The train wreck of bad debt meets the Saint Paddy's Day Parade of bacchanalian excess at the grade-crossing of destiny.

So what does anyone expect from the criminal cabal that stole 2 elections and cheered on ENRON all the way to the end?

GREAT CRIMES DEMAND EVEN GREATER CRIMINALITY!

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

I'm sure it's no coincidence that the same regulations that were put in place *after* the '29 crash/depression/economic downturn were the ones being dismantled by the government-is-bad crow. You know, the ones that provided oversight and check measures pertaining to interest rates, banking practices, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's time for REregulation, not deregulation. Robber barons and depressions. History repeating itself indeed...

How to keep that Yukon Denali fueled up enough for the 20 trips to the mall this coming week.

Bank shmank, I've been considering cashing out my 401-k.

little bear @ 4:

FBush @ 2:

It doesn't take an economist to understand why its happening.

Voters elected representatives whose only interest is the corporate bottom
line. They elected a commander in chief because they felt that
they could have a beer with him.

With all that's happening across Wall Street, we get video of a president
doing soft shoe at the WH. Or singing parody songs about a traitorous chief of staff.
And on and on and on...

Don't kid yourself - chimpy did not win those 2 elections and the majority of Americans did not want to "have a beer" with an obnoxious AWOL alcoholic/cocaine addict.

Just one of many lies that was used to divert attention from the vote fraud.

Even I have made the same error but, it was election fraud, not vote fraud. All in all, I got your point.

I want to know why we've had this continuous system of various ponzi schemes of the last 20 years?
First the S&L crisis. Money was dumped in fake banks with hopes of making a quick buck.
Then the stock market. All you had to do was dump every bit of your life savings and any equity you had in your house into the stock market and kick back and make 80%. Then the housing mess where you bought and sold your home overnite to make a quick buck.
This all reminds me of the Enron mess. Those guys took money and moved it around to different places and each time the money stopped at a certain place, the investment value went up. They created these shell companies that promised outrageous returns and as along as the money was still moving from one place to another, fake riches were being created on top of the new wealth that was chasing these investments. As long as they were one step ahead of the investigators, they were safe.
I'm sorry if that doesn't make total sense. But to me, it just seems like rich people are able to con us into investing our hard earned dollars into various "investments" that promise great wealth with very little effort and then these "bubbles" are created that pop and the only people that are hurt from the "pop" are the common folks like us because we were told "just invest your money, don't ask questions, it's stupid not to invest, you're losing out, dump all your wealth". So we dump everything we have and they sell us this piece of paper that really is of no value for all our money and they take that money and keep it and the only way you survive is by finding someone more stupid than you to keep selling this piece of paper to.
So any wealth that was earned and created by 50 years of hard work and union wages in the mid 1900s is being taken back by the rich people thru these crazy schemes.
I'm just sick of it. Rich people are the real enemy and they continue to steal and rob us blind and we blame it on the Muslims, the blacks, whoever. People should not be allowed to have more than a basic staple of goods until everyone on this planet is of equal standing. But that will never happen. There's nothing wrong with working and earning and deserving what you get. But that should come after everyone else is taken care of.

I am soooo sick of hearing how 'we' have no money for children's medical care, yet 'we' can bail out a Fortune 50 company that took risks it should have known better than to do.

Privatize the profits, socialize the 'bailout'. Welfare is only for those at the top. Screw everyone else. We're fast approaching a point were more than 50% of the population isn't buying anything that the *don't* need to survive.

Nice try in your attempt to paint "free-market" capitalism as the villain.

Milt Friedman proved--literally, with data--that the Federal Reserve caused the Depression by constricting the money supply. Ben Bernanke has admitted Friedman was right.

The problem wasn't the markets. The recession was caused by speculation--and you just can't legislate good judgment no matter how hard you try.

Also, had the GOVERNMENT not reduced the money supply by about a third of its total value after the 1929 crash, then the market would have corrected itself. But once your GOVERNMENT intervened and tried to take action, it caused a panic which resulted in depositors withdrawing their funds, which only made the economic situation worse.

You pretend to know the facts, but you only show that you haven't researched the topic well enough to understand what really happened. And because you have failed to do that, you offer up the same solution that caused the last depression: to wit, you preach government intervention where absolutely none is needed.

The "free-market" is not the cause. Stupid investors buying into hype and not researching their positions are the ones to blame. It happened with buying on margins in the 20s. It happened again in the past 6 years with Time, Newsweek, et al. extolling the gobs of money to be made in the housing market, an industry where liquidity is not easily achivable if it takes a hit.

Instead of letting the people who jumped in head first take their licks and learn their lessons, you instead desire to save them from themselves. This only encourages more of the same behavior in the future. It's called setting a precedent. Government shouldn't be bailing out any bad business choices, whether for the people or for corporations. Like a trapeeze artist working without a net, if you let the market fix itself people have plenty of incentive to regulate their financial affairs much more carefully.

Ron @ 10:

little bear @ 4:

FBush @ 2:

It doesn't take an economist to understand why its happening.

Voters elected representatives whose only interest is the corporate bottom
line. They elected a commander in chief because they felt that
they could have a beer with him.

With all that's happening across Wall Street, we get video of a president
doing soft shoe at the WH. Or singing parody songs about a traitorous chief of staff.
And on and on and on...

Don't kid yourself - chimpy did not win those 2 elections and the majority of Americans did not want to "have a beer" with an obnoxious AWOL alcoholic/cocaine addict.

Just one of many lies that was used to divert attention from the vote fraud.

Even I have made the same error but, it was election fraud, not vote fraud. All in all, I got your point.

There was VOTE FRAUD TOO and it and the lying liars in the MSM (with their false 'beer factor" and "energized vote" memes) made it all possible.

Unregulated, free-market capitalism! Woohoooo!

Please stop it.

Corporate welfare & protectionism, bank & corporate bailouts, fiat currency, market, rate & currency manipulations, heavy taxation + deficit spending & endless wars have nothing to free-market capitalism. Nothing. Literally.

The whole debate about lightly regulated or completely free-markets versus heavily controlled markets to protect the common good is a valid one. But saying that America's economic woes are the result of unfettered free-market capitalism is like saying that the Iraq war is going badly because Democracy is a failure.

Democracy and capitalism are marketing slogans used and abused by a morally and fiscally bankrupt government that is too stupid to know what they actually mean, and too corrupt to care.

FBush @ 9:

Don't kid yourself - chimpy did not win those 2 elections and the majority of Americans did not want to "have a beer" with an obnoxious AWOL alcoholic/cocaine addict.

The fact that Bush and his gang of thieves got more than 1% of the vote in
'04 is unbelievable. (One percent being the only segment of the population that benefited from
his policies during the first four years.)

The 2000 was obvious - should never have come down to a 2004. Blame the voters if you want - BUT THEY DID NOT ELECT THE SMIRKING CHIMP.
I know of too many morons who "liked" him more than Kerry.

No doubt there was fraud in Ohio but if we had an informed population, Bush would have never
gotten in in 2000.

Blame the voters all you want - the criminal cabal BEHIND the election with the help of the MSM. Why are you so willing to give them a "free pass"?

Does it make you feel better about your self to blame a faceless mass and pretend to be on the "high ground"?

Deregulation. Plain and simple.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...

And now the banks are begging for government handouts to save them. And the banks are so big, if they fail they swamp other banks and the entire economy. All do to deregulation.

They've privatized gains and socialized losses. You know, because they believe in the sanctity of the free-market.

Charles Hess @ 6:

People who put their money in these risky ventures should be the ones who suffer when they go under. That's free-market capitalism. The Fed buying up bad debt to keep these shady operations solvent is socialism.

no that's fascism

i got apples... 5 cents each. (One thing thats different I think typewriters had cents signs.)

Dave M. @ 16:

The problem wasn't the markets. The recession was caused by speculation --

bubble time, just the markets reorganizing themselves, yes its bad for some, most are suffering under just another boom bust election scam cycle.
this time its the middle classes who are ripe for the plucking by vulture capitalists calling in their 'loans'

and you just can't legislate good judgment no matter how hard you try.

but you can regulate out the worst of the sharks from eating up small people via deceptive practices.
and put in place financial penalties and prison sentences for the worst of the money crooks out there.

but of course the stoopid Retardians got the bust boom cycle wrong, normally you arrange the boom to happen before an election, and the bust after...

Some of us learned about this impending event years ago from people with great foresight and understanding of how money works such Robert Kiyosaki and Mike Maloney and tried to tell people on posting board such as this.

All the Bush methane breathing wing-nuts scoffed and pointed to the great boom Bush helped create as if he were the sole reason for it. Now they are eating crow, but at a premium price.

VegasRage @ 34:

All the Bush methane breathing wing-nuts scoffed and pointed to the great boom Bush helped create as if he were the sole reason for it. Now they are eating crow, but at a premium price.

And they are taking a lot of other people down with them.

little bear @ 22:

FBush @ 9:

Don't kid yourself - chimpy did not win those 2 elections and the majority of Americans did not want to "have a beer" with an obnoxious AWOL alcoholic/cocaine addict.

The fact that Bush and his gang of thieves got more than 1% of the vote in
'04 is unbelievable. (One percent being the only segment of the population that benefited from
his policies during the first four years.)

The 2000 was obvious - should never have come down to a 2004. Blame the voters if you want - BUT THEY DID NOT ELECT THE SMIRKING CHIMP.
I know of too many morons who "liked" him more than Kerry.

No doubt there was fraud in Ohio but if we had an informed population, Bush would have never
gotten in in 2000.

Blame the voters all you want - the criminal cabal BEHIND the election with the help of the MSM. Why are you so willing to give them a "free pass"?

Does it make you feel better about your self to blame a faceless mass and pretend to be on the "high ground"?

That "faceless mass" was more than 50% of the population that couldn't separate spin from
the facts about what has been happening to our economy for eight years.
The MSM and its DC Cocktail Circuit is certainly to blame for the pass that Bush has gotten.

But there were just tooooooooooooo many signs that Bush was unfit for the office for the voting public to be given a pass for casting even a SINGLE vote for this buffoon.

ep3 @ 12:

I want to know why we've had this continuous system of various ponzi schemes of the last 20 years?
First the S&L crisis. Money was dumped in fake banks with hopes of making a quick buck.
Then the stock market.

"The next bubble: Priming the markets for tomorrow's big crash" by ...
There are a number of plausible candidates for the next bubble, but only a few meet all the criteria. Health care must expand to meet the needs of the aging ...
www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908

little bear @ 18:

Ron @ 10:

little bear @ 4:

FBush @ 2:

Don't kid yourself - chimpy did not win those 2 elections and the majority of Americans did not want to "have a beer" with an obnoxious AWOL alcoholic/cocaine addict.

