|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 22:47:54 [Permalink]
|
| Government beneficiaries in the mortgage meltdown are abundant, lobbyists are the source. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2008 : 22:54:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
Government beneficiaries in the mortgage meltdown are abundant, lobbyists are the source. |
Evidence? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2008 : 23:53:09 [Permalink]
|
The National Association of Home Builders is one of the biggest corporate donors to politicians.
I can't find exact figures on just how much they pump into Washinton just now. Propaganda articles don't count as evidence. I will the figures.
The same folks that pushed for deregulation now begging for bailouts. NAHB is only one of many lobbyist groups involved with padding DC wallets concerning the build up and the meltdown. Interesting reading... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 00:25:21 [Permalink]
|
If the people who pushed for deregulation are now the same people who are in trouble, then you are proving my point: the market failure did not help those who engineered it, unlike (for example) building inspectors handing out permits to unworthy projects in return for kickbacks or bribes.
Coercive lobbying which backfires on the coercers would have to be considered to be a free-market triumph, because the free-market is supposed to work (by itself) to cut the balls off the bad actors. And it seems that you're saying that it did.
Oh, you also wrote:Just checking your perception of government actions that indicate separation of the government from the citizenry.
Because conceptual mechanisms exist to change government does not mean they are always functional. |
Indeed. The failure of the influence market under the current rules is obvious, but that's still not a problem with government per se, but instead a result of decades of apathy and inactivity among the governed.
The ideal of governmental minimalists requires active participantion in governance by a majority of the governed, with "enlightened self-interest" being practiced by all actors, and that hasn't happened for quite a while (if ever). Making government smaller without changing the rules under which it operates will not solve these problems, because the governed will be as greedy as ever. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 00:49:34 [Permalink]
|
These two sites show lobby "contributions". NAHB shows 101017 filings in the House, which is flippin incredible for a database that started recording filings less than a year ago.
http://disclosures.house.gov/lc/lcsearch.aspx
http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=lobbyistselectfields
A bit stunned at the number of lobbyists. The senate site sucks.
Beneficiaries in government from the housing meltdown. There seems to be a few articles that suggest this is the case. http://www.ombwatch.org seems to be a credible watchdog, but the language does indicate anti-government bias. LewRockwell.com has even stronger language bias.
More than a few credible minds have concluded that lobbyists do enrich Washington government, and have done so in regards to the creation, build up, collapse and bailouts.
The impact on legislation is speculative, but there is little doubt that government has abundant beneficiaries in regards to the housing melt-down. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 00:57:32 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Did you forget about the birthday bug again, Bng? |
No, Dave, I mention it just to bug you!
I understand this is a cybernetic malfunction that is beyond the programming skills of Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and all the folks listed here to fix!
It's enough to bug a pro!
God knows I'm not, and it bugs me!
Going to bed to dream of web-crawling arachnids! Technically not a bug, but my dreams are technically imperfect. See you and Zeked tommorrow! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 08/23/2008 01:06:08 |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 01:10:09 [Permalink]
|
A fr** market triumph, to me, would be a government that had insignificant controls on the market and lobbyists would be of minimal influence.
Mine, and many others "apathy" had an overwhelming democratic sweep to bring change and accountability to the Bush clan. Once elected, promisses broken, empeachment off the table, and apathy from those who were promising action. Letters, petitions, marches and demonstrations - consolatory form letter in return - not an ounce of change in government action.
There is a tangible disconnect between government and the citizenery. Is the system self correcting and satisfactory as it is? |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 12:01:34 [Permalink]
|
post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, so it is conceivable the lobbyists have no influence on market manipulation that government sustains and encourages. The inflation practices of the Federal Reserve could be benign, and housing prices would have dropped regardless.
It could be that there is no difference between our perspectives other than semantics, but I doubt that it ends there. I see cause and effect in the markets that is possibly not warranted by evidence and objective "big picture" reasoning. Correction of thought by critical and reasoned review seems a healthy endeavor. This brought me to SFN in the first place.
I see a continuing story being put forth by the government that somehow we can not exist without them, and in return all we must do is give over our rights and liberties and our desires will be met. Desires, not needs. Our desires for prosperity, lets legislate managed trade and banking. Our desires for homes, lets legislate home loans and banking. Etc, etc, etc.. When, it appears to me, the government encourages debt, encourages market distortions, encourages the appearance of wealth where there is none.
