Economic meltdown!

[Nick_i_am]

you only believe in making sure people think the way you do.

 

Irony from captain socialism.

[Killian Kalthorne]

so what, you're saying you want some of that power, too? hmmm... and who has an ideology based on greed?

I'm not saying that at all. Frankly I don't want any of that power. All I want is a job that pays enough for me to pay my bills, and lets me have a bit extra to have some fun with. No more and no less.

 

really, and bill gates inherited all of his wealth? steve ballmer? andrew viterbi? warren buffet?

I said some, not all. Do you think Paris Hilton actually earned majority of the money she has?

 

yup, that sucks, can't argue there.

At least we agree there.

 

it was known that this would happen before it did. don't be so naive.

Yet our government did nothing to stop it.

 

ok, let me repeat, this has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. it is ridiculous that you fail to recognize this. the regulations that set this whole bailout up are not a part of capitalism. none of what you just complained about in that last paragraph could ever have happened in a capitalist system. none. take away the government intervention and there is no bailout for the rich, there are no back room deals, and CEOs aren't getting rich taking risks they shouldn't take! you can't blame capitalism for something socialism created.

 

We live in a capitalistic consumber based society, Taks. It did happen in our capitalist system.

[taks]

Everyone is always blaming big business and the government. No one ever blames the people who can't make their house payment because they tried to buy a house they couldn't afford.

well, in their defense, they were somewhat led to believe that doing so was in their best interests. granted, stupidity ain't no true excuse, but the favorable lending environment was extremely misleading. people were actually encouraged to own a home, and everyone believed that the favorable environment would continue forever. some of this was predatory, some of it just ignorance.

 

like i said, i benefited from the unusually low interest rates. 3.875% on this loan (which is now 6.5%). i took a risk, but given my career, i was reasonably confident that i would continue to advance (and i have). my house never went through the boom, however, as it had only gained about 20% in 5 years till now. overall, a good CD could have outperformed my home. the good news is that my rate will go DOWN next year, and my home isn't really losing value, either, since it wasn't inflated in the first place. for comparison, my first house near the coast of florida had an 8.25% loan (maybe 8.75%), and it jumped over 20% in the first two years, nearly doubling again since then. it is now back down, i'm guessing, to the same level i sold it at 6 years ago.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

Is that a serious argument?

 

A proper government is there to govern and to set the example in which its citizens should run their lives. If a government is corrupt, decadent, and irresponsible then it stands to reason that in who it governs may share the same qualities.

[taks]

Irony from captain socialism.

there's where you fail to understand the distinction: i think everyone should believe as i do, but i do not profess to have the right to make them do it by force. i believe people should think as i do because it is rational and logical to do so. xard advocates forcefully making us think as he does.

 

there is no irony, there is no inconsistency. xard's position is internally inconsistent.

 

tsk, tsk. that's a simple one to see.

 

taks

[taks]

A proper government is there to govern and to set the example in which its citizens should run their lives.

besides not even being close to the mandate of government (it is there to protect your rights), government is in NO WAY capable of setting an example by which its citizens should live their lives.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

I most certainly disagree.

[Meshugger]

We live in a capitalistic consumber based society, Taks. It did happen in our capitalist system.

 

Yes and no.

 

"Yes" to that we live in a consumer-based society.

 

"No" to that we live in a capitalistic society.

 

It's more of capitalist-lite, with a heavy dose corporatism (basically fascism). Big business always try to influence the governing body to change it for their behalf, and those in government usually don't mind to get a little boon from big business. People high up in government usually have experience from working high up in the private sector and vice versa; And more so, the positions switch every now and then.

 

That's why there's this 'crisis'. Don't you find it interesting that those who voted against the bailout where the ones with the least of influence?(of course there's other political factors, but on the whole)

[taks]

Yet our government did nothing to stop it.

oh, and btw, for all of bush's faults, he did try to stop it. greenspan was warning us, too. freddie and fannie lobbied against efforts to curb the situation.

