Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Capitalism is great, but it needs to be regulated, and the government is responsible for regulating it.
One example of what happens as a result of deregulation: In late 2000 Alan Greenspan pressured the "R" Congress about deregulation, and the Congress passed a law which Clinton signed into law (during his last month in office). It was a move to deregulate Wall Street, and it ended up being one of the main reasons for the economic meltdown. It was the so called "gamble law", which US Congress had banned almost 100 years ago after is drove the economy into the ground. It allowed wall street banks to gamble with other peoples money by placing 'bets' on financial events, just like people place bets on football games. They called them "credit default swaps", and trillions of dollars exchanged hands until it blew into their faces in same manner as 100 years earlier and brought down the banks and the economy.
Ironically Greenspan is Libertarian. His weakness was in his thinking that capitalism can never go wrong.
Banking, finance and trade needs to be regulated. Jefferson made the below comment about the banking industry and what happens when they are left unregulated. This is especially true about the federal reserve too:
Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
main reason for the meltdown?
maybe you should look at fannie mae and freddie mac for the meltdown. after all they were the goverment entities that were giving mortgages to alot of people who not afford to pay it.
maybe you should look at fannie mae and freddie mac for the meltdown. after all they were the goverment entities that were giving mortgages to alot of people who not afford to pay it.
Not the only reason, but one of the main ingredients. It brought the nations biggest banks on their knees because they had gambled away their own and other people's money and ended up owing more than they could pay...Bear Sterns, AIG, Lehmann Brothers etc, and most of them had to be bailed out with tax-payer money. The deregulation created a 50 TRILLION dollar market out of what used to be a regulated 100 BILLION dollar market. It created the bubble, which financed the housing boom. The bankers thought the credit default swaps and mortgage securities were as safe as safe can be. Well, they were wrong 100 years ago, and they were wrong about it this time.
Fannie and Freddie were not government entities until Bush nationalized them last year. Until then they were private entities with government sponsorship. That basically means that private owners collect the profits during good years, and taxpayer pick up the losses during bad years (). They screwed up, although their lending standards were stricter than most banks. If I remember correctly the lending standards were deregulated 20 times during Bush presidency to make sure anyone would qualify for a loan. Heck, he said it himself "I am on a mission to put 5 million poor blacks and hispanics into their first homes". He was not the first say such things though because Reagan and Clinton said those things too.
Let's put it this way: Deregulation was the main cause for the collapse. If the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (a major deregulation bill) had not passed, and if the Bush admin had not deregulated the mortgage industry senselessly, this situation would never have taken place.
Not the only reason, but one of the main ingredients. It brought the nations biggest banks on their knees because they had gambled away their own and other people's money and ended up owing more than they could pay...Bear Sterns, AIG, Lehmann Brothers etc, and most of them had to be bailed out with tax-payer money. The deregulation created a 50 TRILLION dollar market out of what used to be a regulated 100 BILLION dollar market. It created the bubble, which financed the housing boom. The bankers thought the credit default swaps and mortgage securities were as safe as safe can be. Well, they were wrong 100 years ago, and they were wrong about it this time.
Fannie and Freddie were not government entities until Bush nationalized them last year. Until then they were private entities with government sponsorship. That basically means that private owners collect the profits during good years, and taxpayer pick up the losses during bad years (). They screwed up, although their lending standards were stricter than most banks. If I remember correctly the lending standards were deregulated 20 times during Bush presidency to make sure anyone would qualify for a loan. Heck, he said it himself "I am on a mission to put 5 million poor blacks and hispanics into their first homes". He was not the first say such things though because Reagan and Clinton said those things too.
Let's put it this way: Deregulation was the main cause for the collapse. If the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (a major deregulation bill) had not passed, and if the Bush admin had not deregulated the mortgage industry senselessly, this situation would never have taken place.
goverment sponsorship is about the same thing as a goverment entity.
goverment sponsorship is about the same thing as a goverment entity.
It was a pure government entity at first, and then it became a privately/stockholder owned corporation in 1968 because the government didn't want it on its balance sheets any more. And last year it was nationalized by the Bush admin. The government has always been involved in it one way or another. For example in year 2000 they put in anti-predatory laws to tighten FM lending standards, and in 2004 those laws were removed. So, the government always had a say in how to run their business. I guess it is a matter of defining the term "government entity". I guess we can agree that it was a privately owned government entity until last year.
He did say 'some', not all. And you have to admit that there is a segment of society that does in fact prefer to live in poverty - drug addicts come to mind. They ones I know worked only enough to cover their rent - or more accurately to pay for their high then beg family members to cover their rent so they wouldn't be evicted.
Well, yeah, but they are quite a small subset of the poor. I grew up in an Appalachia-type county west of Pittsburgh. You'd see these little shacks all over the place on country roads, people living in caves, etc, and the general mindset was that people liked living like that. Frankly, I find that hard to believe.
