patrick.net

There were several reasons for the house bubble and capital was allocated to this, but the fault is shared.

The public may not know it, but the capital for mortgages was almost unlimited from worldwide sources, not banks. MBS=mortgage backed securities were sold worldwide. The reason they are marketable is an income stream is something many people will buy.

It's surprising to many just how popular income streams are, but as interest rates were kept low, MBS were more attractive worldwide. This source of capital far exceeds what deposits (capital) banks had to lend as mortgages. Hence, there was a lot of money chasing American mortgages.

Fees banks and others made were giant profit sources. Imagine each house sale has $10,000 in fees and whatnot, you see another incentive for people to pump up this business. In contrast, stock purchase commissions have fallen to $2 (my vanguard brokerage commission). Which would you rather be selling to the public?

Govt. were enablers of this by promoting home ownership as the goal for our society. Lenders who avoided bad areas or risky people were sued as "racist", e.g. Citibank in Chicago by Obama as community activist. What happened eventually to Citi?

The govt. meddling in real estate and mortgage practices led to this fiasco and of course now govt. wants to try to "fix" the problem it caused. Govt. also took our money to bail out the fools at Citi and other banks.

hrhjuliet says

What if the Nazi's owned a market and their goods were cheaper than Wal-Mart? My guess is most Americans would shop at the Nazi owned store. Why? Because they fund and support atrocities and don't give a damn.

American mind: Dead child? Who cares, I saved a buck, it wasn't my kid, so why worry, not my problem. Too big of a problem, just because it's owned by Hitler doesn't mean I shouldn't save a buck.

And we blame the politicians? We are ignorant, selfish and have no morals; I would say our politicians represent the majority well.

In a truly free market alternatives would exist including media outlets not licensed by the government so companies could expose the ill deeds of an evil competitor.

We are responsible for what we buy. I choose to buy from ethical companies, fair trade and made in America, and it takes work and research, but I want to be part of a better world for everyone, so I feel it's worth it. Our men and women in the military are prepared to die for the moral ideals of our country and all I am doing is a little research and restraining my desires to buy things I don't need. Mine barely qualifies as a sacrifice, and yet people seem to think my choice to be responsible is an unreasonable burden.

Americans have become gluttonous, ignorant and self-entitled. If we truly want a better world, we need to start taking some personal responsibility with our part we play in the problems.

This is also a part of healthy capitalism. I am simply taking part in one of it's positive attributes.

re: Walmart.
Walmart is a great store, but you don't have to shop there.
Depending on your location and tastes, you can shop at kmart, sears, target or online from Amazon.
In some places you can go to Fred Meyer.
Walmart sources its stuff from the same suppliers as the rest of them, which is why brand names are so profitable for the brand.
I remember the same exact shirt factory in Guam owned by a Chinese made the button down shirts for Lands End and Brooks Brothers. The differnce? In San Francisco the Brooks Bros. shirt was $50+ and in Lands End catalog it was $25.

The above companies are also on the bad list for dealing with corrupt governments and factories that use child labor. The difference with Wal-Mart is that their list of atrocities goes on and on, and in about every category you can think of. I boycott all of the above, but for people just starting the boycott process I do recommend they start with the ten worst and add as they feel comfortable and get used it.

I started out with twenty corporations with terrible human rights activity and then started adding companies with terrible environmental records. I now only shop fair trade, organic, no GMO and American made. I also buy from companies that deal with countries with similar working standards. I had to start small first, and then work my way up to being weaned off our affluenza.

the free market will produce better alternative non gmo organic products if the government wasnt in the organic labeling business
Eventually only the largest corps will be able to meet the govt labelling standards
All other products by competitors will be outlawed
Walmart is getting into the organic market surely they will have govt support
Ive never been inside a walmart

It was best when outside groups did the labeling, but I still appreciate having labels. We have a right to know.

hrhjuliet says

It was best when outside groups did the labeling, but I still appreciate having labels. We have a right to know.

We have a right to know but do you trust who is telling you what you know? Are they beholden to special interests that don't have ours in mind?

A government label makes people lazy- they see the label and think it's been properly vetted.
Think about the FDIC sticker you see in a bank's window. It means your money is safe, right?

hrhjuliet says

Strategist says

Shouldn't the garment supplier provide their own fire safety equipment? Is it fair to blame Walmart?

Walmart provides jobs to the most poor people on the planet, and cheap clothes to us. It's a win win situation.