The bubbles burst and the government comes to bail out the bad actors, inflate the money supply to gloss over the disruption, claim the bad actors acted alone and the government manipulation is of no consequence. Then we start the whole damned cycle over again.
It isn't my point that people are clueless to the process, some have learned the game and profit well. Attempting to change the process is restricted by those who wish to maintain status quo. e.g grassroots vs GOP. I am optimistic that change can come about from the processes in place, but it requires a leader, not a ruler mentality from inside government.
Unfortunately it appears any want of change in the current system requires an idealist, selfless activist, the disenfranchised or a combinations thereof.
This excerpt from author Bill Bonner back in April sums up my thoughts pretty well.
“The latest farm bill ~ received widespread, bi-partisan collusion for the very reason that dooms the U.S. economy – it stifles capitalism. There is something in the farm bill for almost every scoundrel and bounder in the country. Poor people get more free food. Rich people get more subsidies. There was talk of restricting the payouts to people with incomes of $200,000 or less...but in the end, the legislation allows people with incomes up to $1.25 million to feed at the public trough. The total cost of the bill is $307 billion over five years – with free money to grain farmers, dairymen, fruit growers, school lunch programs, food stamps, land conservation, rural development, and every other special interest whose lobbyists could suborn and pervert the lawmaking process. There are said to be twice as many lobbyists in Washington than there were 5 years ago; the trough has been extended proportionately.
Did anyone...anywhere...mention that capitalism could be relied upon to sort out the agricultural sector? Did anyone recall that a free market – with prices set by willing producers and consumers – works more efficiently than one that is rigged by lawmakers? Did anyone even notice that the farming industry has been corrupted by government money...or ask where the money would come from to corrupt it even more? Apparently not. Apparently, Americans don't think they can trust free enterprise to feed them. They think every bid needs to be checked with a bureaucrat and every request should be cleared by a Senate committee. ”
***
Now with “free market” existence in dispute, possibly he refers to lasse fare or some other model that fits your perception or definition. Regardless, no evidence of efficiency or success provided, just a claim.
The core, the concept, the idea, the meat of what Bonner puts forward, to me, seems credible.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 13:53:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
The core, the concept, the idea, the meat of what Bonner puts forward, to me, seems credible. |
The core problem I have is that I'm supposed to accept that free markets are a goal we should seek, without solid empirical evidence that they work as advertised in a world that includes numerous bad actors (who are excluded from free markets by definition, it seems). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 14:34:50 [Permalink]
|
Dave I agree,
I'll see if it can hold to scrutiny. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2008 : 23:02:15 [Permalink]
|
Zeked.....
| Mine, and many others "apathy" had an overwhelming democratic sweep to bring change and accountability to the Bush clan. |
Are you referring to the 2006 elections?
"Overwhelming Democratic sweep"? With a majority of 31 seats in the House and tied 49/49 even in the Senate, the '06 election may have been a sweep, but the Democrats are nowhere near the majority needed to move the broom in Congress and really effect change.
Hopefully, this November's election will help the Democrats in both houses of Congress! If the change is sufficient, legislative progress may occur.| When, it appears to me, the government encourages debt, encourages market distortions, encourages the appearance of wealth where there is none. |
When you say "the government" encourages debt, what debt and what administration's government are you referring to? These statements sound like grumbling, glimmering generalizations without specific referents.
Clinton, despite an irrelevant zipper problem, left office with a prosperous country and a strong surplus. Bush is running up one of the most stupendous debt deficits we have ever experienced!
Zeked, do you really believe that uncontrolled laissez-faire capitalism with no coercion or restaint on the corporate "creators of wealth" would result in the greatest good for the greatest number in this country? Would remake the corrupt characters of those who control and lead corporations such as Enron was (and Exxon is), Halliburton, Fox News and the Murdoch conglomerate, and many more?
That a freely operating unrestrained "free-market" would govern it's own excesses automatically and the "wealth" thus created would distribute to the benefit of the largest number of Americans?
That the greed, avarice, and insatiable hunger for power and money that drives many of the captains of our industries would be self-regulating? That competition alone would prevent cartels and monopolies from forming and screwing the skin off of most of the defenseless population?
I feel this is a naïveté that seems weirdly out of place in a rather sophisticated author such as yourself. Are you in fact an intellectual conservative searching for vindication of Republican fiscal dogma? Does your embrace of physiocracy and the policies of Milton Friedman actually signal a pollyannish faith in the essential goodness of compassionate capitalism? (an oxymoron, if ever one existed) Are you searching for personal elucidation or validation of an economic myth?
Your comments frequently sound contradictory! |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 00:02:51 [Permalink]
|
Hi bngbuck
The Clinton surplus didn't seem to warrant a tax cut, what is in government coffers seems irrelevant to my pocket book. Bosnia seems to have needed our money more urgently anyway. The addendum consisting of future liabilities make the whole "surplus" seem like BS.
Coorporations don't make and enforce the regulations, this is a product of government. While there were bad actors in Enron, the state of California is not of clean hands in the energy debacle.
Murdoch is a opportunist. A manipulative, shrewd and discomforting site of a man. His acquisitions are a product of government allowance, in spite of anti-monopoly laws. Every chance for telecom and media mergers in the last ~14 years, none have been refused. Diversity be damned. Take what they want and throw the rest to bottom feeders to shred. All with the nodding approval of gov. Who has a 10 year plan in these shredded industries? 5,3,2 - Come on they change hands so quick who cares?
The government is complicit in enabling these Titanic disasters.
Hi Dave,
Straight and blunt, there is no answer. I thought the duality of the photon was obscure, free markets in economic theory are beyond duality. The definition is much more malleable, but there are limits.
“To establish that the market fails because of what it is, rather than what it does, the critic must develop a logical, reasoned case that the proper standard for interpersonal conduct is a system of rights or obligations that is radically inconsistent with any set of individual rights that could reasonably be identified with the free market. Frankly, I don't think it can be done.” Egger
"THE FREE MARKET AND THE STANDARDS BY WHICH IT IS JUDGED"
In entirety - http://pages.towson.edu/egger/ulec_a.htm#ulectop
It is worth a read for zinging the synapses.
Looking through 38 PDFs from all colors of the economic debate spectrum, I see free market interchanged with lasissez faire, Austrian economics and free market capitalism. There is no claim of perfection for any model, nor any glittery examples of real world perfection, economists are smarter than that.
Some say Hong Kong is worthy of review between 1948 and 1985, but there is disagreement concerning restrictions of individual rights. I thought Eggers' lecture put the individual rights issue to rest very well.
The most significant conclusion: “government intervention in the market process is the greatest source of instability in society today.” Christopher Westley
The most significant quote: “Freedom and security against aggression are two sides of the same coin.” Murray Rothbard
When looking for historical proof of an economic method success, there are many pitfalls in drawing conclusions because of effectors that are not revealed in the historical data. These unknown conditions added to unknowable new effectors bring alternative outcomes when applied to any other framework.
That lasissez-faire policies are strongly associated with past instances of success, is not proof of their viability. "What should be preserved in a free society is the respect for private property and the rule of law, which is free market capitalism." Ron Paul |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 01:00:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
Straight and blunt, there is no answer. I thought the duality of the photon was obscure, free markets in economic theory are beyond duality. The definition is much more malleable, but there are limits. |
Well, that's a lot better than it being "beyond question," don't you think?| “To establish that the market fails because of what it is, rather than what it does, the critic must develop a logical, reasoned case that the proper standard for interpersonal conduct is a system of rights or obligations that is radically inconsistent with any set of individual rights that could reasonably be identified with the free market. Frankly, I don't think it can be done.” Egger |
The quote seems to be an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the critics, when the "logical, reasoned case" should be coming from the proponents of the idea. I'll try to make some time to read the whole thing later.| The most significant quote: “Freedom and security against aggression are two sides of the same coin.” Murray Rothbard |
And this interests me because, obviously, measures to ensure security against aggressors are required to limit the freedom of the aggressors. Because your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, any sort of "absolute" claim to personal freedom must be rejected as totalitarian in intent.| That lasissez-faire policies are strongly associated with past instances of success, is not proof of their viability. |
No, but strong correlations would be acceptable, especially if non-laissez-faire modifications brought the end of the success stories.| "What should be preserved in a free society is the respect for private property and the rule of law, which is free market capitalism." Ron Paul |
Again, the catch-22. Your earlier statements, Zeked, indicated a belief that government interference (the "rule of law") diminished respect for private property. If such is still true, then obviously there is a balancing act which must be performed.
I suspect that where the fulcrum rests for any particular market will depend on how much damage bad actors are capable of doing to the good actors without intervention. This would explain why garage sales and flea markets are relatively unregulated, while on the other hand it is simply illegal for a private citizen to own a nuclear weapon.
If my hypothesis is correct, the natural result will be constant arguments over how much governance is necessary, because "harm" is not only a relative term, but depends upon the context, as well. There will always be people saying "there ought to be a law" after getting ripped off at a yard sale, and at the same time there will always be people saying "that's a stupid law" when they find out they need a special license to own a bazooka "just as a showpiece." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 03:28:52 [Permalink]
|
"beyond question" is like the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard. I can see there is an art to communications that sometimes requires it to be refined like flour through a sifter.
Egger is worth the read. It was soothing logic of a philosopher. Meaningless to a function in reality, perhaps.
I think the balancing act is imperfect, but desireable to maintain individual rights. The government has too much incentive to abuse the individual in favor of a corporation/big entity that adds more to the coffers. The government should be restricted from this bias, to favor the law and not thier own enrichment. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2008 : 03:43:23 [Permalink]
|
Hi again bgnbuck
I was distracted before. Most unkind. Sorry.
"Zeked, do you really believe that uncontrolled laissez-faire capitalism with no coercion or restaint on the corporate "creators of wealth" would result in the greatest good for the greatest number in this country? Would remake the corrupt characters of those who control and lead corporations such as Enron was (and Exxon is), Halliburton, Fox News and the Murdoch conglomerate, and many more?"
I just don't know. I see what we have as unsustainable. Strong evidence that the biggest and baddest work hand in hand with government. Fed creates an illusion of strength, (when we should all damn well know better), and the sheep run to the slaughter. The current system of markets could continue, (schitzo again, I know), but government would need to drastically reduce spending, and the Fed really has to put a stop to their massive inflation.
I think neither of these prerequisites could happen in time to ward off a depression. The Fed now must inflate like crazy to fend off the latest in the banking solvency crisis (on top of everything else). The government has extended itself into situations of massive spending that will take years to reverse. At some point the Japanese and Chinese will stop infusing cash. So we have hyperinflation and a ton of unemployed and a significant industry base closing up or going offshore.
As crazy as it sounds, I think the economy is beyond repair and the US empire is at an end. The Fed will push out the inevitable as long as they can. We are already at a breaking point on foreign markets depegging the dollar. As the Fed does what it does best, inflate, many more countries are going start dumping the notes on the market. There is not much the US has to bargain with to convince other countries to hold, other than promises to not expand the wars. Gulf Co-Operation Council is holding the depeg card and US warmongering policy is being held under constraint. Attack Iran, and other sympathetic OPEC members start depegging the dollar in return. Oil producers have the US by the balls.
"That a freely operating unrestrained "free-market" would govern it's own excesses automatically and the "wealth" thus created would distribute to the benefit of the largest number of Americans?
That the greed, avarice, and insatiable hunger for power and money that drives many of the captains of our industries would be self-regulating? That competition alone would prevent cartels and monopolies from forming and screwing the skin off of most of the defenseless population?"
If we could ensure there are legal constructs to hold property rights and individual liberty as inalienable, we could very likely burn the bastards. The courts have created precedent that make this a bizarro world postulation. The system currently seems biased against the individual. The cost of litigation alone, makes this a corporate favored system right off the bat.
"I feel this is a naïveté that seems weirdly out of place in a rather sophisticated author such as yourself. Are you in fact an intellectual conservative searching for vindication of Republican fiscal dogma? Does your embrace of physiocracy and the policies of Milton Friedman actually signal a pollyannish faith in the essential goodness of compassionate capitalism? (an oxymoron, if ever one existed) Are you searching for personal elucidation or validation of an economic myth?"
This is my first time to have any outlet of expression for these ideas, so don't expect much. I don't warrant any credibility concerning any of these matters.
Your comments frequently sound contradictory!
Its just cognitive dissonance reverberating in an empty shell.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Free markets?
