Why do you think the Gov't can fix things??

[Accountable]

We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating.

[gmc]

Accountable;926802 wrote: We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating.


You don't elect an arsonist but you do elect your government and hold them to account. Why do you believe you can have no impact on the way your government behaves? Fire the politicians (no pun intended) that caused the mess and elect new ones.

From the article

The stock market crash of 1987 was at least as big as the stock market crash in 1929. But, instead of being followed by a Great Depression, the 1987 crash was followed by 20 years of economic growth, with low inflation and low unemployment. The Reagan administration did nothing in 1987, despite outrage in the media at the government's failure to live up to its responsibility, as seen in liberal quarters. But nothing was apparently what needed to be done, so that markets could adjust.




Simplistic nonsense and ignores all the social change since 1929 spurred on people no longer being prepared to just accept things are tough and they should just put up with it. In 1929 america wasn't a democracy in the way it is now.

You could also put a pretty good case that lax regulation of the banking industry (not to mention a lack of common sense ) has let up to the present crisis. Capitalism and a market economy does not mean you let companies behave as they want you have to monitor them hold them to account and that is a function of government. You choose the politicians you want to do it. What alternative are you suggesting? Let them regulate themselves?

[Accountable]

gmc;927946 wrote: You don't elect an arsonist but you do elect your government and hold them to account. Why do you believe you can have no impact on the way your government behaves? Fire the politicians (no pun intended) that caused the mess and elect new ones.You apparently read nothing I write when replying to the seemingly dozens of times you've posted this mistake, so I'll leave it alone.

[Accountable]

Sorry. I should've specified the US federal gov't. European nations have a different view of the role of government in people's lives and I accept that.



The role of our federal gov't is different, even though people constantly try to change it.

[gmc]

Accountable;928187 wrote: Sorry. I should've specified the US federal gov't. European nations have a different view of the role of government in people's lives and I accept that.



The role of our federal gov't is different, even though people constantly try to change it.


Yes we do and let's not take that one any further. I accept you have a funny way of looking at things as well:D

posted by accountable

but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating.




You don't make any sense imo If politicians played a major part in creating a crisis then surely they can play a major part in solving it? Surely you just elect different politicians? What alternative are you suggesting?

If people try and change the role of government is that not the prerogative of the people? To determine what they want.

[sunny104]

Accountable;928183 wrote: You apparently read nothing I write when replying to the seemingly dozens of times you've posted this mistake, so I'll leave it alone.


If we ever have an FG awards ceremony I think GMC should win this one:



:D :wah:

[gmc]

sunny104;928366 wrote: If we ever have an FG awards ceremony I think GMC should win this one:



:D :wah:


Oh come off it. Accountable isn't a dead donkey he just won't concede he is wrong.:sneaky:

[sunny104]

gmc;928382 wrote: Oh come off it. Accountable isn't a dead donkey he just won't concede he is wrong.:sneaky:


:wah:

[Accountable]

gmc;928351 wrote: Yes we do and let's not take that one any further. I accept you have a funny way of looking at things as well:D



posted by accountable







You don't make any sense imo If politicians played a major part in creating a crisis then surely they can play a major part in solving it? Surely you just elect different politicians? What alternative are you suggesting?
The problems generally start with the politicians in the first place. If the carpenter comes in to fix a wall and accidentally cuts an electrical line, I'm not going to go get a different carpenter to fix the wire. When a politician comes in & mucks up the economy by trying to save a failed business I'm not going to ask another politician to un-muck it.

[Accountable]

gmc;928382 wrote: Oh come off it. Accountable isn't a dead donkey he just won't concede he is wrong.:sneaky:
Never concede! :yh_flag

[sunny104]

and I think it was supposed to be a horse....

[Accountable]

sunny104;928422 wrote: and I think it was supposed to be a horse....
You'll have to forgive him. Not many horses up in Skirtland.

[sunny104]

Accountable;928428 wrote: You'll have to forgive him. Not many horses up in Skirtland.


yeah, he'd be most "familiar" with sheep! *wink wink* :wah:

[gmc]

sunny104;928446 wrote: yeah, he'd be most "familiar" with sheep! *wink wink* :wah:


Oi you! That's the welsh. Jones the sheep and his friends.

[Accountable]

This real estate snafu we're in, for example. Banks were doing just fine requiring borrowers to prove they could pay back a loan before giving out any money. The gov't steps in with incentives & such to encourage banks to give mortgages to people that couldn't afford it in the first place. Then, surprise of all surprises, the people default on the loans & the finance institutions are in trouble. The people overextended themselves and indulged themselves rather than looking objectively at what they could afford and living within their means. When you default on a loan you lose your collateral. That is the natural consequence. But instead of that, everybody expects the gov't to take responsibility for their bad decisions - decisions they may not have been able to make had the gov't not stepped in in the first place.



