"Most economists" did not see the collapse coming, so why believe "most economists" know anything now?

The economic collapse was set in motion with the Free Houses for Poor People Act in the 70s, a liberal creation muscled-up during the Clinton years.

Government "guaranteed" bank loans to people who had no business owning homes, because it's "unfair" that not everyone has a house. So, half-coercion, half promising bailouts with taxpayer money.

Even in decades-old systems like Medicare, where you'd think there would be built-in watchdogs, we lose 60 billion A YEAR to fraud, waste and abuse, so how anyone sane thought a one-time scamulus would be closely monitored for fraud...

A similar Nude Eel scamulus was attempted in the 40s with little to no effect. FDR's bacon was only saved by WW2.


Government: If you think the problems are bad, wait till you see our solutions!

And that last comment got downvoted. I am not against nuclear power. I am against the thinking that they can continue to not be investigated properly and lower the inspection standards in very obvious ways, and continue to think that the nuclear operations in the US would be allowed to continue operating if something happened.

As soon as it happened, all the plants would be investigated and if they let their upkeep of the planet lax in obvious "real problem" ways...the anti-nuclear movement will have them.

It's just stupid to have a watchdog that can't watch and operations that are not held up to standards of operation that would at least give them some hope of averting a uncontrolled reaction. It's making the whole industry look like the fearmongering against them is correct.

Why not insist on higher standards of inspection to alleviate it? If the people want higher standards and more checking, let them get it. What does it hurt to have your plant get a more thorough inspection if you are doing things right? And if you aren't, or your facilities aren't going to last 10-15-20 years.....who does it serve if you don't find that out until after it fails?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to expect corporations providing power to comply with, and that the people should demand. Avoiding it for a few more years of profit would HOPEFULLY prevent that company from ever getting permits to operate again.

*fake http://wvgazette.com/News/201109090665

http://westvirginia.watchdog.org/3386/watchblog-police-need-watching-too/


5 mins of googling to debunk this stupid video. btw the second video they did, drunk cop saves man with jesus video is funnier

Modern medicine is extremely effect, especially when compared to none, for every vegetable hooked up to life support there are thousands of people who would otherwise be unproductive that have had their productive years extended. I don't view medicine as unnatural for people because it is an extension of our natural ability to understand and manipulate our environment. Just as regulation is something we can use to manipulate the market to avoid undesirable situations while allowing for continued prosperity.

That is not to say we always regulate properly or fairly, or that everyone in the market benefits equally. The problem with the bailouts was while they averted catastrophic consequences for the majority of people, and inconvenience for the richest.

And therein lies the crux of the problem, the people with the most, those who really created the problem are nothing more than inconvenienced, even if they lose millions they still have enough left to live comfortably, while the average worker who had little to do with the with the shifty policies suddenly have nothing. Further more there are many who benefited greatly by the practices proving if you've got the right acumen, or at least that's the illusion, you can make a lot of money.

Do the majority of people share some blame for what happened, of course, but when you look at who suffers and who had the most to do with the unscrupulous practices, those who had the least to do with it suffer the most. Those who have the most control suffer the least, or worse come out for the better, so why should they change their practices?

And that's why I think regulation has its place, when properly applied it acts as a deterrent for those who would otherwise have little to lose from unscrupulous practices, and gives those who have little control some method of petitioning for change.

As I said before I agree with you in that our regulations piecemeal conglomeration of polices that rob each other of efficacy. However I feel in free market situation you describe the people with the least amount of control suffer the most and the wealth continually gets concentrated in the hands of fewer ad fewer.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
Regulation, in my natural selection analogy, is like modern medicine: It can sustain companies that should be dead, making those invested in the company happy but having negative effects on the system as a whole.

When the bailouts were fresh news, there were a lot of cries that the free market didn't work. In truth, the free market was working. Those banks had unsustainable practices and they were going down because of it. Would it have been catastrophic when they failed? Yeah. But the recovery process would have started then and there and any banks still standing would have had good reason not to repeat the others' mistakes. Instead the government propped them up and they are back to fucking us.

