WTF, you are insane, "rape the [C]onstitution"?

Do you know what a corporation is? It is a financial instrument, a pact between society and investors to encourage investing while keeping a person's house and finances shielded from being put at risk by creating products.

It has nothing to do with anything in the Constitution. It REALLY has nothing to do with electing politicians. The only thing that has happened in the last 30 years is that corporations now control elections and put more money into campaigns than individuals. Corporations have realized they can make more profit by buying politicians which reward them with favorable laws and regulations and kickbacks nad contracts at the expense of citizens who suffer from the corporate greed.

Look at the BP oil spill or Enron or corn subsidy or sugar tariffs or bank bailouts or GM bailouts or mortgage crisis. In general, corporations best interest goes directly against a health society and the health and prosperity of citizens.

>> ^chilaxe:

@Porksandwich "Socialism works in other countries, and works quite well."

Does this apply to socialist countries outside of northern Europe?
Socialism works in Scandinavia because it's full of Scandinavians. Scandinavians in the US - regardless of whether their family has been here 100 years or 1 year - are like East Asians and Jews in the US... they contribute to society at a rate far above other cultural groups.
If the US was full of Scandinavians it would rank similarly to Scandinavia, regardless of the differences in economic systems. US outcomes in general are driven by cultural groups.


It would be a lie to say you knew every aspect of every country without living in those countries to judge whether it "works" or not. You'd have to live at every income level and in various locations within each country to really KNOW for yourself. For example the US works quite well if you are a billionaire, but not so much if you make minimum wage. Your opportunity chance is going to be a magnitude higher as a billionaire, and if you fail you won't be destitute...versus the minimum wage worker.

With that said, there is a general theme in the US that if they don't believe they came up with the idea, plan of execution and implementation without basing any of it on "other" countries then we don't want it.

The common argument during the universal healthcare debate was that while other countries offer it, it wouldn't work in the US. And that's where the explanation usually ended, they would always follow up with the US needs to come up with it's own solution. And then inevitably it would be slight changes to the current system that already doesn't work for many. Then we would ignore that something like 30-35% of the US population is already receiving Medicare/Medicaid coverage that would typically be considered a universal healthcare program if it included everyone else.

It was a really disingenuous argument when you consider that they are trying to keep corporations involved in healthcare and never considered that maybe they should throw them out of the decision making process until they've come up with a plan. Then figure out how they could allow them in that wouldn't be detrimental.

I just think they never looked at other countries implementations to see what they could use for a framework in the US and see what would be required to implement it corporations or not.

But the point of all this is that, despite the evidence that things work in other countries. The US fosters the idea that borrowing ideas from other countries and suiting them to ourselves makes us inferior, and we'd rather stew in the mess we've created until we can come up with something wholly uninfluenced by things outside the country rather than try to fix it sooner by looking abroad. This would be a fine mentality if we didn't cut funding on things that were designed to give us the edge when it comes to discoveries of new things and ideas throughout various fields. There was a time when we were openly giving many of those findings to other countries to do what they will with them, but now we in turn are too good to look at them and consider what we could gain from their methods.

Our government is there to serve and protect it's people, but it doesn't protect them from corporations through regulations or limitations of the powers they have over us. SOPA and John Doe piracy lawsuits are good examples. Mortgage crisis is better. None of those serve the people or the society the people make up. And corporations are not people, so they are part of the society but they do not create the society. Corporations should exist as long as they are beneficial to society, not a minute longer.

It may be cultural group driven, but it seems the younger people are willing to abandon cultural beliefs to attempt something else so they have a chance at a future. We as a nation are unwilling to undo what we have done...we look at our past and despite there being evidence of marching down a slowly declining path that is becoming steeper and steeper.....we continue downward. Now we have to wonder if it's so dark we can't see the huge spiked pit with the very narrow walkway for the well off to tread upon. While the rest of us walk blindly into the pit.

Wool over our eyes, blinders, cart on a lead. Tracks to the cliffs edge. Whatever analogy you want to use.

Edited for clarity and thinking ahead and using the wrong word in a couple places.

A. I don't understand how you're arguing we haven't been practicing Keynesian economics since the Great Depression. We've run deficits almost the entire time, lowered interest rates even further during recessions, and enact stimulus when recessions hit in the form of tax rebate checks, income tax cuts to consumers, gov't programs to provide jobs to increase demand, extended unemployment, etc., although we normally do a poor job of running surpluses when we should. But in a nutshell, that is Keynesian economics. And it has worked pretty well overall. Influence of monetarist policies have tamed the Keynesian interventions, but there's little doubt that all the above actions in the last two recessions were born of Keynesian thought.

