|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 14, 2011 22:48:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 15, 2011 12:44:29 GMT -8
Interesting analysis! Any comparison to Carter, Hoover or even Clinton has one huge problem. I believe that each of those were just inept or misguided. Obama and his agenda are much more sinister.
|
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 16, 2011 16:40:08 GMT -8
Interesting analysis! Any comparison to Carter, Hoover or even Clinton has one huge problem. I believe that each of those were just inept or misguided. Obama and his agenda are much more sinister. "Obama and his agenda are much more sinister." Gee that is how I felt about old Rouge Cheeks. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 16, 2011 18:21:01 GMT -8
Interesting analysis! Any comparison to Carter, Hoover or even Clinton has one huge problem. I believe that each of those were just inept or misguided. Obama and his agenda are much more sinister. You are either trolling, or you are an idiot.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 16, 2011 18:31:45 GMT -8
Interesting analysis! Any comparison to Carter, Hoover or even Clinton has one huge problem. I believe that each of those were just inept or misguided. Obama and his agenda are much more sinister. You are either trolling, or you are an idiot. There is one more very obvious possibility! I am right! |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 16, 2011 18:34:17 GMT -8
Interesting analysis! Any comparison to Carter, Hoover or even Clinton has one huge problem. I believe that each of those were just inept or misguided. Obama and his agenda are much more sinister. Any comparison of Hoover and today's politics is specious. Having written that, I find it quite sad that you'd attempt to do so. Pooh, as I've stated, your trolls are getting more sad as time goes by and I'd really suggest you talk to your doc about your declining mental skills. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 16, 2011 18:36:06 GMT -8
Interesting analysis! Any comparison to Carter, Hoover or even Clinton has one huge problem. I believe that each of those were just inept or misguided. Obama and his agenda are much more sinister. You are either trolling, or you are an idiot. You don't recognize the other alternative - he's becoming senile. After all, he claims he's shooting his age when he plays golf. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 16, 2011 18:46:36 GMT -8
Interesting analysis! Any comparison to Carter, Hoover or even Clinton has one huge problem. I believe that each of those were just inept or misguided. Obama and his agenda are much more sinister. Any comparison of Hoover and today's politics is specious. Having written that, I find it quite sad that you'd attempt to do so. Pooh, as I've stated, your trolls are getting more sad as time goes by and I'd really suggest you talk to your doc about your declining mental skills. =Bob He says I am all right in every sense of the word.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 16, 2011 18:47:51 GMT -8
You are either trolling, or you are an idiot. You don't recognize the other alternative - he's becoming senile. After all, he claims he's shooting his age when he plays golf. =Bob Find that claim. I do get close from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 17, 2011 7:41:04 GMT -8
You don't recognize the other alternative - he's becoming senile. After all, he claims he's shooting his age when he plays golf. =Bob Find that claim. I do get close from time to time. The front nine, or the back nine?  |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 17, 2011 8:01:27 GMT -8
You don't recognize the other alternative - he's becoming senile. After all, he claims he's shooting his age when he plays golf. =Bob Find that claim. I do get close from time to time. Any time I get close to shooting my age I'm very upset. Thats because it is usually on the front side. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 17, 2011 11:29:53 GMT -8
Boy, is this thread ever getting shot to hell! Very disappointing. I will try to redeem it.
Herbert Hoover is one of our more recent Presidents. I use the term "recent" because there were Presidents for 140 years before Hoover and only for 78 years after him. In other words, his term in office occurred in, roughly speaking, the most recent third of the history of the U.S.A.
Hoover's overall adult life was quite distinguished. Unfortunately for him, the one big negative on his record was a whopper; that was, of course, the Great Depression. What is striking about the man is that he was by no means the hard-nosed right-winger that his detractors claim. He was, notably, a progressive who more resembled Obama than a Reagan. He tried to fight the Depression, but could not find the right road to take. Hoover's main shortcoming, in Mead's words, was that . . . "(he) not only failed to end the Depression; he failed to give people a sense that he understood what was happening."