Now we have banks in trouble. Why are they in trouble? Because the gov't tried to fix what ain't broke. I say screw 'em, but everybody expects the gov't to fix the problem. I don't think there's a problem; I think we're experiencing natural consequences of decisions made and actions taken.



The next step will be the gov't assembling a committee to study what went wrong and put regulations and controls and such to prevent it from happening again. They need to control themselves and regulate their actions to those areas specifically within their jurisdiction as spelled out in the Constitution.

[gmc]

Accountable;929219 wrote: This real estate snafu we're in, for example. Banks were doing just fine requiring borrowers to prove they could pay back a loan before giving out any money. The gov't steps in with incentives & such to encourage banks to give mortgages to people that couldn't afford it in the first place. Then, surprise of all surprises, the people default on the loans & the finance institutions are in trouble. The people overextended themselves and indulged themselves rather than looking objectively at what they could afford and living within their means. When you default on a loan you lose your collateral. That is the natural consequence. But instead of that, everybody expects the gov't to take responsibility for their bad decisions - decisions they may not have been able to make had the gov't not stepped in in the first place.



Now we have banks in trouble. Why are they in trouble? Because the gov't tried to fix what ain't broke. I say screw 'em, but everybody expects the gov't to fix the problem. I don't think there's a problem; I think we're experiencing natural consequences of decisions made and actions taken.



The next step will be the gov't assembling a committee to study what went wrong and put regulations and controls and such to prevent it from happening again. They need to control themselves and regulate their actions to those areas specifically within their jurisdiction as spelled out in the Constitution.


The banks are in trouble through their own stupidity and greed. Were it not for the knock on effect on the world economy I could care a lot less. What is also depressing is the way european banks let american subsidiaries lend in a way that common sense-never mind any govt legislation-should have told them was going to end badly. The banking crisis didn't just happen out the blue. Plenty of people were sounding warning bells long before. Trouble is the regulators (at least in the UK) tend to defer to the "experts" in the financial institutions.

How come the shareholders aren't demanding the resignations of the managing boards? Why pay these guys to run a business and then not hold them accountable.

[Accountable]

gmc;929441 wrote: The banks are in trouble through their own stupidity and greed. Were it not for the knock on effect on the world economy I could care a lot less. What is also depressing is the way european banks let american subsidiaries lend in a way that common sense-never mind any govt legislation-should have told them was going to end badly. The banking crisis didn't just happen out the blue. Plenty of people were sounding warning bells long before. Trouble is the regulators (at least in the UK) tend to defer to the "experts" in the financial institutions.



How come the shareholders aren't demanding the resignations of the managing boards? Why pay these guys to run a business and then not hold them accountable.
I agree, and the same stupidity & greed statement goes for many individuals as well. The economy would be stronger in the long run if the gov't stays out of it & allows the collapse. Phoenixes comes from such ashes. The banking system would come out of the crisis nimbler, smarter, and wiser.

[gmc]

Accountable;929569 wrote: I agree, and the same stupidity & greed statement goes for many individuals as well. The economy would be stronger in the long run if the gov't stays out of it & allows the collapse. Phoenixes comes from such ashes. The banking system would come out of the crisis nimbler, smarter, and wiser.


You could argue that it was the lack of oversight and regulation that led to the present situation. Company directors need to be aware that lack of proper corporate governance and responsibility on their part will have consequences and they are culpable. Giving companies a free hand to do what they want without some kind of control and sanction against those that behave irresponsibly has no place in a capitalist economy. Indeed a capitalist economy cannot operate effectively without some form of regulation if only to prevent monopolies developing and companies abusing their position to the detriment of society as a whole. The idea that you need to "free" business from any kind of control is a ludicrous idea much beloved by those that want a free hand to do what they want to enrich themselves without having to worry about the consequences. Give companies freedom to operate responsibly but at the same time take steps to prevent the abuse of that freedom.

You need government to fix things and surely the debate is about what it should do rather than if it should. Since you are one of those that elect and pay for that government then you have as much right as say Bill gates to influence that action. What alternative do you suggest?

[Accountable]

gmc;933395 wrote: You could argue that it was the lack of oversight and regulation that led to the present situation. Company directors need to be aware that lack of proper corporate governance and responsibility on their part will have consequences and they are culpable. Giving companies a free hand to do what they want without some kind of control and sanction against those that behave irresponsibly has no place in a capitalist economy. Indeed a capitalist economy cannot operate effectively without some form of regulation if only to prevent monopolies developing and companies abusing their position to the detriment of society as a whole. The idea that you need to "free" business from any kind of control is a ludicrous idea much beloved by those that want a free hand to do what they want to enrich themselves without having to worry about the consequences. Give companies freedom to operate responsibly but at the same time take steps to prevent the abuse of that freedom.



You need government to fix things and surely the debate is about what it should do rather than if it should. Since you are one of those that elect and pay for that government then you have as much right as say Bill gates to influence that action. What alternative do you suggest?Wrong on every count except preventing monopolies. Business is controlled in the same way as government - with phone calls and pens. We vote with our pocketbook.

