AIG Bailout Has Saved America

[sjt18]

In a "free market" economy trust and monopoly laws would not exist.

sjt, it seems all your posts are so loaded down with rhetoric I can't tell what you are trying to say. Feel free to mold that rhetoric into a cohesive point about a specific topic at any time.

Free markets do not exclude rules of conduct. In fact, rules are necessary.

"Cohesive point"? If you can't follow what I am saying, just ask questions. There's no shame in it. I certainly do not claim to be an infallible communicator. As far as "rhetoric" is concerned... I say what I mean and mean what I say. If I take the time and interest to make a point it comes from a conviction developed over time and experience... not only from textbooks or eggheaded professors....

 

[sjt18]

Also monopolies wouldn't exist. There has never been a monopoly that's been able to sustain itself over time without government regulation and protection.

I somewhat agree but it can evolve into some sort of serfdom type arrangement.

Laws are needed that uphold individual rights and sovereignty. They may prevent monopolies but they can most certainly rectify them.

 

[sjt18]

Greed is good (in a free society). Dumb isn't.

YouTube - ‪Greed With John Stossel part 1 of 6‬‏

Greed isn't good. Honest industry, ambition, and achievement is VERY good.

 

[sjt18]

i never understood this logic. why is insuring them at the taxpayer expense make it mroe likely they will do risky things? the idiots like aig, citi, etc lost the majority of the stock value. so how is losing that last 10% going to encourage people to not do it again?

And previously they made money hand over fist. A drop in stock value isn't comparable to the billions they made beforehand. Had they NOT been covered in part or whole in making those decisions or at least had that perception then they would have been more conservative and not reached a crisis.

 

[droski]

And previously they made money hand over fist. A drop in stock value isn't comparable to the billions they made beforehand. Had they NOT been covered in part or whole in making those decisions or at least had that perception then they would have been more conservative and not reached a crisis.

why? if they are really this unscrupulous why would they care about the company actually going bankrupt? as you point out they already got their cash bonuses.

 

[milohimself]

I said Bush was in charge when it went down, but you have to go back much further to find the root of the problem.

Not what I was referring to.

Free markets do not exclude rules of conduct. In fact, rules are necessary.

"Cohesive point"? If you can't follow what I am saying, just ask questions. There's no shame in it. I certainly do not claim to be an infallible communicator. As far as "rhetoric" is concerned... I say what I mean and mean what I say. If I take the time and interest to make a point it comes from a conviction developed over time and experience... not only from textbooks or eggheaded professors....

Just stating that I wouldn't even know how to go about asking the questions to begin with.

Greed isn't good. Honest industry, ambition, and achievement is VERY good.

baker, either with intent or without, is directly espousing Rand-ian ideals of laissez-faire capitalism. At least that's what I can tell, which calls for the elimination of any law and any form of government that says what a business can and cannot do, short of a civil code and that the government's only major responsibility should be military, and a couple other minor things. Anyways, two of her main ideals were that 1) Greed IS good and 2) "money is the root of all good... When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns or dollars. Take your choice - there is no other."

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

They were not greedy, they were stupid. Now they have to go to Etrade and beg their clients to buy their new shares. Its sad, like a wounded puppy

 

[n_huffhines]

Greed isn't good. Honest industry, ambition, and achievement is VERY good.

Greed is good. If you'd watched the video you'd see why. As Walter Williams says:

"You think New Yorkers can buy a steak because ranchers like them? Ranchers are 'greedy'. They want more money. Thus New Yorkers get steak."

Most of what we do isn't out of the goodness of our heart. We do what's in our self-interest. Even when we do good it can be argued that it makes us feel good and that's why we do it, so we are still acting out of self-interest.

 

[n_huffhines]

baker, either with intent or without, is directly espousing Rand-ian ideals of laissez-faire capitalism. At least that's what I can tell, which calls for the elimination of any law and any form of government that says what a business can and cannot do, short of a civil code and that the government's only major responsibility should be military, and a couple other minor things. Anyways, two of her main ideals were that 1) Greed IS good and 2) "money is the root of all good... When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns or dollars. Take your choice - there is no other."

Not a big fan of Rand, but she speaks for me in some cases.

Careless, irrational greed isn't good, but if a smart person is greedy, they will do what's in their best interest: Make themselves filthy rich by honestly creating a quality product that brings people value.

If someone is truly self-interested they will not destroy their reputation and potential future earnings with dishonesty and fraud.

 

[milohimself]

All this said, I wholeheartedly disagree with the Rand-ian principle of deregulation.

