The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of Joelle Martin
Joelle Martin @joellemartin

I think this goes for so many things! The less the government is involved in anything, the more smoothly the country runs.

Profile photo of kimberly
kimberly @ladylibertarian

I agree 100%. Before countries established the welfare system, churches and charitable organizations took care of the poor. Now we have a government who allocates our taxpayer dollars to others while spending an exorbitant amount on useless shit like all bureaucracies tend to do. With less gov involvement money would go directly from organizations set up ENTIRELY to benefit those less fortunate into the people’s hands. Keep the government out of everything I say.

Profile photo of Isabelle Granter
Isabelle Granter @issabell

“before countries established the wellfare system” there was also this little thing called the gilded age. There was boss tweed. There were political machines that got votes for support, there were big corporations that entirely ran the nation, and above all there was a ridiculous level of corruption at every level of government.

People, it may sound nice to have the government completely out of things, but then the corporations take over! and don’t give me that “corporations are people who worked hard”, it may be true but a big corporation is a separate entity that, by definition, exists only to make a profit and isn’t liable to any specific person for its actions.

Government needs to keep corporations in check so that we have elected officials in charge, instead of exploitative corporate entities.

Yes, they provide jobs, but big corporations — the ones that really pull weight in washington — are very rarely out to benefit the people that work for them OR the consumers that support them! Least of all the environment! Government must exist to keep a balance that puts these corporations in check.

Profile photo of Chase Knudsen
Chase Knudsen @chaseknuts

@Iabelle Granter, I understand what you are saying, but I feel you are referring to crony capitalism which is entirely different. Cronyism is a corrupt way of the corporations “taking over”. I am talking the moral of men that is written in Atlas Shrugged. If you read that than you will understand why I say to keep government off of our backs. Government is there to keep the folks honest, but to punish the law abiding.

The less regulation is better would you not agree? Every God damn thing is taxed for one reason or another…Why? Is it helping me become any better financially/ No it’s not. It’s ruining the human individual IMO.

Free market is the only way an economy and nation can work and grow to become the wealthiest of nations.

Profile photo of Isabelle Granter
Isabelle Granter @issabell

@chaseknudsen

i also understand where your coming from — the problem is, morality gets lost in capitalism. in theory it sounds lovely to have such a weak government, but in practice, it would never work.

this is why we got rid of the articles of confederation, and wrote the constitution.

Profile photo of Chase Knudsen
Chase Knudsen @chaseknuts

But the constitution is all about free market and less Government based on the fact it was volunteer before and after the constitution was established. It was a people control the government not the way it is represented now. What we have now isn’t working that’s for sure…

Profile photo of Isabelle Granter
Isabelle Granter @issabell

yes, i can agree with you on that. the system has gotten out of control.

its like the 2nd amendment debate… the true intention of the founding fathers wasn’t to allow militias to defend themselves against the British, it was to allow them to defend themselves against big government.
the problem is, big corporations can be just as bad.

Profile photo of Chase Knudsen
Chase Knudsen @chaseknuts

I highly recommend Free Market Revolution by Yaron Brook. It explains in great deal how less government works. Just food for thought…

Profile photo of Brock Heubusch

OK, so @Chase:

I largely agree with your point, I have read Atlas Shrugged + Fountainhead and fundamentally agree with the precepts.

HOWEVER:

In 1999 Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that repealed the most important portion of the 1933 Glass-Steagall act. Glass-Steagall barred an organization from simultaneously existing as any combination of commercial bank, investment bank, or insurance company.

The result of this was the housing bubble leading up to the inevitable crash in 2008. Deregulation of this sector allowed banks and investment firms to give out housing loans to people who in no way shape or form had any ability to pay them back. These were subprime loans. They then packaged these loans, paid S&P to give all of the loans AAA maximum ratings and then sold the packages to investors (pension funds, etc). Of course, the banks knew that these loans were going to fail, so they actually bet on the failure of these loans (against their own investors).

Ultimately, the investors lost all of their money, everyone got their houses foreclosed upon, and the real estate market plummeted… along with the world economy. The bank executives walked away with 100 million dollar bonuses.

Some regulations are necessary. Corporate competition is great. Predatory, parasitic fraud can be the cause for catastrophic worldwide effects costing millions of jobs and life savings accounts.

If you want a graphical explanation of what happened last decade, look no further, for I have just such a resource:

http://player.vimeo.com/video/3261363

Profile photo of Chase Knudsen
Chase Knudsen @chaseknuts

I do agree to an extent that we do need regulation but not as much as we have now. I mean even in Bush’s Presidency there was thousands of new regulations brought forth and so far the same with OBama.

I understand the need for some regulation to keep checks and balances and to help with the morality of the people. But when government gets too involved it turns bad in which it did. Granted the banks gave loans out like crazy and the market fail, but the idea of the Government bailing theses banks out (which they did) is morally wrong in my eyes. But overall I understand and agree with you to an extent.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

Well!
First there is merit about the big businesses overwhelming everything during the “guilded age”
During the more recent times there is an equal if not more pronounced takeover by the public and to a lesser extent private unions.The unions fund the politicians who then reward them with perks and high salaries.
When ever a candadate gives a speech in front of a public union it is a direct conflict of interest and should be illegal.
Elected representatives are supposed to represent the voters,not a special interst group.
In companies there is “labor” and management.Elected representative are definitly supposed to be “management”.
The two are each supposed to negociate for the best deal fot its interests,
When a politician sats to a union “I will fight for you”he/she has abdicated their responsibility and is just pandering for votes/money from the unions.
If a candadate were to make a similar promise the a corporation they would be decried form the treetops!
As to the failure of the housing market,it as was the real estate crash of the late 1980’s a DIRECT result of goverment action.
First the banks were forced to make sub-prime loans by congress,that as you say were doomed from inception. If they refused the various regulators caused them to be dis-advantaged against their competitors.
Second fannie and freddie (under government orders) created a booming market for the packaged loans.(see Third)
Third the rating agencies caused these sub-prime mortgage bounds to be rated AAA.
Since banks by law had to hold reserves in AAA bonds they and other similarly regulated financial institutions were forced to keep buys them long after smart investors knew they were going to fail.
In addition since there seemed to be an endless supply of buyers for new homes (after all they just go up in value)the building industry just kept building far more homes that could be absorbed by the market.
ALL of this was caused by the government intrusion into athe marketplace where absolutely no politician had the slightest idea what they were doing!
I could write BOOKS about the fumbling ,ignorant acts by government trying to “help” the economy.
In truth Adam Smith’s “invisable hand”while not perfect is thousands of times better than those classic words of Ronald Reagan, the the scariest thing you may ever hear is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you”‘.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

Brock@brock,
You have part of the idea about what happened but there is really much more that caused the housing meltdown.
By far the greatest cause was the government insisting that the banks make greater numbers of loans to unqualified borrowers.
Yes,thatys right! The banks were essentially directed to make loans to lower income people that would not qualify for loans,and also offer “no doc” loans that later became known as “liar” loans.
No actual proof of financial capability was required.Think about that.
Since it was clear that this would eventually break the banks the FHA and Fannie Mae were directed to buy the loans from the bank on MBS’S (mortgage backed securities). Presto,the banks had a way to get the Sub-Prime loans off their books.
Originating the loans was profitable so the banks started doing as many of these loans as possible.
As things progressed even FHA and Fanny Mae started to run out of money so a bright bunch of people decided to package them into bonds and slice the bonds into “tranches” of varing degrees of risk.
Credit rating agencies (for a hefty fee) were called in to assign credit ratings. These credit rating agencies are Government approved and banks MUST hold reserves ONLY in investments rated AAA by these approved acencies.
Since historically only a small percentage of a given large number of mortgage’s default the bonds carried an overall rating of AAA.
But historically lenders didn’t make un-documented loans to unqualified buyers.
It was like saying in a given herd of cattle, only a few die of disease.
These herds, (MSB’S) were made up almost entirely of already diseased cattle (mortgages).
Once the bonds were rated AAA banks and other institutions that ARE REQUIRED BY LAW to hold reserves in AAA rated securities bought them by the billions.
Then it was just a matter of time before the cattle (bonds) began to die ( default).
The housing prices,driven by ever expanding credit, went up and up. Finally the music stopped and most people were left without a chair.
Make no mistake about it, congress created the entire disaster in yet another feel good liberal vote buying exercise.
Banks and builders simply did what they do.
Builders build when the banks offer them money to build with.
Banks lend money when its profitable to do so.
The Federal Government made it happen.
Direct the blame where it belongs. Congress.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must:
SIGN IN

or

CREATE A PROFILE
VIEW SIMILAR TOPICS