Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

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?

None. And yet, the Treasury was getting around 50 times more earnings than the "stock holders" these last few years.

So who owns the Fed's stock?

 

[georgephillip]

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?

I wouldn't. I don't think it's their influence that's the problem. It's what that influence affords them. Instead, I'd work to prevent government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone, wealthy or otherwise.

Does it sound reasonable to say preventing government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone would require a Second Constitutional Convention?

 

[georgephillip]

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?

How does the government negotiate the trade-offs between costs and profits? What gives you the idea the government does anything but see to the self interests of the politicians?

How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?

 

[dblack]

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

I wouldn't. I don't think it's their influence that's the problem. It's what that influence affords them. Instead, I'd work to prevent government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone, wealthy or otherwise.

Does it sound reasonable to say preventing government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone would require a Second Constitutional Convention?

Given the polluted state of Constitutional case law and precedent - probably. At the very least a really solid amendment along those lines.

 

[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?"

How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.

So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.

 

[Londoner]

How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?

Exactly.

Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.

Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.

Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.

 

[georgephillip]

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?

THAT is really irrelevant, as the Fed will invariably do what the current administration wants them to do

THAT is really stupid.
The Fed's mandate hasn't changed since 1913, to keep the private banking system intact.
This mean propping up the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, that means taxpayers are paying interest to those banks on the banks' reserves--reserves maintained for their own private profit.

Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research

 

[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

See what I mean? You are so dumb, you don't even realize that what you just posted, contradicts absolutely nothing of what I said. Nor did I ever suggest what is written here was wrong otherwise.

You are just simply too stupid to know what you don't know.

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

You're still no Thomas Sowell.
I guess you missed the irony of government suing private banksters to redress an epidemic of mortgage fraud, 80% of which was committed by private lenders?
Arrogance and ignorance are deadly.
Go to college.

 

[georgephillip]

How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?

Exactly.

Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.

Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.

Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.

Wall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:

"Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the state’s own bank.

“'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'

"Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.

"The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.

"That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.

"Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.

"But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.

"Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion – three or four times the cost of construction."

Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.

I realize gov't social engineering often fails but in this case we, as a nation, tried to include our least capable in the American dream. It was a noble idea that, other than a few exceptions, failed miserably.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
It wasn't the housing market.

^
Proof you don't understand derivatives or Ponzi schemes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

None. And yet, the Treasury was getting around 50 times more earnings than the "stock holders" these last few years.

So who owns the Fed's stock?

They shouldn't have called it stock. Causes confusion.
They should have called it a bond or a risk requirement?
Maybe a membership deposit?

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

THAT is really irrelevant, as the Fed will invariably do what the current administration wants them to do

THAT is really stupid.
The Fed's mandate hasn't changed since 1913, to keep the private banking system intact.
This mean propping up the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, that means taxpayers are paying interest to those banks on the banks' reserves--reserves maintained for their own private profit.

Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research

If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers,

It doesn't. And Ellen is still a moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?

Exactly.

Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.

Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.

Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.

Wall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:

"Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the state’s own bank.

“'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'

"Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.

"The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.

"That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.

"Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.

"But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.

"Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion – three or four times the cost of construction."

Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction

Costs can be cut in half by funding through the state’s own bank.

That is an excellent idea!
The government can loan taxpayer funds to their cronies, what could go wrong? LOL!

Look at what happened last time the government did that.

Fannie and Freddie lost hundreds of billions.

Look at the current government takeover of student loans.

 

[georgephillip]

None. And yet, the Treasury was getting around 50 times more earnings than the "stock holders" these last few years.

So who owns the Fed's stock?

They shouldn't have called it stock. Causes confusion.
They should have called it a bond or a risk requirement?
Maybe a membership deposit?

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Who are "they"?
Anyone in your family?

 

[georgephillip]

Exactly.

Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.

Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.

Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.

Wall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:

"Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the state’s own bank.

“'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'

"Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.

"The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.

"That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.

"Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.

"But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.

"Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion – three or four times the cost of construction."

Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction

Costs can be cut in half by funding through the state’s own bank.

That is an excellent idea!
The government can loan taxpayer funds to their cronies, what could go wrong? LOL!

Look at what happened last time the government did that.

Fannie and Freddie lost hundreds of billions.

Look at the current government takeover of student loans.

Look at North Dakota, and you might discover not everyone is a greedy cocksucker, like you

"A number of other mineral-rich states were initially not affected by the economic downturn, but they lost revenues with the later decline in oil prices. North Dakota is the only state to be in continuous budget surplus since the banking crisis of 2008. Its balance sheet is so strong that it recently reduced individual income taxes and property taxes by a combined $400 million, and is debating further cuts. It also has the lowest foreclosure rate and lowest credit card default rate in the country, and it has had NO bank failures in at least the last decade."

North Dakota's Economic ?Miracle??It's Not Oil by Ellen Brown ? YES! Magazine

 

[racewright]

lets hope so would hate to see my neighbor have the same as me that lazy piece of shit.

 

[crisismangement]

(For someone who 'gives lessons' on formatting, you sure blow it)

Since no example exists, it is obvious that unless you add the "laissez-faire" it is not.

No! Keynesian is generally bad government actions as most issues would have improved with out the "government meddling" in the economy. Reason being, "every nickle of Keynesian stimulation comes from the economy through taxation or borrowing, and just moved around but because that borrowing and taxing has overhead, the amount put back into the economy is never as much as is taken out. Keynesian policies are not synonymous with "Capitalism". I don't assume any of you know what it means because so many of you are dumb as a post when it comes to economics. You may know (I am not really sure) how to FORMAT a post, but you have shown little understanding of economics.

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.

Gosh, how loose a definition can one get.

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. Since laissez-faire is such a non existing system of capitalism I suppose considering it a separate ideology is fine.

Since Wikipedia is edited by the people who use it there is no doubt as to why it is not a very good source.

We need to agree on what Capitalism entails.

How about using a valid reference book? Merriam-Webster says it well.

Full Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Most of us tend to modify that definition by adding that government regulation is most likely needed to mitigate an less than level playing field which exists between capital and consumption.

We then go further, by saying that capitalism is AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM to EVER DEVISE a means to distribute prosperity the highest % of the population.[/QUOTE]

Your treatment of Keynesian Economics is both woefully inadequate and simply wrong. And just for the record, Keynes very much thought he was a Capitalist. Actually he did not go far enough.

Crisismanagement: What you think Keynes thought he was is not relevant. His concept of stimulation of a slow economy has done more damage to a capitalist system than any other stupid idea.

Keynes wanted to create a revolution in the way the world thought about economic problems, but he was more open-minded about capitalism than is commonly believed. He saw capitalism as essential to a society’s well-being but also morally flawed,​

Capitalism is neither moral or immoral. He was wrong about that too. The society is what one can define as either moral or immoral. That left alone and unregulated gave capitalism, just like any other system, the ability to create the haves and the have nots. In fact, when one chooses to discuss immorality in a society, don't even think about the economic system. If you do choose to think about an economic system, be sure you recognize the absolute evil of a Marxist state, which cannot function without a dictatorial government.

and he sought a corrective for its main defect: the failure to stabilize investment. Keynes’s nuanced views, the authors suggest, offer an alternative to the polarized rhetoric often evoked by the word “capitalism” in today’s political debates.

I wish you people would stop throwing opinion in to the game. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, including elitist academics like a Harvard Professor. As a matter of reality, Academics fall much to far to the left of every issue.

Capitalist Revolutionary ? Roger E. Backhouse, Bradley W. Bateman | Harvard University Press

The rest of your post is personal ignorance, whining about what some individual did or did not do.

 

[crisismangement]

School is not "socialism". It is really not a social program. It is an essential part of any healthy society. Until we DEMAND that our schools produce high quality education such that all of the kids learn how to live and become trained/educated to lead a successful economic life, we are destined to have even greater inequality in income than we have now.

Zombie_Pundit:
I agree that school is not socialism, but it is most certainly a social program for the general welfare of our nation. And I agree that education is the primary pathway to ladders of upward social mobility.

As you can see, it is not the 1% causing the problem of inequality, it is a complacent society.

I don't think the 1% are evil, if that's what you mean. I don't blame them for being the 1%. I don't think they need to be worshiped either, like building a golden calf to their glory.

LOL I don't think anyone worships the 1%.

I cannot discern what you mean by this. Our political system has an age of majority precluding treating children as adults. Juvenile workers are not necessarily eligible for the federal minimum wage.

I read what he said. I interpret it thusly: Young people are frequently put into positions to make decisions which are "above their pay grade."
I agree with him that unless as young teen agers, kids need help making the right decisions about their future. It is well and good to give them the freedom to make some decisions, but at 13 (freshman in H. S.) kids are not known to understand what is best for them, and we as parents, or teachers and counselors, are in a much better position to help. It is my understanding that he believes the decisions as to a track of preparing for an eventual job, can be better made by what the aptitude of the kids are, not some "let them make up their own mind" attitude.

I do not share your enthusiasm for socialist programs which predetermine what each student will achieve in life, as is done in other education models.

So you would leave those decisions up to the immature mind?

Our economy and society has swallowed the academia bit, but that doesn't mean its right, and it can be resolved...

I agree with some of what you said, sans the snark.

You must live in a viper pit of poverty.

I don't live in southern fried homeschool praise the lord and pass the ammunition utopia, but we get by.

What ever BS that means. I live in Toronto, and I quite agree with his comments as a matter of routine.

 

[crisismangement]

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?

How does the government negotiate the trade-offs between costs and profits? What gives you the idea the government does anything but see to the self interests of the politicians?

How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?

Government had a vested interest in tying the east coast to the west coast for the betterment of our country. That includes moving people and freight. Government got a lot out of the deal as well as the entrepreneurs who built the railroad.

But none of that is relevant to TODAY. What was done over 100 years ago is not relevant to a current discussion of capitalism.

 

[crisismangement]

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

How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.

So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.

It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.