Just one of many lies that was used to divert attention from the vote fraud.

Even I have made the same error but, it was election fraud, not vote fraud. All in all, I got your point.

There was VOTE FRAUD TOO and it and the lying liars in the MSM (with their false 'beer factor" and "energized vote" memes) made it all possible.

Vote fraud is when the voter tries to vote illegally, election fraud is when the results of the votes are changed illegally.

I personaly don't invest in my companies 401k program. Since the 80's, what underlying value has driven the stock market to it's current value? Me thinks none. Nothing but speculation. The price being paid for stocks cannot continue to go up indefinately. The baby boomers are pretty much the only ones investing in their 401k's. My kids can't. They don't get paid enough. As more and more boomers are let go, retire, die, whatever, where will the money come from to keep values where they are? Once the boomers realize you can't eat stock, you can't swallow it to control blood pressure, it won't heat your home, then what? Returns are so low the only real option is to sell it. To whom? I think inflation plays into this in a huge way also. If prices rise 10% a year, where does that money come from? The company I work for does not give out raises anywhere near that level. So, with everything so damned expensive this will put even MORE preasure on people to NOT put money in their 401K's.

Dave M. fuck the "free market" and fuck you. I am sick and tired of this crap. Capitalism will eat everyone and every thing until there is nothing left without serious government regulation. I don't like living in a world where greed is the god that everyone is supposed to idealize. Countries are formed to set the rules for business and the most greedy among us are all ways trying to eliminate or just break those rules. You want no rules on business because you think you will be one of the ruling elite. Greed is not good.

In the meantime, Fbush, the criminals keep getting away with the looting and destroy our constitutional government so that they won't be held accountable (and can keep looting).

And you get to say, "I told you so" - great answer to a complex problem.

The public, fortunately, doesn't understand how bad the situation is. If it did, we might have a real panic on our hands.

RayC Hussein @ 46:

Dave M. fuck the "free market" and fuck you. I am sick and tired of this crap. Capitalism will eat everyone and every thing until there is nothing left without serious government regulation. I don't like living in a world where greed is the god that everyone is supposed to idealize. Countries are formed to set the rules for business and the most greedy among us are all ways trying to eliminate or just break those rules. You want no rules on business because you think you will be one of the ruling elite. Greed is not good.

Thinking the very economic forces that create these economic problems will somehow "solve" them is the definition of insanity - keep give dave the business - the ignorant rantings of that crowd need to be pounced on.

tyree @ 49:

takeing my money out of the bank!

gold is around $1000 oz, in the early 80s it reached an all time high of $850 oz which is aprox $2200 in current inflation adjusted dollars.
it can / could / maybe / will go higher, if things get worse than 1981.

FBush @ 2:

It doesn't take an economist to understand why its happening.

Voters elected representatives whose only interest is the corporate bottom
line. They elected a commander in chief because they felt that
they could have a beer with him.

With all that's happening across Wall Street, we get video of a president
doing soft shoe at the WH. Or singing parody songs about a traitorous chief of staff.
And on and on and on...

Hind-sight is 20/20 - too bad your only getting a good look at your own ass!

We were screaming about that problem long before we got to this point...so to bring it up now = too little too late!

Now we need to fight the powers that be so we can stop their corporate greed and their BS "freemarket" dealings.

Unfortunately people voting for the guy they would like to have a beer with is nothing new. We live in a country of apathetic nincompoops who care more about their pocketbook then who is leading our country and our economy. Look it took most people loosing their homes before we started see a real turn out at the polls.

that's why I love when I hear some idiot say "America is the greatest country in the world!" - and I ask "what have we been doing lately that is so great?" - and nobody can give me an answer, they usually just get mad that I would have the balls to ask such a question about America! Sorry people, I am a realist and I do not lie to myself about the kind of people we have in this country. A lot of us a good hard working people who pay attention to politics because we want the world to be a better place...but far more of us couldn't care less!

L.A. Confidential @ 50:

The public, fortunately, doesn't understand how bad the situation is. If it did, we might have a real panic on our hands.

They understand what is going on but it is more than denial, it is general helplessness based on sloth.
The G.P. want to believe that the 1/3 of the population that vote in elections are putting sound representatives in office to care for the interest of the 2/3 that would rather drink a beer or smoke a joint than vote for their own interst.
They know but are too busy on their personal path to self destruction to care what the future will be for their kids..........generally speaking of course.

Radically Moderate @ 58:

L.A. Confidential @ 50:

The public, fortunately, doesn't understand how bad the situation is. If it did, we might have a real panic on our hands.

They understand what is going on but it is more than denial, it is general helplessness based on sloth.
The G.P. want to believe that the 1/3 of the population that vote in elections are putting sound representatives in office to care for the interest of the 2/3 that would rather drink a beer or smoke a joint than vote for their own interst.
They know but are too busy on their personal path to self destruction to care what the future will be for their kids..........generally speaking of course.

I would be interested to know how many US citizens are disenfranchised from voting due to not being able to register,
lack of suitable ID, 2nd class felon citizen, or scared away from voting stations.
being a British citizen, LPR in the US and soon to be a US citizen,
I find the 'felon' idea and system ridiculous and detestable beyond belief, unworthy of a modern democracy.

Krugman is dead wrong!

If the economy needs stimulating; give it to the common people,not the banks.

No money for billionaires!

Very well said!
ep3 @ 12:

I want to know why we've had this continuous system of various ponzi schemes of the last 20 years?
First the S&L crisis. Money was dumped in fake banks with hopes of making a quick buck.
Then the stock market. All you had to do was dump every bit of your life savings and any equity you had in your house into the stock market and kick back and make 80%. Then the housing mess where you bought and sold your home overnite to make a quick buck.
This all reminds me of the Enron mess. Those guys took money and moved it around to different places and each time the money stopped at a certain place, the investment value went up. They created these shell companies that promised outrageous returns and as along as the money was still moving from one place to another, fake riches were being created on top of the new wealth that was chasing these investments. As long as they were one step ahead of the investigators, they were safe.
I'm sorry if that doesn't make total sense. But to me, it just seems like rich people are able to con us into investing our hard earned dollars into various "investments" that promise great wealth with very little effort and then these "bubbles" are created that pop and the only people that are hurt from the "pop" are the common folks like us because we were told "just invest your money, don't ask questions, it's stupid not to invest, you're losing out, dump all your wealth". So we dump everything we have and they sell us this piece of paper that really is of no value for all our money and they take that money and keep it and the only way you survive is by finding someone more stupid than you to keep selling this piece of paper to.
So any wealth that was earned and created by 50 years of hard work and union wages in the mid 1900s is being taken back by the rich people thru these crazy schemes.
I'm just sick of it. Rich people are the real enemy and they continue to steal and rob us blind and we blame it on the Muslims, the blacks, whoever. People should not be allowed to have more than a basic staple of goods until everyone on this planet is of equal standing. But that will never happen. There's nothing wrong with working and earning and deserving what you get. But that should come after everyone else is taken care of.

ferrofluid @ 60:

Radically Moderate @ 58:

L.A. Confidential @ 50:

The public, fortunately, doesn't understand how bad the situation is. If it did, we might have a real panic on our hands.

They understand what is going on but it is more than denial, it is general helplessness based on sloth.
The G.P. want to believe that the 1/3 of the population that vote in elections are putting sound representatives in office to care for the interest of the 2/3 that would rather drink a beer or smoke a joint than vote for their own interst.
They know but are too busy on their personal path to self destruction to care what the future will be for their kids..........generally speaking of course.

You offer many categories there that together might add up to 3-5%.
My post at#58 was more of a dope slap to those who could get involved with maintaining their station in life for themselves and their kids but would rather crash on the couch and watch reruns of Gilligans Island.

I would be interested to know how many US citizens are disenfranchised from voting due to not being able to register,
lack of suitable ID, 2nd class felon citizen, or scared away from voting stations.
being a British citizen, LPR in the US and soon to be a US citizen,
I find the 'felon' idea and system ridiculous and detestable beyond belief, unworthy of a modern democracy.

tyree @ 65:

ferrofluid @ 54:

tyree @ 49:

takeing my money out of the bank!

gold is around $1000 oz, in the early 80s it reached an all time high of $850 oz which is aprox $2200 in current inflation adjusted dollars.
it can / could / maybe / will go higher, if things get worse than 1981.

i got a little story to tell thats true! in 64 my brother and i with a few friends climbed the superstition mountains in arizona , looking for the lost dutchmans gold mine, it was mostly just for a lark, after we came down we spotted an old prospector setting in an old rocking chair by a small mine shaft, we walked over to him ,thier was a sighn over the entrence it said BLUE BIRD GOLD MINE! WE GOT INTO A CONVERSATION WITH HIM AND ASKED IS THIER REALLY GOLD IN THAT MINE? HELL YES HE REPLIED , PUZZELED WHY HE WAS JUST SETTING THERE rocking in that chair i asked well why arent you busy digging that gold out , he spit and said we,ll sonny i can get that gold out now and its only 35 dollars an ounce here , or i can get it out and smuggle that gold into mexico and take a chance of getting sent to prison if i get caught, he spit again smiled and said or i can set here on my ass and some day that golds going to be worth 800 dollars an ounce!!we all laughed and thought he.d been setting in the sun to long, well guess he knew something we didnt know!!!!!!!!!like nixon would send henry kissinger to the mid east and encourage the mid east countrys to form an oil cartell so that they could strangle us with thier power to control oil, before kissinger did that a loaf of bread was 25cents and gas was cheap a yr later bread was a dollar , so nixon was the prick who first fucked us good!!!!!!

Great story Tyree. You have had some great adventures in your life.
I've always maintained that the adventure is in the journey rather than the destination.
Of course returning to tell the tail counts for something too.

I agree with those who correctly point out that it isn't deregulation but regulation that caused this crisis. The Feds being the most culpable back in the Great Depression and now.

I mean what do you think is going on now. The banks made bad business decisions and they should go bankrupt. But the Feds, a regulatory body, is bailing them out. Of course you will hear the both Democrats and Republicans will talk about protecting the homeowners, but that is code for the lenders/bankers.

People need to start to think for themselves. I challenge anyone to name one regulation that could have prevented this crisis...just one...if deregulation is the culprit.

tyree @ 49:

takeing my money out of the bank!

No no no no! That is silly. Don't be silly. Your bank is just fine...just like Bearsterns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUkbdjetlY8

Chris H. @ 71:

tyree @ 49:

takeing my money out of the bank!