It seems to me, and I am by no means alone in this, that it makes sense to wonder whether Barack Obama is close to understanding how a free economy works. Furthermore, one wonders whether the man is at all aware of the unintended consequences for such an economy created by increasingly detailed government regulation.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 17, 2011 13:54:02 GMT -8
Boy, is this thread ever getting shot to hell! Very disappointing. I will try to redeem it. Herbert Hoover is one of our more recent Presidents. I use the term "recent" because there were Presidents for 140 years before Hoover and only for 78 years after him. In other words, his term in office occurred in, roughly speaking, the most recent third of the history of the U.S.A. Hoover's overall adult life was quite distinguished. Unfortunately for him, the one big negative on his record was a whopper; that was, of course, the Great Depression. What is striking about the man is that he was by no means the hard-nosed right-winger that his detractors claim. He was, notably, a progressive who more resembled Obama than a Reagan. He tried to fight the Depression, but could not find the right road to take. Hoover's main shortcoming, in Mead's words, was that . . . "(he) not only failed to end the Depression; he failed to give people a sense that he understood what was happening."It seems to me, and I am by no means alone in this, that it makes sense to wonder whether Barack Obama is close to understanding who a free economy works. Furthermore, one wonders whether the man is at all aware of the unintended consequences for such an economy created by increasingly detailed government regulation. AzWm You mean like regulations intended to prevent another financial meltdown directly resulting from the deregulation of default swaps? No, we certainly don't want to regulate chaos in the financial markets - that would be un-American. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 17, 2011 15:59:48 GMT -8
Boy, is this thread ever getting shot to hell! Very disappointing. I will try to redeem it. Herbert Hoover is one of our more recent Presidents. I use the term "recent" because there were Presidents for 140 years before Hoover and only for 78 years after him. In other words, his term in office occurred in, roughly speaking, the most recent third of the history of the U.S.A. Hoover's overall adult life was quite distinguished. Unfortunately for him, the one big negative on his record was a whopper; that was, of course, the Great Depression. What is striking about the man is that he was by no means the hard-nosed right-winger that his detractors claim. He was, notably, a progressive who more resembled Obama than a Reagan. He tried to fight the Depression, but could not find the right road to take. Hoover's main shortcoming, in Mead's words, was that . . . "(he) not only failed to end the Depression; he failed to give people a sense that he understood what was happening."It seems to me, and I am by no means alone in this, that it makes sense to wonder whether Barack Obama is close to understanding who a free economy works. Furthermore, one wonders whether the man is at all aware of the unintended consequences for such an economy created by increasingly detailed government regulation. AzWm It's a specious argument. First, the world is a lot different than it was in 1929. But second, most of the current problems were called by deregulating our banking system and, perhaps, not keeping a close eye on AEG. I understand that as a libertarian you don't particularly agree with regulation, but you're quite wrong. Unrestrained capitalism acts in the best interests of the owners and the share holders and doesn't much give a rat's ass about the interests of this or any country - particularly true in this world of multi-national corporations that really have no home country. The banks are making a fortune. Many corporations have massive amounts of cash on hand - over 1 trillion is the number I've heard. Unemployment is rather simple - during a recession, the workers who don't get laid off become super-productive out of fear. So once we start coming out of a recession, large companies (and government, BTW) do not hire immediately. They start hiring when customer service reaches a point low enough that they have to hire. But all that aside, there is a rather simple fact - jobs have left and won't come back because there are damn few companies in this country that aren't better off shipping their manufacturing components off shore. But I would also say this - most of the right-wing in this country and on here scoffed at Obama bailing out Detroit, but where are Ford, GM and Chrysler at today? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 17, 2011 16:12:11 GMT -8
You don't recognize the other alternative - he's becoming senile. After all, he claims he's shooting his age when he plays golf. =Bob Find that claim. I do get close from time to time. Well, I suppose it does get easier the closer you get to 100 ;D. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 17, 2011 21:11:59 GMT -8
Find that claim. I do get close from time to time. The front nine, or the back nine? "The front nine, or the back nine?" Golf. . . A true story. . . I was in a club house in Ocean Shores, WA one day. I was talking to a couple of golfers after walking the course with my in laws. I was bored to death. I told the duffers that I had a dream recently. In the dream I was playing championship golf in a foursome with Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson. They were in heaven. The golfers nodded in approval. Then I told them that I was in hell. ;D Golf was invented with the intent to drive the heart of the middle aged male who plays into premature infarct. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 17, 2011 21:57:17 GMT -8
I am not opposed to all regulation. For instance, I understand that the Canadian banks weathered the recent storm because they were required to have a higher amount of capital on hand. Fine. However, it's easy to think that we can simply cure all economic problems with more regulation.
