• SeanRenaud said on Sep 17, 2008....

  Honestly I'm of two minds about this but I'm not anti-regulation, I'm anti-socialism whenever possible. 
   
  I'm not even sure what the actual root of this entire problem is, it seems that one step that would drastically help avoid this situation in the future is to alter the way real estate agents are paid (obviously over a number of years) where instead of receiving a commission, that they are instead paid, just like the mortage month by month over the next for forever by said individual, so they have an interest in selling to people who won't default because if they default you don't get paid.  Though that's not going to happen.
   
  I had no idea AIG was THAT huge.  I mean dear God, I know that once you boil away all the bullshit the entire world is owned by like two dozen people but holy fucking shit.  I'm not even sure what the proper answer is to that problem problem though it clearly is.
   
  Perhaps for ever so many billions of dollars in a given industry there must be X companies in said bussiness. 
   
   

• Scaramouche said on Sep 17, 2008....

  Keep in mind that Freddie and Fannie were once public, and did just fine.  Privatizing them clearly failed, so now they're public again.  Perhaps ubiquitous privatization of everything isn't the panacea the Bush-munching neocons constantly try to bamboozle the public into thinking it is.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 17, 2008....

  To be fair it was private longer than it was public and it obviously did very well privately.

• TinSoldier said on Sep 17, 2008....

  I am neither for excessive regulation nor excessive deregulation. I think that financial companies are a special case in that their products are money, confidence, and "full faith and credit". These are well within the purview of governments in general and the Federal Government in general.
  
  
  
  I would still almost say "let them fall" but then as someone else somewhere pointed out (and like I pointed out when the Feds stepped in for Bear Stearns) because of the unique nature of money markets versus regular markets it could result in a very bad domino effect and take down even more companies and hurt even more middle class people trying to save for retirement.
  
  
  Oh, and this was definitely a problem of a lack of oversight and loosening regulations too much -- lay it at the feet of both parties and of government in general. Fannie and Freddie worked just fine as private companies (GSEs -- Government Sponsored Entities) for almost 40 years.
  
  
  So to answer the question, the Feds are absolutely in charge of the money supply and are responsible for keeping the economy relatively stable. This is not socialism by any stripe.
  
  

• bloc said on Sep 17, 2008....

  "This is not socialism by any stripe."
  
  
  Well, it is sort of, but let's not argue over semantics. It's not capitalism by any stripe either then. 
  
  
  If we believed in pure free markets then we'd let them fail. We don't believe in pure capitalism so we regulate and bail out. The problem is corruption and shortsightedness. We privatized reward and socialized the risk, that's a recipe for failure. 

• TinSoldier said on Sep 17, 2008....

  No, this isn't socialism. I don't see anyone nationalizing or collectivizing the means of production and distribution of goods and services.
  
  
  I don't see how it isn't capitalism. Capitalism relies on trust and information and contracts and a stable medium of exchange.

  
  

  I don't think anyone but a Libertarian or an anarchist believes in purely unfettered markets in every aspect of life.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 17, 2008....

  We just nationalised AIG.  Where were you yesterday?

• TinSoldier said on Sep 17, 2008....

  And?
  
  
  We didn't "nationalize" it anyway. We secured a loan for them and tied some very strict conditions to that loan.
  
  
  That is not "nationalizing or collectivizing the means of production and distribution of goods and services", ergo, not socialist. It may or may not have been a good idea, though.

• stopmediabias said on Sep 17, 2008....

  I think that it is a mistake for the government to bail out these companies.  However it is the lessor of two evils.  We either pay in taxes or pay in lost job losses and economic downfall.  The worse thing about this, is the people responsible for all of this will slick right away with millions.  Where are the investigations?  This is far worse than Enron or MCI and I'm yet to hear of a supoena or even a call for an investigation.

  Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this, so we should not be trying to politicize this.  We need to figure out what started this and how to prevent it from happening again in the future.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 17, 2008....

  A culture of greed started this.

• bloc said on Sep 17, 2008....

  @tin
  
  
  if the government is on the hook for the debt then it surely isn't capitalism! I love how prevalent this bias is. We give great leeway to the meaning of "capitalism" while requiring a strict definition of socialism. 
  
  
  It very much is collectivizing the large portions of the banking industry. We are now collectively responsible for that debt!
  
  
  "Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this, so we should not be trying to politicize this."
  
  
  This is true and an oversimplification. Republicans are more responsible. They are the ones pushing deregulation which lead to this. The Democrats certainly plaid a role, but a lesser one.
  
  

• lfbno7 said on Sep 17, 2008....

  If the state is involved in a bailout, that is not capitalism. Capitalism is about private ownership for profit, not about state bailouts of failed capitalistic ventures. It isn't semantics here - it is most definitely not capitalism to bail out a failed capitalistic venture. It would be capitalism if a different private company bought AIG out, but not if the govt did it. Let's be clear on our definitions. Capitalism is not about govt rescue. At least not in the dictionary I'm looking at. Green isn't blue.

• travelr712 said on Sep 17, 2008....

  privatizing public interests like fannie may and freddie mac wasn't the problem. the problem was the same as with the iraq war at the beginning, the new orleans rescue after the hurricane, and so many other things that have failed in this country in the last 8 years. bush took people who were compitent and experienced out of positions in organizations, and replaced them with 'true believers' who had no experience or knowledge of how to run those organizations, and they failed. fanny may and freddie mac failed because, as the senate investigation found, their regulation and oversight failed, because the people doing it didn't know how to do it. the economic markets are in trouble now because they were deregulated by the republican administration and senate, and without regulation, they ran wild, making decisions to benefit their corporate bottom line and investors instead of their business, workers, and customers. those are facts. a recent report that is being used by the senate for energy market regulation squarely places the blame of the oil market on unregulated large investors dumping 60 billion dollars into the specule markets this year, driving the prices up. aig failed because they were not held to the regulation standards that were imposed on them. it is absolutely no different than when the bush administration tells the senate they 'don't recognize the senate's power to subpoena members of the administration'. it all comes down to the fact that unbridled greed, for money, for power, will corrupt those at the top every single time, because they will begin to believe they are better than everyone else, and not subject to the same laws and standards. so no, unregulated markets do not work, and we are now in a full blown recession because of just that.
   
  but on the other hand, many many people, banks and investment houses all over the world have investments, 401k's, mutual funds, etc. that are all backed by securities held by lehman brothers, aig, fanny may, freddie mac and bear sterns, and if these companies go bankrupt, then all the investments that the people hold become worthless, which will not only ruin our economy, but ruin other economies around the world who count on the worth of these investments and the dividends they provide. so the government must step in and shore them up in order to fend off a much larger catastrophy. and the tax payer, john q. public, must foot the bill, all because the government didn't do it's job in the first place.

• TinSoldier said on Sep 17, 2008....

  Well I find that I have to use the strict definition of "socialism" when people call Obama a socialist. I find that it works both ways.
  
  
  And looking at the same source for the strict definition of "capitalism", in which " the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market." (Emphasis mine) I see no contradiction here.
  
  
  If I wanted to be ideologically pure about it? Yeah, I'd say let 'em fail and take down everything with 'em. But if you know me then you know that I (along with many others) temper our ideology with a health dose of pragmatism and what is good for the country.
  
  
  Again I see no reason to define capitalism by the extreme libertarian standard.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 17, 2008....

  I hate to agree, nearly unconditionally with lbfno7 because he's so dangerously deluded that his ideas must be wrong.  That said he's basically right other than one major detail but in honor of him being close to right for the first time in his life I'll leave him for last.

   

  1.  We did nationalize it Tin, we basically bought 80% of the company.  We have controlling interest, we're paying the bill as bloc points out.  Is it not nationalized until it is run by government employees or something?

   

  2.  A culture of greed started the world and drives just about every aspect of it.  What's your fucking point?  Don't even get me started on who's done more good for the world Mother Theresa (arguably the most altruistic person of the modern era) vs Bill Gates.  (To be fair I could probably make the debate work for Britney goddamn Spears but it would be harder)

   

  3. I agree that the Republicans are more responsible, but the Democrats were pushing for a lot of the deregulation that is specifically applied to this situation.  Namely the Sub-Prime loans and letting the little guy get in on the American Dream blah blah blah. 

   

  4.  I actually can't find fault with lfbno7's logic.  I was going to say that just because there is government owned business doesn't mean that you are in a socialist nation.  In fact I would almost like the government to have it's own "version" of everything that is viewed as essential (we can define essential at a later time) it would have to be self sufficient (or at least try it's damnest) and would serve as a "pace" car if you will for whatever sector it was a part of. 

   

  5. Back to SMB sorry I skipped part of it.  There is nothing to investigate here, nobody was lying to the shareholders like with Enron and World.com where there was blatant lying.  What happened here is very simple.  People who couldn't afford loans (see: Poor People).  (actually just read travlr's explanation, it's much more articulate.

   

  6.  Regulations do not a socialist make no matter what the Right may scream.  A boxing match is still a fight. 

• travelr712 said on Sep 17, 2008....

  i tend to agree with you tin. i see it like this. our country was founded on the idea of checks and balances. it is a way to keep power and influence from becoming centered too heavily in one place. so we're not completely capatilist, and we're not completely socialist. we try and make both work together to get the best benefits of each, and usually we do a really good job. but when one center of power comes in and tries to take too much control, it throws many other things out of whack. and in our countrie's history, the only time the executive branch can garner enough power to have undue influence is at time of war. this by our constitution invests extra powers in the 'commander and chief' so that he can ignore senate subpoenas and use signing statements to negate bills he has signed into law.
   
  and it's not all the fault of the government either. the average joe has spent himself into debt when he should have known better, counted on income for future years to pay for things that he gains now and does not really need, when he knew the proven effects of corporate globalization and illegal work forces, and plunged blindly ahead.
   
  we said and did nothing as our civil liberties were eroded one by one under the banner of 'war on terror' because we saw safety as a priority to liberty (not everyone, and certainly not me, but enough to make it effective).
   
  so i guess in the end analysis, we are all at fault, and so we all must pay the price. i hope we learn our lesson this time, i certainly know i have!

