@jaxeedcom: The introduction of financial deregulations and the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act changed all that. The deregulated environment resulted in fierce competition between banks.
The previously fixed margins were severely curtailed. This in turn called for an increase in volumes of lending in order to maintain the level of profits.
@CrackedBiscuit No need to apologize, we both have other things to do too. In regards to rating agencies, if your contention is that competition would have kept them honest, I highly doubt it. Firstly, if there is a "scam" that to be had and there are little to no risk of consequences, it will always be done in any risk benefit analysis. Sure, there might be some investors getting angry after relying upon false ratings, but that is a minor consequence weighed up against the other benefit.
@CrackedBiscuit Furthermore, it would be stupid to not participate in such a "scam" when the payoffs are so great, as that literary would mean you letting the competition getting ahead of you. This is true regardless of there being three or hundred rating agencies. It is abundantly clear by now that all manners of businesses are not particularly reluctant having their reputations scarred, as long as the payoff is great in relation to the risks they take.
@CrackedBiscuit Secondly, if there was some type of truth to the notion that competition would keep them honest, three rating agencies does imply a level of competition being present, though ALL still did this. Seeing the number of bank participating in the sub-prime CDO debacle it is also evident the number of competitors is irrelevant when the circumstances are right.
@CrackedBiscuit I do see the problem of the Federal Reserve, though your description of fractional-reserve banking (which I also do not defend) is a bit too simplistic. What you are describing is in essence the concept of leverage, and the problem you highlighted wouldn't really apply unless there was a bank run. This is a central part of what lead to the great depression, and GS did ensure commercial banks couldn't gamble with exuberant amounts of leverage.
@CrackedBiscuit So I agree, this is a problem which only got worse after Goldmen Sachs successfully lobbied for banks getting to take even higher risks with even more leverage. However, I will contest your assertion that the centralized banking system inhibits the free market, and contend that it does quite the opposite. When banks running out of cash merely needs to pick up the phone and call Freddy Reserve, from that gaining an even higher leverage on which they can make money...
@CrackedBiscuit ... this does not inhibit their business freedom, in fact it makes them much freer to run their business however they please. If they did not have the Federal Reserve to fall back on, this would have demanded much greater care when constructing their business models, as each of the previous mentioned phone calls then would have implied the bank hitting the ceiling of their potential.
@CrackedBiscuit Just to illustrate my point, just look at the 1.2 trillion "bailout" the Fed gave the banks on which they made 13 billion of free money. Such isn't inhibiting, it is enabling. Give me a 1.2 trillion loan with 0.01% interest and I too could pocket 13 billion with ease, so such practices aren't just artificially propping up the economy - I would contend it's also highly immoral. Though, I'm aware that pulling in morals in a discussion about free market is pointless.
@jaxeedcom: I apologize for the pause in my argument. I spent the last seven hours working.
Moving on, I'll lend a more cogent perspective on Glass-Steagal. Prior to the financial deregulation of the 1980s, we had controlled banking. Banks' conduct was guided by the central bank. Within this type of environment, banks' profit margins were nearly predetermined, because the Fed imposed interest-rate ceilings and controlled short-term interest rates.
@jaxeedcom: Obviously, the existence of the Federal Reserve protects this dishonest fractional-reserve banking system. If Bank A is short of $50, it could borrow from the central bank. Where does the central bank get the money? It actually generates it out of thin air. The modern banking system can be seen as one huge monopoly bank, guided and coordinated by the central bank.
We can thus conclude that in a free-banking environment with many competitive banks, if a particular bank tries to expand credit by practicing fractional-reserve banking, it runs the risk of being caught. So it is quite likely that in a free-market economy the threat of bankruptcy will bring to a minimum the practice of fractional-reserve banking.
@jaxeedcom: As the number of banks rises and the number of clients per bank declines, the chances that clients will spend money on the goods of individuals that are banking with other banks will increase. This in turn increases the risk of the bank not being able to honor its checks if this bank practices fractional-reserve banking — i.e., lends fictitious claims or money out of thin air.
@jaxeedcom: Let us say that Bob, who borrowed $50 from Bank A, also buys goods from Sam, who keeps his money with Bank B. This will pose a problem to Bank A since it doesn't have the $50 to pay Bank B once the check on $50 written against A is presented by B. In short, Bank A is "caught," so to speak.
Now, Joe demands money, not to hold it as such but to use it as the medium of exchange. So let us say that Joe decides to use his $100 to buy goods from Sam, who banks with Bank B. On the following day, Bank B will present the check on $100 to Bank A. In short, $100 is shifted from A to B. No more money is now left at Bank A.
@jaxeedcom: Once Bob uses the money, he in fact engages in an exchange of nothing for something. This amounts to nonproductive consumption of real wealth. What we have here is $150 that is backed by $100. (Remember that $100 is fully backed up by 1kg of seeds — real savings).
@jaxeedcom: ...the demand deposits of the bank. (Joe could also have exercised his demand for money by holding the money at home in a jar, or by keeping it under the mattress). Whenever a bank takes a portion of Joe's deposited money and lends it out, it sets in motion serious trouble. Let us say that Bank A lends $50 to Bob by taking $50 out of Joe's deposit. Remember that Joe still exercises his demand for $100. No additional saving backs up this $50.
@jaxeedcom: Through fractional-reserve banking, banks can create money out of thin air. In a genuine free-banking environment the likelihood of banks practicing fractional-reserve banking would be minimal. Here is why.
Take, for instance, Farmer Joe, who sells his saved 1kg of seeds for $100. He then deposits this $100 with Bank A. Note that the $100 is fully backed up by the saved 1kg of seeds. Also, observe that Joe is exercising his demand for money by holding it in the demand deposits of t
@jaxeedcom: Perhaps I should have been more salient with my argument, and for failing to do so, I apologize. But I dispute your tenuous allegation that banks were operating in a "free market". The truth is that fractional-reserve banking as we know it is a fraudulent system made possible by the existence of a central bank. I'll expound further with an example.
@jaxeedcom: If they had done what they did under said conditions, they would have tarnished their reputations, losing credibility for future investments.
@jaxeedcom: My point on the ratings agencies is that only three ratings firms had a government-granted monopoly on the business. Their large share on the market laid out the conditions of profitability. In other words, that is not characteristic of the free market, and in a free market devoid of government grants, competitive conditions would have made them think twice before unscrupulously abetting the value of derivatives.
@jaxeedcom: I unabashedly agree that the derivatives market precipitated the crash. But you must realize that Fannie Mae, with
its government-granted privileges, originated the derivatives market by replenishing banks' capital on subprime mortgages at an artificially low market rate. Without its government endorsement, Fannie Mae could not have made derivatives trading a lucrative endeavor.
@CrackedBiscuit What you say about Fannie Mae is just plain false. The loan volume and underwriting of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounts for a small fraction of what Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, Morgan Stanley etc. stood for, so you are way overestimating their significance. That fact alone makes the rest of your assertions seem like a far fetched conspiracy theory.
@jaxeedcom: ...depositors' accounts to speculate, and in fact buffered the financial crash in 2008. An emphasis should be placed on the fact that Glass-Steagal's repeal DID NOT give imprudent banks leeway to speculate using their depositors' accounts.
@jaxeedcom: Once again, you're missing the point about Glass-Steagal's repeal. Treasury Department General Counsel Peter Wallison has shown that the reformist 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley merely allowed a bank holding company that owned a deposit-taking commercial bank to also own other affiliated financial firms, such as insurance companies or stock brokerages. This change, Wallison persuasively argues, enhanced competition, preserved the protection against banks draining their depositors' accounts
@CrackedBiscuit I fail to see the point of this argument. Either you are with this questioning the legality of what the commercial banks actually did, or you are pointing to a political argument that turned out to be false. Either way and more importantly, the vast majority of the sub-prime mortgages were created by the unregulated investment banks, who got to do this exclusively due to the repeal of Glass Steagall which prohibited them from dealing with home loans.
@jaxeedcom: The rating agencies Standard & Poor's, Fitch's, and Moody's were beatified by government-granted monopoly. A 1975 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruling conferred a shared monopoly on the three, and each learned that asking for too much information about a pool of loans was bad for its business. Since the rating agencies only offered opinions, they were not subject to civil action by investors who discovered that they had paid too much for junk.
@CrackedBiscuit I find it interesting that you use the rating agencies own defense as if it renders relevant here. I'm sure you are not trying to argue they gave the ratings based on title and faith alone, as they most certainly knew what the CDOs contained. Of course asking questions was bad for business, and so was giving bad ratings to CDOs from their best customers. They were not liable because there was nothing there to keep them accountable, a prime example of free market serving themself.
@jaxeedcom: ...prevented the timely collapse. On the other hand, this crisis would have never happened in a free market paradigm, where central banking is nonexistent and government does not endorse subprime lending practices. What you and Sam Seder do not realize is that without the Fed's easy credit and Fannie Mae's government endorsement, predatory creditors would not have had the effrontery to engage in reckless lending, as doing so would have resulted in a loss, not a profit.
@CrackedBiscuit If you are actually trying to make the argument that the free market did their best to meet the governments wish to increase home ownership, you have a serious problem explaining sub-prime mortgages where each payment only covers the interest on the loan. Truth is they were only out to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible, and couldn't give a damn that their practices eventually would lead to a collapse. They didn't have to face the consequences and got rich.
@jaxeedcom: ...for homeownership. This generated the fiscal train to ruin, onto which private investors like Bear Sterns and Goldman Sachs happily jumped to cash in. Concurrently, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates on lending abysmally low, providing fuel for the derivatives trading business. Thus, the entire scheme was easily funded by easy credit.
Looking at a dilemma incentivized by governmental and central banking policies, I don't see how any impeccable regulations could have...
@jaxeedcom: Having carefully studied and read multiple accounts of the mortgage crisis, I can unequivocally say that regulatory oversight on Wall Street, as I just explicated, would not have stopped the reckless behavior precipitating the bursting of the housing bubble, as the incentives for predatory lending were numerous. Since the Clinton administration, many Democrats and a few Republicans pushed for the government-backed Fannie Mae to guarantee loans in a well-intentioned but flawed push...
@CrackedBiscuit Wall Street didn't need any incentive form government guarantees as you seem to argue. The rating agencies didn't give triple A ratings to sub-prime collateral debt obligations due to any government guarantee, but because they were paid handsomely by the investment banks - thereby making predatory loans the most profitable. The rating agencies could have given the sub-prime CDO's an adequate rating, but didn't in order to make more money.
@jaxeedcom: The paramount failure of the regulators attests to the fallacies of human nature and to the weakness of will. It is more absurd to surmise that a few fallible men can properly survey an industry without eventually contravening their duties, than it is to believe that an unregulated market can regulate itself through fierce competition and the profit incentive. Sadly, uninformed people like yourself assume the former without assessing the fact that regulators are corruptible.
@jaxeedcom: Regardless of Glass-Steagal's nonexistence, I still have not yet addressed the common complaint that the regulations were lessened. That they were abated is an irrefutable fact; but who lessened them? Did the "robber barons" on Wall Street overturn the regulations? No! Bureaucrats who were charged with guarding the financial sector accomplished that. Some were bribed, few were blackmailed, and others were impelled by Congress - all had the power to say, "no." Yet, they did not.
@CrackedBiscuit It was certainly the Washington bureaucrats that failed guarding the financial sector. However, I'll counter your assertion that just "some" where bribed. Due to how campaign finance works plus lobbying, essentially they ALL were "bribed" through legal means. Both democratic and republican political careers more than ever depend on support from the financial sector, so obviously they would be reluctant to say "no".
