On 10/12/2012 12:29 PM, Ricardo Aráoz wrote:
El 12/10/12 14:12, Nicholas Geti escribió:
I happen to agree with you but when I said the same thing a couple of
emails ago, Old Fart Ricardo called me out, said I need to understand
what is happening in the world. LOL. He is so pathetic.
Nick Geti
So you agree with Leland? All right, then pathetic ord fart Ricardo
will comment between the lines. (see below)
----- Original Message ----- From: "lelandj" <[email protected]>
To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Triumph of the Wrong?
Whoops, let me try that again. LOL :
Yes, the Bush Administration, which was full of neoconservatives,
needed a booming economy to keep the wars in the middle east going,
and to insure President Bush was elected for a second term. Allen
Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, accommodated him with
testimony before congress to the effect that the housing situation
was contained. LOL
Therefore if you have to "contain" the "housing situation" this
implies there is a previously existing crisis, namely the "housing
situation", provoked by savage unregulated capitalism. Just my point,
capitalist systems must be regulated, controlled, and directed towards
the benefit of society as a whole.
Let me begin with the premise that I believe the free enterprise system,
(eg capitalism), is the best economic system in the world, but it's not
perfect. Free enterprise does need some boundaries to ensure it
functions in a legal, responsible, moral, and humane way.
Also, I believe Democracy is the best political system in the world.
Now, to answer your question, If Allen Greenspan testified to congress
that the housing bubble was contained, then, obviously, he knew there
was a housing bubble.
The Bush Administration never included in a budget the billions of
dollars being spent each month for the wars in the middle east,
which over time added up to trillions of dollars, When funding for
the war wore thin, President Bush would simply request funding from
congress on an emergency basis. Congressmen had no choice but to
vote yes to authorize the additional funding; because, it would have
been political suicide, and unconscionable to abandoned the troops.
LOL
So, again you are saying that a democratic system in the style used in
US is unable to resist pressures from the weapon selling companies.
That liberalism, in this case, does not work for the benefit of the
country.
In the USA Democratic system, the people run the country by electing
official to represent them. In order for this system to work, the
people must have access to honest information, usually provided by a
free press.
Since its hard to budget for a war in which the USA is attacked, like WW
II, congress was given the power to authorize all spending relating to
wars. This was fine for the Bush War on Iraq, a preemptive aggression,
which only lasted a short time, (eg perhaps two weeks). Once it became
an occupation, it should have been included in the Bush yearly budget.
However, the occupation of Iraq continued to be handled as a war, (eg
"The War on Terror"), and funded as such, which put congressmen in a
awkward position, whenever President Bush asked for additional funding.
Essentially the free press and the American people were mislead, as to
the true nature and motives at work behind the screen, (eg
Neoconservatism). This was not a failure of the USA Political or
Economic system.
In the mean time the private sector continued it greedy ways by
playing the anything goes, political climate for all it was worth. LOL
Again saying that if the private sector is not contained by the govt
it will act against the best interests of the country. Ergo, the
solution is for the govt to regulate private sector so that it acts in
the benefit of everyone. This is socialism, the rest is a matter of
how much to control the private sector and how to make it contribute
to the country's success as a society.
No, in a free economy where there is a demand, someone will provide the
supply. The stock market or banks are resources that provide the
capital needed to build businesses to supply demands. Most financial
institution, real estate companies, and the stock market have rules to
protect them and others against reckless behavior, but during the events
leading up to the Great Recession of 2007 certain companies
intentionally or unintentionally disregarded rules, laws, procedures,
etc. This was not a failure of capitalism.
#-------------------------------
Excerpt:
Definition of 'Invisible Hand'
A term coined by economist Adam Smith in his 1776 book "An Inquiry into
the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". In his book he states:
"Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of
the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote
the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He
intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases,
led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his
intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of
his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that
of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote
it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for
the public good."
Thus, the invisible hand is essentially a natural phenomenon that guides
free markets and capitalism through competition for scarce resources.
Read more:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/invisiblehand.asp#ixzz297HQU7nM
#-----------------------------------
When people started defaulting of sub-prime real estate loans,
housing prices fell like a stone, exotic investments wrapped around
real estate became worthless tanking the stock market, financial
systems froze up, and the country found itself on the edge of the
financial abyss. Thus was born the Great Recession of 2007.
Produced, once more, by unregulated markets.
See above.
The great recession destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth.
Similarly, keeping the country from falling into a depression, like
the one of the 1930s, and putting the economy back on a path to
recovery has been costly.
Here I disagree with Leland, the fall is not over yet. Neither for the
US, nor for the rest of the world. This irresponsible behaviour will
still cost us all dearly.
I am hopeful that further economic damage can be avoided, if countries
around the world reacting correctly to any future softening of
international markets by stimulating demand, and consumer confidence.
Regards,
LelandJ
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