• travelr712 said on Sep 17, 2008....

  LOL sean! i would LOVE to see you make the argument for britney goddamn spears! it would be very hard, i agree, but actually, between the two of us, if we worked at it together, i think we could manage :-D

• TinSoldier said on Sep 17, 2008....

  Sean, I actually agree with all of your points except the first. So yes, in order for it to be nationalized it has to be run by government employees for the benefit of the government (or the state or the people or whatever). I realize that I may be cutting a fine line here but I still stand by it.
  
  
  80%? I need to look that up. I've read that it was mostly a cash flow (liquidity) issue.
  
  
  You say a couple things that I want to mention: "Namely the Sub-Prime loans and letting the little guy get in on the American Dream" and "There is nothing to investigate here, nobody was lying to the shareholders like with Enron and World.com"

  
  

  I kinda agree with both and I kinda disagree with both. On the one hand I cringe every time the media and whatever politico blames the little guy who got into more house than he or she could pay for, or who no matter how well-intentioned just wasn't ready to own a home. I really do support home ownership and I had to work very damn hard to save up a pittance for my house. While I didn't get a "sub-prime" loan (I think?) I certainly don't think that it was a prime loan.

  
  

  But I still own my home and I don't think that I'm gonna lose it any time soon. I feel sorry for those that are.

  
  

  I think that a lot of banks and mortgage brokers/lenders are the ones that got greedy and fudged or actually lied on the applications in order to help finance these homes and thereby getting their own paychecks without doing their due diligence. And real estate agents were only a little less complicit in that they colluded with the mortgage brokers and sometimes with home appraisers to get the prices they wanted. Then the banks and the purchasers of the mortgages stopped looking closely enough and failed to see how their risk was increasing. And then these mortgages were packaged into some weird new investment products and the people buying those products weren't completely aware of the risk that they were buying into.

  
  

  The system failed at many levels and I do think that an investigation is warranted so that the proper regulations can be put into place, not some kind of knee jerk reactions to a bad situation.

  
  

  Oh, and let's not forget such abominations as "interest only" loans and house flippers.

  
  

  Edit: Travelr: I see your comment as I was writing this. Jefferson was very suspicious of concentrating power in the hands of business. Hamilton was mostly the opposite. Socialism didn't really exist at the founding of our country but we just try and put labels on to behaviors that mankind has had since the beginning of civilization. Sometimes we work together as a community towards certain goals and/or to prevent private interests from taking advantage of the public trust. Other times we encourage individuals to strive for the best they can do and offer them rewards for doing so.

  
  

  The problem is when you take either of these behaviors to their most absurd extremes.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 17, 2008....

  1.  Wether or not you love Ms. Spears there is little argument that her music has brought happiness to millions of fans.  She's gone gold three times I think.  Now lets talk about how many people she employs directly.  It's just more difficult with her because her web isn't nearly as wide or varied.
   
  2.  I

• TinSoldier said on Sep 17, 2008....

  What happened, Sean? Computer get unplugged?

• TinSoldier said on Sep 17, 2008....

  A good explanation:
  http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/17/news/economy/housing/index.htm?postversion=2008091715
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 17, 2008....

  Gods I hate SC some days.  I don't even remember what my point was at this point.

• travelr712 said on Sep 17, 2008....

  yes tin, that's what i was getting at, the importance of balance. and the significance of some of the most long standing financial institutions in our nation foulding at this time has not been lost on me over these many months. these institutions weathered the depression of the 30's, when 50% of the nation's houses were in default, and they can't survive a 5.8% default rate now? i attribute that to diversification. they had their hands in so many 'high return' risky markets that had no solid foundation in order to bring larger dividends to their shareholders that they could not survive the collapse of just a few major ones. again, it goes back to leadership, imo. the 'dinosaurs' of the 60's through the 90's who knew the risk of these types of investments were ousted in favor of 'progressives'. the 'new' leadership opted for 'do what i say' in people, rather than 'do what is right'.

• travelr712 said on Sep 17, 2008....

  yes, you're right sean. in the economic market of today, image sells. if you want to make money, you have to have something people can recognize without thinking, and anyone who becomes popular is automatically a label. britney spears brings happiness to millions, as witnessed from her incredible album, video, clothing, etc. sales, and those millions provide economic means for a hoard of supporting characters, from the publishing assistant, to the roadie, to the arena security guard. without britney, these people would not have jobs, and would not be able to feed their families.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 17, 2008....

  Sean - sure, a culture of greed started the world.  So did anaerobic bacteria.  Things evolve.  Just because it's always been that way, that's how it has to continue?  How republican of you.
  
  
  A little sense of collective responsibility to counterbalance the resolute individualism that's been drilled into the American psyche forever might not be such a bad thing.  If the prevailing social attitude wasn't "every man for himself" things might have turned out differently.

• bloc said on Sep 17, 2008....

  wow, too many things to reply too.
  
  
  First, the problem wasn't the little people getting into loans they couldn't afford. The problem is banks giving loans they shouldn't give, but there is a specific reason this happened; DEREGULATION. The reason they were willing to give out the loans is that they didn't have to hold them. Let me repeat that. The company giving out the bad loans was not the company that would ultimately hold the loan. This was the result of some specific deregulation.
  
  
  Regarding semantics. There is not socialism and capitalism, there is a spectrum. All countries are a mix of the two except for maybe a few extremes. What happened today moved us a bit towards the socialism end. 
  
  
  Here is the definition from the first dictionary I looked in. " ... that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".
  
  
  
  

• TinSoldier said on Sep 17, 2008....

  "Here is the definition from the first dictionary I looked in. " ... that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"."
  
  
  Well, jeez, bloc! That definition (with your emphasis) applies to every freakin' democracy that has ever existed!
  
  
  And you say "The problem is banks giving loans they shouldn't give, ... The reason they were willing to give out the loans is that they didn't have to hold them. Let me repeat that. The company giving out the bad loans was not the company that would ultimately hold the loan." which I agree with. It created a moral hazard.
  
  
  But as for "but there is a specific reason this happened; DEREGULATION. ... This was the result of some specific deregulation." then you will have to back that up.
  
  
  And I don't think that it was the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
  
  
  Note: I'm not saying that you are wrong, because the financial industry has been both deregulated a bit as well as not having existing regulations consistently enforced. I'm saying that you have to back it up with a specific reference.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 17, 2008....

  Actually Scar it means that it's the ONLY way it can work and that if you move away from that model everybody dies instead of just a few.  But we've already established that your the kind of liberal that makes guys like me strongly consider voting for McCain.

• TinSoldier said on Sep 17, 2008....

  Heh -- while Scar doesn't quite make me feel that way others do. I didn't realize that others felt the same way.
  
  
  When I see some ignorant post at RFO it makes me almost kneejerk.

• D6fer said on Sep 17, 2008....

  good post bloc.....I am torn on this one......I hate to see a bailout like this (these) but whats the alternative?
  
  btw bloc.....those bad loan policies came about by the pen of Bill Clinton back in the early 90's
  
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 18, 2008....

  i'm not sure who's gonna be most surprised by this, but i actually agree with smb.
  
  ed

• lfbno7 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  dangerously deluded, says sean about me. idiot. fuckin idiot.

• lfbno7 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  fucking nazi wannabe saying there's scant evidence of the holocaust. why can't you just say you agree or disagree, and leave out the insults, you fucking nazi wannabe.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 18, 2008....

  So then, anyone who thinks greed is bad is a liberal?  Excellent debate tactic.  I wonder how Xtians would react to being told the philosophy they espouse and  ignore would class them as liberals?  Sean - it's your species of cryptoconservative that makes me throw up my hands and resort to profanity rather than even try to be reasonable, moreso than the knee-jerk neocons.  Fuckwit.

• TinSoldier said on Sep 18, 2008....

  Sean -- I want to say that you were right and I was wrong about the nature of the bailout and "nationalization". There's only one other term for it: fucked up.
  
  
  D6: your response does not surprise me in the least.
  
  
  I don't understand lfbno7's or Scaramouche's comments? I know they were aimed at SeanR though. But I don't understand the vehemence.
  
  
  
  

• travelr712 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  aparantly, they don't like each other tin...

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  @tin
  and your definition of capitalism applies to every democracy that ever existed which proves my point. It's a spectrum and we're all a little bit socialism and a little bit capitalism to varying degrees. 
  
  
  @d6
  Clinton signed the bills, but he didn't write them. A republican congress did.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 18, 2008....

  1.  It is fucked up Tin, I'm just not sure ultimately if it was the right thing to do.  There are certain lines that we as a nation don't WANT to see what's on the other side of and a collapse of AIG and all of the dominoes behind it is one of those situations where nobody really wants to see what lies beyond that door. 

   

  2.  Scaramouche is one of those ultraliberals who believes some how that greed is evil.  To him I represent this supreme evil because I don't believe that a human being who doesn't love himself and take care of himself will ultimately survive in the real world long enough to help anybody else.  I go so far as to say that not counting charity (which Mr. Gates does rather regularly) but even if we only look at the jobs that Mr. Gates has created and through that the people he's fed, housed and everything else that he's done a hell of a lot more good than most (if not all) charity organizations.  I actually prefer he doesn't like me because he's so caustic with this rhetoric that agreeing with him takes my point down several notches.  It's like agreeing with Hitler on the color of the sky.  Obviously if he says it the answer farthest from it must be true so that day the sky if fucking orange.  (which conveintly the sky can be.)

