generally, regardless of who they may be, and I'm going to continue to scrutinize him. Sorry, but that's how I see it. You know what? There's TWO reasons why Barack Obama got elected POTUS:
A) First of all, and least important; He's half white.
B) MORE importantly and to the point: Barack Obama, imho, did not run a totally honest campaign, imho (most politiciains don't). First of all, he got plenty of donations from the big corporations, etc., and not all from the smaller, private citizenship, etc., He ran a much slicker, more organized campaign than McCain, his opponent. That's for sure, plus President Obama's an excellent orator. However, to get to the point, the campaign on hope that he ran on depended upon him talking around and essentially skiring the whole issues of race ( unlike the late Martin Luther King Jr., for example, who spoked openly and candidly about it), and being sort of a "Dr. Feelgood".
All of the above being said, I believe that both of the above-mentioned factors together enabled many people NOT to think of Barack Obama as a black man, thus getting him elected POTUS.
The American people, on the whole, don't want to hear the truth; that racism is still alive and very much existent here in the United States, and, sadly, that's what Barack Obama relied on during his campaign. It's really too bad, because the ONLY way that race relations will improve is if there is homest dialogue about the issue of race, generally. Therefore, yes, I think it's a good possibility that he wouldn't have been elected POTUS if the issue of race had been opened up.
Obama does Americans would elect him/her. I don't think it would matter what color they were but I will say in your defense that if said politician was a white male they would have gotten more votes than Obama did.
Racism is still present in this day and age but even some racists voted for Obama. Funnily I find that as a measure of progress.
but, unfortunately, an awful lot of Americans (particularly white Americans) really DON'T want to hear the truth about racism still being a problem. That being said, it's highly doubtful that ANYBODY, regardless of what ethnic group, race or color they are, would've been elected had they talked more in depth about the issues of racism and race. That's really too bad, because that would be the only way to really improve race relations in this country. Institutional racism is very prevalent in this country also, very pernicious and deeply rooted.
the ONLY way that race relations will improve is if there is homest dialogue about the issue of race
I disagree -- honest dialog might help improve race relations, but it isn't necessary: time will solve that problem eventually.
The reason that I have faith in the ability of time to heal this wound is:
1) Race is a myth (or "social construct")--i.e. there is no objective (antrhopological) basis for racial identification. Race is an idea that one group (self-identified whites) made up to legitimize their exploitation of other groups. Since race is no longer used as the basis for social organization, the idea will eventually fade into obscurity.
2) The distinction among races is fading, both in genetic and socio-economic terms. It is easy for people to categorize things that fall into distinct groups, and American "races" fell into pretty distinct groups for much of our history.
2a) Genetically, we identified west Africans as "blacks", north-western Europeans as "whites", and east Asians as "yellows". These genetic distinctions are breaking down for two reasons.
2ai) Now America has people those ancestry includes all of the intermediate regions -- east Africa, the middle east, India, south-east Europe, etc. The genetic diversity of humanity in America now reflects the diversity of humanity as a whole -- each "group" fades into the next. In other words, there are no categories (races), just a spectrum of traits.
2aii) More importantly there is continued genetic mixing of "racial" groups. This will not be reversed.
2b) The socio-economic distinctions are also also breaking down. Obama represents part of that trend. While this breakdown of structure is not complete yet, there is no reason to expect it to reverse. It will continue.
Time will erase any remnant of race. We can make it go faster or slower, and we can make it more or less troublesome, but we can't reverse it.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I think that ethnic tribalism, which has always existed here in the United States, is just as strong, if not stronger than it ever was. Although there is a lot of mixed marriages, dating, and people who're of mixed-race, racial, religious and ethnic identify remain strong here in the United States.
racial, religious and ethnic identify remain strong here in the United States....
I did not mean to suggest that group identity or intergroup conflict would disappear with racism...I just think that race won't be the basis of group identity. I think that this is true even when "racism" is used fairly broadly to mean any idea that there is some genetic essence by which people can be categorized in a socially meaningful way (such that we should have greater affinity for members of our own race).
People will continue to fight over political, religious, and cultural identities (and probably other identities) -- but these types of group identity are exactly what will tear apart racial identity, because the emphasis on these other identities will detract from racial identity.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Cardinal Stafford, head of the Apolstolic Penitentiary tribunal of the catholic church, recently had some criticism of Obama:
Washington DC, Nov 17, 2008 / 02:27 pm (CNA).- Cardinal James Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, delivered a lecture on Thursday saying that the future under President-elect Obama will echo Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane. Criticizing Obama as “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,” he went on to speak about a decline in respect for human life and the need for Catholics to return to the values of marriage and human dignity.
...
Commenting on the results of the recent presidential election, Cardinal Stafford said on Election Day “America suffered a cultural earthquake.” The cardinal argued that President-elect Obama had campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform” and predicted that the near future would be a time of trial.
“If 1968 was the year of America’s ‘suicide attempt,’ 2008 is the year of America’s exhaustion,” he said, contrasting the year of Humane Vitae’s promulgation with this election year.
“For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden,” Cardinal Stafford told his audience. Catholics who weep the “hot, angry tears of betrayal” should try to identify with Jesus, who during his agony in the garden was “sick because of love.”
The cardinal attributed America’s decline to the Supreme Court’s decisions such as the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which imposed permissive abortion laws nationwide.
“Its scrupulous meanness has had catastrophic effects upon the unity and integrity of the American republic,” Cardinal Stafford commented, according to The Tower.
The connection? Guess which tribunal covers the reinstatement of ex-communicated members? Yep, the Apostolic Penitentiary. James, dude, this might have been a week to try and stay off the radar, seeing as you were spending most of your time green lighting anti-semites for high ranking positions.
Catholics were ok with abortions at one time, but not now. I wonder how that Cardinal feels about how several different infallible officials in his church apparently did not respect life at one point as official dogma.
For the second official, apparently he thinks the US and Soviet troops that liberated the camps lied, that the Nazi's made up claims to incriminate themselves even more.
Is there really a difference between slowly killing 200k+ and trying to have more die and actually doing it? I wonder what his real paranoia/aim is.
Would he deny the Nazi's rounding up Jews, have them dig their graves and execute them after taking any jewelry. I wonder if he denies the White Russians guarding the camps, the Nazis that burnt the beards of Hasidic Jews....his apparent lack of distrust of geography and censuses that show that millions of Jews "disappeared" somehow...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I take issue with the notion that the majority of Catholics are against abortion rights. Neither the pope or any cardinal(s) speak for the majority of Catholics on that issue, or any other issue, for that matter.
Most Catholics, particularly younger Catholic women, favor the right to choose, and support the use of some sort of contraceptive(s), whether they're married or not.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it."
-- George Carlin
The pope's "authority" exists only because a bunch of people are duped into believing he has God on his speed dial.
More and more people in the western world have come to the realization that the pope is just another schlub like you or me, with no more insight into the "state of being" that humans suffer through than anyone else.
He only has authority as long as enough sheep are willing to go through life without using their critical thinking skills.
I'm someone who managed to make it through 12 years of Catholic School indoctrination and still come out on the other side with the ability to recognize the Catholic Church as the largest and longest-lasting scam in the history of civilization.
The fact that anyone with a triple-digit IQ would give a flying f*** what the pope has to say about anything is one of the greatest disappointments of the modern world. ;-)
B) Do you ever respond to the actual WORDS or IDEAS in a post?
Tell me why my characterization of the Catholic Church is wrong.
And for an added challenge, do so without saying that "the Catholic Church must be right because so many liberals hate it" or anything approximating that.
...about how stupid you think a very large percentage of the world's people are.
Why would I care to answer your despicable analysis of those peoples faith and their spiritual leader?
Look, I'm agnostic at best, I have no particular feelings about the Pope, or Catholicism, one way or the other, but I did find your fervid attack extreme and impetuous.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Republican Obstructism of the 21st Century Highway.
Charles Krauthammer: “Look, this is one of the worst bills in galactic history. … FDR left behind the Hoover dam and Eisenhower left behind the interstate highway system. We will leave behind, after spending $1 trillion, a dog run in East Potomac Park.” [Fox News, 1/24/09 ]
David Brooks: “It is an unholy marriage that manages to combine the worst of each approach — rushed short-term planning with expensive long-term fiscal impact.” [New York Times, 1/23/09 ]
Bill Kristol: “The stimulus has so much bad stuff in it. … They let the House Democrats get out of control in sort of writing a pork-laden bill. Politically, I think the Republicans have more room too argue for changes and ultimately vote against it.” [Fox News Sunday, 1/25/09 ]
Right guys!
Thanks for the last 8 years of tax cuts that went to folks who bankrupted our economy by investing in garbage that has left the largest banks with no investment capital and the middle class in a pickle.
We should listen to you because everything you said worked out so well for the country.
...so that the "greedy white men" would have been made an example. Instead our elected representatives, including your favorite new president, decided to cut them a break. And now they want to make the problem even worse. Also, I'm quite sure that none of your public enemies list above actually did little more than flap their gums. It's congress and a fed with loose pockets that really put that money into the hand of the "folks who bankrupted our economy by investing in garbage that has left the largest banks with no investment capital".
P.S. They still have investment capital. They just won't give it out while the fed is still paying them interest on it.
I see. So spreading around the "fruits" of their horrible decisions is better than letting the business fail and allowing these BOD's to realize tha there are consequences to hiring their buddies who couldn't run a business if one was handed to them. Privatize gains, socialize losses.
Let me be the first to say my future kids appreciate your benevolence.
I had other consequenes in mind for the people who caused the mess. And I'd be quite happy to socialize a lot more of both the losses and the gains. The free market ideals are nice on paper but just don't work in real life. Every attempt to aproach such a state has been a dismal failure (as has been every attempt to create a truly communist state). Something in the middle works best but the middle is a ways more towards the socialist side of the spectrum from where we are now.
you can start your socialist revolution by giving me some of your money.
In the mean time I'll continue to try to fight the forceful removal of my freedoms by people like you.
Is it a freedom to allow colluding corrupt bureaucrats to manipulate the financial system to its ruin in the name of free market obeiance?
Honestly if you are hard up I rather hope the government does give you some of "my" money because I get something out of helping- specifically I get a more robust economy, a lower crime rate, and maybe a little good karma in the bargain. That seems like a pretty ood deal to me, personally.
First of all, "corrupt" beurocrats didn't corrupt the system. They simply benefited from a policy that allowed them to get money on the cheap. When you artificially hold the cost of money below what production rates would allow you end up with "too much" money (inflation). And why is it any surprise to anyone that it's the financial market that would end up with most of it? It's in the name for crying-out-loud! Of course they're going to take crazy risks when they can get money so easily! It is my belief that the problem was not a lack of regulation, the SEC hasn't gotten any smaller but in fact grew under Bush just as it has under the last umpteen presidents, but a poor monetary policy.
That's why I get so mad when people like ML and you say we need more regulation. Regulation doesn't stop corruption. It only drives people to more devious manipulation. What needed to happen was for these businesses to fail. All of them. And I get especially angry when the "free" market is confirmed dead by a thousand experts that suddenly crawl out of the woodwork. I would absolutely love nothing else more in the entire world (all the tea in China, too) to hear one single good argument to show that we even have a free market and that it's to blame for all this. If anything it's an argument that our government cannot meddle with the market without making things worse.
P.S. If you really cared about helping others you'd do it yourself. Giving more to your government to do so only dilutes the amount of money that actually accomplished anything.
I would absolutely love nothing else more in the entire world (all the tea in China, too) to hear one single good argument to show that we even have a free market and that it's to blame for all this. If anything it's an argument that our government cannot meddle with the market without making things worse.
I don't think anyone was arguing that position.
Could investors really trust companies to police themselves? IMHO, there would be far more Barry Minkow's and Bernie Madoff's without government regulation. Steve Nash missing a free throw, doesn't mean that Steve Nash is a bad free throw shooter and should be replaced.
The collapse is however evidence that people will take huge risk and not look into the situation deeper if they feel relatively safe, even if if that safety is based on false assumptions that they never delved into. Events may have one cause that played a more important role than others, that doesn't necessitate one unstoppable cause. ie calcium is harmless by itself and will never spontaneously explode, but combine it with water...
P.S. If you really cared about helping others you'd do it yourself. Giving more to your government to do so only dilutes the amount of money that actually accomplished anything.
That doesn't mean that the government taking money, instead of the other means of charity/private job creation, results in a net loss in money given to people in greater need. An inefficient dialysis machine is better than no machine at all.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. And besides. In the past 24 hours I've read nothing but bad analogy after bad analogy trying to justify why more and more people should be told how to live. Let's leave it at this. I do not see a system as imperfect if people stumble and fall, even if hard, from time to time. I mean, if I'm supposed to trust the government to correct my problems and forgive them when they screw up why can't you trust businessmen to do the same and forgive them when they screw up, too?
The answer is you can't. Just because I believe that the free association of people is more important than some family overextended on mortgage, credit card, and every other kind of debt being able to live through their mortgage holder's bad idea does not mean that I condone their action or feel they are beyond repercussion. I just choose not to force my will on others while others (who whined and complained about their government doing the very same thing the last eight years) choose to turn a blind eye to their hypocrisy.
I'll take my government in small doses, if I must. But I'll gag the whole way down.
And as far as charity... The government (an organization that specializes in nothing and marginalizes in everything) necessarily does dilute the effect for people in need. One thing President Obama advocates is that each of us need to get out in our communities and help rather than rely on others to do it. While I disagree with his idea that it must be indirectly mandatory, he is right. American's who talk the talk about helping others and the general Democratic dogma need to stop paying their taxes and patting themselves on the back. I won't acuse anyone here of doing that. But an inneficient dialysis machine that takes 24 hours to process the blood but is "easier" on the patient's family is a poor excuse when there's a machine next to it that's pedal powered and will do it in half the time. What I'm saying is: Stop coping out of the work. Do it yourself. No one knows what your comunity needs better than you do. No one.