[gmc]

Accountable;933429 wrote: Wrong on every count except preventing monopolies. Business is controlled in the same way as government - with phone calls and pens. We vote with our pocketbook.


and what do you vote for if not to elect government to do your bidding and fix things?

[spot]

Accountable;929219 wrote: Now we have banks in trouble. Why are they in trouble? Because the gov't tried to fix what ain't broke. I say screw 'em, but everybody expects the gov't to fix the problem. I don't think there's a problem; I think we're experiencing natural consequences of decisions made and actions taken.



The next step will be the gov't assembling a committee to study what went wrong and put regulations and controls and such to prevent it from happening again. They need to control themselves and regulate their actions to those areas specifically within their jurisdiction as spelled out in the Constitution.


Actually no, the guarantees just put in place are going to cost as much as the Iraq War by the time the housing market's settled. Guaranteeing Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae is a catastrophic misuse of public funds, I can't believe anyone did that.

Government exists to establish a mutually agreed environment for people to co-exist, it legislates for fairness and it judges for recompense. That's government. Yours is broken. The only people in a country who have the responsibility for mending a broken government is that country's citizens. Mend it or suffer. Nobody out here on the outside enjoys watching you crash and burn, we're all willing you on, it's just such a shame you're all so wet-kneed and lily-livered in toppling the damn thing.

[Accountable]

gmc;934142 wrote: and what do you vote for if not to elect government to do your bidding and fix things?
You and I have different ideas of what the job of government is. Most of what you want gov't to do I think should stay in the hands of the individual. The majority of what's left, we use our state gov't. The federal gov't was supposed to smoth out interstate issues and protect the US from outside forces.



I think that's where the confusion/disagreements come from. You have a national government. We don't. We have a federal government. State governments fill most of the roles of national government. I thinks some people want to change ours into a national government simply because everyone else has one. It doesn't occur to them that we created our EU 230 years ago.

[spot]

Accountable;934160 wrote: It doesn't occur to them that we created our EU 230 years ago.


We're part way through the transformation which will leave each EU national government with as much power and influence as the current county councils, and not before time. Check back in twenty years and see what we look like then.

[gmc]

Accountable;934160 wrote: You and I have different ideas of what the job of government is. Most of what you want gov't to do I think should stay in the hands of the individual. The majority of what's left, we use our state gov't. The federal gov't was supposed to smoth out interstate issues and protect the US from outside forces.



I think that's where the confusion/disagreements come from. You have a national government. We don't. We have a federal government. State governments fill most of the roles of national government. I thinks some people want to change ours into a national government simply because everyone else has one. It doesn't occur to them that we created our EU 230 years ago.


I think you're right there-Hadn't really thought of it that way. Kind of explains why you feel so disconnected from federal govt.

I'm rather ambivalent about the EU. In principle I like the idea but don't want a european wide government. Curiously enough within the EU smaller countries have a vehicle that helps stop them being bullied subsumed by larger neighbours. Rather than take away freedom it goes a long way to preserving it. all the smaller states act as a counterbalance to the french and spanish Even in the UK scotland and England have different legal and education systems.(ours is better of course)

[Accountable]

gmc;934197 wrote: I think you're right there-Hadn't really thought of it that way. Kind of explains why you feel so disconnected from federal govt.Finally! :-6



gmc wrote: I'm rather ambivalent about the EU. In principle I like the idea but don't want a european wide government. Curiously enough within the EU smaller countries have a vehicle that helps stop them being bullied subsumed by larger neighbours. Rather than take away freedom it goes a long way to preserving it. all the smaller states act as a counterbalance to the french and spanish Even in the UK scotland and England have different legal and education systems.(ours is better of course)
Same here. Rhode Island would never have survived on its own. The whole of New England likely would have morphed into one nation somehow if the USA hadn't been created. The problem will come when the EU supports an idea or ideal that runs counter to several of the member states. See what happens when they want to quit the union, a la our latter nineteenth century.

[spot]

spot;934145 wrote: it's just such a shame you're all so wet-kneed and lily-livered in toppling the damn thing.


This comment, apparently, has got up quite a few noses. I had it in mind that there's no mass civil disobedience movement in the US aiming to change the two-party state into a true representative democracy. My words were obviously ill-chosen. The reason Americans on the whole don't engage in mass civil disobedience isn't that they're wet-kneed and lily-livered - they're not, I'm told - it's that they don't want their God-given enlightened world-beating political system to change. Anyhow, Ameicans aren't wet-kneed and lily-livered, it was an unjust calumny on my part born solely of frustration.

On a lighter note, here's some numbers to back the comments about the US Federal Government's lack of wisdom in guaranteeing the liquidity of those private stockholder mortgage middle-men and the debts which are being passed back to the banks by defaulters. Big big numbers.