B. If a business is making $100,000 off your labor, but is paying you $80,000, resulting in a $20,000 profit, why wouldn't they fire you if they could fire someone to do your job for $50,000, resulting in a 250% increase in profit? It does happen. I was the victim of it in 2004.

C. If the devils in the details could be worked out, and that's a big if, I'd be in favor of having stipulations to unemployment benefits. But you got a lot of issues you'd have to deal with. What if the person on unemployment has kids? You're gonna deny them welfare if the kids would starve? Very complicated issue as just one example.

I do think though we need in this age better education to retrain workers for the new jobs that come into the US as jobs get outsourced to other countries.

D. About the FDIC... First off, you're saying that people could check the banks' ability to make too risky of loans, but it's a whole other thing to say FDIC insurance encourages bad lending. It's simply not true. Again, regardless if deposits are insured or not, banks will go under if they make risky loans regardless of deposit insurance for consumers in most cases. Again, bailouts are a whole other issue. As for people checking the banks for bad lending, that's a pipe dream. The general consumer has no clue what are good or bad loans overall, nor the time to monitor the lending practices of banks. Hell, BANKERS didn't understand the crap they got themselves into in the mortgage crisis until it was too late, and they're professionals in the field. It's not a practical solution. On top of all that, the FDIC does in some ways help to ensure baseline qualities of banks. Not every bank can be FDIC insured, and many of the regulations FDIC insist upon make the banks more solvent, etc. So when consumers insist the bank is FDIC insured, they're insuring their deposits as well as guaranteeing a minimal level of integrity in the bank itself.

Lastly, I'm totally down with reasoned dialogue, even from points of view I completely oppose. I'm not slamming this guy because he's a conservative. I'm slamming him because he made ridiculous claims that are obviously factually inaccurate. Ideology shouldn't blind people from obvious fact that don't fit.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
I'd disagree with you on a couple of points.

However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.
First of all, we haven't really practiced Keynesian economics since stagflation during Carter. The decoupling of inflation and growth was very troubling to economists as the Keynesian theory had no explanation for it. In the period between Carter and Obama, we effectively practiced Monetarist economics, or "supply-side" economics. It's that economic policy everyone is railing against even though it was practiced during one of the periods of greatest growth in our history (obviously there are confounds, e.g. the personal computer). The Austrians just don't think that demand focused interventions will work any better than supply focused interventions. There is always a deadweight loss to taxation.

Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?
Profit centers are most often NOT outsourced. If there is another profit center abroad, you expand, you don't fire the guy that's making you more money than he's costing you.

And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.
I understand the demand side argument. I'm saying, rather than giving them money for nothing, let's give them money to become hirable. It's similar to saying that the money handed to banks should have had conditions attached. When people are begging for money, they ought to accept some stipulations.

Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.
I agree with you about child labor, however I'd disagree with you about the FDIC. People should be paying attention to what banks do with their money, and respond to poor decision making with the withdrawal of their deposits. Instead, they just assume it doesn't matter (in terms of risk) where they keep their money and just shop for the highest interest rate. Those higher interest rates are most often fueled by more than traditional lending (as anyone banking in such a manner would lose deposits to higher yields in the distorted marketplace).
Also, I'm Keynesian. I just don't think free market viewpoint you'd read in the Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, or any other reasonably reputable conservative source is being well represented on this website. If we all cheerlead for one team, we'll never substantially challenge our own groupthink.

Wasn't my point that some regulation is necessary and deregulation (while generally beneficial) can be harmful

Wasn't debating you there. I was just laying out the mortgage crisis as I see it. Some regulation is good. Glass-Steagall was a good law that kept financial houses from being insular one-stop-shops. It is an example of proper government involvement in the market (one of the few). G/S was enacted because of the Great Depression. You think we'd have learned our lesson and not messed with it...

My point was to make sure everyone does not overlook WHY G/S was repealed. Many people put sole blame for it on banks & financial houses. That is wrong. Only some financial houses (AIG particularly) wanted to do this crap, but MOST did not. The key factor was that GOVERNMENT wanted the law repealed to change the financial rules and force banks to make more loans to people who it would formerly be ILLEGAL to give loans too. Government did this thinking that it was a good thing that would create more taxpayers & wealth. Well, for a while they were right. But as we know it was unsustainable in the long run. The blame does not like wholly on banks. They were just operating in the environment that government created. Good banks didn't undertake too much risk, but with competitors making money hand over fist in the late 90s through mid 2008 it was a tough sell.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I think that is a foolish & myopic approach that ignores the most important player (government) and gives a free pass to #3 (consumers).
Wasn't my point that some regulation is necessary and deregulation (while generally beneficial) can be harmful? You stated yourself that repeal of the Glass-Steagall act triggered a slow fuse.