Analogies can always seem bad if you don't agree with the conclusion and/or premise. Just have any atheist give a critic of CS Lewis' work. Or have a theist give a critic on Sam Harris.
I mean, if I'm supposed to trust the government to correct my problems and forgive them when they screw up why can't you trust businessmen to do the same and forgive them when they screw up, too?
The answer is you can't.
Never said you should trust and forgive the government, never tried to imply one should.
But government watching businesses can be one link in a Circle of Death or checks and balances.
But an inneficient dialysis machine that takes 24 hours to process the blood but is "easier" on the patient's family is a poor excuse when there's a machine next to it that's pedal powered and will do it in half the time.
I think we'd probably just disagree slightly less than you might think, if only slightly. A flat tax with a "high" exemption amount or a flat tax with a exemption amount that is at the poverty level with a slightly increasing progressive rate would be better than the current system is it's met with spending cuts. But when it comes to government spending, I'm pretty much a utilitarian and believe a society is better off if the government puts a railing around the fishing hole to make sure it's difficult for one to fall into the abyss while bare-hand fishing.
But I'm
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
of human beings. It presupposes that people are incapable of doing anything but that which gets them the most benefit no matter whom it harms. I don;t see that that is true always. Often, sure. but not always. That means we have the capacity to say "no, thanks" when the devil comes knocking. People don't, in part, because we usually don't expect them to. This is a good example. You don;t seem to think there's any reason these guys should have taken a larger view than just "what gets me the most and %$#@ everyone else."
I really think people are better than that. I've seen enough acts of real charity and sacrifice that I know it is possible. And this wasn't exactly asking them to take a bullet for someone else. All they had to do was be happy with the ridiculous sums of money they got for sitting on their asses instead of being so greedy that they ripped apart the system in an attempt to rip out even more.
Log story short- if your view of people is right, then we're already in hell and what's the point anyway? Things will never get any better so long as everyone is trying to screw everyone else.
College Freshman Philosophy students all learn that the perception of "benefit" goes a bit deeper than you seem to understand. For some saying,"no" to the devil is a benefit. In that respect I see your view as narrow in a way that is paralyizing to your understanding. Giving away all of one's money is not "selfless" simply because that person saw a greater value in giving that money away than keeping it. This extends further into the opportunity cost concept of economics. I really hope you have at least a small grasp on that if we're even having this discussion!
These people made foolish/childish/selfish/whatever-ish decisions you want to call it. I'd rather allow people to freely make a decision about their "greed" than bog down the rest of us because of it. This goes back to elementary school when your teacher decided that they'd punish everyone for a wrong rather than take the time to figure out who really did it. It's a cop out caused by intellectual laziness.
My view is not "right". I think that the majority of people are good (I really hate generalizations like that one but you started it...).
you were arguing precisely from such a perception of value when you asked why on earth these people wouldn't seek advantages whenever they could.
If you are now explicitly acknowledging that there are values beyond the spreadsheet of profits and losses then I think your question answers it self- they could have valued others above their own pocket book, but they didn't. That's why precisely I call them "corrupt."
Your elementary school example is apt- and if a number of students engage in a form of play that endangers everyone, say by starting fires then I absolutely support a teacher saying no students can play with matches. Harsh? Not really. Unfair to the good student? Well maybe. But the sad fact is we live in an environment (both technological and economic) where the stupid actions of one person can endanger thousands. That being the case your freedoms are very much my concern. No I do not feel like letting you own plutonium just because you think it is your right. Nor do I think you should be free to wreck the economy so that people lose their homes.
I'm not really particularly sympathetic to those who see freedom as license to hurt others. There is no intrinsic right to wheel and deal in high finance. It is pure privelege, and that privelege pretty clearly neds to be restricted since people have badly abused it.
Your first statement makes no sense. I don't understand how my argument is inconsistent. My point was that people will always persue what they deem to be something of benefit to them. Therefore asking the rhetorical question,"when presented with money, why wouldn't money people take it?" seemed a simpler question that it is, apparently.
And your second point mises the point entirely. These benefits are evaluated on an individual basis. What you perceive to be important is irrelevant since you were not the one in that position. At the same time you argue their motivations weren't altruistic enough I can argue yours are too narrow minded or miss the scope of individuality itself. The decisions you make for the good of other's couldn't possibly satisfy all. And I'm not sure how much history you've read, but justifying something in the name of helping the majority of people (or maybe you really believe you know what's best for all people!?!?) has never, ever, ever ended well. Ever.
And I will again use another analogy (I'm really starting to get tired of this method, I hope it's not an SC regular). You are not advocating students not play with matches. You are advocating they play with matches while you pick another student to watch over them. As you say, adults act as children? So why should this be any better? I don't see owning plutonium as a right so much as I view your ability to tell me what to do outside of violating your rights as wrong. And preemptive solutions to uncomfortable situations is exactly what people like you have been screaming about for the last 8 years. The irony is very nearly overwhelming. So long as it's a government you agree with you can't get enough. But you always seem to forget it's just 4 years away from being a nightmare.
The free association of people is most certainly a right. And you are partially correct in pointing out it's a government's place to uphold the contracts made by it's people. And by the way, I don't believe nor have I implied that freedom gives purpose to evil, but I will never see evil as purpose for removing the freedoms of everyone.
Here's one final analogy. I want it to be the last. Wishing to ride a bike and never fall off is a childish behavior. This is the behavior you advocate. And don't give me any BS about training wheels. Every kid knows riding with training wheels isn't really riding a bike. You can just as easily strap a helmet on your own head and risk it.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is here but you seem to have circled back to your original position. Let me distill the argument down to the relevent statements as I see it:
You- why wouldn't people take advantage when they can?
Me- That view requires us to see people as utterly shallow and incapable of altruism (i.e. making sacrifices)
You- By advantage I meant more than just monetary advantage. People can value more than money.
Me- Okay but the situation was about taking monetary advantage, so if you know people *can* value more than money then you know very well why people might have chosen not to take advantage in this situation.
You- But people will always do what benefits them
Either you believe people are incapable of resisting such a temptation in which case my post about how that is a narrow view of people applies, or you agree that people can choose not to take every advantage in which case your argument makes no sense. You can't defend these men by saying anyone would do it if you know that isn't the case (and it isn't the case at all).
Your view of history seems equally narrow since there are literally millions of things done "to help people" that have in fact helped people. I can't imagine how you reconcile this view with your statements in support of charity. What is charity if not the ultimate example of justifying an action as helping people?
If you prefer not to argue by analogy that's fine.
As for what you say about this argument being along lines with what's been wrong the last 8 years you couldn't be more wrong. The last 8 years have seen huge infringements of actual rights. There is no right to play high finance games. I apparently should stress this. You have absolutely no right to be employed in high finance or to run a business in high finance. No right at all. It is a privelege, and it can and should be taken away anytime those who exercise it seem even the leasst bit irresponsible. That's exactly the same as the way that any company who operates a nuclear power plant irresponsibly should be out of business within hours. They have no right and it is far too dangerous to let them screw around with things they obviously don;t know how to do right.
That is a world away from Habeus Corpus or privacy which are definitively rights you do have. Those are rights, not priveleges and they cannot be legally taken away by a president. The two situations aren't at all comparable, Magilson.
Free association has nothing to do with running a business. Free association is about associating, not contracts or dealing. It is about being able to talk with whomever you like, to be able to get together in groups for communication, not trade. It was specifically in the constitution to prevent the government from trying to preven tcivil unrest by forcing people to remain in small enough groups that coordination became impossible.
I'm not defending anyone's bad decisions. I'm defending their right to make them and then suffer the consequences. Giving them a boatload of money to "protect" ordinay Americans is just going to make it worse while proping up a political party and alienating any chance for a real solution. It's your poor application of the term "corrupt" that I had a problem with. I simply tried to point out that your personal views aren't shared by everyone. I figured you already knew that. My question was rhetorical as I specifically stated. It was a,"What did you think would happen?" question.
As far as history goes. I don't agree. There aren't things that were justified in the name of "helping the majority" that actually did just that. It helped some, but never the majority. And a lot of the time it had much more scary results. I'm thinking macro, here. The same level as our current problem.
Just as equally as it is a priveledge to work, it is not your right to take it away just because they suck at it. This isn't a nuclear reactor by any stretch of the imagination. There were no garauntees (in the strict sense of the definition, not the names given to money products...) in this game. I believe that going through this error the hard way is the best way to learn from it. I would rather my future children inherit a sound economy than one bandaged against a problem that will continue to happen so long as we rely on legislation of past problem to predict future ones. Can you honestly say you would take that risk in a more personal setting? Betting on the past as the only guard against the future? I wouldn't. I don't.
And I respectfully disagree in regard to contracts. They go hand in hand with free association.
You say it's not my place to take away their privelege to work "just because they suck at it." If you mean just me, then sure I agree, no one person should have that kind of power unchecked. But if you mean the majority through their elected officials can't spank the bejeezus out of these &^%#wits then I have to very much disagree. We (the people) have every right to do that. What's more we not only have the right we have the cause to do it.
Are you really saying the way to give our kids a secure economy is to put the same guys who screwed up back into power with no changes to prevent them doing the exact same thing again? To turn your question back on you- why wouldn't they just crash it again to make themselves a few bucks? They;ve proven they have no foresight. Why on earth do you think these guys have learned a damn thing from this? Given that this whole thing is basically a rehash of the savings and loan crash of 1988 I think that's way too optimistic. And even if these guys learned the lesson the next generation hasn't, and won't unless we let them do the same. Rather than letting them find an excuse every 20 years to kill the global economy I'd rather just stop them from being idiots.
That sounds like a much better way to get a secure economy, frankly.
PS- you know how many times contracts are mentioned in the constitution? Once, and that's only to say that states cannot breach them (something they do not state about the federal government).
Punishing the bad guys and hoping that you can figure out what they'll do next is hopelessly niave. I'd rather everyone finally understand the risks they take and avoid them if they can rather than move forward knowing that way back in the day Tlaloc made it all better. We only put them back in power by giving them our money again. So don't give them your money and go back to giving it to the government for welfare or whatever it is you think they're doing best at the moment. I don't really care. And this isn't a lot like the savings and loan crash of 1988. And applying those principles to this problem would only make it worse. It is in fact making it worse. By stoping them from being idiots, as you say, you just let everyone else to continue to be idiots instead. You say all adults are really children. Well stop keeping them that way.
PS - I think there was a good reason for not overtly stating how the federal government should behave with regard to contracts. You might spend some time reading the Federalist Papers. I found insight. If you've already read them, how did you view the response to this dilema ( mean other than the obvious response which is that you feel it fine for the federal government to violate contracts as was eventually ruled by the SCOTUS?)
Your comment here reminds me a lot of the underpants gnome southpark episode, you seem to be saying:
1) Don't punish those who screwed up and don't fix the system to prevent the way they screwed up
2) ????
3) everyone learns responsibility!
I'm rather hazy on what could possibly happen in step 2 to make this work.
And no we don't have to put them in power by giving them our money, the way this all started was a bunch of completely inside pool within the high finance industry. Credit Defalut Swaps are not something you or I would put money into. But when you or I got a loan, for say a house or whatever, we unwittingly gave money to people who gave money to these idiots. We had no choice in the matter. So now unless you want to actually fix the system your only other option is to swear off any form of credit. Which still won't work because even if you do everyone else will not (capitalism is great, neh?) so we're right back to the point where the same guys, or others just as ambitious and shortsighted, are in a position to crash the system.
Unless you fix the system they will just do it again. If we do fix the system they might very well find a new way to crash it, then we have to fix that too. Meanwhile we should steadily increase the penalty for breaking the rules until it becomes clear that the profit/loss ratio is not worth it. If you want to talk about not having an organized society then we can have that discussion but so long as we're going to have an organized state (particularly a very advanced military and economic superpower state) then we have a serious duty to make it as foolproof as possible.
How is stopping them from being idiots making everyone else an idiot? Believe me I'm all for teaching personal responsibility but I don't see how refusing to do *anything* about a colossal crime is teaching that point.
WRT federalist papers- they certainly have historical value, beyond that though they have no power of law and hence no real point nowadays.
You seem to forget the primary reason these CDS's were so "toxic" to begin with. But if you also think that was the fault of the swappers then there's really no hope for you. And I have swore off any form of credit, actually. I'd suggest others try it, too. I'd say we'd be in a much different position now if people were less worried about South Park and more worried about their children's future.
In the mean time I refuse to participate in your ever toppling system of waiting for the bad guys to be bad and then punishing them. You seem to forget there are quite a few bank that didn't participate in this and are doing quite well. And companies. And people.
And allowing everyone to go about their business of putting down 3% on a house and taking out credit cards with $10,000 limits and leasing cars for for over 50% of a person's monthly income all seem like really smart things to do... (this is the people are idiots part) So, yes, by allowing everyone to think Tlaloc's taken away all the risk by punishing the bad guys for selling loans that people were too stupid to understand they couldn't afford seems like allowing those same people to stay idiots. I don't buy into that kind of protectionsim. But now that I think about it you propably think those kinds of decisions should be legislated out of reach for people, too. And as far as not wanting to do anything to "punish" them, well I'm sorry but I just don't think making up laws after the fact to make everyone feel better at night is a just thing to do. Laws will be written, regulations will be created, and people will be punished after this (although I'll bet the SEC doesn't shrink after we put in all these great laws that will protect us) but I cannot agree with 20/20 prosecution. You were outsmarted and you need to admit it and move on. This will happen again. Garaunteed.
