Capitalism: A Dish Best Served Cold

[Theowl32]

I notice how the dedicated socialists, who are totally poisoned by the Robinhood fairy tale that the democrats push in order to gain votes from the ignorant, and deny they are socialists, always show only the negative sides of capitalism and preach the mythical positives of socialism.

As they wipe their ass this morning with toilet paper produced and sold in evil grocery stores as they read this post on their evil computers through the evil internet.

Sigh, at the perpetual ignorant hypocrites, better known as marxists that we call liberals.

 

[JoeB131]

Imposing Capitalism? LMAO... How exactly do you do that? If you don't want to participate in capitalism, you don't have to. There is no imposition about it.

No, what they imposed was British rule under the King of England. A monarchy. Capitalism was the economic practices of the British at the exploitive expense of the people, not free market capitalism by any stretch of the imagination.

In 2008, the world economy began to melt down due to massive debt accumulated as the result of socialist entitlement programs that failed. Capitalist growth was no longer able to sustain the burden. The massive amounts of stimulus spending we did in the US was essentially worth a 1.6% increase in the GDP. The companies we bailed out that were "too big to fail" ...failed anyway. The housing market collapse was the result of socialist policy of providing low-interest loans to poor people who defaulted.

In one experiment after another, we see socialism fail and fail miserably. When the forces of free market capitalism are unleashed, millionaires and billionaires are made.

Guy, you are living in your own fantasy.

the economy did not collapse because poor people got housing vouchers.

It collapsed because Rich people sold mortgages and then lied about their value to sell them as investments.

And I guess you can make Capitalism look good, if you call all the bad examples like the British Empire something else.

"No True Scotsman" Fallacy at its very best.

 

[JoeB131]

I notice how the dedicated socialists, who are totally poisoned by the Robinhood fairy tale that the democrats push in order to gain votes from the ignorant, and deny they are socialists, always show only the negative sides of capitalism and preach the mythical positives of socialism.

As they wipe their ass this morning with toilet paper produced and sold in evil grocery stores as they read this post on their evil computers through the evil internet.

Sigh, at the perpetual ignorant hypocrites, better known as marxists that we call liberals.

Okay, here's the thing.

We can get toilet paper without the Walton family being worth billions while their employees have to apply for food stamps.

Again, you guys want to socialize risk and capitalize benefits.

 

[Boss]

If what you say is true, PLEASE provide the vast wealth of writings of our founding fathers on capitalism?

'The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.'
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

Okay, we have to go back in history and dig up the details on what Jefferson was talking about. First of all, that is not the complete sentence Jefferson wrote. Here it is in entirety:

The troubles in the East have been produced by English agitators, operating on the selfish spirit of commerce, which knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain. the inordinate extent given it among us, by our becoming the factors of the whole world, has enabled it to control the agricultural & manufacturing interests. when a change of circumstances shall reduce it to an equilibrium with these, to the carrying our produce only, to be exchanged for our wants, it will return to a wholesome condition for the body politic, & that beyond which it should never more be encouraged to go.

So what was he talking about? Well, the British had been causing a lot of trouble for us. They were seizing trade ships of ours on the high sea and impressing American citizens (essentially enslaving them). In response to this, Jefferson had tried to enact an embargo on all goods from Britain, but because there was such great demand for British products, there was widespread black market trade going on. Jefferson is referring to these "English agitators" who were not abiding by the embargo.

What he is saying is, there is something more at play here than free market capitalism. Had people adhered to the embargo, the War of 1812 may never have happened. This is not Jefferson excoriating free market capitalism at all, it is about principles of an embargo being upheld.

If you read the OP, I clearly addressed undesirable capitalist endeavors. I have never said any and all capitalism is great and wonderful, no need for any restrictions whatsoever. Sometimes pinheads simply forget the preface "FREE MARKET" capitalism. Now, this has major significance and can't be overlooked. FREE MARKET capitalism is a system where the market is free from interference or influence by outside forces, such as black market trade, price gouging, exploitation, slavery, etc. Those can also be capitalist ventures, it's not what we are talking about when we discuss "free market capitalism."

 

[Boss]

Guy, you are living in your own fantasy.

the economy did not collapse because poor people got housing vouchers.

It collapsed because Rich people sold mortgages and then lied about their value to sell them as investments.

And I guess you can make Capitalism look good, if you call all the bad examples like the British Empire something else.

"No True Scotsman" Fallacy at its very best.

No, you are the one who lives in a fantasy. I didn't say the economy collapsed, I said the housing market collapsed. The collapse was the direct result of "toxic loans" which were the low-interest home loans to poor folks authorized under Dodd-Frank through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. There were no rich people selling mortgages and lying about their value.... I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's pure nonsense.

Free Market Capitalism wasn't being practiced by the British in the 1800s.
Sorry... Nothing to do with Scotsmen.

 

[Theowl32]

If what you say is true, PLEASE provide the vast wealth of writings of our founding fathers on capitalism?

'The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.'
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

Okay, we have to go back in history and dig up the details on what Jefferson was talking about. First of all, that is not the complete sentence Jefferson wrote. Here it is in entirety:

The troubles in the East have been produced by English agitators, operating on the selfish spirit of commerce, which knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain. the inordinate extent given it among us, by our becoming the factors of the whole world, has enabled it to control the agricultural & manufacturing interests. when a change of circumstances shall reduce it to an equilibrium with these, to the carrying our produce only, to be exchanged for our wants, it will return to a wholesome condition for the body politic, & that beyond which it should never more be encouraged to go.

So what was he talking about? Well, the British had been causing a lot of trouble for us. They were seizing trade ships of ours on the high sea and impressing American citizens (essentially enslaving them). In response to this, Jefferson had tried to enact an embargo on all goods from Britain, but because there was such great demand for British products, there was widespread black market trade going on. Jefferson is referring to these "English agitators" who were not abiding by the embargo.

What he is saying is, there is something more at play here than free market capitalism. Had people adhered to the embargo, the War of 1812 may never have happened. This is not Jefferson excoriating free market capitalism at all, it is about principles of an embargo being upheld.

If you read the OP, I clearly addressed undesirable capitalist endeavors. I have never said any and all capitalism is great and wonderful, no need for any restrictions whatsoever. Sometimes pinheads simply forget the preface "FREE MARKET" capitalism. Now, this has major significance and can't be overlooked. FREE MARKET capitalism is a system where the market is free from interference or influence by outside forces, such as black market trade, price gouging, exploitation, slavery, etc. Those can also be capitalist ventures, it's not what we are talking about when we discuss "free market capitalism."

The problem is you are dealing with a group of people that believe in a myth sold called socialism is the UTOPIA that the morons on the left cling to.

Movies, yes movies will have us believe that if all capitalism was destroyed, that we would eventually evolve into beautiful blue flying creatures and we would all live in a perfectly harmonious commune under a big beautiful tree.

You think that is absurd, but in truth they might as well believe in that. Why? Cause utopia is the very myth that is being sold to never ending gullible masses, which predominantly makes up the poor class. As the democrats increase the poor class, and more they get that class on the teats of American government is the closer to the one party system the socialists get to.

The morons on the left mind you are these mindless morons who think of themselves as being just so smart. They are fed one line of utter shit from the elites on the left and they certainly do not hold them to account for all of their insidious double standards.

As we see the base crumble and the dollar totally debased along with more and more people forced under the thumb of big government the more we tell those very morons....YOU SEE, WE TOLD YOU SO.

Even then, the mindless knobs on the left march on and they ignore or shluff any and all lies of their gods in the democratic party.

Yes, we are that fucked. Any voices that opposes socialist ideals are rendered as kooks. Rinse, repeat and lean forward and march to those cliffs you fucking lemmings.

 

[Boss]

Okay, here's the thing.

We can get toilet paper without the Walton family being worth billions while their employees have to apply for food stamps.

