[clue-talk] it's over!

[Nate Duehr]

There was nothing "pure" about the capitalism that caused the fiscal  
"crisis".  Government and social pressure led to the financiers coming  
up with a new way to create derivatives that were purposely  
unfathomable and therefore the risks they knew that they HAD to take  
or lose business to those who would loan money

--
Nate Duehr
Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 5, 2008, at 9:52, Angelo Bertolli <angelo at freeshell.org> wrote:

> Grant Johnson wrote:
>>>> Time for the cycle - Republicans back in two years, in four  
>>>> 'hope' will turn back to 'read my lips, no new taxes'.  The more  
>>>> things change, the more they remain the same. :-)
>>>>
>>> The cycle would be Republican moving towards control of congress  
>>> in 2010, Obama being re-elected in 2012. I somehow doubt that the  
>>> Republican party is going to be able to do ANYTHING in 2010,  
>>> though. This was a thorough trouncing, a complete rejection of the  
>>> Republican party on almost all levels of government. It's going to  
>>> take a long time for the Republican party to recover.
>> There is little left of the GOP.   They tried so hard to be  
>> centrist that they no longer stood for anything.   Perhaps we will  
>> have a new party.   A reasonable, good one, that realizes that  
>> people don't need the government to do everything for them, one  
>> that understands that helping people down and out should be  
>> charity, not compulsory, one that understands that while under  
>> capitalism some succeed, and some fail, under extreme solcialism,  
>> all fail.
>>
>
> Ah yes, if only they had been more to the right, that would have  
> gotten them more votes!  Actually I think it is a bit the opposite:   
> they went a little too far with the campaign issues that mattered to  
> certain groups within their party, that they alienated both the  
> centrists of the country and the small-government conservative  
> portion of their own party.  They proved that lower taxes does not  
> equal smaller government.
>
> You can argue against social programs all day, and put any labels on  
> them that you wish, but systems of government since feudal times  
> simply haven't been around long enough for anyone to say there are  
> any clear winners.  There are good and bad balances of social  
> programs, all which should focus on encouraging people (rich and  
> poor) to add value through work to the society they live in.
>
>
>> Read Farenheit 451.  The interesting part is where they have made  
>> everyone equal.   Not by bringing the underclass up, but by  
>> bringing the strong down.   SPecifically, they are watching TV and  
>> notice that an athlete must be very strong, demonstrated by the  
>> very heavy weights he is forced to carry to make it fair.
>>
>
> There is a truth in all of these economy philosophies, but none of  
> them have been proven to be totally true.  With the new financial  
> crisis, it's starting to become more convincing that pure  
> capitalism, by its nature, brings booms and crashes:  an unstable  
> economy.  With only the Great Depression to look back on, we could  
> say that it was a special case, and only--if only--we could  
> manipulate the market properly (as Alan Greenspan tried to do) we  
> could avoid this cycle.  Yes, things like pure Socialism may require  
> people to be more honest and less selfish than they really are, but  
> things like pure Capitalism require people to be more intelligent/ 
> critical and cautious than they really are.
>
> Neither extremes reflect reality (well if you care about quality of  
> life and human suffering, that is).
>
> I hope the today's stock market is just one of the many fluctuations  
> we've seen in the current instability and not about anticipating  
> Obama.  We'll see if it goes up this week.
>
> -- 
> Angelo Bertolli
> http://angelo.bitfreedom.com/
>
> ~ I'm a sig virus. Please add me to your signature and help me  
> spread! ~
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>