Alan Greenspan, one of the principle understudies of Rand, had an interesting hearing following the economic collapse.

Henry Waxman: "You have been a staunch advocate for letting markets regulate themselves, and my question for you is simple: were you wrong?"
Alan Greenspan: "Yes. I found a flaw and I'd been very distressed by that fact."
HW: "You found a flaw in..."
AG: "A flaw in the model that I'd perceived to be the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak."
HW: "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology was not right."
AG: "Precisely. Now that's precisely the reason that I was shocked because I've been going for forty years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."

 

[n_huffhines]

All this said, I wholeheartedly disagree with the Rand-ian principle of deregulation.

Alan Greenspan, one of the principle understudies of Rand, had an interesting hearing following the economic collapse.

Yeah, Greenspan used to be a gold standard guy, but that's not how you become chairman of the Fed. He's an opportunist. There are very few that make the switch Greenspan did. I wonder if I would in his circumstances.

 

[milohimself]

Yeah, Greenspan used to be a gold standard guy, but that's not how you become chairman of the Fed. He's an opportunist. There are very few that make the switch Greenspan did. I wonder if I would in his circumstances.

My point is that the guys in charge (not the politicians, the economists) during the time of the collapse were the biggest neoclassical or Rand-ian or deregulatory stalwarts you could find, and now many of them have changed their stance. Why?

 

[n_huffhines]

My point is that the guys in charge (not the politicians, the economists) during the time of the collapse were the biggest neoclassical or Rand-ian or deregulatory stalwarts you could find, and now many of them have changed their stance. Why?

I get what you are saying, but if that were true they probably wouldn't work for the Federal Reserve in the first place.

 

[utvolpj]

My point is that the guys in charge (not the politicians, the economists) during the time of the collapse were the biggest neoclassical or Rand-ian or deregulatory stalwarts you could find, and now many of them have changed their stance. Why?

you're talking about the housing market collapse? Not sure I get how deregulation comes from regulation

 

[n_huffhines]

Greenspan won't even really give Ron Paul a straight answer as to why he went from gold standard proponent to supporting fiat. Paul put their conversations in one of his books (can't remember if it's Revolution or End the Fed).

Note: I am not a big gold standard guy. I support it, but I'd be fine with fiat money just as long as we outlawed inflation.

 

[utgibbs]

Capitalism at its best.

Sweet. :good!:

The OP should read: "Thank you, US taxpayer." Not Paulson.

The great image of Paulson is him down on his knees, hands clasped, begging Nancy Pelosi to save Capitalism.

Comedy at its finest.

 

[utgibbs]

Greed is good (in a free society). Dumb isn't.

YouTube - ‪Greed With John Stossel part 1 of 6‬‏

Thanks for this. I had to break it down Barney-style about six months ago that this was dogma for over 30 years.

YouTube - ‪Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" Speech‬‏

Greed is not good, btw. It is a vice. It does not work, as we have seen in glorious technicolor during the same 30 years when it was dogma: stagnant earnings, low growth, (taking out communist China) increased global poverty.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

I would be willing to bet that no one since Churchill went through the stress that Paulson went through
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

Just stating that I wouldn't even know how to go about asking the questions to begin with.

Then why not say so rather than accusing me of mindless "rhetoric" because you didn't understand?

baker, either with intent or without, is directly espousing Rand-ian ideals of laissez-faire capitalism. At least that's what I can tell, which calls for the elimination of any law and any form of government that says what a business can and cannot do, short of a civil code and that the government's only major responsibility should be military, and a couple other minor things. Anyways, two of her main ideals were that 1) Greed IS good and 2) "money is the root of all good... When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns or dollars. Take your choice - there is no other."

Such a system would depend on a level of moral goodness man has never seen... not greed. It would virtually assure that men became the tools of other men. The notion that any society could be sustained on the premise of everyone serving only their own interests is ridiculous.

That said, I would be far closer to that ideal than any centralized economic model with a healthy dose of self-governance and moral responsibility for your neighbor's well-being.

 

[sjt18]

Greed is not good, btw. It is a vice. It does not work, as we have seen in glorious technicolor during the same 30 years when it was dogma: stagnant earnings, low growth, (taking out communist China) increased global poverty.

Nor does it work when employed by those who want benefits at others' expense or those who vainly think they have the moral authority to confiscate the property of someone and transfer it to someone else.

It is every bit as much a "vice" for you to declare that the health care of one be forcibly paid for by someone else as it is for someone to greedily horde wealth in spite of the needs of others. Your greed and coveting is NOT morally superior to the selfishness of others.

