Liberal Facts & Figures, Continued Again

Ok, Here is what we are Going to do.  Here are the Last 5 Comments of the 55 Comment, Thread, Beneath the Post, More Liberal Facts and Figures, so we can Continue the Conversation here.  I do this Only because Shorter Comment Threats are more Likely to be Read Later than Longer Ones.  Feel Free, though, to Read all of the Original 55 Comments and Respond to any of them Here.  Also see More Liberal Facts & Figures; Continued.

dmarks said...

 P. J. said: "On the comment from Soapster about libertarian view, he denies this requires a perfect world.  Look around.  The less regulation we have had in the banking “industry” (misnomer, IMO), the bigger the nightmare." Actually, a big regulation/intervention caused the banking mortgage collapse and the economic crisis.  The government made banks make bad loans and dump them into Fannie-Mae which was a sump-hole for bad debt.  Entirely unsustainable, and everything broke.  Yes, the government strongly encouraged banks to make bad loans.  If not for this regulation, we'd be a lot better off.

March 21, 2011 9:01 AM

Lista said...

The Problem with the Regulation that Forces Bad Bank Loans is that it did not Consider the Cost Benefit Equation Correctly.  The Benefit to those who are Given the Loans was Considered, but not the Cost to the Banks.  The Current State of our Government is Imbalanced in the Direction of the Consumer and Away from the Needs of the Business Man.  To be Balanced, any Governmental Decision has to Consider both of these Parties, not Only One, and that is the Problem in a Nut Shell.

March 21, 2011 2:50 PM

P. J. Grath said..

Please, let’s not focus on bad loans so exclusively that we forget all those complicated “products” that financial institutions came up with, aimed at making money for them while they ducked any responsibility and often were purposely losing their investors’ money.  Those so-called “products” would not have been possible without deregulation.  The regulation was put in place because of similar, earlier (but not nearly as sophisticated in a Machiavellian way) outrages by banks.  Then people conveniently forgot, and banking interests, through their lobbyists, were able to remove the protections and apply once again the BOHICA principle.  (Out of deference to you, Lista, I’m leaving that as an acronym, but you can infer the meaning, I’m sure.)  There were also plenty of “good” loans that were really bad owing to the overvaluation of the market—again, not by accident. I agree with you about Randism, dmarks.  I belonged to that cult for a few years, long ago, but cults become wearisome if one is not a "true believer" but continues to think and question.  No individual or group of humans has the WHOLE, FINAL TRUTH.

March 21, 2011 4:48 PM

Lista said...

I'm Laughing, in a way, at the Length of this Comment Thread.  Ok. Fine.  Whatever. It's just that I Think this is my Longest One Yet.  Your Last Sentence, J.B.Grath, is really True.

March 21, 2011 10:45 PM

Silverfiddle said...

PJ: If the government would remove all backstops and protections from the banks, making them eat their own losses, instead of blowing a hole in the treasury to refill their pockets, the kind of crap you describe would stop immediately. These crony capitalists would not gamble so recklessly with their own money.  That's deregulation I think most of us could get behind.

March 22, 2011 7:25 AM

This is the End of the Earlier Comment Thread.  Now Click on the Comments Link, cause there is More.

Gone Coo Coo with Key Board Symbols

Here’s Something Silly just for Fun…

I was Just Having Fun on Someone’s Blog, Creating Pictures with the Symbols on the Key Board.

…...^.^......)).........../)/)...
….{^.^}.....//.........(^.^)..
----8-8---((...…......_(__)o
Cat or Kitten.....Bunny

..^...^..
.(O^O)...........(^0^)
(====).......*(_._._)*
_^__^______^_^__
..Owl......Some Other Silly Bird

Isn’t This Silly?  I Must be Board.  Either that, or the Politics have made me go coo coo.  Somebody Help me Please Return to Sanity.  Lololololololol.

Pure Unregulated Capitalism in an Imperfect World

Well, when I read the Last of Soapster's Comments that I've Gotten Behind in Commenting on, I was Debating about just Submitting it as a Comment, or Making a Whole Separate Post from it and I decided that it was an Interesting Enough Topic that I Could do a Whole Separate Post on it.


