How Banks Are Enslaving Humans

[Lyndon]

In Australia, when suing, the losing party usually has to pay court costs, for instance an aboriginal group sued the government for discrimination and lost the case and was billed the governments outrageous court costs. Not justice at all. But it does greatly reduce frivolous lawsuits.

 

[oldbadger]

We have a severe problem with our court system encouraging frivolous & vexatious lawsuits. Tis a system designed by lawyers for lawyers.

I get that impression of the US system. Your legislators seem to be tied up in the process, because your laws and rules seem to be written in another language......... a language that costs 'large' for a lawyer's translation.

Yes! Please send me your bank accountt info: names, account number, routing number, mother's maiden name, etc.

For all the effort of pumping it dry you wouldn't get a Big Mac Meal!
Ha ha!..... routing number, pronounced as in 'shouting'........ you Americans....... over here it's routing as in shooting.... Our irregularities show our class....... (only joking.... we haven't got any left).
Over here we call them 'Sorting Codes'....

I don't mix my insurance with my banking.

You don't mix insurance with banking........ ?
I haven't got any insurance...... for anything. I'm named on Mrs B's car insurance.... that's it.
I haven't paid house or contents insurance since 1983, which means that I'm about £18000 ahead so far.
And like I already said, I don't do banks.

I too love it when the high & mighty are brought low for their sins.

Ain't it good? And modern data retrieval systems do catch some of them out.
We have various telly program here that catch out naughty benefits cheats, tradesmen, etc... but I want to see a program that catches out millionaire tax fiddlers etc.......... I can only hope......

 

[Revoltingest]

In Australia, when suing, the losing party usually has to pay court costs, for instance an aboriginal group sued the government for discrimination and lost the case and was billed the governments outrageous court costs. Not justice at all. But it does greatly reduce frivolous lawsuits.

But was it really not justice? The winning party suffered the costs of a failed suit, & deserve to be made whole. Part of the problem is that the system is set up to be very very expensive, unnecessarily so.

I'd like such a system here, but alas, lawyers would never allow it. We (not me) elect a majority of lawyers to Congress & the Presidency. To advocate tort reform is the kiss of death to any politician.

 

[pro4life]

The way Banks enslave humans is by creating more debt than there is actual money, thus ensuring many, many people always have to do something to pay off said debt.

Here's how it works (at least in America), translated from Bankese to English from my personal copy of the Federal Reserve's Modern Money Mechanics.

Now when the US Government decides that it needs some money, it calls up the Federal Reserve and requests - let's say - 10 Billion Dollars. The Fed agrees to this by buying 10 Billion in Government Bonds from the US Gov. The US Gov sends the Bonds and the Federal Reserve prints what they call Federal Reserve Notes. The US Government places these Federal Reserve notes into a bank account, and upon doing so, they become Dollars to the tune of 10 Billion.

All of this happens electronically.

Now a Government Bond is, fundamentally, debt. When the Government gives the Federal Reserve these bonds, they are in effect promising to pay back the 10 Billion in Federal Reserve Notes (note: Reserve Notes are not considered Dollars until deposited in a Bank Account).

In other words, the money was created at a debt.

Now according to the Fractional Reserve System, that 10 Billion Dollars has become part of the Bank's Reserves (just as all deposits do - even your money). And regarding Fractional Reserve requirements:

"A bank must maintain legally required reserves, in the form of vault cash and/or deposits at its Federal Reserve Bank, equal to a prescribed percentage of its deposits." - Modern Money Mechanics.


It then goes on to say:

"Under current regulations, the reserve requirements against most transactions is 10 Percent." - Modern Money Mechanics

This means that out of that 10 Billion Dollars, 1 Billion is considered 'Required Reserve' while the other 9 Billion is considered 'Excessive Reserve' and can be used as the basis for new loans.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that this 9 Billion dollars is coming from the existing 10 billion dollar deposit, but this is actually not the case.

What really happens is that the 9 billion dollars is created from nothing on top of the existing 10 billion dollar deposit ($19,000,000,000) and this is how the money supply is expanded.

"Of course they [The Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts." - Modern Money Mechanics.

Simply put, the 9 Billion Dollars can be created from nothing simply because there is a demand for such a loan, and the reserves satisfy the Fractional Reserve System's requirements.

So what happen if someone were to borrow this newly created 9 Billion? They would most likely put it in their own bank account. The process then repeats as now that 9 Billion has become part of the Bank's reserves. 10% and the remaining 90% (or 8.1 billion) is then made available as newly created money available for loans. And, of course, that 8.1 Billion can be loaned out to create an addition 7.2 Billion and on and on and on.

This process can go on forever. Theoretically 90 Billion dollars can be created on top of the original 10 Billion. In other words, for every deposit made within the Banking system, nine times that amount can be created from nothing.

So that's how the Fractional Reserve System works. But this raises an interesting question: What gives this newly created money value?

The answer is: the money that already exists.

The new money leeches value from the existing money supply because the pool of money is being increased irrespective to the demands for goods or services and, as supply and demand find an equilibrium, the prices of goods and services rise lowering the purchasing power of every dollar.

This is what we call 'Inflation', which is essentially a hidden tax on the public. This is why you always hear bankers talking about inflating the currency, or lower the interest rates etc. But how can you expect to solve the problem of inflation with inflation? You can't.

The Fractional Reserve System and monetary expansion is inherently inflationary because the act of expanding the money supply, without a corresponding expansion of goods and services, will always debase the currency and cause inflation. So $1 in 1913 would require $21.13 in 2007 to match it's value. A 96% devaluation.

Now if you're thinking, but that's ridiculous! You haven't heard anything yet.

In America, Money is Debt and Debt is Money. If you examine the National Debt in relation to the increase of the Money Supply in America over the years, you'll find a corresponding increase in both because the more money there is, the more debt there is, and the more debt there is, the more money there is.

So every single dollar in your wallet and bank account is owed to someone by someone. And if everyone paid off their debts, including the Government, there wouldn't be a single dollar left in circulation.

There's only one time in history when America paid off its national debt, and that was after President Jackson shut down the Central Bank that preceded the Federal Reserve in 1835. That was pretty much Jackson's entire campaign.

"The bold efforts the bank has made to control Government, are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into the perpetuation of this institution, or the establishment of another like it." - Andrew Jackson, 1835.

So all money is debt, and this causes people to compete for labour to pool enough money out of the money supply to cover their cost of living.

But that's not all...

Now when the Government borrows money from the Federal Reserve, or a person borrows money from the Bank, it almost always has to be paid back with a crude interest. Almost every single dollar that exists must eventually be returned to a bank with interest paid as well.

But if all money is borrowed from the Fed, and that money is expanded in commercial banking through loans, only the 'Principal' is being created in the money supply. So where is the money to cover all of the interest that is charged?

It doesn't exist.

This means that the amount of money owed back to the Banks (and Federal Reserve) will always exceed the amount of money that actually exists. This is why inflation is a constant in the US economy. New money is always needed to cover the perpetual debt created by the need to pay the interest.

In short, there isn't enough money in existence to pay back the US National Debt because any attempt to pay back the debt creates more debt with interest.

This also means that defaults, bankruptcy, housing repossessions are inherently built into the system, and there will always be poor people. It's like musical chairs.

And that's how the US Money system works.

No wonder companies cannot afford to hire people less than 8 hours and some people taking on more than 1 job.

Couldn't have said it any better.

 

[Stevicus]

Anyone who feels like a slave cuz they must repay money they borrowed is a whiney, deluded, miserable little victimhood wallower.
I can only hope that they're too lazy to vote in elections.