My own mother grew up in abject poverty, and she certainly didn't live that way after she got out of poverty.
Well, yeah, but they are quite a small subset of the poor. I grew up in an Appalachia-type county west of Pittsburgh. You'd see these little shacks all over the place on country roads, people living in caves, etc, and the general mindset was that people liked living like that. Frankly, I find that hard to believe.
I agree with you -- but still, did you see the Diane Sawyer interviews with people in Appalacia? They didn't like living in poverty, and certainly where they lived didn't have a lot of opportunity for employment (I believe one little girl said it was either the mines or selling meth) but more to the point I think it is environment. They have been poor for generations and don't see a real way out of it. Education is the key, but for a lot of people effected by generational poverty they either will not or cannot see that. And that is truly a shame.
But still you are right - they are definately in the minority.
We have some very close friends that prefer to live the life they live. Most would look at it as poverty. They make just enough to afford the essentials IE food, health, shelter. The rest they have to strive to afford (eating in a restaurant for example) They are one of the happiest family's I know. He is well educated, but prefers to work in a lower end job. she is educated, but chooses to stay home and take care of her wonderful kids and home.
I don't know if I can get on board with this. Before some government regulation, mills in the northeast used child labor. There were few work safety laws. I took an OSHA class a little while ago, and before OSHA, there were an average of 500 construction deaths a day. Working conditions are much better today because of a little government regulation.
Working conditions were bad because crony capitalists bribed government to allow those conditions to exist. In a truly Libertarian system more competitive companies would exist all trying to attract the best workers. A fair legal system with understandable laws to protect the individual would allow workers to protest dangerous working conditions and sue employers who would force them to work in dangerous situations of their own cause.
I have not found any data showing 500 construction deaths a day though.
We have some very close friends that prefer to live the life they live. Most would look at it as poverty. They make just enough to afford the essentials IE food, health, shelter. The rest they have to strive to afford (eating in a restaurant for example) They are one of the happiest family's I know. He is well educated, but prefers to work in a lower end job. she is educated, but chooses to stay home and take care of her wonderful kids and home.
That would not begin to compare with the way my mother lived. A restaurant was out of the question. I doubt she ever went to one before she graduated from high school. My grandfather did not make enough to pay income tax. I could go on and on. There is a difference between living simply and living in abject poverty.
Libertarians, I'd like you to help me and others on C-D understand your views better. I understand one of the basic principles of Libertarians is that you prefer little or no government intervention in just about everything, but I'd like to learn more details.
What do you think government should do? Military, infrastructure?
Do you live in an area with a large or small population? If you don't live in a large city, do you think that's one of the main reasons why you are a Libertarian? Large cities generally need more government intervention.
What are your thoughts on the Republican party?
Do you think capitalism has any flaws? If so, what are they?
If you were the head of the Libertarian party, what would you do to make your party mainstream?
Thanks!
I support military for defensive wars only. We no longer need to have bases around the world, we don't need missle shields in Poland, and we shouldn't be fighting wars for oil.
As far as schools, I think we should have public schools. Education is a large part of our future, and all children need access to quality education. I don't think that we should be unionizing teachers, and should pay teachers by results, things of that nature.
Infrastructure should be paid for partially by tolls. I know people hate toll roads, but interstates should all be toll roads. I'm against speed limits being set as low as they are. If you can't drive 90 mph on a 4 lane highway in the middle of no where, with cars that are made using todays technology, then you shouldn't be driving.
As far as the economy, I think that the best thing government can do is set up boundries. Let buisnesses fail, let them go bankrupt, put people out of work, thats part of the cycle of our economy, and the best will survive, and make for a better economy down the road. Propping up failing buisnesses doesn't work, and only sends the wrong messages to others.
We can't go crazy and let there be monopolies and things of that nature, hence the bumper statement before. Thats when things function better. Government sets up boundries, and lets everything else fall where it will.
Republicans removed those bumpers, and thats why we got the credit default swaps, and the housing bubble bursting like we did. They did to much deregulation, which can be a problem. Democrats have been following the same policies, and making them worse by getting deeper into debt right now. Stop borrowing money for wars we can't afford to fight. I say we finish Afghanistan, but we should pull out of Iraq asap.
Remember, like the other parties, libertarians have people who are extreme, and those that are centrist. I'm for some social programs, I think national healthcare is a good thing, I think that social security is a good thing, but I strongly disagree with government stepping into social matters, and I strongly disagree with bail outs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). They screwed up, although their lending standards were stricter than most banks. If I remember correctly the lending standards were deregulated 20 times during Bush presidency to make sure anyone would qualify for a loan. Heck, he said it himself "I am on a mission to put 5 million poor blacks and hispanics into their first homes". He was not the first say such things though because Reagan and Clinton said those things too. 