 

We live in a capitalistic consumber based society, Taks. It did happen in our capitalist system.

no, visceris, that is not true. let's go over the facts: the government heavily regulates the lending industry, right there, it is no longer capitalist. then, they passed regulation requiring freddie and fannie to take on (back) high-risk loans. lenders were intimidated into taking subprimes out of fear of being labeled discriminatory. freddie and fannie absorbed them all, which created an illusion of reduced risk. none of this, not one bit, is capitalist. none, visceris.

 

get over it and try to understand the basics here.

 

taks

Edited September 30, 2008 by taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

Okay, you have a point there and I will concede that is not capitalism, but I do not discount all socialism on the mishandling of fannie and freddie. In any case I am very much happy with the house stonewalling the bailout.

[Xard]

sounds harsh but if that's only way to trigger caring for others in this day's world it is worth it *shrug*

ah, yes, now we finally get to the truth. it's not about morality... that was just a ruse. it's about you (and at least, those that think like you) asserting, BY FORCE, your will over others.

 

yeah, hypocrites as i said. you don't believe in rights, you only believe in making sure people think the way you do.

 

btw, look it up, you've just defined tyranny. good job, xard.

 

taks

 

Like I've had any time yet to write about morality in other threat! Geez, give me some time

 

you don't believe in rights

 

Uhh, human and civilian rights are top importance to me, pretty much second to none.

 

However, society must by its very nature limit freedom of its inhabitants - most obvious example being punishment systems. And societies also contain duties. In Finland there's only one really big constitutionalized duty; that of defending the country (military service or civilian service). It concerns only men though, and if driving the equality point to no ends one could say it should be annihilated from constitution or women should have it too.

 

However, being democratic country and majority of people being clearly happy and content with current system there's no reason to change it.

 

Yeah, it limits your freedoms somewhat. Tough luck

 

Same with taxing which you can't view as stealing as it is legal (and in most people's view) and legimite action by goverment. If you don't like taxes tough luck, you still have freedom to move to some tax haven like Monaco if you want to. Hey, you have free will and all, you can use it in this way too

 

you only believe in making sure people think the way you do.

 

hypocrisy much? srsly

 

btw, look it up, you've just defined tyranny. good job, xard.

 

Nope as I still put greatest value on rights and democratic process

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[Xard]

Irony from captain socialism.

there's where you fail to understand the distinction: i think everyone should believe as i do, but i do not profess to have the right to make them do it by force. i believe people should think as i do because it is rational and logical to do so. xard advocates forcefully making us think as he does.

 

there is no irony, there is no inconsistency. xard's position is internally inconsistent.

 

tsk, tsk. that's a simple one to see.

 

taks

 

if following this line of thinking you might as well get rid of goverment too and wish best for well working liberal anarchism.

 

Human freedom is automatically limited in society. In democracy how and in how vast scale this happens is determined by the very people who will be "victims" or "benefactors" from these limitations

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[Gorgon]

What Taks is advocating is not Capitalism, it's small government. Ronnie Reagan was the quintessential trickle down economy president, and at the same time he oversaw the largest increase in defense spending in US history.

 

It's not important whether the reason for disrupting the natural flow of capital are national interests mixed with ideology as in the cold war, or socialist welfare state programmes that are overtly ideological. The result is the same.

 

Capitalism is what happens when you take the hands off approach, it's how the world moves, a force of nature. It is neither essentially democratic or evil. You can inject all sorts of notions about how we usually view capitalism in the west for the sake of argument, but it doesn't change the nature of the beast.

 

Liberalism is ideology based on the free movement of capital, as well as the protection of individual rights, with as little meddling from government as possible. I realize it has come to mean something else in the US, but Taks is still a liberal.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Gorgon

[Nick_i_am]

i think everyone should believe as i do

 

I think everyone is entitled to an opinion on a hugely complex issue that effects different people in different ways.

 

Then again, I enter discussions to hear and form new ideas, not to try and convince everyone that my ideas are the only ones which are right.

 

Just saying.

[taks]

What Taks is advocating is not Capitalism, it's small government. Ronnie Reagan was the quintessential trickle down economy president, and at the same time he oversaw the largest increase in defense spending in US history.

no, i advocate capitalism, pure and simple. reagan was the milton friedman style as i recall, which is certainly better than keynes, but still not austrian. i think your understanding of trickle down is a bit confused, btw. when he increased defense spending, that money went into US companies, for the most part at least. i.e., being in favor of trickle down economics and increasing defense spending aren't really contrary positions.

 

I realize it has come to mean something else in the US, but Taks is still a liberal.

economically, yes, and i think i mentioned that somewhere. "liberal" as it pertains to US politics means "left-wing."

 

taks

[taks]

if following this line of thinking you might as well get rid of goverment too and wish best for well working liberal anarchism.

that is 100% disingenuous. the role of government is to protect rights, and it is a requirement that government exist in order for capitalism to work. that has nothing to do with you advocating, through threat of force, that i believe in your ideology.

 

I think everyone is entitled to an opinion on a hugely complex issue that effects different people in different ways.

that's the point, nick, that i explicitly made. must have missed it. he's got a right to his opinion, and i have a right to mine. i want him to believe as i do, but it is not a requirement. he wants me to believe as he does, but he thinks the government should make it a requirement that i at least do as he believes.

 

there was no inconsistency, nor irony in my statement at all. i was completely consistent. xard's viewpoint is NOT consistent, though that doesn't mean he can't express it.

 

taks

Edited September 30, 2008 by taks

[taks]

you only believe in making sure people think the way you do.

 

hypocrisy much? srsly

i think i did a good job of pointing out your hypocrisy, and my consistency. sorry, but there ain't much around your view: obey my will or else.

 

btw, look it up, you've just defined tyranny. good job, xard.

 

Nope as I still put greatest value on rights and democratic process

so, again, explain to me how one person can have rights that are greater than another's? how are they rights at that point? and, you need to look it up, but your definition of "democratic process," one in which the many can vote away the rights of the few, is also collectivist.

 

taks

[Xard]

if following this line of thinking you might as well get rid of goverment too and wish best for well working liberal anarchism.

that is 100% disingenuous. the role of government is to protect rights, and it is a requirement that government exist in order for capitalism to work. that has nothing to do with you advocating, through threat of force, that i believe in your ideology.

 

What rights?

 

That is very important question and from way of your thinking I believe you must mean Night Watchman state system.

 

I think everyone is entitled to an opinion on a hugely complex issue that effects different people in different ways.

that's the point, nick, that i explicitly made. must have missed it. he's got a right to his opinion, and i have a right to mine. i want him to believe as i do, but it is not a requirement. he wants me to believe as he does, and he wants the government to back him up and force me to believe as he does.

 

there was no inconsistency, nor irony in my statement at all. i was completely consistent. xard's viewpoint is NOT consistent, though that doesn't mean he can't express it.

 

taks

 

only if paying taxes (aka enforcing you to do something against your will) wasn't legal and legitime action by democratic goverment

 

If it was you don't really have right to whine, sorry. You can try to bring up movement against this or then you can change country.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[Xard]

Nope as I still put greatest value on rights and democratic process

so, again, explain to me how one person can have rights that are greater than another's? how are they rights at that point? and, you need to look it up, but your definition of "democratic process," one in which the many can vote away the rights of the few, is also collectivist.

 

Yeah, that is one problem of democracy but that's why minorities rights are constitutionalized. And if these rights were unconstitutionalized by democratic process country already has to be basically under rule of fascist regime with facade of democracy already. As long as common sense functions and there are at least some people with good sense of morals this won't happen. This is what's (I think) called protecting individual's rights in democratic system and it is big force in Finland and other "socialist" countries like us.