Again, you guys want to socialize risk and capitalize benefits.

You're not even making any sense anymore. You're just emotively bleating like an injured sheep.

What does toilet paper have to do with the Walton family or employees of Walmart? The people who work for Walmart are not slaves shipped in from Africa and chained up when not working. They are people who knowingly and consciously accepted a job for a certain rate of pay. If that wasn't enough, they should have negotiated for more, or found a better paying job. That's not the Walton family's fault and frankly not their problem.

Sam Walton took the risks as a capitalist. He had an idea and he devoted himself to making it a success and it was. His heirs deserve every penny of wealth from what he did. The company deserves every penny of profit they earn each year. They are a successful capitalist business who provides low-cost products to a willing consumer base. They are not forcing YOU to shop there, if you don't like the Walton family being billionaires, then don't shop at Walmart.

 

[Theowl32]

Guy, you are living in your own fantasy.

the economy did not collapse because poor people got housing vouchers.

It collapsed because Rich people sold mortgages and then lied about their value to sell them as investments.

And I guess you can make Capitalism look good, if you call all the bad examples like the British Empire something else.

"No True Scotsman" Fallacy at its very best.

No, you are the one who lives in a fantasy. I didn't say the economy collapsed, I said the housing market collapsed. The collapse was the direct result of "toxic loans" which were the low-interest home loans to poor folks authorized under Dodd-Frank through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. There were no rich people selling mortgages and lying about their value.... I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's pure nonsense.

Free Market Capitalism wasn't being practiced by the British in the 1800s.
Sorry... Nothing to do with Scotsmen.

True. I could go back and post the documented facts that there were at least 17 warnings by the Bush administration in 2008 that went ignored by the democrats.

Yes, that year 2008 was a crucial election year, was it not?

The question is would the democrats sacrifice the economy in order to gain power? Well, whether it was deliberate or not (I do believe it was deliberate cause I do think the democrats are that wicked) it garnered the democrats a super majority.

They had already gained majority in 2007 and have had majority since.

We cannot see what the democrats are willing to do in order to get their socialism and power? You see how they hop on all race based news that bends the public, divides the races and classes? You see how the white house hopped all over the Michael Brown situation? The facts in that case, made no difference. We hear so many stories that it becomes so convoluted that those facts do not matter. The narrative is sold, and the narrative is maintained. White man republican bad, democrat liberal good.

Same with the organized buses of unaccompanied children that came over the borders. Totally ignoring our sovereignty. What did we get from the utopia pushing media? That republicans are bad, Christians turned the "poor children" away, and the democrats are the robinhoods again.

It is an election year. Meanwhile diseases are entering the country as we predicted. Those diseases that have not been seen here in decades are said to have come from all sorts of places, but certainly not from Central America or Mexico. Oh, no, the diseases happen to coincide with the bus loads, and it must be just a coincidence.

The administration would never lie, right?

 

[Dot Com]

I have a very simple definition of greed.

Greed is taking more than you need because you can. When you have a CEO who collects 8 figures when his company is hemoraging money and they are laying thousands of working folks off, that's greed.

Bullshit. The corporate officers are hired by the Board of Directors. They negotiate an employment contract with officers that includes compensation terms. The CEO and other officers have to answer to the Board.

The CEO is paid according to his or her contract. It is not arbitrary. Moreover, it is not controlled by the CEO. The CEO' s compensation package is negotiated in an arms length transaction with the Board. He or she gets paid no more or less than he or she is entitled to get.

You are parroting typical populist tripe which is ignorant of fact. You may as well have posted "I am an ignorant fucking dumbass". At least that would have some basis in fact.

Wow. So the people in charge of the Cookie Jar amazingly get the most cookies.

And sadly, people like you think that's okay.

EarlyCurler, is that you?

thats what I was wondering. Did he change his username because that is a option if you ask Admin to change it.

Anyway, yeah, MANY corps stopped working for the long-term, health of the company as a whole and started working solely for short-term gain for the shareholders, capitalism on meth if you will.