   

  lfbno7 hates me because I routinly make him look stupid and then tries to justify it by pointing out that I have the nerve to want to know more about the holocaust cus I was getting utterly picked apart in a debate about it here

  But mostly they both hate me because I'm inherently superior to them and it's the natural response to observing your better.

• RollingC said on Sep 18, 2008....

  Like Bloc said : " corruption and shortsightedness" .....I think that about sums it up.  If all companies had the foresight to avoid those two there would be more financial stability.
  Rc
  

• Scaramouche said on Sep 18, 2008....

  First off - stop putting words in my mouth.  I never said I disliked SeanR.  I don't know him as anything other than words on a screen, therefore I haven't got enough data to judge.  He could be perfectly charming for all I know, even if I disagree with some of his opinions, and not others.
  
  
  Sadly, he has taken the easy out and decided he's sufficiently psychic to know my very soul, branding me a Hitlerian ultraliberal.  Shame.  He seems lucid at times.  Bipolar, perhaps?
  
  
  Anyway, I hate to agree with jesus on this one, but greed is bad, sorry.  American consumer culture proves that every moment of every day, from the mindless advertising we're constantly bombarded with, to the lowest-common-denominator, Wal-Martized products I'm supposed to settle for, to the government forcing me to help bail out AIG.
  
  
  I'm not saying no-one should look after himself.  What I am saying is that it's unwise to foster a society where everyone is out for number one.  There is value in having a sense of social responsibility - occasionally pulling one's head out of one's rectum long enough to consider the impact that one's actions may have on other people.  It's called being an adult.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 18, 2008....

  People who are sufficiently looking after themselves and aren't idiots are by necessity working with, not against their neighbors.

• travelr712 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  i believe this is a difference in degree of definition of the word 'greed' between sean and scar. a certain amount of the base definition of the word 'greed' is necessary to survive. but if you take it in the connotation most christians have placed on the word, then it's bad. perhaps a different word, or more clear definition, would help here?

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 18, 2008....

  Christians (or at least the Republican Christians) are the most hypocritical people ever to touch the earth in regards to greed and it's not fair to anybody to bring them into the conversation.  One may as well bring a DuckBilled Platypus into a conversation about what a mammal does.

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  "People who are sufficiently looking after themselves and aren't idiots are by necessity working with, not against their neighbors."
  
  
  I don't think this is true. If you are looking after yourself and you can profit from something directly while collectively sharing the cost you will. If I'm the CEO of HugeEvilCorp I'm more than happy to let my factory in BumTheFuck, Alabama to dump it's toxic waste in the river. It won't affect my children in Beverly Hills. 

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 18, 2008....

  I think you're mixing subjects here.  But for the sake of argument that is a result of the public not knowing or giving a shit what is done by HECorp.  I mean we both know that if a trip to the slaughterhouse was part of the 5th grade sylabus there'd be a lot more vegetarians, and if slaughtering an animal and carving into meat was part of school there would be a shit load more.  (and that's mostly just attacking people's stomachs.)  I don't believe that if 50 years ago (give or take) women had ANY clue what happens for her to get a diamond ring that we would have a tradition of diamond engagement rings.  At this point I'm convinced it's a combination of willful ignorance and "tradition" that keeps it alive. 
   
  It seems to me that plain ole greed wants your neighbors to have money, otherwise how can they give it to you?  Inversely if they have too little they become increasingly likely to TAKE stuff from you instead of give you stuff. 
   
  There are a few acceptions, such as competing for a position at a job, but in an ideal situation the better man gets the job and everybody makes more money because that was the right decision.  One could use the current presidential election as an example of that. On a complete side note I heard on the radio that pro-amnesty people want McCain because it's more likely that he would pass laws in their favor.
   
   "People who are sufficiently looking after themselves and aren't idiots are by necessity working with, not against their neighbors."

  
  

  I don't think this is true. If you are looking after yourself and you can profit from something directly while collectively sharing the cost you will. If I'm the CEO of HugeEvilCorp I'm more than happy to let my factory in BumTheFuck, Alabama to dump it's toxic waste in the river. It won't affect my children in Beverly Hills. 

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  "It seems to me that plain ole greed wants your neighbors to have money, otherwise how can they give it to you?  Inversely if they have too little they become increasingly likely to TAKE stuff from you instead of give you stuff. "
  
  
  This is definitely true if your concern is long term, but what if you could make 100 mil in a few years before the shit hit the fan. You would no longer need your neighbors to give you their money. 

• Scaramouche said on Sep 18, 2008....

  "that is a result of the public not knowing or giving a shit what is done by HECorp" - and could that be a result of people focusing so narrowly on themselves?
  
  
  "People who are sufficiently looking after themselves and aren't idiots..." - and here we come to the crux of the matter.  I suppose I am an elitist liberal after all, since it seems almost a truism to me that most people ARE, in fact, idiots.  Hence the conclusion is drawn from an incorrect premise.

• travelr712 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  i wasn't bringing christians into the debate sean. i was bringing in the definition of greed held by most people that was propogated into our society by them. big difference.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 18, 2008....

  I suppose it was me - the moral atheist - that brought Xtians into the debate.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 18, 2008....

  @bloc:  I still don't want them to rob me so I at least want them to be ok.  Still you make a solid point about if you could get in and out unscathed.  I would argue that people at the very least should be thinking long term, people with more money are willing to spend more money. 
   
  @Scar:  It could be a result of people focusing too closely on themselves but I honestly doubt it.  Nobody does research on where chemical X comes from, I wish the radical righties were here because honestly ALIEN, D6, SMB and Cur all kinda run together in my mind and one of them posted a blog about video gamers being resposible for the situation in Darfur and they would know which of them did and could direct you to it) but I again go back to diamonds.  I garuntee if the general public had half the knowledge they have today about how diamonds are mined the tradition would never have started.
   
  It's also been my experience that people aren't idiots, a fair amount are uneducated but most aren't idiots.  I forget who it was a few weeks ago that explained the electoral college and how someone could win the popular vote and lose the election.
   
  @Travelr:  My mistake.  I think that most people's definition of greed is so badly skewed as to make it almost useless.  They've got this vision in their head of Mr. Burns and nothing you can say gets rid of it.

• travelr712 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  no harm done sean, and i agree. people seem to have a characture of 'greed' in their heads, which is why a definition must sometimes be agreed upon or the debate is useless.
   

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 18, 2008....

  Agreed.

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  "It's also been my experience that people aren't idiots, a fair amount are uneducated but most aren't idiots."
  
  
  They are self delusional. Think about how often I bring up issues with meat. People, even smart people, simply do not want to know. Actually, it's more than that, they actively work to maintain their unknowing. 
  
  
  
  

• travelr712 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  that is a sociologically imposed necessity bloc. people cannot slaughter their own cows anymore, they don't have the means. they must have it supplied to them, because our society has set up that food must be bought from a store. so they cannot look at or even think about the processing, or they would starve.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 18, 2008....

  I can agree with you that there is a list of things that people would rather not know, that doesn't by definition mean they are bad things.
   
  Bloc brings up ALOT more than just slaughterhouse stuff trav, he's not PETA.  Many of his points are valid (I still don't care I like burgers) but are valid points and are things that people would be wise to consider, like the dead spot in the Gulf of Mexico or how much polution is produced directly and indirectly in the production of beef.
   

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  and the most important point, people would not starve, they would be healthier.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 18, 2008....

  "Nobody does research on where chemical X comes from" - I tend to, when I think it may have a direct impact on my life.  Sadly, I am confronted daily with examples of people who don't take the time look below the surface of most issues, and yet proceed to complain about them.  This may be yet another semantic disagreement.  To me, people who are willfully ignorant are idiots.  Sure - they can be educated, but they don't want to be.  Idiots.  
  
  
  It's quite another thing to know a fair amount about a given issue and still not care.  It may be slightly evil, but at least you've done your homework.  Like beef, for example.  I'm very aware that the industrial production of beef is highly unsavory.  I'm also not going to stop eating burgers, even though grain-fed beef is poisonous, because it's highly savory.

• travelr712 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  actually bloc, both points are pure speculation. starve or healthier, the answer is not known, and the danger of finding out is too great.

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  
  read the china study. There is a lot of peer reviewed research showing that a vegetarian diet is far healthier. This is exactly, what I was describing to seam, active unknowing.

• travelr712 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  so corporate farmed, genetically altered, chemically fertalized and pesticized, preservative laced, color dye enhanced carrots are better for you? or is it hothouse hydroponically grown in soil substitute and chemical solution, color dye enhanced carrots? yeah, i can see how that works...

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  All else being equal, a plant based diet is far healthier than a meat based diet. I've pointed you towards peer reviewed science on the matter. 
  
  
  btw, your rant is a red herring. 

• travelr712 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  and i could point you toward peer review that said milk is bad for you. peer review is not proof. and it wasn't a rant, it is fact bloc. i just happen to see the facts differently than you do. i could just as easily say that your slaughter house diatribe is a red herring. and i'm not saying that meat is better for you than vegitables. i'm saying that our entire food supply is processed, chemical laced product, and one is no better than the other.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 18, 2008....

  A peer review is about as good as it gets travelr.  It basically means that the expert who did this observation handed it to all the other experts and asked them to prove him wrong if they could and nobody could. 
   
  My opinion is that there must be something X that we aren't seeing that is working on these people, human beings are clearly designed to be predators, there is significant evidence to show that our brains got larger right around the time we changed to a diet that included meat.  Hell it might just be that vegetarians are more aware of what they are eating, they have to be seing how certain vitamins and minerals human beings need are terribly rare in plants.  I kinda liken this to the egg scare of the late 80's.  There is something we're missing is my opinion.  Current facts however are not in my favor.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 18, 2008....

