To the Blissfully Ignorant - Socialism is Unsustainable

Originally posted by Brood
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Can everybody please stop pretending that "free market" means equal opportunity in the market? I'm personally worth 6 Million dollars worth of money that was once my parents. They were both orphans; they built a multi million dollar company out of nothing... and like most entrepreneurs it was all about LUCK and SCAMS. Now, I grew up fending for myself -- they wanted me to grow up like they did so that I didn't lose sight of what the world really was when they were gone. Having played this little game we call life over here, I realize that hundreds of thousands of people wake up every day, go to work, come home, eat dinner, go to bed; rinse and repeat. I can use my 6 million to continually generate me more and more money now and it will continually go up. If you asked me to pay 5% of my earnings every year, I would be more than happy to -- especially considering it could more than double the income of the middle class. People break their backs, get stressed out, and die just to get enough money to get them through the day, and we refuse to help them because we are brainwashed to have a harsh stance against "red" ideas so that those with power can continue to have power, and use that power to get more money and generate more money... wait, where did money and power get confused here...

Money is such a huge problem. Hundreds of thousands of people suffer die every day so that the FDA can make profit or of medication that do nothing but suppress symptoms and create side effects, which will in turn need more medication... because publicly owned corporations have a legal responsibility to raise stockholder value, and the more money that is taken from the people, the more tax the government receives, the more politicians siblings get tax grants for plastic surgery and shiny convertibles. How can we pretend money is going to work if we don't control it?

I guess the real question is, how do we pry our freedoms back and make a change about this when the people who make the decisions are the ones who benefit from it the most?

Look mate - I'm not trying to judge you here, but I must say that the story that you inherited an estate worth $6 million - from your late parents - who gave you up into an orphanage - so you could "live the life they did"....

Oh - and they were scammers and liars...

I seriously think you just made that up to try and give your argument validity. And the sad thing is you didn't have to.

The obsession to money is - and always will be - a primary cause of humanity's woes. Jesus mentioned the money just about as much as anything else in his teachings because it's the number one stunner.

Money is not evil - the love of it is.

But it's not "money"... its whatever we presume to have value that gives, drives, robs, and creates presumed power...

So really isn't it the "power" of money that is the problem? But how to get around that? We need things to survive. Those things must come at the expense of others. Does not the law of supply and demand (while cautiously regulated to avoid collusion and monopoly) do the best job of deciding at what point a person is willing to sacrifice something to have another?

Only I can decide ultimately what something is worth to me... there is no way to "collectively" decide the value of things.

Socialism proposes that this is possible - and thus it is essentially a very eloquent insanity.

Originally posted by dawnstar
I live in a city with a bunch of empty, boarded up houses (even before the housing bust!), empty malls, empty store fronts, and heck, they just bulldozed a perfectly good taco bell, so they can build a new, better taco bell...new malls have been built, new office buildings......while all these older buildings sit abandoned!
all these empty, abandoned buildings are still perfectly usable, they just aren't the newest, or, the best. Beautiful old victorian houses sit empty, abandoned for the mc mansions!

seems to me good ole american capitalism (if that's what you wish to call it), is so wasteful, depleting resources at an outrageous level....
it is unsustainable!!!

by the way, I wonder how much our bankers peddling crap for grade AAA securities has a play in the current economic condition in the European countries......and well as the problems in our own country???

edit on 19-10-2010 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

If you can find a good use for them that will not require the forced sacrifice of others... go for it. That is what "good ole American Capitalism" is all about.

Maybe you should look into that - looks like a great investment opportunity if you can find the right niche....

But that's just it. Are you willing to risk the sacrifice for the potential gain? If not - then why should everyone else?

Originally posted by sparrowstail
It's a shame that storing up enough to make it through the season or year or hardship has now become a hobby or obsession or rather a sickness. The pursuit of capital has completely distorted the meaning of life, devoured natural resources, ruined natural wonders and broken backs. We even lumped humans as commodities into this "free" market at one time. Needs no longer are needs but big time wants or rather demands. Today's capitalism is a run away train full of insecurity, greed, ego, power, domination, excess, and shallowness. Capitalism and free market allow for "It's not cheating unless you get caught, but don't worry you can buy your way out of it if you do"

Welcome to humanity my friend... now - can we discuss economic models instead of bemoning the plight of being alive on planet earth?

Originally posted by gncnew
Look mate - I'm not trying to judge you here, but I must say that the story that you inherited an estate worth $6 million - from your late parents - who gave you up into an orphanage - so you could "live the life they did"....

Estate? Company. Gave me up to an orphanage? Made me a get a job and move out when I was 16.

What post of mine did you read .

Oh - and they were scammers and liars...

LUCKY scammers and liars at that, do you propose that the business world is run in a different way? Some entrepreneur you must be! If you deny that this is the best way to get wealth, you know nothing about the corporate world.

I seriously think you just made that up to try and give your argument validity. And the sad thing is you didn't have to.

I'm glad you're here to depict my life experiences for me . Thank you for just admitting that you are stubborn and your uneducated "opinion" trumps everyone else's reality in that box you're mind is trapped in. I suppose you want me to scan in a bank statement that has all of my personal information on it ? Now, continue judging me based on nothing -- I'm sorry for seeing both sides of the fence when you only see one. There's a word for ignoring facts provided by others and continuing to argue your point... it's on the tip of my tongue...

We need things to survive. Those things must come at the expense of others.

Must? No. Do? Yes. Your thinking is limited to history, not possibility.

The only reason that it MUST come at the expense of others is because Uncle Sam hates change and he will do anything he can to make sure the idea of shared wealth is demonized by prejudices against "red" ideas. This way, the people who are on top will stay on top and those on the bottom will stay on the bottom -- just the way that the people on top want it because they know no other life. Ignorance runs the world.

Does not the law of supply and demand (while cautiously regulated to avoid collusion and monopoly) do the best job of deciding at what point a person is willing to sacrifice something to have another?

Look around, does it? Maybe you've been too busy chastising socialist concepts to realize that we are unable to get out of an economic crisis over here? Maybe you haven't noticed that CEOs and founders are profiting from the recession while the middle class gradually begins to starve?

Only I can decide ultimately what something is worth to me... there is no way to "collectively" decide the value of things.

Socialism proposes that this is possible - and thus it is essentially a very eloquent insanity.

So let's not even think about integrating socialist ideas into our society; let's sit around and watch it turn into a fascist corporatocracy because we are afraid of a color. Doesn't get much more superficial than that. This idea is socialist! *label, demonize, ignore*. That's the mature way to handle things .

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by sparrowstail
It's a shame that storing up enough to make it through the season or year or hardship has now become a hobby or obsession or rather a sickness. The pursuit of capital has completely distorted the meaning of life, devoured natural resources, ruined natural wonders and broken backs. We even lumped humans as commodities into this "free" market at one time. Needs no longer are needs but big time wants or rather demands. Today's capitalism is a run away train full of insecurity, greed, ego, power, domination, excess, and shallowness. Capitalism and free market allow for "It's not cheating unless you get caught, but don't worry you can buy your way out of it if you do"

Welcome to humanity my friend... now - can we discuss economic models instead of bemoning the plight of being alive on planet earth?

Nah it's too depressing

Europe is not socialist, it is mostly sociodemocratic. Capitalism is run side by side with social welfare.

The Greek crisis has been brought on mostly by the right wing government, i.e. the capitalists.

The current worldwide recession is due to capitalists moving their businesses to the far east.

The OP is correct in his analysis, but he fails to realize that current capitalism also does not work due to oligopolies...

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by gncnew
Look mate - I'm not trying to judge you here, but I must say that the story that you inherited an estate worth $6 million - from your late parents - who gave you up into an orphanage - so you could "live the life they did"....

Estate? Company. Gave me up to an orphanage? Made me a get a job and move out when I was 16.

What post of mine did you read

.

Oh - and they were scammers and liars...

LUCKY scammers and liars at that, do you propose that the business world is run in a different way? Some entrepreneur you must be! If you deny that this is the best way to get wealth, you know nothing about the corporate world.

I seriously think you just made that up to try and give your argument validity. And the sad thing is you didn't have to.

I'm glad you're here to depict my life experiences for me

. Thank you for just admitting that you are stubborn and your uneducated "opinion" trumps everyone else's reality in that box you're mind is trapped in. I suppose you want me to scan in a bank statement that has all of my personal information on it

? Now, continue judging me based on nothing -- I'm sorry for seeing both sides of the fence when you only see one. There's a word for ignoring facts provided by others and continuing to argue your point... it's on the tip of my tongue...

We need things to survive. Those things must come at the expense of others.

Must? No. Do? Yes. Your thinking is limited to history, not possibility.

The only reason that it MUST come at the expense of others is because Uncle Sam hates change and he will do anything he can to make sure the idea of shared wealth is demonized by prejudices against "red" ideas. This way, the people who are on top will stay on top and those on the bottom will stay on the bottom -- just the way that the people on top want it because they know no other life. Ignorance runs the world.

Does not the law of supply and demand (while cautiously regulated to avoid collusion and monopoly) do the best job of deciding at what point a person is willing to sacrifice something to have another?

Look around, does it? Maybe you've been too busy chastising socialist concepts to realize that we are unable to get out of an economic crisis over here? Maybe you haven't noticed that CEOs and founders are profiting from the recession while the middle class gradually begins to starve?

Only I can decide ultimately what something is worth to me... there is no way to "collectively" decide the value of things.

Socialism proposes that this is possible - and thus it is essentially a very eloquent insanity.

So let's not even think about integrating socialist ideas into our society; let's sit around and watch it turn into a fascist corporatocracy because we are afraid of a color. Doesn't get much more superficial than that. This idea is socialist! *label, demonize, ignore*. That's the mature way to handle things

.

edit on 19-10-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-10-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

Dude, I don't need any proof... I just think you're making stuff up... but who cares... either you are or you aren't.. I don't need to believe it for it to be true or untrue.

Now as to one thing you said in your REALLY long diatribe about "possibilities"...

Um, sorry but unless you can do everything and produce everything you need to live in today's world - the things you need must come at the expense of someone else. They must labor - and you must benefit from that labor... just like you labor and someone benefits from the fruits of your labor.

That's the free market.

And again - I didn't say we can't integrate some socialist principles into our society... hell that's already happened.

I said that "Socialism" is not the answer and it's simply unsustainable.

But I do like that line about how we say "must" because we only look at history - not the possibilities... ROFL.... no, really... that's funny.

I'm glad you're so enlightened... how's that working for you? Oh wait.. .that's right - you're worth a cool $6 mil...

Originally posted by masterp
Europe is not socialist, it is mostly sociodemocratic. Capitalism is run side by side with social welfare.

The Greek crisis has been brought on mostly by the right wing government, i.e. the capitalists.

The current worldwide recession is due to capitalists moving their businesses to the far east.

The OP is correct in his analysis, but he fails to realize that current capitalism also does not work due to oligopolies...

Why do oligopolies exist though? Through misguided and/or mis-motivated regulation do these things exist.

The system is not the problem - the administration of it is.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... so to speak.

reply to post by gncnew


sorry, dear, I am lower middle class....
my purpose in life is to work my arse off so the rich can get richer, and the poor can have a better standard of living than I do...
I only had the funds to save one house....or at least try to...
ya see, those money hungry capitalistic thieves in wall street, have just about obliterated the property rights of much of the real estate in this country! I got a feeling they have done such a great job at this that well...most of the homes are now worth next to nothing, the chain of ownership has been tarnished, and well, if there's a big gap in that chain, ain't no title insurance company gonna insure it...so no bank will give a loan to someone to buy it, so well, it's not reallly possible to sell it, so....it's next to worthless!!!

but, well, nice to see how my previous comment just flew over your head!!

what is unsustainable if our wastefullness of our natural resources......after all, we can print as much money as we want, as our gov't is proving that to us now! but well, sooner or later, our resources will be depleted at the rate we are going.....
and well, I don't think it matters if we run socialist, communist, capitalist, or whatever.....I think this would be true with all of them, because there will always be some who have an insane abundance of money to waste buying an insane amount of everything, all of which requires those natural resources!!

ya know, kind of like gore and his friends all hoping on private jets, flying to europe just gripe about how I should be riding a bike the ten or so blocks I have to go to get to work or I will kill the planet!!!

but, continue on.......
I know, all those little gov't aide programs the gov't is giving to people, many of whom are working in various fields and heck, you might just be facing one of the recipients at the cash register the next time you are at the grocery store, well, they are just eating the money right out of your pocket!!! it would be better if they just left your money alone, lived in the streets, ate out of the garbage cans.....and then went to work and handled your food as they ring it through the register!

reply to post by gncnew


Socialism as an economic structure is impossible to sustain for any lengthly period of time.

The economist Ludwig Von Mises definitively proved this in his work Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth.

In the work, Mises lays out the Economic Claculation Problem which proves beyond all doubt that socialism can not work as a socio-economic system.

It is literally impossible.

It will eventually implode under the weight of its own hubris, violence, and looting.

In some ways, a perverse side of me wants to argue in favor of socialism, because I know it will hasten the end of our government the more it is implemented. Ultimately, that's the goal.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by gncnew

 

sorry, dear, I am lower middle class....
my purpose in life is to work my arse off so the rich can get richer, and the poor can have a better standard of living than I do...
I only had the funds to save one house....or at least try to...
ya see, those money hungry capitalistic thieves in wall street, have just about obliterated the property rights of much of the real estate in this country! I got a feeling they have done such a great job at this that well...most of the homes are now worth next to nothing, the chain of ownership has been tarnished, and well, if there's a big gap in that chain, ain't no title insurance company gonna insure it...so no bank will give a loan to someone to buy it, so well, it's not reallly possible to sell it, so....it's next to worthless!!!

but, well, nice to see how my previous comment just flew over your head!!

what is unsustainable if our wastefullness of our natural resources......after all, we can print as much money as we want, as our gov't is proving that to us now! but well, sooner or later, our resources will be depleted at the rate we are going.....
and well, I don't think it matters if we run socialist, communist, capitalist, or whatever.....I think this would be true with all of them, because there will always be some who have an insane abundance of money to waste buying an insane amount of everything, all of which requires those natural resources!!

ya know, kind of like gore and his friends all hoping on private jets, flying to europe just gripe about how I should be riding a bike the ten or so blocks I have to go to get to work or I will kill the planet!!!

but, continue on.......
I know, all those little gov't aide programs the gov't is giving to people, many of whom are working in various fields and heck, you might just be facing one of the recipients at the cash register the next time you are at the grocery store, well, they are just eating the money right out of your pocket!!! it would be better if they just left your money alone, lived in the streets, ate out of the garbage cans.....and then went to work and handled your food as they ring it through the register!

See now you're trying to confuse the basic premise that Socialism is not a viable option for the United States as any kind of "solution" with conserving natural resources.

Economic models do not spend or conserve natural resources... that's simply the demand of humanity and the needs of progress and population growth.

China is burning through their natural resources faster than anyone - and they're much more "Socialistic" than anyone else left in the world.

Socialism v/s Capitalism is simply about who owns the means of production and the resources - not how much of those things are being used.

... Sorry to see the entire point of this thread has flown over your head...

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by gncnew

 

*edit to shorten quotes*

I personally hate both ends of the spectrum and forced social engineering that has taken place throughout the world. Becuase in my mind both create a society that ignores the plight of our neighbour, be it thinking it is the states job to deal with the problem or thinking that as the individual is blame it is down to them alone to deal with their problem.

A real community is in my opinion and expereince not like that, but the issue in my mind is what makes a real community work can not be scaled up to county, state or national level, hence why all these ideals in my opinion do not work in the real world.

I'll ask you two questions:

- How many of you "soup kitchen" people belong to a church?
- What percentage of people in your local "community" example are part of the support mechanism, what percentage are part of those being supported, and what part watch from the sidelines?

While what we "should" be doing is good and all, and some follow through - the New Deal was because there simply are not enough charitable people/organizations to fill the need.

And as the scale of "donors" grows - so does the scale of "needy"... dirty part of humanity, that.

To be honest I am not a "soup kitchen" person, but my relatives in the US are... and they are fairly religious in their beleifs (I tend to clash with them a little on that)

However locally, religion plays little part on the approach taken here,, which is community based around societies, which a large proportion of the community belong to..

For example Cuckfield declared UDI (Universal Declaration of Independence) in 1965 in a row with local Government, and have sold votes in the town since to raise money that can ONLY be used locally.. they have their own stamps/money (the Cuckoo) and passports..

The district I live in is not far from Cuckfield and we to have our own money (Lewisian Pound) and declare independence each year, while cash also buys votes for our president :-) As for involvement, everyone is involved in the societies, with only a few sitting on the sidelines while all the money raised is spent locally supporting the community, decided on by the community.

We are in my opinion compasionate and social creatures at heart, and supporting each other (in our communities) something that happens naturally without state intervention.. and it is (*in my opinion) state intervention with the ism's that really harm our communities, irrespective of it being capitalism or socialism, all are unsustainable when they are driven by a State with an agenda of control.

reply to post by gncnew


I don't really think it has flown over my head......

which countries buy most of that chinese production.....

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by gncnew

 

*edit to shorten quotes*

I personally hate both ends of the spectrum and forced social engineering that has taken place throughout the world. Becuase in my mind both create a society that ignores the plight of our neighbour, be it thinking it is the states job to deal with the problem or thinking that as the individual is blame it is down to them alone to deal with their problem.

A real community is in my opinion and expereince not like that, but the issue in my mind is what makes a real community work can not be scaled up to county, state or national level, hence why all these ideals in my opinion do not work in the real world.

I'll ask you two questions:

- How many of you "soup kitchen" people belong to a church?
- What percentage of people in your local "community" example are part of the support mechanism, what percentage are part of those being supported, and what part watch from the sidelines?

While what we "should" be doing is good and all, and some follow through - the New Deal was because there simply are not enough charitable people/organizations to fill the need.

And as the scale of "donors" grows - so does the scale of "needy"... dirty part of humanity, that.

To be honest I am not a "soup kitchen" person, but my relatives in the US are... and they are fairly religious in their beleifs (I tend to clash with them a little on that)

However locally, religion plays little part on the approach taken here,, which is community based around societies, which a large proportion of the community belong to..

For example Cuckfield declared UDI (Universal Declaration of Independence) in 1965 in a row with local Government, and have sold votes in the town since to raise money that can ONLY be used locally.. they have their own stamps/money (the Cuckoo) and passports..

The district I live in is not far from Cuckfield and we to have our own money (Lewisian Pound) and declare independence each year, while cash also buys votes for our president :-) As for involvement, everyone is involved in the societies, with only a few sitting on the sidelines while all the money raised is spent locally supporting the community, decided on by the community.

We are in my opinion compasionate and social creatures at heart, and supporting each other (in our communities) something that happens naturally without state intervention.. and it is (*in my opinion) state intervention with the ism's that really harm our communities, irrespective of it being capitalism or socialism, all are unsustainable when they are driven by a State with an agenda of control.

edit on 20/10/10 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)

I don't disagree with your general premise, I just don't think that we can apply this as an economic model - especially in the world we live in today....

They system you describe is a local community helping itself in a charitable way - but they still have economic needs outside of the community and capitalistic models are needed to bring in those resources.

Does that make sense?

reply to post by dawnstar

sorry, dear, I am lower middle class....
my purpose in life is to work my arse off so the rich can get richer, and the poor can have a better standard of living than I do...

You work for your employer, who pays you for your services. Your employer usually only turns about a 2-5% profit - even mega-corporations like Walmart only turn a 2-5% net profit. Your employer had the stones to get an idea and run with it - finding people willing to invest in his/her idea and having the management skills (and luck) to pull it off. Because of this - they have a job to offer you. Should they not be able to reap the rewards of succeeding where, statistically, over 60% fail in the first year? Should you not be rewarded for aiding them? You are rewarded and compensated for your efforts.

Now - the government likes to say that, since you are earning a pay check, you have to give some of that money to the government. But how much? And to what ends?

Sounds like your real issue is with government, whether you realize it or not.

ya see, those money hungry capitalistic thieves in wall street, have just about obliterated the property rights of much of the real estate in this country! I got a feeling they have done such a great job at this that well...most of the homes are now worth next to nothing, the chain of ownership has been tarnished, and well, if there's a big gap in that chain, ain't no title insurance company gonna insure it...so no bank will give a loan to someone to buy it, so well, it's not reallly possible to sell it, so....it's next to worthless!!!

The sub-prime market burst simply wouldn't have happened were it not for government 'regulation' of the lending market. No bank would -ever- give such high-risk loans were it necessary for it to be financially responsible for all loaned assets. But who needs to be financially responsible when the government is bound by contract to back your assets should they default?

Don't get me wrong - there will always be wolves out there who will rip you off. You will have this in any economic system. However, you are the only one who is responsible for you and your finances - a fool and his money are soon parted. This is true anywhere - no amount of government regulation or hand-holding can resolve this. Put simply - don't be a fool.

what is unsustainable if our wastefullness of our natural resources......after all, we can print as much money as we want, as our gov't is proving that to us now! but well, sooner or later, our resources will be depleted at the rate we are going.....

There are only two resources on this planet that can be genuinely depleted. First is the sun - it will eventually burn out. Second is any material with a radioactive half-life (that will eventually decay). Everything else is part of a chemical cycle driven by the sun's radiated energy. The materials we have do not leave this planet and can be recycled indefinitely until energy from the sun ceases.

We are in no danger of depleting our resources.

I'm all for efficiency and recycling things - I'm a perfectionist, nothing can ever be "too good." But there's no emergency or impending doom hinging on environmental reform.

and well, I don't think it matters if we run socialist, communist, capitalist, or whatever.....I think this would be true with all of them, because there will always be some who have an insane abundance of money to waste buying an insane amount of everything, all of which requires those natural resources!!

One of the most damaging things to the environment is poor farming practices. Lavish spending would generally not include food produced through such methods.

I know, all those little gov't aide programs the gov't is giving to people, many of whom are working in various fields and heck, you might just be facing one of the recipients at the cash register the next time you are at the grocery store, well, they are just eating the money right out of your pocket!!! it would be better if they just left your money alone, lived in the streets, ate out of the garbage cans.....and then went to work and handled your food as they ring it through the register!

Why should they require a government aid program? You realize that one of the largest expenses a person faces is housing, correct? You do realize that this market has been artificially inflated through the use (and abuse) of government regulations on lending practices? Part of the reason housing is so expensive (or, was - prior to the bubble collapse and prices returning to what they really should have been) was all due to government interference in the market.

The free market revolves around a few things. First - people need things. Second - people produce things. Third - people who produce things that are needed are to be compensated and taken care of. On small scales - money is not all that necessary - everyone knows everyone and your services are priceless and essential to survival of the community. People from outside of the community, however, are unknown - money (or some form of currency) is necessary to establish their contributions to society and how it is to be exchanged. In large societies like are own, where people are virtually nameless - currency is nearly essential for all transactions as no one knows who you are or what you have done or made that is worth their exchange.

Thus - if left without government programs and regulations to exploit (or minimal government regulation) few free-market systems would ever see working people without the possibility of attaining a home.

However - it should also be noted that a truly free market system would allow for servants who work for substantially reduced wages in exchange for room, board, and food - or even a complete lack of monetary compensation for such a position. Employment would be freely negotiated and settled between the employer and employee with minimal government interference except in judicial review of contract breeches.

But there are few situations where a home would be so outrageously expensive as to not be affordable. Businesses would spring up to target markets that have money to spend on housing, but cannot afford from x or y. Is it going to be a stay at the Marriot? Most likely not. However - presuming that market has respect for their investment - it should be clean and serviceable.

And don't get me wrong - I have no problem helping someone better their life. I have a problem with guaranteeing someone a standard of living. The two are considerably different. I want to see people rise up and "live the dream." There are very few people who could honestly say they feel any differently. The problem, however, is when someone can pop out babies like an easy-bake oven because it gives them more money from the government, or can hang around on unemployment for years, or buy food with food stamps and blow their income on booze or illicit substances.

That is not what those programs are for. Everyone has some low points in their life - but instead of relying upon the big government to provide for these people - it would be better to use city or state programs that can rely on more personal involvement and oversight. Rather than shelling out money to pay for social programs, perhaps it would be better to offer incentives (tax or otherwise) for aiding those in our society who need a leg-up, directly. It's harder to abuse someone's generosity when they are personally involved, rather than having part of their pay-check disappear.

Every 'socialist' European country can only afford their level of socialized programs because of a long history of exploitation of the resources of the so called -'third-world'. IT can only continue if they continue to figure out how to bring in money.

reply to post by justadood


In all honesty, though, the same can be said about free market/enterprise. Our economy would not have grown nearly as rapidly were we not able to outsource a lot of labor-intensive jobs to China, Taiwan, etc.

We pump money into their economy and we get a discount off of what it would cost to manufacture here.

Thought it could also be argued that government regulations and successful lobbying on behalf of unions have artificially inflated labor costs in the U.S. and the cost of living along with it - generating an employment atmosphere that favors outsourcing....

reply to post by Aim64C


I don't view my bosses as rich, so obviously they aren't the ones I think I am working to make rich.....
the gov't has social welfare, and corporate welfare......and this was what I was talking about.....

I don't think we will see eye to eye on what caused the housing bust....
to me, if those banks know that they can turn those mortgages over the same day that they've been written up to be sliced and diced, well...
why should they worry about weather or not that mortgage would be paid back...
and considering that state real estate laws were completely ignored and bypassed, that some of the mortgages were sold more than once, that fraud has been found throughout the entire process...seems to me that regulation wasn't the problem, but rather, the regulators weren't regulating crap!

as far as the cost of rented a home.....well...let me tell ya a story...
the landlord that owned the apartment complex that we were renting from got a gov't grant to put gas heat in all the apartments, so he did this. then well, hud told him they would give him more for the rent in these places because of the gas heat....so he hiked everybody's rent up about $50 or so dollars...and well, we moved out, hud wasn't paying sqaut to help us with our rent, and well...we just couldn't find the new rent even close to affodable....
so, well, I worked hard....so that the poor could have a better standard of living than we had.....and the rich could become richer...
my tax money helped put the gas in, and because the gas was put in, the rent was hiked up, and we ended up having to move to an apartment that wouldn't meet the hud qualifications so we could afford it!!!

as far as our resources being automatically replacable....
umm...how long does it take a tree to grow big enough to be usefull?? how long does it take for metals to form? of course, two resources that are gonna be troublesome in the future is water, and potassium....both needed to grow food...so well.....we'd better hope that they replenish real fast..

reply to post by gncnew


What you said does make sense..

I just wish it wasn't true

reply to post by dawnstar

I don't view my bosses as rich, so obviously they aren't the ones I think I am working to make rich.....
the gov't has social welfare, and corporate welfare......and this was what I was talking about.....

Then we agree. The problem is not corporations, but government interfering in the natural cycle of markets and economies.

I don't think we will see eye to eye on what caused the housing bust....
to me, if those banks know that they can turn those mortgages over the same day that they've been written up to be sliced and diced, well...

money.howstuffworks.com...

www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com... (note the date on this one)

Those all go about skin-deep on the issue. Corporations lending money to high risk loans. However - no business would do this unless they knew they could turn a profit in the face of the higher risk of defaults. A business exists to turn a profit and compete (thus, average profit margin is about 2-5%, unless you are talking about non-competitive markets such as pharmaceuticals where the profit margin is about 10%). Taking on unnecessary risk on such a mass scale should simply not have happened.

It may sound backwards to people conditioned to think capitalism is dog-eat-dog... but a business will strive to maintain a 2-5% profit margin while remaining competitive (so they do not lose market share) - that would mean the 'prime directive' of a business is to adapt, survive, and grow at a relatively stable rate.

So why would so many banks and lending institutions forsake this principle? Greed? Well - possibly, but short-sighted greed if it was. Remember - while the profit margins on some of these loans were astronomical, their risk of default was also astronomical - greed is one motivator, but a basic understanding of numbers should indicate that no business can survive with such lending practices. So, something had to make these banks think they were relatively secure in giving these loans out....

www.lewrockwell.com...

Thus, a market of nutty mortgages, with no docs and, goofy ARM's structures, developed, one that only an econometrician with nutty equations in hand would buy – encouraged by a Fed pumping money in so that real estate flippers could hide the fact the mortgages were nutty.

Along this happy road of Equation Roulette, before the subprime crisis started to bloom, the government stepped in with small changes in some regulations as to who could get mortgage financing. Naturally, the econometricians in their models didn't include for a change in regulations, but this change in regulations started the subprime crisis. At the margin, these regulation changes took out some of the real estate flippers. For the first time in decades, there was a small decline in the true number of real estate buyers.

The few smart, more detailed oriented, buyers of subprime paper picked this trend up and stopped buying the subprime paper. The Fed was still printing money, it was just starting to be re-directed. The smarter players just started to put their money into LBO's and private equity deals instead of mortgage securities.

The decline in subprime paper buyers, coupled with the regulation changes, formed the start of the subprime crisis in near perfect storm timing, since these factors dovetailed with the first zero percent and 1% ARM mortgages coming due for readjustment and the Fed notching interest rates up a bit.

This was a formula for disaster. Equation roulette was about to blow up another batch of econometricians. As default rates climbed, more and more subprime paper buyers backed away from the subprime market, until we have reached the point today where there is near zero liquidity in the subprime market.

why should they worry about weather or not that mortgage would be paid back...
and considering that state real estate laws were completely ignored and bypassed, that some of the mortgages were sold more than once, that fraud has been found throughout the entire process...seems to me that regulation wasn't the problem, but rather, the regulators weren't regulating crap!

That's what happens when you regulate via a penal system. The only time you get pulled for review is when things are looking bad.

Of course, proactive regulation may as well make business and government the same thing and we'd have ourselves some fascism.

as far as the cost of rented a home.....well...let me tell ya a story...
the landlord that owned the apartment complex that we were renting from got a gov't grant to put gas heat in all the apartments, so he did this. then well, hud told him they would give him more for the rent in these places because of the gas heat....so he hiked everybody's rent up about $50 or so dollars...and well, we moved out, hud wasn't paying sqaut to help us with our rent, and well...we just couldn't find the new rent even close to affodable....
so, well, I worked hard....so that the poor could have a better standard of living than we had.....and the rich could become richer...
my tax money helped put the gas in, and because the gas was put in, the rent was hiked up, and we ended up having to move to an apartment that wouldn't meet the hud qualifications so we could afford it!!!

I don't really see much of a problem, here. Ideally, I would prefer businesses not receive government grants for many things. On the other hand - it seems things would not be all that different for you had the cost of installing gas come from the business' revenues. The landlord should have done a little better research on his existing clientele and negotiated prices accordingly - but that's his/her prerogative.

Sure - I'd be a little upset were I in your shoes - but I also have a different view of what I feel I am entitled to. Renting an apartment is just that - renting an apartment. The owner has to pay on the loan to build the place (most likely), pay for maintenance (if you have seen what some people do to apartments - you can understand why this would be costly), pay taxes, pay insurance (for all kinds of things), etc. Everyone in an apartment is sharing those costs so that they can have a place to live.

I would have done things differently were I the owner... but I'm not quite sure why one would install a utility that was more expensive than existing utilities (I presume gas, in this case, is more costly than electric). Many apartments are on their own electric meters - and I presume electricity was the defacto method of heating. So, I'm not really sure what prompted the change - or if it was even a wise decision.

Regardless - real-estate prices have been drastically inflated since the 80s and it's only gotten worse since then. Prices on your rent are not likely going to go down - the loan they have is for real-estate as it stood in whatever year it was bought and constructed. Prices for home-ownership have gone down, particularly if you can pick up a foreclosed home - but it's gotten tougher to get a loan.

Both of my parents died within three years and effectively left me and my brothers looking for a home (no way in hell I could replace my father's income like that) - so, I can't really say I am all that sympathetic.

as far as our resources being automatically replacable....
umm...how long does it take a tree to grow big enough to be usefull??

Depends upon the tree and what it is to be used for. Tree farms are far more than adequate to supply our needs - paper can be recycled quite effectively, and there are a number of other wood fibers that can be exploited and are biproducts of other agricultural activities.

how long does it take for metals to form?

About as long as it takes to pick up the scraps/ore and toss them into a smelting furnace. Well - you usually don't want to use a wet-hearth... moisture of any kind has a tendency to, literally, explode - so use of a dry-hearth is recommended... so you're not 'tossing' it in there, so much as you're letting it melt and drip into the furnace.

of course, two resources that are gonna be troublesome in the future is water, and potassium....both needed to grow food...so well.....we'd better hope that they replenish real fast..

There's a thing called the water cycle.... I'm not going to bother explaining it, just google it or take a trip to the local science center.

Potassium is also not a problem - when plants take organic and inorganic compounds from the soil, they use the sun's energy to catalyze endothermic reactions that build more complex molecules (such as sugars and a number of what we refer to as vitamins). When the plant is eaten (or allowed to decay), these molecules are broken up and the energy within them released. These compounds are then excreted and -eventually- placed back into the soil where they can be taken back up by plants.

Genetic engineering can drastically expand this process to include a number of chemicals and compounds. Entire industrial complexes could be replaced by genetically engineered soy (the bean is safe, the leaves/stalks are harvested for processing). Tea could be engineered to contain far more nutritional value, or to contain mild antidepressants (or other medicinal compounds). Mint could be engineered to have antimicrobial properties and become a staple ingredient in topical ointments.

But this part of the discussion is threatening to veer off-topic.