Attention Forum Socialists

[punked]

In the 1970s, the NDP was calling for nationalization of industries. I think Layton was pushing for a corporate tax of 22%. Reagan cut corporate taxes to 34% in 1986 according to this CATO institute.

So taxes under Reagan were 55% higher than they would be under Layton the socialist.

The term 'socialist' has proven to be a relative term. Reagan would be an arch-socialist compared to Layton. Ike would be Stalin.

Layton also wants the taxes on small business cut to 0% but Shady knows that is a socialist ploy to help those evil small businesses. Seriously the argument has moved past these guys and they don't even know it.

[WIP]

I was replying to your claim that the were not taking any risks. You did say that did you not?

Nobody said they weren't taking risks! That's the whole reason for boom and bust cycles. The point is that they feel free to throw caution to the wind when they are risking other people's money when commercial banking and investment banking were allowed to be merged together.

The Federal Reserve central banking system sets the monetary policy for the commercial banks. They set the interest rate and and the credit policy the banks follow. The Fed also advises govenrment on finaincial matters and suggests courses of action for government.

Is that a bad thing? Before the Federal Reserve was created, the banks couldn't be trusted, and if there is a scandal, it is allowing the capital reserve requirements of banks to be lowered. Let's not pretend Wall Street has no influence with Federal Reserve policies.

It is the ability to create "money" out of thin air in the form of loans and credit that is basically at fault here. The Pumping of the money supply by the Federal reserve and government fiscal policy are not set by the banks.

Banks create money out of thin air anyway, since a 3% reserve rate allows it to loan out $97,000 of a $100,000 deposit. And then the $97,000 mortgage is listed as an asset on its balance sheet to be used to leverage other loans. It can apply that reserve policy to that amount, and so on and so forth five or six times on that original deposit of $100,000, according to Federal Reserve regulations. So money is being created by banks out of thin air all the time.

I agree the repeal of the Glass Steagall act was a contributing factor but it only brought forward sooner what would have eventually occurred later. The Glass-Steagall act did nothing to stop the recession under Carter. What role did the banks have in that one?

Didn't the oil embargo and higher oil prices have something to do with the economic malaise of the 70's?

As a matter of fact Barney was in charge - took over in 2006. He did nothing to curb the highest rate of home ownership in history - in fact blocking any inquiries about problems. Two years later..kaboom.

So in two years, Barney was supposed to fix problems and change home ownership guarantees that were approved by the Bush Administration.

The picketers were thr communnity activist groups the Greenlining Institute and ACORN. Shaking down financial insitutions to make loans to high risk borrowers for home mortgages and small businesses. I know that sort of thing gets tucked away and buried as fast as possible inthe manistream media but it's still there as a matter of record.

I didn't read too much about the AFL-CIO sponsored protest on Wall Street, so I don't know who they turned out for the event, but why should that matter? If these teabaggers were really sincere about their occasional condemnations of Wall Street and the bailout, they would have either been there or set up a demonstration of their own on another occasion. Their silence speaks volumes!

I know community activists and Unions are picketing Wall Street but it is govenrmnt that bailed them out. The correct target to picket is the Government which is where the Tea Party activists - not to be confused with comunity organizers - are picketing.

So keep on blaming the politicians who are on the take from Wall Street, rather than the big money kingpins who buy political influence in the first place. When they were desperate to keep their system going, they turned to Hank Paulsen to bail them out; afterwards they wanted to back to business as usual... so what else is new!

It's stupid to talk about blaming politicians for this situation, and pretend that Republicans will act differently when they have control. The only distinct difference I can see between the Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats feel guilty when they are doing the bidding of their corporate benefactors, whereas the Republicans make no apologies for it and make no bones about wanting to weaken government regulatory power further and strengthen the power of corporate citizens.

Unless there is real campaign finance reform it doesn't matter much who is elected to office. The same things will happen again and again as long as politicians are allowed to immediately go to work as corporate lobbyists to cash in their political IOU's; and regulators go to work for firms they are supposed to be regulating immediately after leaving the public service.

[Smallc]

What are you talking about? The NDP in NS is the ONLY government who has tried to reform the public service freezing their pension for the next 5 years and forcing them to restructure their pension plan. You live in a fantasy world.

Manitoba's NDP is also freezing government wages.

[Shady]

In the 1970s, the NDP was calling for nationalization of industries.

Depending on the industry, they still are.

I think Layton was pushing for a corporate tax of 22%. Reagan cut corporate taxes to 34% in 1986 according to this CATO institute.

Yeah, Reagan cut them from 46% to 34%. Layton wants to raise them.

So taxes under Reagan were 55% higher than they would be under Layton the socialist.

Comparing the economic environment now with 30 years ago is intellectually dishonest. Jack Layton wants to raise the corporate tax rate. Reagan cut the Jimmy Carter corporate tax rate dramatically. But I'm not sure where your fixation on just corporate tax rates comes from. Income tax rates are just as important. If not more. Reagan cut Jimmy Carter's disgusting 70% income tax rates down to 28%. Layton wants to increase income taxes. To pay for more government spending.

The term 'socialist' has proven to be a relative term. Reagan would be an arch-socialist compared to Layton. Ike would be Stalin.

That's complete nonsense. You're comparing different periods of history, and different economic environments. Socialism is more than just taxes. It's centralized government control and government redistribution of wealth.

[Shady]

According to the NDP website. They're going to totally eliminate poverty in Canada in 10 years. They're going to increase childcare, increase healthcare, increase education, increase employment insurance, increase environment spending, but balance the budget each year.

Sorry NDP. You sound just like Greece. Get out, and stay the hell out.

*edit*

And they plan to introduce a new national holiday in February.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Shady

[punked]

That's complete nonsense. You're comparing different periods of history, and different economic environments. Socialism is more than just taxes. It's centralized government control and government redistribution of wealth.

Says the guys who thinks the NDP, who are right now cutting the civil service by 10% over the next three years in NS, are socialist. Tell me another one Shady.

[Michael Hardner]

That's complete nonsense. You're comparing different periods of history, and different economic environments. Socialism is more than just taxes. It's centralized government control and government redistribution of wealth.

How is it complete nonsense ? From what you're saying, a Socialist is someone who resists tax cuts. Shouldn't the definition of a socialist stay the same as time goes on ? But then again, we wouldn't be able to call Obama a socialist.

[Pliny]

Nobody said they weren't taking risks!

That's the whole reason for boom and bust cycles. The point is that they feel free to throw caution to the wind when they are risking other people's money when commercial banking and investment banking were allowed to be merged together.

You specifically said that the banks were not taking any risks. Then we have no explanationfor why they fialed at the rate they did.

Is that a bad thing? Before the Federal Reserve was created, the banks couldn't be trusted, and if there is a scandal, it is allowing the capital reserve requirements of banks to be lowered. Let's not pretend Wall Street has no influence with Federal Reserve policies.

They are all playing the same game. Let's get this straight. I'm not defending Wall Street. They were stupid and deserve not to be bailed out with taxpayer money. What we are trying to determine is why they were so stupid.

Banks create money out of thin air anyway, since a 3% reserve rate allows it to loan out $97,000 of a $100,000 deposit. And then the $97,000 mortgage is listed as an asset on its balance sheet to be used to leverage other loans. It can apply that reserve policy to that amount, and so on and so forth five or six times on that original deposit of $100,000, according to Federal Reserve regulations. So money is being created by banks out of thin air all the time.

Yes. I think I said that. We get into trouble when the Federal Reserve oks them to create endless amouints of credit as they did with subprime mortgages. Actually the creation of money out of thin air is detrimental to the economy all the time.

Didn't the oil embargo and higher oil prices have something to do with the economic malaise of the 70's?

Not the banks?

So in two years, Barney was supposed to fix problems and change home ownership guarantees that were approved by the Bush Administration.

I guess I have to say everything twice. Barney blocked mounting concern about Fanny and Freddie. It isn't the fact he tried to fix it, he didn't. He let the problem mount. And the problem started in 1996 when Clinton reinstituted the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). The Republicans cannot be absolved of their responsibility either. They were not good stewards.

They allowed the problem to build without drawing in the reins. They would have lost even more seats in 2006 if they had have done something. But it wasn't Wall street, nor is it ever Wall Street that is responsible for fiscal policy of government. Your suggestion that it does set policy is delusional. They may be taken into consideration along with a hundred other economic factors used to determine policy but they in no way determine it based upon what they feel they need.

I didn't read too much about the AFL-CIO sponsored protest on Wall Street, so I don't know who they turned out for the event, but why should that matter? If these teabaggers were really sincere about their occasional condemnations of Wall Street and the bailout, they would have either been there or set up a demonstration of their own on another occasion. Their silence speaks volumes!

Most of them think the bailouts were wrong. They are not silent onthat point.

So keep on blaming the politicians who are on the take from Wall Street, rather than the big money kingpins who buy political influence in the first place. When they were desperate to keep their system going, they turned to Hank Paulsen to bail them out; afterwards they wanted to back to business as usual... so what else is new!

That there is corruption and influence pedalling I have no doubt. Governemnt has the ultimate responsibility to rout out this type of corruption. Or do you think Wall Street should send in their cops to rout out government corruption?

It's stupid to talk about blaming politicians for this situation, and pretend that Republicans will act differently when they have control. The only distinct difference I can see between the Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats feel guilty when they are doing the bidding of their corporate benefactors, whereas the Republicans make no apologies for it and make no bones about wanting to weaken government regulatory power further and strengthen the power of corporate citizens.

Unless there is real campaign finance reform it doesn't matter much who is elected to office. The same things will happen again and again as long as politicians are allowed to immediately go to work as corporate lobbyists to cash in their political IOU's; and regulators go to work for firms they are supposed to be regulating immediately after leaving the public service.

Democrats feel guilty? Like Barney Franks who to this day admits to absolutely no responsibilty for the state of affiars at Freddie and Fanny.

Ther indeed needs to be change we can believe in.....we aren't getting it.

[Shady]

From what you're saying, a Socialist is someone who resists tax cuts.

No, that's absolutely not true. Either you're purposely being obtuse, or you can't read. Take your pick. A socialist is not someone who resists tax cuts. That's ridiculous.

[Michael Hardner]

No, that's absolutely not true. Either you're purposely being obtuse, or you can't read. Take your pick. A socialist is not someone who resists tax cuts. That's ridiculous.

Ok, I guess I took my stupid pills today.

If this is what it is:

It's centralized government control and government redistribution of wealth.

Then everyone is socialist. If socialism is determined at a certain tax rate, then tell us what that is.

It sounds, though, like it means any resistance to lesser government control and lower tax rates - making it a relative term.

[punked]

No, that's absolutely not true. Either you're purposely being obtuse, or you can't read. Take your pick. A socialist is not someone who resists tax cuts. That's ridiculous.

Taxes have nothing to do with the ideology. Socialists want there to be no money, how do you have taxes with out money? You don't the problem here is Shady has no clue what anything means. He is uneducated.

[Pliny]

Then everyone is socialist. If socialism is determined at a certain tax rate, then tell us what that is.

It sounds, though, like it means any resistance to lesser government control and lower tax rates - making it a relative term.

I think he got you there Shady..

Socialism in it's total sense is complete government control of the economy and the distribution of wealth. It is achieved progressively by the increasing centralization of authority and intervention and usurping of what are individual and societal responsibilities and acting in the interests of the collective. So the engineering of society, and thus it's form and structure become entirely the responsibility of government.

I read an interesting arcticle today about Tom Haydn, former first gentleman of Jane Fonda.

It was written by Chip Wood - a right wingtalk how host and blogger.

The article is about political labels mostly.

Apparently, Ron Paul does not think Barack Obama is a socialist. A communist does not believe in private property and socialism being very close to communism in the ideal is similar. Barack has never said he is against the ownership of private properrty so he is not a socialist.

Chip said, that he had always wanted to get Jane Fonda on his radio show but she never responded to any of his calls.

Jane was famous for her trips to Viet nam and her cozying up to the North Viet Namese communists. Her first husband Tom Haydn was also a political activist and they often ventured on tours together.

One day Tom Haydn's agent phoned and asked if he would like Tom to appear on his show. He said yes of course.

He knew callers would be incensed, phoning in and hurling the usual commie/pinko pejoratives at Tom. Sure enough about the third call in somone was calling him a communist socialist sympathizer. But Chip jumped in and said, wait a minute. Tom isn't against the ownership of private property, he is only for the government ensuring equal and socially just distribution of wealth so that it is fair. Tom Agreed with that. In other words, privately owned means of production and government determining some of the distribution by itself to create some sense of equality. So corporations would be encouraged and given privilege when it contributed some of it's wealth fro distribution more like Mussolini's type of corporatism and closer to Hitler's type of government. He would be supporting more like a fascist type of government. There was a click onthe other end of the line and Chip had lost his guest.