Oh, I don't know if I would characterize it in precisely that way. I think what may be at work is a confluence of various cultural factors which may be symptoms of deeper societal problems. To be sure, there are some predatory lenders out there, along with the "payday loan" outfits and people getting endless credit offers in the mail. There's a local auto dealership which advertises aggressively, saying stuff like "You want a nice new car? Bad credit? No credit? No problem! We're here to make a deal!"

On the other hand, I can understand the "caveat emptor" point of view and that people should know better than to get suckered into loans they can't repay.

Another part of the problem is that we live in a highly consumerist society where material wealth (or at least the appearance of it) is highly valued. People want stuff. They want nice homes, nice cars, all the latest appliances and gadgets - and they want to keep up with the Joneses, as the saying goes. If people are "slaves," then it might be a matter of being a "slave" to a certain mentality which has become all too pervasive in our culture. Or as some might say, a "slave to fashion."

That may not be true slavery as we might understand it in the historical sense, and possibly, the perfect solution is as you offered it: Just don't borrow. Banking services might still be needed, though, at least in terms of making financial transactions more convenient and accessible, as well as a secure place to keep one's money. It can get unwieldy and risky to put one's money in one's mattress or go around carrying bags of gold everywhere. In this day and age, it's a bit difficult to operate that way.

As a point of comparison, I've also heard similar complaints about the oil companies, and it seems the perfect solution would be to simply boycott and not buy their products anymore. But how can anyone realistically do that in today's society? This is why some people might feel a bit boxed in. Sure, they can walk away at any time, but to where?

One must always look at unintended consequences.
What would happen if banks had reduced ability to collect on loans?
- The risk of each loan failing would increase.
- Losses due to failed loans would increase.
- Banks are in the business of making a profit, so if costs go up, then prices must do the same.
This means either a higher interest rate with higher closing costs, or greatly reduced lending (to only the very best borrowers with very low LTV ratios).
This would suck.

Whether it sucks or not would depend on one's point of view. If the solution to the problem at hand is to "not borrow," then reducing the amount of borrowing and lending overall might be a step in the right direction.

We're already somewhat trapped in "unintended consequences" in the sense that if people really did stop borrowing as much, then the consequence would mean that they wouldn't buy much more than the bare necessities. But so many other businesses depend upon consumers constantly out there buying things they wouldn't ordinarily buy if credit wasn't so free and easy. It's a vicious cycle that can't be stopped without disastrous results.

This also points out the problem of having politicians in office who have never been in the real estate biz. They regulate from inexperience, thinking their simplistic boneheaded solutions will work as they envision. The market is more complex than they understand.

Oh, I don't know about that. I have no love of politicians whatsoever, although I don't think that not being in the real estate business would disqualify one from holding office. Some might make similar complaints about politicians not having military experience and making the decision to go to war.

Still, it's safe to presume that even an inexperienced politician would consult with experts and advisors who have knowledge in whatever area they might regulate. Both sides get to weigh in and give their testimony in congressional hearings before any legislation is put to a vote.

I don't doubt that the market is complex, although in a very real sense, what goes on in the market is a political process (negotiation, contracts, etc.) which is something that politicians probably would understand. I think that may be a more realistic perception than those who would try to paint the market as something organic or more mystical.

For a few years, banks weren't lending at all.
That, combined with fed regulators telling banks not to renew commercial loans added to the economic crisis.

Well, maybe that's an underlying part of the problem in that our economy has become so dependent upon what the banks do or don't do. Even the government can't really do much about it, since banks are transnational and money can be easily routed to offshore accounts. Governments in the developing world have heavy debts and are even worse off.

I don't say that government is totally blameless in this mess, but I don't think it's correct to say that they deserve all the blame either.

Here's how it is....
Those of us who want to borrow will do so from those willing to lend.
Anyone who doesn't want to borrow or lend should refrain from doing so.
I don't want government protecting me from the obvious inevitable consequences of my own decisions.

Oh I get it. Government should stay out of people's private business. We are a free country with rights guaranteed by our Constitution. I understand all that. I'm really a "free to be you and me" kind of guy myself, so I support individual freedom and liberty on that level.

But on the other hand - you and I - we are the government - along with hundreds of millions of others (at least the ones who vote anyway). A government has to protect itself from the obvious inevitable consequences of its own decisions. I have no illusions that the government would ever protect "me." I expect the government to act as any other government would, which is to protect itself and maintain itself above all other considerations. Part of that means maintaining law and order and some semblance of economic stability in society. If the government is unable to do that, then bad things could happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I don't know if I would characterize it in precisely that way.

I'm more willing to harshly judge people who whine about choices they make, & responsibility for the consequences. "Slavery" makes it about the banks doing something to them. Rather, they're just paying interest for the use of the money, & also returning it. That's "fair", not "slavery".

I think what may be at work is a confluence of various cultural factors which may be symptoms of deeper societal problems. To be sure, there are some predatory lenders out there, along with the "payday loan" outfits and people getting endless credit offers in the mail. There's a local auto dealership which advertises aggressively, saying stuff like "You want a nice new car? Bad credit? No credit? No problem! We're here to make a deal!"

I don't want government going overboard protecting us from making bad decisions. But regulation about disclosing the terms of a deal & consequences makes sense.
Our deep societal problem is that people don't want responsibility for their own choices, & would rather blame others.

On the other hand, I can understand the "caveat emptor" point of view and that people should know better than to get suckered into loans they can't repay.
Another part of the problem is that we live in a highly consumerist society where material wealth (or at least the appearance of it) is highly valued. People want stuff. They want nice homes, nice cars, all the latest appliances and gadgets - and they want to keep up with the Joneses, as the saying goes. If people are "slaves," then it might be a matter of being a "slave" to a certain mentality which has become all too pervasive in our culture. Or as some might say, a "slave to fashion."

"Slavery" by choice doesn't bother me. Anyone who doesn't like their own choices can change them.

That may not be true slavery as we might understand it in the historical sense, and possibly, the perfect solution is as you offered it: Just don't borrow. Banking services might still be needed, though, at least in terms of making financial transactions more convenient and accessible, as well as a secure place to keep one's money. It can get unwieldy and risky to put one's money in one's mattress or go around carrying bags of gold everywhere. In this day and age, it's a bit difficult to operate that way.

I keep money in a bank. But I like the option of keeping it in a safe too....just in case.

As a point of comparison, I've also heard similar complaints about the oil companies, and it seems the perfect solution would be to simply boycott and not buy their products anymore. But how can anyone realistically do that in today's society? This is why some people might feel a bit boxed in. Sure, they can walk away at any time, but to where?

What good would a boycott of a needed product do? How would it change the companies's behavior?
I do a partial boycott....driving as little as possible, & using fuel efficient vehicles. (My V10 truck averages less than 7000 miles per year.)

Whether it sucks or not would depend on one's point of view. If the solution to the problem at hand is to "not borrow," then reducing the amount of borrowing and lending overall might be a step in the right direction.

I believe people borrow too much for unnecessary things, eg, a house bigger than they need, vacations, spendy cars.

We're already somewhat trapped in "unintended consequences" in the sense that if people really did stop borrowing as much, then the consequence would mean that they wouldn't buy much more than the bare necessities. But so many other businesses depend upon consumers constantly out there buying things they wouldn't ordinarily buy if credit wasn't so free and easy. It's a vicious cycle that can't be stopped without disastrous results.

I don't think it would be disastrous at all if people spent less. Markets would adjust to the new system steady state. The real disaster will be our worldwide growing population, as natural land disappears.

Oh, I don't know about that. I have no love of politicians whatsoever, although I don't think that not being in the real estate business would disqualify one from holding office. Some might make similar complaints about politicians not having military experience and making the decision to go to war.

The value of experience is that it is a reality check upon advice received. A neophyte like Obama would be oblivious to what is obvious to someone who has played the game for many years. I like the board game analogy....one can read advanced books about a game, & yet be unable to implement strategy in an actual game.

