The natural order of things is for the rich to steal from the poor. Any other order is unnatural. So how do you maintain an unnatural system where the poor have a chance?
The only way is that no one steals from any one else. Once you allow stealing into the system the rich get their usual extra advantage. Which is why our founders stated that the system they designed can only be maintained by a moral people. And the morality was not about who was having sex with whom but the morality relating to property.
Socialism is a system for stealing from the rich in the hopes of advantaging the poor. But once you allow theft into the system it reverts to the natural order where the poor have no chance. Which is why socialism always fails.
So the trouble with socialists is that they mean well but have no understanding. Which is why I am no longer a socialist.
==
And note: when you take into account the incentives for production socialism comes out even worse. If you can't keep a very large portion of what you earn the incentives for production decline and we are all worse off. The rich and the poor alike. Of course for the rich it makes less difference.
The moral of the story is that socialism leads to feudalism (anther name for a system where warlords rule) and the people are then reduced to serfs. And serfs are held in place by force. And force came into the system through government as a way for the poor to steal from the rich.
It may be why F. A. Hayek called his book on socialism:
The Road to Serfdom
And it gives added meaning to what George Washington said:
Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Managing The Decline
Yes. McCain was one of the Keating Five. The other 4 were Democrats. And they threw him in so it wouldn't look so one sided.
But you know there are an awful lot of Goldman Sachs folks at the top of the Obama administration. Odd that. They let Lehman (a competitor) die and got their company bailed out. Good work if you can get it.
But you know there are an awful lot of Goldman Sachs folks at the top of the Obama administration. Odd that. They let Lehman (a competitor) die and got their company bailed out. Good work if you can get it.
In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, John Dowd, the Washington lawyer who represented McCain during the Senate investigation, called the inquiry a "classic political smear job" by the Democrats running the Senate at the time, saying that they only included McCain to make sure that a Republican was among the targets. "John had not done anything wrong," Dowd said.
Dowd's point of view was amplified by Robert Bennett, the Washington lawyer and Democrat who served as special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee during the Keating Five investigation, which focused on whether McCain and other senators exercised improper political influence over the regulation of Keating's failed Lincoln Savings & Loan.
In an interview, Bennett said McCain should never have been dragged into the ethics case to begin with. He said that after his own lengthy investigation, he came to the conclusion that the case against McCain and former Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) "should have been dropped" because the evidence suggested that once McCain understood that the Justice Department was investigating Keating, he backed off any involvement. Dowd noted that McCain threw Keating,once a strong supporter, out of his office after Keating pressed him to intervene in his case.
Bennett said former Sen. Howell Hefflin (D-Ala.) insisted that the two be included in the formal public inquiry because otherwise there would have been a month of public hearings "with no Republicans in the dock." The other members of the Keating Five were Democrats.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/200 ... on_ob.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Most of the schemes these days can't be done without government collusion.DavidWillard wrote:I am concerned not whether they were red or blue pigs at the greed trough of ill-gotten gains. They were the ones that engineered the opening of the sluice of money to be played with by deregulating the banking industry. They basically over a period of time, allowed the openings for fiduciary abuse to appear.MSimon wrote:Yes. McCain was one of the Keating Five. The other 4 were Democrats. And they threw him in so it wouldn't look so one sided.
l
Gosh forbid they would actually produce something with real physical hard work, clever effort over time(decades), save, and properly invest. Instead of grifting idiot investors and then expecting the gov'mint to bail them out.
Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us. It's all our money, and resources and efforts to big those rackeeteers a bigger chunk of profits faster in their time before they leave the office of power.
Will smaller government lead us to utopia? Of course not. There will always be crooks and fools. The question is - better or worse?
It is like the licensing of doctors (a government program) - you get a false sense of security.
And lending does produce something of value. If done prudently. But the heads I win tails you lose system is almost entirely a result of government intervention. It has led us directly to the financial meltdown we are in today. As long as the government backed mortgages there was no risk in lending. Thus NINJA loans.
You might like to read DeSoto on Capital. Here is a short starter:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... perty.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
More decline
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=525864 The current position of the Administration has gone beyond even sanity. If things keep going the way they are I don't think the country will even make it to 2012 intact.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=525864 The current position of the Administration has gone beyond even sanity. If things keep going the way they are I don't think the country will even make it to 2012 intact.
Funny, I don't remember any of the companies you listed actually asking for bailouts. For that matter many of the banks that got bailouts didn't want them and the strings the gov't added.[/i]DavidWillard wrote:Oh yes, collusion of the government where the idea and span of control is waaay too BIIG to handle, or the resource and capital demands are too high. A typical argument to allow the grifters to play with the loopholes sometimes in my humble opinion. Then you have the hubris of the folks like the Club of Rome?MSimon wrote: Most of the schemes these days can't be done without government collusion.
Will smaller government lead us to utopia? Of course not. There will always be crooks and fools. The question is - better or worse?
It is like the licensing of doctors (a government program) - you get a false sense of security.
And lending does produce something of value. If done prudently. But the heads I win tails you lose system is almost entirely a result of government intervention. It has led us directly to the financial meltdown we are in today. As long as the government backed mortgages there was no risk in lending. Thus NINJA loans.
You might like to read DeSoto on Capital. Here is a short starter:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... perty.html
There are corporations and conglomerates that have capital and the smarts to do these things without the Government approval and intervention. (Prudential, Microsoft, IBM, Exxon, BP for example) They should be the self insurers of their recently huge profits in the past two decades. If they are clever enough to fight the tax system and find loopholes to offshore their profits, not pay any or very little taxes, then they should be able to weather a storm of financial stupidity on their own behalf.
But they are the ones asking for help in the event they fail and need a bailout or are being influenced by foreign interests? Which way is it going to be?