No no no no! That is silly. Don't be silly. Your bank is just fine...just like Bearsterns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUkbdjetlY8

well the thing is!while banks may be insured by fdic thiers no guarantee when if your bank goes under when youll get your money back, it could be if at all ten yrs after they close the doors , im going to get pretty hungry waiting even if i lived that long!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Radically Moderate @ 72:

tyree @ 69:

hi radically , thnx im sure many think im just an old fool whos lived to long , but your right ive seen a lot in my 73 yrs ive seen a depreshion ,seen the hobos rideing the rails watched the destitute pack thier belongings on thier old model tees and head west into the great unknown, guess some died on the way , saw thoes fright trains with thoes hobos change to troop trains and flat cars loaded with tanks and other war eqipment , waved to the soldiers looking from the passenger trains as they made thier way to the war, was one of thoes sailors being waved at by children as they watched us going on to the korean war , god its all history now , i feel so old !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My Dad was in the Navy during the Korean war, I believe that he was on the USS Borey and cruised the coast blowing up targets heading north and hitting the same targets heading south again. He had many pictures of Korean streets,some real 3rd world poverty.

uss borey , was a destroyer as i recall , and i was on the ozbourn , im sure we fired on the same targets many times, destroyermen are a tough breed as destroyers are sacrifice ships in war and so are thier crews, we werent called the hooligan navy for nothing, if your old mans still alive send him my salute for a job well done!!!!!!!!!

tyree @ 75:

Radically Moderate @ 72:

tyree @ 69:

hi radically , thnx im sure many think im just an old fool whos lived to long , but your right ive seen a lot in my 73 yrs ive seen a depreshion ,seen the hobos rideing the rails watched the destitute pack thier belongings on thier old model tees and head west into the great unknown, guess some died on the way , saw thoes fright trains with thoes hobos change to troop trains and flat cars loaded with tanks and other war eqipment , waved to the soldiers looking from the passenger trains as they made thier way to the war, was one of thoes sailors being waved at by children as they watched us going on to the korean war , god its all history now , i feel so old !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My Dad was in the Navy during the Korean war, I believe that he was on the USS Borey and cruised the coast blowing up targets heading north and hitting the same targets heading south again. He had many pictures of Korean streets,some real 3rd world poverty.

uss borey , was a destroyer as i recall , and i was on the ozbourn , im sure we fired on the same targets many times, destroyermen are a tough breed as destroyers are sacrifice ships in war and so are thier crews, we werent called the hooligan navy for nothing, if your old mans still alive send him my salute for a job well done!!!!!!!!!

It was a Destroyer. He passed away a couple of years ago. He was also a WWll veteran who saw South Pacific action, but thanks for the sentiment.

tyree @ 78:

ferrofluid @ 76:

tyree @ 69:

hi radically , thnx im sure many think im just an old fool whos lived to long , but your right ive seen a lot in my 73 yrs ive seen a depreshion ,seen the hobos rideing the rails watched the destitute pack thier belongings on thier old model tees and head west into the great unknown, guess some died on the way , saw thoes fright trains with thoes hobos change to troop trains and flat cars loaded with tanks and other war eqipment , waved to the soldiers looking from the passenger trains as they made thier way to the war, was one of thoes sailors being waved at by children as they watched us going on to the korean war , god its all history now , i feel so old !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

same with all the stuff going on now, history or in GWBs case tragic comedy bordering on farce,
something to make the future historians chuckle and shake their heads at.
You have seen the best and worst of Presidents, FDR JFK etc, Nixon, Bush 41 and 43, something not many of us can say.
Might be a good idea to write a book say on perspectives on Presidents or similar, a warning to future generations.

well ive been told by some on here the same thing but my times close to an end and ive never concidered myself to be exceptional or worth a book, but the times were exceptional that i lived through , and id not change them for any times to come, or the people ive known all of whom mostly are gone now, ive even shook hands with chang cisheck and his wife madam chang when my ship helped bring the chinese communist prisoners of war to formosa when they refused to go back to red china, i know i spelled changs name wrong , anyway its nice to share your experiences to any who are interested!!!!!!!!

Its worth writing an essay or a start to a book, history isnt just the big players, but unfortunately thats what most of the recorded stuff is.
The dark ages and Medieval periods were not that dark, but just that non kings didnt have much access to paper and record keepers/ historians.

It doesn’t take an economist to understand why its happening.

Voters elected representatives whose only interest is the corporate bottom
line

-------------------

Inflation begets deflation.

The lack of a corporate bottom line drove Bear Stearns to bankruptcy. Half of the employees may lose thier jobs in the buyout.

Contrary to popular belief, the stock market crash of 1929 wasn’t the defining moment of the Great Depression. What turned an ordinary recession into a civilization-threatening slump was the wave of bank runs that swept across America in 1930 and 1931.

--------------

Why were there bank runs? Debt was collapsing. Deflation of a record credit bubble is now underway, which is why the FED is panicking.

Seems to me that a lot of factors contributed to this problem, and most could have been regulated so as to not cause any problems.

1st and foremost was that lenders were making loans without consideration of whether the borrower had the capacity to repay. This was because the mortgage was then consolidated into a security that a 3rd party would buy, so the lender was not directly impacted by non-payment. This could be mitigated if any mortgage, even upon assignment, remains encumbered with consumer protection defenses against unfair or deceptive practices. For example, I can sue my broker for an unsuitable investment, so a borrower should be able to raise the defense that he was hoodwinked into an unsuitable loan.

2nd, the housing market became somewhat of an investment arena. Non-recourse mortgages in combination with no money down arrangements meant that a real estate speculator could buy a property and pocket the gain, but walk away without any losses if the property value fell. Now, it is proposed that the losses be socialized, with the tax payers picking up the tab. The non-recourse loan was no problem for the lender because, again, the loan was bundled into mortgage backed securities and sold to unwitting investors.

3rd, some lenders were getting appraisers to inflate the value of properties in order to permit a larger mortgage be made then would otherwise be the case. If we can criminalize marijuana smoking, then the inflating of property values by appraisers could also be criminalized.

4th, and the biggie is the rating agencies and the ratings assigned to these mortgage backed securities. These securities were assigned a rating of "AAA", which permitted these securities to be sold for a price that didn't include the risks. This was why the sub prime mortgage business was profitable for the participants and is the essence of the swindle. It doesn't strike me that these particular securities warranted such a rating. We need laws that provide for long prison terms for those who willfully grade securities with a rating with knowledge that the security wasn't entitled to such a rating in order to defraud investors.

After the depression, we had regulation and we were doing fine. The resumption of laissez-faire economics has caused the problems we're facing today, and as Krugman points out, we have forgotten our history. However, Bernanke is reported to be extremely learned in the happenings of the depression.

I think one thing exacerbate the problem. A problem is a credit crunch, and "borrow and spend" economic has put the federal government on a borrowing binge. Perhaps, if the federal government wasn't running these deficits, there would be more money to be lent elsewhere. We really need to examine whether the U.S. needs to continue spending 50% of the worlds expenditure on the military.

ferrofluid @ 79:

tyree @ 78:

ferrofluid @ 76:

tyree @ 69:

same with all the stuff going on now, history or in GWBs case tragic comedy bordering on farce,
something to make the future historians chuckle and shake their heads at.
You have seen the best and worst of Presidents, FDR JFK etc, Nixon, Bush 41 and 43, something not many of us can say.
Might be a good idea to write a book say on perspectives on Presidents or similar, a warning to future generations.

well ive been told by some on here the same thing but my times close to an end and ive never concidered myself to be exceptional or worth a book, but the times were exceptional that i lived through , and id not change them for any times to come, or the people ive known all of whom mostly are gone now, ive even shook hands with chang cisheck and his wife madam chang when my ship helped bring the chinese communist prisoners of war to formosa when they refused to go back to red china, i know i spelled changs name wrong , anyway its nice to share your experiences to any who are interested!!!!!!!!

Its worth writing an essay or a start to a book, history isnt just the big players, but unfortunately thats what most of the recorded stuff is.
The dark ages and Medieval periods were not that dark, but just that non kings didnt have much access to paper and record keepers/ historians.

You're totally wrong. The CHURCH had access to scribes. They had a monopoly on communication from 400 Ad until 1350's When Gutenberg made the press.

All communication, all propoganda went thru the church. and we are STILL not free from their influence yet.

Honestly, I can't see it any other way. Money is an illusion. It's paper. Made up by "the Fed" which is a central bank of international bankers. They do what they want for power, not wealth. They are beyond government.

"I saw a beast rising out of the sea with ten horns and SEVEN HEADS...with a blasphemous name written across his heads"

The money is the beast. Quit worshiping it.

After the depression, we had regulation and we were doing fine. The resumption of laissez-faire economics has caused the problems we’re facing today, and as Krugman points out, we have forgotten our history. However, Bernanke is reported to be extremely learned in the happenings of the depression.

---------------

Ignoring the forest for the trees.

Inflation/deflation. A cycle. The resumption of lassez-faire economics is part of completing the cycle. It is a symptom, not the cause.

We have forgotten the history, as those who were a part of that history, no longer are in charge. Thus the cycle repeats.

Bernanke is repeating the same mistakes that occured in 1930. Liquidity is not the problem. Bear Stearns failed after more liquidity was made available by the FED.

If it meant anything that Bernanke is so extremely learned on The Great Depression, he would not have been panicking to create one special lending facility after another over a period of weeks. Doing so, Bernanke has turned the FED into a moral hazard. That is a negative, not a positive.

It’s not free-market capitalism that caused this problem, but speculation and government tinkering via the Federal Reserve… Also, look up the Jon Stewart / Alan Greenspan interview from a few months back.

The real insanity is thinking the Fed can fix the problem when its always been the root cause.

Like a true believer in “free markets” - you don’t let the truth get in the way.

Its hillarious when those that proclaim the value of the free market and “invisible hand” don’t even see when the “invisible hand” slaps them in the face!

NONE OF THE ASSUMPTIONS that underlie the lies of a free market are true - ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THEM.

Free markets and a self-correcting invisible hand DO NOT EXIST because none of the simplifying assumptions used in 100 level economic course actually EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD.

-------------

That does not make them false, just because they are not practiced. Farmers want protection from foreign agricultural products and price supports. Workers want job protection. Businesses want monopolies. The FED wants to manipulate the money supply. Vested self interest.

A free economy is self correcting. It is the self correcting part that people are afraid of. So the economy is manipulated by monetary and fiscal policy. It still eventually corrects anyway. The FED has not eliminated the business cycle or recessions, it just warps cycles. Even a manipulated economy, corrects. So why artificially manipulate extremes, that result in extremes, than taking natural economic medicine when the natural self correcting market would dictate it?