You are kidding, right? This was just one of many atrocities. They do not provide jobs to these people, they fund slavery, and ruthlessly keep the slaves in their place and lobby for more jobs being sent overseas were evil and sick practices can continue.

You are either against child labor, exploitation, slavery and unsafe working conditions, or you are for them. You can't honestly believe only American's have the right to the above standards? I would not do business with a factory that hired children or slaves. I don't give a darn where it is.

@hrhjuliet
Hrhjuliet, we are all against child labor, slavery, exploitation etc.
Take the example of an impoverished country like Bangladesh where millions of families have literally nothing. They can barely survive, least of all send their children to schools.
What is the best way of helping them? You tell me?

Strategist says

What is the best way of helping them? You tell me?

The Free Market.

10 or 15 years ago the average per ca pita income in China was $500 today it is $7000

This why the world does not hunt and gather to survive today. It is the ONLY, REAL way that things improve. Anything to the contrary is just posturing.

indigenous says

Strategist says

What is the best way of helping them? You tell me?

The Free Market.

10 or 15 years ago the average per ca pita income in China was $500 today it is $7000

This why the world does not hunt and gather to survive today. It is the ONLY, REAL way that things improve. Anything to the contrary is just posturing.

Yes, free markets, which is how we became the richest country in the planet.
The formula works, it works.
How do we convince hrhjuliet?

Strategist says

How do we convince hrhjuliet?

You can't she is sequestered to her own ideas. She has already indicated that the Americans are not educated. The first thing that has to occur in learning something is to know that you do not know. She will never rise to this level nor will many here on Patnet.

indigenous says

Strategist says

How do we convince hrhjuliet?

You can't she is sequestered to her own ideas. She has already indicated that the Americans are not educated. The first thing that has to occur in learning something is to know that you do not know. She will never rise to this level nor will many here on Patnet.

I kinda like her, she is fun, but dead wrong very often.
Maybe that's what makes Patnet interesting.

Strategist says

I kinda like her, she is fun, but dead wrong very often.

Maybe that's what makes Patnet interesting.

Agreed but consider the environment she comes from

Okay, Free Market Worshippers-- Let's just talk about hrhjuliet as if she isn't actually reading this thread. And even though she is so wrong, that tutu thing is so darn cute! Could you BE more patronizing?

Maybe our self-identification with being a part of the richest country isn't the summit of our measly lives. Maybe holding corporations Accountable for their ignoring the needs of the earth, animals, plants, air, water, and humans is not such a bad idea after all.

Where does integrity come into play in this free-market? If the free market is so awesome, why are so many people struggling and unhappy with the way things are?

And is America really rich anymore? If so, why do we have such huge debt?

Lack of integrity exists under all economic systems
Was there integrity under Stalin's communism?
Hitler's national socialism?
Having governments hold corporations accountable is a joke when they are partners . The too big too fail banks should be an example of how well the government holds corporations accountable.
America's debt is not a function of a capitalist society but rather one of a massive warfare/welfare domestic and foreign interventionist state.

Corporatism is not capitalism

Free markets raise the standards of living of everyone and while doing so create wealth inequality. The poorest in America today, however, live better than the 1% 100 years ago. They live longer have cars, travel on planes, use cell phone etc.
The cry wil rise "but we have made technological advances - you can't compare then to now!"
The advances have almost exclusively come from free market innovation. Any government "innovation" was funded from the tax profits of private companies.

Cuba and Venezuela may have no wealth inequality but they have no wealth either

What Smaulgld said.

I do think Hrhjuliet is right, most Americans are poorly educated compared to many parts of even China. This is because of teacher unions and general government intervention.

The British are in even worse shape when it comes to government intervention.

I also think we are generally more arrogant because of our perceived value but the British can be even more arrogant. But both countries get this from the accomplishments of the free market. Certainly not because of some natural superiority.

Americans are smarter than most regarding technology and manufacturing (the US manufacturers more than any other country by far) which is why people come here from around the word to get educated.

smaulgld says

Free markets raise the standards of living of everyone and while doing so create wealth inequality. The poorest in America today, however, live better than the 1% 100 years ago. They live longer have cars, travel on planes, use cell phone etc.

The cry wil rise "but we have made technological advances - you can't compare then to now!"

The advances have almost exclusively come from free market innovation. Any government "innovation" was funded from the tax profits of private companies.

Cuba and Venezuela may have no wealth inequality but they have no wealth either

Could not have said it better.

Indiana Jones says

Okay, Free Market Worshippers-- Let's just talk about hrhjuliet as if she isn't actually reading this thread. And even though she is so wrong, that tutu thing is so darn cute! Could you BE more patronizing?

