Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of mercantilism. It was fostered by the Reformation, which sanctioned hard work and frugality, and by the rise of industry during the Industrial Revolution, especially the English textile industry (16th–18th centuries). Unlike earlier systems, capitalism used the excess of production over consumption to enlarge productive capacity rather than investing it in economically unproductive enterprises such as palaces or cathedrals. The strong national states of the mercantilist era provided the social conditions, such as uniform monetary systems and legal codes, necessary for the rise of capitalism. The ideology of classical capitalism was expressed in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), and Smith's free-market theories were widely adopted in the 19th century.
Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Hello again, tom:

Oh, well then.. I've been mistaken.. The southern slave owners were WONDERFUL people.

excon

I did not say they were . The plantation owners and the poor whites despised the social mobility associated with capitalism . The rich planter class were at best paternalistic and at their worst sadistic. The poor white liked the system because no matter how poor they were ;they were still a class about the slave. But make no mistake ;antebellum South was not a capitalist economy . The plantation property owner had a prebourgeois mentality. Oh they liked their wealth good enough ;but it was not as important to them as how slaveholdings elevated their social clout. What was more important to slaveowners was membership in the ruling class.

Hello again, tom:

You've always known more stuff like that than me.

Anyway, the pres said he ain't going to raise squat, and he ain't going to negotiate.. We're Going to default if it's up to you guys - and it is. I'm sorry, I mean shut down - but just a little bit - ain't nothing to get upset over.

I think the Tea Party will be blamed and will be sent packing. Course, I COULD be wrong.. I was wrong back '02.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

slavery was not a product of capitalism .The rest your critique is part of the business cycle and poor government intervention (inflation) .

---

Hold on there, inflation is the result of government, no, Tom, inflation is the result of greed, when supply is poor, prices increase, government doesn't control supply. You sound as though you think government has a role and all this time you have been telling us government should have no pole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Hold on there, inflation is the result of government, no, Tom, inflation is the result of greed, when supply is poor, prices increase, government doesn't control supply. You sound as though you think government has a role and all this time you have been telling us government should have no pole

---

But government controls the money supply which has a profound affect on the price of goods...

But government policy often creates bubbles. Yes I say government should not have a role . I didn't say that the US government hasn't played a role. All you need to do is see how government policy created a housing bubble here.

Tom government didn't create mortgage backed securities, corporate greed fueled the sale of these worthless securities around the world, why? Because the banks wanted to get the junk off their balance sheet, to lie about their true position.

The role of government is regulation and facilitation. Nothing wrong with government promoting home ownership, but it is the banks who took advantage of the situation and created a bubble by failing to make proper prudential arrangements

Bs ,you conveniently overlook the role of Fannie Mae in this .you conveniently overlook the role of government in pressuring the financial institutions to issue sub prime loans.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

you conveniently overlook the role of government in pressuring the financial institutions to issue sub prime loans.

---

Oh, that's right... We're reminded that Barney Frank TOLD the banks to LOSE all their money, and they promptly DID.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha..

Excon

Umm yeah... the Government sweetened the pot by saying that they would guarantee any loans banks made while trying to provide "Affordable Housing". Frank ,Dodd ,former HUD boss Andrew Cuomo and others were directly involved . Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were instructed to cover bad loans.

There was an additional 'incentive' in banks trying to avoid potential discrimination lawsuits from community activists like Barack Obama who was the lawyer in a landmark case against Citibank. And how did that work out ? Well ,Citi reduced it's lending standards and there were 186 new home owners... well except only 19 of them today still own their homes with clean credit ratings.

Under the terms and the threats banks made loans to everyone, and then sold the mortgages to the Feds, who had promised to buy them.After all ;under those terms ,the only real risk to the banks was in not making loans, and having the Government come after them.
It completely changed the dynamics of the market . It no longer mattered that the loans were no good because there was no risk in losing money from foreclosure now that the Government institutions were guaranteeing the loans. The dynamics changed to volume of loans ,not the quality of the loans. Make no mistake . The whole problem was in the government interventions in the market.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

The whole problem was in the government interventions in the market.

---

Nahhh. The market was REDLINING neighborhoods. Black people could NOT get loans no matter HOW qualified they were. Who, if NOT the government, would protect these people FROM that kind of blatant discrimination?

To right wingers, that meant that Barney Frank TOLD the banks to LOSE all their money, so they DID...

Tom, my friend, SOMETIMES I'm amazed at your recall of history... And, SOMETIMES I'm amazed at your INABILITY to recall history. This is one of those times.

Excon

I recall redlining as the excuse used in Obama's lawsuit . The fact remains that issuing subprime mortgages as a remedy for redlining was fundamentally flawed . Ask those 167 former homeowners how that worked out for them . The government nearly took down the economy in their attempt at their perception of fairness. If you told me that someone who was qualified under good loan practices was being denied a mortgage because of race then you would have a point. If you tell me that mortgage standards had to be reduced to the point that there was a good chance to default. Then the issue isn't race ;it's a wealth issue.

Race is always and issue, lack of wealth is always an issue. Affirmative action in various forms, good or bad took place because these factors are always an issue. You don't have public housing over there so a government initiative was necessary, that it was mismanaged in so many forms is perhaps to be expected, that it was exploited for profit was reprehensible

Quote:

---

You don't have public housing over there so a government initiative was necessary,

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

The fact remains that issuing subprime mortgages as a remedy for redlining was fundamentally flawed .

---

IF it WAS a fact, I'd agree. But, it isn't.. The law required banks to CONSIDER applications from previously red lined neighborhoods... NOT give loans to ANYBODY who asks that would NEVER be paid back, resulting in the bank LOSING all its money.

I SAY that tongue in cheek, but your argument is EXACTLY that... You say the banks had no choice BUT to lose all their money.. It's LUDICROUS on its face - yet you stick with it.

The fact is, they issued sub prime loans to ANYBODY, because they didn't CARE about default. They didn't care because they UNLOADED 'em just as soon as they got 'em, making jillions in the process, and sticking some other sucker with the bad loans..

But, you have YOUR view of history, and I have the truth.

Come on. If I ran a bank, and Barney Frank passed a law that was absolutely, positively, guaranteed to bankrupt my bank, I'd close up shop and open a haberdashery..

Excon

Quote:

---

The fact is, they issued sub prime loans to ANYBODY, because they didn't CARE about default. They didn't care because they UNLOADED 'em just as soon as they got 'em, making jillions in the process, and sticking some other sucker with the bad loans..

---

No kidding... they unloaded them to the government institution that was mandated to overwrite these loans... Fannie and Freddie.

But you are wrong . Had Citi and the other banks not issued sub prime loans after the Obama lawsuit ,the lawsuits would've continued .

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

Had Citi and the other banks not issued sub prime loans after the Obama lawsuit ,the lawsuits would've continued .

---

Ok, I stand corrected... Barney Frank didn't make the banks LOSE all their money, it was Obama..

Okee doakee...

You're SOOO stuck on that right wing garbage that you can't see how utterly RIDICULOUS it sounds.

Quote:

---

they unloaded them to the government institution that was mandated to overwrite these loans... Fannie and Freddie

---

Nahhh.. MOST of 'em were bundled into packages and sold on the secondary market to the WORLD.

You didn't know that?? Or does KNOWING that conflict with the right wing argument.

Excon

And your left wing Democrat apologist argument sounds more absurd . Subprime mortgages were imposed on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and all the other mortgage lenders in order to create more “fairness” and allow everyone to have “the right” to own a home whether they could actually afford to do so or not. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “Government Sponsored Enterprises,”(GSEs) .Fannie and Freddie began bundling together thousands of riskier and ever riskier mortgages into giant mortgage backed securities to advance Democrat policies, large investment houses continued to gobble them up. After all, this was an arm of the United States Government... and the United States Government ALWAYS pays its debts.

Of course Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie in an attempt to make them more accountable .

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

---

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com

... in fact , he tried 17 times .
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Michael Barone (usnews.com)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

.....in fact , he tried 17 times .
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Michael Barone (usnews.com)

---

Yeah, that's just Fox News propaganda.



I believe Barney Frank said they were "fundamentally sound" right before saying something about less affordable housing being available if Congress did something to rein them in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)

---

Hi Tom what is the point of a link that leads nowhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and your left wing Democrat apologist argument sounds more absurd . Subprime mortgages were imposed on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and all the other mortgage lenders in order to create more “fairness” and allow everyone to have “the right” to own a home whether they could actually afford to do so or not. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “Government Sponsored Enterprises,”(GSEs) .Fannie and Freddie began bundling together thousands of riskier and ever riskier mortgages into giant mortgage backed securities to advance Democrat policies, large investment houses continued to gobble them up. After all, this was an arm of the United States Government .... and the United States Government ALWAYS pays its debts.

---

If this were so how come the US government didn't have all the liability, but no, these securities were marketted around the world as prime investments so that the financial crisis experienced by the US became global when their bubble burst. Tom, even my local city council as caught in it losing millions, why on Earth would they be investing in the US mortgage market if a bunch of shonks hadn't sold them a bill of goods with an AAA rating.
Did the US government pay that debt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Hi Tom what is the point of a link that leads nowhere?

---

Ask Wikipedia.

Section 8 (housing)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Ask Wikipedia.

Section 8 (housing)

---

Rental assistance is not public housing

Oh you want those old failed projects of the 1960s .I get it .

Just curious where did all that money everybody lost go?

I know when I lost money on the deal. When the government decided to bail out their favorite banks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Just curious where did all that money everybody lost go?

---

It went into the pockets of the shonks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I know when I lost money on the deal. When the government decided to bail out their favorite banks.

---

My bail out would have been at 15%, compounded daily, but then Europe and the rest of the world would have fallen off the earth. But then jailing CEO's, and bankers along with the ratings agencies would have been a national holiday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

My bail out would have been at 15%, compounded daily, but then Europe and the rest of the world would have fallen off the earth. But then jailing CEO's, and bankers along with the ratings agencies would have been a national holiday.

---

If there was malfeasance or fraud then there should be legal action taken . I'm not the one who thinks the banks are too big to fail and need protection.

We could at least search them thoroughly first make sure we get the loot they stole back before we jail 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

if there was malfeasance or fraud then there should be legal action taken . I'm not the one who thinks the banks are too big to fail and need protection.

---

What planet do you live on? Prosecution only happens when they can compile a clear case and when a deal isn't done, some civil class action has been successful in recovering damages so there must have been evidence of "malfeasance or fraud", but did they contravene the criminal code, it all passed through too many hands

I am speaking the way it should be not the system the statist have devised .

I don't accept that Tom, I think you were expressing the niaive view that justice will be done

Believe what you will

The money game is rigged and manipulated by capitalists, for capitalists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The money game is rigged and manipulated by capitalists, for capitalists.

---

Well obviously they are not going to do it for socialists