No argument there, but Sanders isn't advocating for a free market system. He wants control of wealth to rectify injustices he perceives. In a capitalist system, all transactions are voluntary, by definition, so there is no gun (other than to enforce contracts and property rights). Who do the red and blue represent in that picture?
This is an excellent representation of the paternalistic/puritanical mindset of the left. Two parties, a lender and borrower, enter into a voluntary agreement, free from coercion. Both parties find this arrangement beneficial, or it would not be entered in to. A third party, Senator Sanders the scold, does not like this agreement. It offends his moral sensibilities (He even sites religious doctrine to make his case!). He thinks the interest rates are too high. For you see, Senator Sanders knows how to asses the risk of a borrower, even more than the lender who does it for a living! And of course, Sanders is free to condemn the lender, and he is free to persuade others not to enter into such contracts. We encourage free speech in a free society. But Sanders is not content to persuade and inform, because clearly parties must be protected from themselves and others. Father Sanders knows what's best for them, and therefore he would impose, he would limit, he would prohibit, he would force his morality on all of us. For a certain type of person, the ability to impose their will on others must be intoxicating. Sanders speaks for the busybodies, the do-gooders. Who speaks for those that just want to be left alone from the likes of him?
I actually don't think companies should be forced to redistribute wealth. I just think law should be used to give the companies that make America strong the most and those that make it weak the least. A company that moves money over seas should pay higher taxes. Why not? They aren't creating American jobs and ain't spending the money here so tax them higher. There's no economic problem with that. But look, who cares at the end of the day - my paycheck is from the very corporations who Mr. Sanders is lashing out against. I dare not name them in a public forum - it's the hand that feeds me. But I am no dummy. I know this is unsustainable. Once the middle class goes kaput and everything is owned by banks and companies and such and Americans have no buying or purchasing power - what will happen? Ask yourself that. Think about it. The U.S. will be a land of industrial poverty from coast to coast. Crime will just rise, gov't will have little revenue to do much, and the money drain will accelerate. Foreigners will buy up America and the rich move to green pastures. The U.S. will become one big fat Detroit or Toledo in it's worst of recessions. Most people will live a lower standard of living - heck, that's true now today. My standard of living is higher, but only because I am lucky enough to be in a position where I know stuff that is coveted. But the rest of yall are screwed, and it's kinda sad.
Got to wuv em. The kool-aid is strong. lol On another level is frightening to see cult language and propaganda blocking thought and ordinary appreciation or reality. It makes me think of the total ideology of "scientific" socialism or Marxist-leninism.
This is patently false. You are idealizing capitalism, and that makes me suspect that you have some reason for refusing to pay attention to reality. What is it?
How can you say this is false? No one forced people to get variable rate mortgages or high interest credit cards. I for sure didn't fall for it. What's next? We need to make sure that people don't buy lottery tickets because it's a dangerous investment? Our country was founded on freedom of choice, but with that comes great responsibility. You take away people's accountability for their actions and you've got big brother stepping in **** that was created by people who failed to do their homework. Then again the government likes to get involved thinking they're providing a social good when they're just giving giant banks/corporations the ability to act without worrying about the end result which gets dumped on the tax payer. If the government wasn't involved ala Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, banks would not have just blown caution to the wind by providing ridiculous house loans that they knew were covered regardless of the outcome.
IMHO capitalism has an inherent flaw, i.e. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If you have money you'll get more money, while if you need money you'll end up being buried in debt. Multiply this scenario a billion times and you end up in a society where 98% of the wealth only belongs to 2% of the population. In this kind of environment there is no freedom of choice at all, as the poor can't choose to make a better life for themselves. This is why government in a capitalist society should act more like a commie, redistributing part of the wealth, using tax money to provide services equally to everyone and regulating business. Well that's the way I see it anyway.
So, it is OK for the government to take away the banks' accountability, but removing their ability to fleece the consumer is out of bounds, eh? Interesting perspective.
Banks should not be state backed. It causes them to take impractical risks. What do you mean by fleece? Fraud is a crime, violating a contract is a crime. Getting a good deal, or making a profit (fleecing?) is not a crime. Wrong. In capitalism, all transactions are voluntary, so all transactions are win-win. If one side loses, they wouldn't agree to the exchange. A transaction doesn't occur unless both sides stand to gain. This is the basis for the moral superiority of capitalism. Fraud is a crime, capitalism by definition is a system where contracts are enforced.
Agreed, but that isn't the system we have now. The system we have now allows those institutions to take "impractical risks," leaving the taxpayer holding the bag. Luring people into agreeing to terms that they don't understand isn't a crime, but it is a central tenet of the brand of capitalism we are seeing today. Preying on people who dont feel like they have a choice (take a payday loan at 300% interest or listen to your children cry from hunger) isn't a crime, but it is a central tenet of the brand of capitalism we are seeing today. One of the roles of government, IMO, is making sure that We, the People, don't get screwed by capitalists who are only looking out for their bottom line.
I'm not sure if you can blame this on capitalism per say, but rather on a populace that is entering into binding agreements without doing their homework coupled with a government that is promoting spending rather then savings. People are wont to say "evil corporation sucking the lifeblood out of the lower class", but how many of these cases are of people living above their means and not saving for a rainy day? I grew up lower middle class. I had clothes that were handed down twice by my two older brothers. One pair of jeans, shoes 2 sizes too big that had to last until they had a hole in the sole, etc. Did I complain while people were rocking out in their Girbaud/Hillfiger clothes? At first, I was a bit peeved about the difficult circumstance I found myself in, but I understood what my family was trying to accomplish. Long term over short term. Education first. Regardless. The problem with the government acting as a "commie" in redistributing wealth is that it's an easy fallback to continually look towards the wealthy to fund the government without questioning government tactics/funding. Theoretically (I'm not saying now with the 3% people seem focused on) you'd have insanely rich people renouncing their citizenship and moving overseas to avoid the heavy taxation, but due to those tricky republicans and the Expatriation Tax most of them will have to stand pat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_Tax
Umm. I was in no way supporting the government intervening at all. By backing the banks, the government gave the banks a free ride to enter into contracts which they knew for the most part weren't going to be fulfilled in turn screwing the individual who couldn't pay for their loan and the tax payer because the government's decision in backing these loans has to ultimately be paid out by us. If the government wasn't part of the equation, one of two things would occur differently here. A. The bank would say hey Joe Blow, you're not ready to take on the great responsibility of a house loan. Let's wait until you've got the income credit/financial credibility to take on this undertaking. B. The bank would say hey Joe Blow, this variable rate home loan is great for us, but ultimately we know you'll default on it and probably quite early in the loan's maturity so we're not going to be handing these out like candy since no one in their right mind would back these from a financial standpoint. -thinnie
-No, not at gun point, but they were fraudulently convinced to do it. Are you sure you meant to say fraudulently here? Fraud is a strong word and if it was indeed that, then there should be a huge class action lawsuit going on and I don't believe I've heard of one that was successful. I could definitely be wrong. -Hurray. Have you ever fallen for a corporate CEO fraudulently touting their stock? Did your portfolio, if you have one, go up when Wall Street tanked the economy? How about the value of your house? I don't invest. I don't own a home. I'm not financially secure or financially savvy enough to do either at this point. I'm sure corporate fraud occurs and I hope they're punished accordingly to the law. -This sounds good, but think about slavery, lack of voting for women, indentured servants etc. Only white men of property could vote etc. The Senate was not elected by popular vote etc. All valid points, but at the same point, freedom was one of the central tenets of our nation as the people who came here originally from Britain were fleeing persecution and wanted to avoid a similar circumstance for their citizens. -How about mentioning Hitler. I'm sorry, I don't quite understand this analogy. -Oftern time they do provide a social good. Perhaps you are not a total elitist and went to public school some time? Do you really feel our public schools are as good as they should be? I'm not talking ideally, I'm just asking if you feel like the things that haunt all government institutions, bureaucracy, standardization, and lack of competition, have not hurt our education system? -Hey you made a reasonable point, but there is no need to sneer at government providing social goods or believe Ron Paul is an economic God. I'm not so much sneering at the government providing a social good or questioning their moral compass, but rather asking questions related to our current state of affairs. How big is too big in relation to the government's non-invisible hand in our lives as well as it's spending? Is there a way the government could guide private institutions to compete against each other to provide a better product then they have currently provided without hurting our citizens? Is there a reason the federal government continues to increase its responsibilities rather then allow these decisions to be handled at the state level? Also, thank you for the compliment. I find you're on the opposite spectrum of my views and are very passionate about what you believe in so it's great to debate with you. I'm sure I throw in my own conjecture at times, but I try to utilize sources that are government based or non-partisan as much as possible. In the end, I'm sure my opinions will change over time, but it's all about having civilized discussions and sharing knowledge so that we can all make knowledgeable decisions.
