Is Bush the most socialist President in the history of the USA?

[jonbig04]

In a free society, the only just laws are those that protect one citizen's person and property from another citizen's aggression

Oh really? I suppose there should be no laws requiring us to pay taxes? There should be no laws against racial discrimination? There should be no law requiring doctors to actually be educated doctors and lawyers to pass the BAR exam? There should be no laws requiring our children to go to school? There should be no laws against drunk driving? There should be no copyright and patent laws? I could go on and on.

The same concept for free markets: laws are only to protect the legitimacy of contracts and to punish fraud.

Wrong. What about preventing fraud before it actually happens? What about laws to protect people who invest in the stock market, but are not professionals?

Laws and regulations are the direct cause of the current mess, from the Federal Reserve System to the GSE's. To think more regulations (impediments to the free-market mechanism) will fix the problem is incredibly naive.


The current mess is large and complex. I'm going to describe just one part, then you can tell me how regulation caused it. The secondary mortgage market was made up of companies leveraged sometimes 50-1. They bought all the paper in sight, thus the mortgage companies lent to everybody in sight. Long story short, due the the greed of the secondary market (and others) we now have rampant foreclosures, lack of available credit, excess supply in housing (causing home values to drop). How EXACTLY did regulation CAUSE this? What law or regulation forced companies to be leveraged 50-1? What law forced companies to adopt shockingly irresponsible fiscal policies?



Support for wealth redistribution and more state control over the economy are indicative of the socialist tendencies of Obama.

To redistribute something implies that there is some kind of equality to begin with. There's not. The top 5% of this country own more than half the wealth. Lowering taxes on 95% of us and raising them (to levels still lower then they were in the 90's) on the top 5% is not some kind of class warfare or wealth redistribution (in the socialist sense). It's simply the only logical revenue source. Our country needs money....hmmm where do we get it...we could take it from the suffering 95% majority who's wages are stagnant and who are being hit the hardest, or we could ask the top 5% who have the majority of the money, who can afford it, and who reaped the benifits of a tax system that heavily FAVORED the rich. Whats the difference in "redistributing" wealth to the rich via a rich-favoring tax system and "redistributing" wealth to 95% of us with a tax system that favors 95% of us?


As written previously, none of their accomplishments, however impressive, qualifies them to shape public policy in accordance with the Constitution.

Who said we're going to let them "shape public policy"? Thats the president's and other leaders job. We want them to be there to advise and inform the people making decisions. One human being is simply not going to be omniscience he needs people around him in place to give him an accurate appraisal of he situation in their respective fields. When it comes to the stock market, do you know anybody more qualified than Buffet?

I look forward to your answers to my questions.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from hofficita:

In a free society, the only just laws are those that protect one citizen's person and property from another citizen's aggression. The same concept for free markets: laws are only to protect the legitimacy of contracts and to punish fraud.

No wonder you only post an average of 10 times a year. The idiocy of ET must drive you crazy.

Your quote should be taught to school children, framed and put on the walls of Congress and implanted in the socialist, institutionalized microchip that guides the anti-critical thinking gene of the MSM.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

No wonder you only post an average of 10 times a year. The idiocy of ET must drive you crazy.

Your quote should be taught to school children, framed and put on the walls of Congress and implanted in the socialist, institutionalized microchip that guides the anti-critical thinking gene of the MSM.

The fact that 2 human beings agree with that is mind boggling.

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from jonbig04:

The fact that 2 human beings agree with that is mind boggling.

If there was a democracy where corruption was next to impossible, it wouldn't be so far fetched. The only such democracy is a direct one.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Gringinho:

If there was a democracy where corruption was next to impossible, it wouldn't be so far fetched. The only such democracy is a direct one.

uhhh What?

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from jonbig04:

The fact that 2 human beings agree with that is mind boggling.

So you think one can govern correct decision making in business let alone in transactional enviroments where a seller meets a buyer at mutually decided value. LMAO.

I could write a book on how shallow and inane most analysis of this crisis truly is. Just for starters: For every derivitive bought by Wall Street there was a corresponding seller. Why not go to every home owner who liquidated on the 05-06 highs and ask them to rebate part of their gains because they "picked off" the poor, sorry buyer........

 

[hofficita]

Oh really? I suppose there should be no laws requiring us to pay taxes? There should be no laws against racial discrimination? There should be no law requiring doctors to actually be educated doctors and lawyers to pass the BAR exam? There should be no laws requiring our children to go to school? There should be no laws against drunk driving? There should be no copyright and patent laws?

1) Yes.

2) Yes, government should derive revenue by charging for services it provides, if any.

3) No, if I don't like someone for whatever reason, that's my business.

4) Ineffectual doctors or lawyers won't stay in business very long. If they do harm through their incompetence, we have civil procedures.

5) No. They are our children, not the states. If I want my children to be dumb, that is my choice.

6) No, but vehicular manslaughter should be dealt with severely.

7) No. There are many reasons why IP law distorts the market and causes more harm than good. Beyond the scope here.


What about preventing fraud before it actually happens? What about laws to protect people who invest in the stock market, but are not professionals?

8) And who is going to be the thought police?

9) Caveat emptor.

The current mess is large and complex. I'm going to describe just one part, then you can tell me how regulation caused it. The secondary mortgage market was made up of companies leveraged sometimes 50-1. They bought all the paper in sight, thus the mortgage companies lent to everybody in sight. Long story short, due the the greed of the secondary market (and others) we now have rampant foreclosures, lack of available credit, excess supply in housing (causing home values to drop). How EXACTLY did regulation CAUSE this?

10) Artificially low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve System, and artificially low risk premia because of implied government guarantees.

To redistribute something implies that there is some kind of equality to begin with. There's not. The top 5% of this country own more than half the wealth. Lowering taxes on 95% of us and raising them (to levels still lower then they were in the 90's) on the top 5% is not some kind of class warfare or wealth redistribution (in the socialist sense). It's simply the only logical revenue source. Our country needs money....hmmm where do we get it...we could take it from the suffering 95% majority who's wages are stagnant and who are being hit the hardest, or we could ask the top 5% who have the majority of the money, who can afford it, and who reaped the benifits of a tax system that heavily FAVORED the rich. Whats the difference in "redistributing" wealth to the rich via a rich-favoring tax system and "redistributing" wealth to 95% of us with a tax system that favors 95% of us?

There are too many illogical statements here for me to correct you. You can go on thinking that it is just to steal from one person to give to another.

Who said we're going to let them "shape public policy"? When it comes to the stock market, do you know anybody more qualified than Buffet?

11) Advisers shape policy, and the president executes it. Semantics.

12) Milton Friedman RIP.

 

[hofficita]

No wonder you only post an average of 10 times a year. The idiocy of ET must drive you crazy.

Too busy trading to post much, but I read all the postings of a few ET'ers, yourself included.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from hofficita:

No wonder you only post an average of 10 times a year. The idiocy of ET must drive you crazy.

Too busy trading to post much, but I read all the postings of a few ET'ers, yourself included.

I'm honored!

 

[Capablanca]

Quote from Cutten:

Poor analogy. The economy does not "die" during a recession. A recession gets rid of bad businesses, useless jobs, and excessive leverage. The economy is almost always stronger after a recession has cleaned out the system. A recession is more like cutting out a tumour, thus saving the patient and allowing healthy cells to grow back in its place.

Your claim that there would likely be a second great depression is not supported by any facts. However, I agree with your implicit statement that it is easier and less costly to prevent financial crises in advance rather than to have to fix them once they are upon us. The question is how to do so. Serial bubble-blowing and bailouts have been demonstrated during the Greenspan and Bernanke era to have substantially encouraged excessive risk taking, which has caused the current mess. Your prescription is essentially "even more of the same" - a bit like trying to put out a fire by pouring on more petrol.

Cutten when reading your posts I get the feeling your economic outlook conforms to that of classical economics the school of economic thought that was prevalent from the time of Adam Smith up to the early 1930s. There is a problem with that economic school of thought, however, that was made plain by the Great Depression. If an economic system is given a sufficiently large shock, it can lock the gears of the economy into a state where the normal process of supply and demand reaching equilibrium is thrown out of whack and what you get instead is a vicious cycle where despite there being available labor and capital they lie idle. The liquidity trap and all that.

Are you familiar with Keynes and his theories? Do you respect them even though they may not be entirely sound?