Is Capitalism dead? [Archive]

olliebraves20

Oct 3, 2008, 03:42 PM

Well to be honest as big of a fan as I am of capitalism I feel like that bailout was necessary. This was not my original position but after reading as much as I could about it I feel like it amounts to basically something similar to the "New Deal". That didn't destroy capitalism and I don't think this bailout will either. The only way that it will is if we let them do more of this on a regular basis every time there is a little problem. Which if the democrats get their way wound be the case. (No I don't want to get into the republican vs democrat debate, I'm just stating facts as it pertains to the current discussion). We do however need a few more regulations then the republicans want. It's going to be a tricky balance but I feel like it's doable just like last time.

gotzero

Oct 3, 2008, 03:42 PM

The regulators are allowed to step in after the free-marketers manage to injure themselves.

Assuming all goes well, we will be hearing about how this bailout wrecked everything in a few years, and how we should deregulate.

I believe free-markets can function, but not when they are subjected to the US shareholder system.

Anyone staying out of sub-prime mortgage originations would have been forced to get in the game by proxies.

I am just disappointed there is not wide-scale financial shareholding dilution.

olliebraves20

Oct 3, 2008, 03:45 PM

No.

It's just been bailed out by Socialism, again.

The bailout is not socialism. It is part of a principle of socialism but not full out socialism in any way shape or form. You elude to the fact that socialism is something of higher value then capitalism. What makes you feel like this?

és:

Oct 3, 2008, 03:47 PM

The bailout is not socialism. It is part of a principle of socialism but not full out socialism in any way shape or form.

Sorry, what are you waffling on about? In an economic sense, it is exactly what's happened. It's the old case of 'Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor'. This is nothing new.

You elude to the fact that socialism is something of higher value then capitalism.

No, I don't. I'm just saying what happened.

mactastic

Oct 3, 2008, 03:47 PM

Which if the democrats get their way wound be the case. (No I don't want to get into the republican vs democrat debate, I'm just stating facts as it pertains to the current discussion).
As I recall, the last time we had to bail out the banks, it was when the Republicans were in power too. (No I don't want to get into the republic versus democratic debate, I'm just stating facts as it pertains to the current discussion).

bradl

Oct 3, 2008, 03:52 PM

This was not my original position but after reading as much as I could about it I feel like it amounts to basically something similar to the "New Deal". That didn't destroy capitalism and I don't think this bailout will either.

This brings up a question just from a historian perspective. You're right, it is similar, with the exception that the New Deal pretty much introduced the US to deficit spending, with the notion that we will pay it back some time later. Outside of our recent (read: past 20 - 30 years) expenses, have we paid back the debts from the deficits we had from the New Deal?

The only way that it will is if we let them do more of this on a regular basis every time there is a little problem. Which if the democrats get their way wound be the case. (No I don't want to get into the republican vs democrat debate, I'm just stating facts as it pertains to the current discussion). We do however need a few more regulations then the republicans want. It's going to be a tricky balance but I feel like it's doable just like last time.

Wouldn't that be a delicious irony, if this would happen more often with a Blue in charge. The guys that started this type of spending would make it worse? Worse than what the recent Reds have done? I'm thinking of the S&L issue and its bailout, Enron, MCI/Worldcom, and now..

BL.

olliebraves20

Oct 3, 2008, 03:52 PM

As I recall, the last time we had to bail out the banks, it was when the Republicans were in power too. (No I don't want to get into the republic versus democratic debate, I'm just stating facts as it pertains to the current discussion).

Wow you might have a career in comedy. What did this have to do with what I was saying however? I'm saying one of the basic principles of the democratic party is big government. Just like the Republicans want deregulation. Neither is going to be the answer, it's going to be a combination of both. But way to get defensive and get off point.

iShater

Oct 3, 2008, 03:53 PM

Seems like capitalism is alive and well, cause golden parachutes are still deploying, calls to save home owners were labeled "rewarding bad financial decision", yet calls to save the banks is called "a necessary move". :rolleyes:

And people wonder why I:

1) Don't invest in financial institutions
2) Refuse(d) to work for any banks

It amazes me that nobody expected that when the home owners go bankrupt, that the bank holding the mortgage wouldn't suffer in turn. Instead of trying to see how they can get money from people (refinancing? revaluating? etc?), they moved like vultures to foreclose on properties, and the government waited.

Wow you might have a career in comedy. What did this have to do with what I was saying however? I'm saying one of the basic principles of the democratic party is big government. Just like the Republicans want deregulation. Neither is going to be the answer, it's going to be a combination of both. But way to get defensive and get off point.

Government spending went through the roof under Republicans, and I recall Palin calling for more government oversight. The world is talking backwards! :eek:

olliebraves20

Oct 3, 2008, 03:57 PM

Sorry, what are you waffling on about? In an economic sense, it is exactly what's happened. It's the old case of 'Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor'. This is nothing new.

I don't believe I'm waffling on anything. Socialism is a whole sent of concepts that form an entire economy. The bailout is just a small snapshot of socialism with overtones of Capitalism in the sense that yes we are bailing banks out but we the taxpayers have a chance to profit from this bailout if those bad assets turn around to the point were they could be sold for a profit. Profit is the cornerstone of capitalism.

mactastic

Oct 3, 2008, 04:02 PM

Wow you might have a career in comedy. What did this have to do with what I was saying however? I'm saying one of the basic principles of the democratic party is big government. Just like the Republicans want deregulation. Neither is going to be the answer, it's going to be a combination of both. But way to get defensive and get off point.
What on earth are you talking about? Clinton shrunk the size of the federal government. Every Republican from Reagan on has increased the size of the federal government. I suggest you pay attention to what the GOP DOES rather than what they SAY.

We've had both bigger government AND deregulation for the past 8 years now. It's been an epic fail, in case you haven't noticed.

olliebraves20

Oct 3, 2008, 04:03 PM

It amazes me that nobody expected that when the home owners go bankrupt, that the bank holding the mortgage wouldn't suffer in turn. Instead of trying to see how they can get money from people (refinancing? revaluating? etc?), they moved like vultures to foreclose on properties, and the government waited.

Government spending went through the roof under Republicans, and I recall Palin calling for more government oversight. The world is talking backwards! :eek:

Yes it amazes me as well. I guess because Freddie and Fannie were basically guaranteed by the goverment that they would cover any losses. You are correct though I think the common person, most of us falling into this category, were not talking a close enough look at this before it was too late.

I agree under the last administration that this has most certainly been the case. I'm talking about decades of voting however to back up what I refer to as the basic principles. For example how many republicans still voted against the bailout because of the cost. Mind you a lot of democrats did as well for the same reason.

TommyLee

Oct 3, 2008, 04:08 PM

Are Apple products made in China?

iShater

Oct 3, 2008, 04:11 PM

I have been trying to catch up on a podcast called Market Place. It is amazing hearing all the events unfolding again, like when Freddie and Fannie asked to start covering bigger jumbo loans, how they were claiming tax refunds/credits as income, etc.

It's like the people at the helm/driver seat/cockpit KNEW less than us average folks, and somehow thought that taking more risk was the right answer.

If I run into F&F CEOs on the street for example, I would ask someone to restrain me from beating the **** out of them. :mad: :p

iShater

Oct 3, 2008, 04:11 PM

Are Apple products made in China?

Is there anything NOT made in China? :D

LethalWolfe

Oct 3, 2008, 04:13 PM

links to other examples please if you dont mind
You mean something like 25 billion for US auto makers (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/09/24/a-25-billion-lifeline-for-gm-ford-and-chrysler.html)? Or the bail out of Chrysler in 1980 (also mentioned in link)? Or the airline bail out in '01 (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_41/b3752735.htm)? Here is a good looking link, History of U.S. Gov't Bailouts (http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts/)

Lethal

Aranince

Oct 3, 2008, 04:19 PM

TheAnswer

Oct 3, 2008, 04:26 PM

Are Apple products made in China?

Yes, according to this expert source (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/30/39-apple-products/).

Anuba

Oct 3, 2008, 04:30 PM

You do realize that the Democrats hold the power in Congress right?
Yes, since 2007. And we all know that the effects of politics kick in with absolutely no delay, right? :rolleyes:

Here in Sweden the right wing has always been blamed for the economic crisis in the early 1992, when the right had been in power for a year. It took about a decade before the left admitted that it was their bad policies in the mid 1980's that led to the meltdown several years later.

bradl

Oct 3, 2008, 05:42 PM

You do realize that the Democrats hold the power in Congress right?

Okay.. let's go back a bit.

Bailout of Chrysler in 1980: Reds had control of the Senate and House. (the Reds lost the senate in 1986 due to Iran-Contra.) Red President and VP for 6 years.

S&L bailout of 1988: Reds had the House, Blues had the Senate. Red President/VP.

Reds get back both House and Senate in 1994. Blue President.

Between 1995 and 2001, Congress was completely Red, encompassing the bailout of the airlines in 2001-2002. It wasn't until a Red went independent that shifted the control of the Senate to the Blues in 2003 (50-49-1). So in effect, you still had an entirely Red Senate with Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote. During that time, Enron and MCI/Worldcom shafted us.

Now? 49-49-1-1 in the Senate, with one of the independents all but Red, making 50-49-1, and 235-199-1 in the House, with that 1 vacant. In short, control in Congress, specifically control of the Senate, doesn't mean absolute control. You'd need at least a 60/40 split if not more to ensure a party wouldn't need to rally for votes from the opposing party to get a bill passed.

BL.

Much Ado

Oct 3, 2008, 05:49 PM

We can hope that market fundamentalist, laissez-faire, Gordon-Gekko capitalism is dead.

You need a state around to stop the markets hurting themselves. Scandinavian countries seem to have it right.

Macaddicttt

Oct 3, 2008, 05:53 PM

This is totally off topic, but does anyone else find it funny that Republicans and Communists are symbolized by the same color?

dukebound85

Oct 3, 2008, 06:02 PM

This is totally off topic, but does anyone else find it funny that Republicans and Communists are symbolized by the same color?

and democrats and the crips are symbolized by same color? lol it doesnt mean anything

iJohnHenry

Oct 3, 2008, 06:19 PM

Same up here.

Liberals are red, Conservatives are blue.

Macaddicttt

Oct 3, 2008, 06:21 PM

and democrats and the crips are symbolized by same color? lol it doesnt mean anything

I never said it meant anything. I just found it funny because the two parties are diametrically opposed.

And it makes the phrase, "Better dead than red!" quite ironic. :D

The Democrats and Crips aren't even the same thing (political party vs. gang), so that's decidedly less funny, in my expert humor opinion. :)

Anuba

Oct 3, 2008, 08:00 PM

We can hope that market fundamentalist, laissez-faire, Gordon-Gekko capitalism is dead.

You need a state around to stop the markets hurting themselves. Scandinavian countries seem to have it right.
Well, the Scandinavian system has its merits... the taxes are insane, though. In Denmark, the tax burden is 50% of the GDP. Sweden used to be #1 with 51%, but it's down to 48% after a couple of years with a liberal goverment (liberals belong to the right-wing in Europe, but for some reason Americans have confused liberalism with socialism and call liberals the "far left").

Then again the nanny state is expensive to run. Free schooling up to university level, and anyone who wants to go to university can take a loan from the state and pay it back over a couple of decades. Free health care, free child care, generous unemployment benefits (in Denmark, 90% of your most recent salary, in Sweden 75%).

What amazes me is that the U.S state -- which offers very spartan, bare-bones services to citizens compared to the Scandinavian nanny states, and therefore should have much lower expenses -- has 10,000 billion dollars in national debt! That's $33K per capita, and 70% of the GDP.

In Sweden the national debt is $148 billion, or $16K per capita. It's down from 80% of the GDP in 1996, to 38% in 2008, so it's being payed off pretty rapidly. The fiscal surplus in 2008 is $23 billion.

If the U.S. raised taxes to Scandinavian levels (around 50% of the GDP), the government would rake in an extra 5.5 trillion per year, meaning they could pay off the entire national debt in 2 years.

This is totally off topic, but does anyone else find it funny that Republicans and Communists are symbolized by the same color?
Yeah, I always found that a bit odd.

Socialism and communism = red = left-wing
Conservatism and liberalism = blue = right-wing

That's how it usually goes, but I think I know what happened here. If you look at this color spectrum...

http://bp1.blogger.com/_5OcERfRrDLI/RsQcmXTqhxI/AAAAAAAAATw/UNBm47AIbfY/s320/spectrum.gif

...you'll notice that blue and purple is on the right. But the U.S. conservatives went so far to the right that they swooshed past purple and ended up on red.

CalBoy

Oct 3, 2008, 08:08 PM

Okay.. let's go back a bit.

Bailout of Chrysler in 1980: Reds had control of the Senate and House.
Just a point of order: the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate in 1980, and they had the White House as well.

S&L bailout of 1988: Reds had the House, Blues had the Senate. Red President/VP.

Again, not true. The Democrats had the House and Senate in 1988. In fact, the Democrats held the House for 40 consecutive years from 1955 to 1995, and held the Senate for the majority of those years as well.

It wasn't until a Red went independent that shifted the control of the Senate to the Blues in 2003 (50-49-1).
Actually, Jim Jeffords defected in 2001, not 2003. The Democrats lost control of the Senate during the 2002 elections.

Not that I disagree completely with your analysis, because most of it was largely accurate, but I felt the need to have facts squared away. :)

sushi

Oct 3, 2008, 10:00 PM

Since we've been talking party colors I will add this.

I never understood the Elephant and Donkey symbols. Neither are appealing.

.Andy

Oct 3, 2008, 10:03 PM

Since we've been talking party colors I will add this.

I never understood the Elephant and Donkey symbols. Neither are appealing.
On the contrary. Both are awesome animals.

sushi

Oct 3, 2008, 10:05 PM

On the contrary. Both are awesome animals.
Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Dimwhit

Oct 3, 2008, 10:12 PM

Capitalism isn't dead. It just can't give mortgages and loans anymore to people who can't afford them.

CalBoy

Oct 3, 2008, 10:13 PM

I never understood the Elephant and Donkey symbols. Neither are appealing.

They both have their roots in history.

The Donkey was first used against Andrew Jackson in 1828, but he turned this into an advantage by saying that his stubbornness was used to protect the interests of citizens against an unpopular National Bank.

The Elephant was first used in 1874 by Thomas Nast embodying the "Republican Vote" in the form of an elephant. It's been that way ever since.

sushi

Oct 3, 2008, 10:16 PM

They both have their roots in history.

The Donkey was first used against Andrew Jackson in 1828, but he turned this into an advantage by saying that his stubbornness was used to protect the interests of citizens against an unpopular National Bank.

The Elephant was first used in 1874 by Thomas Nast embodying the "Republican Vote" in the form of an elephant. It's been that way ever since.
And your point is? :p

Anyhow, all this talk about change, why not change the party symbols? After all, both parties are not what they were.

CalBoy

Oct 3, 2008, 10:23 PM

And your point is? :p

Anyhow, all this talk about change, why not change the party symbols? After all, both parties are not what they were.

True, they're not what they were, but the symbols aren't really all that important and merely add to the sense of political consistency, which is very important in party politics. Once the symbol has been established, it's almost a brand.

sushi

Oct 4, 2008, 04:03 AM

Once the symbol has been established, it's almost a brand.
Good point.

Understand.

Still don't like either. :p

Queso

Oct 4, 2008, 06:18 AM

Capitalism isn't dead. It just can't give mortgages and loans anymore to people who can't afford them.
Nor right now to those that can :(

Dont Hurt Me

Oct 4, 2008, 08:52 AM

Nor right now to those that can :(Thats just fear mongering by wall street and the bought off politicians. We just got a loan for land less then 2 weeks ago. Yes it went through indeed.:)

mactastic

Oct 4, 2008, 12:31 PM

Since we've been talking party colors I will add this.

I never understood the Elephant and Donkey symbols. Neither are appealing.
Would you prefer the rooster and the cat? :p

Agathon

Oct 4, 2008, 11:25 PM

Capitalism is not dead.

The US probably is.

Either start living within your means, or the rest of the world finds some other currency (or basket of currencies) to use as a reserve.

You have been warned.

obeygiant

Oct 5, 2008, 12:17 AM

^^^ thanks for the warning.

Capitalism isn't dead. I bought 100 shares of freddie at $0.75 and sold at $1.89. :P

sushi

Oct 5, 2008, 12:23 AM

Would you prefer the rooster and the cat? :p
Maybe. Just maybe. :p

solvs

Oct 5, 2008, 01:14 AM

For example how many republicans still voted against the bailout because of the cost.
And yet when they added $150 billion more for what amounts to more corporate welfare, suddenly these fiscal conservatives were all for it.

You do realize that the Democrats hold the power in Congress right?
By a slim margin that can't break a veto. Counting conservative Dems and people like Liebermann, it's even less so. If you're trying to lay this on them, nice try, but this was a long time coming. Much longer than a year a half of a slim majority.

Capitalism isn't dead. It just can't give mortgages and loans anymore to people who can't afford them.
It's so much more than that, as I posted in another economic thread with a ton of links. Blaming it on that alone is simplistic, at best. You can start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_crisis_of_2008), but I go into more detail here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6353145#post6353145

SMM

Oct 5, 2008, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Aranince
"You do realize that the Democrats hold the power in Congress right?"

By a slim margin that can't break a veto. Counting conservative Dems and people like Liebermann, it's even less so. If you're trying to lay this on them, nice try, but this was a long time coming. Much longer than a year a half of a slim majority.

To expand a little more on this, the democratic control of Congress is really non-existent. With a republican administration and no advantage in the Senate, there is little the House can do in passing legislation. The only real positive I can see is the committees are chaired by democrats. I think the committees have done a good job. Unfortunately, they are forced to deal with a totally lawless administration. There is virtually nothing congress can do when there is so much wide-spread corruption, and the DOJ is itself immersed in the middle of it. My frustration level with this administration is so acute, I have to leave this here - I do not want to go on a rant. :mad::mad::mad:

The final point on this topic is about the disruptive tactics used by the republican members of congress. Very few republicans 'break ranks'. They really do not consider the good of the US, nor its citizens, as their primary responsibility. First, and foremost they care about their agenda. Demonstrations, filibusters, walking out en masse are just a few of their tactics.

When all of this is added up, to say the democrats control congress becomes a rather lame notion.