Mr. Perfect wrote:Parodite wrote:The title of this thread, I hoped and prayed for, would make clear how I think about your monomaniacal attack on liberals and democrats. Parody. You see, I don't care if it is repubs or demos who do stupid things. I'm interested in stupid things and what to do differently and better next time. I give a damn f*ck whether it was a dem or a rep doing stupid things.
Yes but when 90% of the problem is always emanating from one source efficiency says just go ahead and blot out the source for eternity. It;s just quicker and more efficient.
I don't care if it's 90%, 95% or 38%. What I've found with people doing stupid things, or outright criminal, or just being greedy, naive, misinformed or all of that.. is that they may wear certain identity tags that however have very little do with their actual behavior. More telling are general traits like character and moral backbone. Hardly political.
All fine but not following from anything I said. Just in your mind.
Well if we can come to some agreement on them then perhaps we're making progress.
We are for a fact much in agreement. Probably some details are not discussed. Often the devil is in tiny details. Or a big elephant in the room we all may overlook. Hell, most of the time I agree with Ibrahim! Maybe I should speak out more often when I agree with others, it might prevent them to read too much between the lines of things that aint there.
Look, if you decide to continue making yourself look like an durian, go ahead. Below you identify me as a commie sympathizer assuming I think communism is "risk-averse". Communism is big risk in my view.. why you smear me, oh so conveniently when you better focus on the issue and argument? Can't you just stop your bull sh*t? If to you this board is just a like a public toilet where you can't sh*t fart and stink freely, go ahead. I'll gladly leave you some privacy and be out of the way. Just let me know.
The danger with people that think as you do is that IME with lefty moderates 99% of the time when the real commies show you guys just relent to them.
I think that is paranoid and delusional. Maybe it is only 70%, or even 1,1%? Who cares? Go case by case.. That was your own advice elsewhere and I agree. I don't know anybody for a fact that would relent to real commies. Commies are also hard to come by lately..
So no, it's not some smack talking thing on my part it's a real danger. Remember the Matrix? That movie? Where the bad guy software characters could assume control of the normal citizens walking around. Non commie leftists/"moderates" often are much the same, when the real commies show up they just give in. I don't take this lightly.
I'm with you here. All centralized power should be met with equal force and criticism, monitoring. Political, social and economic monopolies are like bubbles of power. We should keep our swords ready to pop them in time.
What about banks who out of their free will start to trade in subprime for instance? You never answered... Some dutch banks did same.. not all. Freely deciding to put money in subprime sh*t from the US. Are those bankers also democrat? Come on...
Again... why did non-gvt banks decide to trade in subprime? If somebody sells you a toxic cake, you will eat it anyways? Because that is what you are supposed to do ? Good boy! Or sell it to somebody else who doesn't know its crap yet? Why is it that you like sh*t traders so much?
I'm actually relieved you were able to come up with this yourself, very few people do. The answer is simple, but sometimes is difficult to grasp at first. It may take me two or three times before I say it right so bear with me.
IT"S THE NATURE OF BUBBLES. It's what makes a bubble a bubble. When you hand out free money, SOMEBODY WILL ALWAYS TAKE IT, unless you are in heaven. IT doesn't have to be many people, in fact lots and lots of banks were not exposed to subprime. But the reality is that when you create gov't bubbles somebody's always going to take the money. In my entire business career I never did bubble business, ever, along with many other people, but the money I could have taken just went to someone else who did. And at the highest levels, always Harvard Democrats. hmmm, look away nothing to see there.
It's that simple. I maybe didn't say it exactly right, but it is what it is. You give out funny munny, particularly when the issuer has quotas to make, eventually someone is going to take it.
I agree that bubbles are there to stay, they come and go. Part of economic life. And as you say that is how they operate, people interact and become part of bubbles.
It is however self-destructive to stop there, concluding that there is no bubble-management possible. Not sure that is what you think, but the way you talk about them sometimes sounds like you talk about the weather. "Sometimes there are storms, tornadoes, and bubbles in the economy...what can a man do..."
There are all kinds of bubblelistic mechanisms at work that societies decided to regulate. For instance taking something that is there for grabs and because you need it and just take. Am hungry, need bread, see bread.. so take bread! But it considered to be owned by somebody else, so society starts to regulate things calling it
stealing. Then there is the sex bubble, always ready to grow and pop. See nice attractive women, imagine sex with her, off spring possible.. go to woman and do what nature tells you to do. But societies decided that this bubble needs regulation lest it disintegrates socially. But then arises a new type of bubble: the power bubble, centralizing power and even morality. Law and police. That can become too much.. so kill the king! Kill the Tzar! Kill the Gvt! And on and on.. Maybe life is like breathing in and out between anarchy and monopoly. Between too much chaos and too much order.
Would you therefor agree that these types of bubbles in the financial industry are more than just natural phenomena we can't do anything about? As natural as those bubbles are, it is as natural to try regulate them making them less destructive. You create a playing field.. limits.. allowing bubbles to bubble and pop without too much damage. You kind of try to domesticate them to serve your needs. At the same time you don't want to domesticate and control too much; you'd end up with a fat poodle sleeping on the couch all day that only costs you money. A dead soup without bubbles. As undesired as a too hot boiling soup that sets the kitchen on fire. Somewhere in between, so me thinks, exist the right mix of controls and let-go... Not static, always adapting to a changing reality. But always staying away from the extremes.
So I'm interested to hear from people like you who know the financial industry inside out, how at this point it best be regulated. Re-regulated. Without taking the oxygen out and regulating it to death.. but also making sure it won't set the house on fire, i.e. try to keep that risk as low as possible.
To just remove government and central banking won't do it for me. It would still be a business like any other business. People don't like to buy baby milk that kills their babies. Or financial products that suddenly blow up in their faces because there were hidden risks not mentioned on the product labels. Where can I go to when a snake oil salesman sold me poison that ruined my life? The court indeed. So there have to be laws.. oversight, monitoring, law enforcement etc. Paint it for me.