 

As for morals, I believe I have time for writing post tomorrow

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[Xard]

*double post*

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[taks]

What rights?[/i]

 

That is very important question and from way of your thinking I believe you must mean Night Watchman state system.

i'm not sure i understand what you're getting at here. rights are those things that are inalienable. rights are immutable, as well. rights of one cannot infringe upon rights of another. if they do, then they are not rights, but privileges granted by someone else.

 

only if paying taxes (aka enforcing you to do something against your will) wasn't legal and legitime action by democratic goverment

 

If it was you don't really have right to whine, sorry. You can try to bring up movement against this or then you can change country.

wow, you completely missed that point.

 

it has nothing to do with "legality" or "legitimate actions" of a democratic government. go back and read what nick said. he accused me, tongue in cheek of course, of being ironic for attempting you to bend to my view. in other words, he said i was being hypocritical because i expected you to believe my viewpoint, while refusing to believe yours. my viewpoint accepts that you can have whatever viewpoint you want. yours accepts that i can have whatever viewpoint i want, but i have to obey yours regardless. mine is consistent with rights, yours is not. when one is forced to believe a certain way, no matter how you may spin it, he is not free, nor does he have rights. only privileges granted by the state.

 

taks

[Xard]

What rights?[/i]

 

That is very important question and from way of your thinking I believe you must mean Night Watchman state system.

i'm not sure i understand what you're getting at here. rights are those things that are inalienable. rights are immutable, as well. rights of one cannot infringe upon rights of another. if they do, then they are not rights, but privileges granted by someone else.

 

But what are these inmutable rights?

 

only if paying taxes (aka enforcing you to do something against your will) wasn't legal and legitime action by democratic goverment

 

If it was you don't really have right to whine, sorry. You can try to bring up movement against this or then you can change country.

wow, you completely missed that point.

 

it has nothing to do with "legality" or "legitimate actions" of a democratic government. go back and read what nick said. he accused me, tongue in cheek of course, of being ironic for attempting you to bend to my view. in other words, he said i was being hypocritical because i expected you to believe my viewpoint, while refusing to believe yours. my viewpoint accepts that you can have whatever viewpoint you want. yours accepts that i can have whatever viewpoint i want, but i have to obey yours regardless. mine is consistent with rights, yours is not. when one is forced to believe a certain way, no matter how you may spin it, he is not free, nor does he have rights. only privileges granted by the state.

 

taks

 

No one forces you to believe something or think something, it is merely forcing certain way of behaviour. Your thoughts and words are as free as ever

 

If situation was upside down and your model was democratically legalized and was the one used I'd have exactly same opportunities as you. Use my citizen rights and seek change or move from country.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[taks]

No one forces you to believe something or think something, it is merely forcing certain way of behaviour. Your thoughts and words are as free as ever

oh my god... i laughed almost hysterically at that. you can't see the inconsistency in your argument?

 

1. No one forces you to believe something or think something

2. it is merely forcing certain way of behaviour

 

news flash, those two concepts are completely at odds with each other.

 

If situation was upside down and your model was democratically legalized and was the one used I'd have exactly same opportunities as you. Use my citizen rights and seek change or move from country.

actually, it is "democratically legalized," just not implemented as such.

 

when you ask what are these rights? how can you not know? a right to own one's property is one of the most powerful.

 

no matter where you go, you're still going to have the problem of consistency with your argument. your argument makes claims of morality, humanity and freedom, but you still advocate forcibly taking from one person to give to another. you advocate forcing certain behaviors. you advocate a system in which one person has more rights than another. yours is a position of hypocrisy. you cannot avoid this in spite of your attempts to dance around it.

 

ultimately, the concept of inalienable rights is written down to protect everyone from people like you. people that are self-righteously telling us how we should behave.

 

taks

Edited September 30, 2008 by taks

[taks]

oh, i should add, maybe you should read 1984. hehe, you're free to think as you like, as long as you do as we say. man...

 

taks

[Nick_i_am]

people that are self-righteously telling us how we should behave.

 

taks

 

If it's just 'telling' then you're back on the irony boat.