  A peer review is about as good as it gets travelr.  It basically means that the expert who did this observation handed it to all the other experts and asked them to prove him wrong if they could and nobody could. 
   
  My opinion is that there must be something X that we aren't seeing that is working on these people, human beings are clearly designed to be predators, there is significant evidence to show that our brains got larger right around the time we changed to a diet that included meat.  Hell it might just be that vegetarians are more aware of what they are eating, they have to be seing how certain vitamins and minerals human beings need are terribly rare in plants.  I kinda liken this to the egg scare of the late 80's.  There is something we're missing is my opinion.  Current facts however are not in my favor.

• travelr712 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  yes sean, i know what a peer review is. i also know that peer reviews have been just as biased as any other method. the peer review only shows that the peers cannot dispute the facts or methods used. they do not validate the conclusions or the premise the study was based on.

  your point about the increase in intelligence and skill level of humans when they became 'meataterains' is one of the best scientifically based, peer reviewed pieces of evidence that can be presented. now certainly, someone who is as concerned with their diet as a vegitarian would have a more balanced one, and thus be healthier. but a person who eats a good balance of all the food groups will be just as healthy, as you've pointed out.

  what i'm saying is that i've been through decades of fad studies that change the mass populice paradigm, from eggs to oatmeal to bread to milk to meat, and a few years later another study comes out to say the last 'all the rage' study was flawed in this or that way. humans have been eating meat for what, nearly 200,000 years now? seems we've done ok with it, no?

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 18, 2008....

  1.  I apologize for assuming you didn't know, you have to understand how many times myself and bloc have to explain "theory" to people.  So I apologize.
   
  2.  If your peers cannot dispute your facts or your methods then you must be right.  (obviously this isn't 100%)
   
  3.  I stated that it was my opinion that a person ate a balanced diet would be just as healthier (actually it is my opinion they would be healthier) but I'm still waiting on my peer reviewed study to back my opinion.  Until then it's worth about the same amount as SMB's well there are scientist working to prove ID!
   
  4.  I basically agree that it seems that dietary science just swings around like a blind kid with pinata and thinks he's perfect the swing when he gets some candy.  There are SO many things that separate modern humans from our ancestors that it's basically unfair to bring them up in a conversation.  I mean hunting predates farming, so these guys who suddenly got more calories and other things from eating meat had previously pretty much wandering around looking for food.  They didn't have a grocery store with infinite (for the purposes of this conversation I'm not about to debate economics here) corn on the cob. 

• travelr712 said on Sep 18, 2008....

  no problem sean, i understand. i recently went through two college courses incorporating the peer review method, and there were many examples that landed on both sides. it turned out that the only real test of a peer review study was time, you had to submit it and then wait for a decade or more before it could actually be accepted as 'fact'.

  i agree that you stated your opinion was based on a balanced diet. i suppose i didn't need to expound on that fact, i was just 'adding color' if you will?

  i was taught all the way through grade and high school about the benefits of each of the food groups, and of eating a balanced diet, and that if you left one out, or focused too much on one or another, it always had adverse effects. that was based on centuries of studies. so to tell humans they would be healthier, better off, by eating only vegitables, would eliminate the benefits of meat from their diets, and that is simply folly imo.

  yes, there are many things that separate ancestoral humanity from the modern, which is where this thread started when i brought up availability of home grown animals to slaughter. but my point was to take the view of how meat has interacted with the entire history of homosapiens, and that if we left this essential food group out of our diets, it would fundamentally change us yet again. and not for the better, imo.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 18, 2008....

  Vegit-prop, bloc?  Damn.  Way to burst my bubble.

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  "i'm saying that our entire food supply is processed, chemical laced product, and one is no better than the other."
  
  
  I eat very few processed foods, buy mostly organic, and grow some of my own veggies. 
  
  
  And, one is better than the other. This is undeniable when the evidence is examined. Heart disease, the number one killer in america, disappears when animal products aren't eaten. Cancer rates, our number two killer, drop drastically when animal disappear from the diet. Diabetes rates drop dramatically when animal products aren't in the diet. 
  
  
  I can go on, but those 3 our in the top 10 leading causes of death, and hold the 1 and two slot.
  
  
  @sean
  
  
  "Hell it might just be that vegetarians are more aware of what they are eating, they have to be seing how certain vitamins and minerals human beings need are terribly rare in plants. "
  
  
  Many of these studies were done in rural villages in places like china. The people were not paying attention to the minerals or vitamins. They simply couldn't afford meat, yet they did not have these chronic "western" diseases. Also, tests were done simultaneously with rats and the exact same results were found. 
  
  
  I can not recommend "The China Study" strongly enough. 

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  "but a person who eats a good balance of all the food groups will be just as healthy, as you've pointed out."
  
  
  This is patently false. Saying it doesn't make it true, and refusing to even look at the evidence is what I referred to earlier as "active unknowing".

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  " would eliminate the benefits of meat from their diets, and that is simply folly imo."
  
  
  Frankly, your opinion is ignorant and not based on science at all. Again, active unknowing. You refuse to consider the evidence. 

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  for anyone that is willing to consider facts.
  
  
  http://www.thechinastudy.com/PDFs/ChinaStudy_Excerpt.pdf

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  " The "China study" referred to in the title is the China Project, a "survey of death rates for twelve different kinds of cancer for more than 2,400 counties and 880 million (96%) of their citizens" conducted jointly by Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine over the course of twenty years.

  The authors introduce and explain the conclusions of scientific studies, which have correlated animal-based diets with disease. The authors conclude that diets high in protein, particularly animal protein (such as casein in bovine milk) are strongly linked to diseases such as heart disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes."

• bloc said on Sep 18, 2008....

  here is one last thought. 
  
  
  travelr wants to suggest that numerous comprehensive and peer reviewed studies are wrong. What's the basis for this belief? Food pyramids his grade school teacher showed him. Seriously? 
  
  
  btw, many of those food pyramids were supplied by the meat and dairy industries. Who needs peer reviewed science when you can base your opinions on that!

• kelly said on Sep 18, 2008....

  All this means to me is that "capitalism" is bullshit.  You get all these people saying America is great because of capitalism and that markets should be free and that redistributing wealth is wrong and yada, yada, yada.  Then, when the going gets tough what do these tough talking pricks do?  Ask for a government bail out.  
  
  
  Here is the TRUE definition of capitalism in America:  Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
  
  
  While you're at it you may want to take a look at this video.  Then again, maybe that's what the Republicans wanted all along.

• travelr712 said on Sep 19, 2008....

  jesus bloc, you're the apitomy of a republican!

• travelr712 said on Sep 19, 2008....

  the rich got 5% richer this year kelly.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 19, 2008....

  I'm going to regret this, but...
  
  
  OK, bloc.  Explain the traditional Inuit diet.  And the Masai.  And the peer-reviewed research that also shows that a low-carb, high-fat, moderate protein diet, including loads of meat, ALSO practically eliminates the diseases of civilization?  Seems to me that if you're going to trumpet peer review, you can't pick and choose.

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  @travelr
  
  
  Please show me one, just one, scientific study that shows that meat is necessary and that those who don't get it are less healthy. I've pointed you at numerous ones that show the opposite. 
  
  
  @scaramouche
  
  
  link me to some sources please, of peer reviewed research not speculation.

• travelr712 said on Sep 19, 2008....

  nah bloc, you like your narrow world, i'll let you live in it.

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  "No. For example, Innuit Greenlanders, who historically have had limited access to fruits and vegetables, have the worst longevity statistics in North America. Research from the past and present shows that they die on average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer that the overall Canadian population"
  
  
  "Similar statistics are available for the high meat-consuming Maasai in Kenya. They eat a diet high in wild hunted meats and have the worst life expectancy in the modern world. Life expectancy is 45 years for women and 42 years for men. African researchers report that historically Maasai rarely lived beyond age 60. Adult mortality figures on the Kenyan Maasai show that they have a 50% chance of dying before the age of 59.2"
  
  
  http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/fuhrman_primitive.htm
  
  

• Scaramouche said on Sep 19, 2008....

  Here's one.  It's all I have time for here at work;
  
  Frank B Hu, Meir J Stampfer, JoAnn E Manson, Eric Rimm, Graham A Colditz, Frank E Speizer, Charles H Hennekens, and Walter C Willett
  Dietary protein and risk of ischemic heart disease in women
  Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, Aug 1999; 70: 221 - 227.
  
  80,000 women.  14 years.  Protein from both animal and plant sources.  You'd think that if there was a problem posed by the animal consumption, they might have noticed.
  
  And sorry.  I highly doubt that vegsource.com is a peer-reviewed medical journal. Besides which, life expectancy in a primitive culture is not likely to be a valid metric of dietary impact on health.  Things like predation and infectious disease are highly likely to skew the data.
  

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  I did a quick read over that study and it didn't measure heart disease, it simply counted heart attacks. 
  
  
  "You'd think that if there was a problem posed by the animal consumption, they might have noticed."
  
  
  Um, no. This is a very narrow study which would not find general problems with animal consumption. Also, this study did not measure vegetarians, it measured average americans who eat meat. It measure relatively small variations in "protein" intake. Again I recommend the china study. 
  
  
  Regarding vegsource, it links to sources. However, It's not my job to prove that previous claims are false. The burden is on you to show me peer reviewed science to back up your claims. Right?

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  Dietary Determinants of Ischaemic Heart Disease in Health Conscious Individuals, Mann et al. 1997,Heart, 78, 450: The physical condition and diets of nearly 11,000 health-conscious men and women, both vegetarian and non-vegetarian, were followed for an average of 13.3 years to investigate dietary determinants of ischaemic heart disease. It was found that saturated animal fat and cholesterol are the primary contributors to ischaemic heart disease.

