The New plan or Whatever for the U.S.A

[ImmortalKiller]

loooool barotix ignorent....

IF YOU CALL SOMEONE IGNORANT SPELL IT RIGHT.

[_Scarlett_]

example,, well this is what i remember of my history book,, correct me if im wrong,,

when wallstreet collapsed in .... (before kenedy right?) there was this idea of the president back then,, was called great deal? or big deal? something like that,, he builded dam's to keep people working, some farmers where forbidden to cultivate lands,, to get prices up again,, and economy went up again,,

peeps in USA called that president a COMUNIST!!!!!!!!!!!

multiply that idea tenfold,, that would be socialism,, governement has to care for the people NOT ONLY PROTECT,,

and yeah,, ur retarded because you live the american dream,, or should i call it the american fantasy?


and dont try to get me because i said something weird, ENGLISH IS NOT MY (translation site says) mother language and im not going to argu with someone in a language that i dont controle enough,, ur abusing your advantage of controling the language and use some fansy words and try to impress me like you know where you are talking about,, pfff, not impressed

~ little personal note ~ orospucocugu

Wow, I suggest if you want to appear as if you know what you're talking about, even if your English isn't the best, is to do some research before just presenting your facts.

Let me correct your facts: It was the Stockmarket that crashed on Oct. 29, 1929 a.k.a Black Tuesday.

It happened way before Kennedy.

It was called "The New Deal," which were programs to stimulate demand for goods, and provide work/relief for the poor, which was carried out through government spending and financial reforms. Examples: Banks reforms, the Economy Act, Farming programs which controlled product. No one was "forbidden" to grow crops, however, they were limited on quantity. Farm owners were also given subsidies for leaving some of their crops "idle." They were also ordered to destroy crops and slaughter livestock in-order to maintain prices; goes with the ole "supply and demand" thing; idea of destroying the "product" was,the less of a product there was then the higher the price for it would be, thus benefiting the "supplier."

No one in the U.S during the reign of Roosevelt, during the Great Depression, weren't so to say "informed" on what Communism was, seeing as the "scare" of Communism didn't spread till AFTER World War II.

Side Comment: The ideal, or as you refer to as "the American Dream," has different meanings to different people. We had an experiment in my English class some years back: Went around asking what our "American Dream" specifically was, and there wasn't a single, bold-faced definition that you could apply to everyone's version.

I suggest if you try to argue a point next time, to argue without a handicap, then come back prepared.

peace ~

[XemnasXD]

Please tell me why McBama wont talk about the economy? Is it because he's a facist/socialist?

bama is a moron honestly. He tried to play the racial thing way too much.

I'm pretty sure those were the McCain people.

don't mind sharp, he's just mad cause a black guy might get in office and his only reason for not liking him is, surprise, cause he's black. Obamas not dumb enough to play the racial thing to much. The African American vote has never won a national election, too few of us vote and we only make up 12% of the population. It'd be foolish to risk pandering to the Afro pop knowing it would just make him less appealing in the eyes of the rest of the country...but of course Sharp can't see any of that logic, he can't get past skin color as usual....


Personally i favor socialism. Not complete socialism but some form of regulation would've stopped business from going overseas and stopped the banks from doing all that ridiculous and impossible lending that ended us in this foreclosure crisis. Free market is the tool of the rich man.

If the 3 major powers of society are Business, The People, and The Government then it stands to reason that the only thing to keep business from taking complete advantage of the people is the Government. If you want a free market then you'd end up removing things like minimum wage and unions...where would the people be without those things....

as far as the bailouts are concerned i wish they hadn't just given our money to a group of idiots who were dumb enough to lose all theirs....

[Barotix]

If you want a free market then you'd end up removing things like minimum wage and unions

The free market creates a competitive arena that is geared towards excellence. The people would not buy from a company or group that has bad business practices. They would buy from one of his/her competitors that has good prices, good quality services, and high customer satisfaction. With the government doing little or nothing the media will have to find something else to report on. They will expose corrupt companies. The people won't buy from them, they will lose money, and the only way to compensate is to adopt nobler business practices or risk failing. The market would not allow people to make risky loans. Think about it: If no one can bail you out, would you buy something on credit that is beyond your means? No, you wouldn't unless you could pay it back. Would you give a man a loan if he has bad credit? The market strives for excellence. It was regulations that caused this, regulations won't fix it. Let the market fix the problem.

OH, click the "laissez faire" link. Says it better than I could.

[XemnasXD]

If you want a free market then you'd end up removing things like minimum wage and unions

The free market creates a competitive arena that is geared towards excellence. The people would not buy from a company or group that has bad business practices. They would buy from one of his/her competitors that has good prices, good quality services, and high customer satisfaction. With the government doing little or nothing the media will have to find something else to report on. They will expose corrupt companies. The people won't buy from them, they will lose money, and the only way to compensate is to adopt nobler business practices or risk failing.

im really sorry but that whole paragraph is an optimistic piece of BS. You should know better than to come at me with baseless hopes and dreams.