The auto industry situation isn't much better. Regulation imposes tariffs on foreign cars that get passed on to us in the price. Why? Because American cars suck ass and can't compete on a level playing field. Even with the deck stacked in their favor, the big 3 tank anyway. The government bails them out because of some misguided sense of national pride. They justify it with talk about lost jobs, but it's all nonsense. The demand for cars doesn't go down because car makers go out of business, people who would have bought from the big 3 just have to buy from someone else now. Toyota already employs more Americans than the big 3 combined. The textile manufacturers see no change in business volume as the other car manufacturers increase production to fill in the gap left by the big 3.

Let them tank. Let the jobs migrate. Let failed companies stand as examples to the rest.

I really feel like people are somewhat spoiled. They're no longer willing to see or endure anything "bad", but the old and sick must die to make way for new life, both in nature and in business, and things can get real ugly when you try to stand in the way of that.

I don't think everyone needs to be professionals at any level of market freedom. Even the most ignorant person knows they're being screwed at some point and there's nothing that says the free market can't contain professional advisers and watchdog groups.

What I think government's biggest role ought to be is enforcing a level of transparency so that we all have legit information to make our decisions on. The FDA requires ingredients to be listed on all food items. Some people don't pay any attention to it, but it's there. I'd like to see that sort of thing everywhere.

Regulation, in my natural selection analogy, is like modern medicine: It can sustain companies that should be dead, making those invested in the company happy but having negative effects on the system as a whole.

When the bailouts were fresh news, there were a lot of cries that the free market didn't work. In truth, the free market was working. Those banks had unsustainable practices and they were going down because of it. Would it have been catastrophic when they failed? Yeah. But the recovery process would have started then and there and any banks still standing would have had good reason not to repeat the others' mistakes. Instead the government propped them up and they are back to fucking us.

The auto industry situation isn't much better. Regulation imposes tariffs on foreign cars that get passed on to us in the price. Why? Because American cars suck ass and can't compete on a level playing field. Even with the deck stacked in their favor, the big 3 tank anyway. The government bails them out because of some misguided sense of national pride. They justify it with talk about lost jobs, but it's all nonsense. The demand for cars doesn't go down because car makers go out of business, people who would have bought from the big 3 just have to buy from someone else now. Toyota already employs more Americans than the big 3 combined. The textile manufacturers see no change in business volume as the other car manufacturers increase production to fill in the gap left by the big 3.

Let them tank. Let the jobs migrate. Let failed companies stand as examples to the rest.

I really feel like people are somewhat spoiled. They're no longer willing to see or endure anything "bad", but the old and sick must die to make way for new life, both in nature and in business, and things can get real ugly when you try to stand in the way of that.

I don't think everyone needs to be professionals at any level of market freedom. Even the most ignorant person knows they're being screwed at some point and there's nothing that says the free market can't contain professional advisers and watchdog groups.

What I think government's biggest role ought to be is enforcing a level of transparency so that we all have legit information to make our decisions on. The FDA requires ingredients to be listed on all food items. Some people don't pay any attention to it, but it's there. I'd like to see that sort of thing everywhere.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
If you view free market as a processes like natural selection, then everything counts including regulation. Regulation is simply an adaptation to market conditions by certain segments of a population. It is an ability to exert control on the market while avoiding the volatile, risky and harmful consequences other methods might accrue.

There will always be someone/something trying to control market forces in their favor. If you were to eliminate any regulation you would be eliminating one side's ability to exert control, they would be at the mercy of those who control the resources. So I guess in rebuttal to your argument, we either already have free-market working as intended or it doesn't exist and can't exist because anytime you put in a stipulation that you can't do X you're regulating someone's ability to exert control over the market forces.