Subprime mortgages are one thing - and by their very nature would be acknowledged as poor risks and treated as such. The problem could not have escalated to its eventual outcome had it not been possible for banks to rebrand (and obfuscate) these things into more innocuous packages.

(Wow, we went from healthcare to the mortgage crisis in a hurry, didn't we?)

^

uh, what do doctors have to do with the mortgage crisis?

No, no it's not. That is actually quite an important and significant connection that is quite intelligent to mention, ignoring it is moronic. If you do any sort of research on these companies and their executive board, you will see a very clear picture that is all too overlooked. Also you mentioned Hitler and thus you lose, sorry, that's the law of debating.

If you had watched the rest, you might of seen the intelligent argument you were looking for. The parts where she exposes the massive gaping problems with Cap & Trade that show a clear intention of making money, not saving the world. You're probably going to say, "Oh they'll definitely iron out those massive oversights that reduce the whole concept to nothing! Of course they will!" but again, knowing the power and influence of the people behind it, the whole point is for those flaws to exist.

>> ^Edgeman2112:
sigh. I thought this would be an intelligent argument. She starts by trashing the people who came up with the idea in a generalist way. Cmon lady.
"This idea is brought to you by a guy at Enron and a guy at Goldman Sachs who brought us the mortgage crisis!"
This is like saying, "This idea is brought to you by a guy who lives in Germany; a country that had Adolf Hitler as its ruler!"
Kirk Cameron should've been the host of the video. No, I didn't watch the rest.

sigh. I thought this would be an intelligent argument. She starts by trashing the people who came up with the idea in a generalist way. Cmon lady.

"This idea is brought to you by a guy at Enron and a guy at Goldman Sachs who brought us the mortgage crisis!"

This is like saying, "This idea is brought to you by a guy who lives in Germany; a country that had Adolf Hitler as its ruler!"

Kirk Cameron should've been the host of the video. No, I didn't watch the rest.

Yeah, of course that's the real reason, but the overt pretext is a ridiculous exaggeration of #1 and #2.

McCain made up a few more lies to slander ACORN. He blamed ACORN for the subprime mortgage crisis. That couldn't be further from the truth, considering ACORN counseled poor people on how to avoid predatory lending and obtain cheap housing (and THAT operation of ACORN in particular is the one that got federal funding).

I don't think Hannity understands Moore's point about homeowners versus the corporations that caused the mortgage crisis. Sad, really, but not unexpected.

Also, I agree with billpayer that the interview was mild compared to other ranting and ravings I've heard on Fox News. I thought it was well done, even if it wasn't perfect.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'subprime lending, mortgage crisis, financial collapse' to 'subprime lending, mortgage crisis, financial collapse, american foreclosure' - edited by kronosposeidon

>> ^gtjwkq:
Wow Nithern, your reply is a mess. I guess I should have explained to you that I'm not an anarchist, since that's what you understood by "free society", my fault for using such a loose term.
I meant a society free from government intervention in the economy, free market, preferably with a small government. Being mostly a libertarian, I don't like to be confused with an anarchist, the same way a social liberal might feel offended when called a socialist.
Well, one could argue that government of any sort is government intervention in the economy. That's why anarchists and libertarians so often get confused. Think about it. There's a market for murder. There's a market for "protection". There's a market for "waste disposal". So really, the question always boils down to 'what specific government interventions into the marketplace are you for?'

The problems with that line of reasoning are all those pesky externalities. Exploiting the commons for personal gain is the oldest trick in the book. It's also, unfortunately, the reason we need to regulate the marketplace. In our most recent episode, we removed long standing regulation on securities trading. They existed because in the 20's people had already figured out how to privatize gains and socialize losses. Without a government to overcome the transaction costs of collective bargaining, it would never be possible for people to prevent this sort of exploitation. To me, while anarchy seems like the end result of libertarian ideals... really it's rule by corporate oligarchy, with rampant exploitation of the commons. At least anarchy often does away with currency, and with it the power structure.


Ah I feel better already. Bureaucracies sure seem very efficient when you explain it like that.

How about like this: Medicare operates with 3% overhead, non-profit insurance 16% overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26% overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007

We're currently in a financial crisis because our government is broke, the world has been lending us money, but that will end when other countries realize we're never going to pay them back. Our government is currently spending money it doesn't even have.

