Unfortunately in politics, who ever is in office is blamed for whatever happens during his/her term. Examples! John F. Kennedy is blamed for the Bay of Pigs invasion even though Eisenhower (the previous president) was the one who planned it. Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson are generally blamed for the Vietnam War even though it was FDR and Truman who first escalated the war from the beginning.
In the present, George W. Bush is blamed for the Mortgage Crisis of 2008 by the ignorant media. Does anyone else notice that the Democratic Party has barely put any blame on Bush? Why has Mrs. Pelosi not said a thing about Republicans messing things up? Is it just my imagination?
It is not my imagination. The Democrats know that the mortgage crisis is their fault. During the Clinton administration, the Democrats (and many Republicans) voted to give out "unchecked loans." That is, poor citizens of the USA were given loans, and they had to give no information about their paychecks. They did not have to show the banks their credit scores, past bankruptcies, or salaries. The banks were forced to give loans to everyone. Even if these people had no intentions of paying back the loans, the bank was forced to give the loan out. Why? It's the American dream of course! Own a home, and everything will work itself out!
So what happened? These people who had no business of getting loans were granted loans for huge houses that they had no ability to repay. The poor and upper class were given loans that were impossible to repay because of government interference in the market economy. The poor were given loans they could not even dream to repay. The rich were given houses and properties way beyond their means. Once the economy went down, the people could not repay their loans. Now we have millions of people who cannot repay their loans because of the bad economy, houses have to be foreclosed.
Why did this all happen? Government interference in the free market created this disaster. When the government forced banks to accept people who couldn't repay loans, the free market went out the window, and the market collapsed within a few years.
Government created this problem. Socialist-esque policies of the Clinton administration force the free market to take on people who could not fulfill their commitments. Less government would have allowed the right people to get the right loans needed for home ownership.
(I wrote this article on Microsoft Word. I tried to edit all the kinks and errors from posting it on AG. Sorry if there are any weird symbols on this post).
What's wrong with being hungry for money? The United States was set up upon a capitalist foundation. The only problem is that gluttony must be avoided at all costs. This whole mortgage problem is a perfect example of people in power having gluttony.
When you want money, you will go against the people in search of more... You have 50, I have 200. I want your money.
*Boom, dead*
And no America was not founded on capitalism. That was not until Adam Smith wrote the "Wealth of Nations"
False. The Soviet Union was state capitalism run by bourgeoisie instead of workers.
Complete oversimplification. There were virtually no middle class bourgeoise in the USSR. The people that profited most were as crazjayz said the high level politicians and civil servants.
And no America was not founded on capitalism. That was not until Adam Smith wrote the "Wealth of Nations"
The wealth of nations was written in 1776, the american war of independence was over in 1783 and so could have potentially influenced American economic ideals. If anything America's ideals point to the fact that a free markey economy is best sharply contrasting with communism.
It is very difficult to argue that communism wouldnt have resulted in a banking collapse. For one thing a pure communist society has no form of currency with everyone recieving what they need and deserve. In a pure communist society there is also no state so how could there be state owned industry?
Thanks woody_7007 for the backup =D I know my post simple stated that the USSR was pure socialism without posting anything to back that up. It was just a person feeling, since as woody_7007 mentioned "[a] pure communist society has no form of currency with everyone receiving what they need and deserve", thus I feel that communism has never been reached. No one is that unselfish to go through with communism.
As far as the whole lassiez faire issue, I believe samy was speaking about the governments role in the economy. I don't mean to speak on Samy's behalf, but I think he means that the government should adopt a lassiez faire attitude towards economics, which is the same point of view I share. Small businesses, companies, and even whole industries go through up/down cycles. Currently, the whole economy is in a downturn, thus any sector in a down cycle is REALLY hurting (i.e.: US auto industy). New companies will be formed, while others will have to be dissolved, it's a fact of life. Bailouts should only be done to make sure the whole economy doesn't collapse, and not just so that large corporations can say in business. [But I think I'm ranting about the recent Big 3 bailouts... and thus I digress] My point is that lassiez faire is good, and the government is not supposed to be the economy's mommy. Firms should be responsible and be able to take care of themselves.
Finally, TROJANS mentions stimulus checks. I'm just going to state now, that's a HORRIBLE idea.
My point is that lassiez faire is good, and the government is not supposed to be the economy's mommy. Firms should be responsible and be able to take care of themselves.
From your post i can see are more of a free market economist as am I. Aside from market faliures like externalities i belive it is the most efficient system. I also agree the government should only intervene when it absolutely has to, otherwise there is very little risk for firms that make stupid descisions especially those that could potentially effect millions of people, which is pretty much what has happened.
Haha, yeah, I'm all for lassiez faire, until ethics comes into play and rules are broken. Then the government (Mommy here) must step in, give the firms a spanking and make sure they learned their lesson. Seriouly.
Now TROJANS for a number of families will benefit from stimulus checks/packages/whatever you want to call it, but how much is $500 to $1000 going to help you? Let's see that... one month of mostly anything. Rent, mortgage, credit card payments, a couple months of gas, etc. And that's for the whole year. Now, let's do that math. 95% of the US will get these checks, so that's, give or take a little, 285 million people (and I feel that's a conservative number for the people in the united states). We'll drop that down to 200 million to take into account families (that is both parents get 1 check), and we'll say on average each check will be $800. That's 160 BILLION dollars. I feel that the US government can use this 160 billion in a more effective way that the average US citizen. Why? Because while these stimulus packages are supposed to be used to pay off something (mortgage, credit card debt, etc, as I've mentioned), they won't be. They'll be used to buy some frivolous item. Some toy, or gift, or something relatively meaningless. It will be squandered by most of the nation, and in doing so, the US government, at a time when its economy is at its weakest, is going to throw away $160 billion. Just think about that. That's more money in 1 year than we spend on "rebuilding" Iraq. Yep.
They'll be used to buy some frivolous item. Some toy, or gift, or something relatively meaningless. It will be squandered by most of the nation, and in doing so, the US government
This may be true although i doubt all households will spend it on some sort of ostentatious good, as they genuinely will be in dire need of cash. However the purpose of these payouts arent just to help people pay their bills but to stimulate the economy by increasing the amount of people buying products. However i agree that this isnt the most efficient way of doing this. I belive Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have got it right (finally) on this one. Instead they have opted to lower the interest rate, thus giving less of an incentive to save money in banks and also giving people with mortgages (not all only those on trackers) a break and thus giving them more money to spend in shops to stimulate the economy. I bleive this is a far more effective way of stimulating an economy than just cash handouts which as crazjayz said could be used on other things.
Im not sure what you mean by this question but i think my 2 answers will do it justice.
1.Marx said there would be. In his theory of Marxist Determinism that is the final stage, when the world is united in a pure communist utopia.
2. People were implying earlier on in the thread that state owned industry= communism. I made the point that in pure communism there is no state let alone state owned industry.