Federalist papers - If historical documents outside the consititution held no real power we'd have a lot less interesting conversations about the appointment of judges...
That South Park reference actually was right on topic.
Tlaloc's taken away all the risk by punishing the bad guys for selling loans that people were too stupid to understand they couldn't afford seems like allowing those same people to stay idiots.
That's a gross misstatement of what Tlaloc wrote, that you then retorted.
You were outsmarted and you need to admit it and move on. This will happen again.
No one is thinking they are setting a utopia. No one is claiming they will stop all fraud/stupid decisions.
People still lock their doors even if it doesn't stop people who want in.
Barriers still block opposite direction of highways, but sometimes vehicles can still get the other side.
Banks still keep money in a vault, but they still get robbed.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Why was credit so loose? People didn't make enough money to keep their standard of living.
Just the other day I was telling a friend that loose credit is indeed the problem. There are only 3 things you should really need to buy on credit:
1) House
2) Car
3) Education
These are not:
4) Computer
5) HDTV
6) Groceries
The credit markets are tight? GREAT! People need to start living within their means. That'll bring down prices to what they ought to be rather than the credit inflated prices we have now. Problem? Ah yes! The economy depends on easy credit to keep going since the middle class no longer has the ability to spend like they did.
Getting back to the standard of living argument, it is no secret that people compare themselves to those in their economic class. As income for the richest people went up while it stagnated and even decreased for the middle and lower classes, these people turned to easy credit (credit cards and home equity loans) in order to give themselves the illusion that they were making more money. Last I checked, loans are on the liability side of the ledger rather than the asset side, so people were actually worse off than before. Hence our problem.
I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd I'm listening to...
So, yes, by allowing everyone to think Tlaloc's taken away all the risk by punishing the bad guys for selling loans that people were too stupid to understand they couldn't afford seems like allowing those same people to stay idiots.
Why is this either/or? Can't we do both?
Of course, the final issue at hand is that there were enough idiots to take down the economy. Do we have them learn their lesson at everyone's expense or try to pull everyone up at everyone's expense?
I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd I'm listening to...
People who took foolish loans and are now in trouble can deal with the trouble. That kind of thing isn't a threat to the system as a whole. It doesn't endanger everyone else. Naturally I'd like to discourage that kind of thing but there's no need to change the laws to prevent it. Again that's worlds away from what the high financiers did. Yes the underlying weakness of the CDS was caused by the supposed mortgages not having the value they were assumed to have but that is not the fault of the people getting the loans. They weren't the ones rolling up the mortgages and arbitrarily assigning a value to them to make the balance sheets look better than they really were.
Can you give me an example of a bank that is doing well in the current environment?
This crisis occured mostly because of the rolling up of mortgages of uncertain value in to supposed "security" investments that got traded around until nobody knew what anyone really had in terms of assets. These mortgage securities were a new thing and pretty much unregulated.
That being the case this is pretty clearly a free market failing. It happened because people were allowed to make transactions with no controls on their worst impulses and they screwed up. Monumentally. Since there was no regulation obvious regulation wasn't the problem. The problem was the lack of regulation that let so many make so many stupid short sighted decisions.
Here's the secret- most adults act like children, and like children they need rules to keep them from hurting themselves and others. So long as they act like spoiled children they have to be controlled. If and when they show some personal responsibility *then* we can talk about removing regulations. Until that time I have no problem telling them when it is bath time, when they need to eat their veggies, and when they need to clean their rooms.
The financial industry is grounded until further notice.
WRT helping others-
you say "If you really cared about helping others you'd do it yourself. Giving more to your government to do so only dilutes the amount of money that actually accomplished anything."
SO somehow I'm supposed to know who in this country has the greatest need? And I'm supposed to know what those needs are and the best way to address them? Look, personal charity is a nice idea but it's terribly impractical. What personal charity means is you have money directed to those causes that the person likes, not to the problems that are the biggest. It's immensely wasteful. The only good way to run social services/welfare/whatever you want to call it is to have an organized body that can monitor the situation and direct resources appropriately.
Charity is more about making the giver feel good than it is actually helping anyone else.
Regulation - I don't agree that the rolling up of bad mortgages was the issue. I think it was a symptom of financial companies that could get so much money for so cheap that anyone and seemingly everyone was selling them horrible "securities" in the name of getting some of that money. This is a two way street. Why add a check to a system that already has one. You said it yourself. Someone had to buy these bad securites while someone had to be selling them. They bought them thinking they weren't risky because a loose monetary policy let every joe schmoe out there think it was okay to buy, buy, buy when they didn't have to begin with. This problem exists far outside the relm of executive corner offices. If you're wiling to control those at the top, you must necessarily be willing to control those at the bottom as well. That's scary. More scary than people who couldn't manage money losing all their toys.
Help - Just because you are too lazy or busy or important to learn about your community or your country does not justify your need for someone else who is just as likely ignorant of their surroundings to do so with a fancy seal on their letterhead. It is a cop out and a way to separate yourself from responsibility.
And if you don't mind... May I ask what additional percentage of your income you pay to your federal/state/local tax agency above that required by current tax code. I've read about liberals who believe the government is best at distributing money to those who need it but I've never "met" one and so I was just wondering.
By the way, charity is more about helping others. It just so happens that most people that do it get a kick out of it, too.
Here's some places saying that it was the credit default swaps were the problem (that's the technical term I couldn't think of earlier, sorry for the crude description) or at the minimum they were a big part of the overall meltdown:
Now a couple quick notes- CDS were developed as a way for these guys to get around regulations that, if they had been folowed would have prevented this mess. It was a way to game the system and it blew up in everyone's face (which we need to come back to again here below). Pretty obviously then the solution involves more regulation seeing as how the regulations that existed would have prevented this if people hadn't been idiots and tried to subvert them. You want to blame the regulation for the fact that some people cheat, that makes no sense. What you do is put the cheaters in prison and buff up the regulations to make it harder to cheat.
You say that controlling people who voluntarily chose to go into high finance is more scary than "people who couldn't manage money losing all their toys." This statement frankly floors me. Are you unaware that we are teetering on the edge of a Depression with a capital D? This has nothing to do with bad planners losing their toys. This is about a few idiots crashing the global economy because they thought they were too smart to be bothered by rules. The damage goes way way beyond the people who actually caused the problem.
Why do they have the right to hurt everyone else? because they have, enormously. Their refusal to simply follow rules means we are all suffering. Unemployment in dec 2008 was up to 7.2%. That's almost 50% higher than Dec 2007. Unemployment in January is going to be worse. Just today there were 75,000 job losses announced among different companies.
WRT charity- it isn't laziness. I don't have the resources to collect the kind of data that you need to determine the best placement of resources. There's a very good reason to pay people and in fact have whole departments of the government that do nothing but collect said data- because it is very valuable. It is critical to being able to see problems coming and to address them successfully.
It isn't a cop out it is simple realism. I don't want to, and I'm not qualified, to coordinate welfare anymore than I can coordinate the fire service or the army or any of the other things a large organized society needs to function.
WRT taxes- Of course I don't pay taxes above my rate, nor do I ask anyone else to either. What I ask is everyone pay their fair share, and I'm happy to do the same. A better question is whether I tend to vote for those tax levies that will affect me in terms of taxation but don't directly benefit me by their action. The answer is yes the vast majority I do vote for, because I recognize that infrastucture (schools, jails, roads, clean air, clean water, etc) helps me indirectly plenty.
A) What "other" consequences do you have in mind for the people who caused the present mess we're in?
B) It's agreed that a truly communist state wouldn't succeed here in the United States. However, If you're looking for something on the middle that leans more towards the Socialist side of the spectrum, President Obama doesn't even come close to BEING a Socialist, contrary to what many Conservatives and Liberals alike believe.
The big banks with investment capital are not lending because IF they get a call to pay for the toxic assets they have on their books, they are left with no investment capital. Catch 22.
So instead of allowing these assets to clear we are simply going to hold on to them and hope we can print enough money so that everyone can feel good about the poor financial decisions they've made over the last decade.
I'm starting to remember why I stopped coming to SC for insightful interpretations of current events.
I am sick of the insinuation that anyone who disagrees with the GOP gods is either stupid or on medication.
The more likely case is that anyone who tries to engage in a rationale dialogue with you gets a migraine and needs medication.
Tell me again exactly what worked under you philosophy of government for last eight years, other than the fact that you have learned how to trash talk? Free trade going well? Investments gaining ground? Businesses floundering. Great anecdotes for a civil society.
Cause answering this question or being held accountable for the fruits of your labor is just to hard to deal with?
Tell me again exactly what worked under your philosophy of government for last eight years, other than the fact that you have learned how to talk trash?
Free trade going well? Investments gaining ground? Businesses floundering. Great anecdotes for a civil society.
I don't know why I do this, it's a hard lesson I've learned, that you're incapable of following through on any given thought...but...
Tell me again exactly what worked under your philosophy of government
First of all dimwit, it was not the last eight years, it has been the last 25 years. And if you can subtract, subtract the 4 years of Carter, your last liberal messiah, (and we all remember the wonderful stagflation those policies produced, happy days are here again!) and it's been the last 41 years!
Don't you get that?
You may ask about 8 years of Clinton...The Republican Congress owned him, and Newt and the contract with America dominated things, (we can discuss that more in detail later if you dare)
So, this leaves us with why things went upside down now...
Funny how in 41 years we never had a crisis like this before isn't it. You know why it happened, the core component to the whole collapse is the outrageous lending policies liberals forced lenders to adopt. Yes forced. If lenders did not make those loans, the liberals favorite tax exempt con, I mean corn...That's right ACORN...oh ya...ACORN would come a knock'in, and next thing you know you're in a lawsuit with Barney Franks assistant calling on the other line. Yes the liberals thought they could socially engineer a American Utopia. (nothing new there I know) They thought because it made them feel good, that unemployed, and bankrupt people, minorities that just did not qualify, hey wasn't the no-doc loans a real great thing for America, and now, these same people, who put nothing down, have nothing to lose, are walking. Surprise surprise. Thanks liberals.
Anyway, had those loans not been made, they would not have been bundled, re-sold, and become the impetus of the current economic crisis. So it was actually OVER REGULATION in the form of the forced sub prime lending that got us here.
Other than that I think the capitalist, free market society our founding fathers prescribed has worked brilliantly! And despite all its shortcomings, given what we have to chose from, the Republican party has done right by the constitution in trying to advocate for lesser, restrained federal bureaucracy, and the preservation of our individual liberties. Certainly they have done much much more then the Democrats in those regards.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
played no part whatsoever? That stretches credulity.
Prime lenders were getting sub-prime loans. Why? Interest only loans for prime lenders. Insane. Unless you are going to use sub-prime loans like a casino to spin for payola.
Sub-prime loans were not a bad thing, until the private sector decided this was a delicious way to create wealth out of thin air, by selling the risk as capital. Why did Lehman Bros, a private bank take these sub-prime loans on their books and beg for more?
____
The last eight years was deregulation on steroids.
Number One: Alan Greenspan, who gloried in deregulation and free market fundamentalism. His biggest fear was socialism/communism. His cure unregulated free market fundamentlism spurred him to actually say that intricate high risk CDO's, chopped into little pieces and sold around the world were good. These are the toxic assets on the banks that Greenspan said were peachy keen for capitalist wealth spreading.
Number Two: Bill Clinton (who was swooned by Alan Greenspan.) Wall Street loved him.
Also included are George Bush (swooned by Greenspan), Gordon Brown, Phil Gramm, and Chris Dodd.
There is also a list of 'heroes' who saw this coming and were screaming whoa and trying to warn folks. I will include myself on that list. Warren Buffet, Professor Nouriel Roubini, Meredith Whitney and others.
_____
Going forward we have only one tool to use to spur the economy.... spending. We can't use monetary policy, or interest rates, cause they are already at almost zero. There is no other tool to dig us out of this. You can cut taxes on businesses that are laying people off, but it won't create jobs.
...what is the undeniabe catalyst of our economic woes.
Ultimately all the "toxic assets" are constituted of the ashes of Barney Franks (& friends) social engineering experiments, whether they are now some form of defunct investment vehicle, or red ink on a bottom line someplace.
Were there subsequently other diminutive factors where fingers could be pointed, sure there were, there were too many getting high on their own supply, and yes, other less admirable professional behavior took place as well.
In de facto however, there is a reason for the unthinkable reality that you harp on so habitually, you know the one where - no one caught it, the underwriters, the regulators, seemingly everyone dropped the ball, and why was that, it was because these GSE's were, just that, Government Sponsored Entities, and therefore - it was a given that these were golden, immutable investments, and that is at the crux of why what they did was so insideous, and was so easily saturated into the markets, if you comprehend anything else about this, you must be cognizant of that.
Bottom line, and exculpatory evidence that all other claims are nothing more than pretense, and adjunct to its causation, is this; had those lending policies never been instituted, we would not be having this conversation.
Ironically, we're done having it...so unless you flip through your eight years of crib notes and come up with something new...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
We have laws, supposedly, for the sake of justice. Sometimes they have unintended consequences.
Passing laws to allow blacks the right to vote had the unintended consequence of white outrage that led to many murders.
Knowing a bit of history can give a clue as to why such laws exist.
Figuratively we used dynamite, to liberate the slaves (Civil War), yet a century later there was such profound injustice targeting black people, (yes I know it was democrats) that it required the intervention of the Federal Government.
Normal commerce was out of whack in the last century when black sharecroppers were prevented from selling their crop to the local cotton gin mills to process their cotton for cloth. Capitalism interrupted by racial boycott.
In Tennessee black farmers were evicted from their property by the collusion of local governments conspiring against any form of black ownership.
In order to promote social justice, ie; allowing blacks to own homes and engage in commerce, a law was passed that you call 'bad lending policies'.
You keep railing on endlessly about 'social engineering' as if it was some sort of twisted plot to subjugate justice. The reality is that laws had to be passed to insure justice. (See above)
None of this 'social engineering' that you keep repeating endlessly would have been necessary but for the complete lack of civic order, as it pertained to blacks being free to own property and sell their goods.
So please stop misrepresenting history with the word social engineering. It distorts the truth.
The bigotry of old was violent enough that laws were passed to ensure that blacks would be free to own property and engage in commerce without being murdered. The correct term is social justice.
According to your logic, one could also say, that if we hadn't fought the Civil War we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Yes forced. If lenders did not make those loans, the liberals favorite tax exempt con
More than one road can definitely lead to Rome. There were other backdoors the GOP could have taken to protect the market from over valuing GSE's. Like making the market aware the GSE's would be treated like any other entity if they failed.
The liberals put the dynamite in their truck, the housing industry knew the dynamite was there, but still drove truck like they were Nick Hogan. Dems told themselves that Nick was a good kid and looked the other way. The GOP was so focused on there being dynamite and getting the dynamite out, they refused to take a hit and do anything to make the truck safer.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
..these GSE's were the Democrats babies. They have been for a long time, prominent Democrats have always run them.
To step on their toes would have caused a fire fight, however as I have pointed out here many times, Greenspan Bush, his advisers, McCain, and other Republicans did make overtures and gave speeches warning of all this.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Holding Congressional meetings and preaching to the choir was just an attempt at Pascal's Wager for Votes by Appearance of Opposition of the Other Party's Pet Project.
Either that or I'm making a logical fallacy that assumes if a Congressman/POTUS believes something catastrophic is even somewhat likely to happen, they'll make good faith efforts to do more than just the minimal of getting the word out and actually do what needs to be done to stop that calamity.
But the rules for GSE's weren't changed and now the GOP has/had an issue to run with during elections.
ie most in the GOP must not have seen the collapse as too likely and weren't going to risk political grease on something that might not budge.
Some Dems had questions of whether it was smart to put troops in Iraq, but most of them folded from the start. Can't really sing their praises for their concerns either.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
On the one hand you say you want to find insightful interpretations, but on the other you seem to be discarding out of hand those interpretations that vary from your own. I would hazard that one of the following is true:
a) you already know precisely what's going on in the world in which case you need not seek outside views, or
b) you aren't perfectly aware of the state of the world in which case it is worth listening to other views to sift them for merit.
Maybe you think you are alreay doing b but it seems to me that you are discarding views far too readily to be actually evaluating them (and remember that any of us may not be saying what you think we're saying, communication is awfully treacherous in a text only environment).
...I know (and this is no big surprise), that I all to often, have a great deal of trouble understanding why liberals can't see how flawed there POV is.
;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I do want to find insightful interpretations. I dismiss those interpretations because they are not insightful or do not hold up to proper inspection (which I think is your point in that I should stick around, so maybe I will.) and has nothing to do with them being differnt from my own. I discard the views so readily because I've already spent a lot of time considering them.
Believe me, if the easiest, most correct solution was to print money and repeat the Glass-Senegal (sp?) I would be all for it. However I think there is proper evidence to show that the "easy" way out is the worst possible reaction we could have.
consider though that some of us believe we've spent a long time considering the views you seem to be espousing (I say seem to because I'm not sure I know exactly what you are going for although it sounds to me like Laissez-faire libertarianism) and found them lacking.
So things might be more complicated than they seem. That's the point of the site. If you like- we learn more by putting our ideas in direct competitions. Don't be an ideological protectionist :)
No mind tarrifs! :P (libertarian humor doesn't come natural to me, as you may be able to tell)
The video reminded me of a Mad TV skit where two politicians were disagreeing with each other even though they were stating the exact same idea, but with different words.
Red_Wing: "Listen closely!"
Red_Wing: "play it in the background while to move all your money around in other windows..."
I went with latter for a couple minutes until something sounded out of place and realized I thought wrongly that he was referring to "conservatives" as the unconstrained.
Sowell repeatedly referred to the unconstrained in a negative light.
Around 3:00, they make the case to not invade Iraq, from my pov. Same thing around 6:00.
Almost as if Sowell is saying:
"I George Bush knows what's best for you the Iraqi people...if you don't agree with invading Iraq or keeping the gays from marrying then you are so utterly stupid, so utterly uniformed or, or simply dishonest....People like the conservatives cannot fathom a world where people could have looked at the information different and come to a different conclusion."
For the poll, it seemed to be begging the question. First there is the meme that "liberal" judges are actively lying to themselves and making up laws as they go and only the "conservative" just are intellectually sufficient enough to have the correct view of the law.
If it's not for the judges to decide the law, I don't know why the "conservative" judges take such a leap of faith of what is interstate trade when it comes to currently illegal drugs. Someone that agrees with the ends is far more likely to agree with the interpretations [Not unlike the self-delusion of Sam Cassell never thinking he ever committed a foul ]. I cannot fathom how growing something in one's back yard for personal use affects intrastate trade in the slightest.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
...to think, that out of all that authoritative, compelling material, and food for bona fide intellectual examination (both in support and in opposition) in that interview, that you kept invoking ...Bush? And evidently you were unable to appreciate Sowell's perspectives as anything more than another conservative bashing every other political ideology out there.
Well, that troubled me, and I am a bit disillusioned.
That conversation, IMO, was replete with many of the "authentic" questions that divide us, and the eternal bonds that should always unite us. They touched upon the very precepts and convictions that move us, what more worthy conversation could be had?
I would so much like to have an engaging back and forth on these order of core issues, (and I know I am certainly guilty of it as well), but it seems even when presented with cogent, compelling information, too many times the responses are discursive, and often do not confer a keen desire to penetrate the topic in any culminative way.
I for one have been trying, (with admitted varying results), not to be a contributor of that occurrence.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
"[Have you ever watched a football game and noticed the home field fans get upset at the refs for a correct call, because it went against them, the fans were extra infuriated because the refs missed the correct call earlier? That's the unconstrained viewpoint. That's the viewpoint of most Chargers' fans]"
Thomas Sowells.
Sowell's repeatedly appears to be ignoring outliers and examples that contradict his academic theory and including people that agree generally agree with the unconstrained end assumptions, as coming to the conclusion from the unconstrained mind frame also. I just don't think his version of what an unconstrained vision is, as having many followers at all.
His war example, IMO, he effectively said:
Constrained viewpoint holds that hot stoves can burn hands and hot things burn. They believe we should turn down the heat. But notice that some burners are still on high.
Unconstrained viewpoint holds that hot things burn because the skin cannot tolerate that much heat when hot things are touched. And we should be aware to not touch hot things. They're also aware of the hot burners, but are trying not to touch them.
And evidently you were unable to appreciate Sowell's perspectives as anything more than another [idealogue] bashing every other political ideology out there.
That would be more accurate with the change.
Not nearly all liberals are unconstrained.
Trying to put the most educated, most qualified person, within a system of checks and balances is not unconstrained.
There may be some or a lot of supporters who think Obama has all/most of the answers, though so far I've only actually heard conservatives ascribe that trait to his followers [people thinking Obama would be a vast improvement over Bush is not to be construed as them thinking Obama has the answers to bring forth a utopia] Any "liberal" that thinks anywhere close to Obama being like the "Messiah" [as per Rush's claims], are fools.
There are fools that are unconstrained.
But not all fools are unconstrained
Sowell is sitting back, enjoying his chocolate sundae, watching and lamenting on how the unconstrained love their ice cream after watch them eat a vanilla ice cream cone.
Or, on taxes, enforcing Nascar rules infractions noticed after the fact is unconstrained because it infringes on driver's end results. And that's why liberal's tend to want to enforce the regulations in Nascar.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The American Revolution embodied the constrained vision.
“In the United States,” Sowell says, “it was assumed from the outset that what you needed to do above all was minimize the damage that could be done by] the flaws in human nature.”
The founders did this by composing a constitution of checks and balances.
More than two centuries later, their work remains in place.
The French Revolution, in contrast, embodied the unconstrained vision.
“In France,” Sowell says, “the idea was that if you put the right people in charge–if you had a political Messiah–then problems would just go away.”
The result? Terror, Napoleon, and so many decades of instability that France finally sorted itself out only when Charles de Gaulle declared the Fifth Republic.
The constrained vision sees market economies as responsive to systemic forces–the interaction of innumerable individual choices and performances–rather than to deliberate power shaping the ultimate outcome to suit particular individuals or organized decision-makers. A competitive market, as thus conceived, is a very efficient system for “the transmission of accurate information,” in the form of prices. These prices not only bring information as to changing scarcities, technological advances, and shifting consumer preferences, but also provide “an incentive to react to the information. …”
The unconstrained vision argues that this is not how the economy operates, that it is currently obeying the power of particular interests and should therefore be made in future to obey the power of the public interest. Deliberate price-setting “exists in most basic American industries,” according to this view. The answer is for “an angry public” to “appeal to its political government.” The “the market gods are increasingly brought within control of humanely exercised power.”
~Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions, page 155.
Whatever you want to call the philosophic divisions, rationalists vs. anti-rationalists, constrained vs. unconstrained vision, Burkean vs. Rousseauean, Madisonian vs. Jeffersonian, they all come down ultimately to certain core principles.
The Republican Party, has, by and large, embraced the constrained vision. The Democrats, and BO, the unconstrained vision. When asked if Obama represents the purest expression of the unconstrained vision, Sowell himself replied;
"Since the beginning of American politics. This man has been a left ideologue for 20 years.”
I’d agree with Sowell that, despite it's imperfections, the Republican Party represents a much more contrained - and therefore reasonable - vision of the potential use of government than does the unconstrained Democrat's view.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I’d agree with Sowell that, despite it's imperfections, the Republican Party represents a much more contrained - and therefore reasonable - vision of the potential use of government than does the unconstrained Democrat's view.
I know you weren't unaware the belly aching of those unconstrained Democrats in response to Bush using techniques designed to illicit false confessions and them bringing up how the treatment wasn't allowed under the law. Or the "constrained" judges of the SCOTUS giving no end to what constitutes interstate trade. Person A can come an unconstrained vision and reach conclusion Z, Person B can come from a constrained vision and reach conclusion Z also. I don't think Sowell's idea of the unconstrained vision of current liberals widely exist outside of his theory. It's as messed up as someone hearing one is a fan of Metallica and making a theory that metal fans like the flute because Jethro Tull has a flute. His theory on fits a small clique of people that doesn't appear to fit Barry at all.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Sowell's created a system like a horoscope, and because some of the stuff he through at his definition stuck, he lump in "most" "liberals" in the unconstrained vision.
He gave a false dichotomy.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Comments :
Richard Neuhaus archive
I wasn't familiar with Father Richard Neuhaus until I read his obituary in the Economist. I then found this archive of his writings
. I read a few articles and enjoyed them, even though I disagree with is perspective and conclusions. In his article about athiesm and citizenship, he seemed to have an intimate (and accurate) understanding of his opponent's worldviews, which made his critiques tolerable, even if they were unconvincing (to me, who wasn't really part of his intended audience anyway).
Can anyone tell me what the "seven demons of secularism" are?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Cite?
If you have the link to where he states that, I'll give it a shot. Was it in the citizenship article?
The article on atheism and citizenship
, from 1991, was worth reading, full of references and examples that might be of interest to some here. It also shows how difficult it is to fully explore such a question even on a blog that allows for long posts.
I am not certain I agree with his final conclusion either, although I think he was perhaps leaning more to the idea that such a person would not acknowledge the State as a legitimate source of external rules because that person refused to recognize any other such external source (such as a deity, not necessarily even a Christian one). I did like this bit, although it sounds rather quaint today:
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
seven demons
From the Economist obit
:
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Can't find an online source
And I've never read his work, so no help there.
It does appear to be something of his own creation and not dogma.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
The Naked Public Square
That's the name of the book it is from. If this link
works the way I hope it will, you can see the full context of the quote. It doesn't seem to explain anything about the seven demons.
Edit: Oh well, ampersands not working right in the link. You can copy/paste this and it should work:
Edit 2: Not sure that works either, but once you get to that link, the relevant stuff is on page 8, last paragraph.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Seven demons
When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.
7 deadly sins?
"[Or something someone just made up and put in the Bible and God saw it fit to let it stay.]"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
thanks for the suggestions, re Seven Demons
Thanks for the help finding the source. My original impression was that this was something that Neuhaus had invented himself in "the public square". However, as the book (as presented in Google Books...probably abridged) just mentiones them as though the reader should know what they are, that suggests that he was referring to something that had been described previously. So maybe it is a reference to the seven sins. Maybe I'll find the answer some day.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
The correct translation should be
"Hey baby, let me drive out your demons."
qui tacet consentire
Thus did the defenders of
How can doubt of something be construed as further proof? If I was told that I'm see an all-powerful uncreated creator shape shifting humanoid if I just believe, then looking around the corner and seeing a human is not proof of The Thing. That level of proof is the less than the level of proof needed to believe one is in the Matrix.
That sounds more like a reason to feign belief, than to know a truth as he stated earlier. Isn't that just another way of saying that "it is how it is, because it is, and don't rock the boat even if one has good evidence we're going towards an iceberg, because we're all on it." Blind allegiance to a false truth, is no truth at all, just look at the Westboro Baptist Church.
Sounds nice until the public order of one country fears the public order of another country is out to get them.
A cynic would be thinking that the author made a true statement of the people with fake belief only to hide something and make his claims have the intended impact.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass who President Obama is.
People haven't gotten over the euphoria of the Inauguration and the election, but you know what? It''s going to wear off sooner or later, and, people're already making excuses for the fact that our new President Obama has just sent some drones over into Pakistan to kill more people, and anytime somebody points that out, they affectively and subtly or not so subtly get labeled as a racist. What a load of crap. That's particularly galling, considering all that President Obama claims to stand for. Once again, the American people voted for charism. Hey, America, wake up..this ain't the movies.
I don't trust President Obama any more than I trust politicians generally, regardless of who they may be, and I'm going to continue to scrutinize him. Sorry, but that's how I see it. You know what? There's TWO reasons why Barack Obama got elected POTUS:
A) First of all, and least important; He's half white.
B) MORE importantly and to the point: Barack Obama, imho, did not run a totally honest campaign, imho (most politiciains don't). First of all, he got plenty of donations from the big corporations, etc., and not all from the smaller, private citizenship, etc., He ran a much slicker, more organized campaign than McCain, his opponent. That's for sure, plus President Obama's an excellent orator. However, to get to the point, the campaign on hope that he ran on depended upon him talking around and essentially skiring the whole issues of race ( unlike the late Martin Luther King Jr., for example, who spoked openly and candidly about it), and being sort of a "Dr. Feelgood".
All of the above being said, I believe that both of the above-mentioned factors together enabled many people NOT to think of Barack Obama as a black man, thus getting him elected POTUS.
IN other words if
folks had realized that Obama is black, he wouldn't have been elected President? Interesting insight.
I'm only half stupid
This reflects on the American psyche, not Obama.
The American people, on the whole, don't want to hear the truth; that racism is still alive and very much existent here in the United States, and, sadly, that's what Barack Obama relied on during his campaign. It's really too bad, because the ONLY way that race relations will improve is if there is homest dialogue about the issue of race, generally. Therefore, yes, I think it's a good possibility that he wouldn't have been elected POTUS if the issue of race had been opened up.
I think that if any politician exuded the grace and reason
Obama does Americans would elect him/her. I don't think it would matter what color they were but I will say in your defense that if said politician was a white male they would have gotten more votes than Obama did.
Racism is still present in this day and age but even some racists voted for Obama. Funnily I find that as a measure of progress.
I see where you're coming from, kindnes,
but, unfortunately, an awful lot of Americans (particularly white Americans) really DON'T want to hear the truth about racism still being a problem. That being said, it's highly doubtful that ANYBODY, regardless of what ethnic group, race or color they are, would've been elected had they talked more in depth about the issues of racism and race. That's really too bad, because that would be the only way to really improve race relations in this country. Institutional racism is very prevalent in this country also, very pernicious and deeply rooted.
There's a big difference between true grace and reason, &...
...an adroit, fallacious politician like Obama putting lipstick on ruthless obduracy and liberal ideology for political gain. ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
entropy vs. racism: entropy wins
I disagree -- honest dialog might help improve race relations, but it isn't necessary: time will solve that problem eventually.
The reason that I have faith in the ability of time to heal this wound is:
1) Race is a myth (or "social construct")--i.e. there is no objective (antrhopological) basis for racial identification. Race is an idea that one group (self-identified whites) made up to legitimize their exploitation of other groups. Since race is no longer used as the basis for social organization, the idea will eventually fade into obscurity.
2) The distinction among races is fading, both in genetic and socio-economic terms. It is easy for people to categorize things that fall into distinct groups, and American "races" fell into pretty distinct groups for much of our history.
2a) Genetically, we identified west Africans as "blacks", north-western Europeans as "whites", and east Asians as "yellows". These genetic distinctions are breaking down for two reasons.
2ai) Now America has people those ancestry includes all of the intermediate regions -- east Africa, the middle east, India, south-east Europe, etc. The genetic diversity of humanity in America now reflects the diversity of humanity as a whole -- each "group" fades into the next. In other words, there are no categories (races), just a spectrum of traits.
2aii) More importantly there is continued genetic mixing of "racial" groups. This will not be reversed.
2b) The socio-economic distinctions are also also breaking down. Obama represents part of that trend. While this breakdown of structure is not complete yet, there is no reason to expect it to reverse. It will continue.
Time will erase any remnant of race. We can make it go faster or slower, and we can make it more or less troublesome, but we can't reverse it.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I don't know about that, adam.
I think that ethnic tribalism, which has always existed here in the United States, is just as strong, if not stronger than it ever was. Although there is a lot of mixed marriages, dating, and people who're of mixed-race, racial, religious and ethnic identify remain strong here in the United States.
race is just one form of group identity
I did not mean to suggest that group identity or intergroup conflict would disappear with racism...I just think that race won't be the basis of group identity. I think that this is true even when "racism" is used fairly broadly to mean any idea that there is some genetic essence by which people can be categorized in a socially meaningful way (such that we should have greater affinity for members of our own race).
People will continue to fight over political, religious, and cultural identities (and probably other identities) -- but these types of group identity are exactly what will tear apart racial identity, because the emphasis on these other identities will detract from racial identity.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
may the best politician win!
In other words, Obama has proven that he's the best politician.
I haven't seen that sort of backlash against criticism that you describe. It sounds pretty stupid.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Weeks you should have kept your mouth shut
Cardinal Stafford, head of the Apolstolic Penitentiary tribunal of the catholic church, recently had some criticism of Obama:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14355
Heavy stuff. Of course today comes news that the Catholic church has reinstated four bishops that are holocaust deniers.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iadWj6AbGb7whmCtQ5SLw...
The connection? Guess which tribunal covers the reinstatement of ex-communicated members? Yep, the Apostolic Penitentiary. James, dude, this might have been a week to try and stay off the radar, seeing as you were spending most of your time green lighting anti-semites for high ranking positions.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
For goodness sake
Catholics were ok with abortions at one time, but not now. I wonder how that Cardinal feels about how several different infallible officials in his church apparently did not respect life at one point as official dogma.
For the second official, apparently he thinks the US and Soviet troops that liberated the camps lied, that the Nazi's made up claims to incriminate themselves even more.
Is there really a difference between slowly killing 200k+ and trying to have more die and actually doing it? I wonder what his real paranoia/aim is.
Would he deny the Nazi's rounding up Jews, have them dig their graves and execute them after taking any jewelry. I wonder if he denies the White Russians guarding the camps, the Nazis that burnt the beards of Hasidic Jews....his apparent lack of distrust of geography and censuses that show that millions of Jews "disappeared" somehow...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
While I agree with most of what you've said here, Brutus14,
I take issue with the notion that the majority of Catholics are against abortion rights. Neither the pope or any cardinal(s) speak for the majority of Catholics on that issue, or any other issue, for that matter.
Most Catholics, particularly younger Catholic women, favor the right to choose, and support the use of some sort of contraceptive(s), whether they're married or not.
That's an accurate characterization
However, these Catholics, by their own dogma, are directly challenging God himself on the issue.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
In America...Mmm...perhaps...
Throughout most of the world however...the Pope rules with unquestioned authority.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
George Carlin said it best (with regards to the Pope)
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it."
-- George Carlin
The pope's "authority" exists only because a bunch of people are duped into believing he has God on his speed dial.
More and more people in the western world have come to the realization that the pope is just another schlub like you or me, with no more insight into the "state of being" that humans suffer through than anyone else.
He only has authority as long as enough sheep are willing to go through life without using their critical thinking skills.
I'm someone who managed to make it through 12 years of Catholic School indoctrination and still come out on the other side with the ability to recognize the Catholic Church as the largest and longest-lasting scam in the history of civilization.
The fact that anyone with a triple-digit IQ would give a flying f*** what the pope has to say about anything is one of the greatest disappointments of the modern world. ;-)
ESPECIALLY the current ex-nazi pope.
I survived the Bush Administration
Thanks for the Papal fit...?
Too much coffee today?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
A) there is no such thing as "too much coffee"
B) Do you ever respond to the actual WORDS or IDEAS in a post?
Tell me why my characterization of the Catholic Church is wrong.
And for an added challenge, do so without saying that "the Catholic Church must be right because so many liberals hate it" or anything approximating that.
I survived the Bush Administration
Why would I want to respond to a hysterical tyrade...
...about how stupid you think a very large percentage of the world's people are.
Why would I care to answer your despicable analysis of those peoples faith and their spiritual leader?
Look, I'm agnostic at best, I have no particular feelings about the Pope, or Catholicism, one way or the other, but I did find your fervid attack extreme and impetuous.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Haha...
Haha. What is your opinion of the 1 billion practicing muslims on the planet?
Please give me your analysis of the faith of muslims and their spiritual leaders.
I've heard conservatives talk about Islam as a "dark ages religion" run by kooks. Are you one of those conservatives?
If my "hysterical tyrade" were about "crazy radical muslims and the Ayatollah" you would have whooped in boisterous agreement.
You know you would have.
You're f-ing hilarious.
I survived the Bush Administration
So...that is your grand pejorative?
You are bouncing around like a ping pong ball today...
...did you get too close to a reactor or something...
...because your ultra liberal impression of The Hulk is amusing!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Move along
Nothing to see here.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Time to revoke
the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status. If the church is going to blatantly intercede in political affairs, then it can pay up like everybody else.
qui tacet consentire
The broadband highway
Republican Obstructism of the 21st Century Highway.
Right guys!
Thanks for the last 8 years of tax cuts that went to folks who bankrupted our economy by investing in garbage that has left the largest banks with no investment capital and the middle class in a pickle.
We should listen to you because everything you said worked out so well for the country.
I'm only half stupid
If only they'd been allowed to fail...
...so that the "greedy white men" would have been made an example. Instead our elected representatives, including your favorite new president, decided to cut them a break. And now they want to make the problem even worse. Also, I'm quite sure that none of your public enemies list above actually did little more than flap their gums. It's congress and a fed with loose pockets that really put that money into the hand of the "folks who bankrupted our economy by investing in garbage that has left the largest banks with no investment capital".
P.S. They still have investment capital. They just won't give it out while the fed is still paying them interest on it.
Since when
have the guys at the top suffered during a bankruptcy? The term "golden parachute" comes to mind.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I see. So spreading around
I see. So spreading around the "fruits" of their horrible decisions is better than letting the business fail and allowing these BOD's to realize tha there are consequences to hiring their buddies who couldn't run a business if one was handed to them. Privatize gains, socialize losses.
Let me be the first to say my future kids appreciate your benevolence.
Personally
I had other consequenes in mind for the people who caused the mess. And I'd be quite happy to socialize a lot more of both the losses and the gains. The free market ideals are nice on paper but just don't work in real life. Every attempt to aproach such a state has been a dismal failure (as has been every attempt to create a truly communist state). Something in the middle works best but the middle is a ways more towards the socialist side of the spectrum from where we are now.
...and your kids are welcome. :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'll be happy to send you my address so that
you can start your socialist revolution by giving me some of your money.
In the mean time I'll continue to try to fight the forceful removal of my freedoms by people like you.
Spot on!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Which freedoms are those?
Is it a freedom to allow colluding corrupt bureaucrats to manipulate the financial system to its ruin in the name of free market obeiance?
Honestly if you are hard up I rather hope the government does give you some of "my" money because I get something out of helping- specifically I get a more robust economy, a lower crime rate, and maybe a little good karma in the bargain. That seems like a pretty ood deal to me, personally.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
First of all, "corrupt"
First of all, "corrupt" beurocrats didn't corrupt the system. They simply benefited from a policy that allowed them to get money on the cheap. When you artificially hold the cost of money below what production rates would allow you end up with "too much" money (inflation). And why is it any surprise to anyone that it's the financial market that would end up with most of it? It's in the name for crying-out-loud! Of course they're going to take crazy risks when they can get money so easily! It is my belief that the problem was not a lack of regulation, the SEC hasn't gotten any smaller but in fact grew under Bush just as it has under the last umpteen presidents, but a poor monetary policy.
That's why I get so mad when people like ML and you say we need more regulation. Regulation doesn't stop corruption. It only drives people to more devious manipulation. What needed to happen was for these businesses to fail. All of them. And I get especially angry when the "free" market is confirmed dead by a thousand experts that suddenly crawl out of the woodwork. I would absolutely love nothing else more in the entire world (all the tea in China, too) to hear one single good argument to show that we even have a free market and that it's to blame for all this. If anything it's an argument that our government cannot meddle with the market without making things worse.
P.S. If you really cared about helping others you'd do it yourself. Giving more to your government to do so only dilutes the amount of money that actually accomplished anything.
Weakend at Bernie's
I don't think anyone was arguing that position.
Could investors really trust companies to police themselves? IMHO, there would be far more Barry Minkow's and Bernie Madoff's without government regulation. Steve Nash missing a free throw, doesn't mean that Steve Nash is a bad free throw shooter and should be replaced.
The collapse is however evidence that people will take huge risk and not look into the situation deeper if they feel relatively safe, even if if that safety is based on false assumptions that they never delved into. Events may have one cause that played a more important role than others, that doesn't necessitate one unstoppable cause. ie calcium is harmless by itself and will never spontaneously explode, but combine it with water...
That doesn't mean that the government taking money, instead of the other means of charity/private job creation, results in a net loss in money given to people in greater need. An inefficient dialysis machine is better than no machine at all.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I'm sorry but I just don't
I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. And besides. In the past 24 hours I've read nothing but bad analogy after bad analogy trying to justify why more and more people should be told how to live. Let's leave it at this. I do not see a system as imperfect if people stumble and fall, even if hard, from time to time. I mean, if I'm supposed to trust the government to correct my problems and forgive them when they screw up why can't you trust businessmen to do the same and forgive them when they screw up, too?
The answer is you can't. Just because I believe that the free association of people is more important than some family overextended on mortgage, credit card, and every other kind of debt being able to live through their mortgage holder's bad idea does not mean that I condone their action or feel they are beyond repercussion. I just choose not to force my will on others while others (who whined and complained about their government doing the very same thing the last eight years) choose to turn a blind eye to their hypocrisy.
I'll take my government in small doses, if I must. But I'll gag the whole way down.
And as far as charity... The government (an organization that specializes in nothing and marginalizes in everything) necessarily does dilute the effect for people in need. One thing President Obama advocates is that each of us need to get out in our communities and help rather than rely on others to do it. While I disagree with his idea that it must be indirectly mandatory, he is right. American's who talk the talk about helping others and the general Democratic dogma need to stop paying their taxes and patting themselves on the back. I won't acuse anyone here of doing that. But an inneficient dialysis machine that takes 24 hours to process the blood but is "easier" on the patient's family is a poor excuse when there's a machine next to it that's pedal powered and will do it in half the time. What I'm saying is: Stop coping out of the work. Do it yourself. No one knows what your comunity needs better than you do. No one.
Magilson for POTUS!
What a breath of fresh air, thanks, and please stick around!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Eye of the beholder
Analogies can always seem bad if you don't agree with the conclusion and/or premise. Just have any atheist give a critic of CS Lewis' work. Or have a theist give a critic on Sam Harris.
Never said you should trust and forgive the government, never tried to imply one should.
But government watching businesses can be one link in a Circle of Death or checks and balances.
I think we'd probably just disagree slightly less than you might think, if only slightly. A flat tax with a "high" exemption amount or a flat tax with a exemption amount that is at the poverty level with a slightly increasing progressive rate would be better than the current system is it's met with spending cuts. But when it comes to government spending, I'm pretty much a utilitarian and believe a society is better off if the government puts a railing around the fishing hole to make sure it's difficult for one to fall into the abyss while bare-hand fishing.
But I'm
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I think this takes a very narrow view
of human beings. It presupposes that people are incapable of doing anything but that which gets them the most benefit no matter whom it harms. I don;t see that that is true always. Often, sure. but not always. That means we have the capacity to say "no, thanks" when the devil comes knocking. People don't, in part, because we usually don't expect them to. This is a good example. You don;t seem to think there's any reason these guys should have taken a larger view than just "what gets me the most and %$#@ everyone else."
I really think people are better than that. I've seen enough acts of real charity and sacrifice that I know it is possible. And this wasn't exactly asking them to take a bullet for someone else. All they had to do was be happy with the ridiculous sums of money they got for sitting on their asses instead of being so greedy that they ripped apart the system in an attempt to rip out even more.
Log story short- if your view of people is right, then we're already in hell and what's the point anyway? Things will never get any better so long as everyone is trying to screw everyone else.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
College Freshman Philosophy
College Freshman Philosophy students all learn that the perception of "benefit" goes a bit deeper than you seem to understand. For some saying,"no" to the devil is a benefit. In that respect I see your view as narrow in a way that is paralyizing to your understanding. Giving away all of one's money is not "selfless" simply because that person saw a greater value in giving that money away than keeping it. This extends further into the opportunity cost concept of economics. I really hope you have at least a small grasp on that if we're even having this discussion!
These people made foolish/childish/selfish/whatever-ish decisions you want to call it. I'd rather allow people to freely make a decision about their "greed" than bog down the rest of us because of it. This goes back to elementary school when your teacher decided that they'd punish everyone for a wrong rather than take the time to figure out who really did it. It's a cop out caused by intellectual laziness.
My view is not "right". I think that the majority of people are good (I really hate generalizations like that one but you started it...).
Well it seemed as though
you were arguing precisely from such a perception of value when you asked why on earth these people wouldn't seek advantages whenever they could.
If you are now explicitly acknowledging that there are values beyond the spreadsheet of profits and losses then I think your question answers it self- they could have valued others above their own pocket book, but they didn't. That's why precisely I call them "corrupt."
Your elementary school example is apt- and if a number of students engage in a form of play that endangers everyone, say by starting fires then I absolutely support a teacher saying no students can play with matches. Harsh? Not really. Unfair to the good student? Well maybe. But the sad fact is we live in an environment (both technological and economic) where the stupid actions of one person can endanger thousands. That being the case your freedoms are very much my concern. No I do not feel like letting you own plutonium just because you think it is your right. Nor do I think you should be free to wreck the economy so that people lose their homes.
I'm not really particularly sympathetic to those who see freedom as license to hurt others. There is no intrinsic right to wheel and deal in high finance. It is pure privelege, and that privelege pretty clearly neds to be restricted since people have badly abused it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Your first statement makes no
Your first statement makes no sense. I don't understand how my argument is inconsistent. My point was that people will always persue what they deem to be something of benefit to them. Therefore asking the rhetorical question,"when presented with money, why wouldn't money people take it?" seemed a simpler question that it is, apparently.
And your second point mises the point entirely. These benefits are evaluated on an individual basis. What you perceive to be important is irrelevant since you were not the one in that position. At the same time you argue their motivations weren't altruistic enough I can argue yours are too narrow minded or miss the scope of individuality itself. The decisions you make for the good of other's couldn't possibly satisfy all. And I'm not sure how much history you've read, but justifying something in the name of helping the majority of people (or maybe you really believe you know what's best for all people!?!?) has never, ever, ever ended well. Ever.
And I will again use another analogy (I'm really starting to get tired of this method, I hope it's not an SC regular). You are not advocating students not play with matches. You are advocating they play with matches while you pick another student to watch over them. As you say, adults act as children? So why should this be any better? I don't see owning plutonium as a right so much as I view your ability to tell me what to do outside of violating your rights as wrong. And preemptive solutions to uncomfortable situations is exactly what people like you have been screaming about for the last 8 years. The irony is very nearly overwhelming. So long as it's a government you agree with you can't get enough. But you always seem to forget it's just 4 years away from being a nightmare.
The free association of people is most certainly a right. And you are partially correct in pointing out it's a government's place to uphold the contracts made by it's people. And by the way, I don't believe nor have I implied that freedom gives purpose to evil, but I will never see evil as purpose for removing the freedoms of everyone.
Here's one final analogy. I want it to be the last. Wishing to ride a bike and never fall off is a childish behavior. This is the behavior you advocate. And don't give me any BS about training wheels. Every kid knows riding with training wheels isn't really riding a bike. You can just as easily strap a helmet on your own head and risk it.
A failure to communicate
I'm not sure where the disconnect is here but you seem to have circled back to your original position. Let me distill the argument down to the relevent statements as I see it:
You- why wouldn't people take advantage when they can?
Me- That view requires us to see people as utterly shallow and incapable of altruism (i.e. making sacrifices)
You- By advantage I meant more than just monetary advantage. People can value more than money.
Me- Okay but the situation was about taking monetary advantage, so if you know people *can* value more than money then you know very well why people might have chosen not to take advantage in this situation.
You- But people will always do what benefits them
Either you believe people are incapable of resisting such a temptation in which case my post about how that is a narrow view of people applies, or you agree that people can choose not to take every advantage in which case your argument makes no sense. You can't defend these men by saying anyone would do it if you know that isn't the case (and it isn't the case at all).
Your view of history seems equally narrow since there are literally millions of things done "to help people" that have in fact helped people. I can't imagine how you reconcile this view with your statements in support of charity. What is charity if not the ultimate example of justifying an action as helping people?
If you prefer not to argue by analogy that's fine.
As for what you say about this argument being along lines with what's been wrong the last 8 years you couldn't be more wrong. The last 8 years have seen huge infringements of actual rights. There is no right to play high finance games. I apparently should stress this. You have absolutely no right to be employed in high finance or to run a business in high finance. No right at all. It is a privelege, and it can and should be taken away anytime those who exercise it seem even the leasst bit irresponsible. That's exactly the same as the way that any company who operates a nuclear power plant irresponsibly should be out of business within hours. They have no right and it is far too dangerous to let them screw around with things they obviously don;t know how to do right.
That is a world away from Habeus Corpus or privacy which are definitively rights you do have. Those are rights, not priveleges and they cannot be legally taken away by a president. The two situations aren't at all comparable, Magilson.
Free association has nothing to do with running a business. Free association is about associating, not contracts or dealing. It is about being able to talk with whomever you like, to be able to get together in groups for communication, not trade. It was specifically in the constitution to prevent the government from trying to preven tcivil unrest by forcing people to remain in small enough groups that coordination became impossible.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'm not defending anyone's
I'm not defending anyone's bad decisions. I'm defending their right to make them and then suffer the consequences. Giving them a boatload of money to "protect" ordinay Americans is just going to make it worse while proping up a political party and alienating any chance for a real solution. It's your poor application of the term "corrupt" that I had a problem with. I simply tried to point out that your personal views aren't shared by everyone. I figured you already knew that. My question was rhetorical as I specifically stated. It was a,"What did you think would happen?" question.
As far as history goes. I don't agree. There aren't things that were justified in the name of "helping the majority" that actually did just that. It helped some, but never the majority. And a lot of the time it had much more scary results. I'm thinking macro, here. The same level as our current problem.
Just as equally as it is a priveledge to work, it is not your right to take it away just because they suck at it. This isn't a nuclear reactor by any stretch of the imagination. There were no garauntees (in the strict sense of the definition, not the names given to money products...) in this game. I believe that going through this error the hard way is the best way to learn from it. I would rather my future children inherit a sound economy than one bandaged against a problem that will continue to happen so long as we rely on legislation of past problem to predict future ones. Can you honestly say you would take that risk in a more personal setting? Betting on the past as the only guard against the future? I wouldn't. I don't.
And I respectfully disagree in regard to contracts. They go hand in hand with free association.
I don't see why
You say it's not my place to take away their privelege to work "just because they suck at it." If you mean just me, then sure I agree, no one person should have that kind of power unchecked. But if you mean the majority through their elected officials can't spank the bejeezus out of these &^%#wits then I have to very much disagree. We (the people) have every right to do that. What's more we not only have the right we have the cause to do it.
Are you really saying the way to give our kids a secure economy is to put the same guys who screwed up back into power with no changes to prevent them doing the exact same thing again? To turn your question back on you- why wouldn't they just crash it again to make themselves a few bucks? They;ve proven they have no foresight. Why on earth do you think these guys have learned a damn thing from this? Given that this whole thing is basically a rehash of the savings and loan crash of 1988 I think that's way too optimistic. And even if these guys learned the lesson the next generation hasn't, and won't unless we let them do the same. Rather than letting them find an excuse every 20 years to kill the global economy I'd rather just stop them from being idiots.
That sounds like a much better way to get a secure economy, frankly.
PS- you know how many times contracts are mentioned in the constitution? Once, and that's only to say that states cannot breach them (something they do not state about the federal government).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Punishing the bad guys and
Punishing the bad guys and hoping that you can figure out what they'll do next is hopelessly niave. I'd rather everyone finally understand the risks they take and avoid them if they can rather than move forward knowing that way back in the day Tlaloc made it all better. We only put them back in power by giving them our money again. So don't give them your money and go back to giving it to the government for welfare or whatever it is you think they're doing best at the moment. I don't really care. And this isn't a lot like the savings and loan crash of 1988. And applying those principles to this problem would only make it worse. It is in fact making it worse. By stoping them from being idiots, as you say, you just let everyone else to continue to be idiots instead. You say all adults are really children. Well stop keeping them that way.
PS - I think there was a good reason for not overtly stating how the federal government should behave with regard to contracts. You might spend some time reading the Federalist Papers. I found insight. If you've already read them, how did you view the response to this dilema ( mean other than the obvious response which is that you feel it fine for the federal government to violate contracts as was eventually ruled by the SCOTUS?)
So not punishing them is supposed to teach a lesson?
Your comment here reminds me a lot of the underpants gnome southpark episode, you seem to be saying:
1) Don't punish those who screwed up and don't fix the system to prevent the way they screwed up
2) ????
3) everyone learns responsibility!
I'm rather hazy on what could possibly happen in step 2 to make this work.
And no we don't have to put them in power by giving them our money, the way this all started was a bunch of completely inside pool within the high finance industry. Credit Defalut Swaps are not something you or I would put money into. But when you or I got a loan, for say a house or whatever, we unwittingly gave money to people who gave money to these idiots. We had no choice in the matter. So now unless you want to actually fix the system your only other option is to swear off any form of credit. Which still won't work because even if you do everyone else will not (capitalism is great, neh?) so we're right back to the point where the same guys, or others just as ambitious and shortsighted, are in a position to crash the system.
Unless you fix the system they will just do it again. If we do fix the system they might very well find a new way to crash it, then we have to fix that too. Meanwhile we should steadily increase the penalty for breaking the rules until it becomes clear that the profit/loss ratio is not worth it. If you want to talk about not having an organized society then we can have that discussion but so long as we're going to have an organized state (particularly a very advanced military and economic superpower state) then we have a serious duty to make it as foolproof as possible.
How is stopping them from being idiots making everyone else an idiot? Believe me I'm all for teaching personal responsibility but I don't see how refusing to do *anything* about a colossal crime is teaching that point.
WRT federalist papers- they certainly have historical value, beyond that though they have no power of law and hence no real point nowadays.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You seem to forget the
You seem to forget the primary reason these CDS's were so "toxic" to begin with. But if you also think that was the fault of the swappers then there's really no hope for you. And I have swore off any form of credit, actually. I'd suggest others try it, too. I'd say we'd be in a much different position now if people were less worried about South Park and more worried about their children's future.
In the mean time I refuse to participate in your ever toppling system of waiting for the bad guys to be bad and then punishing them. You seem to forget there are quite a few bank that didn't participate in this and are doing quite well. And companies. And people.
And allowing everyone to go about their business of putting down 3% on a house and taking out credit cards with $10,000 limits and leasing cars for for over 50% of a person's monthly income all seem like really smart things to do... (this is the people are idiots part) So, yes, by allowing everyone to think Tlaloc's taken away all the risk by punishing the bad guys for selling loans that people were too stupid to understand they couldn't afford seems like allowing those same people to stay idiots. I don't buy into that kind of protectionsim. But now that I think about it you propably think those kinds of decisions should be legislated out of reach for people, too. And as far as not wanting to do anything to "punish" them, well I'm sorry but I just don't think making up laws after the fact to make everyone feel better at night is a just thing to do. Laws will be written, regulations will be created, and people will be punished after this (although I'll bet the SEC doesn't shrink after we put in all these great laws that will protect us) but I cannot agree with 20/20 prosecution. You were outsmarted and you need to admit it and move on. This will happen again. Garaunteed.
Federalist papers - If historical documents outside the consititution held no real power we'd have a lot less interesting conversations about the appointment of judges...
Aunt Sally
That South Park reference actually was right on topic.
That's a gross misstatement of what Tlaloc wrote, that you then retorted.
No one is thinking they are setting a utopia. No one is claiming they will stop all fraud/stupid decisions.
People still lock their doors even if it doesn't stop people who want in.
Barriers still block opposite direction of highways, but sometimes vehicles can still get the other side.
Banks still keep money in a vault, but they still get robbed.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Jumping in...
I tend to split the difference here.
Why was credit so loose? People didn't make enough money to keep their standard of living.
Just the other day I was telling a friend that loose credit is indeed the problem. There are only 3 things you should really need to buy on credit:
1) House
2) Car
3) Education
These are not:
4) Computer
5) HDTV
6) Groceries
The credit markets are tight? GREAT! People need to start living within their means. That'll bring down prices to what they ought to be rather than the credit inflated prices we have now. Problem? Ah yes! The economy depends on easy credit to keep going since the middle class no longer has the ability to spend like they did.
Getting back to the standard of living argument, it is no secret that people compare themselves to those in their economic class. As income for the richest people went up while it stagnated and even decreased for the middle and lower classes, these people turned to easy credit (credit cards and home equity loans) in order to give themselves the illusion that they were making more money. Last I checked, loans are on the liability side of the ledger rather than the asset side, so people were actually worse off than before. Hence our problem.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
And adding..
Why is this either/or? Can't we do both?
Of course, the final issue at hand is that there were enough idiots to take down the economy. Do we have them learn their lesson at everyone's expense or try to pull everyone up at everyone's expense?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Cēterīs paribus, I'd choose
Cēterīs paribus, I'd choose the former. But the expense you speak of is not the same in both cases, in my opinion.
Small mistakes the system can absorb
People who took foolish loans and are now in trouble can deal with the trouble. That kind of thing isn't a threat to the system as a whole. It doesn't endanger everyone else. Naturally I'd like to discourage that kind of thing but there's no need to change the laws to prevent it. Again that's worlds away from what the high financiers did. Yes the underlying weakness of the CDS was caused by the supposed mortgages not having the value they were assumed to have but that is not the fault of the people getting the loans. They weren't the ones rolling up the mortgages and arbitrarily assigning a value to them to make the balance sheets look better than they really were.
Can you give me an example of a bank that is doing well in the current environment?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I know this is a video day for me...but....
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Regulation and helping others
WRT regulation-
This crisis occured mostly because of the rolling up of mortgages of uncertain value in to supposed "security" investments that got traded around until nobody knew what anyone really had in terms of assets. These mortgage securities were a new thing and pretty much unregulated.
That being the case this is pretty clearly a free market failing. It happened because people were allowed to make transactions with no controls on their worst impulses and they screwed up. Monumentally. Since there was no regulation obvious regulation wasn't the problem. The problem was the lack of regulation that let so many make so many stupid short sighted decisions.
Here's the secret- most adults act like children, and like children they need rules to keep them from hurting themselves and others. So long as they act like spoiled children they have to be controlled. If and when they show some personal responsibility *then* we can talk about removing regulations. Until that time I have no problem telling them when it is bath time, when they need to eat their veggies, and when they need to clean their rooms.
The financial industry is grounded until further notice.
WRT helping others-
you say "If you really cared about helping others you'd do it yourself. Giving more to your government to do so only dilutes the amount of money that actually accomplished anything."
SO somehow I'm supposed to know who in this country has the greatest need? And I'm supposed to know what those needs are and the best way to address them? Look, personal charity is a nice idea but it's terribly impractical. What personal charity means is you have money directed to those causes that the person likes, not to the problems that are the biggest. It's immensely wasteful. The only good way to run social services/welfare/whatever you want to call it is to have an organized body that can monitor the situation and direct resources appropriately.
Charity is more about making the giver feel good than it is actually helping anyone else.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Regulation - I don't agree
Regulation - I don't agree that the rolling up of bad mortgages was the issue. I think it was a symptom of financial companies that could get so much money for so cheap that anyone and seemingly everyone was selling them horrible "securities" in the name of getting some of that money. This is a two way street. Why add a check to a system that already has one. You said it yourself. Someone had to buy these bad securites while someone had to be selling them. They bought them thinking they weren't risky because a loose monetary policy let every joe schmoe out there think it was okay to buy, buy, buy when they didn't have to begin with. This problem exists far outside the relm of executive corner offices. If you're wiling to control those at the top, you must necessarily be willing to control those at the bottom as well. That's scary. More scary than people who couldn't manage money losing all their toys.
Help - Just because you are too lazy or busy or important to learn about your community or your country does not justify your need for someone else who is just as likely ignorant of their surroundings to do so with a fancy seal on their letterhead. It is a cop out and a way to separate yourself from responsibility.
And if you don't mind... May I ask what additional percentage of your income you pay to your federal/state/local tax agency above that required by current tax code. I've read about liberals who believe the government is best at distributing money to those who need it but I've never "met" one and so I was just wondering.
By the way, charity is more about helping others. It just so happens that most people that do it get a kick out of it, too.
Well then by all means
lets look at what caused the issue.
Here's some places saying that it was the credit default swaps were the problem (that's the technical term I couldn't think of earlier, sorry for the crude description) or at the minimum they were a big part of the overall meltdown:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161199
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1723152,00.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit...
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1837154020080918?sp=true
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/business/23how.html?_r=1
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/30/magazines/fortune/varchaver_derivatives_...
Now a couple quick notes- CDS were developed as a way for these guys to get around regulations that, if they had been folowed would have prevented this mess. It was a way to game the system and it blew up in everyone's face (which we need to come back to again here below). Pretty obviously then the solution involves more regulation seeing as how the regulations that existed would have prevented this if people hadn't been idiots and tried to subvert them. You want to blame the regulation for the fact that some people cheat, that makes no sense. What you do is put the cheaters in prison and buff up the regulations to make it harder to cheat.
You say that controlling people who voluntarily chose to go into high finance is more scary than "people who couldn't manage money losing all their toys." This statement frankly floors me. Are you unaware that we are teetering on the edge of a Depression with a capital D? This has nothing to do with bad planners losing their toys. This is about a few idiots crashing the global economy because they thought they were too smart to be bothered by rules. The damage goes way way beyond the people who actually caused the problem.
Why do they have the right to hurt everyone else? because they have, enormously. Their refusal to simply follow rules means we are all suffering. Unemployment in dec 2008 was up to 7.2%. That's almost 50% higher than Dec 2007. Unemployment in January is going to be worse. Just today there were 75,000 job losses announced among different companies.
WRT charity- it isn't laziness. I don't have the resources to collect the kind of data that you need to determine the best placement of resources. There's a very good reason to pay people and in fact have whole departments of the government that do nothing but collect said data- because it is very valuable. It is critical to being able to see problems coming and to address them successfully.
It isn't a cop out it is simple realism. I don't want to, and I'm not qualified, to coordinate welfare anymore than I can coordinate the fire service or the army or any of the other things a large organized society needs to function.
WRT taxes- Of course I don't pay taxes above my rate, nor do I ask anyone else to either. What I ask is everyone pay their fair share, and I'm happy to do the same. A better question is whether I tend to vote for those tax levies that will affect me in terms of taxation but don't directly benefit me by their action. The answer is yes the vast majority I do vote for, because I recognize that infrastucture (schools, jails, roads, clean air, clean water, etc) helps me indirectly plenty.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Look, we could link swap all
Look, we could link swap all day long. I'm just going to have to disagree with you on everything you say, apparently.
Regarding a Socialist side of the political spectrum:
Sorry, but President Obama is not a Socialist. He's far from it, contrary to what many conservatives and even liberals believe.
Two things, Tlaloc:
A) What "other" consequences do you have in mind for the people who caused the present mess we're in?
B) It's agreed that a truly communist state wouldn't succeed here in the United States. However, If you're looking for something on the middle that leans more towards the Socialist side of the spectrum, President Obama doesn't even come close to BEING a Socialist, contrary to what many Conservatives and Liberals alike believe.
Small cells
and striped uniforms. I'm not yet bitter enough to sugest the blindfolds and last cigarettes (although some days...)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You sorely misrepresent
the problem.
I did not say greedy white men, btw, you did.
You act as if the PR front is meaningless.
The big banks with investment capital are not lending because IF they get a call to pay for the toxic assets they have on their books, they are left with no investment capital. Catch 22.
I'm only half stupid
So instead of allowing these
So instead of allowing these assets to clear we are simply going to hold on to them and hope we can print enough money so that everyone can feel good about the poor financial decisions they've made over the last decade.
I'm starting to remember why I stopped coming to SC for insightful interpretations of current events.
There aren't any.
Good luck everyone!
If...
oh, never mind.
Good luck. You will need it with that chip on your shoulder. =)
I'm only half stupid
You and your pseudo-economist act...?
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
S. O. I.
SIck. Of. It.
Obviously the geniuses that broke the banks were so much smarter than me.
Go ahead make more excuses for your dreamy no taxes - de-regulation agenda that led our nation to a severe recession.
Obviously there were no free market idealogues bullying folks to 'do it their way' in this fiasco government of the last eight years.
While you are at it, why don't you blame the party that was out of power for everything that went wrong.
Then blame me.
Then blame the new President for trying to clean up this steaming pile of stinking crap that has been left to him.
I'm only half stupid
C.Y.M.
Change. Your. Medication.
You are evidently unable to differentiate between the truth and the false.
(Of course that seems to be a communicable disease of sorts amongst the crowd you run with...)
LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I not taking
any medication.
I am sick of the insinuation that anyone who disagrees with the GOP gods is either stupid or on medication.
The more likely case is that anyone who tries to engage in a rationale dialogue with you gets a migraine and needs medication.
Tell me again exactly what worked under you philosophy of government for last eight years, other than the fact that you have learned how to trash talk? Free trade going well? Investments gaining ground? Businesses floundering. Great anecdotes for a civil society.
I'm only half stupid
You say a lot, insinuate, claim, ramble, babble and talk...
...but you never, ever, even get close...to getting anywhere with anyone.
Think about it.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yes.....
Your advice is a shining jewel.
Must hate government. Must lower taxes. Must hate democrats.
I'm only half stupid
No...Must restrain Gov-Control taxes-and Question Dem's...LOL!
Lets just leave it.
....Have a nice Sunday evening. ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Right.....
Cause answering this question or being held accountable for the fruits of your labor is just to hard to deal with?
Tell me again exactly what worked under your philosophy of government for last eight years, other than the fact that you have learned how to talk trash?
Free trade going well? Investments gaining ground? Businesses floundering. Great anecdotes for a civil society.
I'm only half stupid
Oh..wanna play....
I don't know why I do this, it's a hard lesson I've learned, that you're incapable of following through on any given thought...but...
First of all dimwit, it was not the last eight years, it has been the last 25 years. And if you can subtract, subtract the 4 years of Carter, your last liberal messiah, (and we all remember the wonderful stagflation those policies produced, happy days are here again!) and it's been the last 41 years!
Don't you get that?
You may ask about 8 years of Clinton...The Republican Congress owned him, and Newt and the contract with America dominated things, (we can discuss that more in detail later if you dare)
So, this leaves us with why things went upside down now...
Funny how in 41 years we never had a crisis like this before isn't it. You know why it happened, the core component to the whole collapse is the outrageous lending policies liberals forced lenders to adopt. Yes forced. If lenders did not make those loans, the liberals favorite tax exempt con, I mean corn...That's right ACORN...oh ya...ACORN would come a knock'in, and next thing you know you're in a lawsuit with Barney Franks assistant calling on the other line. Yes the liberals thought they could socially engineer a American Utopia. (nothing new there I know) They thought because it made them feel good, that unemployed, and bankrupt people, minorities that just did not qualify, hey wasn't the no-doc loans a real great thing for America, and now, these same people, who put nothing down, have nothing to lose, are walking. Surprise surprise. Thanks liberals.
Anyway, had those loans not been made, they would not have been bundled, re-sold, and become the impetus of the current economic crisis. So it was actually OVER REGULATION in the form of the forced sub prime lending that got us here.
Other than that I think the capitalist, free market society our founding fathers prescribed has worked brilliantly! And despite all its shortcomings, given what we have to chose from, the Republican party has done right by the constitution in trying to advocate for lesser, restrained federal bureaucracy, and the preservation of our individual liberties. Certainly they have done much much more then the Democrats in those regards.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
and the private sector
played no part whatsoever? That stretches credulity.
Prime lenders were getting sub-prime loans. Why? Interest only loans for prime lenders. Insane. Unless you are going to use sub-prime loans like a casino to spin for payola.
Sub-prime loans were not a bad thing, until the private sector decided this was a delicious way to create wealth out of thin air, by selling the risk as capital. Why did Lehman Bros, a private bank take these sub-prime loans on their books and beg for more?
____
The last eight years was deregulation on steroids.
Here is a list, not compiled by me, of culprits.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/26/road-ruin-recession-indiv...
Number One: Alan Greenspan, who gloried in deregulation and free market fundamentalism. His biggest fear was socialism/communism. His cure unregulated free market fundamentlism spurred him to actually say that intricate high risk CDO's, chopped into little pieces and sold around the world were good. These are the toxic assets on the banks that Greenspan said were peachy keen for capitalist wealth spreading.
Number Two: Bill Clinton (who was swooned by Alan Greenspan.) Wall Street loved him.
Also included are George Bush (swooned by Greenspan), Gordon Brown, Phil Gramm, and Chris Dodd.
There is also a list of 'heroes' who saw this coming and were screaming whoa and trying to warn folks. I will include myself on that list. Warren Buffet, Professor Nouriel Roubini, Meredith Whitney and others.
_____
Going forward we have only one tool to use to spur the economy.... spending. We can't use monetary policy, or interest rates, cause they are already at almost zero. There is no other tool to dig us out of this. You can cut taxes on businesses that are laying people off, but it won't create jobs.
____
Acorn has nothing to do with sub-prime loans.
I'm only half stupid
You're shimmying around the transcendent effects of...
...what is the undeniabe catalyst of our economic woes.
Ultimately all the "toxic assets" are constituted of the ashes of Barney Franks (& friends) social engineering experiments, whether they are now some form of defunct investment vehicle, or red ink on a bottom line someplace.
Were there subsequently other diminutive factors where fingers could be pointed, sure there were, there were too many getting high on their own supply, and yes, other less admirable professional behavior took place as well.
In de facto however, there is a reason for the unthinkable reality that you harp on so habitually, you know the one where - no one caught it, the underwriters, the regulators, seemingly everyone dropped the ball, and why was that, it was because these GSE's were, just that, Government Sponsored Entities, and therefore - it was a given that these were golden, immutable investments, and that is at the crux of why what they did was so insideous, and was so easily saturated into the markets, if you comprehend anything else about this, you must be cognizant of that.
Bottom line, and exculpatory evidence that all other claims are nothing more than pretense, and adjunct to its causation, is this; had those lending policies never been instituted, we would not be having this conversation.
Ironically, we're done having it...so unless you flip through your eight years of crib notes and come up with something new...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Cause and effect....
We have laws, supposedly, for the sake of justice. Sometimes they have unintended consequences.
Passing laws to allow blacks the right to vote had the unintended consequence of white outrage that led to many murders.
Knowing a bit of history can give a clue as to why such laws exist.
Figuratively we used dynamite, to liberate the slaves (Civil War), yet a century later there was such profound injustice targeting black people, (yes I know it was democrats) that it required the intervention of the Federal Government.
Normal commerce was out of whack in the last century when black sharecroppers were prevented from selling their crop to the local cotton gin mills to process their cotton for cloth. Capitalism interrupted by racial boycott.
In Tennessee black farmers were evicted from their property by the collusion of local governments conspiring against any form of black ownership.
In order to promote social justice, ie; allowing blacks to own homes and engage in commerce, a law was passed that you call 'bad lending policies'.
You keep railing on endlessly about 'social engineering' as if it was some sort of twisted plot to subjugate justice. The reality is that laws had to be passed to insure justice. (See above)
None of this 'social engineering' that you keep repeating endlessly would have been necessary but for the complete lack of civic order, as it pertained to blacks being free to own property and sell their goods.
So please stop misrepresenting history with the word social engineering. It distorts the truth.
The bigotry of old was violent enough that laws were passed to ensure that blacks would be free to own property and engage in commerce without being murdered. The correct term is social justice.
According to your logic, one could also say, that if we hadn't fought the Civil War we wouldn't be having this conversation.
(I could go on, but I will stop here.)
I'm only half stupid
Go to bed...Or wake the F up!
Giving unqualified people loans in some vacuous attempt at social justice...really helped...
...thanks for nothing!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yeah
A waste of time.
I'm only half stupid
Contributory negligence
More than one road can definitely lead to Rome. There were other backdoors the GOP could have taken to protect the market from over valuing GSE's. Like making the market aware the GSE's would be treated like any other entity if they failed.
The liberals put the dynamite in their truck, the housing industry knew the dynamite was there, but still drove truck like they were Nick Hogan. Dems told themselves that Nick was a good kid and looked the other way. The GOP was so focused on there being dynamite and getting the dynamite out, they refused to take a hit and do anything to make the truck safer.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Naw...
..these GSE's were the Democrats babies. They have been for a long time, prominent Democrats have always run them.
To step on their toes would have caused a fire fight, however as I have pointed out here many times, Greenspan Bush, his advisers, McCain, and other Republicans did make overtures and gave speeches warning of all this.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Only a small step above Lip Service Dissent
Holding Congressional meetings and preaching to the choir was just an attempt at Pascal's Wager for Votes by Appearance of Opposition of the Other Party's Pet Project.
Either that or I'm making a logical fallacy that assumes if a Congressman/POTUS believes something catastrophic is even somewhat likely to happen, they'll make good faith efforts to do more than just the minimal of getting the word out and actually do what needs to be done to stop that calamity.
But the rules for GSE's weren't changed and now the GOP has/had an issue to run with during elections.
ie most in the GOP must not have seen the collapse as too likely and weren't going to risk political grease on something that might not budge.
Some Dems had questions of whether it was smart to put troops in Iraq, but most of them folded from the start. Can't really sing their praises for their concerns either.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
WHATEVER?
Why do you spend time hedging the "perhaps", instead of coming out squarely for the "for sure".
Come on man...it just makes it that more obvious you're claiming it for purely partisan reasons...
...it's lame dude.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
!
/
I'm only half stupid
Right about here
Is when I stop reading.
If you two like to hear the sound of your keyboard, by all means keep going.
However, you (the plural you) aren't really contributing much to the site with the ad hominems.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Magilson, you are right...
...on policy.
Wrong about SC...(as a whole)
...and I hope you will keep coming back to see why.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Magilson, It seems to me there is a contradiction here
On the one hand you say you want to find insightful interpretations, but on the other you seem to be discarding out of hand those interpretations that vary from your own. I would hazard that one of the following is true:
a) you already know precisely what's going on in the world in which case you need not seek outside views, or
b) you aren't perfectly aware of the state of the world in which case it is worth listening to other views to sift them for merit.
Maybe you think you are alreay doing b but it seems to me that you are discarding views far too readily to be actually evaluating them (and remember that any of us may not be saying what you think we're saying, communication is awfully treacherous in a text only environment).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Good point...
...I know (and this is no big surprise), that I all to often, have a great deal of trouble understanding why liberals can't see how flawed there POV is.
;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I do want to find insightful
I do want to find insightful interpretations. I dismiss those interpretations because they are not insightful or do not hold up to proper inspection (which I think is your point in that I should stick around, so maybe I will.) and has nothing to do with them being differnt from my own. I discard the views so readily because I've already spent a lot of time considering them.
Believe me, if the easiest, most correct solution was to print money and repeat the Glass-Senegal (sp?) I would be all for it. However I think there is proper evidence to show that the "easy" way out is the worst possible reaction we could have.
Cool
consider though that some of us believe we've spent a long time considering the views you seem to be espousing (I say seem to because I'm not sure I know exactly what you are going for although it sounds to me like Laissez-faire libertarianism) and found them lacking.
So things might be more complicated than they seem. That's the point of the site. If you like- we learn more by putting our ideas in direct competitions. Don't be an ideological protectionist :)
No mind tarrifs! :P (libertarian humor doesn't come natural to me, as you may be able to tell)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hey maglison!
Don't leave. We enjoy your input. Stick around for awhile.
Thomas Sowell discusses a "Conflict of Visions"...
...at the Hoover Institute. Listen closely!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Quite long
37 minutes, is there one particular spot, or the whole thing?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Just found the whole thing of interest...
...play it in the background while to move all your money around in other windows... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
"The Fall"
The video reminded me of a Mad TV skit where two politicians were disagreeing with each other even though they were stating the exact same idea, but with different words.
Red_Wing: "Listen closely!"
Red_Wing: "play it in the background while to move all your money around in other windows..."
I went with latter for a couple minutes until something sounded out of place and realized I thought wrongly that he was referring to "conservatives" as the unconstrained.
Sowell repeatedly referred to the unconstrained in a negative light.
Around 3:00, they make the case to not invade Iraq, from my pov. Same thing around 6:00.
Almost as if Sowell is saying:
"I George Bush knows what's best for you the Iraqi people...if you don't agree with invading Iraq or keeping the gays from marrying then you are so utterly stupid, so utterly uniformed or, or simply dishonest....People like the conservatives cannot fathom a world where people could have looked at the information different and come to a different conclusion."
For the poll, it seemed to be begging the question. First there is the meme that "liberal" judges are actively lying to themselves and making up laws as they go and only the "conservative" just are intellectually sufficient enough to have the correct view of the law.
]. I cannot fathom how growing something in one's back yard for personal use affects intrastate trade in the slightest.
If it's not for the judges to decide the law, I don't know why the "conservative" judges take such a leap of faith of what is interstate trade when it comes to currently illegal drugs. Someone that agrees with the ends is far more likely to agree with the interpretations [Not unlike the self-delusion of Sam Cassell never thinking he ever committed a foul
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Awe Brutus, thats disappointing to me...
...to think, that out of all that authoritative, compelling material, and food for bona fide intellectual examination (both in support and in opposition) in that interview, that you kept invoking ...Bush? And evidently you were unable to appreciate Sowell's perspectives as anything more than another conservative bashing every other political ideology out there.
Well, that troubled me, and I am a bit disillusioned.
That conversation, IMO, was replete with many of the "authentic" questions that divide us, and the eternal bonds that should always unite us. They touched upon the very precepts and convictions that move us, what more worthy conversation could be had?
I would so much like to have an engaging back and forth on these order of core issues, (and I know I am certainly guilty of it as well), but it seems even when presented with cogent, compelling information, too many times the responses are discursive, and often do not confer a keen desire to penetrate the topic in any culminative way.
I for one have been trying, (with admitted varying results), not to be a contributor of that occurrence.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Far too many outliers used in his data points.
More analogies and what not.
"[Have you ever watched a football game and noticed the home field fans get upset at the refs for a correct call, because it went against them, the fans were extra infuriated because the refs missed the correct call earlier? That's the unconstrained viewpoint. That's the viewpoint of most Chargers' fans]"
Thomas Sowells.
Sowell's repeatedly appears to be ignoring outliers and examples that contradict his academic theory and including people that agree generally agree with the unconstrained end assumptions, as coming to the conclusion from the unconstrained mind frame also. I just don't think his version of what an unconstrained vision is, as having many followers at all.
His war example, IMO, he effectively said:
Constrained viewpoint holds that hot stoves can burn hands and hot things burn. They believe we should turn down the heat. But notice that some burners are still on high.
Unconstrained viewpoint holds that hot things burn because the skin cannot tolerate that much heat when hot things are touched. And we should be aware to not touch hot things. They're also aware of the hot burners, but are trying not to touch them.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ice Cream and NASCAR...? Ok so let's try this...
The American Revolution embodied the constrained vision.
The founders did this by composing a constitution of checks and balances.
More than two centuries later, their work remains in place.
The French Revolution, in contrast, embodied the unconstrained vision.
The result? Terror, Napoleon, and so many decades of instability that France finally sorted itself out only when Charles de Gaulle declared the Fifth Republic.
Whatever you want to call the philosophic divisions, rationalists vs. anti-rationalists, constrained vs. unconstrained vision, Burkean vs. Rousseauean, Madisonian vs. Jeffersonian, they all come down ultimately to certain core principles.
The Republican Party, has, by and large, embraced the constrained vision. The Democrats, and BO, the unconstrained vision. When asked if Obama represents the purest expression of the unconstrained vision, Sowell himself replied;
I’d agree with Sowell that, despite it's imperfections, the Republican Party represents a much more contrained - and therefore reasonable - vision of the potential use of government than does the unconstrained Democrat's view.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I’d agree with Sowell that,
I know you weren't unaware the belly aching of those unconstrained Democrats in response to Bush using techniques designed to illicit false confessions and them bringing up how the treatment wasn't allowed under the law. Or the "constrained" judges of the SCOTUS giving no end to what constitutes interstate trade. Person A can come an unconstrained vision and reach conclusion Z, Person B can come from a constrained vision and reach conclusion Z also. I don't think Sowell's idea of the unconstrained vision of current liberals widely exist outside of his theory. It's as messed up as someone hearing one is a fan of Metallica and making a theory that metal fans like the flute because Jethro Tull has a flute. His theory on fits a small clique of people that doesn't appear to fit Barry at all.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Close your eyes and...
...take a sec...now imagine yourself sitting in a room at a table debating someone on this issue...now read my last post...now read your post....
....see what I mean?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Sowells' Horoscopes and his take on biololgy
Sowells: there are 2 types of living things, birds and mammals
Sowells: all flying things are birds
Red_Wing: yep
Brutus14: huh?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
???
...and birds aren't the only thing thats flying right over my head I'll tell ya that much... Yikes?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Sowell's created a system
Sowell's created a system like a horoscope, and because some of the stuff he through at his definition stuck, he lump in "most" "liberals" in the unconstrained vision.
He gave a false dichotomy.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Thats a pretty bold claim big timer...
..please, in some understandable terms...try and make that case.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman