Posted on 08/23/2009 8:08:15 AM PDT by DavidFarrar
And it didn't take long.
I always make it a point to re-post on at least one "left" blog. I do this in order to gain their perspective and judge it against my own.
The problem is, left sites don't seem to tolerate adverse views as much a conservative sites do.
Below is the post at Talking Points Memo that apparently did me in. It was a post concerning my main political interest: Our two-party system tends to divide the people to achieve the political interests of the few, instead of bringing people together for the common good of all.
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
Hey! I am fighting for survival here.
My point is, both political parties are in pursuit of their own political interests (re: money) over the health care issue, and others, for that matter. And what we could use in this debate is the authentic voice of the people to keep the process honest.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You took the words right out of my mouth.
You know David, you REALLY should read Ayn Rand’s little booklet call “Capitalism The Unknown Ideal”. She pretty much destroys your thought process concerning the “uncontrolled” nature of capitalism.
My other point was made in my original post.
DavidFarrar with his “mortgage crisis” comment takes the position that “greedy lenders forced unwilling buyers to sign for loans they couldn’t afford.”
Again, in order for a profit to be made, there has to be a willing buyer.
Too many people refuse to admit the buyer is ultimately responsible for the decision to buy the house they couldn’t afford.
If people don’t sign up for risky loans, there is no mortgage crisis.
I'm reading it and posting on it, but I'm not logged in.
I do this all the time.
Fighting for survival?
Are you in deepest Somalia?
Trying to climb to the summitt of K2?
Foraging around in the jungles of Brazil?
Cool!
No, not at all.
But what happened was, the banking regulations were relaxed, allowing banks to give loans to people who were not financially qualified, because A, they knew the government would bail them out, and B, as a consequence, they were now free to make money without risk.
So let me ask you, who shares the major responsibility here for the banks overextending themselves, the banks,their clients, or Congress?
Don’t forget now, it was Bush who supported the first TARP over us fiscal conservatives’ objection.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Controlled by whom?
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”,
George Washington
profit needs to be controlled or it will consume itself.
Who decides? Only government can make profit dishonest by redistributing it with force or by other market intrusions.
Okay, I will. Thank you.
But I can’t help but think back to the picture of a sad five-year old who was force to work in a textile mill before capitalism was regulated to prevent child labor.
ex animo
davidfarrar
No. What this most recent, and currently evolving mortgage crisis amply demonstrated is what happens when government gets involved in the marketplace. You had the government forcing lenders to underwrite loans in the name of "equality" and "social justice" that the lenders knew were unsound. Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac were government sponsored distortions of the market that led to huge distortions of the market. That is why you ended up with the huge secondary markets that made attempts (at least initially) to make some sanity of the situation.
The entire bubble and bust were created by the U.S. government run amok. Now you want us to give even more power to FedGov to further screw things up? Wow.
Thanks, bump and agreement.
You still refuse to recognize any personal responsibility when it comes to buying a house. Lending rules can be relaxed all you want, if there are not buyers willing to purchase, the transaction will not happen.
Again, lenders wrote risky loans to unqualified borrowers, because Freddie and Fannie, two government organizations, were purchasing those loans.
Government completely distorted the market and buyers were willing accomplices.
Nobody alive today has experienced true "unrestrained" capitalism as the government has been distorting markets for well over a century. The mortgage crisis itself is not evidence of unrestrained capitalism, but of competing regulations strangling the self-regulating mechanisms out of a free market.
The government isn't the solution, it's the problem. As always.
And now days, a 10 year old can't even get a paper route any more. Thanks to overzealous regulators.
You hopefully know of course that it was Congress that caused the subprime meltdown.
I don't know if you'll stick around very long or not, but you are wrong about so many things you should at least keep lurking after your account is banned. You have a long ways to go before you actually understand capitalism.
Oh, durn! I was afraid someone would ask that. Now I'll just have to take it upon myself to be the chosen one, of course, as there are none other so qualified as myself. Just give me the opportunity I so richly deserve to ...uh.... serve my fellow man and stuff like that.
Oh, gag me. If working on a farm was so great than nobody would have worked in a factory to begin with. Progressive policies are a great way to keep the lower classes down by restricting the job markets. How about increasing the minimum wage some more? How about a guaranteed 13 weeks of vacation? Gotta make sure to have affirmative action hires! How else can we make America less competitive? Your progressive tendencies ruin people's lives to make reality fit your world view. It's not compassionate. It's unconscionable.
First off, big business in the late 1800's created many opportunities and lifted numerous people out of poverty. The big government's New Deal boondoggle kept millions of people stuck in poverty for more than a decade. It's crazy for one to think that the industrial revolution in the 19th century created hardships worse than the tyranny from the strong central governments throughout history like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Vichy France, Fascist Italy, Communist China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The freest markets in the world have the least poverty like Hong Kong, Singapore, and historically the United States. Why do you think that is?
That doesn’t not happen all that often. Goobers in gooberment agencies are too expensive an insurance policy for any mind except Obama’s. One does have to ask how the Marxist hypothesis can survive amidst the plenty which America has produced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.