I am waiting for the Libertarian Pauletts to tell us poor dumb country folk how government regulation makes things worse. How FDR made the 1929 depression much worse with his anti-American socialism big government programs. If we just take all the regulations off of business’s back then we would be living in the grand utopia that Capitalism can bring. I am waiting…….

Its not the Libertarians that hate FDR the most it the Republicans,
Paulians know that FDRs new deal was the right thing for the time, anything else would have caused misery.
Republicans just hate FDR and the idea of helping people period, theirs is the fascist weak to the wall mantra.

---------------

The depression lasted through the 1930's. Roosevelt failed to solve the problem. Do you think that anti-business regulation was conducive to creating jobs in the 1930's?

Isn’t it funny how the consumers are the ones that make the economy function and are going to get a advance on next years income tax to help the jump start the economy but we are the ones that see no real benefit from a tax system that takes from the masses to give to the top percentage of the nation trickle down does not work and hasn’t worked for 20+ yrs change the tax code and reregulate

---------------

The truth is that nothing works. Up cycle, down cycle. Inflation, deflation. If anything worked, there would never be a recession. A loaf of bread would always cost 29 cents, as there would be no inflation. Supply and demand are always subject to change however, thus prices and wages go up and down. Tax codes and rates also fluctuate. The size of government fluctuates. Roosevelt raised the top tax rate to 90%. Eventually, it had to go to the opposite extreme. The pendulum swings back and forth.

The Clinton era boom was part of the trickle down era of the last 20+ years. There won't be another boom like it until the next trickle down era. The 1920's and 1990's were similar eras.

The three G's. If you want "security" you need the three G's. A garden, gold, and a gun. Something I heard. Kinda makes sense though.

In a nutsheel, the whole problem is people, ALL PEOPLE, are just too fucking greedy, and living well beyond their means. The end.

There is more than enough for everyone, but not enough for everyone's greed.

Ron.j @ 97:

Isn’t it funny how the consumers are the ones that make the economy function and are going to get a advance on next years income tax to help the jump start the economy but we are the ones that see no real benefit from a tax system that takes from the masses to give to the top percentage of the nation trickle down does not work and hasn’t worked for 20+ yrs change the tax code and reregulate

---------------

The truth is that nothing works. Up cycle, down cycle. Inflation, deflation. If anything worked, there would never be a recession. A loaf of bread would always cost 29 cents, as there would be no inflation. Supply and demand are always subject to change however, thus prices and wages go up and down. Tax codes and rates also fluctuate. The size of government fluctuates. Roosevelt raised the top tax rate to 90%. Eventually, it had to go to the opposite extreme. The pendulum swings back and forth.

The Clinton era boom was part of the trickle down era of the last 20+ years. There won't be another boom like it until the next trickle down era. The 1920's and 1990's were similar eras.

The 1920s and the 1990's are only similar in the income disparity. Twenty-five years of systematic class warefare have destroyed the middle class of the US and the taken the income disparity back to what it was during the 1920's era of "Robber Baron Capitalism"... what economist call "the Gilded Age."

As economist Paul Krugman points out:

The great divergence: Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/

If you look on the income chart on that page you'll see that the disparity jump began with Reagan and his voodoo economics.

The question is now... what the hell do we do with the "bubble Economy" that Reagan brought in and getting the US back to being a producer nation and getting rid of trade deficits... (deficits and debt really do matter)

Economist Thomas Palley correctly analyzes the problem:

The Debt Delusion

A second big American interest-rate cut in a fortnight, alongside an economic stimulus plan that united Republicans and Democrats, demonstrates that US policymakers are keen to head off a recession that looks like the likely consequence of rising mortgage defaults and falling home prices. But there is a deeper problem that has been overlooked: the US economy relies upon asset price inflation and rising indebtedness to fuel growth.

Therein lies a profound contradiction. On one hand, policy must fuel asset bubbles to keep the economy growing. On the other hand, such bubbles inevitably create financial crises when they eventually implode.

This is a contradiction with global implications. Many countries have relied for growth on US consumer spending and investments in outsourcing to supply those consumers. If America’s bubble economy is now tapped out, global growth will slow sharply. It is not clear that other countries have the will or capacity to develop alternative engines of growth.

America’s economic contradictions are part of a new business cycle that has emerged since 1980. The business cycles of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush share strong similarities and are different from pre-1980 cycles. The similarities are large trade deficits, manufacturing job loss, asset price inflation, rising debt-to-income ratios, and detachment of wages from productivity growth.

Read on...

http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=99

Different Anonymous @ 5:

I'm sure it's no coincidence that the same regulations that were put in place *after* the '29 crash/depression/economic downturn were the ones being dismantled by the government-is-bad crow. You know, the ones that provided oversight and check measures pertaining to interest rates, banking practices, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's time for REregulation, not deregulation. Robber barons and depressions. History repeating itself indeed...

I have been telling everyone I know this for a couple of years. I am literally dumbstruck buy the number of people who still say we have to let the "market correct itself."

What Paul Krugman is doing here is trying to say to the world that his own ideology and beliefs can "fix things", when in reality it is his own beliefs that are the primary CAUSE for our declining economy.

It is high time that the world learns that Krugman is not an economist. He is a political hack. He does not stick to economic theory. Economic theory should be the study of acting MAN, not acting democrat or republican. He is a staunch biased partisan econo-hack.

He is a Keynesian, and for those who would like to know what this means, it means that he believes war and ANY government spending is good for an economy. He has said this on numerous occasions. It is economists like him that make war-mongering politicians feel comfortable about starting wars, because these politicians have the "intellectual support", very similar in nature to kings and princes who had the "church and clerical support" of long ago.

He also wants to socialize the economy. This is no understatement. He believes that the cause for the current recession is unregulated capitalism, when in reality unregulated capitalism would never have recessions. Proof? Recessions and depressions are MONETARY phenomena, they are not a "supply" phenomena. Recessions occur once the economy readjusts to the previous economic interference from the Federal Reserve in the form of monetary and credit EXPANSION. Recessions are not intrinsic to a free market economy, they are the inevitable result of artificially generated BOOM periods, which themselves are created by Fed monetary pumping. This pumping is enabled by lowering the interest rate below what the free market would have wanted. Alan Greenspan lowered the fed rate to 1% !!! back in 2003. This meant that HUGE sums of money were created out of thin air. Obviously money created out of nothing will be spent on something. In the latest pumping episode (they have been going on since 1913), all that extra money pumping went into the housing industry.

Now once the fed rate was raised back up to 5% in 2005, this meant that all the businesses that were either propped up or created on the basis of 1% interest rates, found that there was just no demand for it anymore. This is because the SOURCE of all that extra demand (Fed raising quantity of money out of thin air at a rapid pace), SLOWED DOWN. This is wht there was a "credit crunch". Credit crunches only occur if there was a PREVIOUS credit expansions. They don't just materialize out of nothing.

But what so many idiots in the media and in academia are doing is trying to convince the world that credit crunches and recessions are FREE MARKET PHENOMENA. This is because they are simply unable to take off their KEYNESIAN and/or CHICAGO SCHOOL blinders. They are absolutely convinced that governments interfering in the market (Keynesians), and Fed manipulation of money (Chicago-ites) are sound economic policies. Then when these policies fail (as the should according to the true nature of economics, that is, the study of acting man), they don't blame their own mistakes and ineptitude, they rather blame the market, because it didn't "react" the way they intended.

These dogmatists think the market is like a rat in a cage, where if you poke and torture the rate with a stick, that you can make it do what you want. When the rat reacts in ways that you did not expect, you blame the rat for being immoral and greedy. This is exactly how many people view the market, like it's some lab rat that requires interfering with.

What these pompous pseudo-intellectuals fail to see is that market is not simply a place for human greed. It is actually the fundamental manifestation of an advanced society that has found a way to harness self-interest (which will NEVER go away, contrary to the whining and wailing of people like Krugman) into a system that PRODUCES products and services that benefit the human race. The market is not something that can be managed and controlled, because the market is simply humans exchanging and cooperating with each other. It is a GOOD thing.

But retards like Krugman instead focuses on republicanism as an ideology and hates any and all policies the republicans come up with, and loves any policies that the democrats come up with. This should ring alarm bells, because serious intellectuals would stop this madness and say that everything should be judged on its OWN merits, based on economic ratiocination and understanding. Krugman instead manipulates and misrepresents policies according to WHO thought them up. This is the thinking of a crazy Marxist psychopath, that is, one who thinks that the thoughts and knowledge of a person comes from the group he or she belongs to, instead of the truth, which is that all knowledge comes from individuals. To think that thoughts are formed solely on the basis of "class" or group is tantamount to obliterating all those courageous folks who have lived under tyranny and were able to cut through the stench and fog of collectivism and derive original theories that benfit mankind.

If Krugman were alive in 1905, he would have looked at Albert Einstein's theories and discarded them, because Einstein was a Swiss patent clerk at the time. How could he have come up with relativity if he belonged to THAT group of people?

Krugman is a snake, a manipulator, and a liar. He should be IGNORED, not listened to. It is the people who think like he does that CAUSE economic crises such as the one we are facing.

ferrofluid @ 57:

Dave M. @ 53:

RayC Hussein @ 46:

Dave M. fuck the "free market" and fuck you. I am sick and tired of this crap. Capitalism will eat everyone and every thing until there is nothing left without serious government regulation. I don't like living in a world where greed is the god that everyone is supposed to idealize. Countries are formed to set the rules for business and the most greedy among us are all ways trying to eliminate or just break those rules. You want no rules on business because you think you will be one of the ruling elite. Greed is not good.

Wow... Make it personal, why don't ya? Were you one of the people that took that home loan not knowing what you were getting yourself into? Sounds like you just might be...

Why should I, or anyone else here, beforced to pay taxdollars out of our pockets to bail out you or your bank, hmm? And if we don't want to cooperate, what do we get for it? Threats of jailtime. Reeeeeal mature.

And I never said we don't need some rules. We just don't need more of them.

and of course we get down to the nitty gritty of realpolitik of government tax raising,
back to the feudal method of 'give me you money or else' says the nice man with a gun.
of course as anybody with an interest in tax methodology and politics knows, we never left the feudal age.
you refuse to pay your taxes, they jail you, you keep refusing they kill you, quick or slow your choice.

Yes, and if we have it your way, we go back to before feudalism: the stone age.

If you didn't pay taxes, you wouldn't have pockets. Unless you are willing to physically defend yourself from the thug next door.

Stop tossing bollocks around...

Daniel @ 108:

ferrofluid @ 57:

Dave M. @ 53:

RayC Hussein @ 46:

Wow... Make it personal, why don't ya? Were you one of the people that took that home loan not knowing what you were getting yourself into? Sounds like you just might be...

Why should I, or anyone else here, beforced to pay taxdollars out of our pockets to bail out you or your bank, hmm? And if we don't want to cooperate, what do we get for it? Threats of jailtime. Reeeeeal mature.

And I never said we don't need some rules. We just don't need more of them.

and of course we get down to the nitty gritty of realpolitik of government tax raising,
back to the feudal method of 'give me you money or else' says the nice man with a gun.
of course as anybody with an interest in tax methodology and politics knows, we never left the feudal age.
you refuse to pay your taxes, they jail you, you keep refusing they kill you, quick or slow your choice.

Yes, and if we have it your way, we go back to before feudalism: the stone age.

If you didn't pay taxes, you wouldn't have pockets. Unless you are willing to physically defend yourself from the thug next door.

Stop tossing bollocks around...

Well there's a large difference between state/city taxes which can go into things that are for the public good such as Fire/Police departments- and Federal Income tax which goes towards absolutely nothing for the average citizen. The logic that this country would collapse without heavy taxation is a joke. People would be much better off if they were able to keep more of the money they worked hard for- why are waiters/waitresses taxed on their tips for example? If they weren't- then it would be much easier for them to make a living.

Shoaib Qadri @ 110:

Well there's a large difference between state/city taxes which can go into things that are for the public good such as Fire/Police departments- and Federal Income tax which goes towards absolutely nothing for the average citizen. The logic that this country would collapse without heavy taxation is a joke. People would be much better off if they were able to keep more of the money they worked hard for- why are waiters/waitresses taxed on their tips for example? If they weren't- then it would be much easier for them to make a living.

Federal income tax: how about the judiciary? Or would you prefer local fiefdoms/tribes/gangs?
Federal: Taking care of natural resources. If you don't take care of it on some large scale, there will be war between your fiefdoms, no question. (Can anyone say "Iraq war"?)
"Heavy taxation"? That's completely and utterly relative. There are non-zero countries with higher taxation than the US, and people are not less happy.

Of course servers' tips should be taxed (if it is significant income, as you imply). If they weren't, surely it would be unfair on everyone else who is taxed on their income. Or do you want to do this even more arbitrarily than it already is?

Look, we can all agree that the large sums of cash we pay to feed the corporate-controlled federal government is largely a waste of money. However, it's tiresome to hear people want their property and legal rights protected but are unwilling to pay for it. Property is not a God-given right, no matter how strongly some feel about it.

The tax rate can never be too low, that's how greedy most people are. I'd be willing to bet you that if the tax rate were 1%, say, there would still be the same kind of outrage and tax dodging as we get today, and people still saying "heavy taxation". People (we) are incredibly hypocritical in this sense, and I say that from bitter experience...

D.

Shoaib Qadri @ 109:

Rasputin - Why do you always ignore all of the policies and actions of the Federal Reserve Bank? Why ignore the issues of monetary policy and the power of the Federal Reserve to inject large amounts into the money supply? Or do you somehow believe they've had no role in regulating and trying to control the market?

The problems caused by the Fed should be discussed and continuing to treat them as an organization that is infallible is the mistake.

I didn't ignore it... If you go to 103 Rasputin... you will see that I directly addressed it with the article on the "The Debt Delusion" by Economist Thomas Palley...

It pays to know the big picture of how things work and what makes them work that way before you start laying blame. The Fed and monetary policy is only part of the problem and that is what Palley lays out in his analysis:

The Debt Delusion

A second big American interest-rate cut in a fortnight, alongside an economic stimulus plan that united Republicans and Democrats, demonstrates that US policymakers are keen to head off a recession that looks like the likely consequence of rising mortgage defaults and falling home prices. But there is a deeper problem that has been overlooked: the US economy relies upon asset price inflation and rising indebtedness to fuel growth.

Therein lies a profound contradiction. On one hand, policy must fuel asset bubbles to keep the economy growing. On the other hand, such bubbles inevitably create financial crises when they eventually implode.

This is a contradiction with global implications. Many countries have relied for growth on US consumer spending and investments in outsourcing to supply those consumers. If America’s bubble economy is now tapped out, global growth will slow sharply. It is not clear that other countries have the will or capacity to develop alternative engines of growth.

America’s economic contradictions are part of a new business cycle that has emerged since 1980. The business cycles of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush share strong similarities and are different from pre-1980 cycles. The similarities are large trade deficits, manufacturing job loss, asset price inflation, rising debt-to-income ratios, and detachment of wages from productivity growth.

The new cycle rests on financial booms and cheap imports. Financial booms provide collateral that supports debt-financed spending. Borrowing is also supported by an easing of credit standards and new financial products that increase leverage and widen the range of assets that can be borrowed against. Cheap imports ameliorate the effects of wage stagnation.

This structure contrasts with the pre-1980 business cycle, which rested on wage growth tied to productivity growth and full employment. Wage growth, rather than borrowing and financial booms, fuelled demand growth. That encouraged investment spending, which in turn drove productivity gains and output growth.

The differences between the new and old cycle are starkly revealed in attitudes toward the trade deficit. Previously, trade deficits were viewed as a serious problem, being a leakage of demand that undermined employment and output. Since 1980, trade deficits have been dismissed as the outcome of free-market choices. Moreover, the Federal Reserve has viewed trade deficits as a helpful brake on inflation, while politicians now view them as a way to buy off consumers afflicted by wage stagnation.

The new business cycle also embeds a monetary policy that replaces concern with real wages with a focus on asset prices. Whereas pre-1980 monetary policy tacitly aimed at putting a floor under labor markets to preserve employment and wages, it now tacitly puts a floor under asset prices. This is not a matter of the Fed bailing out investors. Rather, the economy has become so vulnerable to declines in asset prices that the Fed is obliged to intervene to prevent them from inflicting broad damage.

There is a lot more and you should read it!

http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=99

The financial cascade that has produced bank failures is a direct result of deregulation and the Feds monetary policy that Reagan introduced in the 1980's to produce the "bubble Economy."

Notice that Palley also specifically mentions the Clinton administration and in the post on deregulation I mentioned that the Glass-Stegall Act repeal was in 1999... the GOP led congress served it up and Clinton... with some arm twisting by Robert Rubin, his treasury secretary... signed it into law.

If you want villains, I'll give you two of my favs...

Rubin twisted Clinton's arm on Glass Steagall's repeal and resigned one month later to many a raised eyebrow to take a senior position with Citigroup to cash in with the mortgages. Citigroup is one of the lenders who is next in line for a Bear Stearns type Bailout.

And the biggest weasel of the Lot... Alan Greenspan! Who testified before congress that the "subprime mortgages are creating just a little froth in the market" and in his 2005 testimony before the Senate said, "The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages are of a little concern, but they are adequately capitalized."

Every time he should have been throwing up signal flares... he minimized the problem that he had a hand in creating.

But for all of his actions... the financial meltdown would never have gotten as big as it has except for the repeal of the regulations that I mentioned. Repeal of Glass Steagall allowed the banks to securitize the mortgage debt into SIVs and CDOs and you wound up with the bad debt on the Tokyo exchange and in the UK.

There was always going to be a problem with hedge funds skirting banking regulations, but that one Act was the "firewall" put in place to prevent the banks from assuming too much risk after the depression and once removed... a trickle turned into a torrent.

The bailouts is presently at $600 Billion dollars and there are 14 other brokerages in line for bailouts. No central bank of any country in the world has ever absorbed so much bad debt and the mortgage defaults are due to increase geometrically in April, May and June... so the worst is yet to come.

Rasputin @ 111:

Shoaib Qadri @ 110:

Daniel @ 108:

ferrofluid @ 57:
Yes, and if we have it your way, we go back to before feudalism: the stone age.

If you didn't pay taxes, you wouldn't have pockets. Unless you are willing to physically defend yourself from the thug next door.

Stop tossing bollocks around...

Well there's a large difference between state/city taxes which can go into things that are for the public good such as Fire/Police departments- and Federal Income tax which goes towards absolutely nothing for the average citizen. The logic that this country would collapse without heavy taxation is a joke. People would be much better off if they were able to keep more of the money they worked hard for- why are waiters/waitresses taxed on their tips for example? If they weren't- then it would be much easier for them to make a living.

What rock did you crawl out from under?

Federal spending goes to the military... to defend the borders.

Aide to education... chances are, if you graduated High school... you did it with Federal Aide and most colleges get federal aide as well.

You don't have polio because contrary to popular belief, most vaccines like the polio vaccine were developed not by the pharmaceutical companies, but by research grants from the Federal Budget. The clinical trials for new generations of drugs are also paid for by Federal dollars through the FDA and NIH.

The Computer you are typing on was the direct result of the Space program, paid for by Federal Dollars. They had to make it small enough to get into a space capsule and the miniaturization projects produced the personal computer.

The Space program also directly produced over 500,000 new medical devices and the chances are that you and you family have had their health improved, if not saved by those devices that were developed with Federal Tax dollars.

The power that you use to drive your computer is from power plants built with Federal dollars... be they Hydroelectric damns, or nuclear, or coal, and yes even the wind and solar farms receive Federal subsidies.

Your grand parents and possibly even your parents have received medical treatments that they couldn't have afforded if it weren't for Medicare and yes... every hospital gets a large percentage of support from the Federal government, as do the medical schools where the nurses and doctors were trained.

I could go on but what is the point... in the face of ignorance like yours it won't make any difference.

Daniel @ 108:

ferrofluid @ 57:

Dave M. @ 53:

RayC Hussein @ 46:

Wow... Make it personal, why don't ya? Were you one of the people that took that home loan not knowing what you were getting yourself into? Sounds like you just might be...

Why should I, or anyone else here, beforced to pay taxdollars out of our pockets to bail out you or your bank, hmm? And if we don't want to cooperate, what do we get for it? Threats of jailtime. Reeeeeal mature.

And I never said we don't need some rules. We just don't need more of them.

and of course we get down to the nitty gritty of realpolitik of government tax raising,
back to the feudal method of 'give me you money or else' says the nice man with a gun.
of course as anybody with an interest in tax methodology and politics knows, we never left the feudal age.
you refuse to pay your taxes, they jail you, you keep refusing they kill you, quick or slow your choice.

Yes, and if we have it your way, we go back to before feudalism: the stone age.

If you didn't pay taxes, you wouldn't have pockets. Unless you are willing to physically defend yourself from the thug next door.

Stop tossing bollocks around...

I am going to have to agree with Shoaib Qadri on this one, Rasputin. The totality of federal income taxes go to nothing except pay the interest on the debt the government has borrowed. This is fact. Income taxes do not go to the military, the military is funded by massive borrowing and printing of money. If income taxes disappeared, the revenues of the government would be roughly the same as it was in 2000.

Daniel @ 113:

"[snip most of the polemics]"

Gee...thanks...

"It is a good thing, but only one of many social systems at work. Most things, including "the market", are not as simple as you like to make it sound."

Of course it is. Everything that is built and thought up by mankind can be reduced to very basic principles of individual human action. You are saying it's not that simple? What you are then saying is that nobody deserves to know what is going on, because it is too complex for you and me to grasp 100%. That's nihilism derived from Kant's critique of pure reason. That philosophy spawned irrational skepticism and the cultural devaluation of the individual. Since you are trying to understand the market like you understand say, chemistry or physics (which by the way is a fruitless effort), our lack of knowing the equations that allegedly govern the market is allegedly grounds for not making any effort whatsoever to understand it. The market CAN be understood, and the only way to understand it is to know how individual human action is about making one's state of being more favorable than if no action is taken. If you start with elementary principles such as this and work outwards, you can develop a complete and solid understanding of even complex inter-human phenomena such as the market.

"Even physical "laws" have their limits -- as Einstein, whom you mention later, proved."

Ahh, see? These "limits" you speak of are merely an abstracting of determining the boundries of human knowledge, beyond which is purely metaphysical and supernatural (as of today). But this does not contradict the fact that man nevertheless acts according to his or her own reasoning in order to arrive at a more favorable end state. When we talk about Earthly affairs, the fundamental aspect that the whole world shares is, to varying degrees, the material betterment of one's surroundings. The market is merely all of the associated components that go into individuals trading with one another.

"[Re: Krugman] I'm sorry, now you are sounding plainly ignorant, and discredit much of value you may have uttered before."

Ignorance presumes a lack of knowledge. You have to show where I am wrong before you can call me ignorant.

"It is quite essential in any thinking about sociology, that 'groups' and 'classes' do indeed have their own dynamics, to the point that the individuals cannot be modelled in absence of the group, or emergent, behaviour."

You see? You want to MODEL human behavior similar to modelling the natural sciences. But human behavior does not operate according to constant models or equations. Your claim that individuals cannot be modelled in the absence of the group is terribly Orwellian and, quite frankly, frightening to a cultural society. Did you know that you cannot speak of a group unless you speak of individuals, but you CAN speak of individuals without referring to groups? Humans are perfectly capable of living in solitude, for example Robinson Crusoe on a deserted island, someone living alone in the wilderness, or someone who goes alone on a cross country hiking trip. All of these things demolish your arbitrary claim that individuals are nothing without a group.

"Groups" and "Classes" mean nothing outside of the description of the individuals to which we attribute them as being a member of the group. Groups and classes in of themselves do not actually exist, they are merely a mental shortcut lazy intellectuals use to desribe people. For example, I could be curious and search to describe Mr X based on his own ideas, beliefs, and knowledge. Or, I could be lazy and just say he is a "Black man", because he just so happens to belong to a particular race.

I think what you have to do is understand that individuals, even though they can be INFLUENCED by others acting in a group, it does not mean that mankind is powerless to have differing views and thoughts. If that were true, we would never have gotten out of caves, because every advancement ever devised has always come out of one single individual first. The kind of discoveries in knowledge you think exists as group learning, can only be characterized as dogmatic "revelation", and discarded because of its impossibility in Earthly affairs. You seem to like traveling and learning about cultures, right? You really want to learn about the various cultures of the world. What I will tell you is that no matter which culture you observe, in each and every case you will find individuals acting in accordance to what they as individuals deem to be the best course of action. If you assume anything less than this you are literally obliterating those people who move away from certain "cultures" because they personally don't like it, or those who try to change the system from within because the majority of people think in error.

"The fact that "courageous folks" have cut through some of these dynamics ("stench ... of collectivism" -- Jesus Christ, where do you get this crap from??"

Certainly not the Bible, which I am guessing you got most of yours.

"Please, reference your sources."

Of course. Source: Me. Now that you know my source, will you be a typical irrational skeptic and ignore what I am saying (because it didn't come from supposed experts like war-mongering Krugman), or will you take it at face value, think about it (or not), and come to your own ideas on how this is wrong?

"does not invalidate the fact that group dynamic behaviour is extremely powerful."

Power is the ability of one individual to change the actions of other individuals. Sure, they could all be acting in similar ways and take orders from one or a few people. But this does not discount the fact that each of them are acting as individuals and acting in the way they think is best for themselves. You cannot deny this because it is an elementary fact like 2+2=4. When you say groups have power, you are simply saying that large numbers of individual people acting in unison can change the courses of actions of other individuals by either persuasion or force. If I was living in Nazi Germany, and I knew then what I know now, I could be the only person who does not believe in what everyone else is doing or thinking. The only true power over me would be a threatening of my life if I did not act in ways the majority wants me to act.

By cavalierly claiming that groups have power, but individuals don't, or if they did it is of a much lower potency and of no avail, what you are actually saying is that we are all powerless as individuals, when that is clearly not the case.

Rasputin @ 117:

"The government Hasn't even begun to pay one nickel of the debt yet... not one cent! That will come for the future generations and the wave of debt is turning into a tidal wave..."

They are paying interest you know. If they didn't, you would definitely hear on the 6 o'clock news that the government went bankrupt. What you are talking about is the fact that the government is not paying back the PRINCIPLE. They are rolling it over again and again, but the interest is still being paid. It's law you know.

"It doesn't surprise me that you would side with Shoaib Qadri"

I am not "siding" with him. I am siding with truth as much as I know it. Shoaib merely agrees.

"because you guys don't [k]now where things came from in the first place or where they are going..."

This may come as a shock to you, but nobody on Earth can know that! "Where things came from"? You mean like the Prime Mover, like God or something? "Where they are going"? Nobody can tell that 100% either. That's the future, which is not completely certain, but we can make judgments on likelihood. Is that what you mean? What do you mean by "things"?

"hell you don't even know what is happening now."

How utterly presumptuous and pompous of you to say such a thing.

"Your propensity for two dimensional thinking and sophistry is appalling."

Would you agree with me if I told you that this statement you just made shows you to be a sophist? Propensity? Two dimensional thinking? Appalling? Do you even know what these things mean?

Propensity is an inherent tendency to do one thing or the other, you presume to know that of me?

Two dimensional thinking...sounds like you just finished reading Hegel and now you are trying to find a place to inject that philosophy, which is what SOPHISTS do.

Read Aristotle. He has a whole book on the sophists. You may not like what you read.

"We've had almost eight years of a GOP super majority and 25 years of Reaganomics and "free market" theory in action and when the wheels come off the wagon for all the world to see... you guys say more of the same is the answer! ROTFLMAO!"

If you think we are living in a free market, it is YOU who is in need of a reality check. My guess is that you hate free markets, so you blame the problems on free markets, while staying ignorant of the very real fact that the problems stem from the Federal Reserve, which is a central bank. Central banking is what Marx wanted in all the countries of the world, when he wrote The Communist Manifesto.

America is NOT a free market economy. For the last 25 years, there has in fact been a DECREASE in the amount of economic freedoms we have. They have not increased. Sarbanes-Oxley, massive government spending not seen since the FDR days, a central bank run amok by printing enough dollars to destroy a strong currency and make it worthless paper, welfare entitlements, calls for universal healthcare, corporate bailouts, creations of government bureaucracies like DHS, a doubling of the size of the department is education (indoctrination), and on and on...

THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM, IT IS SOCIALISM/FASCISM.

This country's problems are coming from a decline in liberty and freedom. All societies that lose their freedom, lose their prosperity. This is undeniable.

So, you want to talk mano e mano now? Or do you just want to hurl vacuus insults at anonymous posters in order to quell your inner ubermensch, and snobbish personality?

The proper name is the Republican Great Depression

Cons have never had any idea how to run an economy

Look at this list of presidents and their respective job creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

The Dems have done so much better than the repubs that it's obviously not a coincidence.

Even Jimmy Carter created about twice the number of jobs as shrub in half the time.

Dave M. @ 123:

Rasputin @ 100:

Dave M.

Got any more "free trade" "free market" brilliance to dazzle us with?

And please don't ever cite Wikipedia.

What's wrong with Wikipedia? Certainly no worse than many of the authors cited here. Or most of the crap trotted out with absolutely no citation whatsoever.

Even if Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, it's better than no citation.

If questionable citations and anonymous statements were not allowed, then what on earth are you doing on this forum??

And why should I believe a single sentence of yours (including ones with large words like "FACT" in them) if you make no useful citations whatsoever.

Your last post has no citations, so "it makes it hard to take you seriously" -- by your own standards.

The proper name is the Republican Great Depression

Cons have never had any idea how to run an economy

-----------------

That is simply a lie.

The Great Depression ran the length of the 1930's. It was not republican or democrat. Both presided over it.

Reaganomic broke the link between growth and increased production, employment, and wages. It relies on easy credit lending terms and asset inflation to create a “bubble” to spur growth. Then the Fed has to run to the other side and raise rates to control inflation, but not so much as to cause a recession.

Deregulation just opens the gate to abuse by the financial institutions and the deja vu that we are in now of bank failures due to excessive risk taking by banks and consumers and it also leads to trade deficits because we have outsourced our manufacturing to other countries and floods the market with cheap goods… that give the impression of wealth… but its built on a ticking time bomb of debt.

Pop! goes the weasel!

--------------------

And everyone loved the Clinton era bubble economy. 18 million jobs created. It was the 1920's Coolidge economy repeated. But everyone hates Hoover, because the bubble economy burst under him.

All bubbles burst- no exceptions.

Daniel @ 121:

"- Under $X, personal interactions break the market down. When you go out for a night with friends, the market doesn't work. It is scientifically very well documented, that under certain conditions, you no longer behave "in order to arrive at a more favorable end state"."

When you go out at night with friends, if you interact with anyone else via exchanges such as purchasing beverages or hailing a cab, then the market IS "working". So long as you gain something from someone else whereby you give something of value in return, and you both did it voluntarily, the market is working. Also, you may be surprised to hear this, but EVERYTHING you do is done to arrive at a better state. Your end state is you want to have fun, and the means you select is hanging with friends. You may also want to get hammered, in which case the means you select is beer or whiskey. You may also want to have memories, in which case the means you use is to have as much fun as you can.

Believe me, "scientific" studies will never be able to disprove this elementary fact because guess what? The very act of trying to disprove the axiom is by using the very same axioms! Think about it. If I didn't think it were true, and I wanted to find out whether it is true or not, the end state I would like to achieve is knowledge of whether it is true or not. The means I select is to conduct a scientific study. This is how axioms are developed. You make a statement. If you attempt to disprove the statement by certain methods, methods of which are themselves part of the axiom, then what you have done is discovered an absolute fact of the nature of man. Even you telling me "I don't believe it", and then selecting the means in order to convince me of your belief (by referring to random scientific tests), shows the end state you would like to get to (convincing me) and then means you use. Therefore you CANNOT deny this truth. It is part of every human being, with no exceptions. I can tell you very confidently "no exceptions" because in order to disprove me, you would have to use the very same method. This is called praxeologic reasoning, that is, the reasoning that deals with explaining human action. It is a wonder to behold once you understand its simple beauty, and its explanatory powerful.

"-Over $Y, socio-political effects could, say, break the market down. (I'm speculating here, but this is for demonstration only.) Or if larger forces are at play."

You are absolutely right. The market is not a given in the world. Connecting this with the fact that humans act to better themselves is the following: The market is the result of humans using the LOGICALLY CORRECT means in order to achieve their ends. If their ends are material betterment, any society can benefit greatly by the division of labor, of which the market is precisely this. Of course any of the individuals can refuse to participate in the market. The market is not a rigid and all mighty creation. It is made by mankind, which errs. But the only way to destroy the market is by one or more persons to forcibly DENY or PREVENT other persons from exchanging with one another. This spontaneous exchanging always occurs in any human society. You're right, sociological factors could play a part in breaking the market down, but these factors are thoughts only, but when they are translated to Earthly human action, the factors can be found in observing individual humans act in ways that they think is the best way in order to achieve a desired state! "Sociological" simply means human interactions, and human interactions are derived by individuals acting (either cooperating or fighting) with others in order to better their own life.

"OK.... if you are not "modelling" humans when you say that the market "can be understood", then what on earth are you talking about? This is interesting; I'm open to hear what you mean."

The nature of mankind. A constant search for the BEST means that people should use in order to achieve their desired ends. Humans are quite capable of judging which means are best for which ends. We err, for sure, but the only way we know we err is if we understand that the means chosen were not the best, so we try another means. We can make these types of judgments because we have reason. Therefore, the "modeling" I am rejecting is any and all mathematical models that attempt to describe complex human interactions. Mathematical models (in economics) always assume that relationships are always constant, e.g. assuming that each of us saves 20% of our incomes as a matter of human nature, by observing past data and then concluding that 20% is magical and constant, like Plank's Constant is constant. Humans will forever select the best means for achieving their ends, and there is absolutely ZERO constancy in either ends or means. The reason why the market is crashing, is because our society is coming to learn just how dangerous PhDs in finance and/or economics can truly be if they use the wrong methods. Government paid economists, for example, have been denying the elementary truth I have given above for literally over a hundred years. In each and every case they assumed that mathematical models can work as well in human affairs as it does in the natural sciences. It makes sense that this happened. If spectacular success was found in using models to describe chemistry, physics, engineering, etc, why not use it to describe human behavior too? The critical arror in this is that humans do not act like the natural world acts. We have reason, which means we are always on alert in choosing the best course of action. We are not compelled to act in one way or another because of some model. Of course we are biological creatures, and biology is being explained using models. But nobody, as far as we know, can make the jump to modeling reason according to a mathematical model. This is why we must take some things as a given in nature.

Daniel @ 121:

"No, not absolutely powerless. Effectively powerless."

What's the difference? Am I powerless or am I not? I know I am not powerless, because I am still able to do what I want and not have anyone stop me. But this is changing, we are all losing the ability to make our own choices. Do you want to know the origin of all this? It does not come from above, in government, against us. That force has always been there. No, where it comes from is by all the people in society ignoring or being afraid of the fact that individual action is what determines a society. If enough people start to think that it is groups that determines reality, then group think is what you will get. The group think you believe is the best means is not actually group think in practice. In practice it always individuals acting, so by attempting to put group think into practice simply means that many, or most, of the people must give up their own individual action, and give themselves up to the choices of other individuals. The more people do this, the more oppressive the world will become, because all of us knows deep down that we deserve to make our own choices. If we give this up and say to others make the choice for me, the only result is that those people you give this power to will use the means presented to them in order to benefit themselves, which will necessarily hurt you, because humans err. That is why we must strive to keep our own choices, to learn that individuals act, not groups. This is called simply liberty.

"Groups are phenomenally powerful. How do you think all the awful historical events happened last century?"

By enough individuals acting in ways that could not attain their desired goals. Remember, individual action is an irrefutable axiom. Perhaps I did not explain it well enough.

"You think each individual is responsible, in a simple way?"

I don't like the word responsible, because people err. But yes, in a simple way, each of us acts in order to make our state a better one, or else we would not act. Action itself presupposes that the current state is undesirable. If it were desirable, we would not act! Action, because it exists, shows that humans are always on the lookout for ways to better themselves. Like I said, it is an axiom.

"Are you suggesting that you would have behaved differently?"

I cannot say for certain, but again hypothetically, if I knew then what I know now, then yes I would have. Doesn't this prove to you that we must be free so that we can discover what works and what doesn't work? This is why free societies are always the most prosperous and the most powerful. Free societies are the only societies capable of knowing what works and what doesn't work in human interactions. Just look at Cheney and Bush. They are so delusional that they think freedom can stop, because they think they know enough to say humans know everything. They want to be the leaders because they refuse to see that we do not know everything. But when you have a whole country that is using the wrong means to achieve their ends, that is, using government to fix government, the result is disaster, as we are seeing. This is not special to either democrats or republicans. It is special to those who wish to use the state, that social apparatus of force and coercion, in order to better themselves. These people do not care that others will be hurt by them using the state, because they feel they have been wronged first. So do the other people. The less we cooperate with each other as civilians, and the more we seek that state's help, the more poverty and wars that will ensue.

Drew @ 131:

Daniel @ 121:

"individuals in of themselves do not actually exist, they are merely a mental shortcut lazy intellectuals use to describe atoms." -- we can all play this game."

Sure, we can, but you would be wrong. Atoms do not make choices, but humans do. So you cannot analyze the components of a system and assume it is also true of the whole. That is the fallacy of composition. Individuals act. The fact that you are trying to disprove this by using the irrefutable axioms shows that you are in agreement, at least in the way you act. Now all you have to do is see the way you are acting.

I'm sorry, but how are the laws that atoms follow fundamentally different to the laws that individuals follow? If you are going to say that the sum is greater than the parts, then I claim that property for groups too. The problem scales.

"As you can see, I fundamentally disagree. I think it essential to recognise that we all think in terms of "groups", and that does not make us "lazy" (as long as it does not overly bind our thinking, of course)."

You can think in terms of groups, because that is the method you think is best in order to understand the world. You are not the first to think like this, by far. In fact, it has only been since the enlightenment that the Earth's people has thought in terms of individual reason. Group think is as old as mankind itself, and in all cases it has eventually lead to disaster.

It seems to me you are conflating two things again, which happen to sound similar. "Group Think" has *nothing* to do with thinking in terms of groups/categories/types/whatever. What you wrote there is at best poetic.

Those societies that have CONSISTENTLY used such means in order to attain their ends have found that they don't work. To deny that every human action is derived from individuals and not groups, is to set oneself up for unmitigated disaster. This is because you are ignoring or otherwise trying to evade the truth that society is the collection of individuals acting in cooperation in order to better themselves. Groups, classes, aggregates, all these constructs are imaginary, supernatural attempts at trying to determine what is morally good and what is the standard. Can you not see how this cannot work? If a whole society are cannibals, or believe that their race is superior, by your method we must deduce that it must be correct, because the group thinking is that it is correct. But you would again be denying that humans err, and so we must continually search for the best methods for the individual to utilize.

We are talking way past each other, it appears to me. I never judged any of these actions as "correct" or otherwise. Where you got that, I have no idea.

I don't understand why you think the individual is the ultimate, indivisible, decision maker (called, ironically, "atomic" in science), but perhaps you talk about it in another post.

Have you read "The Selfish Gene"? Are you aware what implications it has on your theory?

Drew @ 138:

Dan @ 134:

"I'm sorry, but how are the laws that atoms follow fundamentally different to the laws that individuals follow? If you are going to say that the sum is greater than the parts, then I claim that property for groups too. The problem scales."

How are the laws of atoms fundamentally different from how individuals act? Simple. Atoms act according to definite mathematical models, such as Schrodinger's wave equation, Heisenberg's principle, Einstein's relativity. In all observations of atoms, it is 100% accurate to say that if conditions X, Y, and Z are true, then result A is achieved.

Actually, Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic. (Schrodinger and Heisenberg)

These "experiments" can be isolated, controlled, and most importantly REPLICATED by others.

Replication only works in the 'thermodynamic', or statistical limit. In most cases you cannot replicate everything. Only the parts that you care about.

But humans are not like this. It is NOT true that we can create conditions X, Y and Z and be 100% by the laws of nature that humans will act in a certain way.

The whole point about considering groups is that suddenly behaviour becomes more predictable.

In the same sense that a chemist doesn't make predictions about individual molecules (he can't), rather some statistical properties (he can).

Now, in anticipation of a possible objection to this, regarding quantum effects, that is, our inability to observe atoms in a precise place and know 100% the velocity of it, does not disprove the fundamental difference between individuals and atoms. Atoms, by themselves, exist in nature and thus are a part of nature. Thus they can be described with definite models. Humans do not operate by laws, except our biological processes outside of selecting courses of action.

Are you invoking some kind of meta-physics here?

I repeat my question: Are the laws governing humans and atoms fundamentally different?

When it comes to action, humans have never displayed absolutely certain courses of action given an observable set of circumstances.

Neither do the electrons in your computer.

It is true that the same individual can think and act differently in a repeat of external circumstances, atoms cannot. Different humans can react the same way to the same set of external circumstances, atoms cannot. Your romantic tendency at discounting human reason and comparing humans to atoms will not make you see what you are trying to look for.

I'm trying to be rational.

Your means will not allow you to get to your goal. The proof of this is that you are using the very same axioms while trying to disprove it. Your comparison of humans with atoms is an action. That action is thinking. Your goal is to understand humanity. What you are doing right now, that part of you, atoms do not have. But you do. THAT is what models cannot describe fully, but understanding can.

OK, so we're back to the crux: In your view "Model" does not equal "Understanding"?