Some are saying that the recent financial regulation laws are so restrictive that they will in the end stifle business and make a robust recovery much more difficult to achieve. Since I am not a banker or a CEO, I cannot say with certainty whether that will prove to be true.
The real problem with government regulation is not so much that it is wrong-headed from the start (though that may often be the case). Rather, the problem is that regulatory laws are easy to put in place but very difficult to modify or repeal as circumstances change. One thing we have learned over the past century is that it is essential to make rapid and appropriate responses to new market situations. That is difficult or impossible to do in a system in which an executive has to get permission from a government bureaucracy before changing course.
(I should also add, in response to something Bob wrote, that we should not be so quick to declare what is in the best interests of the country. In the long run, it's better to allow businesses to pursue their goals with as little regulation as possible. . . . notice that I did not say NO regulation. Leftists are not willing to let the market place work its will. . . I , on the other hand, am willing to do so. Just answer this question. Looking at all economies, past and present, in which countries, and under which economic systems, have things generally worked out best for the average citizen? Countries with more or less free market systems or countries with rigid, state controlled economies?)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jun 18, 2011 4:53:38 GMT -8
Interesting analysis! Any comparison to Carter, Hoover or even Clinton has one huge problem. I believe that each of those were just inept or misguided. Obama and his agenda are much more sinister. You are either trolling, or you are an idiot. Clinton was easily the Greatest President in the past century. It is a toss up between him and Teddy, though I prefer Clinton. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 18, 2011 6:16:51 GMT -8
I am not opposed to all regulation. For instance, I understand that the Canadian banks weathered the recent storm because they were required to have a higher amount of capital on hand. Fine. However, it's easy to think that we can simply cure all economic problems with more regulation. Some are saying that the recent financial regulation laws are so restrictive that they will in the end stifle business and make a robust recovery much more difficult to achieve. Since I am not a banker or a CEO, I cannot say with certainty whether that will prove to be true. The real problem with government regulation is not so much that it is wrong-headed from the start (though that may often be the case). Rather, the problem is that regulatory laws are easy to put in place but very difficult to modify or repeal as circumstances change. One thing we have learned over the past century is that it is essential to make rapid and appropriate responses to new market situations. That is difficult or impossible to do in a system in which an executive has to get permission from a government bureaucracy before changing course. (I should also add, in response to something Bob wrote, that we should not be so quick to declare what is in the best interests of the country. In the long run, it's better to allow businesses to pursue their goals with as little regulation as possible. . . . notice that I did not say NO regulation. Leftists are not willing to let the market place work its will. . . I , on the other hand, am willing to do so. Just answer this question. Looking at all economies, past and present, in which countries, and under which economic systems, have things generally worked out best for the average citizen? Countries with more or less free market systems or countries with rigid, state controlled economies?) AzWm That is a thought provoking post. I would say that the test of regulation is the effect (or lack of) it has in mitigating the excesses of business. To say that certain segments of the economy, and our lives, have been severely and negatively affected over the last four years by regulatory gaps is to acknowledge the truth. The problem you have is that we now live such interconnected lives that we impact or are impacted others in complicated ways. There is , for a lack of a better way to say it, less elbow room for unfettered behavior. For example, the freedom to pour waste into the Mississippi River in 1840 is a far different thing than doing it in 2011. The regulatory freedom conservatives want is necessarily offset by some negative impact of unfettered behavior. What kind of balance do you want? As the oil commercial says, you pay me now or you pay me later, but you will pay. I cannot escape the notion that business is in business to increase owner's equity. Business does not act on my behalf, nor yours, unless you are an owner. Business is not created for the common good. Business is created to increase owner's equity. Business is not patriotic. Business is not altruistic. Letting the market place work as you say, sounds good, but in those places where it is allowed to do so with less structure, you get a great deal of collateral damage. I believe that the current four year downturn was caused by the pendulum of regulation swinging too far towards trusting what by nature does not deserve trust (see Caveat Emptor). There are tens of millions of people who will no longer live the same lives because common sense regulation was thrown away over the last thirty years. Finding a balance, to be sure, is difficult, but it is made necessary by the damage unfettered business activity has on the rest of us. Where private industry provides goods that impact our well being which also do not involve purely free market negotiations, such as health and finance you see large expenses with little or no corresponding utility for the economy. Some entity with an interest in all of us must oversee business or any other entity with the ability to impact the lives of others. I do not trust business. And, there is no reason I should. If you want to live a live without some kind of regulation, you were born too late. Our systems are too complicated to be left to narrow interests. It is too dangerous for us to leave decisions to the market, when the market has only one purpose-increasing equity. Your faith in unregulated markets, in my opinion, is naive. It is naive and it is turning this country from widely prosperous to increasingly bifurcated. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 18, 2011 6:49:07 GMT -8
I am not opposed to all regulation. For instance, I understand that the Canadian banks weathered the recent storm because they were required to have a higher amount of capital on hand. Fine. However, it's easy to think that we can simply cure all economic problems with more regulation. Some are saying that the recent financial regulation laws are so restrictive that they will in the end stifle business and make a robust recovery much more difficult to achieve. Since I am not a banker or a CEO, I cannot say with certainty whether that will prove to be true. The real problem with government regulation is not so much that it is wrong-headed from the start (though that may often be the case). Rather, the problem is that regulatory laws are easy to put in place but very difficult to modify or repeal as circumstances change. One thing we have learned over the past century is that it is essential to make rapid and appropriate responses to new market situations. That is difficult or impossible to do in a system in which an executive has to get permission from a government bureaucracy before changing course. (I should also add, in response to something Bob wrote, that we should not be so quick to declare what is in the best interests of the country. In the long run, it's better to allow businesses to pursue their goals with as little regulation as possible. . . . notice that I did not say NO regulation. Leftists are not willing to let the market place work its will. . . I , on the other hand, am willing to do so. Just answer this question. Looking at all economies, past and present, in which countries, and under which economic systems, have things generally worked out best for the average citizen? Countries with more or less free market systems or countries with rigid, state controlled economies?) AzWm That is a thought provoking post. I would say that the test of regulation is the effect (or lack of) it has in mitigating the excesses of business. To say that certain segments of the economy, and our lives, have been severely and negatively affected over the last four years by regulatory gaps is to acknowledge the truth. The problem you have is that we now live such interconnected lives that we impact or are impacted others in complicated ways. There is , for a lack of a better way to say it, less elbow room for unfettered behavior. For example, the freedom to pour waste into the Mississippi River in 1840 is a far different thing than doing it in 2011. The regulatory freedom conservatives want is necessarily offset by some negative impact of unfettered behavior. What kind of balance do you want? As the oil commercial says, you pay me now or you pay me later, but you will pay. I cannot escape the notion that business is in business to increase owner's equity. Business does not act on my behalf, nor yours, unless you are an owner. Business is not created for the common good. Business is created to increase owner's equity. Business is not patriotic. Business is not altruistic. Letting the market place work as you say, sounds good, but in those places where it is allowed to do so with less structure, you get a great deal of collateral damage. I believe that the current four year downturn was caused by the pendulum of regulation swinging too far towards trusting what by nature does not deserve trust (see Caveat Emptor). There are tens of millions of people who will no longer live the same lives because common sense regulation was thrown away over the last thirty years. Finding a balance, to be sure, is difficult, but it is made necessary by the damage unfettered business activity has on the rest of us. Where private industry provides goods that impact our well being which also do not involve purely free market negotiations, such as health and finance you see large expenses with little or no corresponding utility for the economy. Some entity with an interest in all of us must oversee business or any other entity with the ability to impact the lives of others. I do not trust business. And, there is no reason I should. If you want to live a live without some kind of regulation, you were born too late. Our systems are too complicated to be left to narrow interests. It is too dangerous for us to leave decisions to the market, when the market has only one purpose-increasing equity. Your faith in unregulated markets, in my opinion, is naive. It is naive and it is turning this country from widely prosperous to increasingly bifurcated. Interesting and well written post. Can't help but see your slant and how you could be persuaded to think that way. In many ways it is just a matter of degree or method of regulation. The major part of my assets are tied up in investments and most of my income is from investment income from business. I therefore have a different interest than one who relies on wages or salary. I also have modest income from government pensions, so I can see all points of view. |
|