  Heart Disease in British Vegetarians, Burr & Butland 1988, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, 830: A study of 10896 individuals with a special interest in health foods revealed that death due to ischemic heart disease, over the 10 to 12 years followed, was significantly lower in the vegetarians than in the non-vegetarians.

  Meat Consumption and Fatal Ischemic Heart Disease, Snowdon et al. 1984, Preventive Medicine, 13(5), 490: The connection between the meat-consumption habits of 25153 Seventh-day Adventists and fatal ischemic heart disease was assessed over a 20-year period. Meat consumption was positively associated with this disease in both the men and the women. Furthermore, meat consumption by the men between the ages of 45 and 64 gave them a threefold greater risk of the disease compared to vegetarian men of comparable age.

  Effect of Cholesterol-Lowering Diet on Mortality From Coronary Heart Disease and Other Causes,Turpeinen 1979, Circulation, 59,1: A study conducted in two hospitals over a 12-year period involved replacing dairy fats by vegetable oils to evaluate the effects on mortality from coronary heart disease. A substantial reduction of deaths due to coronary heart disease resulted.

  A Perspective View of Dieting to Lower the Blood Cholesterol, Whyte & Havenstein 1976, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 29, 784: This study, intended as a guide for physicians and patients concerned with dietary change to lower blood cholesterol, indicates that major dietary contributors to increased blood cholesterol include double servings of meat, one egg per day, and butter. In contrast, cholesterol-lowering fats include polyunsaturated oils and margarines.

  Coronary Heart Disease Among Seventh Day Adventists with Differing Dietary Habits, Phillips et al. 1978, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 31, S191: A 6-year study of 24044 Seventh-day Adventists revealed that the non-vegetarian males between the ages of 34 and 64 had a threefold greater risk of fatal coronary heart disease than the vegetarian males of comparable age.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 19, 2008....

  Just because I'm curious, for the sake of these studies does vegetarian mean vegetarian or does it mean Vegan?

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  most of them mean vegetarian, but in the china study (seriously, would someone buy this book and read it?) they covered people who were essentially vegan.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 19, 2008....

  I really shouldn't be taking the time at work, but...
  
  OK, it occurs to me that we *may* yet again be arguing two different points;
  
  ----------
  Sharman, M.J. W.J. Kraemer, D.M. Love, N.G. Avery, A.L. Gomez, T.P.
  Scheett, and J.S. Volek. A ketogenic diet favorably affects serum
  biomarkers for cardiovascular disease in normal-weight men. Journal
  of Nutrition.
  
  "The results suggest that a short-term ketogenic diet does not have a deleterious effect on CVD risk profile and may improve the lipid disorders characteristic of atherogenic dyslipidemia."
  
  
  William S. Yancy, Jr., MD, MHS; Maren K. Olsen, PhD; John R. Guyton, MD; Ronna P. Bakst, RD; and Eric C. Westman, MD, MHS (2004). "A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet versus a Low-Fat Diet To Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia". Annals of Internal Medicine 140: 769–777.
  
  "During active weight loss, serum triglyceride levels decreased more and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level increased more with the low-carbohydrate diet than with the low-fat diet."
  
  
  Linda Stern, MD; Nayyar Iqbal, MD; Prakash Seshadri, MD; Kathryn L. Chicano, CRNP; Denise A. Daily, RD; Joyce McGrory, CRNP; Monica Williams, BS; Edward J. Gracely, PhD; and Frederick F. Samaha, MD (2004). "The Effects of Low-Carbohydrate versus Conventional Weight Loss Diets in Severely Obese Adults: One-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial". Annals of Internal Medicine 140 (10): 778–785.
  
  "Participants on a low-carbohydrate diet had more favorable overall outcomes at 1 year than did those on a conventional diet. Weight loss was similar between groups, but effects on atherogenic dyslipidemia and glycemic control were still more favorable with a low-carbohydrate diet after adjustment for differences in weight loss."
  
  
  Isabelle Romieu, Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce, Luisa Maria Sanchez-Zamorano, Walter Willett, and Mauricio Hernandez-Avila: Carbohydrates and the Risk of Breast Cancer among Mexican Women, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, Vol. 13, 1283-1289, August 2004.
  
  "In this population-based case-control study, we observed a positive association between carbohydrate intake and the risk of breast cancer."
  
  
  Dariush Mozaffarian, Eric B Rimm and David M Herrington (2004). "Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 80: 1175-1184.
  
  "In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression."
  
  
  Francesca Bravi, Cristina Bosetti, Lorenza Scotti, Renato Talamini, Maurizio Montella, Valerio Ramazzotti, Eva Negri, Silvia Franceschi, and Carlo La Vecchia (October 2006). "Food Groups and Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Case-Control Study from Italy". International Journal of Cancer 355:1991-2002.
  
  "A significant direct trend in risk was found for bread (OR = 1.94 for the highest versus the lowest intake quintile), and a modest excess of risk was observed for pasta and rice (OR = 1.29), and milk and yoghurt (OR = 1.27). Poultry (OR = 0.74), processed meat (OR = 0.64) and vegetables (OR = 0.65) were inversely associated with RCC risk."
  ----------
  
  I've made an assumption that by taking up the vegetarian position, that you include grains when you say vegetables.  I'm making a distinction between the two.  Are you?  These studies, for example, find no detriment to meat consumption, or else improved health.  Same with vegetables.  They seem to be condemning grains, however.  Still, they're quite clear that meat is not a villain.
  

• travelr712 said on Sep 19, 2008....

  thank you scar. i wasn't interested in the topic enough to do that much research, because i already knew the answer. i appreciate that you did.

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  @travelr
  how did you "know", divine inspiration?
  
  
  @scar
  
  
  this is a complicated issue. Comparing anything to the average american diet will likely show an improvement. Processed foods are bad, and most americans eat mostly processed foods. In a sense these are vegetarian foods, but it is not a healthy diet. Reducing consumption of highly processed foods, even with meat, is most likely an improvement. Drinking 12 cans of Coke would be a meat less diet, and eating meat would surely be healthier.
  
  
  I picked one of the studies to look into and this is what the author of the study said.
  
  
  “The main carbohydrates these women ate were corn-derived, including tortillas, and soft drinks and bread,
  
  
  This means sugar and processed foods. Again, I recommend the China Study. Can you get it from the library then tell me what  you think?

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  also from teh same study you linked.
  
  
  "In the study, women who ate a lot of insoluble fiber — found in whole grains, fruits and vegetables — had somewhat less risk of breast cancer"
  
  I've done a lot of reading on this subject and there is a lot of nuance which makes it hard to state clearly and concisely. Studies that focus on a single nutrient are often very misleading. Higher level studies that focus on types of food are far more convincing in my opinion. Again, I recommend The China Study.

• travelr712 said on Sep 19, 2008....

  well bloc, since you don't believe anything i say, or anything that doesn't support your point of view, you wouldn't believe me if i told you how i knew.

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  i know, your grade school food pyramid right?

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  @scar
  
  
  I'm curious why you're immediately dismissive of vegsource, but you seem to be farming something that has a low carb bias?

• travelr712 said on Sep 19, 2008....

  you know bloc, i could sink to your level and start throwing out condescending remarks about your character and sources, but it just wouldn't be me. and it also wouldn't change the fact that i was right and you were wrong.

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  Um, I'm still right, but you refuse to consider my point of view. I've taken time to read and understand some of the links provided by scar. CAn you say the same regarding mine?
  
  
  I found your red herring argument disrespectful and that was the start of my attitude. 

• travelr712 said on Sep 19, 2008....

  well, i disagree that it was a red herring, but you're entitled to your opinion. shall we start again?

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  sure thing, and I apologize for my attitude. I get upset when I put time and thought into something and feel that the person on the other end wasted it. That's how I felt after that comment.

• travelr712 said on Sep 19, 2008....

  i can understand that. i guess i was a bit cavalier also, my appologies. i find you to be a very intelligent, well informed person with much to add to a conversation. besides, i rather enjoy discussing things from opposite points of view, i learn that way.

• bloc said on Sep 19, 2008....

  Yes, discussions go best when two open minded people have different opinions. Sean and tinsoldier usually play the counter party for me.

• D6fer said on Sep 19, 2008....

  gee bloc.....you wouldn't know of a good book on the subject of nutrition would you? ;p
  
  what was this post about again?....oh yes....unregulated markets don't work?....well......have we ever really had totally unregulated anything?.....I doubt it.
  
  One thing is for sure........this whole bailout thing stinks....can anyone here disagree with that?
  
  Looks like there are so many on both sides of the aisle whos fingers are dirty on this one......notice that congress is ready to retire for the year......any member of congress that isn't insistent on getting to the bottom of this needs to be replaced.
  
  I intend to vote against any of my representatives that go along with this, regardless of party affiliation.......I would like to challenge all of you to do the same.
  
  and back to the tangent of herbivore vs omnivore......bloc, you could very well be right about the subject but it is simply not relevant to most people.......I don't want to be a vegetarian......maybe I could live to be 86 if I were vegetarian, and only live to be 85 if I eat meat....who knows? Linda McCartney maybe?.......my dad lived to be 76, he died from complications of an injury.....he ate meat....smoked cigarettes for 50 years....and drank too much....that may sound anecdotal, but it is relevant to me since we are related.....I eat healthier than he did..... I don't smoke......and rarely drink.....so as long as I don't get hit by a bus or something, theoretically, I should live longer than my old man......we all know there are no guarantees.
  

• lfbno7 said on Sep 20, 2008....