Maybe our self-identification with being a part of the richest country isn't the summit of our measly lives. Maybe holding corporations Accountable for their ignoring the needs of the earth, animals, plants, air, water, and humans is not such a bad idea after all.

Where does integrity come into play in this free-market? If the free market is so awesome, why are so many people struggling and unhappy with the way things are?

And is America really rich anymore? If so, why do we have such huge debt?

We want corporations, but we rightfully demand they be ethical, moral, environment conscious, and honest. They are not there yet, but public pressure demanding they be so is slowly making a difference. Nothing happens overnight, it's just a matter of time and public pressure.

I am not wrong, I just have a different opinion than you. I am not against the "free market" I am for it, as many threads here have shown. A complaint was made that people can't trust labels because some of them are monitored by the government, well do you trust corporations to tell the truth any more than the government? If you do, you may want to reevaluate. If we do live in an oligarchy or plutocracy, like the new studies suggest, then you need to accept that these corporations are the government.

Second, you say the media and other knowlegable sources would help educate the public on the corporations, but what good would it do if people do absolutely nothing with the knowledge. The fact that Wal-Mart committed these atrocities is not in question, yet most are offended at the very idea of boycotting them. What do they need to do before people find them offensive?

I never even suggested the government add controls, I simply suggested we the people boycott stores that have been found to participate, and are in partnership with countries and businesses that commit atrocities.

People use the validation that in the human rights portion of the wrong doing that they is okay because they are job makers. You are using the exact same arguments that Stalin used when he put thousands into new jobs (work camps and political camps) that Hitler originally used in his "work" camps, almost identical arguments from the people of the South against the North in pre-civil war America and the creepy validation from the people of South Africa during apartheid. In many of these cases the wrong doing could have ceased by a strong boycott, but instead they escalated into violence and eventually war.

Keep being comforted by your "job maker" excuse. It is much easier and more comforting to blame politicians or expect the government to fix it. All I was suggesting was that we the people take individual responsibility for our purchasing power. But that is the problem isn't it? There would not have been a Nazi Germany without the help of the citizens who kept validating their behavior and telling themselves that it's not as bad as all those extremists say. They were Hitler's greatest power. I think the hardest thing for people to accept is personal responsibility. The slave owners in America didn't believe they were for slavery either. The argument that they were good slave owners (and the Southerners used the term employers) and that the slaves would never survive without them was the most popular argument of the time. Some people can only accept what keeps their life comfortable.

Indiana Jones says

Okay, Free Market Worshippers-- Let's just talk about hrhjuliet as if she isn't actually reading this thread. And even though she is so wrong, that tutu thing is so darn cute! Could you BE more patronizing?

Maybe our self-identification with being a part of the richest country isn't the summit of our measly lives. Maybe holding corporations Accountable for their ignoring the needs of the earth, animals, plants, air, water, and humans is not such a bad idea after all.

Where does integrity come into play in this free-market? If the free market is so awesome, why are so many people struggling and unhappy with the way things are?

And is America really rich anymore? If so, why do we have such huge debt?

Thank you.
My theory is that when people resort to patronizing, they are usually insecure about something within their argument.
I appreciate your understanding and intelligent argument.

drew_eckhardt says

hrhjuliet says

But the private firms are not simply free to respond to market signals. Instead, under a corporatist structure, the government directs firms in the ways in which they should employ their resources, sometimes through moral suasion, but more often through regulation, tax policy, and legal directives.

Or the private firms have the government operate on their behalf to provide tax breaks, limit competition, make below market rate loans, buy their product, subsidize their sales, and compel purchase of what they sell.

I think you guys are talking about the same thing. Government favoritism to some and the burden of government on others are the two sides of the same coin. The government itself is a net consumer; it can not provide favoritism to anyone without first taking the cost of that favoritism from someone then add on its own cost of running the bureaucracy to enforce the tilted playing field.

HrhJuliet

I've responded to your counter points to the ones I made:

hrhjuliet says

well do you trust corporations to tell the truth any more than the government?

Nope, but the difference is in a free market I (we) have more control over corporations than our government. A company caught lying can be boycotted or if they committed a crime prosecuted (unless they are a TBTF bank)

What happens when we catch the government lying? NOTHING. They get reelected whether you vote for them or not. You can't sue them and you can't boycott them by not paying your taxes without getting thrown in jail. You can, however, boycott Walmart

Government, when it is the largest in the world is inherently corruptible. Many politicians are in it not to serve, but to better themselves, but have no good or service to offer other than their access to favors.

