Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
People who are the problem have you successfully confused and deceived.
For example, the bailouts - ie $700billion - was George Jr; not Obama.
|
Well, if you wish to play partisan politics, then I should point out that Bush sought to create an agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003. As for the bailouts/bridge loans, it doesn't really matter who initiated them; the relevant fact is that they were implemented. I don't doubt that among the choices on the table this was the least destructive, but I'm not certain this was the best that could be done. Either of what could have been done, or what should have been done.
I don't know who you think I have been listening to, but you're mistaken. I also don't disagree with anything you've written. But, I don't believe that the current system needs fixing; it needs dismantling.
I saw Reagan implement changes in the eighties which seemed to work. That of giving corporations huge tax breaks to get the economy going and create jobs. Unfortunately, once the economy got going, they should have been rescinded. The result was that large corporations gobbled up smaller until competition dropped and power was centralized. Things are grossly out of balance on who is now carrying the greatest tax burden compared to before enacting those tax breaks.
I have a problem with the current monetary system. If someone makes money, pays their taxes, etc., then the money which they place into savings should increase in interest accordingly. No IRAs should be necessary. If one loses money, then it is a hidden tax and the government isn't doing its job because they are devaluing the dollar.
I won't pretend to understand fully economic theory. I have a friend who is a professor and co-authored a few textbooks, while he'll listen and give feedback, he's least interested in discussing economics. He does enjoy discussing the porn industry, but likewise, it's something I'll give feedback on and listen, but have no interest in discussing. Go figure.
Economics was a subject I avoided completely until about 8 years ago. I'll admit I've been fairly heavily influenced by Murray Rothbard's writings, as well as that of G. Edward Griffin. While I can understand the fear that basing the dollar on gold has its limitations, I don't think it would stagnate the level of growth that many would imply. I think the system of fiat currency is prone to both fraud and failure. Even Hitler managed to pull out a post-Weimer, debt-ridden economy by basing the currency on something seemingly as intangible as labour.
The whole of our society is about profit at any cost. They cite the same reasons manufacturing has been moved overseas as they do for why we utilize illegal labour for harvesting crops and building homes; because American workers want too much money for the job. But why is this so now? They would like me to believe that it is because we are greedy, but the truth is, I believe that it is because of the devaluation of the dollar. As long as we can buy our trinkets, have affordable housing and feed ourselves, we think we we're doing ok. It's the veneer over what is rotten underneath.
Oh well, I didn't come here to discuss politics or religion, but it always ends up that way.