"It seems to me you are conflating two things again, which happen to sound similar. "Group Think" has *nothing* to do with thinking in terms of groups/categories/types/whatever. What you wrote there is at best poetic."

What is thinking in terms of groups? Thinking is an individual action, and so if you are thinking in terms of groups, then you yourself think that group think is the best method.

No. Thinking in terms of groups means that you think about constructs whose elements can be groups as well as individuals. "Group think" is about groups making decisions, irrespective of what kind of constructs they use.

"Have you read "The Selfish Gene"? Are you aware what implications it has on your theory?"

The book by Dawkins?

yes.

Yes I have. I take his arguments not to mean that humans act predictably, but rather, that our DNA is biologically equipped to multiply.

No. The point of the book is that it is action to preserve the gene, not the individual, that drives us (living beings). Nothing to do with predictability, except in the sense that all scientific theories need to provide predictions of some sort.

This drive to procreate does not in the least contradict the fact that there are other aspects of humanity that are not explainable by using the methods of the natural sciences. Reason is biological. But no human that has ever existed could explain the actions of mankind like they do with external nature. The logical structure of the mind is undeniable. All humans on Earth, with the exception of the mentally disabled, are equipped with this logical structure, and this structure is a given, it cannot be fully explained. I personally think this is true because the only tool we have to explain our brains is our brains. There is no way to conceptualize something using that same something, because it would lead to a logical contradiction: If we could fully explain our brains, then we have moved above our brains in terms of sophistication and intelligence. But how can this be? Our brains are what is used to find this. We thus must take human reason as a given, and conclude that humans act as individuals.

Eh.... Our knowledge as a society far outgrows the knowledge of any particular individual. How do you propose to explain that using your atomistic model?

D

>> The proper name is the Republican Great Depression

Cons have never had any idea how to run an economy

—————–

That is simply a lie.

The Great Depression ran the length of the 1930’s. It was not republican or democrat. Both presided over it.

*************************

You don't know shit.

Do nothing Hoover was a republican. So was congress when he was in office. They got thrown out for starting the great republican depression thats why we had a Dem in office during the depression. Cause you guys showed everyone you were just gonna sit around and hope things got better.

You guys were so obviously incompetent and scary (like bush) that the dems held congress and the presidency for many years your retarded asses got booted in 1932.

The Dem (FDR) ended the depression. In other words he cleaned up the mess you "responsibility" repubs just left behind. By the Time FDR died in office the economy was doing infinitely better than when the repubs were in charge.

Dan @ 139:

"Actually, Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic. (Schrodinger and Heisenberg)"

Yes, and it is probably the most confusing science on the planet. But would you agree that even though we cannot observe things deterministically because every time we try to observe we change what we are observing, that nevertheless the material world exists in only one way? Some folks take Heisenberg to mean that the material world is fully probabilistic and that an actual singular reality does not exist. I personally think that is arrogant.

"Replication only works in the 'thermodynamic', or statistical limit. In most cases you cannot replicate everything. Only the parts that you care about."

True, but those parts can be viewed as absolute scientifically proven facts. I'm actually glad you seem to know a lot, BTW.

"The whole point about considering groups is that suddenly behaviour becomes more predictable."

When you say "behavior becomes more predictable", what do you mean exactly? Do you mean you can predict what Mr X will do on a Tuesday given that it rains? Or do you mean something like "the average income was X dollars during 200X, and so according to my model, it should be Y dollars during 200Y"? We can make judgments about aggregates for sure, but we cannot say anything about what this person or that person will do for sure, so there is really no point in thinking about it. Just my opinion. We can however say that certain results WILL occur if certain actions are taken. For example if the quantity of money increases in an economy, then the general price level will rise. Historically we can observe precisely which parts of the market rose in price more than others, in the latest case it was the bond market and housing.

"Are you invoking some kind of meta-physics here? I repeat my question: Are the laws governing humans and atoms fundamentally different?"

They are fundamentally different because of our ability to reason, which operates outside of the physical laws. The difference is that we have all what atoms have, and more. Whatever that extra thing is, it for sure exists. Kant thought we are deluding ourselves into thinking that reason is capable of finding truth. His ideas were strongly accepted, even today. But his rejection of the ability of mankind to reason does not discount the fact that reason exists. THIS is the fundamental difference between atoms and humans.

"OK, so we're back to the crux: In your view "Model" does not equal "Understanding"?"

It depends how you define "model". If we define a model as being necessarily mathematics driven, then no I will say models and understanding are not the same. Proof? Mathematical models themselves presupposes that an understanding of the processes involved EXISTS, and are now being REPRESENTED by mathematical models. A economic model without a story is futile. It leads to very bad policy decisions and points us in the wrong direction. Fama and French (two financial statisticians) for example created a 3 factor model in 1993 that describes stock returns better than what came before (CAPM), but it has zero economic story behind it. It is simply a model that "works" better than others. But even there the model does not describe individual stocks. Anyway, it is my opinion that we are headed in the wrong direction in terms of financial and economic policy and research. We are moving away from individual action and focusing too much on groups. I think this is one reason why the country does not care if individuals are hurt in sacrifice to "the greater good", or simply forgotten altogether. For example, C&L did a piece on how there are tent cities springing up in the country due to the housing bubble bursting. How many national news networks would even touch that? They won't, because their personal interests lie in helping and teaming up with the government, because that's where they feel they can better themselves.

"No. Thinking in terms of groups means that you think about constructs whose elements can be groups as well as individuals. "Group think" is about groups making decisions, irrespective of what kind of constructs they use."

But even if you are thinking about group constructs, you are merely describing the similarities between individuals. I could not even begin to talk about group constructs if I totally ignore the individuals being described. My characterization of any group must first be representative of the individuals involved. This does not have to take place in the other direction. I can characterize individuals and not make any statements about the group. If I were alone on a desert island, how would you describe me? There are no others around, so would I still be human?

"No. The point of the book is that it is action to preserve the gene, not the individual, that drives us (living beings). Nothing to do with predictability, except in the sense that all scientific theories need to provide predictions of some sort."

But DNA cannot act in any other way than how DNA acts. Since DNA is a molecular structure, it can be described by scientific laws. I dare you to show me an example where someone did something against their own mind, but had to do it because of what this DNA allegedly forced them to do. If we take an example of Dawkins, like the urge to procreate, all it would take is for one person to NOT procreate ever, and this would contradict this alleged 100% drive to preserve the gene. I would imagine you would be able to think of at least a finite number of people who have lead lives of complete solitude, sexually. Some religions practice exactly that. Also, DNA cannot survive without the individual, and vice versa. Therefore I am coming to realize that I think we think the same thing. Genes are not "acting", they are what they are and behave a certain way. They are chemicals. Individuals are more than a mere collection of chemicals, if we weren't, we would not have any sense of having something more than physical laws. You have to admit, reason is beyond physical laws.

"Eh.... Our knowledge as a society far outgrows the knowledge of any particular individual. How do you propose to explain that using your atomistic model?"

But again, society does not "know" anything. Society is all of us as humans. To whatever extent we have knowledge, it is individuals that have knowledge. Society is not a thinking entity that can use means to achieve ends. Only humans can do that. You are correct when you say that the totality of all individual knowledge far surpasses what any GIVEN individual knows. But you are not disproving my point that all the great sums of knowledge in totality is known by individuals in totality. Whatever knowledge is known, it must be known by at least one person. The REQUIREMENT is that at least one person knows. Thus all knowledge can be shared, by having some individuals relay this knowledge to other individuals. It's easy to feel safe by thinking that knowledge is known by society, and I can choose to participate in it or not, but each and every person must become knowledgeable in order to better their own life. Without personal knowledge, the market will break down and society as we know it would not exist. Knowledge must be internalized by individuals if it is going to be even called knowledge.

Daniel @ 144:

That's awesome that you looked deep into the past posts to read replies. I read them too!!

"(Let's not confuse the Heisenberg Principle with Heisenberg's formulation of quantum mechanics.)"

I'll try not to. But isn't the uncertainty principle behind the non-determinism?

"If the theory best explains reality when it is formulated in a non-deterministic way, then there's nothing "arrogant" about it. I would argue it's arrogant to claim something for which there's little or no evidence."

I agree with your philosophy in general, but I still think it is arrogant to suggest that the limits of our understanding suggests it can never be understood. The people who thought THAT kind of logic up I think are arrogant. We have only just begun.

"Only in the average. There's a small non-zero chance that my cup will fall upwards, for a moment breaking a 'law'."

It is here that I think quantum mechanics makes people conclude impossible things like the violation of gravity laws. I know that is what the math says and how particles react, but to say that there is a small percentage chance that it will happen just because a particle is observed to behave in that way is irrational to me. I think it's lazy to assume that the impossible can happen because the probability is mathematically non-zero. It seems to me to be a way out of determinism, which requires reason.

"I mean in the aggregate, of course. E.g., lower taxes -> more spending. We don't know what each individual will do (you may choose to save your money), but on aggregate these rules can work. Just like with Thermodynamics. (With the caveat that the number of atoms is much greater than the number of individuals.)"

Lower taxes does not mean more spending in the aggregate. Lower taxes simply means that citizens will spend what the government used to spend. Overall spending is unchanged. The difference is that there will be more productive expenditures and less consumption expenditures (governments only consume they do not produce).

"operates outside physical laws" -> supernatural.

Not necessarily. I meant to say the physical laws AS WE KNOW THEM. We cannot describe reason using the physical sciences yet, so it is outside of physical laws. This is not to say we won't someday figure it out.

"Easy: altruism, or an individual sacrificing themselves for a group or for their family."

Altruism is a left over part of our ancestry, which was naturally selected to ensure the survival of early mankind. It does not contradict the fact we have reason however. But even so, one could argue that sacrifice of oneself for the good of the family or group is ensuring that one's genes carry on.

"That's the POINT."

Yes sir!

"How can an individual make a bridge, for example?"

The fact that some tasks require more than one person to complete does not mean the individual is less important than the group. In fact, it reinforces the fact that individuals are the sole actors, because they cooperate in order to individually derive a gain, and the result is that everyone else gains as well. Each of the bridge builders are working, and not experiencing leisure. Therefore each of them are building the bridge in order to derive personal gain, or else they would not build the bridge. I think focusing on the visible actions only, i.e. observing a group of people building something together, is not enough to know what is going on. Each of the builders has a mind, each have wants, desires, and ability. Sure we can observe them build a bridge, but we also need to ask WHY each of them are contributing to building that bridge. Since all humans act in order to make their state a better one, we must ask what those means and ends the builders have. THAT part is absolutely present all the time, so we cannot ignore it.