Capitalism and Free-Markets require that at least 10% of the population remain unemployed to maintain that competitive atmosphere and keep production cost low. These types us industry have never been the allies of the people. They take advantage of the employed by reminding them that they are replaceable and they pay employees just enough to get by if they work enough. People will buy the cheapest they can, hence why Wal-Mart, whose business practices are notoriously bad, so bad its achieved national attention, still has tons of customers and is constantly opening new stores to meet demands. Do the people shopping at Wal-Mart care if the reason hy the prices are so low is because the employees are forced to take a hit, No.

As far as the media is concerned they will, as they have recently been doing, continue to tell the people whatever they want to get ratings, America isn't interested in good news and open-minded ethics nor are they interested in corrupt business, the average American probably knows more about Miley Cyrus than about AIG.

Exposing a corrupt company doesn't hurt the company if they continue to give the people what they want and need. The ENTIRE Pharmaceutical industry is corrupt out the ass and you will never see it on the news and people will never care. There is an industry that is legally pushing drugs that are addictive and harmful, ask anyone who works as a pharmacy tech for CVS or Rite-Aid, they will tell you how awful their customers are. Will it stop, no.

Your idea of what a free-market economy does completely removes the modern human element from the equation, its little more than wishful thinking or a theory that completely ignores both modern and past media and market trends....

[Barotix]

OH, click the "laissez faire" link. Says it better than I could.

[XemnasXD]

i know what laissez faire is. Im not going not click the link mostly because you've posted about 10 links in this thread and i don't feel like going through them all but since i already understand laissez faire im even less inclined to look for it...

what you posted is ludicrous and would never work. I think links should be used as a source of information or a backup to an argument but only in a very rare case should they be the argument. If you can't explain a successful modern laissez faire situation in your own words why should i believe you have a grasp of how it works. Not saying you don't know what you're talking about, you know alot but i hope you can see my predicament here. Its hard to argue with a guy who can't find his words which is a habit of yours...

if you have something to say then counter the points i made, if they can be discredited under a laissez faire situation then you'll have a point but just clicking a link and reading what i already know will do me no good, im against laissez faire, i've given examples of why it wouldn't work to counter your argument of how it should, your turn....

[nohunta]

Barotrix=Republican?... I think we do need goverment Intervention, look what no goverment Intervention has gotten us ^.^


Xemnas called out Barotrix. Political/Economic fight of the century!!!!
Barotrix expected to K.O Xemnas in the 3 round according to experts. Lets get ready to RUMBLE@!!!!

[Barotix]

I think we do need goverment Intervention, look what no goverment Intervention has gotten us

Government Intervention caused the problems, more won't fix it. I'm a libertarian, not a republican.

@Xemnas: In order for me to counter your points you must make counter-arguments that I consider valid. The problem is the points you bring up would never occur in a true laissez faire society. We don't have a laissez faire economy or society so using "wal-mart" won't work. It is true that I didn't include modern society in my thinking because modern society is not an example of a laissez faire society. In order to change the system, you must first change the mentality of the people. I wanted you to click the laissez faire link so you may educate yourself.

Lul, re-reading your paragraphs shows that you haven't really thought about a laissez faire society without any Government. Like I said earlier:

I could go on and start talking about the nature of man but that would take several paragraphs and citations. The point I am trying to illustrate is that the current system with it's sprawling bureaucracy and socialist reforms is not, can not, and will not work in the United States of America.

Question: What do you think caused the current economic meltdown?

[XemnasXD]

you can't say laissez faire would fix everything without including everything. If your going to talk about the US, as it is now, switching to a laissez faire Gov't and how it would fix the problems that we are facing now you can't ignore companies like Wal-Mart which have little to no gov't intervention in the company and are causing the people to suffer completely destroying the argument you presented in this

The free market creates a competitive arena that is geared towards excellence. The people would not buy from a company or group that has bad business practices. They would buy from one of his/her competitors that has good prices, good quality services, and high customer satisfaction. With the government doing little or nothing the media will have to find something else to report on. They will expose corrupt companies. The people won't buy from them, they will lose money, and the only way to compensate is to adopt nobler business practices or risk failing.

paragraph. I took that as what you figured would happen is laissez faire took hold in the US.


I thought my point was clear, but if it not i'll state it more clearly. A laissez faire Gov't is not what the US needs to improve its economic situation. More and better regulation is needed to bring our economy back under our control. Without more regulation, proper regulation, the US economy is at risk of getting even worse than it already is. That is my point. If your going to argue about how much better the world would be if it was laissez faire from the start and history never never happened then by all means if everything goes according to the theory you presented and the nature of people, which hasn't changed since we became sentient, was suddenly replaced with new one then yes laissez faire would probably work but i live in the here and now and right now regulation is needed.

[nohunta]

I think we do need goverment Intervention, look what no goverment Intervention has gotten us

Government Intervention caused the problems, more won't fix it. I'm a libertarian, not a republican.

@Xemnas: In order for me to counter your points you must make counter-arguments that I consider valid. The problem is the points you bring up would never occur in a true laissez faire society. We don't have a laissez faire economy or society so using "wal-mart" won't work. It is true that I didn't include modern society in my thinking because modern society is not an example of a laissez faire society. In order to change the system, you must first change the mentality of the people. I wanted you to click the laissez faire link so you may educate yourself.

Lul, re-reading your paragraphs shows that you haven't really thought about a laissez faire society without any Government. Like I said earlier:

I could go on and start talking about the nature of man but that would take several paragraphs and citations. The point I am trying to illustrate is that the current system with it's sprawling bureaucracy and socialist reforms is not, can not, and will not work in the United States of America.

Question: What do you think caused the current economic meltdown?

Please tell me what the goverment did? Other than going to war over some bullshit?

[Barotix]

The federal reserve printed more money that led to a superficial boom in the 90s. This boom led to the "dotcom" burst of 2002 (was it 2002? I can't remember =/). In order to prevent this burst the gov't printed more fiat currency and the economy started to recover (this would have led to another burst) but because of the declaration of war on Countries in the middle east more currency had to be printed to fund the military industrial complex, leading to more inflation. Then, I believe, a bill was passed involving Freddie and Fannie that compelled them and other mortgage companies to give loans to financially risky recipients. This lead to the housing bubble or an "artificial boom." Housing was hot, at that time you were a fool to not get into the housing market. So fiscally irresponsible investors bought what they could not afford because they were given loans by mortgage companies (under a laissez faire system this would not occur) and the housing bubble burst. In order to save the housing market the gov't nationalized Freddie and Fannie but this only delays the inevitable crash. The gov't can keep bailing out companies and printing worthless fiat cash through the monopoly that is the federal reserve but that only delays the crash. Delaying the crash will only make it worse as years of debt and inflation builds up. This has been going on since the 20s and now we're seeing the "fruits of our labor."

Regulations caused this and more regulations won't fix it. The market fights against the forces that attempt to regulate it. Don't even get me started on the nature of man. Xemnas, if you want an example of a Laissez Faire society and economy pick up any free mmo centered around the economy. The best example is runescape. No government, no regulations, no chaos, only prosperity. The road to prosperity is a difficult one but it is always worth it. Xemnas, do you understand ABCT or what caused the 1929 crash?

[Deathsythe]

Question: What do you think caused the current economic meltdown?

greed and corruption. was foreshadowed by the collapse of Bear Stearns. banks letting people like my mexican gardener (no stereotype =p) buy a $750,000 house with a $1000 down payment. of course hes not gonna be able to pay it back and the banks go bankrupt. at least the gov. bailed out AIG but lets hope the situation doesn't get worse. my parent's investments in the market almost completely vanished overnight.

[Barotix]

These banks would not have given your gardener a loan if the gov't had not compelled it to do so. Bail outs do not stop the problem. It delays it and in the process makes the final crash worse. The Government must let these people pay for their fiscally irresponsible choices instead of putting the burden on the middle class. They will destroy the middle class. All great empires fall in this manner.

@Xemnas, you say a free market will not fix the problem? Then tell me, what amount of gov't regulation fixed the depression of 1920-21? When was Rome most prosperous, Xemnas? When was America most prosperous, Xemnas? The best regulation is no regulation. There are two books that I think will change your thinking:

one, found here
two, found here

The nature of man may be selfish but it is not stupid.

On the subject of Wal-Mart. It involves a change of what the individual deems moral and immoral. I think Grandpa's generation highlights this well. Grandpa's generation would not buy from a store like wal-mart that undercuts it's competitors and treats it's workers like garbage. Instead, they would boycott wal-mart and take their business elsewhere. Wal-mart would have to shape up or fail. In today's society the people are oblivious and ready to let the gov't take care of all problems. First, the people must be educated and taught the value of hard work, liberty, and true freedom. Xemnas, another question, how do you think peace can be attained?

Anyhoo, I'm done. Brain juices stopped flowing. Need food and nourishment. Been reading all day. =_= Carry on ze discussion without me.

United Socialist State Republics of America. Weeeee.

[XemnasXD]

You can bring up the 1921 depression but 8 years later we hit the Great Depression which was only fixed after Gov't Regulation and as soon as much of that regulation was cut the economy felt it before it had a chance to stabilize. Regulation is what ended the great depression.

Also the banks would not have been allowed to give those people loans if the the gov't was regulating the economy properly. Im not blind here, there is good regulation and bad regulation. In Philadelphia we had a scandal with loan sharks getting ahold of people money and having them pay phenomenal interest, it was supported by people close to the mayor and in the city council. When the issue was brought to light measurements were quickly taken to end the injustice. The only reason why such a thing was able to be halted was because of its illegality thanks to gov't regulations.

You can only blame the gov't for making it possible for banks to give those people loans but the gov't didn't force the banks to give those loans. Bankers made a conscious decision and with the prospect of higher profits even at the expense of the people they were lending money to they choose to go ahead and give them money anyway. Thats a fantastic example of policy gone bad leading to a lack of regulation. If there were laws in place to make it illegal for those banks to give out those loans none of this would have happened. Simple as that. Thats the kind of regulation we need. I'm firmly against bailouts thats not regulation thats taking the responsibility of business off the company, im for making companies responsible to the people. AIG should should never have been able to take the risk they did with other people money, regulation could've prevented that disaster.

As for when America was most prosperous. Its dollar has been in decline from the start, the buying power of the people has constantly been declining. But the GDP doesn't reflect this, corporate history doesn't reflect this. So how would you judge a countries prosperity, by the prosperity of its people or by the prosperity of its business....

On the subject of Wal-Mart. It involves a change of what the individual deems moral and immoral. I think Grandpa's generation highlights this well. Grandpa's generation would not buy from a store like wal-mart that undercuts it's competitors and treats it's workers like garbage. Instead, they would boycott wal-mart and take their business elsewhere. Wal-mart would have to shape up or fail. In today's society the people are oblivious and ready to let the gov't take care of all problems. First, the people must be educated and taught the value of hard work, liberty, and true freedom.

Though a change in values would help the reason why people aren't willing to go out of their way and take a hit is because they simply can't afford it, has nothing to do with morals. I have friends whose families refuse to shop at Wal-Mart but they make good money. I'd shop at Wal-Mart more often if it wasn't so far from me because im a college student who lives alone in an apartment and make 7.15 an hour, i can't afford to shop at a more expensive place. What about the millions and millions of other people out there who only make 7-9$ an hour and have real bills to pay, thats not enough to live off of with the dollars decrease in buying power. Do you expect them to wait for an unresponsive congress who themselves have to deal with a backwards bureaucracy made only worse my corporate intervention in the form of Lobbyist, the real powers in congress. Minimum wage needs to be raised, jobs need to made available, those kinds of things can ONLY happen with regulation and those kinds of things are what is needed to bring our economy back.

[Barotix]

Wait, you think the Depression of 29 was stopped by regulations? It was caused and lengthened by regulations. Pew, Pew. EB mess keeping me away from my books. The fed caused it, the executive lengthened it, and war stopped it. Why can't they afford it, Xemnas? Why is the dollar's value dropping?

[XemnasXD]

Fact: The New Deal was largely responsible for reversing the effects of The Great Depression, the war helped to end it entirely but the war alone would not have been enough. Thats history 101 stuff and while it is debatable, only by people with far more knowledge of the situation than you or I so im not going to debate it with you.

[Barotix]

*cough, because you would lose.

[whiteraven]

Wait, you think the Depression of 29 was stopped by regulations? It was caused and lengthened by regulations. Pew, Pew. EB mess keeping me away from my books. The fed caused it, the executive lengthened it, and war stopped it. Why can't they afford it, Xemnas? Why is the dollar's value dropping?

looooooool it was because of americans bought effects with borrowed money,, and prices went up crazy,, after a while nobody wanted them anymore for that price,, so prices dropt, dropped more, dropped even more,, effects became less wurth as the loan,, so people lost money,, prices dropped more, banks went bankrupt, THAT was how it happened,, REGULATION stopped the depression,,

loool go to your history teacher,, if an expatriate knows more about it,, pfiew,, you should accuse him lool,, or you are just as ignorant like i said to ignorant to see your ignorance

edit: that was when rockafeller made his fortune? wasnt it keep remembering new stuff from my history books long time ago xD

[Barotix]

EDIT: I'm still learning or should I say re-learning, I'll only argue about what I know so far. My understanding is still limited because I have not finished my studies, so take my statements with a grain-of-salt. This is to prevent me from giving people the wrong information, if you believe the information I provide is incorrect feel free to discard it until I can properly and fully argue my point in a convincing manner.

In modern times, new fcking bill :
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 09-12.html

Don't want to follow the link? It's in the spoiler too.

Spoiler!

This is from the Daily Kos:
ACTION ALERT! Text of Wall Street Bailout Act

by New Deal democrat

Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM EDT

Heads up, everybody! This is a true “Shock Doctrine” proposal, to vest the Secretary of the Treasury with unreviewable plenary power. If Congress does not enact it to Bush’s liking, needless to say, blame for any economic meltdown before election day will be blamed squarely on Congress!

Text of the Act, below.

New Deal democrat’s diary :: ::

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY

TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as __________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.–The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.–The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for–

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.–The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.–The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.–The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.–The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretarys authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.–The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.–The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.–The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

_______________
Please notice the following points:

the broad reading of the Secretary’s power: so long as s/he claims to be acting pursuant to this statute, there is no limit nor review of their authority.
It appears that entering into crony-capitalist, no-bid contracts a la Iraq and New Orleans, are part of the authority. The Secretary’s power is unreviewable, not by the legislature, not by any administrative agency, and not by the Courts.

————————

If Congress allows this to go forward, the “Shock Doctrine” has well and truly come to America’s entire economy.

UPDATE: Prof. Paul Krugman has a good, succinct explanation of how the bill is “supposed” to work.

Russ Winter describes how the bill can be used to enable “FOH” (friend of Hank) to push financial companies into trouble, and then purchase them dirt cheap.

(A quick note of my own - if McCain somehow manages to get into office, the Secretary spoken of in this document would likely be Phil Gramm - yeah, the guy responsible for much of the current meltdown.)

Don't want to open the spoiler or is the legislation to long?
Two broken down versions:

The bailout summarized by Glenn Greenwald:
_______________________________

“Here is the current draft for the latest plan. It’s elegantly simple.

The three key provisions:

(1) The Treasury Secretary is authorized to buy up to $700 billion of any mortgage-related assets (so he can just transfer that amount to any corporations in exchange for their worthless or severely crippled “assets”) [Sec. 6];

(2) The ceiling on the national debt is raised to $11.3 trillion to accommodate this scheme [Sec. 10]; and

(3) best of all: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency” [Sec. 8].

Put another way, this authorizes Hank Paulson to transfer $700 billion of taxpayer money to private industry in his sole discretion, and nobody has the right or ability to review or challenge any decision he makes.”

Just looking at the specifics of this Act. Some thoughts and questions:

1) Why the need to “purchase” the institutions, rather than just lend to them?
2) Must the targeted financial institution agree to the purchase, or can it be “seized”?
3)The Treasury Secretary enters into contracts as what entity–himself?, the U.S.? If the U.S. citizens are entering into contracts, why can’t they know the details of the contracts into which they are entering (and approve or disapprove?)? How can the contracts be legal, if they do not?
4)What is a “financial agent” of the Gov’t.? Is that like an IRS agent? What the heck is it?
5) Are there ANY LIMITATIONS to the powers granted the Secretary herein? ANY? Under the U.S. Constitution, don’t I cede a very LIMITED and enumerated list of my power (rights) to the federal Government?
6) When there is a conflict between this law and the existing law of the land, how can such a conflict be resolved, if it’s all very secret and amorphous…

etc., etc., etc. Good night, all.

F the great depressions, let's talk about the one on the horizon:
Code: Select all

These criminals are out of hand! Is here no way to stop them?! This piece of s#!# legislation couldn’t be anymore unconstitutional. You can’t establish a “law” that is itself above the law.

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

Whoops, I forgot we are living in a fascist oligarchy. Never mind. I am making a pair of shoes out of sod, slapping them on my feet, and declaring them a sovereign nation, so wherever I go I will be FREE!!

I loled.

@Xemnas, loan sharks have nothing to do with the free market. If it's illegal then it falls into the category of black market activity. End the fed, then we can talk about other regulations but as long as such a monopoly (a central bank) exist, countries around the world will fall. IIRC, the only thing keeping our dollar afloat is the fact that other governments are as incompetent as ours and their currency suffers from the same amount of inflation. Is hyper inflation time nao?

>_> Okie, I is done menz. baibai. No point in continuing. Xem won't discuss the cause of the depression with me and some misinformed dude is trying to argue history with me by using information from only one source, surprise, surprise; that source is a gov't funded history text-book that only skims over the issues.

[whiteraven]

>_> Okie, I is done menz. baibai. No point in continuing. Xem won't discuss the cause of the depression with me and some misinformed dude is trying to argue history with me by using information from only one source, surprise, surprise; that source is a gov't funded history text-book that only skims over the issues.

its not done not yet

[whiteraven]

Reasons great depression

1, overproduction by farmers,, they where still set on the European market,, but when wo1 finished Europe could produce his own products,, farmers went producing even more because they thought that was the only way to earn some money,, prices of products dropped even more,, domino theory etc. etc.

2. industry (again) overproduction, mechanization, to less social security (that socialism right? Liberals don’t even want social security don’t they ?),, enough workers, wages drop, unions to less power,,

Black Thursday,

People bought effects with borrowed money, markets collapsed, banks progressed their money back,, people lost everything,, (pretty similar to the situation now doesn’t it?)

