Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Zombie_Pundit]

Today, some are arguing the next, new caste system in the capitalist US involves the mass incarceration of millions of superfluous young people currently residing in prisons.

One-third of black men are likely to spend time locked up before being permanently relegated to a lifetime of second-class citizenship.

Michelle Alexander explains it better than I can:

"Professor Alexander, who is black, knew that African-Americans were overrepresented in prison, though she resisted the idea that this was anything more than unequal implementation of colorblind laws.

"But her work as director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Racial Justice Project in Northern California, she said, opened her eyes to the extent of the lifelong exclusion many offenders face, including job discrimination, elimination from juries and voter rolls, and even disqualification from food stamps, public housing and student loans.

“'It’s easy to be completely unaware that this vast new system of racial and social control has emerged,' she said. 'Unlike in Jim Crow days, there were no "Whites Only" signs. This system is out of sight, out of mind.'”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all

I saw Michelle Alexander on Real Time. The question I wanted to ask her was how many non-violent criminals are convicted felons? Of the violent offenders, how many had been incarcerated on non-violent offenses before turning to violent crime? Specifically I am thinking of the War on Drugs and how enforcement of this new prohibition labels non-violent offenders on equal footing with violent offenders.

We cannot relent from the prosecution of violent crime. We can however take steps to mitigate the frequency of violent crime.

"Painting the war on drugs as mainly a backlash against the gains of the civil rights movement, Professor Forman writes, ignores the violent crime wave of the 1970s and minimizes the support among many African-Americans for get-tough measures.

"Furthermore, he argues, drug offenders make up less than 25 percent of the nation’s total prison population, while violent offenders — who receive little mention in 'The New Jim Crow' — make up a much larger share.

“'Even if every single one of these drug offenders were released tomorrow,' he writes, 'the United States would still have the world’s largest prison system.'

"To Professor Alexander, however, that argument neglects the full scope of the problem.

"Our criminal 'caste system,' as she calls it, affects not just the 2.3 million people behind bars, but also the 4.8 million others on probation or parole (predominately for nonviolent offenses), to say nothing of the millions more whose criminal records stigmatize them for life.

“'This system depends on the prison label, not just prison time,' she said."

If I understand her argument, all those convicted of felonies continue paying for their crimes long after they leave prison.

Personally, I don't think it was coincidence that the War on Drugs began about the same time capitalists began outsourcing millions of middle class jobs

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all

I meant to respond to this earlier. A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues. Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs. I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.

A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the point in the end. (pun?)

Okay, now that's funny on a number of levels.

Yes it was the original point that both Androw and I made

Androw attempted to prove that new construction was always cheaper and defended the claim by exclaiming the equivalent of "well...duh!". I didn't even touch that in relation to the original claim on price indices the subsequent claim is a non sequitur. I do show restraint, you know.
But I digress...
I get that you're doing some tag team thing. That's cute. Is it your intention to have any serious discussion in this thread or are you just tagging in and out for the lulz?

ALL of my discussion is serious including when I agree with Androw, and recently when I agreed with George Phillip. Your assumptions about my posing or my use of economic studies
on which I base my opinions show little understanding of my assertions and opinions. Try to read for understanding instead of skimming and making rash comments about my posts.

If you're going to spend multiple posts deflecting an obvious logical error in the defense of another person for reasons you have been unwilling to explain, that is just fine with me.
But don't then complain when I label him your buddy.

For the record, I have not commented on any of the aforementioned studies in this exchange which should make this exchange rather dull, not exciting. I commented on that to which you chose to respond.
Notene post,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...antees-rising-inequality-265.html#post9185264
different exchange

 

[gnarlylove]

Before capitalism, the poor starved on a regular basis. They had no healthcare, no clothing, no food, no television, no cell phones, no central heating, no air conditioning, no nothing. The poor live like kings compared to how they lived before capitalism.

You must be fond of the idea that civilization started about 100 years ago and beforehand people were savage animals who had no direction until capitalism baptized them. You've regularly advocate learning about history but have opted for a white washed history that paints the modern era as the only leap forward in human civilization.

Given your level of knowledge about the world, your viewpoint on capitalism is accurate and I am wrong. But there's a big difference between what you perceive to know about the world and how the facts bear. We have no hope of knowing all the facts but your amnesia of history permits the view that capitalism has saved the world.

If you want to maintain your perceptions, I suggest you never look at history because you will be shaken. The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" was true when Solomon wrote it in 700BC and still is. But you would only agree if you actually knew the facts of history, the Hellenic Age, the Dynasties in Asia, on and on and on.

Understanding history is important, as is understanding human behavior important. Are you suggesting that during the first 100 years or so in American there was not a greater % of the population who were poor? Are you suggesting that during the period leading up to the settling of America there was not rampant serfdom and poverty in Europe or Asia?

Basically what he said is correct, Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Poverty was the common condition during the Age of Solomon and the Hellenic Age in Greece or in the Dynasties in Asia. That there was more wealth concentration with the leaders of those civilizations than there is now in every capitalistic system the world over.

I am not saying it was capitalism which relieved most people from poverty, but it sure does look like it from where I sit. I not only read a lot about ancient civilizations, I experienced one of the oldest. Of the 1 billion people in India, prior to capitalism 90% of the people lived in poverty. That has been reduced to about 50% now, and if the liberals with borders choose not to delay their labor evolution, that will drop drastically in the next generation.

I'm not implying anything outside of what I said. Bri is well known for citing history but it's not as factual as it is in service to his political ideology. We must be careful not to let our predilections re-write history.

Yes all civilizations have had their troubles surrounding survival. You claim capitalism is beneficiary since it has reduced problems of survival. I don't doubt the sheer volume of commodities and wealth created has raised the standard of living for many millions, probably a couple billion. However, there are costs that are not calculated in clean statistics like poverty reduction. Such numbers offer a clean figure, easy to gloss over and forget it doesn't represent the full situation but is a sliver of information that neglects other information that is perhaps more revealing. So the real question should and must be, how has capitalism transformed the collective world and each person? The good is visible from where you sit. The bad or the costs are externalized (pollution), poverty (slums, esp. India).

Basically capitalism has good and bad. In the present moment staring into our computer screen appears good. But the present moment of our experience does not account for the realities of billions of people or how our own realities might change over time or the reality of how our planet will become less viable as corporations tear through our resources seeking to profit off our collective planet.

 

[dnsmith35]

.....

Hopefully, but in the process if we don't trade with those nations, their people will continue to be enslaved in perpetuity. As long as we withhold the use of their labor we are contributing to the status quo and hurting those people even more.It can, but the point of regulation is to help level the playing field. I know of no purely laissez-faire capitalist system in the world. Absolutely not, especially since our government works to protect the little guy. The problems arise when the government goes beyond making a level playing field and tries to play in the market.Again, absolutely not. The capital is only what it is, money and what it buys. Capitalism is what has consistently lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.

Wages have "increased" relative to the fact that many subsistence farmers have been forcibly moved from arable land so that big agro-business can utilize it and export as capitalism holds: comparative advantage.

Sustenance farmers were unable to grow the quantities of food we need here in the US and what we export and sell or give to the poor in other countries.

Thus the locals have re-located to the hills as in Haiti and to the slums and favelas near the city. Since they no longer feed themselves through crops, they need employment. And as a result of its opening up at the behest of capitalist enterprises, employment and wages have increased. I would hardly understand this as a genuine rise in real wages when wages don't include the conditions under which one now works and lives compared to the cycle of leisure and work that results from being a farmer.

Wow, comparing capitalism in Haiti, to any other modern country is a typical ploy of the left wingers who look for the most depressed people in small countries around the globe so as to look at them and declare incorrectly that it is capitalism which caused the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said before, and posted links and citations, over the world in general, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system; especially dictatorships as was in Haiti.

I wonder if you're aware of who financed Haiti's dictators?

"The first United States occupation of Haiti began on July 28, 1915, when 330 US Marines landed at Port-au-Prince on the authority of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to safeguard the interests of U.S. corporations.

"The first invasion forces however already had debarked from U.S.S. 'Montana' on 27 January, 1914.[1]

"The occupation ended on August 1, 1934 after Franklin D. Roosevelt reaffirmed an August 1933 disengagement agreement. The last contingent of U.S. Marines departed on August 15, 1934 after a formal transfer of authority to the Garde."

United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haiti got on the wrong side of US elites when it became home of the only successful slave revolt in human history early in the 19th Century. Since that time it's been home to one mass murder after another perpetrated in the commercial interests of foreign powers.

In 1915 US Marines invaded and occupied Haiti on behalf of The National City Bank of New York (today's Citi), and they didn't leave until 1934.

Some argue Haiti is where Slavery changed its name to Capitalism.

You have deceitfully changed th quotes above to give credit for my post to Gnarley. I Have corrected the error. Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism. In addition, protecting US business is part of government's duty. It was not capitalism run amok, it was government run amok. Your diatribe has not shown capitalism to be the great enemy of man as you hoped it would

 

[dnsmith35]

Lobbying and gerrymandering have certainly outlived any usefulness they ever had.
I would strongly suggest voters also stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when picking their congressional representatives, as well. Especially voters with ballots that contain Third Party alternatives for House and Senate races.

People should vote for their one member of the House, because s/he is from their local area. Then they should vote for their state legislators from their local area and then perhaps vote for the state senators who represent their local district. That is where it should stop. The state legislators should appoint presidential electors from their state and the two US senators who will represent that state in the US Senate. Politics was intended to be local, and we should go back to that premise.

Wouldn't that provide the richest citizens (corporate and natural) in each local area with even more control over democracy than they currently enjoy? You really have problems with direct elections of US Senators?

Not at all! It would bypass the corrupt national elections situation.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for the common man to understand politics beyond his local area. National elections have little credibility. Just look at the elections since 1992, that should tell you something. Or maybe back all the way back to 1960, in which organized crime played a part in the selection process.

There were organized efforts to bury JFK because of religion, corruption at its worst.

 

[dnsmith35]

ROTFLMAO at your inability to read and reason. Obviously you do not know what I have said or you would have come to such a stupid conclusion.

That sort of comment isn't going to help things.

I don't need help. I have proved my points concretely. So when you come up with accusations I said, or meant something other than what I asserted, I note either the unwillingness to read or the inability to understand.

Of course it did. But why do you think there was irrational enthusiasm existed? Like low interest? Like finally able to by one's own home? (with out regard for credit worthiness? Absolute bullshit. The CRA was one driving force, pushing the banks to make loans that were not viable. I believe the government driving interest so low is a more important issue than the CRA, except for the part CRA may have had in driving the rates down.

So then, why didn't you say

"I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to make poor decisions, such as driving interest so low and the CRA, will remember that they will repeat the housing crash."​

But that's not what you said. I would really rather not dredge up tens of pages of posts of that not being what you said. There is a choice here. I can either choose to let this go; or, we can argue about what you said for tens more pages.
How about we just move on.

Of course you don't want to dredge up what I said, because you know I said nothing counter to the assertions I made in the post to which you responded.

I am satisfied.

You are? Why? You have not yet countered any of my assertions.

Okay, again, why then wouldn't you assert that here:

I mean you just argued that, for the sake of posterity, as the lesson to carry forward into the history books, it was the CRA that was the culprit.

Second to government's low interest rates. Like I said, you obviously have not read or you obviously have not understood my assertions.

I would really rather not dredge up tens of pages of posts of that being what you said. There is a choice here. I can either choose to let this go; or, we can argue about what you said for tens more pages.

Dredge them up, prove I am right.

How about we just move on.

People need to be reminded why we have such laws.
People like your buddies on the far right.

The facts are, I DO NOT HAVE BUDDIES ON THE RIGHT. I am and have always been to the left of center, a true liberal

Then I owe you an apology. I apologize. I'm more to the right of center; of course that was before the definition of "Political Center" moved underneath me. Now I am engaged in RL conversations trying to explain that the intent of a Ponzi scheme is to bamboozle people whereas the intent of Social Security is to give a small subsidy to the elderly such that the elderly won't have to eat dog food. That's in Real Life, let alone a message board.

If we are to move on, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions after I have spent days saying the government's artificial interest rates were the primary culprit. CRA falls somewhere beyond that, along with sub prime loans.

 

[dnsmith35]

Your link, Homeschool:

"The act is 'often cited as a cause' of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis 'even by some of its onetime supporters.'[26]

Opinion.

"President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.[citation needed]

Opinion. The same Obama that was suing banks to make bad loans.



I just proved that most of the companies would not be effected by Glass Steagall. Regardless, what does this have to do with sub-prime mortgages? Nothing.



So both noted that it didn't "deregulate" at all. Great. And how does this prove the act contributed to sub-prime loans? No proof here at all.



Well I would agree with that. We should have a gold standard, and we should have no FDIC. Great. What's this got to do with sub-prime lending? Nothing.



What does this have to do with sub-prime lending.



Opinion.

"In an article in The Nation, Mark Sumner asserted that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was responsible for the creation of entities that took on more risk due to their being considered 'too big to fail'.[31]

Again, I just proved that the act didn't affect the companies that crashed. So.... he's wrong. Are you too dumb to think for yourself?

"Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of 'eliteconomics' that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes.[32]"

What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?

Idiot. You are just so absolutely stupid, you don't even realize how moronic your posts are.

Are you just too plain stupid to think for yourself? Glass Steagall, didn't have anything to do with 90% of what you said, and the other 10%, it was just wrong. I just proved that those companies where not Retail, Commercial, Investment and Insurance companies.

That's the ONLY THINK that Glass-Steagall prevented, was one bank doing all four things.

None of what you just said, matters to that, except for the claim that repealing it allowed the banks to get bigger.... which I just proved did not apply. Those banks that failed were not doing that. Glass-Steagall would not effect them.

Are you too dumb to figure that out? Are you so blindly stupid, all you can do is repost other people's opinions? Are you idiotic, that you think opinions are the same as facts??

Get off the forum. You are too immature to be here. Grow up, learn something, and maybe we'll bother listening to you again.

I'm done with you. You have proven yourself incapable of reason, incapable of logic, you post opinion as fact, then demand proof. You are an idiot. You are waste of oxygen. You couldn't argue your way out of a 4th grade debate club. You and me... we're done. I'm not wasting my time with such a pathetic idiot.

I wonder if he realizes that calling you home school is not an insult. Home schooled kids consistently out score public school kids here in Alabama, as the AEA has consistently lowered education standards in the process of improving their own lot.

 

[dnsmith35]

A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues. Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs. I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.

A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.

I agree with that comment, for the first offense, but from then on they have been informed as to how their NON-VIOLENT CRIME does in fact cause VIOLENT CRIME in the drug distribution system. Once aware, you must beware!

 

[dnsmith35]

Okay, now that's funny on a number of levels.


Androw attempted to prove that new construction was always cheaper and defended the claim by exclaiming the equivalent of "well...duh!". I didn't even touch that in relation to the original claim on price indices the subsequent claim is a non sequitur. I do show restraint, you know.
But I digress...
I get that you're doing some tag team thing. That's cute. Is it your intention to have any serious discussion in this thread or are you just tagging in and out for the lulz?

ALL of my discussion is serious including when I agree with Androw, and recently when I agreed with George Phillip. Your assumptions about my posing or my use of economic studies
on which I base my opinions show little understanding of my assertions and opinions. Try to read for understanding instead of skimming and making rash comments about my posts.

If you're going to spend multiple posts deflecting an obvious logical error in the defense of another person for reasons you have been unwilling to explain, that is just fine with me.
But don't then complain when I label him your buddy.

There is little obvious logical error in Androw's posts concerning the fault of government in the housing crash. You are illogically incorrect.

For the record, I have not commented on any of the aforementioned studies in this exchange which should make this exchange rather dull, not exciting. I commented on that to which you chose to respond.

Studies are which prove the points, not your clamoring for quasi intellectual guff.

 

[gnarlylove]

dnsmith, what is your concept of logic?

 

[dnsmith35]

Before capitalism, the poor starved on a regular basis. They had no healthcare, no clothing, no food, no television, no cell phones, no central heating, no air conditioning, no nothing. The poor live like kings compared to how they lived before capitalism.

You must be fond of the idea that civilization started about 100 years ago and beforehand people were savage animals who had no direction until capitalism baptized them. You've regularly advocate learning about history but have opted for a white washed history that paints the modern era as the only leap forward in human civilization.

Given your level of knowledge about the world, your viewpoint on capitalism is accurate and I am wrong. But there's a big difference between what you perceive to know about the world and how the facts bear. We have no hope of knowing all the facts but your amnesia of history permits the view that capitalism has saved the world.

If you want to maintain your perceptions, I suggest you never look at history because you will be shaken. The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" was true when Solomon wrote it in 700BC and still is. But you would only agree if you actually knew the facts of history, the Hellenic Age, the Dynasties in Asia, on and on and on.

Understanding history is important, as is understanding human behavior important. Are you suggesting that during the first 100 years or so in American there was not a greater % of the population who were poor? Are you suggesting that during the period leading up to the settling of America there was not rampant serfdom and poverty in Europe or Asia?

Basically what he said is correct, Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Poverty was the common condition during the Age of Solomon and the Hellenic Age in Greece or in the Dynasties in Asia. That there was more wealth concentration with the leaders of those civilizations than there is now in every capitalistic system the world over.

I am not saying it was capitalism which relieved most people from poverty, but it sure does look like it from where I sit. I not only read a lot about ancient civilizations, I experienced one of the oldest. Of the 1 billion people in India, prior to capitalism 90% of the people lived in poverty. That has been reduced to about 50% now, and if the liberals with borders choose not to delay their labor evolution, that will drop drastically in the next generation.

Basically capitalism has good and bad. In the present moment staring into our computer screen appears good. But the present moment of our experience does not account for the realities of billions of people or how our own realities might change over time or the reality of how our planet will become less viable as corporations tear through our resources seeking to profit off our collective planet.

Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.

Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.

 

[dnsmith35]

dnsmith, what is your concept of logic?

A logical construct is a statement of assumption. Then a conclusion drawn fro that statement, which may or may not follow logically. EXAMPLE:

All girls wear panties. John wears panties. John is therefore a girl. That is not a logical conclusion.

If I said, all girls wear panties. Jean s a girl, therefore Jean wears panties, them it is a logical conclusion.

 

[dnsmith35]

Goodnight all!

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I've taken the liberty of removing faulty formatting from the following quote.

ALL of my discussion is serious including when I agree with Androw, and recently when I agreed with George Phillip. Your assumptions about my posing or my use of economic studies
on which I base my opinions show little understanding of my assertions and opinions. Try to read for understanding instead of skimming and making rash comments about my posts.There is little obvious logical error in Androw's posts concerning the fault of government in the housing crash. You are illogically incorrect.Studies are which prove the points, not your clamoring for quasi intellectual guff.

I am illogically incorrect? I don't think that's what you meant to say.

Do want to take a second stab at that post?
Look, if you're going to take a swipe at me and suggest that I am "clamoring for quasi intellectual guff" then you could at least take the time to properly format your post. Poor formatting takes all the sting out of your zingers.

New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.

This is your buddy's claim that you are defending. So, please enlighten me as to the "studies are which prove the points"? No really, I'd love to see some studies that show customization and land development as infrequent reasons for home construction.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

dnsmith, what is your concept of logic?

A logical construct is a statement of assumption. Then a conclusion drawn fro that statement, which may or may not follow logically. EXAMPLE:

All girls wear panties. John wears panties. John is therefore a girl. That is not a logical conclusion.

If I said, all girls wear panties. Jean s a girl, therefore Jean wears panties, them it is a logical conclusion.

That's a syllogism. A syllogism based on the false premise that "all girls wear panties" and therefore a faulty syllogism.

 

[gnarlylove]

Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.

Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.

You have consistently exonerated capitalism when you admit misdeeds have occurred. In the case of Haiti you said:

"Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism."

You've made at least 2 very similar exonerations regarding other misdeeds. I find it puzzling you insist capitalism is innocent in cases of wrongdoing while also agreeing it is not innocent, not perfect and has bad parts, but, as you would surely add: is the best damn economic system we have currently--which may be true. But if you conclude from that that there are no viable alternatives, you are mistaken. It is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot envision or don't want to imagine another way of organizing an economy does not mean that they do not exist. It only means you are unaware of better alternatives. I'm not advocating for alternatives at present, I'm merely identifying your ambivalence about capitalism and invalid logic that you seem to regularly deploy in support of capitalism.

Can you identify an instance where capitalism is the engine, the cause of wrongdoing? Apparently you don't think so in Haiti but understanding Woodrow Wilson's thinking which lead to the invasion of Haiti during his Presidency is helpful. So let's just read what he wrote:

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."

I think this leaves no question as to the fact that increasing market share drives governments to deploy force to expand markets. Is the desire to expand market share of US corporations a motivating factor in Haiti? Yes. It may not be the only motivation but certainly among the key motivations that resulted in the decimation of Haitian society, from which is has not recovered to this day. The massive presence of US corporations in Haiti's economy is a sure sign that the motivation to increase market share paid off for wealthy investors and corporations. Not surprisingly it has had the opposite effect on Haitians.

Do you assert Haitians are mostly at fault? Or is the desire to expand markets at fault? ya know, the profit motive? Does the desire to expand markets potentially threaten human rights and freedom?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Again, I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the terrible formatting.

ROTFLMAO at your inability to read and reason. Obviously you do not know what I have said or you would have come to such a stupid conclusion.

That sort of comment isn't going to help things.

I don't need help. I have proved my points concretely. So when you come up with accusations I said, or meant something other than what I asserted, I note either the unwillingness to read or the inability to understand.

Now you're just being obtuse and obstinate. So, if I link to your posts in which you say something different then you say now, then the only possible explanation is that I have a reading comprehension problem because you could not possibly be wrong?

Of course you don't want to dredge up what I said, because you know I said nothing counter to the assertions I made in the post to which you responded.
...
Like I said, you obviously have not read or you obviously have not understood my assertions.Dredge them up...

I'm getting tired of cleaning up your bad formatting, and you've already stated plainly that you can never admit when you've made an error, but here ya go:

Exhibit A) Notice the defendant claims that only the CRA is responsible. The defendant makes a reference to the 1995 amendment to the CRA. This is the defendant's entire post. Follow the link.

I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have no down payment loans given to people with little or no credit will remember that they will repeat the housing crash.

Exhibit B)

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Peter J. Wallison and coauthor Edward Pinto believed that the housing bubble and crash was due to federal mandates to promote affordable housing. ...

This post is quite lengthy and I have snipped it. A link to the original post is provided.
I replied to this post with:

I wish you all would stop with the talking points. Everyone knows that the GOP has been pushing this flimsy explanation for a couple years now. I mean really, try some original thought.
Here. let me help you:
...
How Urban Planners Caused the Housing Bubble | Cato Institute
Now that is some original and thought provoking analysis as opposed to rehashing Marco Rubio's response to Obama's State of the Union Address 2013. C'mon, guys, your narrative is tired. And besides, it's classic "Fallacy of the single cause". ...

Again the post is snipped for brevity. A link to the original post is provided.
I have presented evidence demonstrating that dnsmith did in fact, on several occasions, write a post that claimed only the CRA as responsible for the housing bubble bust. Now comes the part where dnsmith claims I have misinterpreted his posts because he could not possibly be wrong, or requires more examples. This cycle of evidence and denial will go on for pages, as things do on the internet. However, I choose a different path. I choose CASE CLOSED​

I am satisfied.

You are? Why? You have not yet countered any of my assertions.

Evidently, I did. The evidence is shown above. I have countered several of your assertions. I have countered your assertion that you never wrote a post claiming only the CRA was responsible for the housing bubble burst, however inadvertent that claim was on your part. I have countered your assertion that Androw's argument from incredulity was logical. I have countered your assertion that you don't need help by helping you with your erroneous post formatting. I have countered your assertion that we should ignore concerns over foreign working conditions by pointing out that, while you are correct about labor conditions improving by way of free trade, there are limits to the amount of cruelty we as a nation will tolerate from our trading partners specifically citing Sudanese slavery as a case in point.
These examples all took place in different exchanges between us.

But none of that is why I am satisfied. I am satisfied because you abandoned the fallacy of the single cause. That's all I wanted in the first place.

How about we just move on.

If we are to move on, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions after I have spent days saying the government's artificial interest rates were the primary culprit. CRA falls somewhere beyond that, along with sub prime loans.

I believe you have spent days on this subject. There are over 200 pages of posts in this thread. I wish you wouldn't keep this up. This is a thread, I thought, on the virtues of capitalism.
So let me guess... Someone brought up the most recent bust in the business cycle as a means of pointing out flaws in Capitalism.
You and your buddy jumped down their throat claiming it wasn't Capitalism's fault, it was the big bad government, and in doing so you dove headlong into the famous "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Is that what happened... for days on end?
Did it ever occur to you that the true strength of Capitalism is that Capitalism survives busts? How many economic systems can turn a economic bust into a cyclic pattern that can be endured?

 

[georgephillip]

If I am a slave.... I can't have capital. If I can't have capital... it's not capitalism stupid. Idiots on the forum today.

"We deny people the ability to own capital, and that proves capitalism is bad!"

What moron says stuff like this? Oh wait... some internet forum poster.

You are fundamentally challenged, aren't you?
Were you homeschooled?
You're lack of reading COMPREHENSION skills make most of your responses imbecilic.

Slaves were NOT denied the right to have capital, Moron.

Slaves WERE capital.

Go to college

You sir, are an idiot. You are simply too stupid to be on a forum.

You, on the other hand, are a semi-literate slave too ignorant of your own history to pass judgement on others.

What part of "slaves were capital" lead you to believe slaves were not entitled to possess capital?

"As slaveholders supplied themselves (and, much more meanly, their slaves) with Northern goods, the credit originally advanced against cotton made its way north, into the hands of New York and New England merchants who used it to purchase British goods.

"Thus were Indian land, African-American labor, Atlantic finance and British industry synthesized into racial domination, profit and economic development on a national and a global scale."

In other words, slavery changed its name to capitalism.
You're the living proof.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?

"Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBC’s Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion… how can the ‘deniers’ say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'

"The reason that people can say that is because it is true.

"The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.

"It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.

"For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.

"If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.

"Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.

"When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)

Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis

For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.

CDOs are bonds, not derivatives.

 

[georgephillip]

.....

Hopefully, but in the process if we don't trade with those nations, their people will continue to be enslaved in perpetuity. As long as we withhold the use of their labor we are contributing to the status quo and hurting those people even more.It can, but the point of regulation is to help level the playing field. I know of no purely laissez-faire capitalist system in the world. Absolutely not, especially since our government works to protect the little guy. The problems arise when the government goes beyond making a level playing field and tries to play in the market.Again, absolutely not. The capital is only what it is, money and what it buys. Capitalism is what has consistently lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.

Sustenance farmers were unable to grow the quantities of food we need here in the US and what we export and sell or give to the poor in other countries.

Thus the locals have re-located to the hills as in Haiti and to the slums and favelas near the city. Since they no longer feed themselves through crops, they need employment. And as a result of its opening up at the behest of capitalist enterprises, employment and wages have increased. I would hardly understand this as a genuine rise in real wages when wages don't include the conditions under which one now works and lives compared to the cycle of leisure and work that results from being a farmer.

Wow, comparing capitalism in Haiti, to any other modern country is a typical ploy of the left wingers who look for the most depressed people in small countries around the globe so as to look at them and declare incorrectly that it is capitalism which caused the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said before, and posted links and citations, over the world in general, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system; especially dictatorships as was in Haiti.

I wonder if you're aware of who financed Haiti's dictators?

"The first United States occupation of Haiti began on July 28, 1915, when 330 US Marines landed at Port-au-Prince on the authority of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to safeguard the interests of U.S. corporations.

"The first invasion forces however already had debarked from U.S.S. 'Montana' on 27 January, 1914.[1]

"The occupation ended on August 1, 1934 after Franklin D. Roosevelt reaffirmed an August 1933 disengagement agreement. The last contingent of U.S. Marines departed on August 15, 1934 after a formal transfer of authority to the Garde."

United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haiti got on the wrong side of US elites when it became home of the only successful slave revolt in human history early in the 19th Century. Since that time it's been home to one mass murder after another perpetrated in the commercial interests of foreign powers.

In 1915 US Marines invaded and occupied Haiti on behalf of The National City Bank of New York (today's Citi), and they didn't leave until 1934.

Some argue Haiti is where Slavery changed its name to Capitalism.

You have deceitfully changed th quotes above to give credit for my post to Gnarley. I Have corrected the error. Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism. In addition, protecting US business is part of government's duty. It was not capitalism run amok, it was government run amok. Your diatribe has not shown capitalism to be the great enemy of man as you hoped it would

I've never changed any quotes for any reasons.
I have noticed the USMB software sometimes transposes responses.

Let's see if we can move on.

Is the Federal Reserve "government" or "private" in your world view?
I ask that because you seem to believe National City Bank exerted no more control over US "government" in 1915 than Citi influenced governmental events during capitalism's most recent looting.

Your amateurish apologies for capitalism aren't changing any minds.