 

[Dot Com]

I notice how the dedicated socialists, who are totally poisoned by the Robinhood fairy tale that the democrats push in order to gain votes from the ignorant, and deny they are socialists, always show only the negative sides of capitalism and preach the mythical positives of socialism.

As they wipe their ass this morning with toilet paper produced and sold in evil grocery stores as they read this post on their evil computers through the evil internet.

Sigh, at the perpetual ignorant hypocrites, better known as marxists that we call liberals.

Okay, here's the thing.

We can get toilet paper without the Walton family being worth billions while their employees have to apply for food stamps.

Again, you guys want to socialize risk and capitalize benefits.

yep. Thats what happens when the Congress have been captured by the 1%. They know who their bosses are and it isn't the dopes who vote for them.

 

[Nosmo King]

The liberal left will tell you that it's dangerous and horrid to have "unfettered" capitalism. Every unspeakable capitalist evil will engulf the people like the Black Death, should man ever allow capitalism to be unbridled. Or, that's what they say. It's easy sometimes for a conservative to simply concede that we need some level of government constraint on capitalism for the good of man. I believe it is a mistake to ever concede anything to a liberal.

Now let's get some things straight about capitalism. Capitalists are not inherently greedy. This is a myth the left promotes, but it's simply not the truth of the matter. A capitalist is a person who is capitalizing on a need with a product or service to fill that need to the satisfaction of himself and the customer. A mutual exchange is made between two agreeable parties and capitalism has happened. The capitalist wants to make a profit, he wants to make as much profit as he can and continue to do so, that is how capitalists measure their success.

With capitalists, there are various varieties, some are less desirable than the others, these are exploiter capitalists. They seek to exploit circumstances to make higher than average profits even if it's only temporary. Or they may exploit illegal immigration to make greater profits. Or they may even break anti-trust laws. So capitalists have their bad apples. There are types of capitalism that are exploitive and wrong, and we should indeed have laws in place to ensure those type of capitalists are weeded out and punished.

For the most part, the average capitalist is simply not interested in exploitation. Remember, he is capitalizing on a need and filling it to the satisfaction of himself and his customer. He wants his customer to be satisfied so they tell their friends, come to do business again, help him to grow as capitalist. The liberal considers all capitalism exploitation. Hence, the greedy capitalist meme.

Greed has no place in a capitalist operation. The emphasis is on profit. Liberals will argue since the emphasis is on profit there is certainly greed. However, this fails to acknowledge how capitalism works. Again, the capitalist is interested in a fair mutual exchange to the satisfaction of himself and his customer. He makes a profit, as much as possible, but the customer is satisfied as well. If his customer leaves the transaction feeling as if they didn't get a fair deal, it opens the door to other prospective capitalists who compete for the business. A greedy capitalist soon finds his customers being served by a less greedy capitalist.

We've never known a time when America had unfettered and unbridled capitalism. Even in the Constitution and founding of the nation, some authority has prevailed over capitalism. Liberals will point to the railroads and early business tycoons, conjuring up the image of the "robber baron" we so often hear about. Curiously, when DuPont, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt, etc. were rapidly advancing America to international greatness which lead to superpower status, they weren't called "robber barons." It's a 'romantic' term coined by liberals in the aftermath of the Great Depression.

Speaking of the Great Depression and capitalism, it not only ended the depression, but won WWII. Liberals take credit by propping up FDR and the New Deal, but the statistics show the New Deal policies were not really helping and we remained economically stagnant. During WWII, our entire capitalist system was turned like a fire hose onto the war effort. The result was something no other enemy could match. We simply out-produced all enemies and allies combined for a few years, and this crushed the Germans and Japanese. When the war was over, the invigorated capitalist system was poised to take us into a new era and the economy exploded.

Our free market capitalist system, along with our Constitution and free enterprise, combined with American spirit and ingenuity, has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Nothing even runs a close second. It is unquestionably the best possible system for free people to thrive and prosper. So why must we endure this almost constant anti-capitalist claptrap from the liberal left?

It's because of their socialist agenda. You see, capitalism has to be destroyed for socialism to replace it. This comes from some of their heroes like Chairman Mao. This is why you constantly hear them breathlessly rant about "big business" and "multinational corporations" ...the wealthiest 1%... It's all about the ideology. Destroy capitalism, ring in Socialism. ~Che Guevara. ~Hugo Chavez. ~Fidel Castro.

A stirring and loving ode to Capitalism. But it is an ode that glosses over the defects of Capitalism. Unfettered, unabridged Capitalism never was, nor will ever be. There must be constants on Capitalism. Otherwise, we would repeat the most egregious sins of Capitalism; namely greed (yes, greed) and exploitation.

How did the Great Depression end? According to the OP, it was Capitalism on a white steed riding to the rescue. But how did it start? Greed and exploitation. Capitalism ran off the rails and gave the entire world poverty and privation. Children with cardboard soles on their shoes walked passé padlocked shoe factories. Farm prices fell to the point harvesting would be unprofitable. Labor was treated as a commodity rather than humans.

Why do you think so many people found communism so appealing? Communism held out the promise of fair play and equality in a system rigged to make the rich richer and the poor irrelevant. The vices of Capitalism are disregard for anything other than a profit. This leads to labor exploitation and environmental ruin.

If you want to continue to see the middle class (the real job creators and the Goose that lays Golden Eggs) wither and die so the owners of the means of production can further feather their own nests, call for unfettered Capitalism.

 

[daws101]

another bossy thread crashes and burns...

 

[Boss]

The liberal left will tell you that it's dangerous and horrid to have "unfettered" capitalism. Every unspeakable capitalist evil will engulf the people like the Black Death, should man ever allow capitalism to be unbridled. Or, that's what they say. It's easy sometimes for a conservative to simply concede that we need some level of government constraint on capitalism for the good of man. I believe it is a mistake to ever concede anything to a liberal.

Now let's get some things straight about capitalism. Capitalists are not inherently greedy. This is a myth the left promotes, but it's simply not the truth of the matter. A capitalist is a person who is capitalizing on a need with a product or service to fill that need to the satisfaction of himself and the customer. A mutual exchange is made between two agreeable parties and capitalism has happened. The capitalist wants to make a profit, he wants to make as much profit as he can and continue to do so, that is how capitalists measure their success.

With capitalists, there are various varieties, some are less desirable than the others, these are exploiter capitalists. They seek to exploit circumstances to make higher than average profits even if it's only temporary. Or they may exploit illegal immigration to make greater profits. Or they may even break anti-trust laws. So capitalists have their bad apples. There are types of capitalism that are exploitive and wrong, and we should indeed have laws in place to ensure those type of capitalists are weeded out and punished.

For the most part, the average capitalist is simply not interested in exploitation. Remember, he is capitalizing on a need and filling it to the satisfaction of himself and his customer. He wants his customer to be satisfied so they tell their friends, come to do business again, help him to grow as capitalist. The liberal considers all capitalism exploitation. Hence, the greedy capitalist meme.

Greed has no place in a capitalist operation. The emphasis is on profit. Liberals will argue since the emphasis is on profit there is certainly greed. However, this fails to acknowledge how capitalism works. Again, the capitalist is interested in a fair mutual exchange to the satisfaction of himself and his customer. He makes a profit, as much as possible, but the customer is satisfied as well. If his customer leaves the transaction feeling as if they didn't get a fair deal, it opens the door to other prospective capitalists who compete for the business. A greedy capitalist soon finds his customers being served by a less greedy capitalist.

We've never known a time when America had unfettered and unbridled capitalism. Even in the Constitution and founding of the nation, some authority has prevailed over capitalism. Liberals will point to the railroads and early business tycoons, conjuring up the image of the "robber baron" we so often hear about. Curiously, when DuPont, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt, etc. were rapidly advancing America to international greatness which lead to superpower status, they weren't called "robber barons." It's a 'romantic' term coined by liberals in the aftermath of the Great Depression.

Speaking of the Great Depression and capitalism, it not only ended the depression, but won WWII. Liberals take credit by propping up FDR and the New Deal, but the statistics show the New Deal policies were not really helping and we remained economically stagnant. During WWII, our entire capitalist system was turned like a fire hose onto the war effort. The result was something no other enemy could match. We simply out-produced all enemies and allies combined for a few years, and this crushed the Germans and Japanese. When the war was over, the invigorated capitalist system was poised to take us into a new era and the economy exploded.

Our free market capitalist system, along with our Constitution and free enterprise, combined with American spirit and ingenuity, has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Nothing even runs a close second. It is unquestionably the best possible system for free people to thrive and prosper. So why must we endure this almost constant anti-capitalist claptrap from the liberal left?

It's because of their socialist agenda. You see, capitalism has to be destroyed for socialism to replace it. This comes from some of their heroes like Chairman Mao. This is why you constantly hear them breathlessly rant about "big business" and "multinational corporations" ...the wealthiest 1%... It's all about the ideology. Destroy capitalism, ring in Socialism. ~Che Guevara. ~Hugo Chavez. ~Fidel Castro.

A stirring and loving ode to Capitalism. But it is an ode that glosses over the defects of Capitalism. Unfettered, unabridged Capitalism never was, nor will ever be. There must be constants on Capitalism. Otherwise, we would repeat the most egregious sins of Capitalism; namely greed (yes, greed) and exploitation.

How did the Great Depression end? According to the OP, it was Capitalism on a white steed riding to the rescue. But how did it start? Greed and exploitation. Capitalism ran off the rails and gave the entire world poverty and privation. Children with cardboard soles on their shoes walked passé padlocked shoe factories. Farm prices fell to the point harvesting would be unprofitable. Labor was treated as a commodity rather than humans.

Why do you think so many people found communism so appealing? Communism held out the promise of fair play and equality in a system rigged to make the rich richer and the poor irrelevant. The vices of Capitalism are disregard for anything other than a profit. This leads to labor exploitation and environmental ruin.

If you want to continue to see the middle class (the real job creators and the Goose that lays Golden Eggs) wither and die so the owners of the means of production can further feather their own nests, call for unfettered Capitalism.

As this chart shows, the so-called "middle class" is shrinking. But where are they going? They aren't joining the poor class because they are also shrinking.

Here is an excerpt from the OP:
There are types of capitalism that are exploitive and wrong, and we should indeed have laws in place to ensure those type of capitalists are weeded out and punished.

So here are two lies I've found in your reply and I've not really gotten into the meat of your argument about capitalism. We've never had unfettered and unbridled capitalism in this country. No one has called for that now. This is a failed meme of Marxists such as yourself, much like the assertion the middle class are becoming poor instead of wealthy.

 

[JoeB131]

[

No, you are the one who lives in a fantasy. I didn't say the economy collapsed, I said the housing market collapsed. The collapse was the direct result of "toxic loans" which were the low-interest home loans to poor folks authorized under Dodd-Frank through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. There were no rich people selling mortgages and lying about their value.... I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's pure nonsense.

Actually, I think you are a little confused here. Dodd-Frank didn't pass until AFTER the crash, and no, the toxic loans were not those authorized through the Community Reinvestment Act. (The law your mind was probably grasping for). In fact, of the 25 top banks that failed, only one even worked in the CRA Market.

The loans that were toxic were the ones where given to middle class homeowners who bought "McMansions", thinking they could flip them in a few years after their kids went off to college. And, no, these were made through the big banks, Freddie and Fannie just underwrote them and bought some of the toxic loans from them.

The banks then took those loans, and then sold them to other banks as 'investments', claiming their value was going to be the value of the house PLUS all the interest payments that were going to be made on them.

[
Free Market Capitalism wasn't being practiced by the British in the 1800s.
Sorry... Nothing to do with Scotsmen.

Wow, you don't understand the reference do you?

 

[Boss]

[

No, you are the one who lives in a fantasy. I didn't say the economy collapsed, I said the housing market collapsed. The collapse was the direct result of "toxic loans" which were the low-interest home loans to poor folks authorized under Dodd-Frank through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. There were no rich people selling mortgages and lying about their value.... I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's pure nonsense.

Actually, I think you are a little confused here. Dodd-Frank didn't pass until AFTER the crash, and no, the toxic loans were not those authorized through the Community Reinvestment Act. (The law your mind was probably grasping for). In fact, of the 25 top banks that failed, only one even worked in the CRA Market.

The loans that were toxic were the ones where given to middle class homeowners who bought "McMansions", thinking they could flip them in a few years after their kids went off to college. And, no, these were made through the big banks, Freddie and Fannie just underwrote them and bought some of the toxic loans from them.

The banks then took those loans, and then sold them to other banks as 'investments', claiming their value was going to be the value of the house PLUS all the interest payments that were going to be made on them.

[
Free Market Capitalism wasn't being practiced by the British in the 1800s.
Sorry... Nothing to do with Scotsmen.

Wow, you don't understand the reference do you?

You're correct about Dodd-Frank, I was thinking of one of the many reforms to CRA supported by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. It was the series of reforms between 1992 and 2005 which changed the dynamics of the CRA and led the way for the financial sector collapse. Blaming banks for doing what banks do, as if they somehow knew the housing market was going to collapse, is typical liberal lunacy.

People did make the decision to by "McMansions" and poor people did take out loans they could never repay. These are choices people made, and not something "rich people" did. It was government meddling in the free market capitalist system which was the problem.

And yes, I understand the Scotsman reference, I just think it's stupid. I know you think it's some kind of brilliant thing to say and makes you look smarter than you are, but it simply doesn't apply to this conversation. British Colonialists were not practicing democratic free market capitalism.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You're correct about Dodd-Frank, I was thinking of one of the many reforms to CRA supported by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. It was the series of reforms between 1992 and 2005 which changed the dynamics of the CRA and led the way for the financial sector collapse. Blaming banks for doing what banks do, as if they somehow knew the housing market was going to collapse, is typical liberal lunacy.

The CRA did nothing of the sort. The ONLY thing the CRA does is say you can't refuse to write loans for neighborhoods with Negroes in them if the people who live there otherwise qualify for loans. .

[
People did make the decision to by "McMansions" and poor people did take out loans they could never repay. These are choices people made, and not something "rich people" did. It was government meddling in the free market capitalist system which was the problem.

And the banks didn't perform due diligence by saying, "Hey, with your income and credit history, you can't repay this loan." instead, they called it "Sub-Prime", charged a ridiculous interest rate, and sold it off as an investment. You know, what unethical rich cocksuckers do. Oh, hey, where's my bailout and bonus!

[
And yes, I understand the Scotsman reference, I just think it's stupid. I know you think it's some kind of brilliant thing to say and makes you look smarter than you are, but it simply doesn't apply to this conversation. British Colonialists were not practicing democratic free market capitalism.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you still don't understand what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is or how it applies to your defense of Capitalism.

 

[Boss]

[

You're correct about Dodd-Frank, I was thinking of one of the many reforms to CRA supported by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. It was the series of reforms between 1992 and 2005 which changed the dynamics of the CRA and led the way for the financial sector collapse. Blaming banks for doing what banks do, as if they somehow knew the housing market was going to collapse, is typical liberal lunacy.

The CRA did nothing of the sort. The ONLY thing the CRA does is say you can't refuse to write loans for neighborhoods with Negroes in them if the people who live there otherwise qualify for loans. .

