Look, I don’t think anyone questioned your pedigreed patriotism. There are lots of patriots in China. But, their patriotism is misdirected. Now, I’m not saying you’re as bad as a chinese patriot, but I think you know what I’m saying.
Just because the gov’mint bailed out Chysler and NYC, doesn’t make it right either. Otherwise, you could use that argument for slavery. You know, slavery was sanctioned by the government, but that didn’t make it right. Or, do you think it did?
The country has never been perfect …just a better system than others.
I’m glad you served our nation, and I truly do thank you. But, lot’s of blue-blooded Brits served their country. That doesn’t make their snobbery any less offensive. I would bet in person, you wouldn’t be so judgemental, and you might even discover an equal education/service level in those with which you disagree. As you correctly say, we can disagree, and not be ready to kill each other.
Degrees don’t guarantee anything except an ability to get something accomplished. Now, that accomplishment could have come by hook or by crook. If so, it doesn’t mean anything in reality. Very pretty paper, though.
As to the rationalization that we just all hit the jackpot, because as a taxpayer, we own part of the AIG enterprise, you must have picked up the ability to smoke something in your Navy days.
You can’t really be serious can you? Just so you know how the big picture really works, any real profits are going to be paid to other “legitimate” businesses that worked with/or for AIG. Executive bonuses will continue & multiply, and that’s not to mention just all-out fraud.
Please don’t kid yourself. You only need to look at the states that have passed lotteries. They promote them as a method to fund schools and such. I know my taxes didn’t go down at all. My schools have not been improved in any substantial manner.
Where is the money? General fund. What was it spent on? Stuff.
Our Uncle Sam is NOT going to share any windfall profits they get from “ownership” of AIG, I can assure you of that.
The financial meltdown on Wall Street is more than a cyclic correction brought on by a mismanaged business cycle. It is emblematic of a problem at the very foundation of the right wing economic philosophy that became conventional wisdom during the Bush years — and would be continued in a McCain presidency.
The zealots of unfettered “free markets” cast aside the critical lesson that the world learned during the Great Depression: left to their own devices, unregulated financial markets do not necessarily function to benefit the society as a whole — or, in the end, even many individual market participants.
The fundamental premise of right-wing economics is the incorrect view that if every market actor pursues his own economic interest, the “invisible hand” of the market place will assure that the “common good” results. But of course, common sense tells us that is not always true. Two quick examples:
The first is referred to as the “tragedy of the commons.” Suppose an island nation depends on the fishing harvests from the surrounding sea for its livelihood. It would obviously be in the interest of the community never to take more fish from the sea than can be replenished through the reproduction of fish. That way, everyone on the island will continue to have fish for the long haul.
But it is in the interest of each individual fisherman to catch as many fish as he can. This is especially true if the fish stocks grow scarcer. To continue to have enough fish for himself and his family, each fisherman competes more and more vigorously for the remaining fish. In the end, this behavior will assure that the fish supply is depleted, and that no one has any fish.
In this situation, if everyone pursues his own individual interest, the common good is not served. But if everyone looks out for each other, and recognizes that all have a common group interest, they will manage the fish resource to assure a self-sustaining fish supply that can feed everyone for years to come.
The other example is the classic case of economic recession. In a recession, it is in each economic actor’s self-interest to increase his savings and cut spending, since the recession threatens his income. But by each pursuing his own individual interest, all of the actors together reduce the economy’s overall spending. And that deepens the recession. If, on the other hand, the entire group of economic actors works through its government to increase national spending and reduce overall savings, it will stimulate the economy and the recession will end — benefiting everyone.
The American mortgage market now provides us with another clear example of how this fundamental premise of right-wing economic thought is dead wrong.
Mike – Do you really believe the nonsense that Garrett Hardin wrote??? By posting his writings verbatim and not listing him as a resource reference you are guilty of plagiarism. At least change the wording when pawning someone else’s ideas off as your own. How much are the dues for the Garrett Hardin Society??
..upon the markets have caused this problem.
Freddie, fannie, VHA, and FHA have caused this problem.
Prior to their existence, the formula for obtaining a mortgage was pretty simple. 20% down and no more than 25% of your gross income to go towards principal and interest. No Gov’t involvement was necessary as this formula proved to the banking industry to be a sound basis of underwriting.
Lets fast forward to today. No money down, no verification of income, no payments of principal and an adjustable rate to fit your “monthly” budget. Now why would an industry stray from sound underwriting? Mr. Banker, don’t worry about that part, we at the Federal Gov’t will secure those loans. So a quasi gov’t agency like freddy and fannie, went from the lender of last resort, to the dominant lender in the market with 50% of the loans.
Why? Because home ownership became a right. But I can’t live in that little 1,200 sqft bungalow, I need 3,200, and just because I only make 50,000 a year doesn’t mean you can deny me my rights to the home I want.
Folks, the bill is now due… it just arrived a few years before anyone expected.
Do you want to live in a dictatorship, or in a free society, such as that envisioned by our founding fathers? The definition of Socialism IS Dictatorship! This is a very bad omen.
AIG might be saved, but Cincy has money invested all over the place. Fifth Third Bank? Lehman Brothers? AIG? and Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae?
T-H-E-Y A-R-E S-T-E-W-E-D ?!!?! Or can they pull out? I’ve directed our producers to hold – no more new biz until we find out if they’ll survive all of this.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Look, I don’t think anyone questioned your pedigreed patriotism. There are lots of patriots in China. But, their patriotism is misdirected. Now, I’m not saying you’re as bad as a chinese patriot, but I think you know what I’m saying.
Just because the gov’mint bailed out Chysler and NYC, doesn’t make it right either. Otherwise, you could use that argument for slavery. You know, slavery was sanctioned by the government, but that didn’t make it right. Or, do you think it did?
The country has never been perfect …just a better system than others.
I’m glad you served our nation, and I truly do thank you. But, lot’s of blue-blooded Brits served their country. That doesn’t make their snobbery any less offensive. I would bet in person, you wouldn’t be so judgemental, and you might even discover an equal education/service level in those with which you disagree. As you correctly say, we can disagree, and not be ready to kill each other.
Degrees don’t guarantee anything except an ability to get something accomplished. Now, that accomplishment could have come by hook or by crook. If so, it doesn’t mean anything in reality. Very pretty paper, though.
As to the rationalization that we just all hit the jackpot, because as a taxpayer, we own part of the AIG enterprise, you must have picked up the ability to smoke something in your Navy days.
You can’t really be serious can you? Just so you know how the big picture really works, any real profits are going to be paid to other “legitimate” businesses that worked with/or for AIG. Executive bonuses will continue & multiply, and that’s not to mention just all-out fraud.
Please don’t kid yourself. You only need to look at the states that have passed lotteries. They promote them as a method to fund schools and such. I know my taxes didn’t go down at all. My schools have not been improved in any substantial manner.
Where is the money? General fund. What was it spent on? Stuff.
Our Uncle Sam is NOT going to share any windfall profits they get from “ownership” of AIG, I can assure you of that.
The financial meltdown on Wall Street is more than a cyclic correction brought on by a mismanaged business cycle. It is emblematic of a problem at the very foundation of the right wing economic philosophy that became conventional wisdom during the Bush years — and would be continued in a McCain presidency.
The zealots of unfettered “free markets” cast aside the critical lesson that the world learned during the Great Depression: left to their own devices, unregulated financial markets do not necessarily function to benefit the society as a whole — or, in the end, even many individual market participants.
The fundamental premise of right-wing economics is the incorrect view that if every market actor pursues his own economic interest, the “invisible hand” of the market place will assure that the “common good” results. But of course, common sense tells us that is not always true. Two quick examples:
The first is referred to as the “tragedy of the commons.” Suppose an island nation depends on the fishing harvests from the surrounding sea for its livelihood. It would obviously be in the interest of the community never to take more fish from the sea than can be replenished through the reproduction of fish. That way, everyone on the island will continue to have fish for the long haul.
But it is in the interest of each individual fisherman to catch as many fish as he can. This is especially true if the fish stocks grow scarcer. To continue to have enough fish for himself and his family, each fisherman competes more and more vigorously for the remaining fish. In the end, this behavior will assure that the fish supply is depleted, and that no one has any fish.
In this situation, if everyone pursues his own individual interest, the common good is not served. But if everyone looks out for each other, and recognizes that all have a common group interest, they will manage the fish resource to assure a self-sustaining fish supply that can feed everyone for years to come.
The other example is the classic case of economic recession. In a recession, it is in each economic actor’s self-interest to increase his savings and cut spending, since the recession threatens his income. But by each pursuing his own individual interest, all of the actors together reduce the economy’s overall spending. And that deepens the recession. If, on the other hand, the entire group of economic actors works through its government to increase national spending and reduce overall savings, it will stimulate the economy and the recession will end — benefiting everyone.
The American mortgage market now provides us with another clear example of how this fundamental premise of right-wing economic thought is dead wrong.
Thanks for taking the title of NEXT ignoramus Joe Mama but Mike takes the title of BIGGEST ignoramus with his childish, biased rant.
Mike,
I thought that your post was the very well thought out and a great recall of economics 101 and common sense…thanks.
I think the ignoramus is Pirk.
Mike – Do you really believe the nonsense that Garrett Hardin wrote??? By posting his writings verbatim and not listing him as a resource reference you are guilty of plagiarism. At least change the wording when pawning someone else’s ideas off as your own. How much are the dues for the Garrett Hardin Society??
Hey ignoramus #3 – Mike’s posting was very well thought out……By Garrett Hardin.
..upon the markets have caused this problem.
Freddie, fannie, VHA, and FHA have caused this problem.
Prior to their existence, the formula for obtaining a mortgage was pretty simple. 20% down and no more than 25% of your gross income to go towards principal and interest. No Gov’t involvement was necessary as this formula proved to the banking industry to be a sound basis of underwriting.
Lets fast forward to today. No money down, no verification of income, no payments of principal and an adjustable rate to fit your “monthly” budget. Now why would an industry stray from sound underwriting? Mr. Banker, don’t worry about that part, we at the Federal Gov’t will secure those loans. So a quasi gov’t agency like freddy and fannie, went from the lender of last resort, to the dominant lender in the market with 50% of the loans.
Why? Because home ownership became a right. But I can’t live in that little 1,200 sqft bungalow, I need 3,200, and just because I only make 50,000 a year doesn’t mean you can deny me my rights to the home I want.
Folks, the bill is now due… it just arrived a few years before anyone expected.
Do you want to live in a dictatorship, or in a free society, such as that envisioned by our founding fathers? The definition of Socialism IS Dictatorship! This is a very bad omen.
AIG might be saved, but Cincy has money invested all over the place. Fifth Third Bank? Lehman Brothers? AIG? and Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae?
T-H-E-Y A-R-E S-T-E-W-E-D ?!!?! Or can they pull out? I’ve directed our producers to hold – no more new biz until we find out if they’ll survive all of this.
Jesus was definitely a liberal!