Prudent investing does yield results. I agree.
Revisionism.MSimon wrote:Yes. McCain was one of the Keating Five. The other 4 were Democrats. And they threw him in so it wouldn't look so one sided.
But you know there are an awful lot of Goldman Sachs folks at the top of the Obama administration. Odd that. They let Lehman (a competitor) die and got their company bailed out. Good work if you can get it.
In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, John Dowd, the Washington lawyer who represented McCain during the Senate investigation, called the inquiry a "classic political smear job" by the Democrats running the Senate at the time, saying that they only included McCain to make sure that a Republican was among the targets. "John had not done anything wrong," Dowd said.
Dowd's point of view was amplified by Robert Bennett, the Washington lawyer and Democrat who served as special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee during the Keating Five investigation, which focused on whether McCain and other senators exercised improper political influence over the regulation of Keating's failed Lincoln Savings & Loan.
In an interview, Bennett said McCain should never have been dragged into the ethics case to begin with. He said that after his own lengthy investigation, he came to the conclusion that the case against McCain and former Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) "should have been dropped" because the evidence suggested that once McCain understood that the Justice Department was investigating Keating, he backed off any involvement. Dowd noted that McCain threw Keating,once a strong supporter, out of his office after Keating pressed him to intervene in his case.
Bennett said former Sen. Howell Hefflin (D-Ala.) insisted that the two be included in the formal public inquiry because otherwise there would have been a month of public hearings "with no Republicans in the dock." The other members of the Keating Five were Democrats.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/200 ... on_ob.html
Incompetent Bush, Henry Carlson and Bernanke let Lehman fail. Theres no doubt in my mind that at least Carlson did it for Goldman's benefit.
By the time Obama and Geithner came into the picture the failure had already happened, and the fallout was propagating.
Also, what's wrong with leaving Republicans out of the picture? We all know what their vote is going to be, "No". Doesn't matter how important the issue is, if it's any sign of progress for the Democrats the Republicans will vote against it.
Ah. I see. Quoting one of the principles in the Keating Five investigation is revisionism.
And the guy I quoted was a Democrat so he is arguing against interest. Which means his statement weighs heavier on the scales of truth.
What is the old saying? You can give a man brains but you can't teach him to think.
And the guy I quoted was a Democrat so he is arguing against interest. Which means his statement weighs heavier on the scales of truth.
What is the old saying? You can give a man brains but you can't teach him to think.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Don't trouble your pretty little head about it sugah. Come next January it will be the Democrat's turn to be the Party of NO. And I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way.We all know what their vote is going to be, "No". Doesn't matter how important the issue is, if it's any sign of progress for the Democrats the Republicans will vote against it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
There's nothing wrong with banking, or lending. It's actually extremely beneficial for society, because it forces people to use time and resources efficiently. To say that it leads directly to this meltdown is akin to saying breathing air led us to ruin.MSimon wrote:Most of the schemes these days can't be done without government collusion.DavidWillard wrote:I am concerned not whether they were red or blue pigs at the greed trough of ill-gotten gains. They were the ones that engineered the opening of the sluice of money to be played with by deregulating the banking industry. They basically over a period of time, allowed the openings for fiduciary abuse to appear.MSimon wrote:Yes. McCain was one of the Keating Five. The other 4 were Democrats. And they threw him in so it wouldn't look so one sided.
l
Gosh forbid they would actually produce something with real physical hard work, clever effort over time(decades), save, and properly invest. Instead of grifting idiot investors and then expecting the gov'mint to bail them out.
Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us. It's all our money, and resources and efforts to big those rackeeteers a bigger chunk of profits faster in their time before they leave the office of power.
Will smaller government lead us to utopia? Of course not. There will always be crooks and fools. The question is - better or worse?
It is like the licensing of doctors (a government program) - you get a false sense of security.
And lending does produce something of value. If done prudently. But the heads I win tails you lose system is almost entirely a result of government intervention. It has led us directly to the financial meltdown we are in today. As long as the government backed mortgages there was no risk in lending. Thus NINJA loans.
You might like to read DeSoto on Capital. Here is a short starter:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... perty.html
If done prudently.There's nothing wrong with banking, or lending. It's actually extremely beneficial for society, because it forces people to use time and resources efficiently. To say that it leads directly to this meltdown is akin to saying breathing air led us to ruin.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
How Europe is setting themselves for the long fall:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235139
What the Newsweek article misses is that when the end comes it's going to come fast and it's going to be bad. How bad? In 50 years or so the Western Roman Empire went from an economy about the same size as early Eighteenth Century to the dark ages. How bad is it going to be to reach what the Club OF Rome seems to think is "sustainable"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235139
What the Newsweek article misses is that when the end comes it's going to come fast and it's going to be bad. How bad? In 50 years or so the Western Roman Empire went from an economy about the same size as early Eighteenth Century to the dark ages. How bad is it going to be to reach what the Club OF Rome seems to think is "sustainable"
Europe has already had its long fall. In 1900 three or four European leaders could dictate the shape of the world, and directly ruled more than three quarters of its land surface area. In 1920 that was still true. By 1960, all that was gone. The 20th century is the story of the collapse and retreat of European culture, and the US is included in that.Jccarlton wrote:How Europe is setting themselves for the long fall:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235139
What the Newsweek article misses is that when the end comes it's going to come fast and it's going to be bad. How bad? In 50 years or so the Western Roman Empire went from an economy about the same size as early Eighteenth Century to the dark ages. How bad is it going to be to reach what the Club OF Rome seems to think is "sustainable"
Vae Victis
Yet another great piece from American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/ ... onomy.html
I said the same thing before the election. The timing is what makes Obama such a disaster.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/ ... onomy.html
I said the same thing before the election. The timing is what makes Obama such a disaster.