Its the worst case when governments and corporations work together- fascism- there is no where to turn. At this point government serves its corporate constituents so asking them to help falls on deaf ears. Democrats used to be the party of the consumer advocacy of Ralph Nader and the Republicans of big business. Now Democrats are the party of the bankers and Republicans the party of the oil companies.

hrhjuliet says

Second, you say the media and other knowlegable sources would help educate the public on the corporations, but what good would it do if people do absolutely nothing with the knowledge.

Currently we have a media that is in the back pocket of the corporations. If people do nothing with new knowledge afforded by additional media sources there is not much you or I can do about it.

As to the other counter arguments I'll let the other respond. I would say that creating jobs is not a valid excuse to commit crimes or atrocities.

jazz music says

Now that the powerful have our society utterly rigged to their murderously selfish delight, they want you to call that a FREE MARKET --THIS PRISTINE INVISIBLE HAND WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO DELIVER OPTIMAL RESULTS AND NEEDS NO REGULATION and oink oink oink oink oink oink oink oink oink is all that is.

So you are against free trade, against corporations, anti capitalism, a system that creates tremendous wealth for all.
Welfare recipients in this country have a better standard of living compared to the average working citizen of communist Soviet Union, old communist China and Castro's Cuba.
Almost everything invented to improve our standard of living, from life saving drugs to that little iphone in your pocket has been invented by capitalist countries.
People risked their lives to get out of communist countries and into the freedom provided by capitalist countries. No one even bothered to attempt emigrating to the likes of Cuba.
The fact is what we have today in this country is the best ever system devised by mankind. If you have problems with it, please show us a better way, and we will gladly embrace it.

Comparing the system we have now to fascist systems masquerading as communism is really no comparison. (China, North Korea, Soviet Union, etc.)

Just because this is the "best system" mankind has had since we can remember, does that not mean we can't make a better system? Our system existed on the lie of capitalism/free markets and has slowly disintegrated into something that more closely resembles fascism.

The "If it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality" is further away from fixing the "democractic" and "capitalistic" society than if you could turn your self around a bit and admit the system is broken. It is inherently unjust and does not represent the vast majority of humans.

All systems that has existed so far in this world have always bettered an elite group, whatever name you give it. Right now we are seeing that dynamic accentuated. So you are right, Cuba and China do not have a better model than the USA. But this ain't working so well either. Who has a better system? No one, yet. We have to create it.

jazz music says

You argue against government regulating, but that is precisely what corporations lean on to begin with. They are by nature never satisfied.

That is true. Many regulations are written supposedly to keep the large companies in line but instead their impact is to keep competitors out who can't afford to comply.

Many of the items on your list are indeed examples of how governments favor large corporations, and give them an unfair advantage over smaller ones.

Numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 are available to all corporations equally.
3, 6 & 7, 8 and 9 clearly are special favors for larger corporation and I would favor eliminating them. 9 is a mess.

The corporate structure of 1 & 2 are probably necessary for a functioning economy except in an anarcho capitalist regime and perhaps can be administered better.

4 is up for a lengthy debate.

5 capital gains should be lower or non existent as should income taxes but that is outside this discussion but ties into my theory that if the Federal govt weren't so large it wouldn't be so corruptible. Better for taxes to be levied at the state and local level where the spending also should take place. Doesn't make sense to send more money to Washington than to your state or local governments where the services are administered.

Indiana Jones says

All systems that has existed so far in this world have always bettered an elite group, whatever name you give it.

That is true. My argument is that pure capitalism provide the greatest opportunity for the largest number of people. When government coddles large companies that advantage is gone.

One could argue that capitalists when they get large enough will seek political influence and protection- after all why compete if you don't have to and can buy consistent market share and keep your costs low through favorable tax and labor regulation. Remove the government's ability to grant these favors and dumber, abusive, more expensive companies that don't respond to consumer needs best will fall by the wayside.

Indiana Jones says

The "If it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality" is further away from fixing the "democractic" and "capitalistic" society than if you could turn your self around a bit and admit the system is broken. It is inherently unjust and does not represent the vast majority of humans.

All systems that has existed so far in this world have always bettered an elite group, whatever name you give it. Right now we are seeing that dynamic accentuated. So you are right, Cuba and China do not have a better model than the USA. But this ain't working so well either. Who has a better system? No one, yet. We have to create it.

Im with you. Here is the last sentence I wrote:
Strategist says

The fact is what we have today in this country is the best ever system devised by mankind. If you have problems with it, please show us a better way, and we will gladly embrace it.