Markets failed because downfall was to fast ... banks went bankrupt, industry went bankrupt, farmers where bankrupt,, at least they could produce their own food,, lucky bastards,,

Prices dropped until they couldn’t drop more,,

How they government acted against the depression (this is the clue barotix,, :D:))

Before the first world war people in America said government should intervene the market (that’s social,, for the record)
But when America exported many products to Europe because of the WO1 people in America said government shouldn’t intervene the market anymore because the market was strong (yeah right)
After WO1, great depression, GOVERNEMENT INTERVENED the market again, because based on economic theories the market would balance himself again after 30 YEARS…

Like poor people could wait for 30 years,,, pffff,, intervention worked but it could have worked better if Roosevelt would have encouraged the industry more,, when wo2 started, government intervened industry to,, and the well-being doubled,,


history proofs intervention can end economic depressions, faster as market could do,,

And after all,, whole crisis wouldn’t even be in America now if the government intervened the market way before this happened,, and it would be a smaller crisis if the government intervened faster when the first problems occurred


Now the ethic question, would you let the poor people starve while the market searches for his own balance? While rich people eat caviar and drink Champaign?

[Barotix]

You're a misinformed fool throwing assumptions that you pulled out of your ass at me. Keep reading your history textbook that only skims over the issues that caused the depression and ignore the most important factor. Of course Holland would blame the imaginary free market. When you have to use a tub of federally issued fiat to buy some bread come talk to me again.

based on economic theories

First off, what bloody economic theory? The market would have taken 3 years, maximum, to recover.

Now the ethic question, would you let the poor people starve while the market searches for his own balance? While rich people eat caviar and drink Champaign?

Don't come at me with your socialist bullshit. Intervention or no intervention, the rich would still be rich and the poor would still get poor. The question you should ask is: Which is the fastest and quickest way to get through the depression. Is it through sky-rocketing inflation and increasing national debt or is it by letting the market deal with it self. The market is self-regulating, it proved this in 21. Gov't should have stayed out from the beginning and the great depression would have never happened. Look at what is happening today. Do you honestly think that modern "new deal" bill will fix a damn thing? Short term, sure. Long term? Say hello to hyperinflation, financial collapse, and the second great depression. This one will dwarf the one the world experienced in the 30s. Of course, after several years of a second great depression when the modern "new deal" starts actually working people will praise it, forgetting that it and the reforms to come caused the problem in the first place. People have to learn from history, damn it.

history proofs intervention can end economic depressions, faster as market could do,,

History proves economic depressions last longer when gov't tries to help.

And after all,, whole crisis wouldn’t even be in America now if the government intervened the market way before this happened,, and it would be a smaller crisis if the government intervened faster when the first problems occurred

Have you been ignoring every worded typed by me in this thread? Do you know when the fed was created and it's major role in the great depression? All the reforms did was stall the depression or "hold it at bay". If the war had never happened no amount of reforms would be able to hold the flood that would follow in the wake of the "new deals." Look at what's happening today, people are blaming the "free" (bullshit, there is no true free market) market and are willing to give the secretary of the treasury undisputed power over the economy. Why are people willing to wait until it takes 1000 pieces of toilet paper to buy one tomato? This is madness, I don't understand these people that just want to over-regulate, over-tax, and kill the economy. Can't they see that what they're doing is wrong? How can our own gov't be so corrupt. Do they only care about lining their own pockets? This is what happened from 1913 leading up to and beyond the great depression. This is madness, madness. Even leaving the country won't save you. Every other country will be going through the same economic upheaval. FCCCCK.

What happened to the prospects of hard work, freedom, and liberty? Do people really believe the gov't should do everything for them and the people should do nothing? FCCCK, I feel sick and disgusted.

[whiteraven]

You're a misinformed fool throwing assumptions that you pulled out of your ass at me. Keep reading your history textbook that only skims over the issues that caused the depression and ignore the most important factor. Of course Holland would blame the imaginary free market. When you have to use a tub of federally issued fiat to buy some bread come talk to me again.

based on economic theories

First off, what bloody economic theory? The market would have taken 3 years, maximum, to recover.

Now the ethic question, would you let the poor people starve while the market searches for his own balance? While rich people eat caviar and drink Champaign?

Don't come at me with your socialist bullshit. Intervention or no intervention, the rich would still be rich and the poor would still get poor. The question you should ask is: Which is the fastest and quickest way to get through the depression. Is it through sky-rocketing inflation and increasing national debt or is it by letting the market deal with it self. The market is self-regulating, it proved this in 21. Gov't should have stayed out from the beginning and the great depression would have never happened. Look at what is happening today. Do you honestly think that modern "new deal" bill will fix a damn thing? Short term, sure. Long term? Say hello to hyperinflation, financial collapse, and the second great depression. This one will dwarf the one the world experienced in the 30s. Of course, after several years of a second great depression when the modern "new deal" starts actually working people will praise it, forgetting that it and the reforms to come caused the problem in the first place. People have to learn from history, damn it.

history proofs intervention can end economic depressions, faster as market could do,,

History proves economic depressions last longer when gov't tries to help.

And after all,, whole crisis wouldn’t even be in America now if the government intervened the market way before this happened,, and it would be a smaller crisis if the government intervened faster when the first problems occurred

Have you been ignoring every worded typed by me in this thread? Do you know when the fed was created and it's major role in the great depression? All the reforms did was stall the depression or "hold it at bay". If the war had never happened no amount of reforms would be able to hold the flood that would follow in the wake of the "new deals." Look at what's happening today, people are blaming the "free" (bullshit, there is no true free market) market and are willing to give the secretary of the treasury undisputed power over the economy. Why are people willing to wait until it takes 1000 pieces of toilet paper to buy one tomato? This is madness, I don't understand these people that just want to over-regulate, over-tax, and kill the economy. Can't they see that what they're doing is wrong? How can our own gov't be so corrupt. Do they only care about lining their own pockets? This is what happened from 1913 leading up to and beyond the great depression. This is madness, madness. Even leaving the country won't save you. Every other country will be going through the same economic upheaval. FCCCCK.

What happened to the prospects of hard work, freedom, and liberty? Do people really believe the gov't should do everything for them and the people should do nothing?

i have ignored every word you said that doesnt make sense,, and thats actually everything you said

hard work -> farmers work hard, though i never saw them in forbes list.... hard work has hardly any prospect.

freedom -> freedom always has his bounderys... nobody has freedom and you wont get it either,, everything in linked to eachother and you have to act on what other do,, freedom is a nice word for dreamers,,

liberty,, translate site says its the same like freedom

AND YES, governement should do ALOT for people,, because most people have a lack of knowledge about how certain things work,, YOU WOULD NEED ALL THE KNOWLEDGE IN THE WORLD TO BE ABLE TO MAKE YOUR OWN, FUNDED, DECISIONS,, and nobody knows everything,, so the governement listens to advisors with knowledge about certain things and decides how they act... the governement makes balanced decissions,, something most people cant,, huray for the governement



edit: the richer would be less rich and the poor would be less poor,, a more balanced society,, and its not bullshit you talk bullshit

[nohunta]

Dude, Gov't Regulation ended the depression (Oct, 29) you told us it did when you said War ended it. THE WAR WAS REGULATED?

[whiteraven]

Dude, Gov't Regulation ended the depression (Oct, 29) you told us it did when you said War ended it. THE WAR WAS REGULATED?

war was a positif factor for the market,, when the war started the governement saw the change for the market to get back at old level,, so they provided stuff to get the industry back to live....

because of the war the governement invest in the industry, what they should have done earlier,, same thing occured like WO1, there was a new market, (europe) where they needed medicines, guns/tanks etc. , food.... well everything they couldnt produce themselfs anymore because peeps had to play a game,, called war...

while wo2 lasts, american market grew again, got stronger, and they learned a lesson from crisis after WO1 so the same things (depression) didnt occure again.... and they stopped intervening

but its still a fact depression was ended by intervading from governement so dont come with the lowzy theorie the market would balance it self and would take the changes of the new markt,,

because they couldnt, lack of capital etc. etc. etc. bladiebladiebla

[Barotix]

It did not end it. It postponed it. If the war never occurred the floodgates would have broken open and a greater depression will take it's hold on the people. You can try to stop a recession or depression but that only holds it momentarily and allows it to grow in strength so when it actually happens the crash is far more devastating. People should pay and suffer the consequences of their actions. If the war never happened the depression would have never ended, it would only get worse.

You bloody idiot, the market would have balanced itself just like it did in 1921 but Ambitious politicians fcked up and now we have to deal with their shit. A free market is self regulating and true freedom is possible without gov't. People that follow the Austrian school of economics predicted the Great depression pin-pointed the major contributer to it's length to be the government's intervention and determined that the only thing that truly ended the depression was the war. The war allowed industry to grow and prosper, without it no amount of regulations would be able to stop it. In a free market people would not invest in something that they could not pay back no matter how high the short-term profit margins are, especially when the consequences include starvation and bankruptcy. When gov't bureaucrats constantly interfere and provide aid the people never learn from their mistakes and are bound to repeat it. What is happening today happened before and I refuse to sit idly as my incompetent gov't screws again because rest assured there won't be a 3rd world war to bail us out of the shit storm. You can try to stop it, you can put it on hold, but it will still happen and when it does, all your regulations that give the people short term satisfaction and confidence will be for naught. They should have let the dotcom bubble burst and lead to recession instead of postponing it and letting it grow into this conflagration that threatens to destroy America and take every other sovereign nation with it. Debt, inflation, and "regulation" creates superficial boom that leads to a greater burst than the one that would have happened if the gov't just minded it's own business. Welfare? Not worth a dime. You can give a man a fish and feed him for a day or you can teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Social security and Medicaid? There's no money left. The role of government is not to provide for the people because gov't produces nothing; therefore, it cannot provide without taking. So it takes a large sum from the majority, including those it's helping and redistributes it among the needy, thus creating more needy and producing a populace that can't do anything without some form of gov't aid. Eventually what little freedom the people have is stripped from them and production is at a stand-still for free men are far more productive than those in fear of their gov't. In the end we will either have a totalitarian socialist regime or true freedom. The seeds of liberty have been planted in us all. Let the tree blossom or must it be nourished by the blood of patriots and tyrants? Should we forever be in a state of chaos? Gov't has failed us. People have become so dependent on gov't aid that they can't function without it. Slaves to the system. They must be educated, they must be taught what freedom and liberty means.

Anyway, I'm done. Pat yourself on the back for intentionally remaining ignorant. It's been a while since I've met someone like you. Someone who refuses to learn from history and see the actions happening today as a testament to the fallacy of government working for the people. Don't make me laugh, the people work for the government, to protect the government, to preserve the government, then they cry when they have to pay property tax, income tax, vehicle tax, and they blame it all on the supposed "free" market. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, especially in today's digital age. You don't know something? Use a search engine. Gov't aide makes people stupid. There's a reason why even in the most fascist/socialist regime the intellectuals are given a greater degree of freedom than the normal people. Men under the control of a tyrant are far less productive. Hasn't history taught us anything? I guess not, especially when children are taught a "lame" history by gov't approved history text books. Go on, raven. Tell me stories of how "great" Roosevelt and Hoover were. Tell me how awesome laziness is and how it feels so great when the gov't is giving handouts.

When it cost 1000 pieces of fiat to buy gov't produced cheese I'll chuckle as I fight against tyranny.

[whiteraven]

Anyway, I'm done. Pat yourself on the back for intentionally remaining ignorant. It's been a while since I've met someone like you. Someone who refuses to learn from history and see the actions happening today as a testament to the fallacy of government working for the people. Don't make me laugh, the people work for the government, to protect the government, to preserve the government, then they cry when they have to pay property tax, income tax, vehicle tax, and they blame it all on the supposed "free" market. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, especially in today's digital age. You don't know something? Use a search engine. Gov't aide makes people stupid. There's a reason why even in the most fascist/socialist regime the intellectuals are given a greater degree of freedom than the normal people. Men under the control of a tyrant are far less productive. Hasn't history taught us anything? I guess not, especially when children are taught a "lame" history by gov't approved history text books. Go on, raven. Tell me stories of how "great" Roosevelt and Hoover were. Tell me how awesome laziness is and how it feels so great when the gov't is giving handouts.



im love paying taxes,, i actaully would like to pay for more taxes if it gives me more security.... social security

history doesnt teach us free market works, it teaches us that people are being abused (yeah really called it abuse flame me for it) and the rich people call it free market, if you are a rich person well that would change my opinion a guess,, after all,, im still as greedy as any other person,, history teaches us a guided marked doesnt work (stalins 5 year plans), history teaches us free market is just an excuse to take advantage of people and dont care for the less fortunated,, history tells us there is no single truth,, just an option what the least evil, a regulated market....

i thought you where trying to persuade me,, while your arguments where weak....




now dont be weak, dont run a way, finish what you where doing,, persuade me ,,

im a keynes believer,,, tell me why keynes fails ofcourse you know what theorie of Keynes is.....

[Barotix]

history teaches us a guided marked doesnt work (stalins 5 year plans)

A guided market is a regulated market. You don't even know what a free market is. I even gave a brief explanation of a free market. So which one is it? What does history tell us? History tells us one thing: regulated markets only postpone financial crisis but when the crisis finally comes it is so staggering that no amount of gov't meddling can fix it. Gov't meddling is usually the primary cause. It's people like, people that don't even know how a free market works that give it a bad name. You think the rich like a free market? They're the ones that are always pushing for more regulations. It gives them the opportunity to take part in risky ventures without worrying about competition or natural market controls. Learn from history, that's all I'm asking you to do. It works for Holland but it won't work in America unless our system is restructured from the ground up. Regulations reduce market competition causing a gap to grow between the poor and the rich. I can't believe you tried to pass Stalin's economy as a free market.

Keynesian Economics highlights issues that wouldn't occur in a true free market.

[nohunta]

Well, Baro there will never be a PURE Free Market. It just wont happen.

Doesnt matter anymore, FK america im moving to Canada .