UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (19) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 740378  
Subject: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/3/2011 9:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/01/socialisms-tol...

As the Obama Administration continues to adopt the European socialist model, evidence continues to surface concerning the abject failure of this disastrous economic system.

The outrage of the young has erupted, sometimes violently, on the streets of Greece and Italy in recent weeks, as students and more radical anarchists protest not only specific austerity measures in flattened economies but a rising reality in Southern Europe: People like Ms. Esposito feel increasingly shut out of their own futures. Experts warn of volatility in state finances and the broader society as the most highly educated generation in the history of the Mediterranean hits one of its worst job markets.

Politicians are slowly beginning to take notice. Italy’s president, Giorgio Napolitano, devoted his year-end message on Friday to “the pervasive malaise among young people,” weeks after protests against budget cuts to the university system brought the issue to the fore.

Giuliano Amato, an economist and former Italian prime minister, was even more blunt. “By now, only a few people refuse to understand that youth protests aren’t a protest against the university reform, but against a general situation in which the older generations have eaten the future of the younger ones,” he recently told Corriere della Sera, Italy’s largest newspaper.

You see, there are no jobs for these extensively government-educated people to find. Add to that the fact that it is very costly to try to eliminate existing workers and you have a situation where employers do not want to hire and incur the high cost and risk of adding staff.


In other words, socialism has destroyed the job market in these countries. Which then leads us to the obvious question: Is this the future of the United States under Obama's socialist model?
--------------------------------------------------------
Democrat politicians here have taken notice also.....and doubled down on the european model.....because they're, um, evidence based. Here i've taken the liberty of posting a slideshow of what has happened where democrats have controlled for decades, warning, if you're a librarian or even a book lover, don't look at picture #4 <g>:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2011/jan/02/p...
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547659 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/3/2011 10:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
In other words, socialism has destroyed the job market in these countries.

Yeah, because the job market is so hot here thanks to Countrywide, AIG, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of the captains of capitalism.

And was, even prior to the meltdown. The period of 2000-2008: worst job creation market in the last 80 years.

What was it you were saying about "evidence based"?
 


Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547660 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/3/2011 10:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Yeah, because the job market is so hot here thanks to Countrywide, AIG, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of the captains of capitalism.

No matter how many times you get smacked down or how violently you get smacked down yo keep coming back with the same old crapola. Lies, distortions, half-truths, and BS are your stock-in-trade. I have no idea why I unboxed you in the first place. I will now correct that error.

*PLOINK*

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547663 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/4/2011 6:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 19
In other words, socialism has destroyed the job market in these countries.

Yeah, because the job market is so hot here thanks to Countrywide, AIG, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of the captains of capitalism.

And was, even prior to the meltdown. The period of 2000-2008: worst job creation market in the last 80 years.

What was it you were saying about "evidence based"?


I don't think anyone is surprised that you have neglected to mention government's role in this economic debacle. There was a staggering number of government policies that contributed to the financial crisis, and you have been been willing to rationalize them all.

We don't have a system of free market capitalism, and it was precisely the vast departure from free market capitalism that caused such a problem in the financial sector. Government policy created the perfect storm, what with the Fed driving down interest rates, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making crappy loans more marketable, regulations creating incentives for regulatory arbitrage using CDOs, and on and on. The number of government policies encouraging problematic behavior is actually quite unbelievable. Is there a sector of the economy that has more government interference than the financial sector? I doubt it. Health care could be close, another area of dissatisfaction.

Yes, we are talking about "evidence-based." The evidence is all around us. You should stop ignoring it for a change. It would be quite an eye opener.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547724 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/4/2011 4:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
We don't have a system of free market capitalism, and it was precisely the vast departure from free market capitalism that caused such a problem in the financial sector. Government policy created the perfect storm, what with the Fed driving down interest rates, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making crappy loans more marketable, regulations creating incentives for regulatory arbitrage using CDOs, and on and on. The number of government policies encouraging problematic behavior is actually quite unbelievable. Is there a sector of the economy that has more government interference than the financial sector? I doubt it. Health care could be close, another area of dissatisfaction.

I'm curious. If this was shown to be largely untrue, would it change your outlook at all?

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MotleyFooley Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547743 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/4/2011 5:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
MadCapitalist: "I don't think anyone is surprised that you have neglected to mention government's role in this economic debacle. There was a staggering number of government policies that contributed to the financial crisis, and you have been been willing to rationalize them all."

Anyone can say something like the above. {And as an aside, I though one main catalyst to the crisis was the dismantling of regulations that were in place, which had the effect of making the market more "free" not less.) But that's not my point.

My point is: if you're going to state the above, you'd also need to gauge the effect government policies had on PREVENTING crises. Of course, you can't prove a negative -- how do you know how many crises would have occurred in the absence of Glass-Stegall? How many cancer claims would have occurred without the Clean Air / Water Act, etc.???

Yet, that perspective would be critical in determining if there was indeed too much government interference in the market, or too little, over the most recent past, if not the last 100 years. Because whatever was done led us to the economy, markets, trade, etc., we have today.

MotleyFooley

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TellsTheTruth Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547766 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/4/2011 6:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There was a staggering number of government policies that contributed to the financial crisis, and you have been been willing to rationalize them all.


No, it was caused by your boy Bushie and LACK of regulation.


Regards, TTT.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lindytoes Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547775 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/4/2011 6:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
TTT --

Don't oversimplify who is responsible for the meltdown, although I suppose it doesn't matter because what you have to say here is going to fall MOSTLY on deaf ears. Not only did Bush and company cause the collapse (and some dems during the whole decade), but so did Reagan administration (and dems), and especially the Republican Congress (and some dems) and Bill Clinton when they repealed parts of Glass Steagall.

I completely understand why democrats and republicans in Congress or the White House have done what they have done--they are bought by anyone who has lots of money and it is in their best interest to be re-elected and to do that they need backing of the powerful in this country. I think there has been a 30 year assault on sensible and responsible oversight of banking and wall street. I do not understand why the elite of this country want to push the middle and lower class in this country into poverty--do they want America to become a 3rd world country? That's where we're headed!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547778 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/4/2011 7:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
In other words, socialism has destroyed the job market in these countries.


Don't look now but socialists bastions like Canada, Australia, and Brazil are actually doing quite well these days, comparatively speaking. Apparently they didn't get the memo about socialism destroying the job market.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547863 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/5/2011 10:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There was a staggering number of government policies that contributed to the financial crisis, and you have been been willing to rationalize them all.


No, it was caused by your boy Bushie and LACK of regulation.


Regards, TTT.


My boy Bushie? I'm not a fan of Bush. I'm not even a Republican. And there was plenty of regulation. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences were extremely negative, which is consistent with the way it's been throughout history.

Read and learn:

Not What They Had in Mind: A History of Policies that Produced the Financial Crisis of 2008 - http://boards.fool.com/unintended-consequences-of-government...

By the way, you are already in my Penalty Box, so please don't expect me to bother arguing with whatever absurd argument is certain to follow.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547867 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/5/2011 10:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
We don't have a system of free market capitalism, and it was precisely the vast departure from free market capitalism that caused such a problem in the financial sector. Government policy created the perfect storm, what with the Fed driving down interest rates, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making crappy loans more marketable, regulations creating incentives for regulatory arbitrage using CDOs, and on and on. The number of government policies encouraging problematic behavior is actually quite unbelievable. Is there a sector of the economy that has more government interference than the financial sector? I doubt it. Health care could be close, another area of dissatisfaction.

I'm curious. If this was shown to be largely untrue, would it change your outlook at all?

-spookysquid


Of course. However, I've read enough about the financial crisis to know that it *is* true, so it is completely hypothetical.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547871 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/5/2011 10:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
My point is: if you're going to state the above, you'd also need to gauge the effect government policies had on PREVENTING crises. Of course, you can't prove a negative -- how do you know how many crises would have occurred in the absence of Glass-Stegall? How many cancer claims would have occurred without the Clean Air / Water Act, etc.???

You can only reason through it. Glass-Steagall really didn't change much. Banks were still regulated by bank regulators and brokerages were still regulated by the SEC, FINRA, and state regulations. The only change was that holding companies were allowed. Big deal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MotleyFooley Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547899 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/5/2011 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't agree with your assessment. Allowing banks to be both banks (in the traditional sense) and investment banks led them to take VERY different positions on many things, and boost their bottom lines in ways that caused many to fail.

But Glass-Steagall is just one regulation, MadCaptialist. You'd have to go through all of them, including things like the SEC, to determine if those regulations, on the whole, caused more problems than prevented them. Thus, it's still easy to say, but hard (impossible) to go through every law or regulation and see what really would have happened without those laws.