Here is Soapster's Comment that was Submitted on March 16, at 1:33 PM...

"'On the comment from Soapster about libertarian view, he denies this requires a perfect world.'

"That is a rather bold statement to make and an especially bold statement that should include some foundation on your part as to why you believe it requires 'a perfect world.'"

"It does not."


Me Talking Now
Soap's First Sentence is a Quote from P.J.Grath.  Grath's Comment was Submitted on March 16, at 6:29 AM.  You Will Find the Entire Comment Under my Post, More Liberal Facts and Figures.

I Guess Grath was Responding to Something that I Said in Even an Earlier Post.  In the Last Paragraph of my Another Look at Libertarianism Post, I Wrote the Following...

"Perhaps if we Lived in a More Perfect World, the Perfection of Pure Unregulated Capitalism could Work, but we do not Live in a Perfect World and in Our Imperfect State, the Strong are Continually Oppressing the Weak.  Without Regulation, such Oppression will do Nothing but Get Worse and Worse.  That's just the Way Man is."

I'm Hoping that his will Answer Soap's Question, yet this is Also Open to Further Discussion.

More Liberal Facts & Figures; Continued

I'm just Starting this New Post in Order to Continue the Discussion on the Earlier One.  Towards the End Soapster Submitted a Whole Series of Comments all at Once, to the Point at Which I was having Trouble Keeping Up with him.  I Published a Lot of it, but there are Still Four More and so I Have Decided to Start a New Post with his Comments instead of Allowing the Previous Thread to Keep Growing and Growing until no Body that just Arrived on the Scene will be Willing to Read it all.  Here is some of the Earlier Dialogue...

Soapster said: "Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."

Lista said: "You are Assuming that the Goal of Laws is Total Prevention, or Perfection, yet Perfection can never be Accomplished because we Live in an Imperfect World."

Soapster said: "Actually, Lista, if you read what I wrote, I wasn't saying that at all!

"I was in fact stating the EXACT OPPOSITE, by pointing out that REGARDLESS, either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work.

"I pointed out matter of factly imperfection.

"It is not for some middle man, some regulatory authority, some suit wearing bureaucrat to determine whether the farmhouse and the horseshoes have been made to satisfactory standards.  It is instead up to each individual in the transaction to make that assessment"


Here's my Response to Soap's  Above Comment...

Ok.  Let's Look at that Quote Again... 

Soap - "Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."

Me - To Me, this Means that Life is Imperfect Either Way and Even after Reading it another Time, that is Still what I see.   The Fact that Life is Imperfect with or without Laws and Regulations is not a Relevant Fact Unless the Goal of Laws and Regulations is Perfection, yet since the Goal of Laws and Regulations is not Perfection, your Statement Holds no Relevance to the Discussion of Whether or not there should be Laws.

And as to your Last Paragraph...

Soap - "It is not for some middle man, some regulatory authority, some suit wearing bureaucrat to determine whether the farmhouse and the horseshoes have been made to satisfactory standards.  It is instead up to each individual in the transaction to make that assessment"

Me -  Due to the Imperfect Nature of Our World and the Fact that not Everyone has Equal Power in the Area of Self-Protection, a Third Party is Often Necessary in Order to Protect the Weaker from someone who is Stronger.


Well, that is the First of Soapster's Comments that I had Left in Moderation from Earlier Today.  This One was Submitted at 6:13 AM.  There are Three Others Still in Moderation, but I'm just Going to Focus on One at a Time in the Comment Section of this New Post.

More Liberal Facts & Figures

I Continue to be Frustrated by the Fact that Liberals seem to be Able to Give Historical Facts and Figures that Support their Point of View.  Just as in the Post Below this one, I Posted some Liberal Facts and Figures and a Conservative, this Time, Pamela Hart, was able to Give Facts and Figures as well.  I Find the Fact that Both Sides can Give Facts and Figures Troubling.

And Here we go Again.  These Facts and Figures were Given to me by Dave Miller in a Comment Below his Post, Was President Bush Right?.  Unfortunately, there were not Many Conservatives Chiming in on this Discussion, so I am at the Mercy of what the Liberals are Saying to me, but I know that there are Conservatives that Follow my Blog, so Please, One Again, you are going to have to help me Out.


In One of Dave's Comments he said this...

"Lista, look at almost any graph of unemployment and job loss for the last few years and then respond on the charge of unemployment...

"Here's a good place to start...
 
Jobs Lost Under Bush vs. Obama


Later he Wrote This...

"Lista, here's a quote from Forbes magazine, published by strong conservative Steve Forbes, who once ran for President as a Republican... 

"'The first part of that path entails raising higher revenues. Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.'

"And here's the link... 

Even Reagan Raised Taxes

 "Here's a link to an article that lays out Reagan's Tax Raising Strategy when he was Gov. of California... 

10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You to Know About Ronald Reagan 

"Here's a link debunking the Reagan fiscal aura, written not by a liberal dem, but by his former budget director and author of the 'Trickle Down' theory, David Stockman... 

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse 

"There should be no doubt, Reagan believed in, and lived out rising taxes when necessary to fund the government and eliminate deficits."  (End of Quote)


Well, I Found these Links Troubling and I am not a History Expert and have Never Claimed to be.  Please, my Conservative Buddies.  Help me Out here.  What I Need, though, is Historical Facts, not Anger and Accusations of Stupidity and Lying.

Unemployment and Wealth Tax

Since Things Appear to be a Little Slow Right Now in the Blogosphere, I thought I Might Actually Post another One.  Here is a Conversation that Took Place on another Blog and Once Again, Due to my Limited Knowledge in Historical Facts, I thought I'd Give some of my More Conservative Friends the Chance to Respond to it.

My Words 
"And the Truth Remains that those who Own Businesses are those who Produce Jobs and if they do not Find the Rewards for Doing so Worth it to them, they will not Produce the Jobs.  You see, most Republicans Think that the Fact that when Taxes are too High, it Hurts the Job Market, as well as the Consumer is Something that's a No Brainer."

Response from a Liberal 
..no idea why most Republicans would think that.  Consider the marginal tax rate on the wealthy vs employment in our recent past:

Eisenhower:
Unemployment-2.92-6.84%
Wealth tax 91%

Johnson:
Unemployment-3.56-5.64%
Wealth tax 75%

Reagan:
Unemployment-6.2-9.6%
Wealth tax 28%

..the tax on wealth has nothing to do with employment...just another 'non-fact' bandied about by political manipulators.  (On the other hand, the tax on wealth has a LOT to do with the national deficit..even old conservative Ben Stein has noted that.)

Another Look at Libertarianism.

Ok.  You Know What?  There are Probably Many Different Flavors of Libertarianism.  I Wonder if some of you would be Surprised if I said that I may not Necessarily Reject Every Part of that Philosophy.  It's just that if Libertarianism Means Going all the Way Back in Time to a Time in which the KKK Went Around Torturing People, Witches were Burned at the Stake, Women were Second Class Citizens and Slavery was Legal, then that doesn't Interest me.

Come on, Now.  Do you Really Think that Every Form of "Progress" that has ever Occurred in the Country has been a Negative?  Do You Really Think that the Original Constitution was Flawless and that the Amendments that were Later Added were Unnecessary?  Have we Not Made some Improvements Over Time?  And if so, than isn't it Possible that the Current State of the Constitution May Actually Still not be Flawless?

I also Think that the Selling of all Public Lands to the Highest Bidder would be a Mistake.  Public Parks, and the Like, Give Kids something to do, instead of just Playing in the Streets and I have a Little Trouble Believing that the Church could Actually Take Over the Entire Burden of all the Assistance Programs that the Government is Currently Doing.  Perhaps that Shows a Lack of Faith on my Part, yet I just Don't Like such Extremes.  Seeking a Balance between the Extremes just Makes more Sense to me.

Perhaps if we Lived in a More Perfect World, the Perfection of Pure Unregulated Capitalism could Work, but we do not Live in a Perfect World and in Our Imperfect State, the Strong are Continually Oppressing the Weak.  Without Regulation, such Oppression will do Nothing but Get Worse and Worse.  That's just the Way Man is.