@jaxeedcom: To be fair, because Glass-Steagal's absence at the time did allow JPMorgan and Bank of America to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, and Goldman Sachs to unite with Citibank, some may argue that Glass-Steagal could have facilitated the inevitable downfall of Wall Street's unscrupulous players sooner. And while this theory might be true, it still does not adequately answer how Glass-Steagal could have inhibited shoddy business practices at Wall Street.
@CrackedBiscuit The reason GS could have inhibited the shoddy business practices at Wall Street is quite simple. Commercial banks who used to be the only banks dealing with home loans, was in accord to GS not allowed to make risky loans. While investment banks were not allowed to make private home loans, though were free to make as risky loans as they saw fit. The repeal did not only allow mergers, but investment banks could now make home loans and commercial banks could take greater risks.
@jaxeedcom: This most certainly begs the question, if Glass-Steagal could have effectively prevented investment banks from surviving via commercial banking means, why did the Lehman Brothers dissolve? Why did Bear Stearns not collaborate with another bank until doing so was essential to survival?
@jaxeedcom: Moreover, there appears to be no correspondence between institutions that benefited from the repeal and those that declared insolvency. Institutions that didn't take advantage of the Glass-Steagall repeal, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, were the ones that failed most spectacularly, in part because they lacked the stability provided by commercial banking deposits.
@CrackedBiscuit The "players" that failed spectacularly might not themselves have created this sub-prime debacle directly, however they certainly took part in facilitating it. Trading the falsely triple A rated CDO's rife with sub-prime mortgages, making bets and taking out "insurance" on the derivitives market. Had it not been for this trade, it would not be a profitable business to make risky sub-prime loans in the first place.
Indeed, many like yourself have proclaimed that the repeal of Glass-Steagal caused the financial meltdown and permitted investment banks to act as commercial banks, declaiming the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 as the prime culprit. However, the separation of investment banks from commercial banks does not make the financial market safer. Case in point, Europe's financial sector has never separated commercial banks from investment banks and has yet to suffer a massive credit crisis like ours.
@jaxeedcom: Sadly, you can't distinguish one defective "Paulbot" from the libertarians who can actually make a sound argument. Since you seem rather vindictive, I'll happily take you on.
First of all, the popular myth currently perpetuated by the mainstream economists is that regulations, if properly enforced, could have stopped the financial crisis, reasoning that more regulations will prevent future financial collapses.
@stddgv11: Aimless, generic soundbites like your charming diatribe never fail to entertain me. Ignoramuses like yourself who vituperate libertarian ideology have the tendency to eschew a reasoned argument, relying instead on parroting insults used primarily by self-loathing pundits. Failure to think for yourself is considerably attributed to the collective herd mentality.
stddgv, talk about saying nothing. You speak of "facts" but don't state them. In fact there is virtually nothing of any substance that you said. Why don't you argue against the existence of the sun on the basis of facts that are never listed. You don't even mention what you disagree with. Talk about religious fervor. Jaxeedcom while not much better at least says something, though not very cogent. The last few decades have NOT been low tax, only a high school kid might think this. Learn to spell
America was built on the blood of innocent people, america is a satanic organization from the word go. More people have died in the name of america than anything else, not even religion as a whole can compare to the amount of suffering and deaths the america has brought, so I say, let us all sit back and watch how Sodom and Gomorrah burns, america the filth pit of earthly society, "land of the free" free to kill, lie, cheat and steal from whoever you want, especially under the federal name
@Bubblegumblue69 There is no complete freedom as long as government exists. People give their freedom to protect themselves and their rights. Americans will indeed get what they deserve for their choice in lifestyle and that's why they're dying from it. There are still good people who want to live good lives, people who help others and are charitable.
@Bubblegumblue69 You project what kind of person you are by the things you say and post. What kind of person are you to judge the whole nation without considering the acts of every person within that nation? How dare you stand on your soapbox acting as a judicator for a whole society.
No such thing as freedom, freedom has been gone for a long time. Healthcare should be required to the minimum but due to peoples bad lifestyles they need more and more healthcare instead of just taking care of their health. How ironic, that is why there is no reason to pitty, feel sorry or even care. Maybe if the american people were not such great gluttons, abusers, shallow and small minded they would not be in this situation. Besides, I think america is getting what it deserves, built on blood
@Bubblegumblue69 Most developed nations were built on blood. They exploited others to get what they needed and some of that still continues today. Take a look at Japan and Britain. In addition the English were the ones who colonized Americas. Americans didn't exist before America did, that's illogical. Therefore the British built America on blood and then the Americans ran with it. Was all of south America not built on blood?
@Bubblegumblue69 - its much eazier to type USA instead of America - we USAns are like that cuz "FEDERAL name" is a foreign corp like the U.S. controlled by Brtitain global criminals = NOT american
they were allowed to infiltrate n control our constitution AGAINST us
+ they put junk in our water + food to DUMB DOWN us all SO dont bash us ppl for the problems our fore fathers hav left us with = do reaserch before mouthing off wut you THINK
maybe u hav no freedom=we had it + we'll get it back
If you actually believe that the reason American healthcare is so horrible, is because the free market hasn't gotten enough free rein to do what they please, I am amazed at the level of misinformation necessary to reach such a conclusion. It ought to be painfully obvious by now that its exactly a healthcare system run by a so called free market and its profit hungry insurance industry that is the reason Americans pay way more for crappier healthcare services than anyone else on the planet.
@jaxeedcom You say that the health industry is profit hungry and imply that greed is the reason for the poor state that the US healthcare system is in yet you say that the market needs to be more free. How, may I ask you, do you justify that way of thinking? Regulation is there to prevent corporations from evolving into juggernauts and taking over a market. Take a look at the state of the economy, greed and and lack of market regulation leads to poor decisions poor policies and poor practices.
@leocade7 Spot on, and exactly right! I wasn't arguing that the market needs to be more free. I heard the video poster do exactly that, and I made a point against it by alluding to how "freedom" in this sense means freedom to screw people over - not to compete to giving their clients the best deals as the freepers tend to naively believe the "free market" always does.
@apell711 Yes, and that would indeed appear to be your freedom... untill all your alternatives are different veriants and levels of being screwed - as with the US healthinsurance industry. Then what choice do you have? Choosing the provider you believe and hope wont screw you over too bad if you get properly sick, or go without coverage and be utterly screwed if you get sick? Thats some freedom you've got there. Indeed.
@jaxeedcom Then they won't have a source of revenue when all of a sudden, their customers are quitting their contracts, writing bad reviews and no one is buying. There is an incentive to do honest business - more business. This fundamentally flawed idea that if the government isn't watching your insurance agent, they'll take your money and run is what's propelling the ignorant Keynesian movement.
@apell711 It is amazing to see you say this, when what you describe as a hypothetical idea is exactly what happens right now, experienced by millions of americans every year. The thing with healthcare and other essential services is that people really need it, and can't just go quitting their contracts if their not pleased. Your theory that the markets can selfregulate, was proven false when they caused the financial crises after the repeal of Glass Steagal. CRA is just a scapegoat.
@jaxeedcom It's not a matter of being unpleased. It's a matter of an insurance company not fulfilling their contractual obligation. If you're unpleased, you can find a better agency. If they fail to uphold their end of the contract, they can be sued. The repeal of GS was not the cause, it was that the state had given the banks the backing to become too big to fail in the first place. The repeal opened the door for the monster but the government fed the monster in the first place.
@apell711 You are missing the point entirely for some reason, and I would rather not have to go in circles. I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand this, but your ideas of the free market magically fixing everyting is increasingly proving to be a fantasy. Don't you see how it has failed when you within an affordable range have the choice between bad, worse and no coverage? It's not just to switch when there is no better alternatives! Your simplistic answers do not apply anymore.
@apell711 How am I getting at the wrong colprit? The government didn't create the OTC markets, the derivitives trading or any of the financial systems that caused the financial crises. Only a minority of the suppliers of sub-prime morgages where under any regulation, so its a joke to claim the government had anything to do with that too. The banks on Wall St. knew the government would be on the hook for their careless lending, so thats why they did it. Deregulation crashed the economy.
@jaxeedcom Those things did not cause the financial crisis. This financial crisis was predicted piece-for-piece by free market economists who saw that it was regulations and government interference in business that would cause it. Youtube "Ron Paul predictions" or "Peter Schiff predictions." They know more than I do about this.
@apell711 WOW, so you are literarly denying reality now. How fascinating how you and Paul apparently thinks you know better then the worlds leading economists, including the nobel prize winning once. Its not just Ron Paul who predicted the financial crises, you know. Though others turned out to be more correct in their predictions then Paul, as it certainly was the unregulated derivitives trading and high risk sub-prime bundling that became a problem. Denying that is lunacy at this point.
@jaxeedcom I could say the same thing. I don't subscribe to John Maynard Keynes or Paul Krugman because they've consistently been wrong. You find me an Austrian economist who's EVER been wrong and I'll tip my hat to you. Keynesian economics is wrong. Always has been and always will be.
@apell711 Yeah well, I guess we wont get any further here. You deny the reality of the health insurance industry, and you deny the realities of the financial crises, seemingly only to maintain to never have been wrong. However, if you ever feel like putting your ideas to the challenge, I'd urge you to give Sam Seder a call at the Majority Report, as he seems to be under pretty much the same impression as me. I can guarantee you he will let you on and letting you speak making your points.
@apell711 And in regards to the financial crises, it is an undeniable fact that if GS had not been repealed, the crises would not have happened. The government did not force the banks and morgage firms to make and package sub-prime morgages. They were making huge amounts of money doing it. The riskier the loans the higher the commissions. Your beloved free market MADE the crises happen with their greed, due to the government giving them free reign to do so. Deflecting blame just becomes silly.
@jaxeedcom I agree, this is the problem with arguing libertarian, Ron Paul cultists. They live in Looney Tune land and think no taxes, unfettered capitalism, and regulation free markets solve everything. Even after the last few decades of historically low taxes and the stripping of regs.
And what were the results. Desimation of the middle class and an economic collapse not seen since the great depression, And they have the balls to suggest even more of the same nonsence.
@stddgv11 "cultist" is right, as these are beliefs that are maintained despite the facts, and not formed from considering the facts. At that point it has more in common with religious faith than a reasoned perspective. You heard him, he and his economic theorists have NEVER been wrong, and NONE of what I mentioned caused the problems. To claim to never be wrong when there figuratively exists a mountain of evidence that you are totally wrong, takes a boat load of blind faith.
What a gorgeous lass!!! I sincerely hope she's fully covered for all possible medical eventualities, because it would be such a shame if she ended up with some chronic illness, found her insurance running out and ended up as a medical bankruptcy statistic!!! (60% of all US medical bankrupts had insurance, but not enough)
She's probably end up wishing that the US had some sort of universal healthcare for her to dip into, that would be ironic!!
Yeah, the healthcare bill is disastrous because it doesn't change anything. It's the same old system, just gives corporations more power in American's lives and more sway in congress.
This has nothing to do with BSG. If you wanted a better analogy for your argument you'd have been better off with Firefly / Serenity. That show is based around the idea of too much government being a bad thing.
Also the "Spin Machine" works both ways, each side being misinformed on purpose.
@Tassadarky The real issue with the "Free" market is that it is inherently Darwinist and therefore unbalanced, favoring the "strong" over the "weak." Deregulation has causes more harm to business due to solely profit driven practices with little thought of the few that suffer. At least under the government, everyone suffers equally.
By the way, thanks for not calling it "Obamacare," when people use that phrase it just sounds inherently biased and "Spun."
You'd rather be at the mercy of greedy insurance companies who have the right to deny you care even if you're a paying customer? That doesn't even begin to address the millions of uninsured in this country.
@robertoinfinite10 Your right, now we'll have government running it, that's even worse and if there are any problems guess what, our government will do two things, throw more money at it (which we don't have) and add even MORE regulations and restrictions. I guess that's what you want.
@robertoinfinite10 Gullible fools fall for the political rhetoric. Ins companies are like any other contract. they cant refuse you for what you paid for any more than GM can take you money, then refuse to give you the car.
If your policy doesnt cover your condition, thats not their greed. Its your mistake in not getting wider coverage. But you cant refuse to pay (car insurance analogy) for collision coverage, when whine that the ins co is greedy if they deny to pay for collision damage.
We have to take control of our own health- eliminate junk, processed foods, carcinogens, endocrine disruptors & all artificials- sweeteners, flavors, etc. Stick to low glycemic foods. Then exercise.
those that 'like' the healthcare bill haven't read it, don't understand it and have an elected official that let it pass over their desk without them reading it in its entirety. Its 2600 pages, plus the 1800 in ammendments, references, and USC title citations and support. No way in HELL they read it in a weekend. There is no clearer example of Taxation without Representation.... unless you want to count the 'Financial Bill' at another 2700 pages that they passed two weeks later.
Funny, living in Australia and having had free health care all my life, I must've missed the part where the government tried to interfere with any choice I've ever made.
Railroaded through congress! Not like those tax cuts Bush did!
The poster of this video seems very negative. Humans CAN solve problems. We shouldn't run away because we might fail. Every other first world country has a more egalitarian health care system than ours. It IS possible. Newsflash: you dont make your own decisions. The amount of money you have DOES. Either that or a "bureacrat" at an insurance company that makes a profit if they deny care.
@majinspy You're completely deluded. The foremost reason other countries have socialized care is because they aren't forced to take liability for such incredibly high pool risk--in other words, they are FAR more healthy overall, and thus have lower costs. The reason our HC is so expensive has very little to do with administrative causes or corporate conspiracies--I mean geewhiz, do ya think a skyrocketing 34% obesity rate might bear on rising HC costs???
@thereinliestherib I never said "corporate conspiracy". It's profit motive. An insurance company can deny care to a VERY small amount of people, that take a TON of money to treat. This doesn't alienate their customers, as it affects so few of them (unless a movie like Sicko comes out...) and it saves them billions.
Yes, obesity is a problem. More people in the US do not have the money to buy healthy food. I teach the very poor, they only have access to unhealthy school meals twice a day :\
@majinspy BTW what is your solution? Ah let me guess, personal responsibility? So easy to preach when you have the money and free time to eat healthily. The families of children I teach do not know what a whole foods or trader joe's even is. Healthy food is harder to get, more expensive, and harder to prepare. For the poor, it is unreasonable to expect them to somehow overcome all of these problems. I'm all for focusing on nutrition. I don't see anything from conservatives on the issue at all.
@majinspy Money and free time to eat healthy??? Healthy food is cheaper than junk, and increases your productivity and mental function. The same with exercise. The average American watches 3-4 hours of television a day, and even moreso among the innocent "poor". Your claims are totally inaccurate. Quit scapegoating and take responsibility for YOUR actions--yes, that's what I support!
@thereinliestherib Provide evidence for your assertion. Unhealthy food: I can get 10 burgers for 10$. How much healthy food can you get for 10$? Plz enlighten me as opposed to assertions with no evidence.
@majinspy You can get 10 half burgers with no macronutritional value. That's a completely unrepresentative example. I can go to the grocery store and get a sandwich, a banana, yogurt, and possibly a drink for under five bucks, the competition price of most fastfood valu meals. Likewise, you're completely ignoring that if you choose to eat your way, its YOUR choice. Why should others bear the costs of your inevitable heart disease/diabetes/lost productivity??
@thereinliestherib The drink is about a buck, the sandwich about 3, the yogurt about 1. Ok, that's ONE meal. Many families I teach cannot afford 15$ per meal, considering 1 parent and two kids. A burger, fries, and a drink are 3$, hot, and prepared. As someone who shops, it is MUCH easier to buy delicious unhealthy and cheap food than to buy food that is healthy, expensive, and harder to prepare. Yes, you can save money if you prepare all meals, but try doing that with two jobs and kids to watch
@majinspy Wrong. The foods you're talking about are a completely unrepresentative example, and they barely even skim under FDA requirements for "food" because of their total lack of nutritional value. And yes, I can still buy a healthy fruit/veggie rich meal for as much or less than most valumeals. The economic argument for obesity hardly explains why many who are poor are still healthy--a fact which people like you just dismiss. Newsflash, its because of individual choice!
@thereinliestherib What the FDA says has NOTHING to do with the reality of food in a stomach. Also, contradicting your newest silly statement, the poor in this country are far more unhealthy than the rich, they have higher rates of obesity and diabetes.
@majinspy "What the FDA says has NOTHING to do with the reality of food in a stomach." What!? Dumbest comment of the year, by far--they're THE authority on nutrition!!! Wow! And the fact that the poor, overall, are much less healthy in this country, despite having equal access to healthy food, only draws into question the origin of their lack of health, and quite possibly the origin of their poverty as well: idiotic individual choices. In every other country, the poor are healthier.
@thereinliestherib First you say the poor are healthier, now you say they aren't. At least you ended up in the correct position. Also, I didn't say the FDA didn't know what they were talking about. You seem incapable of following more than one sentence. People buy unhealthy food because: its cheap, tasty, hot, and fast. You say I'm wrong, which means they are buying unhealthy food for just no reason! It's so easy to judge idiotic choices when your obvious affluence allows you to make choices.
@majinspy "First you say the poor are healthier, now you say they aren't." Uh no, I said that elsewhere in the world, the poorer you are the less obese and the more healthy than in the US. The US is the only country where the poorer you are, the greater the likelihood of obesity, drug abuse, etc.
"People buy unhealthy food because: its cheap, tasty, hot, and fast." Yep, because they CHOOSE to do so. You're trying to make these factors into a gun-to-the-head, which they clearly are NOT.
@majinspy My obvious affluence? I believe I declared a cool 15K in income last year, and yet I can still put down a 5 min mile; whereas people like you can run a... oh that's right, you can't even run because you'll break a hip under the strain of sheer gravity, which is also why the Army is having a tough time recruiting these days. Maybe if you took responsibility a little more, you wouldn't be stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle of immobility. Just a thought.
@thereinliestherib I don't know your situation (this is what separates us: you're so sure of so much you have no idea of. I'm far more cautious with pulling things out of my ass). Anyway, I'm curious how you live on 15k. I live in the lowest income state in the union and you can't live on 15k. There's something you aren't telling me, unless you are on government assistance, which would pretty much destroy your conservative argument.
@majinspy Stop drawing the debate into personal matters and address my arguments--if you can. I've refuted your one-dimensional argument about the economic advantages of junk food, and plus your claims don't even address the fact that the quantity of food that Americans (over) eat is just as significant as what they eat, which also obliterates your point. If they have money for excessive amounts food, it follows that they have money for healthy foods but CHOOSE otherwise.
@thereinliestherib Part 1 of 2 btw. You didn't refute the argument. You showed you can feed one person healthily for the same price as 10 unhealthily. Nor have you provided a compelling reason why the poor choose unhealthy food (as they clearly do) under your perspective. Your only argument is that the poor are collectively making dumb choices for no reason. There is a flaw in the argument "if they have money for too much unhealthy food, they have money for healthy food". This is incorrect.
@majinspy Uh, nope--those were your claims. Feeding multiple people, say a family, is even more economical if you buy healthy foods, because healthy foods (fruits, veggies, etc) are even cheaper in bulk than the fixed pricing for junk. You're pathetic attempts at scapegoating external factors for personal choices are just that--pathetic. You've taken no account of those who are poor but also healthy, but I suppose these folks are just anomalies, right? Right.
@thereinliestherib You missed what I said. My question to you is this: Do americans buy and consume more unhealthy food than the citizens of other western countries. If so: why?
@majinspy You're a browbeaten tool. Your concern is twice removed from the overall extent of poor health, and is itself only a subsidiary part of overall diet. Americans CHOOSE to be unhealthy. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to be a low self esteem pile of fat, dependent crap. Your argument is essentially that poor health is all externally caused, despite the MILLIONS who abide the same social and economic conditions but remain healthy.
@thereinliestherib I'm a browbeaten tool? Normally I just ignore insults but, you realize that makes YOU the browbeater, right? BTW I didn't make an argument, I asked a question. We have to agree on facts before we can debate the implications of those facts. So, Americans are eating unhealthier. You just said this. Why are they doing so? If you say "they are lazy"...well that's not enough information. Why does laziness equate to unhealthy food. Why is unhealthy food easier?
@majinspy Brow beaten by the facts, you mean. You keep trying to presuppose that people are unhealthy for apparently anything but their personal choices, by the retarded calculus that good health is "costly" and whatever BS you can cull from the stats. As a healthy bum myself, I can't even describe the advantages of being healthy. The reason others aren't is because we've removed every disincentive toward irresponsible behavior. Why be healthy, when you can suckle on learned helplessness?
@thereinliestherib Brow beaten by the facts? God you're pretentious. More importantly, you can't operate in a discussion. After three comments where I just asked a goddam question about what you think, and getting your assholish responses, I'm tired of your disrespect. I'm sure in your mind that when people retreat from your piss poor demeanor, you convince yourself that really they are just retreating from your superior debate skills. Send me a reply in a few years when you're less of a dick.
@majinspy The naive policies of ignorant fools like yourself are going to cost individuals thousands of dollars, and you expect someone to not be a dick toward you? Get a clue. I'm sure aliens have seized control of the majority of the population and are turning them into unhealthy pigs. Jeezus, that we even have conversations like this in the US is disturbing. 70% of the population couldn't outrun a refrigerator, and all you idiots can do is scapegoat and pettyfog the obvious.
@thereinliestherib So instead of having a civil conversation, you want to just be an asshole? And you seek to justify this. BTW, its pettifog. Not pettyfog. Obviously you just finished watching the bill o'reilly / jon stewart debate where they bandied the archaic term about. You are SO goddam pretentious. I can see your glib satisfaction in response to every polysyllabic word you type. Who knows if you're smart enough to engage in a conversation: you're too busy being a pretentious asshole.
@majinspy Snore. If your position had any factual support, and if you had a point, the PMS'ing wouldn't be necessary. It seems when liberals start skippin across the map to cry foul, it just means you've won the argument.
@thereinliestherib So my options are to be insulted by you or lose the debate? You're the one who skips from rant to rant. Everytime I try to lock you down into one vein of discourse, you run like hell. You have yet to answer WHY unhealthy food is "lazier" than healthy food. I would suggest googling opportunity costs.
@majinspy Don't be insulted, make a point for crissakes! That's what I've been saying for several comments now. Sheesh. And you're honestly venturing the absurd notion that the "opportunity costs" of being healthy outweigh both the opportunity costs of poor health, AND the countervailing benefits of good health? I'm poor AND healthy, which allows me to work several jobs simultaneously, improves mental function, costs far less, makes me happier, less susceptible to illness, etc etc...
@majinspy ...costs my employer far less in terms of health coverage, helps the nation retain jobs, improves economic productivity, keeps people off the social services rolls, helps me recover faster from illness... The HC cost of obesity alone in this country is pushing 350 bl/yr, not even including the greater economic costs of lost productivity, illness, and outsourcing--and yet you wave that opportunity cost BS? LAZY F's are the opportunity cost of my generation's goddamn future.
@thereinliestherib What I'm asking is why does the aspect of laziness equate to more unhealthy food? This suggests that unhealthy food is easier to put on the table than healthy food. So! Why is it easier? I think its because it is FAR CHEAPER! Laziness doesn't inspire doing the harder thing. You can't say that its easier to eat healthy, but lazy people don't eat healthy, unless you throw out the definition of the word lazy. THAT has been my big point.
@majinspy Neither laziness, nor unhealthy food are cheaper than being healthy and eating healthy foods. That's thoroughly disproven, but you keep coming back with the circular logic that laziness causes and also validates poor health habits. I mean honestly, you're now acknowledging that laziness is the root cause, not prior economic conditions of force or necessity. The benefits of good health/diet FAR outweigh any supposed costs, but you don't see it since you're ignoring half the equation.
@thereinliestherib You are conflating long term costs of health care. RIGHT NOW a parent has to make a decision. Feed themselves and their two children with burger king, or pay twice as much for grocery store food that they have to make a special trip to buy, then cook, then store the left overs, then clean up.
Many Americans are simply working too hard to live the life you are talking about. They are single parents with multiple jobs. They have children. They have a lot going on around them.
@majinspy If they're not responsible enough to have the time to care for their children--NEWSFLASH!--they shouldn't have children. My family worked its ass off to put food on the table, and never did we have to resort to a fastfood diet. You're completely ridiculous. You live in a backwards reality. No matter how many times I show the falsity of your claims, you just parrot back something more vague and unreasonable. Lose some weight. Get some self-respect. The rest will follow!
@majinspy 70% of Americans are obese or overweight, a condition that is the very physical expression of personal laziness. The average American watches 4 hours of television a day, and that's just the avg. You live in a fantasyland. I'm poor, and yet I keep wondering where all these innocent, hardworking poor people are. All my peers are self-entitled, fat, slovenly druggies who have been conditioned by an enabling, liberal social services economy to keep their handout indefinitely.
@thereinliestherib pt 1 of 2 4 hours of TV a day? Ok, there are 24 hours in a day. Most people DO indeed have jobs around 40 hour (or more) per week. 8 hours of sleep and we have 8 hours left. You can take out at least 2 hours for things like getting ready in the morning / driving back home / going to the post office. Most people only have a few hours off in a given day. I know that is true for me. I get home at 4:30 at the earliest (I teach). I have to be in bed by 11.
@thereinliestherib pt 2 of 2. I get about 6 hours to myself after I get home from work. Yes, I spend that time doing what I want: playing video games / web surfing phoning friends. I've tried jogging, which of course works, but kills my knees. I'm in pain when I come home at the end of the day. Try finding the motivation to exercise with shooting knee pains. I admit to having trouble controlling food cravings. I'm human. We all are imperfect. That's why I'm a liberal: we're all imperfect.
@majinspy Assuming of course that we're all imperfect to the same degree, which is clearly false. Those who complain about the health problems when they start exercising forget that they accumulated those problems and put themselves into their current situation by past poor choices anyway. But honestly, I applaud your efforts to be healthy. Running gets easier and easier, and as lame as it sounds, you do get high from it. Sometimes, quite high, and its not the temporary high of drugs.
@thereinliestherib No we aren't all imperfect to the same degree. I don't see it as a priority to figure out who to punish. Do you really want to live in a society where justice isn't tempered with compassion? BTW I did stop running, my knees can't take it. I'm saving money to buy a bike, but it isn't easy. I don't think you realize how mistakes can just pile up on a person. I'm pretty well off, my weight is about the only problem I have. I just want you to realize how interconnected we all are.
@majinspy What about reciprocity? What about proportionality? So if someone with a bad upbringing murders you or your family, that's just fine because we're "all imperfect to the same degree" in the aggregate? Absurd. I don't pay for the car insurance of poor drivers; I don't pay for the loans of delinquent homeowners. In your world, doing so is a virtue. Your world is also completely bankrupt. We're connected in more ways than just rainbows and unicorns.
@thereinliestherib In my world? How about we each stick to representing our own worlds. I believe in a balance. We can help each other out without corrupting each other. We can lift each other up without completely dissolving responsibility. I'm all about proportionality and personal responsibility. I don't want to do away with justice or effort. I just want a modicum of compassion and understanding as well.
@majinspy The real world "understands" criminals by reading their rights, giving them a trial, and throwing them in jail. We "understand" drunk drivers by weeding their added risk from the commuting system. Want compassion? You won't get it, precisely because the country is overrun by similarly messianic babies on a self-worshipping search for external compassion. Go run, get high, get soar, break an ankle, repeat. This is the real world, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
@thereinliestherib Actually the "real world" provides them with a lawyer, and often some form of counseling such as AA. I'm not a "messianic baby". I don't have a jesus complex. I think we should all work together to achieve common ends and make this world a more gentle place. What is the point of civilization? To merely allow the best among us to reach their zenith? To merely allow competition? If it isn't in service to humanity, I don't see the point and I don't think others do either.
@majinspy So each according to his/her means and ability, eh? How does that at all jove with a 70% obesity/overweight rate? Egalitarianism supports an equal distribution of the burden for its over-idealized ends, but I've never seen a liberal campaign for that side of the equation. So long as these politicians can make false promises for goods they can't pay for, people like you will keep voting for them. And so it goes, until we're all on life support and speaking Chinese...
@thereinliestherib@thereinliestherib Whenever someone types "people like you" it usually shows they have no idea what they are talking about. I am an individual. I do not support and would not support some candidate who wanted to give away everything and tank the country. The national debt concerned me before Obama was elected and while Bush was slashing taxes, increasing entitlements, and waging two wars. You seem to view everything as black and white. Sorry, but that's a sign of immaturity.
@majinspy No, you're a type. You've ceded your individualism to doctrine and ideology. You don't believe in personal choice--which, by the way, is your choice. You believe individuals are only an extension of some mystical collective, which naturally, precludes the fact that individuals are the epistemic center of experience. Your brain has greater computing power than a supercomputer--start using it.
@thereinliestherib You're nutty :\ A doctrine! an ideology! How uninteresting other people must be since you know all of their thoughts. That's it, I'm done. You are a jerk. You insist on straw manning me to death. You refuse to answer point blank questions of fact before preceding to debate. You're just this uncontrollable fire who read Ayn Rand, thinks he understands the world and all the "types" in it, and can type. I'm done, have fun raging impotently at the world that ignores you.
@majinspy And of course, you're a teacher. That's all that really needed to be said. You belong to the one class of people who is "above" the economic forces of competition (iow, competence). Adios! Thanks for all those well-formed rebuttals you offered up--oh right, you didn't!
@thereinliestherib Part 2 of 2. The flaw is that there isn't "too much" unhealthy food, its all they can afford. They can feed 5 unhealthily or 1 of 5 healthily. If you were right, then why would the poor purchase food as they do?
@majinspy Why? Because in the US they (we) are lazy f's. The economic argument for the consumption of unhealthy food clearly doesn't stand, and its only one aspect of the problem of poor health. The average American doesn't exercise whatsoever, but watches an average of 3-4 hours of tv a day. Only a fool would blame external factors for poor personal health at US rates. You could just as easily blame forks for obesity.
@thereinliestherib Even if I grant we are "lazy f's" WHY does laziness equal more unhealthy food? It MUST be cheaper! Or easier to obtain for SOME reason. BTW, I don't grant we are lazy. Americans work harder than ANY other western society. This fact backs up my argument that we are working too long, and for too little money. Europeans can afford to eat like Europeans. We can't.
@majinspy Clearly you're not listening--diet is only one component of obesity, along with exercise and other habits. Healthy food is often cheaper and more abundant than junk, and likewise, your argument hardly explains the primary problem, which is the quantity of food Americans consume, not the quality. Only some Americans work hard--just to pay off the social services burden of lazy, obese, addicted smokers--yes, this we agree on.
@thereinliestherib You're making up what you've typed in the past. You argued that Americans were CHOOSING these foods. Now you are saying, its not the quality of food, its the quantity. So, Americans eat healthy food, they just eat a lot MORE of it. We don't consume more fast food, processed food, and other junk food than other western societies, right? Are you arguing that. Before we go further you must either a.) say the US diet consists of unhealthy food, or b.) It doesn't.
@majinspy Nice try, but what I've been consistent. People choose what foods they eat, and healthy diets are just as available and economical as junk; however, it is still the quantity of food consumed that is another dimension of the diet problem. And you're only addressing--quite failingly--one subsidiary aspect of poor health, when poor health encompasses a broader range of unhealthy habits than just diet alone. Get some self-esteem; its no one else's responsibility to pay for your bypass.
@majinspy That's crap. Healthy food is more easily accessible and even cheaper than junk food, and diet is only one aspect of a much bigger problem. The profit motive is what keeps insurance co's accountable--if they were not beholden to their contractual agreements, customers would flee. Recission is an incredibly uncommon phenomenon, but the Left constantly uses it to justify spreading liability for an obscenely unhealthy country through Obamacare.
@thereinliestherib Um, no it isn't. 5 burgers, 5 fries, 5 drinks is 15$. You think you can beat that with fresh food? Add in prep time and distance to obtain it. Many places don't have those type of stores to begin with. There is a reason other than coincidence that poorer people by the cheaper, less healthy food. Secondly, I explaiend how they COULD flee. They just screw a SMALL PERCENTAGE of people. The top .001% of people that cost a ton of money to keep alive.
@majinspy Sorry dude, the economic argument is total BS. You cannot say that the poor necessarily must eat an unhealthy diet, when there are those who abide the same conditions but still make healthy choices. In every other country BUT America, the poorer you are, the healthier/skinnier you are. We're the only country in the world where the poorer you are, the fatter you are--which really tells you something about the individual origins of a lot of poverty in America.
The juxtaposition of a fictional TV show and a REAL healthcare crisis is sophmoric and pedantic... The U.S. spends more than any country on healthcare BUT are #37 according to the W.H.O. in overall health. Why? Massive profits by insurance companies who've denied people coverage because it would hurt their profit-margin. "Corporate greed" and "denial of care" are issues few critics of the healthcare reform law care to discuss.
@jaxeedcom: The introduction of financial deregulations and the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act changed all that. The deregulated environment resulted in fierce competition between banks.
The previously fixed margins were severely curtailed. This in turn called for an increase in volumes of lending in order to maintain the level of profits.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit No need to apologize, we both have other things to do too. In regards to rating agencies, if your contention is that competition would have kept them honest, I highly doubt it. Firstly, if there is a "scam" that to be had and there are little to no risk of consequences, it will always be done in any risk benefit analysis. Sure, there might be some investors getting angry after relying upon false ratings, but that is a minor consequence weighed up against the other benefit.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit Furthermore, it would be stupid to not participate in such a "scam" when the payoffs are so great, as that literary would mean you letting the competition getting ahead of you. This is true regardless of there being three or hundred rating agencies. It is abundantly clear by now that all manners of businesses are not particularly reluctant having their reputations scarred, as long as the payoff is great in relation to the risks they take.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit Secondly, if there was some type of truth to the notion that competition would keep them honest, three rating agencies does imply a level of competition being present, though ALL still did this. Seeing the number of bank participating in the sub-prime CDO debacle it is also evident the number of competitors is irrelevant when the circumstances are right.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit I do see the problem of the Federal Reserve, though your description of fractional-reserve banking (which I also do not defend) is a bit too simplistic. What you are describing is in essence the concept of leverage, and the problem you highlighted wouldn't really apply unless there was a bank run. This is a central part of what lead to the great depression, and GS did ensure commercial banks couldn't gamble with exuberant amounts of leverage.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit So I agree, this is a problem which only got worse after Goldmen Sachs successfully lobbied for banks getting to take even higher risks with even more leverage. However, I will contest your assertion that the centralized banking system inhibits the free market, and contend that it does quite the opposite. When banks running out of cash merely needs to pick up the phone and call Freddy Reserve, from that gaining an even higher leverage on which they can make money...
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit ... this does not inhibit their business freedom, in fact it makes them much freer to run their business however they please. If they did not have the Federal Reserve to fall back on, this would have demanded much greater care when constructing their business models, as each of the previous mentioned phone calls then would have implied the bank hitting the ceiling of their potential.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit Just to illustrate my point, just look at the 1.2 trillion "bailout" the Fed gave the banks on which they made 13 billion of free money. Such isn't inhibiting, it is enabling. Give me a 1.2 trillion loan with 0.01% interest and I too could pocket 13 billion with ease, so such practices aren't just artificially propping up the economy - I would contend it's also highly immoral. Though, I'm aware that pulling in morals in a discussion about free market is pointless.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: I apologize for the pause in my argument. I spent the last seven hours working.
Moving on, I'll lend a more cogent perspective on Glass-Steagal. Prior to the financial deregulation of the 1980s, we had controlled banking. Banks' conduct was guided by the central bank. Within this type of environment, banks' profit margins were nearly predetermined, because the Fed imposed interest-rate ceilings and controlled short-term interest rates.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: Obviously, the existence of the Federal Reserve protects this dishonest fractional-reserve banking system. If Bank A is short of $50, it could borrow from the central bank. Where does the central bank get the money? It actually generates it out of thin air. The modern banking system can be seen as one huge monopoly bank, guided and coordinated by the central bank.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
We can thus conclude that in a free-banking environment with many competitive banks, if a particular bank tries to expand credit by practicing fractional-reserve banking, it runs the risk of being caught. So it is quite likely that in a free-market economy the threat of bankruptcy will bring to a minimum the practice of fractional-reserve banking.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: As the number of banks rises and the number of clients per bank declines, the chances that clients will spend money on the goods of individuals that are banking with other banks will increase. This in turn increases the risk of the bank not being able to honor its checks if this bank practices fractional-reserve banking — i.e., lends fictitious claims or money out of thin air.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: Let us say that Bob, who borrowed $50 from Bank A, also buys goods from Sam, who keeps his money with Bank B. This will pose a problem to Bank A since it doesn't have the $50 to pay Bank B once the check on $50 written against A is presented by B. In short, Bank A is "caught," so to speak.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
Now, Joe demands money, not to hold it as such but to use it as the medium of exchange. So let us say that Joe decides to use his $100 to buy goods from Sam, who banks with Bank B. On the following day, Bank B will present the check on $100 to Bank A. In short, $100 is shifted from A to B. No more money is now left at Bank A.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: Once Bob uses the money, he in fact engages in an exchange of nothing for something. This amounts to nonproductive consumption of real wealth. What we have here is $150 that is backed by $100. (Remember that $100 is fully backed up by 1kg of seeds — real savings).
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: ...the demand deposits of the bank. (Joe could also have exercised his demand for money by holding the money at home in a jar, or by keeping it under the mattress). Whenever a bank takes a portion of Joe's deposited money and lends it out, it sets in motion serious trouble. Let us say that Bank A lends $50 to Bob by taking $50 out of Joe's deposit. Remember that Joe still exercises his demand for $100. No additional saving backs up this $50.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: Through fractional-reserve banking, banks can create money out of thin air. In a genuine free-banking environment the likelihood of banks practicing fractional-reserve banking would be minimal. Here is why.
Take, for instance, Farmer Joe, who sells his saved 1kg of seeds for $100. He then deposits this $100 with Bank A. Note that the $100 is fully backed up by the saved 1kg of seeds. Also, observe that Joe is exercising his demand for money by holding it in the demand deposits of t
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: Perhaps I should have been more salient with my argument, and for failing to do so, I apologize. But I dispute your tenuous allegation that banks were operating in a "free market". The truth is that fractional-reserve banking as we know it is a fraudulent system made possible by the existence of a central bank. I'll expound further with an example.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: If they had done what they did under said conditions, they would have tarnished their reputations, losing credibility for future investments.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: My point on the ratings agencies is that only three ratings firms had a government-granted monopoly on the business. Their large share on the market laid out the conditions of profitability. In other words, that is not characteristic of the free market, and in a free market devoid of government grants, competitive conditions would have made them think twice before unscrupulously abetting the value of derivatives.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: I unabashedly agree that the derivatives market precipitated the crash. But you must realize that Fannie Mae, with
its government-granted privileges, originated the derivatives market by replenishing banks' capital on subprime mortgages at an artificially low market rate. Without its government endorsement, Fannie Mae could not have made derivatives trading a lucrative endeavor.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit What you say about Fannie Mae is just plain false. The loan volume and underwriting of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounts for a small fraction of what Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, Morgan Stanley etc. stood for, so you are way overestimating their significance. That fact alone makes the rest of your assertions seem like a far fetched conspiracy theory.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: ...depositors' accounts to speculate, and in fact buffered the financial crash in 2008. An emphasis should be placed on the fact that Glass-Steagal's repeal DID NOT give imprudent banks leeway to speculate using their depositors' accounts.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: Once again, you're missing the point about Glass-Steagal's repeal. Treasury Department General Counsel Peter Wallison has shown that the reformist 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley merely allowed a bank holding company that owned a deposit-taking commercial bank to also own other affiliated financial firms, such as insurance companies or stock brokerages. This change, Wallison persuasively argues, enhanced competition, preserved the protection against banks draining their depositors' accounts
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit I fail to see the point of this argument. Either you are with this questioning the legality of what the commercial banks actually did, or you are pointing to a political argument that turned out to be false. Either way and more importantly, the vast majority of the sub-prime mortgages were created by the unregulated investment banks, who got to do this exclusively due to the repeal of Glass Steagall which prohibited them from dealing with home loans.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: The rating agencies Standard & Poor's, Fitch's, and Moody's were beatified by government-granted monopoly. A 1975 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruling conferred a shared monopoly on the three, and each learned that asking for too much information about a pool of loans was bad for its business. Since the rating agencies only offered opinions, they were not subject to civil action by investors who discovered that they had paid too much for junk.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit I find it interesting that you use the rating agencies own defense as if it renders relevant here. I'm sure you are not trying to argue they gave the ratings based on title and faith alone, as they most certainly knew what the CDOs contained. Of course asking questions was bad for business, and so was giving bad ratings to CDOs from their best customers. They were not liable because there was nothing there to keep them accountable, a prime example of free market serving themself.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: ...prevented the timely collapse. On the other hand, this crisis would have never happened in a free market paradigm, where central banking is nonexistent and government does not endorse subprime lending practices. What you and Sam Seder do not realize is that without the Fed's easy credit and Fannie Mae's government endorsement, predatory creditors would not have had the effrontery to engage in reckless lending, as doing so would have resulted in a loss, not a profit.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit If you are actually trying to make the argument that the free market did their best to meet the governments wish to increase home ownership, you have a serious problem explaining sub-prime mortgages where each payment only covers the interest on the loan. Truth is they were only out to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible, and couldn't give a damn that their practices eventually would lead to a collapse. They didn't have to face the consequences and got rich.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: ...for homeownership. This generated the fiscal train to ruin, onto which private investors like Bear Sterns and Goldman Sachs happily jumped to cash in. Concurrently, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates on lending abysmally low, providing fuel for the derivatives trading business. Thus, the entire scheme was easily funded by easy credit.
Looking at a dilemma incentivized by governmental and central banking policies, I don't see how any impeccable regulations could have...
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: Having carefully studied and read multiple accounts of the mortgage crisis, I can unequivocally say that regulatory oversight on Wall Street, as I just explicated, would not have stopped the reckless behavior precipitating the bursting of the housing bubble, as the incentives for predatory lending were numerous. Since the Clinton administration, many Democrats and a few Republicans pushed for the government-backed Fannie Mae to guarantee loans in a well-intentioned but flawed push...
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit Wall Street didn't need any incentive form government guarantees as you seem to argue. The rating agencies didn't give triple A ratings to sub-prime collateral debt obligations due to any government guarantee, but because they were paid handsomely by the investment banks - thereby making predatory loans the most profitable. The rating agencies could have given the sub-prime CDO's an adequate rating, but didn't in order to make more money.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: The paramount failure of the regulators attests to the fallacies of human nature and to the weakness of will. It is more absurd to surmise that a few fallible men can properly survey an industry without eventually contravening their duties, than it is to believe that an unregulated market can regulate itself through fierce competition and the profit incentive. Sadly, uninformed people like yourself assume the former without assessing the fact that regulators are corruptible.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: Regardless of Glass-Steagal's nonexistence, I still have not yet addressed the common complaint that the regulations were lessened. That they were abated is an irrefutable fact; but who lessened them? Did the "robber barons" on Wall Street overturn the regulations? No! Bureaucrats who were charged with guarding the financial sector accomplished that. Some were bribed, few were blackmailed, and others were impelled by Congress - all had the power to say, "no." Yet, they did not.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit It was certainly the Washington bureaucrats that failed guarding the financial sector. However, I'll counter your assertion that just "some" where bribed. Due to how campaign finance works plus lobbying, essentially they ALL were "bribed" through legal means. Both democratic and republican political careers more than ever depend on support from the financial sector, so obviously they would be reluctant to say "no".
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: To be fair, because Glass-Steagal's absence at the time did allow JPMorgan and Bank of America to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, and Goldman Sachs to unite with Citibank, some may argue that Glass-Steagal could have facilitated the inevitable downfall of Wall Street's unscrupulous players sooner. And while this theory might be true, it still does not adequately answer how Glass-Steagal could have inhibited shoddy business practices at Wall Street.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit The reason GS could have inhibited the shoddy business practices at Wall Street is quite simple. Commercial banks who used to be the only banks dealing with home loans, was in accord to GS not allowed to make risky loans. While investment banks were not allowed to make private home loans, though were free to make as risky loans as they saw fit. The repeal did not only allow mergers, but investment banks could now make home loans and commercial banks could take greater risks.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jaxeedcom: This most certainly begs the question, if Glass-Steagal could have effectively prevented investment banks from surviving via commercial banking means, why did the Lehman Brothers dissolve? Why did Bear Stearns not collaborate with another bank until doing so was essential to survival?
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@jaxeedcom: Moreover, there appears to be no correspondence between institutions that benefited from the repeal and those that declared insolvency. Institutions that didn't take advantage of the Glass-Steagall repeal, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, were the ones that failed most spectacularly, in part because they lacked the stability provided by commercial banking deposits.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@CrackedBiscuit The "players" that failed spectacularly might not themselves have created this sub-prime debacle directly, however they certainly took part in facilitating it. Trading the falsely triple A rated CDO's rife with sub-prime mortgages, making bets and taking out "insurance" on the derivitives market. Had it not been for this trade, it would not be a profitable business to make risky sub-prime loans in the first place.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Indeed, many like yourself have proclaimed that the repeal of Glass-Steagal caused the financial meltdown and permitted investment banks to act as commercial banks, declaiming the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 as the prime culprit. However, the separation of investment banks from commercial banks does not make the financial market safer. Case in point, Europe's financial sector has never separated commercial banks from investment banks and has yet to suffer a massive credit crisis like ours.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jaxeedcom: Sadly, you can't distinguish one defective "Paulbot" from the libertarians who can actually make a sound argument. Since you seem rather vindictive, I'll happily take you on.
First of all, the popular myth currently perpetuated by the mainstream economists is that regulations, if properly enforced, could have stopped the financial crisis, reasoning that more regulations will prevent future financial collapses.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
Comment removed
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
Comment removed
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
Comment removed
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
Comment removed
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
Comment removed
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
Comment removed
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
@stddgv11: Aimless, generic soundbites like your charming diatribe never fail to entertain me. Ignoramuses like yourself who vituperate libertarian ideology have the tendency to eschew a reasoned argument, relying instead on parroting insults used primarily by self-loathing pundits. Failure to think for yourself is considerably attributed to the collective herd mentality.
