I take the opposite view. I think it was government manipulating the market that created the bubble . Today the Fed currency manipulations has caused the stock market bubble that is sure to burst.
|
I take the opposite view. I think it was government manipulating the market that created the bubble . Today the Fed currency manipulations has caused the stock market bubble that is sure to burst.
Hello again,
I just wonder, if you've been appointed to run an agency, let's call it the FTC, and you're from the party who thinks government IS the problem, and in the course of your job, you discover a company violating a particular REGULATION --
What would you do?
excon
PS> Why wouldn't you appoint one of those guys to run the DEA??
You see ;I have no problem with the regulators . I would review the regulations. If let's say as an example your lead regulator at let's say HUD was implementing a policy created by Congress and POTUS that stated that it would be great if people who don't qualifty for home loans should buy homes anyway ;and then ,as the lead regulator ,passed the edict down to his minions to get the institutions he regulates on board... and then surprise surprise... all these new people in the market ,who normally would never qualify for loans but got them anyway has the effect on the housing market that creates an artificial bubble in prices . Well then one should suspect that the market will come crashing down eventually . I find very few instances where it wasn't government manipulations that creates market distortions .
For the corporations the benefit is being able to sell/resell junk derivatives and get rich doing it. What does the government get out of manufacturing a bubble? What's their motive?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It was social engineering .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I hold the opposite view... In fact, the government didn't manipulate derivatives, or credit default swaps, because it had NO IDEA what they were, and they STILL don't. In fact, it was that LACK of regulation that CAUSED the meltdown to occur, and it's going to do it again. That's because those industries/financial instruments are STILL NOT regulated and are not about to be.
Buy gold.
excon
I don't understand what that means in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah, it probably was... But, when social engineering meets YOUR ends, it's cool... The drug war, of course, is social engineering personified. And, you guys enforce YOUR social engineering with guns and prison... The Democrats use sympathy. I like the Democrats approach better.
excon
Congratualtions Ex I agree with you but regulation is inherently anti free market and we all know that is sacrosanct or at least the ability to cheat you neighbour isQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
A free market WITHOUT regulation is anarchy. Even the game of Monopoly has rules.
excon
Some are against any government intervention, like the nuts who wanted to keep edison light bulbs on the market, instead of cheaper, more efficient pigtails. Not hard to see its about changes for the better, or holding on to old outdated ideas in the face of progress.
Fear of change is real, and the conservatives are really scared of Government, and want to shrink it instead of make it more efficient.
Nuts? Cheaper? More efficient? In what world should hating toxic bulbs that cost many times over an incandescent, don't last near the time they're supposed to, don't always fit fixtures and put out crappy light make someone nuts?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It's not brain surgery, CFL's suck and the American people know it - from experience. It's not a fear of the unknown, it's a hatred of the known... plus that stop telling us what we have to buy bullsh*t.
My point you obviously missed Steve, was about spending time on a freakin' light bulb bill when what we need is a jobs bill.
Open your mind and see that America is much more than just an extreme right wing view point, or their fears and insecurities. I daresay, you are outnumbered, even in your own party that you try to run through fear, and intimidation. You guys blew it already in 7 months. I mean are you taking Michelle Bachmann for president seriously?? If you are, you are as crazy as she is. She is a nut job you know.
Raise the ceiling and be done so we can move to the next challenge. I would just make 'em vote, no debate, yes, or NO!
Hold the line... enough debt is enough.
So far this year the government has collected $1.647687 trillion in tax revenue, It needs to pay out $150.837 billion in debt service . So this is only a question of financing an ever expanding Levithian .
As for the next "challenge " how about a budget ? The Republican House passed one that Harry Reid will not allow to go to a Senate vote .The House Reps did their job. The Senate is the branch blocking a functional government. The only vote the Senate took on a budget was to unanimously reject the President's proposal . So who is showing responsible leadership and who is playing political games ?
And BTW... the CFL light decision is foolish policy that needs immediate reversal .
LOL, what is it with you guys and making sh*t up? I have offered no hints as to who I might support other than to say Perry would be better than Obama.
You guys keep talking about that alleged "extreme right wing" that likes to play on people's "fears and insecurities." What the hell is that kind of talk but intimidation and playing on others fear and insecurities? Excon is doing just that, just like the president, the Democrats, the media, liberal pundits everywhere - warning of the coming catastrope if Republicans don't cave to the man-child's demands.
So if default would be the catastrophe y'all are saying, why the heck won't Obama agree to a short term deal to avert said catastrophe? If anyone is willing to ruin the economy for political gain it's Obama, because it's ALL about HIM, not the "common good" as you like to say.
Geez, enough of that crap. We're not stupid.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
HIS demands?? HIS?? You don't appear to understand the situation...
What else is new?
excon
I asked tom but he never answered - what does Obama have to gain from ruining the economy? Because you've mentioned this several times.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm not tom. So when did I mention it several times?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
What would he have to gain? You tell me, he's the one the won't agree to a short term deal. Apparently he thinks allowing this alleged economic ruin is better than slugging it out next year in the heat of the campaign and taking time away from his campaigning and fund raising. It's either politics or policy. If he wants to save us from this 'ruin' he can agree to a short-term deal or negotiate in good faith instead of throwing tantrums and walking out. Otherwise it's all politics from the perpetual campaigner.
You like to insult our intelligence instead of discussing things honestly. What else is new?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The horse refuses to run now. He'll run next year? Like my mother says, "Do it now and get it over with and move on to something more fun."Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:50 PM. |