Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

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.

Of course not. This guy debates like he's STILL in a public middle school debate club.

It's people like him, that are perfect examples of what Thomas Sowell said years ago.

Sowell was set debate a well known economist I believe, and the night before the debate told his people he was going home to get rest. When they thought he should prepare for the debate instead, Sowell explained:

“I don’t mind debating smart people. They know the limitations of their position. It’s debating stupid people that’s hard.”

This guys is exactly who Sowell was talking about. Too dumb to even know the limits of his own position.

"On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.

"According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color.

"The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.

"The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.

"Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."

Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.

L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig

OK, you have said it, but can you offer anything other than opinion (city officials et al) which proves that it was the bank pushing the loans in a predatory manner or was the bank simply following the federal insistence to finance at a lower interest rate to get more people to own their own homes and those people choosing to buy more than they could afford? All of the evidence, pro and con, when put together still suggests the federal government fiscal and monetary policies to be the primary cause of the housing balloon and the subsequent crash.

Not a single one of you on the far left has produced an iota of believable evidence to off set the responsibility of the government for their actions. IE, a lot of left wing propaganda as opposed to empirical data.

 

[dnsmith35]

As for your first statement, dnsmith has consistently churned out terrible formats (not necessarily his fault--he's not a "techie" and USMB formatting is sub-par). Yet as a result of the poor formatting so that it appears who is saying what is false, he then accuses someone of malevolence.

I accuse someone of malevolence when and if they try to put words into my mouth. And I have noted that you, zombie and George have put names other than mine on comments I made, so don't claim success of formatting. I don't consider format or ritual important. The solution is, if you don't like my formatting, don't read my posts. Yet, not one person on this thread has once, not even once, offered a better economic solution than Capitalism. So, you can get off your high horse and recognize that the claims of the "progressives" on this thread have over looked the validity of empirical studies about economic situations and instead offer a pseudo intellectual discussion which means absolutely nothing in the real world.

FWIW, I have never deliberately assigned another's name to any of your posts.
gnarlylove is exactly correct about USMB formatting.
The occurrence of such formatting errors of attribution may be random or not; however, I include the full "conversation" of almost every post I respond to.
We seem to have enough honest disagreement on this thread without blaming each other for manipulating what we've posted previously

Format, blowmat, when what I say is included under a quote with a different name specifying who said it, it is not formatting, it is carelessness. I suspect I have overlooked such errors as well.

 

[dnsmith35]

Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?

Politicians, all of whom follow their particular bias. I absolutely don't buy that Wall Street controls the government any more of even as much as POLITICAL MACHINES. All political machines tell us they are for the little guy, but in fact they are only out for themselves.

 

[dnsmith35]

War is the result of power hungry humans, not capitalism, and not socialism. Communism maybe. But the pure fact is, capitalism is not at fault, people are; greedy people are; and no economic system eliminates greedy human beings.

And why would people be power hungry if it wasn't worthwhile? People become clever as a result of seeing what works--and capitalism rewards individuals who forsake the interests of communities for their own private pursuits. So they do coal mining and ruin aquifers but have little concern since they don't actually live in that community.

Capitalism provides the system by which power hungry individuals are rewarded for being hyper-focused on profit maximization. Those who make the biggest bucks are those on Wall St. and they are the most concentrated group of psychopaths among any profession. These are the men who are heralded on Fortune 500 and other magazines.
Is Wall Street Full of Psychopaths? - James Silver - The Atlantic
Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ
The Shocking Stat About Psychos On Wall Street - Business Insider

And when a person disregards others and nature for his own benefit, we see the devastation of whole societies while a small minority benefit enormously. Amy Chua has written about this in "World on Fire" where she catalogs dozens of societies where the minority population control the society and the vast majority are under abject living conditions:
"In the Philippines, Chua explains, the Chinese Filipino is 1% of the population but controls 60% of the economy, with the result being envy and bitterness on the part of the majority against the Chinese minority—in other words, an ethnic conflict. Similarly, in Indonesia the Chinese Indonesians are 3% of the population but control 70% of the economy. There is a similar pattern in other Southeast Asia nations.

According to Chua, examples of what she calls ethnic market-dominant minorities include overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia; whites in Latin America; Jews in America; Croats in the former Yugoslavia; and Igbos, Kikuyus, Tutsis, Indians and Lebanese, among others, in Africa."

While capitalism is not the agent it is the mechanism by which agents stake claims (thereby denying access of the community who depend on resources like water, land) and have them defended by repressive governments, including in the US.


As I quoted Woodrow Wilson, there is urgency behind expanding formerly closed markets for the sake of private wealth even if it makes sovereign nations outraged by annexing their resources. By taking resources by force from sovereign nations, you are rewarded. Capitalism is the mechanism of wealth production for individual profit maximization which often takes little to no account of external costs. These costs range from infant mortality, pollution, destruction of culture and countless other costs that are not calculated as part of the profit.

Capitalism is the engine that churns out "bad people." Though I don't agree with your assessment; people are not bad and certainly not born bad. People learn how to behave and what works and the systems in place determine what works and what doesn't. Placing the individual over the community is the essence of capitalist enterprise and has helped wrought untold suffering and deceit for the sake of private gain.

I'm not saying capitalism only creates horrid circumstances. Those living where capital is concentrated are better in relative terms. However, that is no excuse for neglecting the facts about the horrid side of capitalism.

You sure do use a lot of words in your efforts to blame an economic system instead of the true culprits. Capitalism no more churns out "bad people" than does Socialism or any other form of Marxism. The point being, it is not the economic system which is causing the evil in the world no matter what you think.

So long as we have people in our country who are more concerned about or RELATIVELY POOR, instead of the TRULY POOR of the world, we can expect that the horrid side of any economic system will continue to breed horrid effects on the TRULY POOR. In my opinion we concern our selves with our relative poor who earn at or below the poverty line set by the government more than we do about the abject destitute of the world, that "income gap" you think about will continue to grow.

It appears like some of the more left persons on this thread only care about our own back yard. I care about the least wealthy all over the world. Our bottom quintile of wage earners have many times the wealth of the poor in the third world as translated into standards of living.

 

[georgephillip]

Of course not. This guy debates like he's STILL in a public middle school debate club.

It's people like him, that are perfect examples of what Thomas Sowell said years ago.

Sowell was set debate a well known economist I believe, and the night before the debate told his people he was going home to get rest. When they thought he should prepare for the debate instead, Sowell explained:

“I don’t mind debating smart people. They know the limitations of their position. It’s debating stupid people that’s hard.”

This guys is exactly who Sowell was talking about. Too dumb to even know the limits of his own position.

"On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.

"According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color.

"The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.

"The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.

"Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."

Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.

L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig

OK, you have said it, but can you offer anything other than opinion (city officials et al) which proves that it was the bank pushing the loans in a predatory manner or was the bank simply following the federal insistence to finance at a lower interest rate to get more people to own their own homes and those people choosing to buy more than they could afford? All of the evidence, pro and con, when put together still suggests the federal government fiscal and monetary policies to be the primary cause of the housing balloon and the subsequent crash.

Not a single one of you on the far left has produced an iota of believable evidence to off set the responsibility of the government for their actions. IE, a lot of left wing propaganda as opposed to empirical data.

" JPMorgan agreed to pay $20 bln in 2013 to clear up legal claims

"U.S. prosecutor in Manhattan has brought 8 mortgage-fraud suits..."

"WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co settled the latest in a string of legal claims on Tuesday when it agreed to pay $614 million to the U.S. government and admitted that it defrauded federal agencies by underwriting sub-standard mortgage loans.

"JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, said as part of the settlement that for more than a decade it approved thousands of insured loans that were not eligible for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to court papers."

UPDATE 2-JPMorgan to pay $614 mln in U.S. mortgage fraud case | Reuters

Do you find this "believable evidence"?

 

[georgephillip]

Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?

Politicians, all of whom follow their particular bias. I absolutely don't buy that Wall Street controls the government any more of even as much as POLITICAL MACHINES. All political machines tell us they are for the little guy, but in fact they are only out for themselves.

All politicians depend on one percent of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The same one percent who earned about 9% of US income forty years ago and currently earns over 20% of US income.

The same one percent Wall Street serves by bribing politicians to privatize profit and socialize loss.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?

Politicians, all of whom follow their particular bias. I absolutely don't buy that Wall Street controls the government any more of even as much as POLITICAL MACHINES. All political machines tell us they are for the little guy, but in fact they are only out for themselves.

All politicians depend on one percent of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The same one percent who earned about 9% of US income forty years ago and currently earns over 20% of US income.

The same one percent Wall Street serves by bribing politicians to privatize profit and socialize loss.

If we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it.

When someone hires a hitman and the police catch wind of the plot, they don't only jail the guy who did the hiring and let the hitman go free.

All these transactions have buyers -AND- sellers. Try to keep that in mind.

 

[dnsmith35]

"On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.

"According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color.

"The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.

"The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.

"Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."

Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.

L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig

OK, you have said it, but can you offer anything other than opinion (city officials et al) which proves that it was the bank pushing the loans in a predatory manner or was the bank simply following the federal insistence to finance at a lower interest rate to get more people to own their own homes and those people choosing to buy more than they could afford? All of the evidence, pro and con, when put together still suggests the federal government fiscal and monetary policies to be the primary cause of the housing balloon and the subsequent crash.

Not a single one of you on the far left has produced an iota of believable evidence to off set the responsibility of the government for their actions. IE, a lot of left wing propaganda as opposed to empirical data.

" JPMorgan agreed to pay $20 bln in 2013 to clear up legal claims

"U.S. prosecutor in Manhattan has brought 8 mortgage-fraud suits..."

"WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co settled the latest in a string of legal claims on Tuesday when it agreed to pay $614 million to the U.S. government and admitted that it defrauded federal agencies by underwriting sub-standard mortgage loans.

"JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, said as part of the settlement that for more than a decade it approved thousands of insured loans that were not eligible for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to court papers."

UPDATE 2-JPMorgan to pay $614 mln in U.S. mortgage fraud case | Reuters

Do you find this "believable evidence"?

No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.

 

[dnsmith35]

Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?

Politicians, all of whom follow their particular bias. I absolutely don't buy that Wall Street controls the government any more of even as much as POLITICAL MACHINES. All political machines tell us they are for the little guy, but in fact they are only out for themselves.

All politicians depend on one percent of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The same one percent who earned about 9% of US income forty years ago and currently earns over 20% of US income.

The same one percent Wall Street serves by bribing politicians to privatize profit and socialize loss.

The people who pay for campaigns cannot require quid pro quo from the politicians, thus the presumptive guilt of Wall Street is a lot of bull.

 

[dnsmith35]

I have asked several times for anyone who thinks they know something to tell us peons what economic system would be better than capitalism. No one has bothered to answer. I presume they know there is no system which makes as many people prosperous as does capitalism.

So for the moment, let us digress to a discussion relative to the OP. The truth is, it is not capitalism which has created such inequality.

When we get past the "pundits" who express lots of opinions without real proof, we can discuss what the REAL problem of inequality is. It can be summed up in two words, CHOICES & EDUCATION. Our education system in the US does not consider the child being educated the reason for the schools to exist. As a result kids are not adequately counseled to follow a path most relevant to the child's capability. European education systems have one of the best ideas of education, as does Japan. Beginning in high school, early on, each kid is tested for what his best achievement can be. Those who are better with hands on trades are aimed in that direction. Those who are better of in Academia, are tailored for the University. Thus they do not waste billions of $$$$s grooming a kid who is not academically qualified toward a college education. Here is where the choices start to go wrong. TEACHERS AND COUNSELORS tend to push for academia, even if the kids are not really up to it. Then comes our political system which treats kids as if they are full grown adults, thus the apprentice programs that exist the world over causes the economy to pay more for their lack of experience than they are worth in production.

Capitalism has for many years told the designers of education for years that insisting on a kid receiving minimum wage, when in fact he should be paid IAW his abilities, which will in an apprentice system gradually improve until he reaches Journeyman status, at which time he is ready for adult wages, doing adult things, and living like an adult.

As it is, we have hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of kids who have not learned a trade, and who have had the school system fail them such that they are inadequately trained for a trade or to do any job, possibly beyond flipping hamburgers. That, of course, is a dead end job.

So, do I blame the kids? No, I blame the failure of our public school system and the choices made for the kids by teachers and counselors. As these kids grow up, they are not sufficiently educated to know how to make good decisions, especially financial decisions.

One of the major issues why our schools fail the kids, is based on the school believing that all kids have parents who can or will assist them with lessons. Let us look at the 15% to 20% whose parents, for what ever reason, do not help their kids with homework. Homework is one of the most useful tools in education, PROVIDING the kid is smart enough to do it or a parent is smart enough to take over from the teacher and help the kid learn at home.

So how about the kids who ARE NOT smart enough, and whose PARENTS DO NOT/CAN'T help them learn? They go to school, and are frequently belittled for not doing the work and graded down such that the kids self esteem is wounded from the git go. Our public school teachers do not do enough to take the kids who did not learn and TEACH THEM instead of blaming the parent for not doing their part.

So what happens to those kids? THEY ARE THE ONES IN THE BOTTOM QUINTILE OF INCOME. They are the ones who were failed by society, not by any economic system.

The answer is to put the priority back where it belongs, on the kids.

We have a system here in Alabama called "Alternative School." When the kids show signs of falling behind, or of disrupting the class room with bad behavior (usually brought on because the kids do not understand the work) they go to the Alternative School wherein they are immersed in the basics until they are capable of succeeding in main stream education.

Where there is a specific learning disorder, the kids are sent for a period of time to a private education system and helped until they are ready to go back. It usually is accomplished in 2 or 3 hour periods a week, most for less than a semester.

 

[georgephillip]

Politicians, all of whom follow their particular bias. I absolutely don't buy that Wall Street controls the government any more of even as much as POLITICAL MACHINES. All political machines tell us they are for the little guy, but in fact they are only out for themselves.

All politicians depend on one percent of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The same one percent who earned about 9% of US income forty years ago and currently earns over 20% of US income.

The same one percent Wall Street serves by bribing politicians to privatize profit and socialize loss.

If we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it.

When someone hires a hitman and the police catch wind of the plot, they don't only jail the guy who did the hiring and let the hitman go free.

All these transactions have buyers -AND- sellers. Try to keep that in mind.

That's good advice.
When you say "if we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it", I'm not clear about how you would limit that authority? US corporations hire lobbyists to petition government to privatize the commons, i.e., cheap land, unlimited air and water, abundant minerals, and expendable workers. The profits are reserved primarily for 1% to 10% of all Americans, and the costs are shared by the vast majority of US workers. Would you deny government the right to privatize the commons or insist government do a better job negotiating the trade-offs between costs and profits?

 

[georgephillip]

OK, you have said it, but can you offer anything other than opinion (city officials et al) which proves that it was the bank pushing the loans in a predatory manner or was the bank simply following the federal insistence to finance at a lower interest rate to get more people to own their own homes and those people choosing to buy more than they could afford? All of the evidence, pro and con, when put together still suggests the federal government fiscal and monetary policies to be the primary cause of the housing balloon and the subsequent crash.

Not a single one of you on the far left has produced an iota of believable evidence to off set the responsibility of the government for their actions. IE, a lot of left wing propaganda as opposed to empirical data.

" JPMorgan agreed to pay $20 bln in 2013 to clear up legal claims

"U.S. prosecutor in Manhattan has brought 8 mortgage-fraud suits..."

"WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co settled the latest in a string of legal claims on Tuesday when it agreed to pay $614 million to the U.S. government and admitted that it defrauded federal agencies by underwriting sub-standard mortgage loans.

"JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, said as part of the settlement that for more than a decade it approved thousands of insured loans that were not eligible for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to court papers."

UPDATE 2-JPMorgan to pay $614 mln in U.S. mortgage fraud case | Reuters

Do you find this "believable evidence"?

No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.

Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"

 

[dblack]

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" -Atlas Shrugged

Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?

The question is what benefits are derived from controlling the government. I'm always a little surprised to realize that you recognize the problem, yet advocate for policies that only exacerbate it.

You're right, that what pollutes our government the most is the efforts of those who would use government to enhance their wealth (increase their financial power). But you're wrong in assuming that they are advocates of a free market They are its staunchest opponents.

 

[georgephillip]

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" -Atlas Shrugged

Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?

The question is what benefits are derived from controlling the government. I'm always a little surprised to realize that you recognize the problem, yet advocate for policies that only exacerbate it.

You're right, that what pollutes our government the most is the efforts of those who would use government to enhance their wealth (increase their financial power). But you're wrong in assuming that they are advocates of a free market They are its staunchest opponents.

Can we get specific about what steps you would take to reduce the influence of financial elites on government?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

" JPMorgan agreed to pay $20 bln in 2013 to clear up legal claims

"U.S. prosecutor in Manhattan has brought 8 mortgage-fraud suits..."

"WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co settled the latest in a string of legal claims on Tuesday when it agreed to pay $614 million to the U.S. government and admitted that it defrauded federal agencies by underwriting sub-standard mortgage loans.

"JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, said as part of the settlement that for more than a decade it approved thousands of insured loans that were not eligible for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to court papers."

UPDATE 2-JPMorgan to pay $614 mln in U.S. mortgage fraud case | Reuters

Do you find this "believable evidence"?

No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.

Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"

The Federal Reserve is the government.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Just a quick note on formatting, addressed to anyone for whom this might be a help...

First and foremost there is a button captioned "Preview Post". This is a very useful feature to review how your post will appear before you hit the "Submit Reply" button.

The format tags specify the formatting. Each format tag begins with an open tag
[format]
and a close tag
[/format]

I will give some examples and use "whitespace" to prevent the format tags from being interpreted.
Some format tags are relatively simple, such as italics
[ I ]
[ / I ]

Quotes are an example of formatting with a few more rules and features. Quotes can be nested.
[ quote ] [ quote ] [/ quote ] [/ quote ]
Quotes can be linked.
[ quote= Zombie_Pundit; 9198478]
Notice the little arrow that will navigate your browser to the original post. The linked and nested properties are not exclusive.
There is a limiting to the nesting. The forum will automatically delete quoted text if the nesting level is too "deep", meaning too many layers of nested quotes.

Format tag balancing...
If the format tags are unbalanced, the formatting will not take effect in the manner the author intended (unless for some reason the author intended unbalanced format tags).
Consider this unbalanced format tag which I am deliberately adding to make something
BOLD

But the word bold won't be bold because the format tags are unbalanced. Now when I do this again but balance the tags
BOLD
The first close tag corresponds to the most recent open tag, leaving the original incorrect.

Now, if I inadvertently delete (or break) a close and open tag
I [/ B ] could leave a large chunk of text [ B ] bold when only certain words were supposed to be bold.

It is difficult to quote someone when the original post contains unbalanced quotation format tags.

 

[georgephillip]

No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.

Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"

The Federal Reserve is the government.

"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions.

"They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

– "The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s"

Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"

The Federal Reserve is the government.

"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions.

"They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

– "The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s"

Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research

Good old Louis was nuttier than you.

Thanks for the link. Ellen Brown is a moron......an amusing moron.

 

[georgephillip]

The Federal Reserve is the government.

"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions.

"They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

– "The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s"

Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research

Good old Louis was nuttier than you.

Thanks for the link. Ellen Brown is a moron......an amusing moron.

How much of the Fed's stock is owned by the government?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Ultimately I conclude that laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable; regulated Capitalism is an economic system fit for actual use.

Snipped for brevity. I agree, laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable. Can you give me an example of where on exists today?

Nowhere, of course. At least as I think we both define "laissez-faire Capitalism".

I think the problem is that we have not begun with a set of definitions. Is Capitalism understood to mean "laissez-faire" Capitalism? Let us not pretend there is no one who considers "laissez-faire" an unadded and unnecessary qualifier. It's been quite the talking point for a number of years. Is Keynesianism synonymous with "Capitalism"? Let us not pretend there is no one who considers Keynesianism to be akin to Socialism. Arguments are abound on the internet over differences stemming from what people consider a putative definition of terms like these. And no one will stop, catch their breath, and ask "what did you mean by that" because they assume everyone defines things they way they do and cannot imagine the world any differently.

Let's take a look at Wikipedia
Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to this article, "Marxian" is an economic theory under the subject of Capitalism. Of course, once one clicks on the link there is no easy navigation back except the browser back-page button. That's rather poetic if you stop and think about it.

Contrast this with the wikipedia article on Market Economy
Market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article lists several ideologies on economic systems including Capitalist and Laissez-faire as separate ideologies.

So even if we try to use wikipedia to provide a common set of definitions, wikipedia contradicts itself on the relationships between these systems and ideologies. BTW, the ideology link "Capitalist" links to the article above on Capitalism.

We need to agree on what Capitalism entails.