I would disagree. We are currently in a financial crisis because an unbridled, short-term incentive laden banking industry leveraged itself into oblivion. Afterwards, they put a gun to our head and handed us the tab. In other words, print the dough, or the pitchforks and torches tear the whole joint down. The only reason their hustle didn't work indefinitely is because too many of US were spending money we didn't have. Changing that is going to take a cultural shift that is already beginning.

As for China, whom I presume you're referring to. I don't think they want to start selling their position. Ever hear of buy low, sell high? No, I think China is more likely to just borrow against it, and start picking up their part of the consumption. They're already pulling the world out of this recession.


Socialized healthcare as an option , doesn't make the idea any better, because it's still wasting money and it's unfair competition that will further distort the healthcare insurance market. Any reform in healthcare should involve reducing government intervention not increasing it.
I disagree. Also, can we call it a "public option" please? Our good friends in the public relations office spent a while coming up with that one. Listen, the bottom line is we already pay for everyone's health insurance. It's just that it's cheaper to pay for antibiotics than it is to pay for abscess removals on ER beds.


If people are having trouble understanding the rationale behind the Tea Party movement against socialized healthcare, it's mostly about excessive government spending and taxation. Was that too hard?

Yes. Define excessive.


I don't think social liberals will ever take the issue of spending seriously, even after the value of the dollar is destroyed and our economy collapses.

Spending is serious business, it's inflation you all gotta relax about. Is it worth having the "why inflation is good for the economy" argument with you? Or would you rather go back to your non-mathematical Austrian school BS, and we can just agree to disagree?

I think you need to educate yourself out of lies about the insurance business, on the government's major role in causing the housing bubble and subprime mortgage crisis, and on the utter uselessness and injustice of anti-trust laws.

I agree, it's difficult to write laws without unintended consequences. That is, you can always game the rules. One should not conclude from this, however, that you shouldn't try and write rules. Instead, you should just write them faster than the douche bags can game them. You always need more rules. Every time there is an advance in technology, you need more rules. Why? Technology makes it easier to game the rules, and exploit the commons, just like it makes it easier to do everything else.

Wow Nithern, your reply is a mess. I guess I should have explained to you that I'm not an anarchist, since that's what you understood by "free society", my fault for using such a loose term.

I meant a society free from government intervention in the economy, free market, preferably with a small government. Being mostly a libertarian, I don't like to be confused with an anarchist, the same way a social liberal might feel offended when called a socialist.

>> ^Nithern:
Sounds like a generalization, and not fact. There is structure within the goverment (local, state, and federal) to over see, and keep an accurate report of funds being spent (...)

Ah I feel better already. Bureaucracies sure seem very efficient when you explain it like that.

The concept of Health Care for all Americans is a good one. We can easily pay for it. If we can pay for Iraq ($3 trillion and climbing now...), we can pay for Health Care for 330 million people. Now, if an individual has better, or they like their health coverage, that's fine. This concept only gives people an option.

We're currently in a financial crisis because our government is broke, the world has been lending us money, but that will end when other countries realize we're never going to pay them back. Our government is currently spending money it doesn't even have.

Socialized healthcare as an *option*, doesn't make the idea any better, because it's still wasting money and it's unfair competition that will further distort the healthcare insurance market. Any reform in healthcare should involve reducing government intervention not increasing it.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
And that is why they are marginalized. Rational thought, and rational means they do not have.

If people are having trouble understanding the rationale behind the Tea Party movement against socialized healthcare, it's mostly about excessive government spending and taxation. Was that too hard?

I don't think social liberals will ever take the issue of spending seriously, even after the value of the dollar is destroyed and our economy collapses.

But for-profit health care companies are just that....the least effort for the most buck. They are not there, for the betterment of mankind, only their kind. I think we saw what happens when we go easy on financial rules during the Bush Administration and Wall Street companies. Do we really need this sort of crap with Health Care?

I think you need to educate yourself out of lies about the insurance business, on the government's major role in causing the housing bubble and subprime mortgage crisis, and on the utter uselessness and injustice of anti-trust laws.

>> ^TangledThorns:
Either way, the government option is dead thanks to the Tea Parties.

That would be a major achievement.

^ You're not making much sense to me either. The banking industry is one of the most highly regulated markets in existence. Regulate it an inch more and you might as well nationalize the whole thing.

If you want to find the biggest culprits behind our "collapse in credit" and the subprime mortgage crisis, look no further than the Fed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It's not reasonable to ignore how distorted the financial and banking markets are, and blame only the market itself, instead of the government created agencies which are causing massive distortions, for any problems that arise.

How long before there is a homelessness crisis to follow the mortgage crisis?