As far as consumers go, I'm torn by the desire to see people acting more personally responsible and the opinion that you shouldn't have to be a professional in everything. You just can't compete when you're trying to know everything so you can make the right decisions, against someone who specialize in a specific area. At some point you're going to have to appeal to an expert. Unfortunately we have become so used to appealing to the experts its become increasingly easy for the experts to take advantage of everyone else.

Also:
I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.
I can't help but feel that is an exceptionally true statement. Our system of regulations has been cobbled together and broken apart by various ideologues over the years as painful a process it might be I wish we could redo everything in a manner that makes sense for the current market.

documentaries always have a certain bias.
we all do when trying to make an argument or point.this should not come as a surprise.
people have a right to their own opinions and ideologies,they just dont have a right to their own facts and to impose disinformation in order to manipulate using a contrived argument.

@heropsycho
your comment was well thought out but i do find a few statements you made a tad...disconcerting.
you question the stay at home mother as to her reasons for staying home.
they may be many but the main reason most stay-at-home moms..well..stay at home is for the children.which has been statistically proven to be beneficial for the well-being of not only the home but the children as well.
you wonder why she is not at work.
should everybody get on the hampster wheel and sacrifice the welfare of their family?
has the american dream so devolved as to be almost non-existent?
should every family become debt slaves?
and those who do not should be criticized and derided for not being one?

another part of your comment mentioned outsourcing and the possible reason was lack of education and training.
i agree with that comment but i feel it is missing some vital contextual references:
1.america was a manufacturing giant during the 50's 60's and 70's mainly due to WWII and the decimation of europes manufacturing (bombs tend to do that).
2.while the IT business is booming and i agree that we do need more training,you failed to mention that these "imported" workers tend to make far less than their american counterparts.
3."outsourcing" is a media manufactured word to fit the narrative but fails to identify what it really is:slave labor in third world countries.
4.you also failed to mention the REASON why so many american manufacturing companies "outsource" which is basically sweetheart deals and tax havens,nevermind the total lack of labor safety practices,humane working conditions,child labor laws.these companies dont go to third world countries due to lack of labor or training but rather so they can pay an 8 yr old girl 37 cents a day to make your nike sneakers.

so i disagree with your conclusion that the biggest problem facing the US economy is training and education (a factor but not the biggest problem).
the biggest problem the US economy faces is:two full scale wars and a "police action" all funded on borrowed money.
public elections funded by private entities (corporations and financial institutions)which leads to a corrupt legislature who works for their financial backers and no longer for the people.
a bail out of financial institutions due to their being "too big to fail" and are now ironically bigger than ever.
the absolute and utter failure of the fourth estate to watchdog the powerful in order to inform the public for fear of losing access to the very power they were charged to watchdog.because if they had done their job iraq would have never happened nor would the housing and consequent financial crisis.

these are just a few of the things from a very long list but i feel they are substantial in where we are now.

>> ^Sagemind:

OK, so here's my view:
I don't know if it's a hoax. I don't know if it's real.
I've seen good arguments from both sides.
This happened the year I was born, I was alive, but I didn't see it.
I've found I can no longer believe anything the US government or NASA feeds the public.
Not because it's implausible but because they lie so much to the people in general.
The only way I can believe in a moon landing is if they did it again.
With non-government watchdogs to testify to the authenticity.
Non-government, interests, possibly from different countries.
They did it once, technology is far more advanced now, why can't they do it again?
Edit: Now that Photoshop and other technology exists, some "Photographs" will never convince me.


Really? Good arguments from the side that say it was a hoax?

Show me ANY GOOD arguments and I'll respect your stance, but there are NONE. NONE. Every one of their inane arguments is utter rubbish and easily, simply, painfully debunkable.

OK, so here's my view:

I don't know if it's a hoax. I don't know if it's real.
I've seen good arguments from both sides.
This happened the year I was born, I was alive, but I didn't see it.

I've found I can no longer believe anything the US government or NASA feeds the public.
Not because it's implausible but because they lie so much to the people in general.

The only way I can believe in a moon landing is if they did it again.
With non-government watchdogs to testify to the authenticity.
Non-government, interests, possibly from different countries.

They did it once, technology is far more advanced now, why can't they do it again?

Edit: Now that Photoshop and other technology exists, some "Photographs" will never convince me.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Your confusing the meaning of big. Big here is referring to scope. Like the thought experiment, the scope of the police force went from local to national...that is the size difference he was talking about.
How do you address the claim that large central government misrepresent larger portions of the populations due to their non-regional considerations?
US airports are not government facilities.
It is foolish to assume that local governments are more corrupt than distant ones. If the people right under your nose are muxing things up, how about the people 1400 miles away...how much more corrupt can they be without your constant eye? And when they are corrupt, they do it with a larger portion of pie. Granted, that pie might add up to the same pie that would be lost to local corruption of the whole system...but like the video suggests, you are more likely to catch and correct it on the local level.
Also, can you name one super large corporation that isn't also highly regulated, I can't. Microsoft is protected by intellectual property laws, the news giants all started as legal monopoly telco and cable providers, Energy has been quazi-government/private for decades, Rail roads where publicly sponsored then privately owned. Can you name one truly organic natural monopoly that arose from someones good business practices and not its status with government and regulations?

>> ^vaporlock:
I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.
I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.
OK... rant over... start video
After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.
Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.




I'm guessing he meant without federal funding of infrastructure our airports, for instance, wouldn't be as good as they are. example Yes, there are private options to this, but when you want to take a global edge in something at a large scale, the only option is the federal option.

The video is ostensibly true in that smaller governments are more efficient, with greater accountability in their daily minutia. However, there is a certain efficiency in extending 'good' programs to the entire country at once rather than requiring every small subsection to enact it independently. It's also pointless at this point(I'll do it anyway) to even mention that many inefficient programs are as a result of undue influence of special interest groups. Public campaign funding, greater transparency and more effective dissemination of information from watchdog groups are all ways of making the federal government more efficient. In this age, it should be possible to catch more of the bullshit happening, which the political media coverage consistently fails to do for various reasons.

Of course, there are many watchdog groups that examine the inner workings of the federal government, because it's large, centralized and presents a larger impact on the country. They often detect corruption but don't have the platform to spread their findings to the larger public unless a larger media conglomerate picks up on it. The geographic distance from a centralized government is not a significant factor in detecting corruption as it is balanced by the large number of eyes focusing on it. If you mean local populaces remaining unaware of how terrible their national representatives are, then you have a point. But this factor will hopefully be alleviated in the future through continuing improvement in getting information to the public.

Don't pretend oversight at the local level isn't without it's problems, though they tend to take a different form from the federal level.

Yes, I'm deeply concerned with the government handing out monopolies like candy. I favor copyright/patent reform.

tl;dr Government requires constant supervision and representatives should be treated like children and changed when they crap themselves. But we love them anyway because they're essential for society to continue.

Just so we're clear on this: THE CANADIAN BROADCAST STANDARDS COUNCIL IS NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY!!! It is an industry-run watchdog organization, much like the MPAA in the US, and they're just as full of shit as the MPAA.

Who orchestrated it? Bin Laden. Ok. CIA created him. This is a fact, right? So some elements within the U.S. machine used him as a tool. Patsy Bin Laden? Possibility.


" But you jackals have to understand"

Loaded language-not unlike the news media we have been groomed not only to parrot, but to trust as a source of information.
Lippman said of journalism's duty in a republic that she should "act as a mediator or translator between the public and policy making elites"

Dewey (had a hand as well in shaping what we now know as "public education in the U.S.), on the other hand, had another opinion-He believed "the public was not only capable of understanding the issues created or responded to by the elite, it was in the public forum that decisions should be made after discussion and debate."

Using his criteria for a sound journalistic ethic as watchdogs on government, businesses etc., enabling people to make informed decisions, would you not agree that the public has been robbed in the last 9 years?

Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with Olberman here. Look, there's no doubt that inciting violence is wrong, but shouldn't that be picked up by the media watchdog? I presume you have one of those in the US. In Australia, we've had a few examples of radio shock jocks inciting violence on air, and they were picked up quick smart. They can get fined or prevented from airing.

I think it's up to the Republican party to cut Fox News off. It's clear that the tail is waggin the dog, and it's time to cut them off and start again. Wanting Fox News to behave because it's the right thing to do is a waste of good intentions.

>> ^NetRunner:

There are also caps on how much of your income the insurer is allowed to ask you to put up in terms of deductibles and copays, and the insurers are required to spend 80-85% of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical care for their customers.


I'm still concerned about the flimsiness of the medical loss ratio. Unless the bill clearly defines what constitutes medical care, it's not very meaningful. As an extreme example, public service announcements could be claimed as part of medical care, as a form of education...while in actuality being more of a commercial. Don't laugh, I've seen at least one class-action lawsuit get settled such that SW Bell was allowed to "refund" the victims by offering them free services (like call-waiting and forwarding) for 2 months, which exactly duplicated what they did several times previously as an ad campaign.

Unless there are very strict watchdogs, the insurance companies are going to run wild with this. And even with watchdogs, it really doesn't do anything to slow down prices. If anything, it gives them incentive to raise rates and pay providers more, just to increase the actual value of their 20%.

'Create a skeleton of simple, common sense laws. Set up some watchdog & whistleblower groups. Put all the remaining regulatory & monitoring power into state government hands.'

'Lobbyists can't buy what isn't for sale. The fact that politicians sell out is the problem.'


You are an idealist and I like you.
However in my experience at some point everyone has a price and can be exploited. The relentless energy produced by entreprenurial capitalism is awesome when pointed in the right direction but if you don't hold on tight it goes off like a rogue fire hose. Nb. the 'self-regulating banking system'.

Never in the history of this country has there been a "limited government" GOP. Never. Not once. They never "abandoned" the idea, because they never cared for it in the first place.

Not entirely. Many times in the history of the GOP they have had strong small government advocates. And here's a shocker... So did the Democrat party. There was one time when it was the de facto position a politician had to assume. And in modern history, the GOP has been the party that at least courts limited government as an idea (even if they don't do much for it). If only 1 GOP member in 1,000 is a limited government fiscal conservative, then it has to be said that the Democrats only have 1 in 100,000. Yup - I'm aware the GOP hasn't had this as thier central platform for a while. I blame 4 to 6 generations of RINOs for that with only ONE all too brief interruption with Reagan.

Note that Reagan had to deal with an overwhelmingly stacked Congress and still managed to squeeze in a lot of fiscal conservatism despite not holding the purse. Note also that the GOP took the house in 1994 on a platform of limited government and fiscal conservatism - which in turn forced Clinton to stop a lot of his leftist agenda. It would be wonderful to think what Reagan could have done to slash government if he'd had the 1994 Congress. The GOP got voted out after they abandoned fiscal conservative principles. True story, dat.

The problem is that SMALL, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, should you achieve it, puts you in a position where there is a lot to fix and no good reason not to fix it, which brings you back full circle.

Government's role is to be a place for people to appeal when real abuses take place. That kind of limited invovlement is very valuable. But when government regulation as we know it today is far too intrusive and limiting. Government should serve as an occasional watchdog to punish real abuses. It should NOT serve as a police force to FIND abuses, or a legal office to PREVENT abuses. Create a skeleton of simple, common sense laws. Set up some watchdog & whistleblower groups. Put all the remaining regulatory & monitoring power into state government hands. Then get the Feds the heck out of everyone's way and watch out for that big huge pile of falling money.

A bit less oportunistic trillion dollar invasions and general corruption (read lobbyists)

No - read GOVERNMENT. The corruption to worry about is at the government level, not the lobbyist level. Lobbyists can't buy what isn't for sale. The fact that politicians sell out is the problem. The fact that there are lobbyists there to pay them is ancillary to the corruption in the political class.