I didn't quite understand what was he talking about, but it was great fun. Only, be careful man, one starts marrying metaphorically, and then at the end ... ;-)
Well, the best way to explain that is this way: It wasn't just Bush; it was also Clinton who pushed for the loosening of credit. Actually, one can say it was really Clinton who kicked off the festivities and Bush continued it just like how Obama will continue some of Bush's policies.
Ok, but, if the Democrats are wrong, and the Republicans are wrong, then I wonder who is right.
Off-topic, I just met a nice American family from California (Rome is full of tourists) and they told me that in their opinion among the wrong things of the Bush administration was the supposed fact that wealth had become more and more concentrated into few hands, and that what Obama is trying to do is to get the middle class back into the picture. I also read it in many newspapers.
I'm sorry I'm always playing the devil's advocate, but all people around me are pro Obama. And, I said before, we guys from the Old World do not much understand New world politics. It is a mystery to us. Although fascinating.
But that's something that's been happening for decades. That's a process that's also taken place in many industries. Quite frankly, I can't see how anyone can pin it on any one President.
My concern is that the same people won't assess Obama critically. The "middle-class" problem is WAY bigger than politics.
And besides, how does massively shifting money out of the pockets of 90% of Americans who don't have a mortgage problem into the hands of a) the 9% who do and b) to banks and auto makers make things fairer?
They say "what's the alternative!" That's faulty and anti-intellectual thinking. What, all of a sudden some pundits don't believe in the economy and people to fix themselves? It will be long and ugly but the best way is not create all this artificial nonsense and let everything go to their fundamental inherent values and then build up again.
When you're bleeding you clog the source with a towel right? The band-aid only temporarily stops it. But the body heals itself. The band-aid didn't provide the healing powers; the body did.
The Commentator is right about the efficiency of any government intervention, however I do believe in chosing the lesser of two evils. Currently allowing the market, read capitalists, to play itself out to the hilt would mean only one thing: the Berlusconis of the world would get ever more filthy rich and,we, the small fries, ever more poorer. After Clinton's deregulation and Dubbya' total laissez-faire, a touch of Obama control can not hurt.
Thing is society is not like a body. Some control can be necessary once in a while. Yes, we will wait and see.
Although I'll admit that the percentages you have presented seem very convincing: bringing help, as Santelli says, to the people who drink water rather than to those that carry it, seems a bit like a theft....
I heard a journalist from the Chicago Tribune, Clarence Paige I believe, argue that house values will go down for everyone including the successful ones. Ergo, those not in trouble have a vested interested in helping those who are in a bind.
I have a problem with this logic. Run to its logical end I'll always have to help someone, somehow. The universal principal applies when we all assume personal accountability.
Let's assume your neighbour is an irresponsible idiot constantly beyond his means. This leaves him open to every financial marketing ploy - be it induced by the government or Wall St. who follows.
Each time something goes wrong; say a credit card bubble, you have to step in to ensure credit is maintained for the rest of us?
True, many people are to blame but the buck stops with the individual. Writers such as Paige feel we shouldn't penalize "the people." Even stupid, lazy people I presume. Because let's face it, they do exist.
I don't see it that way. There was a mortgage collapse. Ok. Now what? I just see it as people biting the bullet and learning a hard lesson. Life is BUYER BEWARE and we all know this.
If the government wants to help people then the social safety net has to be set up differently. If people lose their homes government housing should be made available until they get back on their feet. After all, after the CRA, essentially housing ownership was artificial. These people shouldn't have been in homes to begin with.
My family didn't buy a home until we were certain we could afford it. Now, as I enter the housing market, my reward for being prudent is a) tighter access to credit (though I qualify) and my taxes going to the guy who made a bad "too good to be true" decision. He, along with his financial advisor I surmise, chose to ignore "debt/equity ratios"
Sorry. I don't see the fairness in this. I even haven't started myself yet!
Exactly. We've been talking with the Commentator about this a few times. In a totally Darwinian economy, without any sort of correction, the Berlusconis of the world, as you say, would get ever more filthy rich. Some correction to help the weak is necessary in my view. I don't believe in any miracle theory: deregulation, socialism, you name it. A steersman should choose what is more appropriate according to the situation.
I didn't quite understand what was he talking about, but it was great fun. Only, be careful man, one starts marrying metaphorically, and then at the end ... ;-)
ReplyDeleteOnly one thing, pls allow me my friend. This comment from youtube by powwowlls that hit me:
ReplyDelete"Where was all this ranting when the former administration did things that put Americans up in this situation?"
I mean, Obama is there since a few days, some administration was there for 8 years. I know I'm not qualified enough, and yet ...
Well, the best way to explain that is this way: It wasn't just Bush; it was also Clinton who pushed for the loosening of credit. Actually, one can say it was really Clinton who kicked off the festivities and Bush continued it just like how Obama will continue some of Bush's policies.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said many times before.
Ok, but, if the Democrats are wrong, and the Republicans are wrong, then I wonder who is right.
ReplyDeleteOff-topic, I just met a nice American family from California (Rome is full of tourists) and they told me that in their opinion among the wrong things of the Bush administration was the supposed fact that wealth had become more and more concentrated into few hands, and that what Obama is trying to do is to get the middle class back into the picture. I also read it in many newspapers.
I'm sorry I'm always playing the devil's advocate, but all people around me are pro Obama. And, I said before, we guys from the Old World do not much understand New world politics. It is a mystery to us. Although fascinating.
Maybe.
ReplyDeleteBut that's something that's been happening for decades. That's a process that's also taken place in many industries. Quite frankly, I can't see how anyone can pin it on any one President.
My concern is that the same people won't assess Obama critically. The "middle-class" problem is WAY bigger than politics.
And besides, how does massively shifting money out of the pockets of 90% of Americans who don't have a mortgage problem into the hands of a) the 9% who do and b) to banks and auto makers make things fairer?
They say "what's the alternative!" That's faulty and anti-intellectual thinking. What, all of a sudden some pundits don't believe in the economy and people to fix themselves? It will be long and ugly but the best way is not create all this artificial nonsense and let everything go to their fundamental inherent values and then build up again.
When you're bleeding you clog the source with a towel right? The band-aid only temporarily stops it. But the body heals itself. The band-aid didn't provide the healing powers; the body did.
I meant band-aid not towel.
ReplyDeleteSorry, watching soccer.
The Commentator is right about the efficiency of any government intervention, however I do believe in chosing the lesser of two evils. Currently allowing the market, read capitalists, to play itself out to the hilt would mean only one thing: the Berlusconis of the world would get ever more filthy rich and,we, the small fries, ever more poorer.
ReplyDeleteAfter Clinton's deregulation and Dubbya' total laissez-faire, a touch of Obama control can not hurt.
We're about to find out!
ReplyDeleteBut I'm personally skeptical.
Thing is society is not like a body. Some control can be necessary once in a while. Yes, we will wait and see.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'll admit that the percentages you have presented seem very convincing: bringing help, as Santelli says, to the people who drink water rather than to those that carry it, seems a bit like a theft....
I heard a journalist from the Chicago Tribune, Clarence Paige I believe, argue that house values will go down for everyone including the successful ones. Ergo, those not in trouble have a vested interested in helping those who are in a bind.
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with this logic. Run to its logical end I'll always have to help someone, somehow. The universal principal applies when we all assume personal accountability.
Let's assume your neighbour is an irresponsible idiot constantly beyond his means. This leaves him open to every financial marketing ploy - be it induced by the government or Wall St. who follows.
Each time something goes wrong; say a credit card bubble, you have to step in to ensure credit is maintained for the rest of us?
True, many people are to blame but the buck stops with the individual. Writers such as Paige feel we shouldn't penalize "the people." Even stupid, lazy people I presume. Because let's face it, they do exist.
I don't see it that way. There was a mortgage collapse. Ok. Now what? I just see it as people biting the bullet and learning a hard lesson. Life is BUYER BEWARE and we all know this.
If the government wants to help people then the social safety net has to be set up differently. If people lose their homes government housing should be made available until they get back on their feet. After all, after the CRA, essentially housing ownership was artificial. These people shouldn't have been in homes to begin with.
My family didn't buy a home until we were certain we could afford it. Now, as I enter the housing market, my reward for being prudent is a) tighter access to credit (though I qualify) and my taxes going to the guy who made a bad "too good to be true" decision. He, along with his financial advisor I surmise, chose to ignore "debt/equity ratios"
Sorry. I don't see the fairness in this. I even haven't started myself yet!
"vested interest." And apologies for the scattered writing. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteNo scattered writing. It was very clear. Now I see your point better and your reasoning seems pretty right.
ReplyDeletePaul:
ReplyDeleteExactly. We've been talking with the Commentator about this a few times.
In a totally Darwinian economy, without any sort of correction, the Berlusconis of the world, as you say, would get ever more filthy rich. Some correction to help the weak is necessary in my view. I don't believe in any miracle theory: deregulation, socialism, you name it. A steersman should choose what is more appropriate according to the situation.
Thank you, Pearl.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the dream.