|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 30, 2010 19:56:47 GMT 10
No, it was not free market capitalists who did so, but a relatively small cadre of financiers who, through the revolving door of government appointee to corporate lobbyist, arranged fiscal policy to favor their particular enterprise. This is a case of government regulation of the market being manipulated by unscrupulous individuals in collusion with government bureaucrats. Heavily involved also is the Federal Reserve. Did you know that the Fed purchases bonds through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? One would think that they purchase them directly from the Treasury, right? Wrong. The head of the NY branch purchases them from Goldman-Sachs. Guess who used to be a partner in Goldman-Sachs? Right - the Head of the New York Fed. See anything wrong with this picture? In other words, fiscal regulation had been handed over to people ideologically opposed to regulation (i.e., free-market capitalists) and the Fed was, in a sense, privatized. Yes, there is a lot wrong with the picture and much needing to be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 30, 2010 20:15:08 GMT 10
I would expect such sentiments from a French guy. Please, you are better than this.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 1, 2010 1:51:30 GMT 10
No, just a bit of background information that most have not even looked at. The "Birthers," so-called, simply asked to see the man's birth certificate. What was the problem in publishing a certified copy? I would have had no problem doing so. As an aside: why are Barack and Michelle's college dissertations sealed? Why the mystery - particularly from an individual who campaigned on openness and transparency? No one believes this nonsense except a few neo-con nutjobs. My point was that this could have been handled better by simply showing the birth certificate, rather than leave a sense of something being hidden. In the absence of proof, conspiracy theories abound.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 1, 2010 1:52:35 GMT 10
I would expect such sentiments from a French guy. Please, you are better than this. The French have long been disposed towards socialism. No surprises there. Note that now, in the face of fiscal collapse of their social system and the proposed raising of the retirement age to 60 (60? Really) Come on...), the union and student factions have started massive riots. The simple fact is that socialist ideas seem to work well, for a while - until they run out of other peoples money. People like "free" stuff. The problem is, it is not free. The earnings of one are stolen, under threat of force (taxation) by the government and redistributed to another as an unearned benefit. The more people get on the "system," the more "takers" and the less "givers," the system becomes unsustainable.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 1, 2010 2:02:09 GMT 10
No, it was not free market capitalists who did so, but a relatively small cadre of financiers who, through the revolving door of government appointee to corporate lobbyist, arranged fiscal policy to favor their particular enterprise. This is a case of government regulation of the market being manipulated by unscrupulous individuals in collusion with government bureaucrats. Heavily involved also is the Federal Reserve. Did you know that the Fed purchases bonds through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? One would think that they purchase them directly from the Treasury, right? Wrong. The head of the NY branch purchases them from Goldman-Sachs. Guess who used to be a partner in Goldman-Sachs? Right - the Head of the New York Fed. See anything wrong with this picture? In other words, fiscal regulation had been handed over to people ideologically opposed to regulation (i.e., free-market capitalists) and the Fed was, in a sense, privatized. Yes, there is a lot wrong with the picture and much needing to be fixed. No. In a true free market system, the market would self regulate. However, we have a mixed economy, not true free markets. Under this model, what has happened is that the Federal Reserve has proven ineffective at predicting and controlling the economy. In fact, their interference led directly to the Dot Com bubble and the Housing bubble. The government itself was a direct contributor to the Housing bubble, by requiring lenders to issue sub-prime loans - in other words, lend money to those who did not qualify under normal lending practices, nor could afford to pay back the mortgage, under the ideology of getting more people to have a part of the so-called "American Dream," which seems to somehow involve home ownership. This policy was started under that idiot, Jimmy Carter, and expanded under President Clinton. Even Bush picked up the mantra of home ownership. If interest rates were left to find their own, true level without being held artificially low, and normal, sane lending practices were followed (requiring a potential buyer to put 10 -15% down), then the housing bubble would not have happened.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 1, 2010 2:15:59 GMT 10
The problem is that the bonds purchased are fiat money, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. This mortgages the future of our children and grandchildren, saddling them with debt from the minute they are born. Without some Keynesian pump-priming the economy would have collapsed and our children and grandchildren (and great-grandchildren) would have been in an even bigger financial hole. Wrong. Quantitative Easing did not work the first time, with the injection of two trillion USD, and will not work the second time with six-hundred billion. All this has succeeded in doing is inflating the currency, lessening the citizens buying power in the face of recession. Before the Fed, we had several recessionary cycles, of which all recovered in an average of eighteen months without government intervention. The "Great Depression" of the 1930s in the US was as a result of Fed policy and was exacerbated and prolonged by the socialist/progressive policies of the Roosevelt administration (some of which were overturned by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional).
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Dec 1, 2010 5:55:06 GMT 10
His current fiscal policies show a contempt for free market capitalism and business in general I suggest the free market capitalists had shown their contempt for the system and had brought it to its knees. Australia has gone even further than the US in implementing the Keynesian policies for which Obama is being criticized and we have come out of the GFC pretty well, for now. Not quite Philip, we went into GFC in a pretty good state, that is what saved us, what happened in the US, the system became corrupted, the government, or should I say the politians only thought of their own greed, and unfortunately in OZ we only have to look at the NSW Gov't to see the same thing happening, but on a far smaller scale, would you like to have the clowns in NSW in charge federally. Nationally, our Reserve Bank, is seperate from our banking and government, unlike in the US, and is harder for it to be corrupted, however our federal govt over last 10/15 years has been trying and to some extent succeeding in gaining extra control in areas it should stay out of. Our country runs best with people allowed to make profits, which brings our living standards up, we can not and should not cater for those people who do nothing and have no intention of doing anything, but we do have and should continue to have a safety net for those who fall, to assist them to recover. The worst thing that happened to our native people was Whitlam in 1974, especiaaly in the outback, their standard of living has declined dramatically since, all due to government interference
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 1, 2010 5:57:51 GMT 10
As I've said, Australia went relatively further than the US in its recovery spending and, so far, it has worked here. Those countries which failed to adopt Keynesian pump-priming measures are now basket cases.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 1, 2010 6:03:01 GMT 10
The dilemma is that, in a truly free market, monopolies quickly arise, and markets are no longer free. The alternative? Regulation, and markets are no longer free.
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Dec 1, 2010 6:06:38 GMT 10
As I've said, Australia went relatively further than the US in its recovery spending and, so far, it has worked here. Those countries which failed to adopt Keynesian pump-priming measures are now basket cases. Philip, our first pump priming was to use our surplus, so it cost us nothing, if we had to borrow for that , things would have been different, and also we have China to thank for buying and continues to buy vast quantities of our natural resources
|
|