Stop it with the hyperbole, the CRA has nothing to do with not discriminating on basis of race, that is covered in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The CRA was about discriminating on the basis of poverty. In it's original form it wasn't a problem because banks and mortgage companies could afford to write them off. As time went on, the liberals (never satisfied with enough) continued to modify and alter the provisions of the statute. It was these governmental "tweaks" that ruined CRA. That, along with repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Now, I won't be gentle on Republicans, the Bush's were in on this too, they were part of the problem. That problem being, political bureaucrats tinkering around with something they know little about and should be left to free market capitalism.

People did make the decision to by "McMansions" and poor people did take out loans they could never repay. These are choices people made, and not something "rich people" did. It was government meddling in the free market capitalist system which was the problem.

And the banks didn't perform due diligence by saying, "Hey, with your income and credit history, you can't repay this loan." instead, they called it "Sub-Prime", charged a ridiculous interest rate, and sold it off as an investment. You know, what unethical rich cocksuckers do. Oh, hey, where's my bailout and bonus!

The banks performed all the due diligence required by law. The government removed any obstacle for these institutions to make those loans by insuring them, backing them and encouraging them. Again, this is an example of where liberal Utopian socialism blows up in our face and the liberals then blame it all on evil capitalists and republicans.

[
And yes, I understand the Scotsman reference, I just think it's stupid. I know you think it's some kind of brilliant thing to say and makes you look smarter than you are, but it simply doesn't apply to this conversation. British Colonialists were not practicing democratic free market capitalism.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you still don't understand what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is or how it applies to your defense of Capitalism.

I do understand it, and as I've pointed out, the OP makes very clear there is an undesirable underbelly to capitalism of a certain kind. Liberals exploit that constantly, that's why Capitalism is a dish best served cold. In the United States, we have what we call "free market" capitalism. So my arguments, my comments, my positions and points are regarding this type of capitalism in specific. Not exploitation capitalism, not capitalism run amok or controlled by a monarch or empire, not corrupt or crony capitalism which buys off political power in order to advantage itself over free market competition. Are we straight?

 

[JoeB131]

So you saying you are all for capitalism, except for all the ways Capitalism is ACTUALLY Practiced? Got it.

 

[Youch]

So you saying you are all for capitalism, except for all the ways Capitalism is ACTUALLY Practiced? Got it.

I don't think you've been reading with the intent to understand, but instead with the intent to reply and defend. That is shallow. The person with whom you've been debating has laid out a clear position, and you don't seem to get it.

Capitalism is not the problem. Capitalism has raised the standard of living for ALL HUMANS on earth, unlike anything else, unlike all the alternatives.

What I think your real issue is, and I share it, is the corruption and cronyism that has infested, not just our economy, but our entire society. That is NOT a conservative issue. One only has to look even obliquely at the current administration to understand that both sides are guilty and at fault.

This is why, the ONLY group speaking out against this, the Tea Party, is trashed by both sides....because both sides (by sides I mean both political parties) are in fear of the Tea Party dismantling the apparatus, in fear of losing their power base, in fear of all the vote-buying schemes (welfare, amnesty, union kickbacks, lobbyist, etc..) going away.

It is important to remember that citizens gave birth to the states, and the states gave birth to the federal government, and our founding law prevents that creation from getting to onerous. Too late. All perverted by progressivism. Now we are ALL BEHOLDEN to that which we created, and the dangerous slide down the bad path is already in progress.

And you people ague against a free economy???

 

[JoeB131]

So you saying you are all for capitalism, except for all the ways Capitalism is ACTUALLY Practiced? Got it.

I don't think you've been reading with the intent to understand, but instead with the intent to reply and defend. That is shallow. The person with whom you've been debating has laid out a clear position, and you don't seem to get it.

Capitalism is not the problem. Capitalism has raised the standard of living for ALL HUMANS on earth, unlike anything else, unlike all the alternatives.

No, I understand Boss perfectly. Boss is one of those fuckheads who listens to Hate Radio all day and think that some day, little Billy, if he worships greed enough and hates government, the Greed Fairy will flutter down and make him rich.

And I was like that for years. Until I got my fill of working for "Capitalists", who usually made things worse because of their shortsighted greed.

After 2008, Capitalism is done. Time for something better.