Political discussion thread

Slartibartfast wrote: I have no idea, but if they're planning on posting this one on their next issue, they'll get some respect points back from me.

Gamemako wrote: IVNORD wrote: The seeds of this mess were sown long before. The greatest of all regulators Bill Clinton made his valuable contribution here too. I wonder if you actually payed any attention to the whole sub-prime mess as it unfolded. By all measures, it's excessive deregulation that allowed the problem to form in the first place. The obvious solution is what you see even the FED admitting to now (and when that happens, you know it's time to give up the ghost): the banks do indeed need to be regulated. Banks repackaged and resold risk (moral hazard, anyone?) in something that resembled a Ponzi scheme (yes, I went there). Unscrupulous borrowers didn't help the situation either, but their incidence is a tiny percentage of the total affected. Since invesment and commercial banks are one in the same, they can play the securities game all day long and send the ticking time bombs all over the place (the green-eyed monster gets the best of us all in the end). There are so many things that went horribly wrong because of deregulation. I feel like you have forgotten the main principles of your economic model: all people are perfectly aware, unbiased, and knowledgeable, and no firm exerts market power. Because deception and market control are the hallmarks of modern business (see the moral hazard problem of the credit market), the model naturally falls apart quite quickly. It's like using the van't Hoff shortcut equation (beloved reaction coordinate predictor) at a 1500K differential (limit is 100K): you're not even in the ballpark, let alone on base.

You have no idea what you're talking about

Maybe this is simple enough
As with the Savings & Loan debacle, the problem is that the "investors" or "speculators" were able to risk very little of their money and get a big return. Then when the house of cards came crashing down, they were able to avoid responsibility, both financially (I've yet to hear of any of them paying back ANY amount of money), and even as a business venture that they should have known was based on equations made up to justify the escapade.
But as always, big business gets bailed out, the small guy (that's you , me and you too IVnord) gets stuck with the bill. You remember when Ken Lay passed away. For his legal team it seemed like a great victory because as a dead man, his crimes could no longer be prosecuted, nor his estate dinged for the illicitly obtained riches.
So countries would not need regulation, and yes, there are & have been instances of over-regulation, if the business world was able to place ethics ahead of profits.
Do you stand with the middle class tax payer who foots the bill, or the "entrepreneurial" pigs swindling knowing there will be no meaningful punishment ?


Edited by debrewguy - July 17 2008 at 21:16

^ That's entirely reasonable and I am beginning to think you're a figment of my imagination. 

Edited by Slartibartfast - July 19 2008 at 07:32

IVNORD wrote: debrewguy wrote: Maybe this is simple enough As with the Savings & Loan debacle, the problem is that the "investors" or "speculators" were able to risk very little of their money and get a big return. Then when the house of cards came crashing down, they were able to avoid responsibility, both financially (I've yet to hear of any of them paying back ANY amount of money), and even as a business venture that they should have known was based on equations made up to justify the escapade. But as always, big business gets bailed out, the small guy (that's you , me and you too IVnord) gets stuck with the bill. You remember when Ken Lay passed away. For his legal team it seemed like a great victory because as a dead man, his crimes could no longer be prosecuted, nor his estate dinged for the illicitly obtained riches. So countries would not need regulation, and yes, there are & have been instances of over-regulation, if the business world was able to place ethics ahead of profits. Do you stand with the middle class tax payer who foots the bill, or the "entrepreneurial" pigs swindling knowing there will be no meaningful punishment ? What kind of an answer do you expect? Who would like to be associated with swindling pigs?   For the record, I am a middle class tax payer who foots the bill, same as you. However there some differences between you and me. I am pro-regulation (that's why I can't take libertarians seriousely), but I am for reasonable regulations, a rarity nowadays. I recognize the fact that the business world, as obnoxious as it is, with total lack of ethics, compassion, etc., ultimately benefits everybody. Besides, unlike you guys, I recognize the fact that I can do very little but foot the bill. As an  example look at the rip-off of the big tobacco. After the states got their money they provided protection to Philip Morris and others by hurriedly rewriting the laws of Florida. Was justice served? The tobacco companies raised the prices to pay the states. Guess who foots the bill.   It's an illusion to think you could change anything.

Iv, I think if we sat down for a few brews, we'd overcome our apathy, and focus on the things we can, if not change, at least work on. You're right, reasonable regulations are a rarity.
I'll give you an example as to why I find our representatives are too often ineffective. I constantly tell my friends that there is nothing a politician likes better than to pass a law that "regulates" an undesirable behaviour or act, yet does cost the government anything to apply. Stiffer penalties for crimes, let's go. Forbid immoral or illicit actions, all for it. Legislate against private transgressions, so it is said, so it is done.
Here's the catch. I can vote for the death penalty for any theft over 25 cents. If I don't actually put cops on the streets to catch the criminals on the first place, all I have done is add to the already over-stressed justice system who who now have to balance the actual seriousness of the crime with the excessive penalty. Kids' pants are hung too low, amend obscenity laws to force schools to decipher what is objectively enforceable. Up the penalties for welfare fraud, then expect an over-loaded social services to police  said problem.
I don't want tougher sentencing or even worse, mandatory minimums. I want more police out there investigating internet crimes, walking the beat, following up on public complaints. If you figure that the odds are that you're not going to get caught, who cares how severe the punishment is.
If kids and education are a priority, why would we sell advertising space to pay for this crucial public need ? I believe in equal access and opportunity. After that , you make your own breaks. But at least give the underclass a shot at getting ahead. And if we're serious about getting freeloaders off public assistance, can we at least determine who is deserving, identify the cost of forcing the deserving off, and actually accounting for all the related costs, instead of saying "we cut welfare rolls by 20 %. Without mentioning that most of those are now working slave labour, in essence, competing for you job, by flooding the labour market with desperate people who have no real choice but to work at anything they can get.

I want regulation that says do the crime do the time. No matter your financial werewithal, no matter your status. I want laws that are backed up by the actual chance that you will get caught and punished. Do this, then we'll talk about whether the penalties are appropropriate.
And finally, the next time I hear a politician preach as if they were righteously perfect, I demand that if they or any of their party members are found "lacking" in their "morality", that the same "jihadist/crusader attitude" be applied to their friends.
I had no problem with Clinton cheating on his wife. It does not reflect well on his character. God, as if half of the presidents and head politicians didn't bow to the same temptations. But to crucify one's opponents, then to be found out as no better than them, is the worst hypocrisy. Goddam, if Rush Limbaugh ever says anything about punishing drug addicts, please, someone give him the Shawinigan Handshake and show him Webster's dictionary's definition of "Hypocrisy".
Then, let's hope God (or whatever supreme being you  worship) allows you to ostracize them just as you would those you disagree with.

To finish, as I mentioned previously in some of our set-tos, If I as a citizen, as a voter, care so little for my country that I let my elected representative to get away with murder time after time, I have only myself to blame. I think it was you who said, that too often, we vote for those who promise much, but never tell you who will pay, or what the cost might be.
As a Canadian, I look back to Tommy Douglas. Not as a perfect man, there are many views he held that were of his time. But his guiding principle, when it came to financial affairs, was that you offered the services that you could afford, you chose your governement priorities, and you accepted, that any benefits, were to paid out of the taxes that you accepted to pay. He had nothing against borrowing from banks. But he clearly stated that whoever you borrow from, legitimately has a say on what you do with their money.
Revolutionary premise. No. Even his own party (the CCF, that became the NDP) too often forgets that simple accounting reality.
So let's hoist a glass, then man the barricades against those who would promise the world without adding up the cost, and then assault those who would cut taxes without bothering to explain the costs that will ensue from the "savings" they propose.
Or, to put it in a very basic equation - would you rather pay $80,000/yr to imprison a man, or $25,000 to educate him ?
The simple man & woman outnumber the elite, the rich, the well to do or intellectual . Their common sense usually outweighs the ideologies trumpeted as easy answers to difficult questions.
Wouldn't you know that grey is a colour in the spectrum; that black or white is not the only option available.
And that once you accept that your leaders can be less than perfect, and can admit to mistakes, that they can actually discuss issues to see what their people think and want to do, that the masses might just HELP them to work out effective solutions to the many problems we still face. While being able to admit that some of the hot button topics are probably not the biggest challenges we face.
Or ,if you're a hockey fan, just wait for the NHL to begin, and wonder why the Leafs won't get better as long as they can sell out the arena no matter what; that the Red Wings have found the answer to long term success by thinking about the long term; and that , if it weren't for groups like Los Lobos, AC/DC, Steve Earle, and many others who don't care a fig about trends,m that most people would't btoher ever buying a CD again ...

stonebeard wrote: I don't understand economics. Can someone explain me economics?

Perhaps this will help, uh then again, maybe not. 




Edited by Slartibartfast - July 22 2008 at 04:15

Hope I'm not Slowpoking y'all too much, this one was too good:






Edited by Slartibartfast - July 26 2008 at 15:03

IVNORD wrote: debrewguy wrote: Iv, I think if we sat down for a few brews, Hey DB, this is the only line in your post I can agree with. Things happen not because we want them to happen, but because there is a need for them. You may think you make them happen, but if you're too early with your ideas, you won't achieve anything. It's all dictated by the most rational and pragmatic thing -- the economy.

I think you forget some of the points you've expressed in your posts. The one about politicians promising "freebies", without telling you that you will pay for it somehow. The one about voters blindly supporting one or the other major party, then complaining about the system being broken. The one about over-regulatory overkill brought about by bureaucratic empire building.
I would say we both care about our respective countries. That we both wish that our fellow citizen would question more. Not simply asking for details on the pie in the sky policies, but asking specifically where the money will come from, what will be cut if needed, and what are the other costs (there always are) associated with applying one policy over another.
On this last one, an example is the popularity of "cutting" welfare ranks. The numbers always prove the success of these efforts. They never show the economic effects of those forced on the labour market. where their low value as workers means they have a "trickle-up" effect of lowering wages across the board, until you get to the middle class where it stalls. Mostly because beyond that level, you have the folks who decide wages.
Cutting these welfare numbers should have as a goal to get those who can work out in the labour force by teaching/training them to be effective contributors to the economy. At the same time, you should be able to spell out pretty specific guidelines as to who should have access to this social support, along with explaining the benefits to society (lower crime ???). 'Cause you never hear them want to ablish the program, just to cut the waste. Yet, have you ever heard them take the time to tell you who & why some people need this support system

debrewguy wrote: IVNORD wrote: debrewguy wrote: Iv, I think if we sat down for a few brews, Hey DB, this is the only line in your post I can agree with. Things happen not because we want them to happen, but because there is a need for them. You may think you make them happen, but if you're too early with your ideas, you won't achieve anything. It's all dictated by the most rational and pragmatic thing -- the economy.   I think you forget some of the points you've expressed in your posts. The one about politicians promising "freebies", without telling you that you will pay for it somehow. The one about voters blindly supporting one or the other major party, then complaining about the system being broken. The one about over-regulatory overkill brought about by bureaucratic empire building.

You confuse me with someone else

IVNORD wrote: Bravo!! Mr. Bush is an empirical president!!   Looking forward to the next week's elegant simplicity of the banking industry.

Betcha I can dig one up for you.
I think you have hit me with a challenge, sir.
Or maybe I'll just inflict some more graphs on you...


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 29 2008 at 18:48