  Tin, I haven't been at this post in a while but I noticed your comment about my hostility towards Sean. The reason for it is twofold. One, where other people keep it on a civil intellectual basis, he pulls out insults, like "I disagree with you, candy ass", to which what else can you say but "Fuck you, cunt". The other is that he is a Nazi wannabe, tossing around statements like "there is scant evidence of the Holocaust". So that explains my antipathy towards Sean. I consider Holocaust deniers, and even those who question the Holocaust, as the lowest of the low, because one hell of a lot of people got murdered, one hell of a lot of families got destroyed by bastards, and you don't fuck with that. It's an absurd lie that there is scant evidence of the Holocaust, not something a truthful person would say. At times he's just a prick looking for a reaction. Long ago I called him a knucklehead, and since then he's been trying to get back at me, even saying something absolutely ridiculous like that I think he's smarter. Knucklehead.

• lfbno7 said on Sep 20, 2008....

  I remember how it started. I did a post about creationism. I said that it makes more sense to believe in a creator than to believe in the Magic Morphing Amoeba somehow changing itself into a dinosaur and a duck. I don't think the concepts of evolution and creation are at odds. Sean abandoned logic and civility and just went off on me with insults, and I called him a knucklehead. It doesn't get you anywhere to debate with an obnoxious prick like Sean, but I just wanted to explain the animosity to you.

• travelr712 said on Sep 20, 2008....

  i knew a ww2 vet who was at one of the nazi concentration camps. the holocost is real.

  and i agree bloc. i'll try to do better to be more respectful in the future.

• TinSoldier said on Sep 20, 2008....

  lfbno7: This just turned from a discussion of economics into some kinda weird vegetarian rant.
  
  I've stopped reading it.
  

• lfbno7 said on Sep 20, 2008....

  Six million died. They were targeted because of their race. Someone who is black really ought to be sensitive to that because the whites in Sudan would be coming for his ass in Darfur. The Holocaust is nothing to screw around with. These days it isn't Jews who are victimized by racial extermination, it's blacks. Nobody in Nigeria was white. Wake up, kid. On this planet, sometimes they pick you and your family and your race out, and they blow you all away.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 20, 2008....

  Anybody who is honest about knowledge asks questions continually about everything no matter how many people believe it.
   
  Course I'm not sure where I get off trying to discuss reality with an evolution denying, UFO believing, conspiracy theorist.  I'm not sure where ot begin with somebody where the strength of an argument (save in ONE historical aspect that like all other should be subject to questioning and observation and re-evaluation)  is that if there are no facts to support your point of view it must be true. 
   
  Bottom line is be honest.  You have me blocked because I make you look stupid, the reason I don't have you blocked is because you CAN'T do the same to me because you're my inferior.  Otherwise the situation would be reversed.

• travelr712 said on Sep 20, 2008....

  (this is where i came in) damn sean, tell us how you really feel!

• Scaramouche said on Sep 21, 2008....

  Sorry - I've been AFK, and will continue to be for the rest of the weekend.
  
  
  @bloc - in the interests of equal time, I will look into this China study of yours.  However - having a research war was not my intent.  Originally, my point was to target your apparent belief in the supremacy of peer-review.  Sure, it's important, but it's not the ultimate path to the truth.  If it was, then all the research should agree.  It does not.  That was really my point.
  
  
  I did seem to skew a bit low carb, for a couple reasons.  One, that's where a lot of the not-anti-meat research seems to be concentrated.  Two, I know from personal experience that my body reacts quite well to it.  When I cut back on the grains and grain products, my labs (cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, blood sugar, etc...) are all excellent, as well as my waistline.  Bottom line is that that's all that matters to me.
  
  
  Sadly, I'm clearly an omnivore, as my dental records will show, so such restrictions aren't always practical or fun.

• lfbno7 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  Sean you're full of crap from the word go, and if I was as stupid as you I'd commit suicide, candy ass. However, I do believe we are here on this earth to spread love and joy, not to fight with each other, so it appears we've gone a bit wrong with each other. Rather than part friends, I suggest we just part and stop discussing each other. We're already in the "beating a dead horse" area. We're never going to back each other down, and I'm not a homo who is into keeping in contact with your stupid ass, so let's just drop it and walk away from it. I know you feed off this kind of garbage and that's why you instigate it, but I don't, so you can kiss my ass goodbye. Stop talking to me, and preferably stop talking about me, you Nazi prick. Oh yeah, I forgot, we're supposed to be spreading love and joy. Sayonara, have a good life. If you can't leave it at that, I charge you with being a closet homo who is obsessed with me. So drop it. No reply necessary.
  
  Keep in mind that from this moment on, any time you mention me I will know the real reason, cause you are a homo who just can't forget me. I'm dropping you, so drop me too. I block you because I want nothing to do with you. I give up on your stupid ass, you Nazi fool. Oh wait, I forgot, have a great life, be well, live long and prosper. Okay? We done now?

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 21, 2008....

  Great conession speech.

• bloc said on Sep 21, 2008....

  @tin
  you're right. Sometimes I really wish SC were threaded. I'm continuing the conversation about the financial crisis here.
  
  
  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/154705/want-to-understand-the-credit-crisis%3F

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  bloc said:
  
  "If we believed in pure free markets then we'd let them fail. We don't believe in pure capitalism so we regulate and bail out. The problem is corruption and shortsightedness. We privatized reward and socialized the risk, that's a recipe for failure. "
  
  this is the best comment on this digressive thread
  
  does anyone in this conversation know what the "Gaht" legislation did to our sovereignty? this problem started decades ago and has been kept under wraps, as far as the mainstream media is concerned!
  
  We have never had a sovereign nation because world banking cartels blur national boundaries and CREATE financial collapse on a regular basis. This boom/bust banking cycle is what created the Westward migration of early European settlers.
  
  I find this conversation to be unfortunate and very very short-sighted....one of the reasons I started decades ago to secure the self-sufficient farm I now have on Maui. I've been terribly marginalized here at SC for advocating self-sufficiency as a national priority. and, having said that, you guys are the definition of osteriches fighting about who is to blame for their fright! whoever said that this is not a blue or red issue was entirely right about that!
  
  like I said, this isn't even about the US financial sector either, this is about a secret society of banking, arms manufacturers and oil cartels. Fighting amongst ourselves actually assists this secret society to stay hidden, even though they now operate in the light  of  day for all to see!
  

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  http://www.fgmr.com/sdr.htm
  
  here is a great article to let average Americans realize that their gold reserves do not exist
  
  the IMF has been used to systematically monopolize global exchange in a way that there are a very few people in the world that decide who will rise and who will fall as a way of continually hedging AIR....that's right they are hedging nothing except our gullibility!
  
  and where do we go from here?
  
  
  

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  http://www.fgmr.com/sdr.htm

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  sorry, still not a techie yet

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  http://www.fgmr.com/sdr.htm

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 21, 2008....

  You do realize that if the bottom falls out you're just going to be the first person the mobs go and raid right?

• Scaramouche said on Sep 21, 2008....

  "Fighting amongst ourselves actually assists this secret society to stay hidden, even though they now operate in the light  of  day for all to see"
  
  
  Wow, andora.  That was perhaps the most practically useful comment I've seen in awhile.
  
  
  
  
  "any time you mention me I will know the real reason, cause you are a homo who just can't forget me [...] I give up on your stupid ass, you Nazi fool."
  
  
  Wow, lfbno7.  Didn't the Nazis persecute homosexuals?  Or are you a holocaust denier as well?  If not, then you're clearly a Nazi.  I suggest we have anal sex at the earliest possible opportunity.
  

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  don't forget about the fourth player in this little game andora, the world wide drug cartels. more money is thrown at huge organizations to 'fight' the illegal drug trade than is thrown at education, and the problem just continues to grow at an exponential rate. these banks you spoke of are laundering the money for the cartels, who keep their own armies of mercenaries who in turn keep populations of third world nations under control for their puppet governments. look into what's happened in argentina in the last 40 years, this problem ruined their economy and decimated their population. and the money garnered by the banks from them goes to the big investors, who in turn pass some of it on to american politicians so that they can continue business as usual. and a large section of the world civilian population is paying for all this, just for the priveledge of being able to fuck up their minds and kill themselves with these dangerous drugs.

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  thank you for the article andora. i couldn't read it all, i just kept getting sicker and sicker. i sure wish i could use my computer to print off thousand dollar bills and put them into circulation to pay my rent and buy my gas, but it's illegal for me to do so. aparantly, it's not illegal for everyone to print their own money and set it's value to whatever is convenient for them, just for us 'average joes'.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 21, 2008....

  The war on drugs (while destructive) is well meaning at it's heart, just like the three strikes laws are destructie but well meaning. 

  Don't get me wrong, there are bad people doing bad things and some of them are teamed up together but everytime I read conspiracy theory this, or it's the government that I find it hard to keep from just ridiculing the proponent and asking them politely to be quiet while the adults speak.

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  well, i've been following such events as the senators against the texas state patrol interviews sean. the state troupers were on camera, talking about how mexican militia, and uniformed military, are allowed to cross american boarders for as much as 6 miles into our country to deliver drugs, buy soda, whatever they want. at one point in the interview, both a senator and a trooper were pictured at the same time talking about the problem. the trooper was talking about how they are getting absolutely no support for this problem, and that when they report these things, the feds just turn the other way. the senator said much the same as you did. and yet the problem persists. saying you're an adult doesn't change the situation, and this is not a conspiracy theory sean, it is a real problem in this and many, many other countries. so if you want to speak to an adult about it, address me as one, please.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 21, 2008....

  You could start with a link to that evidence seeing how my inmmediate instinct is to say this never happened.  You're honestly telling me you believe that a senator couldn't conceal tapp dancing in a bathroom stall with no camera and this was caught on tape and still managed to be successfully squashed?  There is a chance that it's true, but the fact is that it's unrealistic.