CrackedBiscuit 1 month ago
stddgv, talk about saying nothing. You speak of "facts" but don't state them. In fact there is virtually nothing of any substance that you said. Why don't you argue against the existence of the sun on the basis of facts that are never listed. You don't even mention what you disagree with. Talk about religious fervor. Jaxeedcom while not much better at least says something, though not very cogent. The last few decades have NOT been low tax, only a high school kid might think this. Learn to spell
GomersRevenge 1 month ago
Yeah yeah, I agree with all the political points.
But watching Battle Star Galactica?
I can't agree with that.
And if Obama were a cylon, he would be smarter.
tnekkc 1 month ago
The peroxide has seeped into your brain, dear, leaving you mentally retarded
AllianceOfJerkOffs 2 months ago
Gaius-frakking-Baltar >:-(
Thesterness 3 months ago
@BreakTheMatrix a hot libertarian who watches battle star galatica you are FUcking amazing
finka123456 3 months ago
Depending on others for your own welfare and healthcare is selfish and promotes laziness. Shame on people like that.
Superlibertytv 3 months ago
if you think health care is expensive now....wait till our taxes skyrocket to pay for this bill.
Pat9201 3 months ago
yes, you suck, shut up already
TenchuuKhan 3 months ago
America was built on the blood of innocent people, america is a satanic organization from the word go. More people have died in the name of america than anything else, not even religion as a whole can compare to the amount of suffering and deaths the america has brought, so I say, let us all sit back and watch how Sodom and Gomorrah burns, america the filth pit of earthly society, "land of the free" free to kill, lie, cheat and steal from whoever you want, especially under the federal name
Bubblegumblue69 4 months ago
@Bubblegumblue69 There is no complete freedom as long as government exists. People give their freedom to protect themselves and their rights. Americans will indeed get what they deserve for their choice in lifestyle and that's why they're dying from it. There are still good people who want to live good lives, people who help others and are charitable.
leocade7 4 months ago
@Bubblegumblue69 You project what kind of person you are by the things you say and post. What kind of person are you to judge the whole nation without considering the acts of every person within that nation? How dare you stand on your soapbox acting as a judicator for a whole society.
leocade7 4 months ago
No such thing as freedom, freedom has been gone for a long time. Healthcare should be required to the minimum but due to peoples bad lifestyles they need more and more healthcare instead of just taking care of their health. How ironic, that is why there is no reason to pitty, feel sorry or even care. Maybe if the american people were not such great gluttons, abusers, shallow and small minded they would not be in this situation. Besides, I think america is getting what it deserves, built on blood
Bubblegumblue69 4 months ago
@Bubblegumblue69 Most developed nations were built on blood. They exploited others to get what they needed and some of that still continues today. Take a look at Japan and Britain. In addition the English were the ones who colonized Americas. Americans didn't exist before America did, that's illogical. Therefore the British built America on blood and then the Americans ran with it. Was all of south America not built on blood?
leocade7 4 months ago
@Bubblegumblue69 - its much eazier to type USA instead of America - we USAns are like that cuz "FEDERAL name" is a foreign corp like the U.S. controlled by Brtitain global criminals = NOT american
they were allowed to infiltrate n control our constitution AGAINST us
+ they put junk in our water + food to DUMB DOWN us all SO dont bash us ppl for the problems our fore fathers hav left us with = do reaserch before mouthing off wut you THINK
maybe u hav no freedom=we had it + we'll get it back
rammar09 4 months ago
If you actually believe that the reason American healthcare is so horrible, is because the free market hasn't gotten enough free rein to do what they please, I am amazed at the level of misinformation necessary to reach such a conclusion. It ought to be painfully obvious by now that its exactly a healthcare system run by a so called free market and its profit hungry insurance industry that is the reason Americans pay way more for crappier healthcare services than anyone else on the planet.
jaxeedcom 4 months ago
@jaxeedcom You say that the health industry is profit hungry and imply that greed is the reason for the poor state that the US healthcare system is in yet you say that the market needs to be more free. How, may I ask you, do you justify that way of thinking? Regulation is there to prevent corporations from evolving into juggernauts and taking over a market. Take a look at the state of the economy, greed and and lack of market regulation leads to poor decisions poor policies and poor practices.
leocade7 4 months ago
@leocade7 Spot on, and exactly right! I wasn't arguing that the market needs to be more free. I heard the video poster do exactly that, and I made a point against it by alluding to how "freedom" in this sense means freedom to screw people over - not to compete to giving their clients the best deals as the freepers tend to naively believe the "free market" always does.
jaxeedcom 4 months ago
@jaxeedcom Freedom also means freedom to say no to a company trying to screw you over.
apell711 2 months ago
@apell711 Yes, and that would indeed appear to be your freedom... untill all your alternatives are different veriants and levels of being screwed - as with the US healthinsurance industry. Then what choice do you have? Choosing the provider you believe and hope wont screw you over too bad if you get properly sick, or go without coverage and be utterly screwed if you get sick? Thats some freedom you've got there. Indeed.
jaxeedcom 2 months ago
@jaxeedcom Then they won't have a source of revenue when all of a sudden, their customers are quitting their contracts, writing bad reviews and no one is buying. There is an incentive to do honest business - more business. This fundamentally flawed idea that if the government isn't watching your insurance agent, they'll take your money and run is what's propelling the ignorant Keynesian movement.
apell711 2 months ago
@apell711 It is amazing to see you say this, when what you describe as a hypothetical idea is exactly what happens right now, experienced by millions of americans every year. The thing with healthcare and other essential services is that people really need it, and can't just go quitting their contracts if their not pleased. Your theory that the markets can selfregulate, was proven false when they caused the financial crises after the repeal of Glass Steagal. CRA is just a scapegoat.
jaxeedcom 2 months ago
@jaxeedcom It's not a matter of being unpleased. It's a matter of an insurance company not fulfilling their contractual obligation. If you're unpleased, you can find a better agency. If they fail to uphold their end of the contract, they can be sued. The repeal of GS was not the cause, it was that the state had given the banks the backing to become too big to fail in the first place. The repeal opened the door for the monster but the government fed the monster in the first place.
apell711 2 months ago
@apell711 You are missing the point entirely for some reason, and I would rather not have to go in circles. I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand this, but your ideas of the free market magically fixing everyting is increasingly proving to be a fantasy. Don't you see how it has failed when you within an affordable range have the choice between bad, worse and no coverage? It's not just to switch when there is no better alternatives! Your simplistic answers do not apply anymore.
jaxeedcom 2 months ago
@jaxeedcom How can you say that when you're attributing the atrocities that have been occurring in our economy to the wrong culprit?
apell711 2 months ago
@apell711 How am I getting at the wrong colprit? The government didn't create the OTC markets, the derivitives trading or any of the financial systems that caused the financial crises. Only a minority of the suppliers of sub-prime morgages where under any regulation, so its a joke to claim the government had anything to do with that too. The banks on Wall St. knew the government would be on the hook for their careless lending, so thats why they did it. Deregulation crashed the economy.
jaxeedcom 2 months ago
@jaxeedcom Those things did not cause the financial crisis. This financial crisis was predicted piece-for-piece by free market economists who saw that it was regulations and government interference in business that would cause it. Youtube "Ron Paul predictions" or "Peter Schiff predictions." They know more than I do about this.
apell711 2 months ago
@apell711 WOW, so you are literarly denying reality now. How fascinating how you and Paul apparently thinks you know better then the worlds leading economists, including the nobel prize winning once. Its not just Ron Paul who predicted the financial crises, you know. Though others turned out to be more correct in their predictions then Paul, as it certainly was the unregulated derivitives trading and high risk sub-prime bundling that became a problem. Denying that is lunacy at this point.
jaxeedcom 2 months ago
@jaxeedcom I could say the same thing. I don't subscribe to John Maynard Keynes or Paul Krugman because they've consistently been wrong. You find me an Austrian economist who's EVER been wrong and I'll tip my hat to you. Keynesian economics is wrong. Always has been and always will be.
apell711 2 months ago
@apell711 Yeah well, I guess we wont get any further here. You deny the reality of the health insurance industry, and you deny the realities of the financial crises, seemingly only to maintain to never have been wrong. However, if you ever feel like putting your ideas to the challenge, I'd urge you to give Sam Seder a call at the Majority Report, as he seems to be under pretty much the same impression as me. I can guarantee you he will let you on and letting you speak making your points.
jaxeedcom 2 months ago
@apell711 And in regards to the financial crises, it is an undeniable fact that if GS had not been repealed, the crises would not have happened. The government did not force the banks and morgage firms to make and package sub-prime morgages. They were making huge amounts of money doing it. The riskier the loans the higher the commissions. Your beloved free market MADE the crises happen with their greed, due to the government giving them free reign to do so. Deflecting blame just becomes silly.
jaxeedcom 2 months ago
@jaxeedcom I don't need to convince you. When the U.S. dollar loses its spot as the world's reserve currency, you'll be crying then.
apell711 2 months ago
@apell711 Yes, it will be a sad day for America when that happens, but what does that got to do with the topic at hand?
jaxeedcom 2 months ago
@jaxeedcom I agree, this is the problem with arguing libertarian, Ron Paul cultists. They live in Looney Tune land and think no taxes, unfettered capitalism, and regulation free markets solve everything. Even after the last few decades of historically low taxes and the stripping of regs.
And what were the results. Desimation of the middle class and an economic collapse not seen since the great depression, And they have the balls to suggest even more of the same nonsence.
stddgv11 1 month ago
@stddgv11 "cultist" is right, as these are beliefs that are maintained despite the facts, and not formed from considering the facts. At that point it has more in common with religious faith than a reasoned perspective. You heard him, he and his economic theorists have NEVER been wrong, and NONE of what I mentioned caused the problems. To claim to never be wrong when there figuratively exists a mountain of evidence that you are totally wrong, takes a boat load of blind faith.
jaxeedcom 1 month ago
beauty and brains
EdMan2012 5 months ago
@EdMan2012 She's certainly a beauty. Not convinced she's that inteligent though.
wtf2011ization 5 months ago
Comment removed
rammar09 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wtf2011ization - who are U to make that ass umption -yea we got eyes- IF u hav spare time - listen to her vids n HEAR = i know she's intell
rammar09 4 months ago
What a gorgeous lass!!! I sincerely hope she's fully covered for all possible medical eventualities, because it would be such a shame if she ended up with some chronic illness, found her insurance running out and ended up as a medical bankruptcy statistic!!! (60% of all US medical bankrupts had insurance, but not enough)
She's probably end up wishing that the US had some sort of universal healthcare for her to dip into, that would be ironic!!
wtf2011ization 5 months ago
Yeah, the healthcare bill is disastrous because it doesn't change anything. It's the same old system, just gives corporations more power in American's lives and more sway in congress.
This has nothing to do with BSG. If you wanted a better analogy for your argument you'd have been better off with Firefly / Serenity. That show is based around the idea of too much government being a bad thing.
Also the "Spin Machine" works both ways, each side being misinformed on purpose.
Tassadarky 5 months ago
@Tassadarky The real issue with the "Free" market is that it is inherently Darwinist and therefore unbalanced, favoring the "strong" over the "weak." Deregulation has causes more harm to business due to solely profit driven practices with little thought of the few that suffer. At least under the government, everyone suffers equally.
By the way, thanks for not calling it "Obamacare," when people use that phrase it just sounds inherently biased and "Spun."
This was a well though out out video.
Tassadarky 5 months ago
The truth the money elite don't want you to know:
watch?v=y6x2x0RYErE
econdemocracy 6 months ago
Throughout Europe,Australia,The British isles and New Zealand not 1 person dies every year because they cannot afford healthcare.
