Here's the problem I have with you guys

[NeoRio1]

Just one simple question than Jon. Who do you hold responsible? It has to be something tangible so that there actually is the ability of fixing the problem. If you say greed than you might as well try to get people to stop from breathing because people have always had greed. If greed has always been around then why hasn't their been catastrophic crashes all over the place all the time.

Also you blame innovation. You might as well blame all the achievments of mankind and advocate going back to cavemen.

Try to get a little more detailed. Everything you say is so general. If you were a doctor your excuse for someone's illness would be oh, well sense they were born they were bound to die. You do not move anywhere at all with your arguments. You state what you know as if it was revolutionary when in all reality it is simplistic beliefs.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from NeoRio1:

Just on simple question than Jon. Who do you hold responsible? It has to be something tangible so that there actually is the ability of fixing the problem. If you say greed than you might as well try to get people from breathing because people have always had greed. If greed has always been around then why hasn't their been catastrophic crashes all over the place all the time.

The problem, as you alluded to, isn't fixable. The cycle is the cycle. However in order to most quickly get past the down fall stage we have to put in place new regulations. This is what I blogged about months ago. We can't solve greed, but we can move quickly to get us back on the road to recovery.


Also you blame innovation. You might as well blame all the achievments of mankind and advocate going back to cavemen.

Exactly thats why playing your blame game is pointless. Sure throw the law breakers in jail. Its not as simple as blame Tom and everything will be fine. We have to take the necessary steps to get back on the road o profitability and do as much as possible to stay there.

Try to get a little more detailed. Everything you say is so general. If you were a doctor your excuse for someone's illness would be oh, well sense they were born they were bound to die. You do not move anywhere at all with your arguments. You state what you know as if it was revolutionary when in all reality it is simplistic beliefs.

If it were simplistic beliefs more people would agree with me. Its not simplistic beliefs to say deregulation has its place and so does regulation. Most people stay on one side as I mentioned in my OP. In fact if you think its a simplistic belief start a poll asking if thats what most believe and I promise you, most people will pick one side or the other not matter what the economic circumstances, not both as I have. I understand that both are necessary at different times.

The problem is a complex one. Unfortunately you aren't going to get your black and white answer "Whos to blame" etc...The only question is what can we do right now to get our economy back on track as quickly as possible?

 

[jonbig04]

Oh and you never asked me specifically what the solution was, you simply asked me what was to blame.

I then tell you what was to blame and then you say "well how does that solve anything". Of course it doesn't I was just giving you what you were asking for.

 

[NeoRio1]

The solution is a debate for economists not trader's but knowing your posting expertise I am sure you think your quite the expert on the solution.

If you cannot hold any one party or institution responsible than how do you know who to vote for if the issue was primarily the economy?

Once again if you do not know which department to hold responsible you cannot focus your efforts on that department. For example a huge majority of Obama supporters think Bush got us in this mess. A huge majority of McCain supporters think the democratic congress of the last two years got us in this mess.

I guess the fact is your general and idealistic. I can't talk specifics and dive into the discussion of who actually is to blame. My conclusion is that if you can figure out which entity should be held responsible you can stop that same thing from happening in the future. Can you think of it like that at all instead of reiterating the common sense aspect?

Hope, Change, Move forward. It's great to have change for the better but you need to find the specific negative aspects to erase instead of just claiming to move forward.

 

[Gringinho]

When you are heavily invested with your brain real-estate into indoctrinated education, change is something that is really hard to come by. Normally it takes catastrophic destruction for any realisation to be made... sometimes such destruction is being made through "necessary constructive destruction" with capitalism, which some believe in - because their ideology and "logics" support this.

Indoctrination means that you see nothing wrong, and are void of critical thinking about information and your belief system.
Changing is hard to do, and you can't teach an old dog new tricks - that is why you should all ensure your kids go to school.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from NeoRio1:

The solution is a debate for economists not trader's but knowing your posting expertise I am sure you think your quite the expert on the solution.

Not really, it doesn't take an expert to come to the obvious conclusions I have, it just takes someone with no concrete ideology to satisfy.

If you cannot hold any one party or institution responsible than how do you know who to vote for if the issue was primarily the economy?

You vote for who is most likely to solve the problem(s) the quickest.

Once again if you do not know which department to hold responsible you cannot focus your efforts on that department. For example a huge majority of Obama supporters think Bush got us in this mess. A huge majority of McCain supporters think the democratic congress of the last two years got us in this mess.

You should stop thinking in terms of who to blame. There is not one institution or even one party to blame. Even if there was, voting for the opposite party just because you found one part to be at fault makes no sense either. You have to look at our economy and ask your self what policies are most likely to move us forward right now.

I guess the fact is your general and idealistic. I can't talk specifics and dive into the discussion of who actually is to blame. My conclusion is that if you can figure out which entity should be held responsible you can stop that same thing from happening in the future. Can you think of it like that at all instead of reiterating the common sense aspect?

No I can't think like that because thats over simplifying a complex problem. There is not one entity we can all point our fingers at, there is enough blame to go around. Instead of trying to figure out who is at fault and simply voting for the opposite end, you need to figure out what our economy needs right now and who is most likely to provide that. If you do those things and we simply disagree on what our economy needs than I could agree to disagree. I think we need increased regulation in certain markets, we need to generate revenue to begin paying down our national debt, we need to boost our lagging educational system, and we need to relieve the middle class and small businesses so that they might get back on their feet.

If someone would like t put me in my place about what our economy needs than fine, lets do it. Prove me wrong, I'm open to it. But the fact is no one here, or anyone else it seems, cares about discussing the facts in an intelligent way so that we may reach a solution. Everyone just wants to peddle their ideals. They can't argue or reason because their decision isn't based on facts, its based on ideals so facts don't have any affect on them...What am I supposed to do with that?