Because we are a democracy we can slowly evolve into a better and better system with the power of the vote.

Strategist says

Because we are a democracy we can slowly evolve into a better and better system with the power of the vote.

Democracy is meaningless in a country of 330 million people. It can only be effective on a much smaller level.
The New Hampshire state legislature has over 400 representatives for a state of just a few million compared to the US which has roughly the same amount of representative for 330 million people.

smaulgld says

Democracy is meaningless in a country of 330 million people.

And that is the rub. Might work with a federal government born and subservient to the states. Otherwise it is the tyranny of the democracy.

indigenous says

And that is the rub. Might work with a federal government born and subservient to the states. Otherwise it is the tyranny of the democracy.

That danger exists in any democracy- its an inherent flaw without safeguards. In a large democracy its inevitable.

If you think big corporations "force" you to buy their junk, compare it to your obligation to pay for things that the Federal government spends money on that you may or may not approve of or want:

NSA, wars, welfare, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, TSA, food stamps, foreign aid, bailouts, Obama care, congressional health care, Presidential vacations, Department of Education etc.

But hey you had a right to vote!

In reality you have no say as to whether these programs get funded or not-you pay for them no matter what.

smaulgld says

indigenous says

And that is the rub. Might work with a federal government born and subservient to the states. Otherwise it is the tyranny of the democracy.

That danger exists in any democracy- its an inherent flaw without safeguards. In a large democracy its inevitable.

If you think big corporations "force" you to buy their junk, compare it to your obligation to pay for things that the Federal government spends money on that you may or may not approve of or want:

NSA, wars, welfare, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, TSA, food stamps, foreign aid, bailouts, Obama care, congressional health care, Presidential vacations, Department of Education etc.

But hey you had a right to vote!

In reality you have no say as to whether these programs get funded or not-you pay for them no matter what.

The thing is that in small groups the individual functions and prospers, really just an organizational problem. This does not occur with a centralized government.

Corporations answer to the customer, it is a fallacy that they last forever on their own. The market is the ultimate in accountability and ethics. Montgomery Ward begets Sears, who begets Walmart, who begets Amazon.

With government or cronies accountability is gone, despite tv portraying the opposite. Evil is the accumulation of indifference.

The only real chance is to shrink the government, which means no chance as the accumulation of indifference is too far gone.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

until corporations have unlimited license to kill 'customers' that threaten its owners, including unions and elected officials and terrorists known as regulators and tax collectors.

Give corporations the same rights as the government?

jazz music says

Indiana Jones says

Comparing the system we have now to fascist systems masquerading as communism is really no comparison. (China, North Korea, Soviet Union, etc.)

Just because this is the "best system" mankind has had since we can remember

We now have a fascist system masquerading as something noble just as all fascist systems have ever done. Like I said, the moral high ground is as crucially important for propaganda as are the myths of meritocracy and free market.

Listening to that siren song you can all sleep well, talk smug, and get back to work unfazed by the reality of living in the most perfected servant state system ever so happily accelerating toward massive conversion to prison industries.

Jazz, you are complaining a lot without offering a solution.
What is your solution?

Strategist says

Jazz, you are complaining a lot without offering a solution.

What is your solution?

I think you just posted it above. I'll read it.

Strategist says

Strategist says

Jazz, you are complaining a lot without offering a solution.

What is your solution?

I think you just posted it above. I'll read it.

You know there is always something to complain about. Isn't it nice you are completely free to do so, without the fear of jackbooted gestapo coming to drag you in front of the firing squad.
You are still not providing a solution. :(

jazz music says

Government is a tool. Government has no motive without someone to drive it.

That is a fallacy. The government is NOT a monolith, it is a bunch of individuals who follow their self interest, without any regard to the greater good. This is NO different than the private sector. This is human nature.

Cept the private sector is held accountable.

To deify government is an absurd fantasy. One that if followed will ALWAYS lead to misery. You gotsa to have accountability, there ain't none in state government and less than none in federal government, to think otherwise is childish in the extreme.

indigenous says

none in federal government, to think otherwise is childish in the extreme.

There is no way possible a federal government 3000 miles away with trillion dollar budgets can even hope to be responsive to its citizens- there is just too much going on and too much money.
It's hard enough for the local school board to be responsible to its community

smaulgld says

There is no way possible a federal government 3000 miles away with trillion dollar budgets can even hope to be responsive to its citizens

Xactly, is it possible more can get this idear?