Still, it's safe to presume that even an inexperienced politician would consult with experts and advisors who have knowledge in whatever area they might regulate. Both sides get to weigh in and give their testimony in congressional hearings before any legislation is put to a vote.

There is a danger in relying upon experts to greatly. Experts can vary greatly on any issue, so it's useful to have a personal compass & BS detector.

I don't doubt that the market is complex, although in a very real sense, what goes on in the market is a political process (negotiation, contracts, etc.) which is something that politicians probably would understand. I think that may be a more realistic perception than those who would try to paint the market as something organic or more mystical.

To be skilled in politics doesn't confer expertise in economics. They might be very effective in pushing their agenda, but if their agenda is dysfunctional, then this is bad. Moreover, even if a politician understands the market well, there's also the problem that an efficient market won't necessarily be their goal....they're primarily in the business of winning re-election, so they tend to pander.

Well, maybe that's an underlying part of the problem in that our economy has become so dependent upon what the banks do or don't do. Even the government can't really do much about it, since banks are transnational and money can be easily routed to offshore accounts. Governments in the developing world have heavy debts and are even worse off.

No, the problem is the extent & fashion in which government intervenes. There are policies which are useful. And there are policies which harm us. Keep the former, & ditch the latter. In this way, government really can do something significant.

I don't say that government is totally blameless in this mess, but I don't think it's correct to say that they deserve all the blame either.

I focus upon government because it is the entity (entities) which makes the rules under which we all operate. These rules are what need changing in order to have businesses & consumers respond as we'd like, eg, without economic collapse, productive, preserving our environment.

Oh I get it. Government should stay out of people's private business. We are a free country with rights guaranteed by our Constitution. I understand all that. I'm really a "free to be you and me" kind of guy myself, so I support individual freedom and liberty on that level.

I'd qualify that by saying gov should stay out of our business as much as practical.

But on the other hand - you and I - we are the government - along with hundreds of millions of others (at least the ones who vote anyway). A government has to protect itself from the obvious inevitable consequences of its own decisions. I have no illusions that the government would ever protect "me." I expect the government to act as any other government would, which is to protect itself and maintain itself above all other considerations. Part of that means maintaining law and order and some semblance of economic stability in society. If the government is unable to do that, then bad things could happen.

I've no real influence over government. My candidates always lose. Government is of the people, but it is also a separate entity. Those in power can wield that power to remain in power, & put their fellows in power, eg, Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons....dynasty seekers. They will act independently, subverting the Constitution, violating our laws, etc.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm more willing to harshly judge people who whine about choices they make, & responsibility for the consequences. "Slavery" makes it about the banks doing something to them. Rather, they're just paying interest for the use of the money, & also returning it. That's "fair", not "slavery".

Sure, I can understand that. But then, I guess everyone whines in their own way over their own pet issues. The business community and laissez-faire capitalists whine about government interference. To call it "slavery" may be a bit of figurative political invective, just as many people call Obama a "socialist" when nothing could be further from the truth. But it's not really meant to be taken literally.

I don't want government going overboard protecting us from making bad decisions. But regulation about disclosing the terms of a deal & consequences makes sense.

Yes, although some might say that the government already has gone overboard, particularly when it comes to laws regarding what citizens can eat or drink - or what drugs they're allowed to take. This is where most laissez-faire conservatives lose credibility, since they decry government interference in big business, yet seem to have no problem with government micromanaging individual citizens' lives. (Not that I'm trying to change the topic, but it should be mentioned in the context of a discussion about government going overboard in protecting us from making bad decisions.)

Apart from that, laws regarding truth in advertising and full disclosure seem fair enough. I can't see where a contract should be considered valid in cases of flim-flam, bait and switch, or making them so incredibly long and full of double-talk, legalese, and fine print as to become useless. Moreover, as Sam Goldwyn once noted, "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." You can't just shake hands and make a deal anymore; everybody demands that you "put it in writing."

Of course, when we allow society to deteriorate to that level, the implication is that it invites government interference and protection. The way I see it, the business community can't have it both ways. If a contract goes bad and the banks have to call in the government to flex its muscle and "enforce the contract," then they've already put themselves in the same position as the "whiner" complaining about the consequences of their choices.

In other words, the bank made a choice to make a loan. If that goes sour, then they have the choice to either write it off and eat it - or call in the government to mediate or enforce the contract. Once they make the choice to call in the government, then that's a implied invitation for further governmental interference. In any case, it makes them every bit as much a "whiner" as the other guy.

Our deep societal problem is that people don't want responsibility for their own choices, & would rather blame others.

And this phenomenon can be observed at all levels of society, not just among the poor or working classes. Their only real drawback is that they don't have the same level of finesse that the upper classes do.

"Slavery" by choice doesn't bother me. Anyone who doesn't like their own choices can change them.

Understood, although keep in mind that taking a harsh stance in these situations is also a choice which may carry consequences which will also have to be dealt with. I don't believe it's a realistic expectation to believe that people who make bad choices will just go off quietly into the night and "accept the consequences."

Even if your argument makes logical sense that people should just accept the consequences of their choices and stop whining, it doesn't actually change the situation which society has to deal with.

What good would a boycott of a needed product do? How would it change the companies's behavior?

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? A boycott of the banks or the oil companies or any other highly-placed industry probably wouldn't do all that much - unless it's something that grabs the attention of the media, which is another powerful industry at the same level as the oil companies and the banks.

I believe people borrow too much for unnecessary things, eg, a house bigger than they need, vacations, spendy cars.

I agree. So, the problem may not be that the banks are "enslaving" people as much as enticing them with all this money for all these luxuries to ensure that, at the very least, they'll still have a stake in the system. Therefore, they won't be inclined to oppose it.

I don't think it would be disastrous at all if people spent less. Markets would adjust to the new system steady state. The real disaster will be our worldwide growing population, as natural land disappears.

True, that's a long-term concern, along with global warming, potential shortages of food, fresh water, and other resources, and various environmental, geopolitical, and economic concerns. We're somewhat caught in another trap, since there is the view that further modernization and industrial development in the less developed areas of the world could cause world population growth to level off and stabilize. But greater industrialization and modernization on a worldwide scale would also likely contribute to global warming and other environmental consequences.

It seems to me that the governments of the world are going to have to work even harder towards peaceful cooperation and mutual benefit, rather than the laissez-faire, dog-eat-dog, he-who-dies-with-the-most-toys-wins mentality that capitalists have advanced all these decades. I think we need to be cautious and careful.

The value of experience is that it is a reality check upon advice received. A neophyte like Obama would be oblivious to what is obvious to someone who has played the game for many years. I like the board game analogy....one can read advanced books about a game, & yet be unable to implement strategy in an actual game.

True enough, although that might be said about anything, especially in this highly specialized society we've evolved into. On the other hand, someone who is a neophyte might be more sympathetic to other neophytes who would be at a disadvantage against more experienced players.

There is a danger in relying upon experts to greatly. Experts can vary greatly on any issue, so it's useful to have a personal compass & BS detector.

It depends. There are always multiple experts in any given field, so it's always best to get more than one opinion and seek out multiple sources of information. In fact, that's a large part of what the government does, to seek out and compile information so that the President and Congress can use that information to make decisions affecting the country.

To be skilled in politics doesn't confer expertise in economics.

It depends on how one views the study of economics. I consider economics to be a social science and mainly an offshoot of philosophy and political science. It's not a hard science, and it certainly can't be divorced from politics.

They might be very effective in pushing their agenda, but if their agenda is dysfunctional, then this is bad. Moreover, even if a politician understands the market well, there's also the problem that an efficient market won't necessarily be their goal....they're primarily in the business of winning re-election, so they tend to pander.

The politicians understand that the same people who comprise the market are also the same people who comprise the citizenry.

No, the problem is the extent & fashion in which government intervenes. There are policies which are useful. And there are policies which harm us. Keep the former, & ditch the latter. In this way, government really can do something significant.

A lot of what our government does is not so much the result of ideologies like "socialism" or "capitalism," but perhaps more out of practical necessity in having to deal with an increasingly complex and technologically advanced society. However, the ideologues do tend to hamper things and foul it all up. But that's an inherent flaw in politics that we may not ever get away from, no matter which system we embrace.

I've no real influence over government. My candidates always lose. Government is of the people, but it is also a separate entity. Those in power can wield that power to remain in power, & put their fellows in power, eg, Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons....dynasty seekers. They will act independently, subverting the Constitution, violating our laws, etc.

Still, as we agreed at the beginning of this discussion, it all comes down to choices and accepting the responsibility of our choices. We, the voters, chose these people to lead our government, and we must accept the consequences of our choices. Even if we voted for someone else, we still choose to accept the results of the election, even if our candidate loses. Most of the time, it's the lesser of two evils anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, I can understand that. But then, I guess everyone whines in their own way over their own pet issues. The business community and laissez-faire capitalists whine about government interference. To call it "slavery" may be a bit of figurative political invective, just as many people call Obama a "socialist" when nothing could be further from the truth. But it's not really meant to be taken literally.



Yes, although some might say that the government already has gone overboard, particularly when it comes to laws regarding what citizens can eat or drink - or what drugs they're allowed to take. This is where most laissez-faire conservatives lose credibility, since they decry government interference in big business, yet seem to have no problem with government micromanaging individual citizens' lives. (Not that I'm trying to change the topic, but it should be mentioned in the context of a discussion about government going overboard in protecting us from making bad decisions.)

Apart from that, laws regarding truth in advertising and full disclosure seem fair enough. I can't see where a contract should be considered valid in cases of flim-flam, bait and switch, or making them so incredibly long and full of double-talk, legalese, and fine print as to become useless. Moreover, as Sam Goldwyn once noted, "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." You can't just shake hands and make a deal anymore; everybody demands that you "put it in writing."

Of course, when we allow society to deteriorate to that level, the implication is that it invites government interference and protection. The way I see it, the business community can't have it both ways. If a contract goes bad and the banks have to call in the government to flex its muscle and "enforce the contract," then they've already put themselves in the same position as the "whiner" complaining about the consequences of their choices.

In other words, the bank made a choice to make a loan. If that goes sour, then they have the choice to either write it off and eat it - or call in the government to mediate or enforce the contract. Once they make the choice to call in the government, then that's a implied invitation for further governmental interference. In any case, it makes them every bit as much a "whiner" as the other guy.



And this phenomenon can be observed at all levels of society, not just among the poor or working classes. Their only real drawback is that they don't have the same level of finesse that the upper classes do.



Understood, although keep in mind that taking a harsh stance in these situations is also a choice which may carry consequences which will also have to be dealt with. I don't believe it's a realistic expectation to believe that people who make bad choices will just go off quietly into the night and "accept the consequences."

Even if your argument makes logical sense that people should just accept the consequences of their choices and stop whining, it doesn't actually change the situation which society has to deal with.



Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? A boycott of the banks or the oil companies or any other highly-placed industry probably wouldn't do all that much - unless it's something that grabs the attention of the media, which is another powerful industry at the same level as the oil companies and the banks.



I agree. So, the problem may not be that the banks are "enslaving" people as much as enticing them with all this money for all these luxuries to ensure that, at the very least, they'll still have a stake in the system. Therefore, they won't be inclined to oppose it.



True, that's a long-term concern, along with global warming, potential shortages of food, fresh water, and other resources, and various environmental, geopolitical, and economic concerns. We're somewhat caught in another trap, since there is the view that further modernization and industrial development in the less developed areas of the world could cause world population growth to level off and stabilize. But greater industrialization and modernization on a worldwide scale would also likely contribute to global warming and other environmental consequences.

It seems to me that the governments of the world are going to have to work even harder towards peaceful cooperation and mutual benefit, rather than the laissez-faire, dog-eat-dog, he-who-dies-with-the-most-toys-wins mentality that capitalists have advanced all these decades. I think we need to be cautious and careful.



True enough, although that might be said about anything, especially in this highly specialized society we've evolved into. On the other hand, someone who is a neophyte might be more sympathetic to other neophytes who would be at a disadvantage against more experienced players.



It depends. There are always multiple experts in any given field, so it's always best to get more than one opinion and seek out multiple sources of information. In fact, that's a large part of what the government does, to seek out and compile information so that the President and Congress can use that information to make decisions affecting the country.



It depends on how one views the study of economics. I consider economics to be a social science and mainly an offshoot of philosophy and political science. It's not a hard science, and it certainly can't be divorced from politics.



The politicians understand that the same people who comprise the market are also the same people who comprise the citizenry.



A lot of what our government does is not so much the result of ideologies like "socialism" or "capitalism," but perhaps more out of practical necessity in having to deal with an increasingly complex and technologically advanced society. However, the ideologues do tend to hamper things and foul it all up. But that's an inherent flaw in politics that we may not ever get away from, no matter which system we embrace.



Still, as we agreed at the beginning of this discussion, it all comes down to choices and accepting the responsibility of our choices. We, the voters, chose these people to lead our government, and we must accept the consequences of our choices. Even if we voted for someone else, we still choose to accept the results of the election, even if our candidate loses. Most of the time, it's the lesser of two evils anyway.

Dang...you make some long posts!
Some thoughts....
Whining about clear & intended consequences of one's own choices is different from complaining about government interference. The former is regret, while the latter is objection to an imposition (often not predictable).

I don't speak for conservatives. (I'm not one.) But I find them no less fraught with hypocrisy than the left.

I avoid legalese in contracts I write, but the problem in avoiding it is that lawyers & government dictate what language will be most predictable & reliable when interpreted by a judge. Plain English is not so easy to implement.

To lend money, have a loan go bad, & use the courts is not "having it both ways". It's our system of resolving conflicts without violence. And courts do very little to enforce anything....they simply render judgments & give the winning party the power to enforce (eg, repossess an asset, garnish wages). If we couldn't use the courts, that would a couple possible consequences.....
- Induce the aggrieved party to use extra-legal means to enforce their contractual rights.
- Make contracts less convenient to carry out because no credit would be accepted from most people....more like a hostage exchange.

A system which would deny lenders the ability to collect debts would mean no lending.

Remember that whatever change you'd like to make in the system, there will be consequences over & above what you directly intend. Will the trade-offs be an improvement? Many countries have tried to ditch capitalism, but this has turned out poorly every time.

 

[Wirey]

I own a bank, and you're ruining my dealio!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you want to see how a bank condemns entire nations, look into the World Bank and IMF. I wouldn't call it slavery, but nations that take loans from them would have been better off selling their soul to the devil.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you want to see how a bank condemns entire nations, look into the World Bank and IMF. I wouldn't call it slavery, but nations that take loans from them would have been better off selling their soul to the devil.

We might have common ground here.
I'd like to abolish the both the IMF & the World Bank.
Any country which needs to borrow money because of mismanagement won't be able to repay it anyway.
Micro-lending by NGOs works much better.

 

[Stevicus]

Dang...you make some long posts!

It depends. For complex issues like this one, there's usually a lot to cover. I'm not really trying to convince you of my point of view, although I think your characterization of those who question the practices of the banking industry was incorrect. Many supporters of free market economics seem to not understand why there would be opposition to their viewpoint, as if they're completely unaware of the past 200 years of history and don't seem to understand the reasons why governments have had to interfere in the private sector.

Some thoughts....
Whining about clear & intended consequences of one's own choices is different from complaining about government interference. The former is regret, while the latter is objection to an imposition (often not predictable).

They're both responses to choices made. Just as no one is forced to take out a loan or deal with a bank, no one is forced to go into the real estate or banking businesses. No one is forced to remain living in America. What you were advancing was a variation of the old "love it or leave it" argument, but that argument applies to everyone.

I don't speak for conservatives. (I'm not one.) But I find them no less fraught with hypocrisy than the left.

I've noticed that both conservatives and liberals changed quite a bit since the Reagan years. I think there are sub-sets within both camps (i.e. fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives), as well as generational differences.

Forgive me if I tend to associate opposition to Keynesianism with conservatism, since Reagan conservatives were the most vocal critics of US policy from 1940-1980. Reagan conservatives were big proponents of deregulation, globalism, outsourcing, and other excessively pro-business ideals. Liberals didn't really jump on that bandwagon until Clinton, although Clinton still had to flex his party's muscle to get enough Democrats to support NAFTA.

I avoid legalese in contracts I write, but the problem in avoiding it is that lawyers & government dictate what language will be most predictable & reliable when interpreted by a judge. Plain English is not so easy to implement.

I view judges as both lawyers and politicians. But the way I see it, if there are people who sign contracts and then regret it later and claim that they feel like it's "slavery," then obviously something is very wrong with the way judges and lawyers operate. I'm not a lawyer myself, but I do understand how language works and how it can be used to manipulate and deceive. Doublespeak, weasel words, and other semantic tricks are the domain of lawyers and those who would use them to cheat the public.

To lend money, have a loan go bad, & use the courts is not "having it both ways". It's our system of resolving conflicts without violence.

And that's also what someone advocating for more government interference in business might say. In order to achieve political stability without violence, sometimes governments have to interfere and intervene in the private sector.

And courts do very little to enforce anything....they simply render judgments & give the winning party the power to enforce (eg, repossess an asset, garnish wages). If we couldn't use the courts, that would a couple possible consequences.....
- Induce the aggrieved party to use extra-legal means to enforce their contractual rights.

Yes, such options remain open to both parties. A lot of history there.

- Make contracts less convenient to carry out because no credit would be accepted from most people....more like a hostage exchange.

A system which would deny lenders the ability to collect debts would mean no lending.

Probably, although this projection, if accurate, would be quite revealing of the underlying problem. The issue at hand may not be a matter of too many regulations or too much government interference - but the fact that there were situations which caused enough people to think there should be a regulation.

Likewise, a lender insists on contracts full of legalese and the legal ability to foreclose, seize assets, garnish wages in the event of default - or else they won't do it. They seem to believe that it's a dog-eat-dog world and that if they don't have their ducks lined up and all their bases covered, it could work out unfavorably for them. It's much the same among businesses. They don't trust each other; they need to have that contract and knowledge that it will be legally enforced before they'll agree to anything.

The point is, if they know this about the world, why would they be resistant to efforts to try to keep it under control and rein in certain business practices? Why is it that every reform we've made throughout history has always had the business community fighting and screaming every step of the way? And all their predictions of disaster have usually turned out to be wildly inaccurate.

Remember that whatever change you'd like to make in the system, there will be consequences over & above what you directly intend. Will the trade-offs be an improvement? Many countries have tried to ditch capitalism, but this has turned out poorly every time.

I think it depends on which countries you're talking about and what measure you would use to define "turned out poorly." Capitalism has not had the exceptional track record which a lot of people make it out to be. For the majority of people in most countries in the world, they might say that capitalism has worked quite poorly - and those tend to be the same countries which have tried to ditch capitalism. Many of those countries actually turned out better off than they were before they ditched capitalism.

Even in the United States, historically, capitalism has been no picnic. It wasn't really until some of capitalism's more egregious elements were clipped and tempered by Keynesianism that capitalism became more palatable and beneficial to a larger number of people. And that wasn't really until FDR and his successors. So, when people think about "capitalism," they think of the USA and the high standard of living we've enjoyed in comparison with much of the rest of the world, but it's not really the same "capitalism" as Adam Smith or what was commonly practiced in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

I think the biggest problem capitalists may face is their own internal ideological intransigence and fossilization. Their minds seem inextricably locked on the idea that their "system" and theirs alone is superior to all others and have become completely inflexible and resistant to change. Just like any other philosophy or school of thought, it should develop, grow, and progress with the times, but capitalists seem to want to take us backwards.

 

[Revoltingest]

It depends. For complex issues like this one, there's usually a lot to cover. I'm not really trying to convince you of my point of view, although I think your characterization of those who question the practices of the banking industry was incorrect.

I'm never wrong (today). Anyway, it's one thing to question practices. I just object to some of the erroneous analysis & loopy solutions.

Many supporters of free market economics seem to not understand why there would be opposition to their viewpoint, as if they're completely unaware of the past 200 years of history and don't seem to understand the reasons why governments have had to interfere in the private sector.

I can't speak for others.
There are all sorts of opinions out there.

They're both responses to choices made. Just as no one is forced to take out a loan or deal with a bank, no one is forced to go into the real estate or banking businesses. No one is forced to remain living in America. What you were advancing was a variation of the old "love it or leave it" argument, but that argument applies to everyone.

They aren't the same level of choice. The choice to borrow money to buy a house doesn't involve the level of unanticipated coercion which would induce a business to leave the country. But the real issue is about effects of public policy. It makes no sense to justify bad policies by saying anyone who dislikes them can emigrate. It should be about whether the net effects make things better or worse.

I've noticed that both conservatives and liberals changed quite a bit since the Reagan years.

I've noticed that both Dems & Pubs have moved left.

Forgive me if I tend to associate opposition to Keynesianism with conservatism, since Reagan conservatives were the most vocal critics of US policy from 1940-1980. Reagan conservatives were big proponents of deregulation, globalism, outsourcing, and other excessively pro-business ideals. Liberals didn't really jump on that bandwagon until Clinton, although Clinton still had to flex his party's muscle to get enough Democrats to support NAFTA.

If you look at the CFR (Code Of Federal Regulations), you'll find that Reagan wasn't too successful.....the volume of regulation increased every year under his reign. Deregulation has happened here & there at times, but the net effect is continual escalation of federal control. Add to this state & local increases, & you'll see why Americastan has fallen in worldwide ranking of economic liberty every year for some time.

I view judges as both lawyers and politicians. But the way I see it, if there are people who sign contracts and then regret it later and claim that they feel like it's "slavery," then obviously something is very wrong with the way judges and lawyers operate. I'm not a lawyer myself, but I do understand how language works and how it can be used to manipulate and deceive. Doublespeak, weasel words, and other semantic tricks are the domain of lawyers and those who would use them to cheat the public.

I put responsibility upon those who sign the contracts.

And that's also what someone advocating for more government interference in business might say. In order to achieve political stability without violence, sometimes governments have to interfere and intervene in the private sector.

The call shouldn't be simply for more intervention, but rather for intervention which works well. Too often we just hear calls to ban this or that right or punish some demonized group. No attention is paid to consequences which will certainly accompany such policies.

Probably, although this projection, if accurate, would be quite revealing of the underlying problem. The issue at hand may not be a matter of too many regulations or too much government interference - but the fact that there were situations which caused enough people to think there should be a regulation.

Huh?

Likewise, a lender insists on contracts full of legalese and the legal ability to foreclose, seize assets, garnish wages in the event of default - or else they won't do it. They seem to believe that it's a dog-eat-dog world and that if they don't have their ducks lined up and all their bases covered, it could work out unfavorably for them. It's much the same among businesses. They don't trust each other; they need to have that contract and knowledge that it will be legally enforced before they'll agree to anything.

"Legalese" is really just spelling out the agreement in detail. It would be great to eschew arcane language, but it can be learned.

The point is, if they know this about the world, why would they be resistant to efforts to try to keep it under control and rein in certain business practices? Why is it that every reform we've made throughout history has always had the business community fighting and screaming every step of the way? And all their predictions of disaster have usually turned out to be wildly inaccurate.

You're speaking so generally that there's really no claim.

I think it depends on which countries you're talking about and what measure you would use to define "turned out poorly."

Every country which ditched capitalism has failed economically, eg, N Korea, PRC (pre-capitalist PRC), USSR.

Capitalism has not had the exceptional track record which a lot of people make it out to be. For the majority of people in most countries in the world, they might say that capitalism has worked quite poorly - and those tend to be the same countries which have tried to ditch capitalism. Many of those countries actually turned out better off than they were before they ditched capitalism.

What alternative to capitalism do you propose?
How well has it fared in the real world?

Even in the United States, historically, capitalism has been no picnic. It wasn't really until some of capitalism's more egregious elements were clipped and tempered by Keynesianism that capitalism became more palatable and beneficial to a larger number of people. And that wasn't really until FDR and his successors. So, when people think about "capitalism," they think of the USA and the high standard of living we've enjoyed in comparison with much of the rest of the world, but it's not really the same "capitalism" as Adam Smith or what was commonly practiced in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
I think the biggest problem capitalists may face is their own internal ideological intransigence and fossilization. Their minds seem inextricably locked on the idea that their "system" and theirs alone is superior to all others and have become completely inflexible and resistant to change. Just like any other philosophy or school of thought, it should develop, grow, and progress with the times, but capitalists seem to want to take us backwards.

People who oppose capitalism love to talk about theory, ie, the way things should be if only people would just act a certain way or if government just had more power. But that's theory. Back in the real world......
Where do you live?
What non-capitalist country would you like to move to?

One must be skeptical of one's own ideology. It might be great in theory, but practice is more complex, & results will vary. I prefer to go with what works, guided by ideological goals, eg, freedom from coercion.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm never wrong (today). Anyway, it's one thing to question practices. I just object to some of the erroneous analysis & loopy solutions.

If both sides think that they're never wrong and that the other person's solutions are "loopy," then one may find much to object to in the real world.

They aren't the same level of choice. The choice to borrow money to buy a house doesn't involve the level of unanticipated coercion which would induce a business to leave the country.

They're both choices made from different perspectives. However, I would reject the notion of anything being "unanticipated." Myopia is not an excuse.

But the real issue is about effects of public policy. It makes no sense to justify bad policies by saying anyone who dislikes them can emigrate. It should be about whether the net effects make things better or worse.

I'm not saying that anyone should emigrate, but if the issue we're discussing involves choices, then the same arguments could apply to anyone in any number of situations. But I agree that the real issue is related to public policy and its effects. But I don't you can be that certain about what will make things better or worse. All you can really say is what you and others in your profession might do if a policy or regulation is enacted, but you can't say with any accuracy what the long-term effect to the entire society would be.

I've noticed that both Dems & Pubs have moved left.

Really? I see them both moving to the right, especially with their bipartisan support of globalism and free trade. Organized labor has lost a lot of support in recent decades (much of it they brought on themselves).
There may have been an overall leftward shift due to FDR which also had an effect on the Republican Party as well. The old guard conservatives and isolationists which dominated the GOP prior to WW2 all but vanished after the war, turning more towards internationalism and aggressive anti-communism. At the same time, though, they made concessions in terms of US domestic policies, at least as far as giving continued limited support to FDR's New Deal and the programs which were still in place (some of which were derided as "socialistic"). By the 1960s and 70s, that may have marked the furthest "left" the country actually got before the Reagan era saw us going back in a rightward direction again.

If you look at the CFR (Code Of Federal Regulations), you'll find that Reagan wasn't too successful.....the volume of regulation increased every year under his reign.

Well, he had a lot of irons in the fire. He also said he was going to cut Federal spending and reduce the national debt, but his record showed just the opposite. Still, he was one of the leading proponents for deregulation.

Deregulation has happened here & there at times, but the net effect is continual escalation of federal control. Add to this state & local increases, & you'll see why Americastan has fallen in worldwide ranking of economic liberty every year for some time.

I wanted to check on this ranking, and according to surveys I found (such as this one), the US ranks 12th in the world, which isn't really too bad, all things considered. Even in comparison to the countries which ranked higher, I think we may still be better off overall in America.

I put responsibility upon those who sign the contracts.

A lot of these may be poor innocent people who may not realize the consequences of what they're doing, but the bankers and lawyers are supposed to be knowledgeable and should know better than to take advantage of such people. Therefore, I place the higher level of responsibility on them.

While you would be harsh and unforgiving towards the weak and the ignorant (or as you put it "whiney, deluded, miserable little victimhood wallower"), I reserve my harsh and unforgiving side to the sharks and predators who take advantage of the weak and ignorant.

The call shouldn't be simply for more intervention, but rather for intervention which works well. Too often we just hear calls to ban this or that right or punish some demonized group. No attention is paid to consequences which will certainly accompany such policies.

But we won't know what the consequences are until we actually do it. It's also a matter of the consequences to society at large versus the "consequence" of wealthy people being a little bit less wealthy.

Huh?

I was trying to recall a quote in which it's suggested that the healthiest society is that which has the fewest laws. That's not to say that fewer laws make society healthy or efficient, but the presence of numerous laws and regulations would indicate that there may be something unhealthy and potentially harmful at a deeper level in society. That is, all the laws, regulations, legalese, etc. may be a symptom of a deeper problem which will ultimately have to be fixed before we can worry about which system works best for us.

"Legalese" is really just spelling out the agreement in detail. It would be great to eschew arcane language, but it can be learned.

Sure, it can be learned, but that's beside the point.

You're speaking so generally that there's really no claim.

Well, the most obvious claim I could make would be to reference the aforementioned subject of slavery. Why did capitalists fight tooth and nail to keep slavery? Why would they insist on fighting such a devastating and costly war just to maintain a gross injustice? Or if that example is too extreme for you, what about all the labor unrest and violence associated with it, when people had to work under grisly conditions with little pay. All they wanted was to be treated fairly and get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, yet the capitalists instead resorted to violence and other coercive tactics?

Why can't they make a deal before it gets to the level of extremism and violence? Why are they so stubborn? I can come up with dozens (if not hundreds) of examples of extremely stubborn capitalists throughout history and the violence they've caused.

Every country which ditched capitalism has failed economically, eg, N Korea, PRC (pre-capitalist PRC), USSR.

If you're enumerating countries which ditched capitalism, then North Korea wouldn't even qualify, since the Allies decided the fate of North and South Korea at Yalta. They weren't really given a fair choice before it was thrust upon them (with our complicity). Stalin installed his own puppet in North Korea, and they apparently enjoyed having absolute power so much that they decided to keep it.

As for the PRC, I would say that they ultimately fared better by ditching capitalism than what was apparent under the governments which ruled China prior to 1949. Considering how badly the Chinese capitalist government did against the Japanese in WW2, as opposed to the Chinese communist government fighting us to a stalemate in Korea, I think that serves as an effective point of comparison.

It was much the same with the USSR, which fared much better under communism than they did under their particular brand of capitalism prior to 1917. Likewise, capitalist Russia did very badly against the Germans in WW1, but communist Russia clearly had it more together and soundly defeated the (capitalist) Germans in WW2 (and taking half of Europe in the process).

Moreover, both Russia and China lost the most people and suffered the greatest devastation in World War 2, yet they recovered on their own and without any Marshall Plan money or the wherewithal of the Western empires (France, Britain, US). Yet they still gave us a good run for our money, and China could still overtake us.

China is doing better because they became flexible; they made compromises. Our business and political leaders are too inflexible and stubborn, and that will be our undoing. That's why the Soviet Union fell, and that's why North Korea is in the shape it's in now. Not because of their system, but because of wanton intransigence and irrational devotion to an ideology just for the sake of the ideology.

What alternative to capitalism do you propose?
How well has it fared in the real world?

It depends on what part of the "real world" you're referring to. When I look at the real world, I try to look at the entire world, both past and present. Others think of the "real world," yet are only considering what they can see from their front porch.

People who oppose capitalism love to talk about theory, ie, the way things should be if only people would just act a certain way or if government just had more power. But that's theory. Back in the real world......

Well, it's just as much "theory" from the pro-capitalist side as well. As far as I'm concerned, the policies advocated by FDR, John Kenneth Galbraith, and various progressives are the only policies which have had proven success in America. Those policies carried us through World War II, the bulk of the Cold War, and were also instrumental in helping to promote the cause of Civil Rights and other social reforms which continue to be felt today. That's about as "real world" as it gets, don't you think?

And it fared rather well, up until Reagan, who screwed it all up to the thunderous applause of all these wonderful capitalists. What adds insult to injury is that most of these conservatives and capitalists nowadays have the audacity to actually to blame our economic woes on liberals and so-called "socialists." Rather than simply owning up to it and taking the consequences and the blame for their own choices, they want to blame someone else - just like you were saying about those "whiners."

Where do you live?
What non-capitalist country would you like to move to?

Where I choose to live may be based on factors other than what kind of economic system it has.

One must be skeptical of one's own ideology. It might be great in theory, but practice is more complex, & results will vary. I prefer to go with what works, guided by ideological goals, eg, freedom from coercion.

I think one has to be aware of the flaws and pitfalls of one's own ideology and at least be willing enough to acknowledge them. I think socialists, liberals, and progressives these days can look back on past policies and ideas they once supported and be willing to admit that mistakes were made. They're willing to move forward and correct whatever flaws may have existed in the past.

But I don't really see any of that coming from capitalists. They're not willing to admit their mistakes and their faults in contributing to the situation. They seem to live in a fantasy world where "capitalism can do no wrong," and that's what I simply can not accept.

 

[Revoltingest]

They're both choices made from different perspectives. However, I would reject the notion of anything being "unanticipated." Myopia is not an excuse.

In doing risk analysis, one must recognize that different failure modes will have greatly different probabilities of occurring. Therefore, "myopia" is not universally applicable to unexpected consequences. To borrow money, to fail to meet repayment terms, & then be miffed upon discovering that banks will aggressively seek collection would be myopia. But some events are far less predictable, eg, unexpected regulatory changes which wipe out an investment's value...zoning changes, snail darter protection, force majeure, etc.

I'm not saying that anyone should emigrate, but if the issue we're discussing involves choices, then the same arguments could apply to anyone in kany number of situations.

The mere existence of many choices does not make them all equivalent. I've heard arguments that the military draft was fair to hetero men because they had the choice of illegally fleeing the country. Would you argue that women & men had equal choices about being drafted?

....I don't agree that you can be that certain about what will make things better or worse. All you can really say is what you and others in your profession might do if a policy or regulation is enacted, but you can't say with any accuracy what the long-term effect to the entire society would be.

You wouldn't be arguing that no one can make useful predictions about the effects of policy, would you? Or that expertise in the field is of no value?

Really? I see them both moving to the right, especially with their bipartisan support of globalism and free trade. Organized labor has lost a lot of support in recent decades (much of it they brought on themselves).
There may have been an overall leftward shift due to FDR which also had an effect on the Republican Party as well. The old guard conservatives and isolationists which dominated the GOP prior to WW2 all but vanished after the war, turning more towards internationalism and aggressive anti-communism. At the same time, though, they made concessions in terms of US domestic policies, at least as far as giving continued limited support to FDR's New Deal and the programs which were still in place (some of which were derided as "socialistic"). By the 1960s and 70s, that may have marked the furthest "left" the country actually got before the Reagan era saw us going back in a rightward direction again.

Movement to the left: government involvement in health care (Romneycare, Obamacare), more regulation, gender equality, racial equality, gay rights, welfare.

I wanted to check on this ranking, and according to surveys I found (such as this one), the US ranks 12th in the world, which isn't really too bad, all things considered. Even in comparison to the countries which ranked higher, I think we may still be better off overall in America.

What's significant is that the US is falling in ranking.

A lot of these may be poor innocent people who may not realize the consequences of what they're doing, but the bankers and lawyers are supposed to be knowledgeable and should know better than to take advantage of such people. Therefore, I place the higher level of responsibility on them.

Of the failed borrowers, what percentage of them really didn't understand enuf to anticipate the consequences they faced? Of people I know, misunderstanding wasn't the issue.

While you would be harsh and unforgiving towards the weak and the ignorant (or as you put it "whiney, deluded, miserable little victimhood wallower"), I reserve my harsh and unforgiving side to the sharks and predators who take advantage of the weak and ignorant.

I've no sympathy for fraudulent lenders, but I suspect that you're lumping all lenders together. Note too, that the worst offenders are arms of government, eg, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, RBS....they refused to renegotiate troubled loans, & are the harshest of all lenders. You want more government control, & yet government is the worst perp in this mess.

But we won't know what the consequences are until we actually do it. It's also a matter of the consequences to society at large versus the "consequence" of wealthy people being a little bit less wealthy.

If you say the consequences aren't knowable, then why advocate for change?

Sure, it can be learned, but that's beside the point.

I notice that we don't really have enuf common ground about economics, management, risk assessment & government to continue responding in detail to long posts, given the amount of work required.

 

[Stevicus]

In doing risk analysis, one must recognize that different failure modes will have greatly different probabilities of occurring. Therefore, "myopia" is not universally applicable to unexpected consequences. To borrow money, to fail to meet repayment terms, & then be miffed upon discovering that banks will aggressively seek collection would be myopia. But some events are far less predictable, eg, unexpected regulatory changes which wipe out an investment's value...zoning changes, snail darter protection, force majeure, etc.

A lot of things fall under the heading of "stuff happens." A person could borrow money and make regular payments for years, but then something might happen - an injury or perhaps a layoff from one's job. One might think that, as a loyal customer for years, the bank might cut the person a bit of slack and give him/her time to recover. The bank could do that if they chose, but if they instead choose to aggressively collect and foreclose, then that's a choice that they've made and should be held accountable for it.

But I would see that as far less predictable than government action, since governments generally do things in the public sphere (unless it's something related to national security). For example, zoning changes go through the Planning and Zoning Commission and everything is done publicly. It's the same thing when it comes to protecting endangered species. Most informed people would know if a species is endangered and would be aware of the possibility that the government may impose protections.

In contrast, businesses do things in secret and don't generally announce their plans until the very last minute, making it more difficult for the average person to anticipate what they might do.

The mere existence of many choices does not make them all equivalent. I've heard arguments that the military draft was fair to hetero men because they had the choice of illegally fleeing the country. Would you argue that women & men had equal choices about being drafted?

I've never heard anyone argue that the military draft was fair to hetero men because they had the choice of illegally fleeing the country. I've heard the usual "America, love it or leave it" banter, although that's not really the same thing.

My only point here is that, if one is going to argue that "people are free to make their own choices and should therefore accept the consequences of their choices," then that's an argument which cuts both ways. I don't think you can just casually discard if it becomes inconvenient to your position.

You wouldn't be arguing that no one can make useful predictions about the effects of policy, would you? Or that expertise in the field is of no value?

It depends on which field you're talking about. Those who have a vested interest in a given industry may not be the most reliable or objective sources of information when it comes to formulating public policies which involve that industry.

And predictions (even from experts) may not always be 100% reliable, especially when it involves an expertise in a social science (i.e. political science, economics, sociology, etc.). You yourself said earlier that we shouldn't rely too heavily on experts, although my contention is that it's better if the experts are neutral, not those whose livelihood depends on what the government may or may not do.

Movement to the left: government involvement in health care (Romneycare, Obamacare), more regulation, gender equality, racial equality, gay rights, welfare.

In terms of gender equality, racial equality, gay rights, and welfare, the "movement to the left" already happened decades earlier. Much of that was already in place prior to Reagan, and it was Reagan and his successors who have been moving away from the left.

Besides, when it comes to equality and civil rights, that was already written into the Constitution. If support of those ideals is associated with the left, does that mean that the left is generally more honest with their language and more likely to advocate policies consistent with their stated principles?

What's significant is that the US is falling in ranking.

The surveys I found only showed the rankings for the past few years. I noticed that the US was in 10th place a couple of years ago and slipped down to the 12th (among a field of almost 200 countries). If we were in 1st place 10 years ago and slipped down to 12th, I could see your point, but other than that, I'm not sure what is "significant" here.

Of the failed borrowers, what percentage of them really didn't understand enuf to anticipate the consequences they faced? Of people I know, misunderstanding wasn't the issue.

Well, you've made it quite clear over the course of the discussion that a lot of people simply don't understand how the market works nor understand much about real estate. You even said as much about "neophytes like Obama."

I know that in many cases, people often don't think of the consequences, and the salespeople and advertisers are trying to entice people to focus on the product they're trying to sell. Perhaps you're right in that people should be more street-wise and cognizant of the consequences beforehand, but when considering the ways and means of salesmanship and enticing buyers, I find it difficult to take a harsh attitude towards those who got suckered into a bad deal.

I've no sympathy for fraudulent lenders, but I suspect that you're lumping all lenders together. Note too, that the worst offenders are arms of government, eg, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, RBS....they refused to renegotiate troubled loans, & are the harshest of all lenders. You want more government control, & yet government is the worst perp in this mess.

I actually want more people's control over government. The problem we have in our government is that government control generally translates into "party control." While we differ greatly from the single-party states previously mentioned, the notion of party loyalty and the spirit of party which George Washington warned about may still be present.

It may not be government control, in and of itself, but the problem is when "The Party" becomes more important than the nation as a whole.

If you say the consequences aren't knowable, then why advocate for change?

We can only anticipate potential consequences and deem whether it's a reasonable risk, but that's not the same thing as being able to accurately predict exactly what's going to happen. I don't believe in fortunetellers.

I think that whatever changes I would support or advocate for, I would try to look at it from the viewpoint of what benefits the greater number of people, not just the wealthy few at the top.

I notice that we don't really have enuf common ground about economics, management, risk assessment & government to continue responding in detail to long posts, given the amount of work required.

Well, I suppose we can just agree to disagree, as we likely won't ever be convinced of each other's point of view. I think our main point of contention here is that you seem to believe that economics, business management, and political science are "hard sciences" when they are actually social sciences. The capitalist assumption is that any given political/economic system will produce the same result in every circumstance which produces overly simplistic positions such as "socialism is always bad" and "capitalism is always good." Even in the realm of social science, it's hardly a "scientific" position to take.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Besides, when it comes to equality and civil rights, that was already written into the Constitution. If support of those ideals is associated with the left, does that mean that the left is generally more honest with their language and more likely to advocate policies consistent with their stated principles?

It is pathetic that such things are associated with a certain side, rather than both sides. It's sad that those can be considered a political swing towards one direction, rather a step towards a more equal society (even we have only pretty much had baby steps).

The surveys I found only showed the rankings for the past few years. I noticed that the US was in 10th place a couple of years ago and slipped down to the 12th (among a field of almost 200 countries). If we were in 1st place 10 years ago and slipped down to 12th, I could see your point, but other than that, I'm not sure what is "significant" here.

We're number 1 in a few areas, but they aren't areas to brag about.

I know that in many cases, people often don't think of the consequences, and the salespeople and advertisers are trying to entice people to focus on the product they're trying to sell. Perhaps you're right in that people should be more street-wise and cognizant of the consequences beforehand, but when considering the ways and means of salesmanship and enticing buyers, I find it difficult to take a harsh attitude towards those who got suckered into a bad deal.

Advertisers and marketers also spend a ton of money researching psychology and sociology into learning the best ways to get people to buy and spend. How anyone can view such a thing as ethical or logical is beyond me. It's deliberate manipulation and wasteful consumption. Capitalism favors the Machiavellian Prince (where a corporate executive has less to fear from the public than a real prince), and as a result the world, and all living things on it, are bearing the cost. Many tyrants have killed large amounts of people in large amounts, but in the name of profits, dangerous chemicals have been released to the public (and "on" the public), additives that are health hazards are added to food, oceanic garbage patches exist as a byproduct, regulated commercial use has not prevented the Tragedy of the Commons, and the system we have is one in which even the Lockean Proviso is something that will not maximize profits and is an externality worth dismissing, because they are, in most cases, too powerless to do anything about it.

 

[suncowiam]

First of all, whenever you take out a loan you are basically signing a contract to the bank that you will be her slave and she will be your master.

Banks give out loans that basically it doesn't have. For example if the bank has in cash form $5 million , it can loan up to $20 million. The government can raise or lower the limits. But as we all know banks have a big say in government, so it becomes just a whole big circle.



Algebraic equations:



$=Work

Work=Time x Energy



When the bank gives four people $5 million dollars each, that is fake $15 million thrown into the economy. This is money that doesn't really exist. It is like a master telling his slave to do something under the name of the master.



If $1 million= 1 unit of Work(W), then $ 20 million= 20 units of W



Initially the bank had 5 units of work, but assigned 15 units of work to 4 people by taking loans from the bank. That 15 units of work is basically giving work orders to its enslaved population who opt in for this kind of institution. The government helps in a way to force people to opt in for loan receiving.



Nevertheless, the 4 people will go out to work to create a profit and repay back the money it took from the bank and not only that but additional interest. What a heinous prank this is on the public. Not only they are paying back the 5 units of Work the bank originally carried(not even owned), but also the extra 15 units of work and an addition probably 4 units because of interest.



So at the end the bank clears out with 24 units of work, profit=19 units of work they received from their slaves.





Lets say one of their slaves wasn't able to pay back the units of work, the bank with the enforcement of the law can seize your previous owned articles without your consent.



In the end the bank doesn't lose anything but gains a lot.



It is a legalized form of Slavery!

There is no other form of slavery and to compare basic economics to slavery is trivializing what slavery really is.

You have a choice in not taking money and not signing any contract. If you get a loan, the purpose is to make money and not simply spend lavishly. Think Shark Tank. Folks in poorer nations do not have this option with credit or net worth outside of hard cash and property. The banks are not nonprofit organizations.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have a choice in not taking money and not signing any contract. If you get a loan, the purpose is to make money and not simply spend lavishly. Think Shark Tank. Folks in poorer nations do not have this option with credit or net worth outside of hard cash and property. The banks are not nonprofit organizations.

Do you realize there are many things you can't do without a credit or debit card? Signing these contracts aren't always a choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you realize there are many things you can't do without a credit or debit card? Signing these contracts aren't always a choice.

It's less convenient, but people do without those things.
Things like credit cards are really no burden at all, provided one promptly pays the tab.
Where people get in trouble is using them irresponsibly....then they complain about the terms.
But even if the government took over tightly controlling such things for the benefit of consumers (as some advocate), can we really trust them either? If you want to see really thuggish behavior, try owing the local, state or fed gov some money....see what happens. They have far greater power, & exercise far less care in wringing money from the debtor.