  Now I'm still all for the legalization of drugs and I think that would do a great deal to solve a great deal of problems, but it's not because I believe George Bush and the Osama Bin Ladin have a money laundering scheme.  Honestly if the problem of corruption in the world governments goes HALF as deep as it would have to for a plot like this to function the best thing the common man can do is roll over and take it rather than painting a target ourselves. 

   

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  no, i'm saying it was an ABC documentary by i believe hugh downs, with both the senator and the trooper imposed around him. i don't remember exactly who the interviewer was so i can't get the link, i didn't know there would be a quiz after. so you'll just have to rely on the fact that i don't lie about such things. the trooper was telling his side, and the senator was saying 'you just don't understand the complexities of the problem'. and yet, the trooper is the one who watches as mexican military vehicles roll into texas. watches as the militia, armed with automatic weapons, cross the boarder unimpeaded to deliver their drugs. and with himself and four deputies, there's nothing he can do about it but die and get his men killed. they also showed several official reports sent from that and other troupers to the feds as confirmation that the feds know about the problem. it was on national network television, and it should have made world news the next day. instead, obama said something sorta nasty about hilary, so that's what we heard about. you can see yourself in this very post that senator phil gramm has been tapp dancing all around the financial sector with illegal activities, and documented in doing so, and absolutely nothing is done about it. i don't particularly care if you believe me or not sean, that doesn't change the truth of the situation.

  and i agree with you about legalizing drugs. i believe they should be legalized, regulated and taxed. i don't care about how many people say that it was bad for holland. it was at first. but after a couple years, it naturally balanced itself and their drug problem is shrinking. i got this news 2 years ago from a man i met who lives in amsterdam. what i wrote was the way he explained the situation to me. and since he is actually living it day to day, i'd believe him over any reporter on television. if they legalize, regulate and tax these drugs, the problem would correct itself, and there would be no more underground market. but also, if they did that, they couldn't budget billions of dollars every year for the 'war on drugs' that after 20 years, has proven as ineffectual as the 'war on terror'.

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  sean said: " You do realize that if the bottom falls out you're just going to be the first person the mobs go and raid right?"
  
  thought about that too sean. I live in a community that is already self-sufficient and any outsiders that come to this remote region cannot even get off of the main road to find any of us. we all know each other and we all have grown enough for those that fall out. anyone who comes here in need is helped. we have created a regional agreement to refuse GMO seeds and we are all organic farmers. Without gas, the hordes won't even get here. For me I travel two miles up a private road to get to my gate, which is locked, from there it takes a 4-wheel drive a 3 mile trip to my farm. people who want to find it don't...they have to be guided by someone who knows. I'm talking remote...thank god I have family...and, it looks as though this economy will bring my children home sooner than later. I'm sitting pretty...thanks for caring!
  

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  thanks scaramouche
  
  and thanks traveler
  
  I understand that the drug cartels are able to move freely and scramble issues of sovereignty and taxation etc...but, I do not fear these people as much as I fear the government that incarcerates non-violent drug offenders while allowing corporations to sell pharmaceuticals to children legally - in the name of bogus diagnosis that are the result of a deadly food industry.
  
  Drug addicts should be given enough drugs to kill themselves...end of story.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 21, 2008....

  I'm not sure why the animosity to addicts but let's skip that.  I do agree that there is a problem with a governement incarcerating non-violent drug offenders (or really any "sin" incarcration.  For this purpose I mean anything that only hurts you)

  I'm not sure how many false diagnosises there are vs just lazy parents though.

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  seriously, we are talking about regulation here
  
  we would enforce our border laws if corporations didn't want slave labor. I feel sorry for any agent that works this field because their own government would rather jail them than let them do their job. anyone that cares to get educated would refuse this bullshit job. I feel sorry for anyone that thinks this government cares about them. This gov is designed by the masses to reflect their basic attitude: hopelessness!
  
  as far as losing our gold reserves, Americans that I spoke to about this over the past 30 years could care less. now they have what is coming to them and I feel sorry for any American that is 30 or under bc they have been sold a line of shit about their nation. We no longer represent human rights because we betrayed our own working class long ago...every day more people leave this class to become part of the slave class that Reagan created with his so-called "trickle down" economics.
  

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  i agree with you andora. and one of the main reasons these stories are not carried as they should be is because media moguls such as rupert murdoch are major contributors to congressional, senatorial and presidential candidates, so that they can obtain deregulations of their industries that allow them to swallow up more and more smaller media agencies and control them. i watched some of the congressional hearings where the smaller company managers were begging for these regulations to be kept in place so they could continue to operate. now, their studios are empty, except for the repeater equipment that is carrying the signal from the 'home office'. films of studios where no operator sits any longer, just a little black box plugged into the internet. so they control the information through their producers and editors. i could easily find example after example of stories that were killed by a producer because it would make this or that senator, this or that mogul, this or that powerful investor, look bad. and the american public is just as happy to watch survivor and be enamoured by sarah palin's stylish glasses. but some of us, like those that have appeared on the pages of this post, sean, lfb, you, scar, me, d6, bloc, we're all watching. we may not agree on everything, but we're watching, and that's important.

  btw, if things turn to shit, can me and some of my friends come live with you? :-D

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 21, 2008....

  Where is the evidence that this government does that?  Actual hard evidence not just random complaining about conspiracies? 

  You do touch on an important issue though (and one I've brought up many times before.)  We wouldn't need to enforce the border if we started throwing employers in jail left and right for employing illegals or fining them so much that the risk isn't worth the reward.  The government (as far as I know) has only abandoned two people, officers Ramos and Compien, and uh, they were wrong.  (Bush still should have pardoned them)  But they did fire their guns without clear provocation, and they tried to cover it up because they knew they were wrong.  Just because we found out later the man they shot (in the but, he survived just fine) was scum doesn't actually make them right.  (Still Bush should have pardoned them)  

  Gold stopped meaning much years ago and good riddance.  Mistakes have been made and regulations need to be put into place.  How we even managed to get a system out there we're the people loaning money aren't the people who will suffer if the loan goes bad is rediculous.  The fact that people are able to buy oil based on what they think might happen a decade in the future and then only pay a margin of that price.

  The media issue. . .I should have done this some time ago but this warrants it's own post.  I'll be back.

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  i agree about making the employers responsible for the illegal immigration problem sean. but bush's answer to the problem was to legalize all illegal aliens because, as he said, 'they do jobs that americans don't want'. well, they do jobs that the people he knows don't want. but there are many, many americans who would just like to have a job. it's the 'way of thinking' of the feds that's the problem here sean, the decisions they make and solutions they come up with that's the problem. i'm not going to provide links for you, if you can't see that obvious fact for yourself, well, we should just stop discussing it i guess. and i agree with you that they were wrong for trying to cover it up. just as wrong as palin is for saying she and her husband would co-operate with the investigations, and then a week later refused to do so.

  the way we got a system out there where the people who lent the money weren't the people who would suffer, was simply because the major investors in the candidates were able to put the people in place who would allow the deregulations necessary for them to do that. it's not difficult to understand. it's an age old problem in politics in any major society. buy a candidate and you can write your own ticket. and in our government, candidates are definately for sale.

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  are u kidding sean? the incarceration of those two agents has put EVERYONE on notice. talk about intimidating an entire agency. Possibly getting reprimanded for not reporting the incident would be appropriate...but no, this administration sent a very clear and chilling message to our border agents
  
  the media issue is important only for the willfully ignorant. since the internet is available for anyone who cares enough to get more than the spin propaganda, those that claim ignorance based upon watching Murdochs foxspews station deserves what they get!
  
  I'm surprised by how illiterate our populace is now that they can use the internet to play war/smut games. hell Dana Perino doesn't even know what happened 50 years ago and that's how cheney likes his operatives! she corroborates the bimbo anology, which the good ole boy network absolutely loves.
  

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  they already have turned to shit traveler
  
  have you ever heard the frog in the boiling pot analogy?
  
  yes, I get it that you and those you named are watching traveler and this is why I keep coming back for more mutual abuse. I figure that the time will arrive when we realize we may not agree, but we all care enough to show up and try to stick to issues - even if we fail sometimes. the emotions that we feel as we expose our pov's are the real solution to this clusterfuck we call the socio-economic structure that we pay government to manage. Yes, I digress.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 21, 2008....

  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/154971/The-Media-Lies

  That if you break the law you go to jail?  I swear Andora I better NEVER hear you complain about police brutality and how we need oversight of our government agents because they are running rampant.

  Oh great, you raised the illteracy issue.  New post comming soon.

  Turn up the heat slowly and he won't realize he's cooking?  I'm quite sure that "fact" is bullshit but yes I'm familar with the supposed phenomenon

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  traveler said: "i agree about making the employers responsible for the illegal immigration problem sean. but bush's answer to the problem was to legalize all illegal aliens because, as he said, 'they do jobs that americans don't want'. well, they do jobs that the people he knows don't want. but there are many, many americans who would just like to have a job. it's the 'way of thinking' of the feds that's the problem here sean, the decisions they make and solutions they come up with that's the problem."
  
  ditto, ditto and ditto again :]
  

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  I know i live in a police state sean, I don't get too engrossed in that tho bc I understand that it is a reflection of our ideology. have you heard much from me on this subject?
  
  the frog statement was directed at traveler who mentioned that things might go to shit
  

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  two years ago, i was listening to an interview on NPR of one of my state's senators. He was talking about his first days in the senate, and how his superior, (i can't remember who, maybe orin hatch?) who had been in the senate for decades, came to him for his 'orientation talk'. when the senior sr. asked if the jr. liked his office, the jr. said 'yes, but i'm confused about something. what's that safe in the corner for?' the sr, he said, chuckled and replied 'oh, well, that's for all the cash that the lobyists and special interest groups are going to give you'. now, there has been some reform in that area, the safes were removed. but you don't need a safe if you have direct deposit, do you?

