@TheForwardGaze Yes it was. In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the measure, while 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it. Fifteen members did not vote. Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican Presidents we ever had! Unfortunately the financial iterests in this country own the government Republican and Democrate alike. It doesn't change the the arguement that regulation of markets is a necessity not a hinderance to economic health.
@vudu8ball I agree. I agree. State capitalism and regulation is necessary. And I think most republicans would agree with that, too, despite their rhetoric. History has shown that state capitalism can serve the interests of the majority or the few. The problem, as Gore Vidal put it, is national amnesia.
@TheForwardGaze State Capitalism is another word for Communism or at least the next step toward communism.That is the progression.The more you centralize power the more opportunity for abuse. It does not matter if it is Government of Corporations.The Constitution knew this and put into place regulations on the Government.Modern Socialist push for more regulation with no end in sight. That line has continually been stepped over until full gov. control. Question the FED's power and its influence.
@vudu8ball Maybe everything blame on free markets is manipulated by the FED.Is it regulations that save us or does the FED over inflate markets to a bust and then push the public to blame freer market Capitalism? Not just financial but also moral and personal beliefs through inflation and taxation. It is much easier to blame the private sector than the FED because the FED makes the rules. Have you researched what a centralized banking powers can do? That is the power we should be questioning.
@cskipper65 The banks and traders all need to be heavily regulated. The present depression has been caused by banks being "to big to fail", the promulgation of unregulated drivitives and preditory fraud perpetrated by the morgage industry. unfortunately Obama is a bank man and the republicans are mired in an ideologic and religious quagmire so nothing will be done. Maybe next time.
@vudu8ball I think we both agree that "to big to fail" is the problem. The question is it regulation or not enough regulation. Derivatives became a problem when the FED worked out a deal with LTCM to cover up the mistake of over leveraging through derivatives . Had the FED not existed and had the power from the government to intervene that company would have failed and would have been a notice to other companies of the risks involved in that type of investment.
@vudu8ball but because the FED gave their approval and backing of this type of investment instead of the market weeding out bad business. Then the FED followed up a incoming recession with ridiculous rates to save us once again. Now the combination of this approved bad investment practice along with easy money magnified an issue the markets could have worked themselves out of by 100 times. The FED has been the issue and Greenspan like a coward blamed the free market. Irony
@vudu8ball the biggest irony of it all is that Greenspan considered himself a free market libertarian. someone tell me how a free market libertarian sets the rates and money supply and can be honest with himself and his beliefs. He deflected his personal beliefs onto what he said he supported in which he never did(confusing). Then the finger pointing begins and we beg the government for more regulation on our business and personal liberties. Its like a battered wife syndrome (bad analogy).
@cskipper65 to me it is as if we play right into the hands of the big businesses that already have a hold of the government. So what do we do we ask for more and more of their abuse because we think the fire started with these companies when it was the government supported FED that continues to pay them off. Look at the history of the FED and you may find smoke there. They prop up bad companies not the free market that far left people want to believe.
@vudu8ball 65 to me it is as if we play right into the hands of the big businesses that already have a hold of the government. So what do we do we ask for more and more of their abuse because we think the fire started with these companies when it was the government supported FED that continues to pay them off. Look at the history of the FED and you may find smoke there. They prop up bad companies not the free market that far left people want to believe or have been told
Hey man, is it cool if I post your video on my facebook page? All of the points you've made are amazing and so much more coherent than I ever could hope to achieve.
I don't think I've ever heard a serious capitalists state that a free-market wouldn't be regulated, just that it would be regulated naturally rather than artificially by the state.
@Jcolinsol The word "naturally" doesn't convey much. What precisely do you mean?
Property rights, standardized wieghts and measures, a court system to adjudicate conflicts short of violence, labor laws, saftey regulations, food health and purety regulations, and consumer protection laws are all administered by the government. Who else would do this?
By natural I mean any social structure which comes about through an evolutionary process, rather than artificial intelligent design.
It seems to me that any and all of those regulations can come about naturally, no government needed. That is, government is simply composed of people, and any group of people can do what government does. We don't specifically need a government to be arch regulator. Besides, sound regulations occur on their own.
@Jcolinsol I think that's idealistic at best, and ignorant at worst. I think an argument could be made that in some certain circumstances, the economic power of the consumer can "naturally" regulate the free-market as you say. An example of this would be in either of the food or medicine industries, where consumers are not likely to consume food or medicine that are poisonous. The problem is that if businesses are incentivized via profit motive to avoid them, they will.
I wouldn't say that it's idealistic, I'd say it is pragmatic. This is how functional order occurs, there is no intelligent designer in nature, eco-systems evolve out of individual activity, and the economy is exactly that: an eco-system.
If anything is idealistic, it is the idea that you can make society more orderly by force, it seems to me.
What exactly do you think this is ignorant of, I'm curious?
@Jcolinsol It seems that this is ignorant of the damages the unchecked profit motive can cause. I am a capitalist, and I like letting free markets do what they to best (create wealth). The question brought up in this man's video was the question of how free they should be. The two perfect examples that he gave with the oil spill that BP caused and the housing market crash that the investment banks caused are examples of why free markets as anarchists see them are not a good thing.
Ah, well I am definitely conscious of the problems posed by the profit motive. I have thoughts on the matter if you're interested.
I advocate a free-market because I see it as essential to a functional economy, but I actually think that capitalism should be discarded as an anachronism.
And I would point out that the examples given took place within a society that has a government, so maybe the state is not actually the best way to protect us from these problems.
Wasn't the Glass-Steagle Act removed in a bill signed by Bill Clinton?
TheForwardGaze 2 weeks ago
@TheForwardGaze Yes it was. In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the measure, while 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it. Fifteen members did not vote. Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican Presidents we ever had! Unfortunately the financial iterests in this country own the government Republican and Democrate alike. It doesn't change the the arguement that regulation of markets is a necessity not a hinderance to economic health.
vudu8ball 2 weeks ago
@vudu8ball I agree. I agree. State capitalism and regulation is necessary. And I think most republicans would agree with that, too, despite their rhetoric. History has shown that state capitalism can serve the interests of the majority or the few. The problem, as Gore Vidal put it, is national amnesia.
TheForwardGaze 2 weeks ago
@TheForwardGaze State Capitalism is another word for Communism or at least the next step toward communism.That is the progression.The more you centralize power the more opportunity for abuse. It does not matter if it is Government of Corporations.The Constitution knew this and put into place regulations on the Government.Modern Socialist push for more regulation with no end in sight. That line has continually been stepped over until full gov. control. Question the FED's power and its influence.
cskipper65 21 hours ago
@cskipper65 Under communism there is no state; it slowly dies with capitalism due to the implementation of democracy in the workplace.
TheForwardGaze 20 hours ago
@vudu8ball Maybe everything blame on free markets is manipulated by the FED.Is it regulations that save us or does the FED over inflate markets to a bust and then push the public to blame freer market Capitalism? Not just financial but also moral and personal beliefs through inflation and taxation. It is much easier to blame the private sector than the FED because the FED makes the rules. Have you researched what a centralized banking powers can do? That is the power we should be questioning.
cskipper65 22 hours ago
@cskipper65 The banks and traders all need to be heavily regulated. The present depression has been caused by banks being "to big to fail", the promulgation of unregulated drivitives and preditory fraud perpetrated by the morgage industry. unfortunately Obama is a bank man and the republicans are mired in an ideologic and religious quagmire so nothing will be done. Maybe next time.
vudu8ball 19 hours ago
@vudu8ball I think we both agree that "to big to fail" is the problem. The question is it regulation or not enough regulation. Derivatives became a problem when the FED worked out a deal with LTCM to cover up the mistake of over leveraging through derivatives . Had the FED not existed and had the power from the government to intervene that company would have failed and would have been a notice to other companies of the risks involved in that type of investment.
cskipper65 16 hours ago
@vudu8ball but because the FED gave their approval and backing of this type of investment instead of the market weeding out bad business. Then the FED followed up a incoming recession with ridiculous rates to save us once again. Now the combination of this approved bad investment practice along with easy money magnified an issue the markets could have worked themselves out of by 100 times. The FED has been the issue and Greenspan like a coward blamed the free market. Irony
cskipper65 16 hours ago
@vudu8ball the biggest irony of it all is that Greenspan considered himself a free market libertarian. someone tell me how a free market libertarian sets the rates and money supply and can be honest with himself and his beliefs. He deflected his personal beliefs onto what he said he supported in which he never did(confusing). Then the finger pointing begins and we beg the government for more regulation on our business and personal liberties. Its like a battered wife syndrome (bad analogy).
cskipper65 16 hours ago
@cskipper65 to me it is as if we play right into the hands of the big businesses that already have a hold of the government. So what do we do we ask for more and more of their abuse because we think the fire started with these companies when it was the government supported FED that continues to pay them off. Look at the history of the FED and you may find smoke there. They prop up bad companies not the free market that far left people want to believe.
cskipper65 15 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vudu8ball 65 to me it is as if we play right into the hands of the big businesses that already have a hold of the government. So what do we do we ask for more and more of their abuse because we think the fire started with these companies when it was the government supported FED that continues to pay them off. Look at the history of the FED and you may find smoke there. They prop up bad companies not the free market that far left people want to believe or have been told
cskipper65 15 hours ago
That would be great! Thanks
vudu8ball 3 weeks ago
Hey man, is it cool if I post your video on my facebook page? All of the points you've made are amazing and so much more coherent than I ever could hope to achieve.
mdt2189 3 weeks ago
@mdt2189 That would be great! Thanks.
vudu8ball 3 weeks ago
I don't think I've ever heard a serious capitalists state that a free-market wouldn't be regulated, just that it would be regulated naturally rather than artificially by the state.
Jcolinsol 1 month ago
@Jcolinsol The word "naturally" doesn't convey much. What precisely do you mean?
Property rights, standardized wieghts and measures, a court system to adjudicate conflicts short of violence, labor laws, saftey regulations, food health and purety regulations, and consumer protection laws are all administered by the government. Who else would do this?
vudu8ball 1 month ago
@vudu8ball
By natural I mean any social structure which comes about through an evolutionary process, rather than artificial intelligent design.
It seems to me that any and all of those regulations can come about naturally, no government needed. That is, government is simply composed of people, and any group of people can do what government does. We don't specifically need a government to be arch regulator. Besides, sound regulations occur on their own.
Jcolinsol 1 month ago
@Jcolinsol I think that's idealistic at best, and ignorant at worst. I think an argument could be made that in some certain circumstances, the economic power of the consumer can "naturally" regulate the free-market as you say. An example of this would be in either of the food or medicine industries, where consumers are not likely to consume food or medicine that are poisonous. The problem is that if businesses are incentivized via profit motive to avoid them, they will.
mdt2189 3 weeks ago
@mdt2189
I wouldn't say that it's idealistic, I'd say it is pragmatic. This is how functional order occurs, there is no intelligent designer in nature, eco-systems evolve out of individual activity, and the economy is exactly that: an eco-system.
If anything is idealistic, it is the idea that you can make society more orderly by force, it seems to me.
What exactly do you think this is ignorant of, I'm curious?
Jcolinsol 3 weeks ago
@Jcolinsol It seems that this is ignorant of the damages the unchecked profit motive can cause. I am a capitalist, and I like letting free markets do what they to best (create wealth). The question brought up in this man's video was the question of how free they should be. The two perfect examples that he gave with the oil spill that BP caused and the housing market crash that the investment banks caused are examples of why free markets as anarchists see them are not a good thing.
mdt2189 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@mdt2189
Ah, well I am definitely conscious of the problems posed by the profit motive. I have thoughts on the matter if you're interested.
I advocate a free-market because I see it as essential to a functional economy, but I actually think that capitalism should be discarded as an anachronism.
And I would point out that the examples given took place within a society that has a government, so maybe the state is not actually the best way to protect us from these problems.
Jcolinsol 3 weeks ago
I'm assuming that the book you're referring to is actually titled "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism"?
casualdissent 1 month ago