 

[sjt18]

My point is that the guys in charge (not the politicians, the economists) during the time of the collapse were the biggest neoclassical or Rand-ian or deregulatory stalwarts you could find, and now many of them have changed their stance. Why?

You don't really think the factors that caused the housing bubble developed in a couple of years do you? Are you saying the sub-primes were a product of "de-regulation"? You are saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the product of those types of economists?

Jimmy Carter and his economic team were Randian? Clinton, Ruben, Reich, et al were? For that matter, were Bush and his guys?

Why did they change? Because they're panicked.

FWIW, we NEED regulation. But it can only work if gov't is a referree and NOT a player. There must be separation.

Could the EPA do its job if the survival of a violating company was of any consideration?

 

[milohimself]

I think the govt as a refnot a player is a good way to put the way I believe things must be as long as that includes subsidies, rules and regulations.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[milohimself]

You don't really think the factors that caused the housing bubble developed in a couple of years do you? Are you saying the sub-primes were a product of "de-regulation"? You are saying that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the product of those types of economists?

Jimmy Carter and his economic team were Randian? Clinton, Ruben, Reich, et al were? For that matter, were Bush and his guys?

Why did they change? Because they're panicked.

FWIW, we NEED regulation. But it can only work if gov't is a referree and NOT a player. There must be separation.

Could the EPA do its job if the survival of a violating company was of any consideration?

First, Greenspan goes back to the Ford administration, and had pull almost immediately. He pulls his economic ideas directly from Rand, has been both the pinnacle of libertarian economics and I don't think I'm reaching too far in saying he's one of the most influential individuals in American economic history.

His appointment to the Fed chair by Ronald Reagan was an opportunity he used to promote de-regulation as an insider. This continued all the way through Clinton and both Bushs.

Ruben's views were, in fact, very similar to Greenspan's. So was Geithner, so was Summers, so was O'Neil, so was Snow, so was Paulson, so was Leavitt... The fact is that all the key free-market thinkers have had lofty positions in the WH and in the fed for twenty some odd years.

Ruben had a committee under Clinton called "the presidents' working committee" who is widely accepted as the

When Brooksly Born was appointed head of the CFTC under Clinton and had her first meeting with Greenspan, he apparently said "... We're never going to agree on fraud." "What do you mean?" she replied. "You probably think there should be rules against it." "Well, yes I do." "Well, I think the market will figure it out and take care of the fraudsters."

The bottom line is the 2008 collapse, the Madoff scheme, etc. were essentially the result of "Put the money in a black box and make a profit."

LTCM in the late 90's was a good first case study, and could have wound up worse than the '08 situation if major Wall St firms didn't pony up a few billion to buy that fund.

Things got even more deregulated over the next decade, the CFTC was basically muzzled.

The housing market just happened to be the bubble the OTC derivative market was riding at the time. The hands-off approach to the financial markets will cause the same thing again.

It culminated in one thing: Greenspan, a former absolute champion of the free-market, who said markets can regulate themselves, was forced to reconsider his position, and that the government not only needs to be a referee, it needs to be an effective referee.

I don't blame the financial institutions for doing what they're doing. The problem was systemic. Saying the subprime mortgage crisis was solely because of lenders issuing loans without making sure they could get paid back is like saying the sole reason WWI happened was because Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. It was a key turning point, but far from being they sole large influence.

The fight still goes on. The response to the most recent crisis, the Dodd-Frank act, and particularly the creation of the CFPB, is still being fought tooth and nail by the financial lobby. And it seems to be a fact of life: regulation and economic booms are opposite forces.

Re: The EPA, they end up in check anyhow as they have more lobbyists and watchdogs on their doorstep than any other government agency.

 

[utgibbs]

I would be willing to bet that no one since Churchill went through the stress that Paulson went through
Posted via VolNation Mobile

C'mon Rock!

Paulson was stressed he and his friends would go bankrupt and not keep their posh digs.

Not even close.

 

[gsvol]

front lines: Sharia Law Gains Foothold in US—Federal Judge Upholds Government Funding of Islam

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, commented: “Judge Zatkoff’s ruling allows for oil–rich Muslim countries to plant the flag of Islam on American soil. His ruling ignored the uncontested opinions of several Sharia experts and AIG’s own website, which trumpeted Sharia-compliant financing as promoting the law of the Prophet Mohammed and as an ‘ethical product,’ and a ‘new way of life.’ His ruling ignored AIG’s use of a foreign Islamic advisory board to control investing in accordance with Islamic law.”