Private sector parasites
- Thread starter AK Forty Seven
- Start date
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, Lucrum you try to distract from my question to poster Max.
I am not asking you this question Lucrum, I ask Max poster.
My question to Max poster is are the banks FORCED to buy that shit loans from (UNREGULATED NON LENDERS)
Why do this banks buy this loans to package and sell? Do you Max think this banks do not know where this loans is originated? Do you think the banks are so stupid? Or do you think the banks really know they can buy junk, and sell junk as the AAA?
So really this is about your country. Banks have to be responsible for the honest lending in your capitalist country. When those banks become (PARASITE) like a poor country, those banks are not creating wealth, or harmony, or productive country. They create hate, and poverty. They are parasite. They are dishonest, and fraud, and not care to make their country strong.
LOL I was thinking the same thing. How hard is it to hit the quote button and keep from typing between the QUOTE tags?
Of course, if trendlover looks like this Chinese girl, all is forgiven:
<img src=http://www.southdreamz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/kitty-zhang-.jpg width=460 height=367>
Please answer the question MAX poster. Do the USA banks (KNOW) they buy from the unregulated non lenders? Do this (smart risk adverse) banks know what they buy is junk? Do they know, and do not care because they can sell on the market to the world and get this off their books to make money? Do they care what this do to (THEIR OWN COUNTRY?) Do they care? Answer the question.
We agree. The abuses were horrendous and inexcusable. The only thing I would say is that usually regulation is considered government interference with "free markets" so it's difficult to have it both ways -- but that depends very much on your definition of "free markets". In my mind it is either about deregulation or it is about government interference in the markets, but not both at the same time. (I admit that's an oversimplification.)
I believe I've said elsewhere I prefer a term other than "free markets," namely, "laissez faire" -- the latter being more often used by economists. The problem I have with the term "free markets" is that although to many, probably most, it means laissez faire, and I think that's even in line with the dictionary definition, to me, however, the term "free markets" is ambiguous. The reason is that to some, I am one of them, "free markets" means free to compete on a level playing field, and that might indeed entail a great deal of government regulation. Hence my oft stated position that the proper role of government is to protect "free markets" from capitalists.
Capitalists, naturally, hate "free markets" defined my way, but are happy with them when laissez faire is meant. Capitalists love monopolies, hate competition, and if they can't bend and mold government regulation to suit, then laissez faire is next best. No self-respecting capitalist, myself included, would ever be caught wishing the competition well and actually mean it.