Politics and Religion

I agree, let's just call it Crony Capitalism...........
salonpas 262 reads
posted

When the state and powerful private interests collude the result is a cocktail of market distortion.

Why can’t you get any kind of return on your money in a CD, the traditional vehicle for retirees? Crony capitalism.

Why can Goldman Sachs, the largest investment bank, speculate in markets using newly printed government money that has been borrowed virtually for free? Crony Capitalism.

Why is Detroit a shadow, barely a shadow, of what it once was? Crony capitalism.

Why are there more farm regulators than farmers? Crony capitalism.

Why does Congress write laws that are longer than the Old Testament with obscure, impossible to understand language? Crony capitalism.

Genuine capitalism in comparison, is quite simple. Capital is invested by individuals to further ideas and enterprises that the investor thinks will create a return on the money invested. If the enterprise in question is a good one, both investor and business owner win. If not- better luck next time. Genuine Capitalism is clear, it's simple, it's moral.  

However, invariably once the state gets involved as investor, or “regulator”, things start to morph and twist. As sure as the sun rises, coercion and corruption rear their heads.

Crony capitalism can take many forms including regulatory capture ( regulated interests actually using government power to squelch competition), zoning, licensing, in some cases even copyright, and hundreds of other ways. The one thing all of these “tools” have in common, however, is that they are used by the politically connected few to extract money and power from the unconnected.

in the attempt to regulate, an unregulated market?

What kind of "economy" puts 60% of the nations wealth into the hands of 1% of its citizens?

  The wealth disparity in our nation is a disgrace, and if things don't soon turn around there may just be another "revolution".

JackDunphy323 reads

Certainly not this country. Lets see...we have the EEOC, the IRS, the EPA, OSHA, Obamacare, etc etc etc. We are regulated up the ass.

And if you cared about the 99%, you would be up Barry's butt crack to get him to reduce the additional 4,200 regulations in the PIPELINE as of 2012 per DEMOCRAT Blanche Lincoln.

She claims it is the number 1 reason why small businesses are afraid to hire and I am not going to argue with her.

Seems like your point is that we can "regulate" our way to prosperity.

Ask any of your buddies that own a business if they feel they aren't "regulated" enough. Get back to me. lol

Posted By: RRO2610
What kind of "economy" puts 60% of the nations wealth into the hands of 1% of its citizens?  
   
   The wealth disparity in our nation is a disgrace, and if things don't soon turn around there may just be another "revolution".
 
I wasn't around for the first revolution. ROFLMFAO

salonpas263 reads

When the state and powerful private interests collude the result is a cocktail of market distortion.

Why can’t you get any kind of return on your money in a CD, the traditional vehicle for retirees? Crony capitalism.

Why can Goldman Sachs, the largest investment bank, speculate in markets using newly printed government money that has been borrowed virtually for free? Crony Capitalism.

Why is Detroit a shadow, barely a shadow, of what it once was? Crony capitalism.

Why are there more farm regulators than farmers? Crony capitalism.

Why does Congress write laws that are longer than the Old Testament with obscure, impossible to understand language? Crony capitalism.

Genuine capitalism in comparison, is quite simple. Capital is invested by individuals to further ideas and enterprises that the investor thinks will create a return on the money invested. If the enterprise in question is a good one, both investor and business owner win. If not- better luck next time. Genuine Capitalism is clear, it's simple, it's moral.  

However, invariably once the state gets involved as investor, or “regulator”, things start to morph and twist. As sure as the sun rises, coercion and corruption rear their heads.

Crony capitalism can take many forms including regulatory capture ( regulated interests actually using government power to squelch competition), zoning, licensing, in some cases even copyright, and hundreds of other ways. The one thing all of these “tools” have in common, however, is that they are used by the politically connected few to extract money and power from the unconnected.

Crony capitalism without government dishing out the favors.

Crony capitalism, government nepotism and self preservation, and a populace taught to be dependent on big daddy in office.

... and what country sits and allows big corporations to have corporate offices in Caymans, Bahamas, Bermuda, Ireland and Timbuktu and avoid paying $billions US income taxes?

Go to a law library and chose your subject, say banking as one example.  Find the federal laws in effect.  There are thousands of pages.  

That is the start.  The laws are then refined by the Regs promulgated by agencies.  THere are tens of thousands of pages of Regs.  (There are at least 100 pages of regs for every page of stats.)

That is the second start, as this is only federal.  Now find your state laws and see a thousand more pages of stats and another 5000 pages of state regs.

In fact, Regulations help big business because they can comply with lawyers and accountants.  The small person trying to break in is the one hurt

It belongs to the people who earn it. If a man has no freedom to keep what he earns he has no freedom at all.

Let's take a trip down memory lane. At the birth of the industrial revolution in the 1880's, markets were as unregulated as they ever have been, or ever will be in the USA. What did that produce? The robber baron era. Back in those days, a McJob was working in a steel factory. And if someone lost an arm while they were at work, you were just screwed for the rest of your life. In those days, child labor was common. Back in those days, companies didn't pay their workers in cash. They would pay them in corporate issued dollars, which workers would have to use to buy overpriced goods at the company store. It produced the period of the worst income inequality in all of US history. And the economy? It sucked. You know that happy little financial crisis we had in 2008? Imagine that happening once every 2-3 years for 30 years straight. Regular bank panics didn't stop happening on a regular basis until the creation of the Federal Reserve. So much for free markets.  

Then you have the roaring 20's. Why did the 20's roar? Because markets were deregulated, taxes on the rich were cut, and the labor movement had been destroyed. This created a giant credit bubble that led directly to the Great Depression. So much for free markets.  

And then you had the New Deal. Lots and lots and lots of regulations on markets. What happened? The USA was transformed from an agricultural society into the strongest economic powerhouse the world had ever seen. This continued for the next 40 years. So much for free markets.  

Then you had the 80's, when Reagan began deregulating markets, smacking down unions, and cutting taxes on the rich. This produced the worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression, and a 3 trillion dollar national debt to boot. So much for free markets.  

Then you had the 90's, which began deregulating certain markets, most notable telecommunications. Which we all enjoy today due to incredibly cheap and competitive cable, internet and telephone markets. I'm being sarcastic of course. But that's not the only thing that was deregulated in the 90's. The financial sector was deregulated, which led directly to the housing bubble and the financial crisis of 2008. So much for free markets.  

Time and time again, we find that free markets destroy themselves. They are effective only at achieving  two things. Making rich people richer, and destroying the economy. In this regard, we can say that laissez faire capitalism is an institutional suicide pact.  

Now does this mean that regulations can be written that is harmful to everyone and limits competition? Of course. But the existence of regulations in and of themselves do not make them harmful. To suggest such a thing is irrational, and given the reverence for this idea among the libertarians (read: capitalist sycophants), it amounts to nothing more than a religion.  

We just went through an economic crash due to deregulating financial markets. We still haven't fully recovered from it. For anyone to equate market regulations with destroying the economy is to admit that you're no brighter than a chicken. Each morning you wake up in a new world with no knowledge of what happened yesterday.

Don't even know where to start. This is rich!

Posted By: willywonka4u
Let's take a trip down memory lane. At the birth of the industrial revolution in the 1880's, markets were as unregulated as they ever have been, or ever will be in the USA. What did that produce? The robber baron era. Back in those days, a McJob was working in a steel factory. And if someone lost an arm while they were at work, you were just screwed for the rest of your life. In those days, child labor was common. Back in those days, companies didn't pay their workers in cash. They would pay them in corporate issued dollars, which workers would have to use to buy overpriced goods at the company store. It produced the period of the worst income inequality in all of US history. And the economy? It sucked.
What did a "robber baron" ever do to anybody? They offered people jobs which were obviously better than anything else available to them (or else they would have passed them up). Sounds to me like they made these people's lives better. And were people who lost arms better off before the "robber baron" era? Are you not aware that child labor is as old as the human race. Are you that unaware of the brutal realities of survival that people endured before these modern times? During the era you just described, the US became the world's dominant economy and standard of living among average Americans was the envy of the world. There is one more thing to note about the time you picked: it's right after the publishing of Das Kapital and the rise a Class Warfare.  
Posted By: willywonka4u
You know that happy little financial crisis we had in 2008? Imagine that happening once every 2-3 years for 30 years straight. Regular bank panics didn't stop happening on a regular basis until the creation of the Federal Reserve. So much for free markets.
 
Exposed. You have no idea what you are talking about. That happy little crisis in 2008 was the result of the collapsing housing bubble. The housing bubble was of course the result of over-regulation. The Community Reinvestment Act, originally proposed by Jimmy Carter and eventually signed into law by Bill Clinton, gave the Attorney General authority to harass banks under suspicion of racism. They were bullied by the Feds into making loans to people who had no chance of paying them back. They then packaged these loans, which were worthless paper, and passed them off on others until no more buyers could be found. This did not happen in the 1880s, Mr. History.
Posted By: willywonka4u
Then you have the roaring 20's. Why did the 20's roar? Because markets were deregulated, taxes on the rich were cut, and the labor movement had been destroyed. This created a giant credit bubble that led directly to the Great Depression. So much for free markets.
 
Even during the Great Depression, the standard of living for average Americans was the envy of the world. If it wasn't for the free markets, people would have had nothing to lose in the first place. In the 20s people actually had cars. Cars and electrical appliances were the direct result of free markets. If you and your kind had had your way back then, people would have still been using horses and buggies exclusively. Houses would be lit by lanterns and candlelight. Would this have been better than the Great Depression? Didn't think so.
   
Posted By: willywonka4u
And then you had the New Deal. Lots and lots and lots of regulations on markets. What happened? The USA was transformed from an agricultural society into the strongest economic powerhouse the world had ever seen. This continued for the next 40 years. So much for free markets.
Wrong again. The reason for the economic expansion during the FDR era was a historic oil boom. That wealth came from the ground.
   
Posted By: willywonka4u
Then you had the 80's, when Reagan began deregulating markets, smacking down unions, and cutting taxes on the rich. This produced the worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression, and a 3 trillion dollar national debt to boot. So much for free markets.
Reagan ushered in the largest economic expansion in the history of mankind. Unemployment was wiped out. The economic environment he created allowed free men, acting in their own self-interest, to give us personal computers and cell phones, among other luxuries which became available to the marketplace in the 80s. Your historical revision is far from believable for most on this board as most of us are old enough to remember the 80s first hand. Save those lies for the kiddies.
   
Posted By: willywonka4u
Then you had the 90's, which began deregulating certain markets, most notable telecommunications. Which we all enjoy today due to incredibly cheap and competitive cable, internet and telephone markets. I'm being sarcastic of course. But that's not the only thing that was deregulated in the 90's. The financial sector was deregulated, which led directly to the housing bubble and the financial crisis of 2008. So much for free markets.
Just once, I would like to see you or any of your kind explain just how in the hell deregulation led to the financial crisis in 2008. The exact opposite is true.
   
Posted By: willywonka4u
Time and time again, we find that free markets destroy themselves. They are effective only at achieving  two things. Making rich people richer, and destroying the economy. In this regard, we can say that laissez faire capitalism is an institutional suicide pact.  
   
 Now does this mean that regulations can be written that is harmful to everyone and limits competition? Of course. But the existence of regulations in and of themselves do not make them harmful. To suggest such a thing is irrational, and given the reverence for this idea among the libertarians (read: capitalist sycophants), it amounts to nothing more than a religion.  
   
 We just went through an economic crash due to deregulating financial markets. We still haven't fully recovered from it. For anyone to equate market regulations with destroying the economy is to admit that you're no brighter than a chicken. Each morning you wake up in a new world with no knowledge of what happened yesterday.
Even after the crash of 2008, our standard of living was the envy of the world. We owe it to unregulated free markets. Of course the problem is not that regulations exist at all. The problem is that Democrat presidents strangle the markets with them. When clueless government employees try to run businesses about which they don't have the slightest idea, those businesses are held back. The economy can't grow. 92 million Americans end up not working.

2008 is history. There is nothing about 2008 that is affecting our economy today. You are simply repeating the lies we are all bombarded with. I would think that sooner or later you guys would have to stop blaming Bush for Obama's reign of destruction but clearly, if Democrats rule for the next 50 years, you will blame Bush for the next 50 years

Register Now!