The truth is that right and left wing extremism are very close to each other in their level of government.

Chip talks about the vagueness of labels, how they seem to be irrelevant but the level of government one wants is the only true measure of how socialist or if you care to differentiate, Fascist someone is.

So I guess Ron Paul figures Barack, with his friends on Wall Street and love affair with corporations is more of a right wing ideologue, than a left wing ideologue.

I am of the belief that all right wing "isms" are born out of left wing "isms". Once the ruling class that maintains the classless society realize they are more equal than others they abandon the left and become a right wing "ism".

[Pliny]

Taxes have nothing to do with the ideology. Socialists want there to be no money, how do you have taxes with out money? You don't the problem here is Shady has no clue what anything means. He is uneducated.

Are tokens - like Rubles, ok?

You may have an understanding of the society you would like, something that someone else dreamed up for you that sounded nice.

The very things you dislike about people though, like greed, or hoarding wealth or even the things you like about people like caring and sharing, will not disappear. It seems there is generally a scarcity of goods for people and they must produce in abundance if everyone is to share in the production. It seems when there is no money no one really knows what anyone else wants because there is no money to buy things and so production is just about providing basics and generic goods and the State has to decide. It is very difficult for them so they just go with a single choice.

I would read a little about economics before I started calling people uneducated.

[nicky10013]

I would read a little about economics before I started calling people uneducated.

Pot - meet kettle.

[Pliny]

Pot - meet kettle.

I'd be interested in what you had to say regarding the content but I am unimportant. I hate it when the topic becomes about me. Not that you won't find agreement for your opinion.

I never heard back from you about my post on Dialectical Materialism. I guess we should just allow things to run their course and continue cooking up that "third way" synthesis?

Unlike me, you are important, and lord knows we need some educated points of view.

[Michael Hardner]

Pot - meet kettle.

Nicky, you could do a lot worse when talking with right-of-centre posters.

[WIP]

You specifically said that the banks were not taking any risks. Then we have no explanationfor why they fialed at the rate they did.

If I take $10,000 of your money and run off to the casino, am I taking a financial risk? I already posted a link about the payouts that Lehman's top executives walked off with after they drove their firm into bankruptcy that show there are no penalties for failure under the current system. If they destroy their firms or banks, they still get payed off and run off to start another operation the next day. The losers in the collapse of Lehman Bros. were the investors, not the executives or the traders who receive compensation based on the degree of risks they are willing to take with investors' money!

They are all playing the same game. Let's get this straight. I'm not defending Wall Street. They were stupid and deserve not to be bailed out with taxpayer money. What we are trying to determine is why they were so stupid.

TOO BIG TO FAIL. I'm getting sick of the disingenuous argument by proponents of unfettered and unregulated capitalism, that failing financial institutions should be allowed to fail. The greed-motivated traders walk off scott free with all of their bonuses, while investors lose their savings. The responsible solution is to demand that financial institutions change their compensation setup that rewards short term gains and either regulate these new derivatives markets or ban them entirely.

I guess I have to say everything twice. Barney blocked mounting concern about Fanny and Freddie.

Barney Frank became committee chairman in 2007 after the Democrats took over the House. Now, after the financial meltdown, Republicans started a claim that they couldn't get a bill to regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2005 or 2006 because of opposition from Frank and other Democrats even though they controlled Congress and the Whitehouse! Does that even sound remotely plausible considering the way they rammed through bills to continue off budget funding for their wars and the Patriot Act?

I saved this for future reference just because of the way history gets reinvented by the continual repetition of lies and half-truths:

Three years ago, then-U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley saw cracks creeping through what is now a crumbled financial system.

This week, Oxley said it could have been prevented by an ill-fated attempt to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which provide funding for about 75 percent of home mortgages.....................

But, Oxley said, it ran into "ideologues" in the White House who wanted to privatize Fannie and Freddie and who opposed a bigger government role. The bill also ran into opposition in the Senate.

http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2008/Sep/28/ar_news_092808_story8.asp?d=092808_story8,2008,Sep,28&c=nn

I don't think anyone's saying that Barney FRank was a big help since he got his position on seniority rather than any great understanding of finance, but the new REpublican myth that the real estate bubble and meltdown is all Barney Frank's fault because he stalled a bill to regulate Fannie and Freddie is FoxNews mythology. This Congressman - Oxley, speculated that the resistance or lack of interest in his proposals by the Whitehouse was because they were focused on privatizing these two quasi-government agencies, so they opposed his bill because they didn't want anything that would increase or continue a government role.

It isn't the fact he tried to fix it, he didn't. He let the problem mount. And the problem started in 1996 when Clinton reinstituted the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). The Republicans cannot be absolved of their responsibility either. They were not good stewards.

Damn right they can't be absolved of responsibility! If you noticed the stories I linked about Bush bragging about the success of the CRA, it's obvious that Republicans had no intention of changing it.

Most of them think the bailouts were wrong. They are not silent onthat point.

And again I have to ask why they are not protesting outside of the major banks and financial institutions? It's not just a matter of opposing a bailout; what do they have to say about unbridled capitalism that allows financial traders to create unregulated markets and run off with their winnings even when they lose the savings of their investors?

Right here it's worth taking note of the only unifying theme of these teabagger protests:

That there is corruption and influence pedalling I have no doubt. Governemnt has the ultimate responsibility to rout out this type of corruption. Or do you think Wall Street should send in their cops to rout out government corruption?

What I think is that people with large sums of money should not be allowed to use them to buy the political influence they desire. Instead the SCOTUS recently decided to complete the theory that corporations have personal rights by deciding that a corporation has a right to freedom of speech, and since corporations speak with money, then any regulations on campaign financing are a violation of a corporations free speech.....or at least according to Antonin Scalia!

Now, how much accountability can government have when it's open to the highest bidder? The successful pattern established by the right over the last 30 years has been to do what is most optimal for the people who finance their campaigns and supply golden parachutes after they leave office, while appealing to the fears, hatred and resentment of average citizens. That's how people can be motivated to cheerfully support political parties that work against the average citizen's economic interests, and I think we can expect more of the same in the future since they created a tea party that rallies whites to oppose a black president and changing racial demographics that will make non-whites the majority in a few decades and claims now that they want no regulation, just no future bailouts. I'll bet these people would be singing a different tune about bank bailouts if their savings are at risk.

[nicky10013]

I'd be interested in what you had to say regarding the content but I am unimportant. I hate it when the topic becomes about me. Not that you won't find agreement for your opinion.

I never heard back from you about my post on Dialectical Materialism. I guess we should just allow things to run their course and continue cooking up that "third way" synthesis?

Unlike me, you are important, and lord knows we need some educated points of view.

No, not important, I just know right from left and up from down. The only reason why I said it is because I find it hilarious that someone who clearly has trouble with various forms of economic and political theory can turn around and mock people for their own lack of understanding. Furthermore, I think it's great that you can mock him yet are taking me down a peg or two for doing the exact same thing. More hypocrisy.

As for dialectical materialism, this thread has moved pretty quickly and I haven't been around. I'll tackle it later.

Edited May 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Well, something new is clearly necessary. I do appreciate your input on this thread and your indulgence.

I am just offering my perspective.

As for political "science". Welll...

Let's take a look at the political spectrum and see what can be gleaned from it and do some comparisons with a true dichotomy.

As you probably know the origination of the political spectrum was in France during the 1700s. The socialists, the Libertarians, and anyone different than the Monarchists sat on the left side of Parliament and the Monarchists, who were basically the Conservatives, sat on the right. The conservatives were for maintaining, that is "conserving", the Monarchy and the extant governmental structure, the status quo.

Now, what we want is a political spectrum that is understandable.

The current one has total government on one side, Communism, socialism and on the other it has total government Fascism,Nazism and the like. Although these are supposed to be polar opposites they aren't. They are both about big government and the enforcement of society to act as a unit. they have their differences but by no means are polar opposites. A true dichotomy would be from no government to total government. Glenn Beck didn't have to explain this to me I had already discovered this in the seventies now I see it on his show. Progress, although slow, is being made.

It is important when trying to understand something that what one is learning has some practical application. In other words it is great to be able to use the information you are learning. Memorizing and regurgitating facts and figures is not of much use and if you do not formulate any thoughts regarding the subject then all you are doing is playing back facts and figures. Any study needs to have some practical application and one's input. Otherwise one can't tell the difference between what is valid and what is not so one just parrots information.

Of course, any study of Marx would have to include a look at Dialectical Materialism. And if we applied some of that we could see how Marx formulated a lot of what he termed Communism.

Let's apply it to the political spectrum. You need thesis, antithesis to arrive at a synthesis according to the theory.

So if we take the thesis as the left wing of the spectrum and the antithesis as the right then we come up with a synthesis. Let's see Socialism on the left and Fascism on the right what do we get as a synthesis? We get a mish-mash of total government, perhaps continuous revolutions. Is the opposite supposed to be in the centre?

But let's look at a true dichotomy, not a contrived synthesis and the positioning of thesis-antithesis to arrive at that synthesis.

The opposite of total government is anarchy. I don't think that point can be argued.

So when we start at anarchy as the thesis and total government as the antithesis we wind up with a synthesis somewhere in between those.

The extremes are not ideal. We have seen Communism, fascism both fail as experiments in total government and anarchy is not an option either. Funny that Communism, according to the theory, is supposed to end up in anarchy - once the classes have been eliminated and the class struggle is over. One thing that I think Marx was wrong on was that the classes would always be in a struggle against each other. He just never envisioned classes as being symbiotic in nature rather the upper classes were exploitive

of the lower classes.

So if you can see where this is taking us the political spectrum is purported to be a thesis-antithesis. Of course, to use dialectical materialism we extrapolate and arrive at a model of what the interactions of the two energies will bring. Then we can arrive at a synthesis we want to arrive at. So the two energies of Socialism/Communism and Fascism acting against each other will bring about some form of total government in it's synthesis.

This is Hegel and Marx's contribution to the political spectrum and one has to ask why it is the accepted model. We could say that academia is in confusion about the political spectrum and doesn't really know that it's use and getting people to hurl pejoratives at each other is bringing about the necessity for big government.

But I don't believe they are confused. I would be more inclined to think that they wish the public to remain confused to maintain an erudite academic position. This would not be unusual and occurs in many professions and trades.

So we have this political spectrum that basically crowds out small government and as we get more and more divided we come closer to a synthesis. The energies of both sides in proximity to each other creates clashes.

We can choose whatever we want as a thesis and an antithesis and arrive at the synthesis we wish. You work it backwards by postulating a synthesis and then using two opposing energies to bring it about.

So it didn't just take me a day to read up on this. I have been looking at it for at least thirty years. I am a bit slow.

But I'm not into parroting facts and figures. I want an understanding of the subject and I want to able to think with the information I have and formulate my own conclusions. In the process I have come across much information that holds no value, is outright false and falls short when practically applied.

Gotta go for now.

Most of this is a useless thought experiment. Dialectical Materialism is Marx and Engels evolution of Hegel's theory which essentially describes the philosophy of history. How you can apply that to the spectrum is anyone's guess. One could put it ON the spectrum in terms of how the ideology of dialectical materialism compares to say democracy or fascism, but one can't apply it to the spectrum. Events in history and the political spectrum has absolutely nothing in common.

If we're going to discuss Dialectical Materialism and the Materialistic theory of the evolution of history, lets do it. Let's not apply it to a spectrum and then run circles in our arguments trying to come to the conclusion you had before writing this opus.

Edited May 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[Pliny]

If I take $10,000 of your money and run off to the casino, am I taking a financial risk?

If it is your job to take my money and run off to the casino it's my money at risk. It's also a risk I am aware of.

They made lots of money for lots of people. They lost lots of money for lots of people.

I already posted a link about the payouts that Lehman's top executives walked off with after they drove their firm into bankruptcy that show there are no penalties for failure under the current system. If they destroy their firms or banks, they still get payed off and run off to start another operation the next day. The losers in the collapse of Lehman Bros. were the investors, not the executives or the traders who receive compensation based on the degree of risks they are willing to take with investors' money!

The losers were indeed the investors. What is an investor but a risk taker. If there is fraud involved then indictments should follow. Can't argue that. If you are just angry because executives made money when you think they shouldn't have then that's just you're little upset - mind you, it's an upset shared by more than a few people.

There is a question of whether it is moral or ethical but we would have to know the exact details of their contracts and their job performance to make that judgment.

If it weren't for the fact that left leaning individuals under all circumstances complain about the greedy capitalist and other people's paycheques I'd be more inclined to be outraged. But it seems even if they made money for their clients they are also pilloried for their paycheques.

If anything this tells me that money is cheap and flows around Wall street like "paper". There is an imbalance alright but it isn't anything to do with capitalism which hasn't been around for a while, but has everything to do with the fact that since government started looking after our "money" and became the monopoly for it's printing and distribution. We have seen it degraded over the last century from something substantive to a mere entry on a balance sheet. This will indeed bring about questionable imbalances with those at the head of the line getting the best benefit.

Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi scheme. He is not going to be starting another operation anytime soon. If fraud is a factor anywhere else then bring your evidence forward, the Federal government would like to know. But I don't believe they would recognize it either since it is running a similar ponzi scheme itself.

TOO BIG TO FAIL. I'm getting sick of the disingenuous argument by proponents of unfettered and unregulated capitalism, that failing financial institutions should be allowed to fail. The greed-motivated traders walk off scott free with all of their bonuses, while investors lose their savings. The responsible solution is to demand that financial institutions change their compensation setup that rewards short term gains and either regulate these new derivatives markets or ban them entirely.

You think capitalism is "unfettered and unregulated"? I don't know what purpose the SEC and countless other regulatory and licensing bodies serve then. Perhaps they should be eliminated?

Disingenuous, good term. As I said, whether or not these "greed-motivated traders" are making money for their clients or not they are still called greed motivated traders. I don't know how you determine the worth of someone else's services but obviously it isn't your position, and you would find more people, even yourself, unhappy with someone else determining their worth.

Is Greece too big to fail? Where's the greedy capitalists here?

Barney Frank became committee chairman in 2007 after the Democrats took over the House. Now, after the financial meltdown, Republicans started a claim that they couldn't get a bill to regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2005 or 2006 because of opposition from Frank and other Democrats even though they controlled Congress and the Whitehouse! Does that even sound remotely plausible considering the way they rammed through bills to continue off budget funding for their wars and the Patriot Act?

let's say they had their priorities, as does any administration. Obviously, there weren't enough Republicans who understood the economics of the scene to bring about any change. Pity.

Face it though all you want them to do is regulate how much executives make. That's like me deciding how much you should make.

I saved this for future reference just because of the way history gets reinvented by the continual repetition of lies and half-truths:

Three years ago, then-U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley saw cracks creeping through what is now a crumbled financial system.

This week, Oxley said it could have been prevented by an ill-fated attempt to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which provide funding for about 75 percent of home mortgages.....................

But, Oxley said, it ran into "ideologues" in the White House who wanted to privatize Fannie and Freddie and who opposed a bigger government role. The bill also ran into opposition in the Senate.

The fact is that Fannie and Freddie are not privatized. And they provided funding for 75% of home mortgages? What mortgages would that be....Sub-prime mortgages? Golly gosh the banks only provided 25% of funding for mortgages? Wow! Fannie and Freddie seem to be a little under the radar here for their role in the debacle.

Oxley was probably the only Democrat that understood that Fannie and Freddie needed some reining in. The Republicans wanted to privatize it. The Democrats didn't see any need for change, that is obvious because Barney said everything was just dandy when he took over. And he still claims things are sound with Fannie and Freddie.

Where is Oxley's plan now that the Dems are in control of all three branches of government.

I don't think anyone's saying that Barney FRank was a big help since he got his position on seniority rather than any great understanding of finance, but the new REpublican myth that the real estate bubble and meltdown is all Barney Frank's fault because he stalled a bill to regulate Fannie and Freddie is FoxNews mythology.

There is still no bill to change Fannie and Freddie. There is nothing. Business as usual it seems.

This Congressman - Oxley, speculated that the resistance or lack of interest in his proposals by the Whitehouse was because they were focused on privatizing these two quasi-government agencies, so they opposed his bill because they didn't want anything that would increase or continue a government role.

A wise thing not to increase a government role but, as usual, ignored. Just think if it had been privatized you could have another reason to excoriate the Republicans.

As I said, where is Oxley's bill today? Or is everything just dandy?

Damn right they can't be absolved of responsibility! If you noticed the stories I linked about Bush bragging about the success of the CRA, it's obvious that Republicans had no intention of changing it.

Right. So they had no clue about the economics of the scene.

What happened is evident in your posts. Freddie and Fannie created a housing bubble by supplying - creating out of thin air, money for 75% of all mortgages. Whether they bought them as derivatives from other banks it is clear they provided the atmosphere that created the moral hazard and allowed the bubble to be speculatively driven.

It's right there and it's what I have said all along.

And again I have to ask why they are not protesting outside of the major banks and financial institutions? It's not just a matter of opposing a bailout; what do they have to say about unbridled capitalism that allows financial traders to create unregulated markets and run off with their winnings even when they lose the savings of their investors?

Well, since Fannie and Freddie hold 75% of the mortgages and is allowed to continue is perhaps the reason why.

Right here it's worth taking note of the only unifying theme of these teabagger protests:

What I think is that people with large sums of money should not be allowed to use them to buy the political influence they desire. Instead the SCOTUS recently decided to complete the theory that corporations have personal rights by deciding that a corporation has a right to freedom of speech, and since corporations speak with money, then any regulations on campaign financing are a violation of a corporations free speech.....or at least according to Antonin Scalia!

Now, how much accountability can government have when it's open to the highest bidder? The successful pattern established by the right over the last 30 years has been to do what is most optimal for the people who finance their campaigns and supply golden parachutes after they leave office, while appealing to the fears, hatred and resentment of average citizens. That's how people can be motivated to cheerfully support political parties that work against the average citizen's economic interests, and I think we can expect more of the same in the future since they created a tea party that rallies whites to oppose a black president and changing racial demographics that will make non-whites the majority in a few decades and claims now that they want no regulation, just no future bailouts. I'll bet these people would be singing a different tune about bank bailouts if their savings are at risk.

And Democrats do not do what is most optimal for the people who finance their campaigns?

Government if it is to be a democracy must be limited so that it cannot provide returns on those who make the investment. It's hands must be tied. You insist upon regulating those that have, in your view, too much. But really it is government looking for the handouts and making the promises that is the crime. They should make no promises and then we'll see who donates.

It's a matter of putting the cart before the horse. If capitalism were, as you claim, unfettered and unregulated, I would be right behind you, but it isn't. The housing bubble occurred as did the Y2K bubble and bubbles before that and making the claim it is because capitalism is unfettered and unregulated doesn't help the cause. It would be a little less disingenuous if you made the claim that it needs to be more heavily regulated than it already is. That would be more truthful, but you seem to think some kind of anarcho-capitalism is the form of our economy. You couldn't be more wrong.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Most of this is a useless thought experiment.

Most? What part isn't?

Dialectical Materialism is Marx and Engels evolution of Hegel's theory which essentially describes the philosophy of history. How you can apply that to the spectrum is anyone's guess. One could put it ON the spectrum in terms of how the ideology of dialectical materialism compares to say democracy or fascism, but one can't apply it to the spectrum. Events in history and the political spectrum has absolutely nothing in common.

Looks like there is something in common. We have Fascism (the extreme right) and communism (the extreme left) which provide us a thesis and anti-thesis. What would be the synthesis if these two are brought into proximity? I think we are experiencing that today.

The polarity is being high-lighted and the proximity of the two extremes narrower.

If we're going to discuss Dialectical Materialism and the Materialistic theory of the evolution of history, lets do it. Let's not apply it to a spectrum and then run circles in our arguments trying to come to the conclusion you had before writing this opus.

There is a certain truth in the theory. You need a dichotomy in order to produce energy or activity of any kind. Without the polar opposites their is no energy or activity. For electrical energy there is a plus and a minus. In behavior there is good and bad. When brought into proximity plus and minus create current, good and bad create war. Communism and Fascism will create a third way. Using them as dichotomies creates the energy necessary to bring about the effort to balance each others energy and bring about a discharge of energy or activity. Plus and minus will discharge and neutralize each other. Good and bad will also do the same.

Of course on a more definitive level we have to define good and bad.

In government you perceive communism and fascism as opposing each other. Is it not obvious to you what will occur if they are brought into proximity to each other? I think we have already seen that in history and it continues today because of a perpetuation of the ideals and their position on the political spectrum but they were both considered to be undesirable forms of government at one time after WWII, and thus similar. Today they are being categorized as opposing each other again and brought inot proximity with resulting increasing tension and conflict. We can avoid the conflict by realizing that both fascism and communism are very similar. What is dissimilar, is no government - anarchy. Both Communism and Fascism would bind to fight anarchy or limits to government.

I have not read this anywhere. These are entirely my own opinions based upon what I have studied. Understanding does not bring about complexity it brings about simplicity. Before understanding there is complexity. I think the whole political scene is looked at by the general public as being very complex. But it is only complex because it is such a snake pit of lies and power-mongering and back-stabbing. The complexity is elevated for erudite, self-righteous and self-aggrandizing purposes. In other words what should be cracker barrel philosophy is now called "political science". I have some idea of what your education is but my criticism of "experts" is not intended to be personal. I believe you would consider what I have said is "weak-thinking" or "simplistic" or whatever but I did not study what I have studied in order to amass a library of facts and statistics or get a degree. I studied what I have studied to gain understanding. The theory of Dialectical Materialism was quite a find and I think quite valid for practical application.

Anyway, you won't find what I have said regarding this anywhere else and you can do whatever you want with it. The "expert" thing to do is dismiss it out of hand. The consequence of not doing so is to suffer risking the title.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Pliny

[Shwa]

Both Communism and Fascism would bind to fight anarchy or limits to government.

I have not read this anywhere.

Presuming the latter refers to the former, you may wish to read about the Anarchists, Republicans and Fascists that held a Civil War in Spain during the late of the 1930's.

[nicky10013]

Most? What part isn't?

Looks like there is something in common. We have Fascism (the extreme right) and communism (the extreme left) which provide us a thesis and anti-thesis. What would be the synthesis if these two are brought into proximity? I think we are experiencing that today.

The polarity is being high-lighted and the proximity of the two extremes narrower.

No, there is nothing in common. You're completely taking dialectical materialism and the quote about the thesis and antithesis you found on wikipedia way too seriously. What it essentially was is the ideological theory that all of history is rooted in materialism, that there would be a series of revolutions until the end of history would be reached. Slaves would overthrow slave owners, serfs would overthrow lords and become the bourgeoisie and then eventually the bourgeoisie would be overthrown by the working class at which point communism would be achieved. What dialectical materialism has to do with anything, I've got no clue.

There is a certain truth in the theory. You need a dichotomy in order to produce energy or activity of any kind. Without the polar opposites their is no energy or activity. For electrical energy there is a plus and a minus. In behavior there is good and bad. When brought into proximity plus and minus create current, good and bad create war. Communism and Fascism will create a third way. Using them as dichotomies creates the energy necessary to bring about the effort to balance each others energy and bring about a discharge of energy or activity. Plus and minus will discharge and neutralize each other. Good and bad will also do the same.

They are dissimilar. They use similar methods to bring about longevity of the regime, however, even then, the structures of governance between communism and fascism, not to mention their ideology is vastly different.

Of course on a more definitive level we have to define good and bad.

In government you perceive communism and fascism as opposing each other. Is it not obvious to you what will occur if they are brought into proximity to each other? I think we have already seen that in history and it continues today because of a perpetuation of the ideals and their position on the political spectrum but they were both considered to be undesirable forms of government at one time after WWII, and thus similar. Today they are being categorized as opposing each other again and brought inot proximity with resulting increasing tension and conflict. We can avoid the conflict by realizing that both fascism and communism are very similar. What is dissimilar, is no government - anarchy. Both Communism and Fascism would bind to fight anarchy or limits to government.

Yes, we did see what happened when the two ideologies were brought together. They went to war. They didn't fuse into anything.

I have not read this anywhere. These are entirely my own opinions based upon what I have studied. Understanding does not bring about complexity it brings about simplicity. Before understanding there is complexity. I think the whole political scene is looked at by the general public as being very complex. But it is only complex because it is such a snake pit of lies and power-mongering and back-stabbing. The complexity is elevated for erudite, self-righteous and self-aggrandizing purposes. In other words what should be cracker barrel philosophy is now called "political science". I have some idea of what your education is but my criticism of "experts" is not intended to be personal. I believe you would consider what I have said is "weak-thinking" or "simplistic" or whatever but I did not study what I have studied in order to amass a library of facts and statistics or get a degree. I studied what I have studied to gain understanding. The theory of Dialectical Materialism was quite a find and I think quite valid for practical application.

Anyway, you won't find what I have said regarding this anywhere else and you can do whatever you want with it. The "expert" thing to do is dismiss it out of hand. The consequence of not doing so is to suffer risking the title.

Clearly you believe you political science is junk, which in the end is your decision to believe or not to believe. Clearly, though, the reason why you believe it to be "cracker barrel philosophy" is that it doesn't conform with your views on governance. Now, in the political science community, new ways to explain trends in politics or the development of the state are always welcomed despite whatever you think of the people within said field. Now, the problem for you here is that within academia, in all fields (science, social science and humanities), work is peer reviewed. That is to say colleagues within departments and between universities review and edit other people's work to ensure authenticity of sources, and proper reasoning that lead to sound conclusions. Unfortunately, you don't have any of those things.

Furthermore, what I find hilarious is you're obviously contemptuous towards people with "degrees" (because they obviously didn't go to university to understand) and political science as a whole, yet at the same time you're essentially playing the same game as everyone else in the field. Except of course for the fact that you're negating the whole peer reviewed aspect of your "work." Not only is it hypocritical, it's the worst form of "i'm better than you syndrome." Unlike the rest of us, you believe your work is so ironclad solid that you don't have to go through the same process that anyone else in the political science community will go through to have their work published, and if anyone calls you out on it, you'll just call them erudite ivory tower elitists.

In your years of study, what did you research? What papers did you write? What books did you read? Interviews you conducted? In essence, what is the basis for your treatise on the similarities of fascism and communism other than your wildly misplaced zeal towards dialectical materialism?

Edited May 14, 2010 by nicky10013

[WIP]

If it is your job to take my money and run off to the casino it's my money at risk. It's also a risk I am aware of.

I'm still risking your money...not mine.

The losers were indeed the investors. What is an investor but a risk taker. If there is fraud involved then indictments should follow. Can't argue that. If you are just angry because executives made money when you think they shouldn't have then that's just you're little upset - mind you, it's an upset shared by more than a few people.

There's still this problem of management setting up compensation systems that reward traders for taking great risks while losing little or nothing when their trades go bad and lose investor's money. If worse comes to worse, they cash out with full compensation and go to work down the street for another firm.

Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi scheme. He is not going to be starting another operation anytime soon. If fraud is a factor anywhere else then bring your evidence forward, the Federal government would like to know. But I don't believe they would recognize it either since it is running a similar ponzi scheme itself.

So is Madoff that much worse than the high rollers on Wall Street? He cost his investors billions, but the Wall Street firms that caused trillions of dollars in loses, millions of unemployeed, and economies colapsing around the world, used their political leverage to get a bailout from the government.

You think capitalism is "unfettered and unregulated"? I don't know what purpose the SEC and countless other regulatory and licensing bodies serve then. Perhaps they should be eliminated?

The SEC can't control Wall Street! Their staff is generally young, inexperienced, and in many cases have left their resumes with major Wall St. firms. Anyone looking for a future with Goldman is not going to go ferreting around for damaging information. It's a similar pattern as we're finding out about now in the Gulf -- where the Minerals Management Service, which was supposed to be regulating offshore drilling rubberstamped everything that BP and its subsidiaries were doing.

Disingenuous, good term. As I said, whether or not these "greed-motivated traders" are making money for their clients or not they are still called greed motivated traders. I don't know how you determine the worth of someone else's services but obviously it isn't your position, and you would find more people, even yourself, unhappy with someone else determining their worth.

How about if they lose their compensation and bonuses when they pile up losses for investors! And that doesn't deal with newly created markets like derivatives. Are credit default swaps insurance policies on investments? That's how they've been sold. But AIG was allowed to create this market on the side and not have it classified as insurance contracts -- which are a regulated product. Just one more example of those with the money, making the rules for their own benefit.

Is Greece too big to fail? Where's the greedy capitalists here?

Goldman Sachs again! Goldman Sachs, the giant investment bank, is today at the centre of the row over the Greek government's finances, amid recriminations over complex financial deals that allowed the eurozone nation to skirt its debt limits.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/goldman-sachs-the-greek-connection-1899527.html

The fact is that Fannie and Freddie are not privatized. And they provided funding for 75% of home mortgages? What mortgages would that be....Sub-prime mortgages? Golly gosh the banks only provided 25% of funding for mortgages? Wow! Fannie and Freddie seem to be a little under the radar here for their role in the debacle.

Did Fannie and Freddie create the Subprime mortgage market? How much of the blame goes to predatory lending contracts created by the banks and home loan companies? And for the fact that mortgage-backed securities allow the risk of default to be dumped on to someone else. Many of the purchasers of these securities had them insured with AIG's CDS contracts. When they lost money and showed up at the window to demand payment from AIG, that's when the rest of us discovered that there were entire financial markets that were completely unknown to the public. We still don't know what the value of credit default swaps and these other derivatives are, and they are still an iceberg floating below the surface, waiting to bring down the whole international banking system down...so blaming the financial meltdown on HUD and two largely government controlled lenders is just a desperate gambit by the people who've created this mess, to try to shift the blame elsewhere.

Oxley was probably the only Democrat that understood that Fannie and Freddie needed some reining in.

Actually, he's a Republican.

Government if it is to be a democracy must be limited so that it cannot provide returns on those who make the investment. It's hands must be tied. You insist upon regulating those that have, in your view, too much. But really it is government looking for the handouts and making the promises that is the crime. They should make no promises and then we'll see who donates.

Government needs to be strengthened, not weakened. Specifically, politicians and government bureaucrats need to be out of reach of business lobbyists looking for political influence. The SEC and the Minerals Management Service are two good examples of government regulators that have largely declined to enforce the rules against corporations and allowed them to set their own standards.

The housing bubble occurred as did the Y2K bubble and bubbles before that and making the claim it is because capitalism is unfettered and unregulated doesn't help the cause. It would be a little less disingenuous if you made the claim that it needs to be more heavily regulated than it already is. That would be more truthful, but you seem to think some kind of anarcho-capitalism is the form of our economy. You couldn't be more wrong.

Can you explain to me why these market bubbles have become worse in the last 30 years, since corporate taxes and the top income tax rates were reduced, and industries have been deregulated?

[Pliny]

I'm still risking your money...not mine.

Who gave it to them to risk? If I give you 5 grand to invest in the market for me am I risking it or are you risking it?

If the investor wishes to be an investor he has to be able to make some money for his clients or no one will risk their money for him to invest. Ultimately, the client is risking his money.

Of course when the subprime mortgage collapse came about "no one saw it coming". Why didn't they - because guys like Barney Franks said everything was just dandy. In other words the government wasn't going to be putting on the brakes anytime soon and they didn't. Banks continued, along with the blessing of the Fed and encouragement of the Federal government, to make credit available for mortgages until the market reached saturation and collapsed.

Who else makes credit available? If it were left up to each individual bank they would never have taken the risks they did. On their own they would have acted more prudently. But with the Fed pumping credit out through the banks there is only one agency that could be responsible. One that is commmon to all banks and all of Wall street.

What you see is greed. Fine! Everything was going along just dandy and people were making money and people were able to own homes, even if they couldn't afford them, and the Federal government with all of it's regulatory powers was just sleeping or the rescinding of the Glass-Steagall act completely neutered and tied the regulatory hands of government. But it was the greed of Wall street and their unfettered "freedom" that caused it all. I think that is what you are trying to say.

If it weren't for the fact that, in your eyes, all of the problems of society are because of greedy capitalists I might consider it...naw....I wouldn't.

There's still this problem of management setting up compensation systems that reward traders for taking great risks while losing little or nothing when their trades go bad and lose investor's money. If worse comes to worse, they cash out with full compensation and go to work down the street for another firm.

They attempt to minimize risk of loss. That's part of their expertize. They often hedge their bets.

This whole exercise is to take the eyes off the Federal Reserve and Fannie and Freddie as "the" major contributors to the scenario.

I can't say everything was legally done but I will say anything illegally done would not have caused the boom and resulting bust known as the sub-prime mortgage collapse.

So is Madoff that much worse than the high rollers on Wall Street? He cost his investors billions, but the Wall Street firms that caused trillions of dollars in loses, millions of unemployeed, and economies colapsing around the world, used their political leverage to get a bailout from the government.

Madoff had nothing to do with the housing crisis he operated an illegal criminal ponzi scheme. The government did nothing to encourage him to do so, except they did nothing, even when red flags were raised. Madoff is in jail paying the price. what more do you want?

They used their political leverage and the government obliged them? Why?

I note you don't mention much about GM and how their union won benefits priced GM out of the car market. It was the commitment to future financial obligation that brought GM to bankruptcy. But I suppose you believe it to be the overpaid executives. Those overpaid executives were the ones that were trying to keep GM going their employees working and paying those benefits being paid. It was getting harder and harder to fend off the approaching end.

The SEC can't control Wall Street! Their staff is generally young, inexperienced, and in many cases have left their resumes with major Wall St. firms.

Sounds like it is a rather redundant and innocuous agency. You are saying their purpose is overridden. why should we have it. You can't excuse it by saying it is ineffectual unless you advocate getting rid of it.

Actually the SEC is not supposed to control Wall Street it is supposed to ensure fraud is not occurring. They eventually, if very late and inefficiently, indicted Bernie Madoff.

Anyone looking for a future with Goldman is not going to go ferreting around for damaging information. It's a similar pattern as we're finding out about now in the Gulf -- where the Minerals Management Service, which was supposed to be regulating offshore drilling rubberstamped everything that BP and its subsidiaries were doing.

You suggest perhaps total deregualtion? What are we paying these agencies for?

How about if they lose their compensation and bonuses when they pile up losses for investors! And that doesn't deal with newly created markets like derivatives. Are credit default swaps insurance policies on investments? That's how they've been sold. But AIG was allowed to create this market on the side and not have it classified as insurance contracts -- which are a regulated product. Just one more example of those with the money, making the rules for their own benefit.

Junk bonds are junk bonds. Very risky. Investors must know the risk.

The fact is that investors in these types of assets are greedy as well. Are you saying they deserve to lose their investment?

Goldman Sachs again! Goldman Sachs, the giant investment bank, is today at the centre of the row over the Greek government's finances, amid recriminations over complex financial deals that allowed the eurozone nation to skirt its debt limits.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/goldman-sachs-the-greek-connection-1899527.html

I suggest it is a fault with general accounting principles that can allow a whole country to "skirt it's debt limits". If Goldman-Sachs can do this, and they did, then how can anyone know what is going on with a nation's finances.

The whole banking and fiducuary system cannot continue and economic collapse is unavoidable. The trillion dollar cushion to alleviate pressures on failing governments is merely a stop gap measure that will only serve to stay the inevitable for a short time.

I note that Fanny and Freddie have gotten $123 billion in support over the last year and a half to try and keep it afloat. Obama's mortgage refinancing bill is already running into trouble with 46% of refinanced mortgages defaulting again within a six month period.

Did Fannie and Freddie create the Subprime mortgage market? How much of the blame goes to predatory lending contracts created by the banks and home loan companies? And for the fact that mortgage-backed securities allow the risk of default to be dumped on to someone else. Many of the purchasers of these securities had them insured with AIG's CDS contracts. When they lost money and showed up at the window to demand payment from AIG, that's when the rest of us discovered that there were entire financial markets that were completely unknown to the public. We still don't know what the value of credit default swaps and these other derivatives are, and they are still an iceberg floating below the surface, waiting to bring down the whole international banking system down...so blaming the financial meltdown on HUD and two largely government controlled lenders is just a desperate gambit by the people who've created this mess, to try to shift the blame elsewhere.

Sorry you are making Wall street the final authority on fiscal policy. They aren't. The Federal Reserve and the governemnt are the ones that allow the creation of credit and set the interest rates.

A bank acting on it's own without outside influence would never have taken the risks that would destroy them. There had to be a common agency convincing them of the limited risks.

I will admit that they wanted to make hay while the sunshone and they must have had suspicions about what the Federal policies were creating but hey that's what moral hazard is. None of it would be possible if risks were not presented as minimal. I'm certan the could see the writing on the wall just before the collapse even thought hey claimed they didn't see it coming. they probalby then tried to get rid of these toxic assets as quickly as possible. Especially when Fannie and Freddie were no longer guaranteeing to purchase these toxic mortgages.

Actually, he's a Republican.

Really? I stand corrected on that. I assumed he was a democrat since you mentioned him in a positive light.

Government needs to be strengthened, not weakened. Specifically, politicians and government bureaucrats need to be out of reach of business lobbyists looking for political influence. The SEC and the Minerals Management Service are two good examples of government regulators that have largely declined to enforce the rules against corporations and allowed them to set their own standards.

They aren't there to control or set the standards. They are there to oversee and regulate. They are as you say ineffectual to a degree.

Can you explain to me why these market bubbles have become worse in the last 30 years, since corporate taxes and the top income tax rates were reduced, and industries have been deregulated?

Essentially, Market bubbles are created by the Federal Reserve priming the monetary pumps. The new money (Credit being included as a form of money) creates a boom with an inevitable bust. We are at the end of this great ponzi scheme that central banking theory combined with Keynes' has wrought.

Do you think that perhaps the citizens of Greece by not being willing to end some of it's entitlements that have bankrupt the country are a bit greedy?

I have no qualms about greed. I accepted a long time ago that people will take as much as they are offered and think they can get away with. It is human nature to better yourself and if collectively you better yourself then it is other people's fault who led you to believe you were entitled to what you got.