El 12/10/12 17:10, lelandj escribió:
Also, I believe Democracy is the best political system in the world.
Yes, some people believe in God, others in Alah, still others believe
you can have a child without intercourse.
Everybody has the right to believe whatever he chooses.
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.
So the problem was not originated by the govt, maybe not contained or
worsened, but the problem originated in a sick system.
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.
And you "believe" all the people have "access to honest information". So
many beliefs, so few facts.
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.
Wasn't it? Then whose fault was it? The Italians? The Belgians? Or maybe
you want to exclude from "USA Political or Economic system" the
military, congress, all companies, investors, lobbyists...
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.
Really? So if capitalism is so fragile that when "certain companies
intentionally or unintentionally disregarded rules" it falls apart, that
is not a failure of capitalism? Is it a failure of socialism? Of
communism? Of Buddhism?
#-------------------------------
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.
Yeah, and the facts that prove all this? Or is it also a "belief"?
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.
More beliefs? Your whole economic thought is based upon faith?
_______________________________________________
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.