Where as is the US 20000+ die every year because they cannot afford health care.
Thank god i live in Australia.
Seems like in the US money really is more important the human lives.
HonestBloke 6 months ago 2
@HonestBloke Actually many do. Some even die BECAUSE they get govt health care. google "sentenced to death by the NHS."
EdgemanLL2 6 months ago
stop trying to act smart and strip already you sexy bitch.
Netjack 6 months ago
Has anyone ever thought of the competitive advantage firms would receive when they don´t have to pay for insurance any more!
MortenDanPedersen 7 months ago
You'd rather be at the mercy of greedy insurance companies who have the right to deny you care even if you're a paying customer? That doesn't even begin to address the millions of uninsured in this country.
robertoinfinite10 7 months ago
@robertoinfinite10 Your right, now we'll have government running it, that's even worse and if there are any problems guess what, our government will do two things, throw more money at it (which we don't have) and add even MORE regulations and restrictions. I guess that's what you want.
rizon72 6 months ago
@robertoinfinite10 Gullible fools fall for the political rhetoric. Ins companies are like any other contract. they cant refuse you for what you paid for any more than GM can take you money, then refuse to give you the car.
If your policy doesnt cover your condition, thats not their greed. Its your mistake in not getting wider coverage. But you cant refuse to pay (car insurance analogy) for collision coverage, when whine that the ins co is greedy if they deny to pay for collision damage.
EdgemanLL2 6 months ago
We have to take control of our own health- eliminate junk, processed foods, carcinogens, endocrine disruptors & all artificials- sweeteners, flavors, etc. Stick to low glycemic foods. Then exercise.
Annahealthseeker 7 months ago
those that 'like' the healthcare bill haven't read it, don't understand it and have an elected official that let it pass over their desk without them reading it in its entirety. Its 2600 pages, plus the 1800 in ammendments, references, and USC title citations and support. No way in HELL they read it in a weekend. There is no clearer example of Taxation without Representation.... unless you want to count the 'Financial Bill' at another 2700 pages that they passed two weeks later.
valenciacityx 8 months ago
Great stuff, a highly sophisticated and yet elegantly simple explanation of a complex issue. @RonPaul
victimofinfluence 8 months ago
Ron Paul Rocks! @RonPaul is my homeboy, go support him
victimofinfluence 8 months ago
Funny, living in Australia and having had free health care all my life, I must've missed the part where the government tried to interfere with any choice I've ever made.
koshiamamoto 9 months ago
Darn Cylon!
gigel4ever 9 months ago
Go commit suicide pls, let's wait till yo need basic care and tjhey turn YOU down you fucking whore
Scum71succer 9 months ago
Never use Battlestar Galactica in the title of your video to get more views, it's cheap
.
bdachel2362 9 months ago
Railroaded through congress! Not like those tax cuts Bush did!
The poster of this video seems very negative. Humans CAN solve problems. We shouldn't run away because we might fail. Every other first world country has a more egalitarian health care system than ours. It IS possible. Newsflash: you dont make your own decisions. The amount of money you have DOES. Either that or a "bureacrat" at an insurance company that makes a profit if they deny care.
majinspy 9 months ago
@majinspy You're completely deluded. The foremost reason other countries have socialized care is because they aren't forced to take liability for such incredibly high pool risk--in other words, they are FAR more healthy overall, and thus have lower costs. The reason our HC is so expensive has very little to do with administrative causes or corporate conspiracies--I mean geewhiz, do ya think a skyrocketing 34% obesity rate might bear on rising HC costs???
thereinliestherib 9 months ago
@thereinliestherib I never said "corporate conspiracy". It's profit motive. An insurance company can deny care to a VERY small amount of people, that take a TON of money to treat. This doesn't alienate their customers, as it affects so few of them (unless a movie like Sicko comes out...) and it saves them billions.
Yes, obesity is a problem. More people in the US do not have the money to buy healthy food. I teach the very poor, they only have access to unhealthy school meals twice a day :\
majinspy 9 months ago
@majinspy BTW what is your solution? Ah let me guess, personal responsibility? So easy to preach when you have the money and free time to eat healthily. The families of children I teach do not know what a whole foods or trader joe's even is. Healthy food is harder to get, more expensive, and harder to prepare. For the poor, it is unreasonable to expect them to somehow overcome all of these problems. I'm all for focusing on nutrition. I don't see anything from conservatives on the issue at all.
majinspy 9 months ago
@majinspy Money and free time to eat healthy??? Healthy food is cheaper than junk, and increases your productivity and mental function. The same with exercise. The average American watches 3-4 hours of television a day, and even moreso among the innocent "poor". Your claims are totally inaccurate. Quit scapegoating and take responsibility for YOUR actions--yes, that's what I support!
thereinliestherib 9 months ago
@thereinliestherib Provide evidence for your assertion. Unhealthy food: I can get 10 burgers for 10$. How much healthy food can you get for 10$? Plz enlighten me as opposed to assertions with no evidence.
majinspy 9 months ago
@majinspy You can get 10 half burgers with no macronutritional value. That's a completely unrepresentative example. I can go to the grocery store and get a sandwich, a banana, yogurt, and possibly a drink for under five bucks, the competition price of most fastfood valu meals. Likewise, you're completely ignoring that if you choose to eat your way, its YOUR choice. Why should others bear the costs of your inevitable heart disease/diabetes/lost productivity??
thereinliestherib 9 months ago
@thereinliestherib The drink is about a buck, the sandwich about 3, the yogurt about 1. Ok, that's ONE meal. Many families I teach cannot afford 15$ per meal, considering 1 parent and two kids. A burger, fries, and a drink are 3$, hot, and prepared. As someone who shops, it is MUCH easier to buy delicious unhealthy and cheap food than to buy food that is healthy, expensive, and harder to prepare. Yes, you can save money if you prepare all meals, but try doing that with two jobs and kids to watch
majinspy 9 months ago
@majinspy Wrong. The foods you're talking about are a completely unrepresentative example, and they barely even skim under FDA requirements for "food" because of their total lack of nutritional value. And yes, I can still buy a healthy fruit/veggie rich meal for as much or less than most valumeals. The economic argument for obesity hardly explains why many who are poor are still healthy--a fact which people like you just dismiss. Newsflash, its because of individual choice!
thereinliestherib 9 months ago
@thereinliestherib What the FDA says has NOTHING to do with the reality of food in a stomach. Also, contradicting your newest silly statement, the poor in this country are far more unhealthy than the rich, they have higher rates of obesity and diabetes.
majinspy 9 months ago
@majinspy "What the FDA says has NOTHING to do with the reality of food in a stomach." What!? Dumbest comment of the year, by far--they're THE authority on nutrition!!! Wow! And the fact that the poor, overall, are much less healthy in this country, despite having equal access to healthy food, only draws into question the origin of their lack of health, and quite possibly the origin of their poverty as well: idiotic individual choices. In every other country, the poor are healthier.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib First you say the poor are healthier, now you say they aren't. At least you ended up in the correct position. Also, I didn't say the FDA didn't know what they were talking about. You seem incapable of following more than one sentence. People buy unhealthy food because: its cheap, tasty, hot, and fast. You say I'm wrong, which means they are buying unhealthy food for just no reason! It's so easy to judge idiotic choices when your obvious affluence allows you to make choices.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy "First you say the poor are healthier, now you say they aren't." Uh no, I said that elsewhere in the world, the poorer you are the less obese and the more healthy than in the US. The US is the only country where the poorer you are, the greater the likelihood of obesity, drug abuse, etc.
"People buy unhealthy food because: its cheap, tasty, hot, and fast." Yep, because they CHOOSE to do so. You're trying to make these factors into a gun-to-the-head, which they clearly are NOT.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@majinspy My obvious affluence? I believe I declared a cool 15K in income last year, and yet I can still put down a 5 min mile; whereas people like you can run a... oh that's right, you can't even run because you'll break a hip under the strain of sheer gravity, which is also why the Army is having a tough time recruiting these days. Maybe if you took responsibility a little more, you wouldn't be stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle of immobility. Just a thought.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib I don't know your situation (this is what separates us: you're so sure of so much you have no idea of. I'm far more cautious with pulling things out of my ass). Anyway, I'm curious how you live on 15k. I live in the lowest income state in the union and you can't live on 15k. There's something you aren't telling me, unless you are on government assistance, which would pretty much destroy your conservative argument.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy Stop drawing the debate into personal matters and address my arguments--if you can. I've refuted your one-dimensional argument about the economic advantages of junk food, and plus your claims don't even address the fact that the quantity of food that Americans (over) eat is just as significant as what they eat, which also obliterates your point. If they have money for excessive amounts food, it follows that they have money for healthy foods but CHOOSE otherwise.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib Part 1 of 2 btw. You didn't refute the argument. You showed you can feed one person healthily for the same price as 10 unhealthily. Nor have you provided a compelling reason why the poor choose unhealthy food (as they clearly do) under your perspective. Your only argument is that the poor are collectively making dumb choices for no reason. There is a flaw in the argument "if they have money for too much unhealthy food, they have money for healthy food". This is incorrect.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy Uh, nope--those were your claims. Feeding multiple people, say a family, is even more economical if you buy healthy foods, because healthy foods (fruits, veggies, etc) are even cheaper in bulk than the fixed pricing for junk. You're pathetic attempts at scapegoating external factors for personal choices are just that--pathetic. You've taken no account of those who are poor but also healthy, but I suppose these folks are just anomalies, right? Right.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib You missed what I said. My question to you is this: Do americans buy and consume more unhealthy food than the citizens of other western countries. If so: why?
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy You're a browbeaten tool. Your concern is twice removed from the overall extent of poor health, and is itself only a subsidiary part of overall diet. Americans CHOOSE to be unhealthy. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to be a low self esteem pile of fat, dependent crap. Your argument is essentially that poor health is all externally caused, despite the MILLIONS who abide the same social and economic conditions but remain healthy.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib I'm a browbeaten tool? Normally I just ignore insults but, you realize that makes YOU the browbeater, right? BTW I didn't make an argument, I asked a question. We have to agree on facts before we can debate the implications of those facts. So, Americans are eating unhealthier. You just said this. Why are they doing so? If you say "they are lazy"...well that's not enough information. Why does laziness equate to unhealthy food. Why is unhealthy food easier?
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy Brow beaten by the facts, you mean. You keep trying to presuppose that people are unhealthy for apparently anything but their personal choices, by the retarded calculus that good health is "costly" and whatever BS you can cull from the stats. As a healthy bum myself, I can't even describe the advantages of being healthy. The reason others aren't is because we've removed every disincentive toward irresponsible behavior. Why be healthy, when you can suckle on learned helplessness?
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib Brow beaten by the facts? God you're pretentious. More importantly, you can't operate in a discussion. After three comments where I just asked a goddam question about what you think, and getting your assholish responses, I'm tired of your disrespect. I'm sure in your mind that when people retreat from your piss poor demeanor, you convince yourself that really they are just retreating from your superior debate skills. Send me a reply in a few years when you're less of a dick.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy The naive policies of ignorant fools like yourself are going to cost individuals thousands of dollars, and you expect someone to not be a dick toward you? Get a clue. I'm sure aliens have seized control of the majority of the population and are turning them into unhealthy pigs. Jeezus, that we even have conversations like this in the US is disturbing. 70% of the population couldn't outrun a refrigerator, and all you idiots can do is scapegoat and pettyfog the obvious.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib So instead of having a civil conversation, you want to just be an asshole? And you seek to justify this. BTW, its pettifog. Not pettyfog. Obviously you just finished watching the bill o'reilly / jon stewart debate where they bandied the archaic term about. You are SO goddam pretentious. I can see your glib satisfaction in response to every polysyllabic word you type. Who knows if you're smart enough to engage in a conversation: you're too busy being a pretentious asshole.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy Snore. If your position had any factual support, and if you had a point, the PMS'ing wouldn't be necessary. It seems when liberals start skippin across the map to cry foul, it just means you've won the argument.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib So my options are to be insulted by you or lose the debate? You're the one who skips from rant to rant. Everytime I try to lock you down into one vein of discourse, you run like hell. You have yet to answer WHY unhealthy food is "lazier" than healthy food. I would suggest googling opportunity costs.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy Don't be insulted, make a point for crissakes! That's what I've been saying for several comments now. Sheesh. And you're honestly venturing the absurd notion that the "opportunity costs" of being healthy outweigh both the opportunity costs of poor health, AND the countervailing benefits of good health? I'm poor AND healthy, which allows me to work several jobs simultaneously, improves mental function, costs far less, makes me happier, less susceptible to illness, etc etc...
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@majinspy ...costs my employer far less in terms of health coverage, helps the nation retain jobs, improves economic productivity, keeps people off the social services rolls, helps me recover faster from illness... The HC cost of obesity alone in this country is pushing 350 bl/yr, not even including the greater economic costs of lost productivity, illness, and outsourcing--and yet you wave that opportunity cost BS? LAZY F's are the opportunity cost of my generation's goddamn future.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib What I'm asking is why does the aspect of laziness equate to more unhealthy food? This suggests that unhealthy food is easier to put on the table than healthy food. So! Why is it easier? I think its because it is FAR CHEAPER! Laziness doesn't inspire doing the harder thing. You can't say that its easier to eat healthy, but lazy people don't eat healthy, unless you throw out the definition of the word lazy. THAT has been my big point.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy Neither laziness, nor unhealthy food are cheaper than being healthy and eating healthy foods. That's thoroughly disproven, but you keep coming back with the circular logic that laziness causes and also validates poor health habits. I mean honestly, you're now acknowledging that laziness is the root cause, not prior economic conditions of force or necessity. The benefits of good health/diet FAR outweigh any supposed costs, but you don't see it since you're ignoring half the equation.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib You are conflating long term costs of health care. RIGHT NOW a parent has to make a decision. Feed themselves and their two children with burger king, or pay twice as much for grocery store food that they have to make a special trip to buy, then cook, then store the left overs, then clean up.
Many Americans are simply working too hard to live the life you are talking about. They are single parents with multiple jobs. They have children. They have a lot going on around them.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy If they're not responsible enough to have the time to care for their children--NEWSFLASH!--they shouldn't have children. My family worked its ass off to put food on the table, and never did we have to resort to a fastfood diet. You're completely ridiculous. You live in a backwards reality. No matter how many times I show the falsity of your claims, you just parrot back something more vague and unreasonable. Lose some weight. Get some self-respect. The rest will follow!
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@majinspy 70% of Americans are obese or overweight, a condition that is the very physical expression of personal laziness. The average American watches 4 hours of television a day, and that's just the avg. You live in a fantasyland. I'm poor, and yet I keep wondering where all these innocent, hardworking poor people are. All my peers are self-entitled, fat, slovenly druggies who have been conditioned by an enabling, liberal social services economy to keep their handout indefinitely.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib pt 1 of 2 4 hours of TV a day? Ok, there are 24 hours in a day. Most people DO indeed have jobs around 40 hour (or more) per week. 8 hours of sleep and we have 8 hours left. You can take out at least 2 hours for things like getting ready in the morning / driving back home / going to the post office. Most people only have a few hours off in a given day. I know that is true for me. I get home at 4:30 at the earliest (I teach). I have to be in bed by 11.
majinspy 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib pt 2 of 2. I get about 6 hours to myself after I get home from work. Yes, I spend that time doing what I want: playing video games / web surfing phoning friends. I've tried jogging, which of course works, but kills my knees. I'm in pain when I come home at the end of the day. Try finding the motivation to exercise with shooting knee pains. I admit to having trouble controlling food cravings. I'm human. We all are imperfect. That's why I'm a liberal: we're all imperfect.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy Assuming of course that we're all imperfect to the same degree, which is clearly false. Those who complain about the health problems when they start exercising forget that they accumulated those problems and put themselves into their current situation by past poor choices anyway. But honestly, I applaud your efforts to be healthy. Running gets easier and easier, and as lame as it sounds, you do get high from it. Sometimes, quite high, and its not the temporary high of drugs.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib No we aren't all imperfect to the same degree. I don't see it as a priority to figure out who to punish. Do you really want to live in a society where justice isn't tempered with compassion? BTW I did stop running, my knees can't take it. I'm saving money to buy a bike, but it isn't easy. I don't think you realize how mistakes can just pile up on a person. I'm pretty well off, my weight is about the only problem I have. I just want you to realize how interconnected we all are.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy What about reciprocity? What about proportionality? So if someone with a bad upbringing murders you or your family, that's just fine because we're "all imperfect to the same degree" in the aggregate? Absurd. I don't pay for the car insurance of poor drivers; I don't pay for the loans of delinquent homeowners. In your world, doing so is a virtue. Your world is also completely bankrupt. We're connected in more ways than just rainbows and unicorns.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib In my world? How about we each stick to representing our own worlds. I believe in a balance. We can help each other out without corrupting each other. We can lift each other up without completely dissolving responsibility. I'm all about proportionality and personal responsibility. I don't want to do away with justice or effort. I just want a modicum of compassion and understanding as well.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy The real world "understands" criminals by reading their rights, giving them a trial, and throwing them in jail. We "understand" drunk drivers by weeding their added risk from the commuting system. Want compassion? You won't get it, precisely because the country is overrun by similarly messianic babies on a self-worshipping search for external compassion. Go run, get high, get soar, break an ankle, repeat. This is the real world, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib Actually the "real world" provides them with a lawyer, and often some form of counseling such as AA. I'm not a "messianic baby". I don't have a jesus complex. I think we should all work together to achieve common ends and make this world a more gentle place. What is the point of civilization? To merely allow the best among us to reach their zenith? To merely allow competition? If it isn't in service to humanity, I don't see the point and I don't think others do either.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy So each according to his/her means and ability, eh? How does that at all jove with a 70% obesity/overweight rate? Egalitarianism supports an equal distribution of the burden for its over-idealized ends, but I've never seen a liberal campaign for that side of the equation. So long as these politicians can make false promises for goods they can't pay for, people like you will keep voting for them. And so it goes, until we're all on life support and speaking Chinese...
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib @thereinliestherib Whenever someone types "people like you" it usually shows they have no idea what they are talking about. I am an individual. I do not support and would not support some candidate who wanted to give away everything and tank the country. The national debt concerned me before Obama was elected and while Bush was slashing taxes, increasing entitlements, and waging two wars. You seem to view everything as black and white. Sorry, but that's a sign of immaturity.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy No, you're a type. You've ceded your individualism to doctrine and ideology. You don't believe in personal choice--which, by the way, is your choice. You believe individuals are only an extension of some mystical collective, which naturally, precludes the fact that individuals are the epistemic center of experience. Your brain has greater computing power than a supercomputer--start using it.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib You're nutty :\ A doctrine! an ideology! How uninteresting other people must be since you know all of their thoughts. That's it, I'm done. You are a jerk. You insist on straw manning me to death. You refuse to answer point blank questions of fact before preceding to debate. You're just this uncontrollable fire who read Ayn Rand, thinks he understands the world and all the "types" in it, and can type. I'm done, have fun raging impotently at the world that ignores you.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy And of course, you're a teacher. That's all that really needed to be said. You belong to the one class of people who is "above" the economic forces of competition (iow, competence). Adios! Thanks for all those well-formed rebuttals you offered up--oh right, you didn't!
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib Part 2 of 2. The flaw is that there isn't "too much" unhealthy food, its all they can afford. They can feed 5 unhealthily or 1 of 5 healthily. If you were right, then why would the poor purchase food as they do?
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy Why? Because in the US they (we) are lazy f's. The economic argument for the consumption of unhealthy food clearly doesn't stand, and its only one aspect of the problem of poor health. The average American doesn't exercise whatsoever, but watches an average of 3-4 hours of tv a day. Only a fool would blame external factors for poor personal health at US rates. You could just as easily blame forks for obesity.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib Even if I grant we are "lazy f's" WHY does laziness equal more unhealthy food? It MUST be cheaper! Or easier to obtain for SOME reason. BTW, I don't grant we are lazy. Americans work harder than ANY other western society. This fact backs up my argument that we are working too long, and for too little money. Europeans can afford to eat like Europeans. We can't.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy Clearly you're not listening--diet is only one component of obesity, along with exercise and other habits. Healthy food is often cheaper and more abundant than junk, and likewise, your argument hardly explains the primary problem, which is the quantity of food Americans consume, not the quality. Only some Americans work hard--just to pay off the social services burden of lazy, obese, addicted smokers--yes, this we agree on.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@thereinliestherib You're making up what you've typed in the past. You argued that Americans were CHOOSING these foods. Now you are saying, its not the quality of food, its the quantity. So, Americans eat healthy food, they just eat a lot MORE of it. We don't consume more fast food, processed food, and other junk food than other western societies, right? Are you arguing that. Before we go further you must either a.) say the US diet consists of unhealthy food, or b.) It doesn't.
majinspy 8 months ago
@majinspy Nice try, but what I've been consistent. People choose what foods they eat, and healthy diets are just as available and economical as junk; however, it is still the quantity of food consumed that is another dimension of the diet problem. And you're only addressing--quite failingly--one subsidiary aspect of poor health, when poor health encompasses a broader range of unhealthy habits than just diet alone. Get some self-esteem; its no one else's responsibility to pay for your bypass.
thereinliestherib 8 months ago
@majinspy That's crap. Healthy food is more easily accessible and even cheaper than junk food, and diet is only one aspect of a much bigger problem. The profit motive is what keeps insurance co's accountable--if they were not beholden to their contractual agreements, customers would flee. Recission is an incredibly uncommon phenomenon, but the Left constantly uses it to justify spreading liability for an obscenely unhealthy country through Obamacare.
thereinliestherib 9 months ago
@thereinliestherib Um, no it isn't. 5 burgers, 5 fries, 5 drinks is 15$. You think you can beat that with fresh food? Add in prep time and distance to obtain it. Many places don't have those type of stores to begin with. There is a reason other than coincidence that poorer people by the cheaper, less healthy food. Secondly, I explaiend how they COULD flee. They just screw a SMALL PERCENTAGE of people. The top .001% of people that cost a ton of money to keep alive.
majinspy 9 months ago
@majinspy Sorry dude, the economic argument is total BS. You cannot say that the poor necessarily must eat an unhealthy diet, when there are those who abide the same conditions but still make healthy choices. In every other country BUT America, the poorer you are, the healthier/skinnier you are. We're the only country in the world where the poorer you are, the fatter you are--which really tells you something about the individual origins of a lot of poverty in America.
thereinliestherib 9 months ago
@thereinliestherib A lot of Americans are indeed obese therefore we can't reward them by giving them 'free' health care.
truevoice08 9 months ago
The juxtaposition of a fictional TV show and a REAL healthcare crisis is sophmoric and pedantic... The U.S. spends more than any country on healthcare BUT are #37 according to the W.H.O. in overall health. Why? Massive profits by insurance companies who've denied people coverage because it would hurt their profit-margin. "Corporate greed" and "denial of care" are issues few critics of the healthcare reform law care to discuss.
Is healthcare a "human right" or a privlidge?
BigBlue0002 9 months ago