Fannie and Freddie symptoms of larger problem

More at http://therealnews.com/c.php?c=080601YT
AFL-CIO economist says this system amounts to "Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor"

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• therealnews
• fannie
• may
• freddie
• mac
• housing
• crisis
• mortgage
• stock
• market
• economy

[odin422]

im broke....can i get a couple billion?

[sonderbak]

Corporatism is what the rest of the world calls Fascism!

[whoisinchargehere]

immanent

4)Private does not always = voluntary. It can but if something is NEEDED to survive (one might even argue being able to function in society) and it can only be received from one place is that voluntary? It is also highly self-interested. Public is operating within set limits, forced yes, but ideally accountable to the public. Other interested.

4) you may have control of property but if it can be taken do you really own it? You may live if it is decided you can use the resources.

[whoisinchargehere]

immanent

1)I draw that assumption from logic based on the fruits capitalism produces, which are many but mixed.

2)If you are in debt have you not given more than 100% of your labor away? You do have things in return but those things are only valuable if you can use them up or trade them.

3)Private owner = owned by few or one for their benefit. Competition is life blood of capitalism and what is ultimate result of competition? A winner. How - depends on the rules of operation and indiv choice.

[immanent]

From where do you draw the assumption that perfect capitalism will result in one owner of everything? That doesn't seem possible unless individuals are giving 100% of the fruits of their labor for nothing in return. How could there ever be one private owner of everything? And even if it were possible, the difference would be how the single owner arrived at total ownership. Private=voluntary. Public=force. Doesn't public ownership of everything mean there is no right of man in property.

[whoisinchargehere]

"Perfect liberty approaches the egalitarian goal much closer than perfect egalitarianism begets perfect liberty." That is only true if there are 'limits' either imposed by outside forces (institutions) or internally (honor). Perfect liberty is no different than 'perfect' capitalism which will ultimately result in one owner of everything.

The question eventually becomes is it a single public owner or a single private owner.

The answer lies in finding a balance between capitalist and socialist.

[snaed27]

I thought the constitution gives the people the right to overthrow a corrupt goverment ...is it time ?

[immanent]

I think you're right that TRUE free trade creates capital accumulation, but I hold that it is in the hands of the people, and smart entrepreneurs, instead of in the hands of the wealthy. Democratic 'control' is still control, and is contrary to any notion of a free society.

You can't have perfect liberty and perfect egalitarianism simultaneously. Perfect liberty approaches the egalitarian goal much closer than perfect egalitarianism begets perfect liberty.

[calvinjones]

It may be possible to seperate ideology from economics but in practice an economic theory that is great in the text books is exploited and used as an ideology...i think that is the point. Free trade policies create capital accumilation that creates extreme politcal power in the hands of the welathy which is innevitably used by them to futher there goals. Economics and democracy cannot be considered seperately. Democratic control of business as well as the narrowly defined 'political' is needed.

[calvinjones]

The 'fallacies' that you attribute to me are matters about which i know rather little. I`m not an economist so i wouldnt make these connections on a hunch. The wikipedia article makes these connections, saying that the IMF/World Bank are inspired by the chicargo school and that Mises et al., are its intellectual forebares.

I havent mentioned nafta once, i know less about that thatn about the IMF/WTO/World Bank.

[immanent]

The fallacy is that you call those institutions and the means by which they claim to achieve a purpose "neo-liberal." Take the example of NAFTA being a misrepresentation of what free trade is supposed to be. So regulation and subsidies are suddenly recognized as free trade? Then you connect the fallacy to the Chicago School which has roots in the Austrian School, and suddenly Mises and Rothbard are the problem. Sounds almost like a strawman.

[calvinjones]

"Chicago School theories lay behind many of the policies of the World Bank and other Washington-based financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and U.S. Treasury Department,[1] which embraced free market solutions as the recipe for the reform of economically wrecked countries, as was expressed in the Washington consensus. Under its influence, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, large portions of the state-owned companies in many Third World countries were privatized.[2]"