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  so just who is getting hurt from deregulation?
  
  only the people who believe that the government will protect u from making poor investments
  
  we could dick around with putting our fingers in the holes of this looming dam failure, but the basic premise that Capitalism, in and of itself, is a viable container for a society. sure it has its place, but not as the foundational corner-stone of a Republic. Unless, we want our children to grow up to be liars, killers and prostitutes!
  

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  i've always thought that the best economic system has elements of both capitolism and socialism, neither exclusive. just as i believe the best government has elements of republicanism, i.e. representation, and democracy, i.e. one man one vote. it's in balancing the two philosophies that america has always achieved greatness.

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  good antidote about the good ole boy nation we live in traveler
  
  it is a new day, thanks to digital comm.
  
  the fact that Obama can raise huge sums of cash on the internet will put an end to this pattern...now it is up to us to begin to agree upon what types of policy we would like to put into place once we align the admin with the house and senate. this could be very good.
  
  I FOR ONE WANT AN END TO 10% FRACTIONAL BANKING.
  
  this is the law that makes it legal to only hold 10% liquidity at any time. this is one of the reasons why the banking cartels can and will collapse banks on a regular basis. liquidity is traceable and we have no traceable liquidity now, except for the Will of the People.
  
  This has been going along just fine until the controllers want to kick off a world war. This is going on now as Israel, India and the US align to attack Pakistan and Iran. The bodies will come from India, the banking from all the cash that was recently stole in plain sight as people got evicted and banks got bailed out!
  

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  sean said:
  "Gold stopped meaning much years ago and good riddance.  Mistakes have been made and regulations need to be put into place.  How we even managed to get a system out there we're the people loaning money aren't the people who will suffer if the loan goes bad is rediculous.  The fact that people are able to buy oil based on what they think might happen a decade in the future and then only pay a margin of that price."
  
  - I agree with the second part of this statement, yet I do believe that a nation should have an internationally agreed upon liguid back to its paper money. this has created such a silly game of economics that we have lost sight of what is truly wealth.
  
  let's see, we no longer have clean water, no longer have gold at fort knox, no longer have diverse forests, our tax base is rapidly shrinking, our trade deficit is cartoonish, our GNP is like I said, rapidly shrinking and we are increasingly obese and sick and our youth are as dumb as they get. then we get Palin...need I say more? after all of the sign posts get systematically ignored for what's up Brittany's skirt, people start thinking that a holy war is gods will and the un-religious start playacting like they are vampires, whores and mercenaries!
  
  
  

• andora said on Sep 21, 2008....

  thanks traveler and sean for a good conversation
  
  I'm going to church now. soon comes the season when the whales will visit our beach-side church. they come in late fall to mate and have their babies. when we are lucky, the dolphins accompany the whales. today is a good day bc there is an overcast so we do not get overheated as we dance in the sand to the rhythm of the drums. god i love life and appreciate SC in this moment.
  

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  sounds great andora. good discussion everyone.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 21, 2008....

  Travelr said

  i've always thought that the best economic system has elements of both capitolism and socialism, neither exclusive.

  I couldn't disagree more strongly, the fact is that we utterly refuse (from both sides) to trust the market to any real degree and economies are terribly fickle.  An economy behaves almost exactly like an ecosystem.  Socialism is like removing all of the predators from the system and then wondering why the prey animals over populate and starve themselves to death.  America (the closest thing to a free market ) that exists today has over all thrived where the rest of the world is run like zoos and has. . .well usually maintained the status quo.  

  However we have already agreed to the idea that the sheep need need to be cared for if they escape the wolves (Medicare and welfare) and then on the other side agreed that if a wolf breaks his legs we'll bring him lunch until it heals (See AIG)

  With the existing system the best course of action is to just do what we can to maintain the status quo.  (on a side note the greater world *by which I mean the global economy* is and will always be pure capitalism because no other beast exists.  That's why jobs move nationally, how the prices of cocaine are set or why a war is waged in Iraq rather than Darfur.

  Andora Said

  I FOR ONE WANT AN END TO 10% FRACTIONAL BANKING.
  

  I agree 110%.  But uh stop making sense and stop being right.  LoL.

  Andora said

  
  yet I do believe that a nation should have an internationally agreed upon liguid back to its paper money. this has created such a silly game of economics that we have lost sight of what is truly wealth.

  What is wealth?  Gold made sense when the majority of the world was trading in "real" things.  That time has passed.  We deal in a world where much of what we exchange is virtual.  How much gold is is Windows Vista worth?  Gold was an old system for an old world.  Gold in turn replaced the barter system which. . .do I really need to explain the reasons why that system was replaced in most societies?

  We no longer have clean water?  That's arguable but I'll cede this point.  Still this is a matter of improving technology as much as anything else.
  
   no longer have gold at fort knox,  Who needs Fort Knox?  Gold (as previously argued) was part of an old system, and honestly gold has now (and when it was first chosen had even less) actual worth.  Gold is worth a lot because we have chosen to place a value on this shiny rock not because it's particularly useful (and it certainly wasn't hundreds of years ago before we needed wires for computers and the such.)

  no longer have diverse forests, To be fair we haven't had diverse forests in America for about a hundred and fifty years and in Europe for probably close to seven hundred years.  About the time that humans decided we didn't like wolves, cougers, lions. etc eating our livestock.  It's hardly fair to blame that on our current anybody.

  our tax base is rapidly shrinking, I at least partially agree with this but I'm not certain how best to fix it.

  our trade deficit is cartoonish, True enough but this isn't a problem we are likely to fix soon.

  rapidly shrinking and we are increasingly obese and sick and our youth are as dumb as they get.  Our youth are dumb?  No, not really.

  then we get Palin...need I say more?  She really isn't the anti-christ.

  after all of the sign posts get systematically ignored for what's up Brittany's skirt, people start thinking that a holy war is gods will and the un-religious start playacting like they are vampires, whores and mercenaries!  Whatever.

   

  Have fun.

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  wall street can be trusted? hasn't the last year, even the last two weeks, shown you how much wall street CANNOT be trusted? even john mccain is spouting that he will take on the greed of wall street, watch his commercials. he and everyone else blames them for the credit and mortgage crisis we are now in, and they're right to do so. and read my comment more carefully. i said neither is good exclusively. remove the preditors and there will be no growth, they will starve. but allow the predators free reign and they will consume everything, and then themselves. it is in the balance that the market is most flexible, taking on the paradigms of both systems, rather than one or the other.

  the importance of the concept of a gold standard sean, was to have tangible assets that had an agreed upon common value to back any transaction proposed. for 10,000 years or more, every nation that has ever existed has agreed that gold is a valuable commodity, lending stability. paper, however, is not. every lesson of every economy in every society that has ever existed shows us that when things collapse, those who have gold will have a means of trade, retain their wealth, and those who have paper, beads or conch shells will hold untradable, worthless assets. and it is not just gold that is a tradable commodity. there is real estate, archatecture, food, tangable assets. things that when all the paper is dust and software stops working, still remain. without these tangible assets to back up this paper that anyone can print to say anything they want, there is no value, no risk. and without risk, one party in the transaction will always win, and one will always lose. this is called market disparity. and for one party to offer a non-tangible asset and claim it is tangible in order to gain tangible assets from another, is called fraud.

  i don't mean to sound rude sean, but have you ever taken an economics class? because if i'm reading your comments correctly, it surely sounds like you haven't.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 21, 2008....

  Did I say Wall Street can be trusted?  There is nobody in Africa telling the lions and crocodiles to stop eating.  Equilibrium is something that happens on it's own.

  But your point about gold is in no more valueble than peices of paper.  It is worth someting because everybody sat down one day and decided it was worth something.  Not because it had a much worth.

  Only high school econ, but it turns out that supply and demand. . .terribly simple.  It's just frightening how many people try to ignore it.

• travelr712 said on Sep 21, 2008....

  the markets reside in, and are controlled by, wall street sean.

  gold is valuable for one reason because there is a finite quantity available, as you said, supply and demand. paper can be regenerated by planting and harvesting trees, thus it is not finite. the countries of the world fought to be taken off the gold standard because, for one reason, it caused world market instability when a new vein was found. suddenly that country had more wealth than it did before, and the countries wanted to have a way of controlling this issue. i learned that fact in a college level economics class. gold was the first commodity that was given an intrinsic value because it could be extracted in it's natural state close to or on the surface, and was maleable at low temperatures, allowing it to be formed and shaped with rudimentary tools. it was also appealing to the eye. gold has always, does now, and will always hold value. and when the paper is deemed as worthless, such as stock certificates, the value of gold increases.

  i understand what you're talking about sean, i really do, because at one time i thought that way too. but when i began to learn how markets, commodities, economics really worked, was taught the concepts, language and methods that are used, i became less naeve.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 21, 2008....

  The drug cart

  the markets reside in, and are controlled by, wall street sean.

  The black market (arguably the only truly unregulated market in the world) begs to differ.

  Gold is both malleable and ductile and it never tarnishes.  It is a nice shiny rock, I was more commenting that it's worth (like diamonds) again is largely in our heads much like certain peices of paper.  Just as you pointed out all societies have come to the agreement that shiny rocks rule but I can see terribly few reasons why it would have retained its wealther than a world wide agreement.  I can believe that nations voted off the gold standard for that reason but it seems. . .short sighted.  The real reason (to me) to abandon the gold standard is how does a gold standard work in a world where there are more people than ever before and much of what they exchange isn't physical (though I suppose that was always the case since soldiers don't give you something physical *least not something you could in turn give to someone else*)  I mean I imagine countries that suddenly hit a new vein of gold lost it relatively quickly, like modern lottery winners.

   

Comment on "proof that unregulated markets don't work?"

Currently tagged	economics politics govt bail out Privatization so what (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment