Politics
Out of context: Reply #16602
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- ********0
In regard to that paul krugman article
Its an opinion piece. Not much to be expected from such things where u can rant and say such things without any evidence backing or introspection into wether youre right or wrong. Costs or gains. Sounds like bizarro glenn-beck. I can say his agenda is crystal clear. The part that gets my attention most is this
"What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families."
In those few paragraph he has taken every person out of the equation, including the ones granting, "Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe" all their power. We all share our own responsibilities. Including us who vote for larger governments and more oversight that helped create the systems of control that are so overcomplicated that helped some smart people fleece the system.Even the systems of controlled liek SEC with their gov employees werent smart enough to see what was going on when given evidence by private parties.
On one hand i cant really be upset by the bankers who excelled in their game. No rule agaisnt dunking, seven if they are the few who can why shouldnt they? The government largely created the game and capped all free market principles and in as much gave incentive to those ones who can find loopholes in regulations instead of by doing a good job. Really what is there to be upset about? If people could be proven of fraud than yes hold them to it, so few imprisoned because they did nothing illegal, just followed incentives that helped unethical behavior. Not only from the wallstreet crowd but also to everyone buying what they were selling. Bankers didnt force people to buy houses. It was market perversion that only could happen in the overcomplicated system of rules and regulations and false securities provided by the governments.
Of course i share his views on crony capitalism. Im agaisnt those lobbying and changing rules to benefit themselves. But as far the housing crisis it seems to be not from lobbying but from a very complicated system, complacency, and willful ignorance. I dont share his lack of responsibility blaming companies getting public funds by the peopel we vote for and support. We wanted the banks to take their losses but we were scared of the consequences.So we bailed them out and damn them for it. Nothing good can come from that logic. Like a woman who gets beat by her husband and damns him for it but wont walk away.
And in all of this instead of being a beaten house wife i can only suggest letting the comapnies fail. Losing government oversight and false protections (of course in a systematic way that doesnt distort the market in a more perverse way). Making thing less complex and more transparent for a populace to vote with their dollars and push the idea of personal responsibility, while cutting back the supply of politicans that find an incentive to legally pass laws that cause the problems. When loans arent backed by freddie mac and other gov agencies than banks will have to reign in the loan people into loaning more responsibly than pushing the incentive that more loans = more commissions = win for banks and loan people, ignoring to whom the costs go to. Have to say paul krugman does make a good point for free markets.
there u go jonny/kiino my 2 cents on it.
- Wow that was a fantastic read. I'm going to go hold hands with popfodders now.********
- But ill stick up for Beck because he laid all this stuff out. People that criticize him are people that dont watch the show********
- Ive seen him a few times. He has some good soundbytes he takes from people and turns it into theatre distorting any real principles********
- principles. But thats my take on him. Others do it to. I dont give much credence to the theatre men than highlighting the hypocrisy in backign men and not ideas********
- hypocrisy in highlighting the men and not the principles/ideas. I think beck understands less about whats he saying than stewart/oreilly.********
- stewart/oreilly/colb... types. He seems to pander more on fear and religious undertones. I prefer stewarts comedy to that.********
- Wow that was a fantastic read. I'm going to go hold hands with popfodders now.