| Blogs > xXFireandIceXx |
|
xXFireandIceXx
Canada4296 Posts
Of course, on the whole debt issue, speaking of personal responsibility, we can't forget the people who got themselves into messes taking out huge adjustable rate mortgages trying to take advantage of the housing market to make a fortune, and lost money gambling. Corporate greed may have helped, but a lot less people would have had trouble if they hadn't gotten greedy themselves. That is true and I agree. But I think the banks knew all along the game they were playing. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 11 2011 11:46 xXFireandIceXx wrote: That is true and I agree. But I think the banks knew all along the game they were playing. Absolutely. The banks were morally reprehensible in what they did. But it's like blaming the dealer when you get arrested driving all coked out. They just gave you the means, you still did it to yourself. As far as government oversight is concerned, as lousy of a concept as that is, it beats the first round of bailouts that turned into huge bonuses for the people that put us in the situation to begin with. And frankly, look at the big deal with money that vanished in Iraq. Obviously when there's large chunks of money involved, the government NEEDS to keep track of what happens to it, or people will go ballistic (as they should.) And now, to sound absolutely silly after my speech about personal responsibility, I can say from personal experience that Obama's bailouts that required they actually drop the debts they were claiming money for had a real impact on actual people. I had a car that got repoed due to a combination of bad decision making and lost copies of my paperwork when the sleazy credit company "lost" the records of my payments. Getting that cleared so they could claim money actually had an effect on me, the little guy. I appreciated that one a lot more than the one where the rich guys who helped it all happen got a little more in their bank accounts. | ||
|
ThunderGod
New Zealand897 Posts
| ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On the other hand, I believe that the US has also made some important advances in the day-to-day lives of its citizens. We are now more aware than ever of the social problems that afflict certain groups. Women, and minorities are finding it easier to enter positions of social standing (we still need to work on that). The standard of living in the US has not dramatically changed at all - it's merely that other nations are catching up to that point as well. Now to address some of your points. (1) Corporate greed is indeed quite high. But at the very least we are aware of the problems brought on by corporate greed. This is far better than in many nations where corporations (and governments) are not forced to disclose any of their profit mechanisms or any of their actions whatsoever. (2) (I'm grouping your points 2-4 here), the political stalemate brought on in Congress is indeed a problem as well. But its a problem in any democratic nation - there will always be fierce divisions (show me one nation where the opposition party does not relentlessly criticize the government in power and willingly cooperates at all times). Furthermore, the deadlock brought on between the current divisions (tea party and what not) is at least better than some of the divisions brought on in previous generations when we saw outright racist and discriminatory opinions held by large parts of the population. Finally, as to the national debt issue - I do believe that eventually more austere measures will be passed by the government. (higher taxes and lower spending) It will definitely hurt and might take a toll on the standard of living in the US, but I don't think it would affect the nation to the point where you say social decline will occur. The issues brought on by national debt are similarly affecting many other nations as well - it's an issue the entire world needs to face. | ||
|
Cassel_Castle
United States820 Posts
With regards to corporate greed, corporations are not charities. Corporations don't owe it to the people to create jobs, they exist to make money, and no amount of regulation (even supposing you could turn government against the corporations) will change that. On July 11 2011 11:46 xXFireandIceXx wrote: That is true and I agree. But I think the banks knew all along the game they were playing. Of course they did. Also, you mentioned in the OP about the abuse of derivatives, that banks were essentially gambling with people's livelihoods. The problem is there's no effective way to ban that. Derivatives are used by pretty much every major corporation to hedge, even Warren Buffet, one of the safest investors out there, says he uses derivatives for hedging in his shareholder letters. You can't ban risky derivative trading though, since accountants will just find a way to make it look like hedging. And banning all derivatives including hedging is a silly prospect, you're just introducing more volatility into an already volatile market that way. | ||
|
Attican
Denmark531 Posts
2. Witness creation of multi-party democracy. 3. Enjoy not having to choose the lesser of two evils anymore. | ||
|
xXFireandIceXx
Canada4296 Posts
The problem is there's no effective way to ban that. Derivatives are used by pretty much every major corporation to hedge, even Warren Buffet, one of the safest investors out there, says he uses derivatives for hedging in his shareholder letters. You can't ban risky derivative trading though, since accountants will just find a way to make it look like hedging. And banning all derivatives including hedging is a silly prospect, you're just introducing more volatility into an already volatile market that way I'm not saying that these derivatives were harmful. I'm saying that the lax credit conditions set by the banks along with subprime lending and deregulation of government regulation played a large factor in the crisis. In the Senate investigation, they have concluded that "the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.” | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On July 11 2011 10:24 xXFireandIceXx wrote: The economic practises of the major banks reflect the economic stance of the government. This "risk-free" environment was created because of government withdrawal from economic oversight. The banks do have control over their mortgage contracts and they should show discretion. Um no... when the government creates a semi-private entity which guarantees that it will buy out repackaged mortgages, the banks lose all risk of giving out mortgages. It is the risk of mal-investment that should serve as oversight not the government. Risk is free of cost, it's there because that's how a real market works. Government oversight costs tons of money which eats into the profits of good investments thus also decreasing the incentive to invest smartly. Your line of thinking is what got us into the mess we're in. I'm not saying that these derivatives were harmful. I'm saying that the lax credit conditions set by the banks along with subprime lending and deregulation of government regulation played a large factor in the crisis. In the Senate investigation, they have concluded that "the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.” Lax credit conditions are set by the FED not by private banks. Low rates... they're set by the FED, it makes money cheap in relationship to the future which makes no sense, all common sense should point to the economy only getting worse in the future, because since the inflation is going up it would make sense that people will need to spend more money in the future, so they should be saving more money for the future, so money should be getting more expensive (eg. interest rates should be going up.) It was government subsidies that resulted in unsafe lending during the Clinton administration, it's not like the banks want to go out there and make bad business decisions, they don't want to lose money, it's when government encourages them to do so by artificially minimizing their risks that it becomes profitable for them to do it. LOL at the senate investigation. The senate is part of the government they want more power, of course they're gonna blame everything on lack of oversight. Look at the facts over the last 2 decades the economy has been going downhill and the oversight only increased. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32097 Posts
On July 11 2011 10:32 JingleHell wrote: I don't think the Media should be neglected here. Our sensationalist, polarized media can be disgusting for making all the problems worse. (I'm talking both sides, not just one or the other.) Everything that people come up with, the portions of the media that are leaning the other direction politically will attack. People call their representatives screaming about issues that the "experts" the media brought in didn't bother to explain in depth, and the process gets paralyzed. Voter education is the key, I'd say. Too many political issues get turned into these giant, lobby-fed messes full of convoluted wording and doublespeak that makes it impossible to understand what's actually on the table, and if the public doesn't get it, they turn again to the media, listen to the sensation, and scream. I'm probably not putting this well, but long story short, while I don't believe in censoring the media, I do wish there was some way to enforce them delivering both sides of everything... Way too many people confuse the olibermanns and OReillys of the world with actual news. They are not objective, and don't pretend to be, but for some reason people don't realize that. That is the main source of the problem. You're safe to assume that anyone who cites someone like that when forumlating an opinion is a dum-dum. Most print and tv journalists, whose job is to be objective, are generally that. Bias will occasionally sneak in at even the best places, as it is a business, but that's the best system available. Some outlets tend to have a bit more bias than others (basically anything Murdoch touches) | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  24382Rain 5243actioN  1868GuemChi 1583Horang2 1191ZerO 445Stork 369Soma 298Light  297Larva 269[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games Organizations StarCraft: Brood War Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
WardiTV 2025
Cure vs Creator
Solar vs TBD
herO vs Spirit
Scarlett vs Gerald
Rogue vs Shameless
MaNa vs ShoWTimE
Nice vs TBD
WardiTV 2025
ByuN vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV 2025
SC Evo League
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
Sziky vs Dewalt
eOnzErG vs Cross
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Ladder Legends
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