MotleyFooley

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547916 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/5/2011 2:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Of course. However, I've read enough about the financial crisis to know that it *is* true, so it is completely hypothetical.

Oh, really? So you can explain how Fannie and Freddie made crappy loans more marketable in Britain or South Africa then? Because I'm having trouble grasping that. Also, could you explain how a lack of regulations led to "incentives for regulatory arbitrage using CDOs", because I'm stumped there too.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547939 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/5/2011 4:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Of course. However, I've read enough about the financial crisis to know that it *is* true, so it is completely hypothetical.

Oh, really? So you can explain how Fannie and Freddie made crappy loans more marketable in Britain or South Africa then? Because I'm having trouble grasping that. Also, could you explain how a lack of regulations led to "incentives for regulatory arbitrage using CDOs", because I'm stumped there too.

-spookysquid


I didn't say a lack of regulations led to "incentives for regulatory arbitrage using CDOs". It was the regulations that were supposed to protect us that created the incentives. Read and learn:

Not What They Had in Mind: A History of Policies that Produced the Financial Crisis of 2008 - http://mercatus.org/publication/not-what-they-had-mind-histo...

And I never argued that Fannie and Freddie were the only cause of the financial crisis.

The one thing that is consistent in all of the countries that faced financial crises is they all had a central bank.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MotleyFooley Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 547954 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/5/2011 5:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
MadCapitalist: "The one thing that is consistent in all of the countries that faced financial crises is they all had a central bank."

"The one....". The ONE? Gosh, there would be many, many things in common. If that's your attempt to pin blame for the crisis, maybe you should also pull in the democratically-elected governments (Fascists, unite!), capitalistic economies, as well as greedy, oxygen-breathing hominids at the controls of financial institutions. Those were all common as well.

Of course, you also know, correlation does not imply causation. So the fact that they had *anything* in common doesn't tell you what caused anything. But you knew that.

As quoted from the paper you cited: "Regulators lacked the will and the ability to enforce competitive boundaries in the financial sector. These boundaries eroded over a forty year period, primarily as a result of innovation but also as a result of regulatory decisions and legislation. Consequently, institutions became large and complex. These “too big to fail” firms posed major challenges to policy makers during the crisis, because they were subject to domino effects and 1st-century bank runs."

This is just one example cited in the paper. But this is an example of how regulations may have stopped things from happening that you can't know the consequences of. Obviously, way too many banks merged and got too big. But without any kind of anti-trust or monopoly regulations, there would be NO stopping anyone from getting as big as they wanted. Thus, if a bank wasn't allowed to acquire another bank, and because of that they either didn't fail, or they did but it was a blip on the large radar of our economy, you'd never know unless you had a crystal ball and could run that through a time machine for an alternative universe where the institution WAS able to acquire that bank.

My point remains -- you can perhaps know what regulations did. But you can't know with nearly the same kind of certainty what the absence of regulations would have done, especially for something as complicated as the financial markets.

MotleyFooley

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 548040 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/6/2011 11:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making crappy loans more marketable, regulations creating incentives for regulatory arbitrage using CDOs, and on and on.

You forgot 'regulators threatening to punish lenders that didn't make enough crappy loans'.

Is there a sector of the economy that has more government interference than the financial sector? I doubt it. Health care could be close, another area of dissatisfaction.

Education.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 548088 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/6/2011 1:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
No, it was caused by your boy Bushie and LACK of regulation.

My boy Bushie? I'm not a fan of Bush. I'm not even a Republican. And there was plenty of regulation.


No, you don't understand. There were bad consequences, so obviously there was no regulation.

Regulations never have bad consequences.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 548089 of 740378
Subject: Re: Socialism's Fruits Date: 1/6/2011 1:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
You can only reason through it. Glass-Steagall really didn't change much. Banks were still regulated by bank regulators and brokerages were still regulated by the SEC, FINRA, and state regulations. The only change was that holding companies were allowed. Big deal.

The repeal of certain specific Glass-Steagall clauses, that are often identified as part of the cause of the crisis, simply brought US bank regulation in line with Europe's.

European nations in general never prohibited retail banks from also being investment banks, and the fact of the combination was never identified as a cause of a crisis.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (19) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement