The Rich Have Gained $5.6 Trillion in the 'Recovery'; The rest lost $660 Billion

[acri1]

A closer examination of this phenomenon reveals it is not the result of capitalism, but government interference in the market.

I'll agree its a problem, but we must be clear on where the problem stems from.

Any evidence for this?


It looks to me like rich people all of a sudden started getting a much bigger piece of the pie right around the "Reaganomics" era. Unless you think Reagan was anti-capitalist or something...

 

[Slaimon Khan Shah]

PEOPLE NEED TO AVOID DEALING WITH INTEREST AS IT IS SINFULL TO DEAL WITH INTEREST.

 

[DEAD7]

Any evidence for this?


It looks to me like rich people all of a sudden started getting a much bigger piece of the pie right around the "Reaganomics" era. Unless you think Reagan was anti-capitalist or something...

Government interference in the market.

All I'm saying is it isnt capitalism.

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

I hate that I'm always late to these debates

..but wasn't this "recovery" engineered by Obama and his team? The ones behind the "American Recovery Act" and QE3, GM bailout, and God knows what other corporatist fukkery?

So where are the defenders of corporatism, Krugman, Keynesian economics, and QE3?

@ Robin Hood Tax

What does this have to do with Keynesian economics being accurate? First of all, it's proven that stimulating the economy hastens the process of recovering the only argument lies in if it is necessary, judged on an instant to instant basis.

"Fannie and Freddie were private institutions that also considered themselves part of the Wall Street elite."

Statements like this are a very good indication that the article isn't written objectively.

It's true though.... They were apart of the whole derivatives/subprime/insurance fiasco.

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

Government interference in the market.

All I'm saying is it isnt capitalism.

tax breaks are government interference....

 

[Hulk Hogan]

Government interference in the market.

All I'm saying is it isnt capitalism.

DEREGULATION COUPLED WITH COLLUSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT, LOBBYISTS, AND INDUSTRY IS CALLED INTERFERENCE NOW, BROTHER?

YOU'RE RIGHT THAT IT'S NOT SIMPLY FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, BROTHER! IT'S CAPITALISTS DOING FAVORS FOR THEIR FELLOW CAPITALISTS BY LEGISLATING TO THEIR BENEFIT, DUDE!

CAPITALISM WITHOUT ANY REGULATION WOULD BASICALLY BE SERFDOM, MEAN GENE! THOSE DAYS SURE WERE GREAT, JACK!

 

[NVME]

I hate that I'm always late to these debates



What does this have to do with Keynesian economics being accurate? First of all, it's proven that stimulating the economy hastens the process of recovering the only argument lies in if it is necessary, judged on an instant to instant basis.



It's true though.... They were apart of the whole derivatives/subprime/insurance fiasco.

What role did they play in the fiasco and why did that lead to bail outs that shouldn't be classified as "considering themselves part of the wall street elite"? You can't make that point just because it's convenient...

 

[88m3]

[ame=http://youtu.be/Pz0mVUHx3l0?t=38s]FreeBandDoubleD-Living Luxury - YouTube[/ame]

"I moved out of the hood before you left the state"

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

What role did they play in the fiasco and why did that lead to bail outs that shouldn't be classified as "considering themselves part of the wall street elite"? You can't make that point just because it's convenient...

bailouts that SHOULD be classified as being part of the elite, not shouldn't

With a funding advantage over their Wall Street rivals, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made large profits for more than two decades. Over this time period, there was frequent debate and analysis among financial and housing market professionals, government officials, members of Congress and the executive branch about whether Fannie and Freddie's implied government backing was working mostly to benefit the companies, their management and their investors, or U.S. homeowners (particularly low-income homeowners) as was part of these firms' HUD-administered housing mission.

One thing was clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given a government-sponsored monopoly on a large part of the U.S. secondary mortgage market.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008

Fannie and Freddie amplified the housing boom by buying mortgages from lenders, allowing them to originate even more loans. They grew into behemoths because they lobbied aggressively and played the Washington political game to a T. But after both companies bought boatloads of risky mortgages, they required a federal rescue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/business/08gret.html

, “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They lost market share in the years 2002-2007, as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded.” More here on “how did this happen.”

Cox, Greenspan, Snow Agree: Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis | ThinkProgress

 

[DEAD7]

^ all failures of government and citizenry. Not capitalism.

 

[NVME]

bailouts that SHOULD be classified as being part of the elite, not shouldn't


Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/business/08gret.html


Cox, Greenspan, Snow Agree: Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis | ThinkProgress

The statement we're looking at is: "Fannie and Freddie were private institutions that also considered themselves part of the Wall Street elite."

A quote from your article: "One thing was clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given a government-sponsored monopoly on a large part of the U.S. secondary mortgage market."

Another quote: "They grew into behemoths because they lobbied aggressively and played the Washington political game to a T"

Presenting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as "private institutions considering themselves part of wall street" makes a convenient point for the article but completely ignores the problem. Government involvement allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to have a business model based on privatizing profits and socializing losses.

This isn't the first articles I've seen that conveniently classifies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as "wall street" and tries to attack the fact it was a private institution when really the government had let these businesses run with business models that a truly private business could never use and be profitable.

This is only one small example in the article that shows the author isn't concerned with being objective but wants to make a predetermined point. There's a lot more if you read through...

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

The statement we're looking at is: "Fannie and Freddie were private institutions that also considered themselves part of the Wall Street elite."

A quote from your article: "One thing was clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given a government-sponsored monopoly on a large part of the U.S. secondary mortgage market."

Another quote: "They grew into behemoths because they lobbied aggressively and played the Washington political game to a T"

Presenting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as "private institutions considering themselves part of wall street" makes a convenient point for the article but completely ignores the problem. Government involvement allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to have a business model based on privatizing profits and socializing losses.

This isn't the first articles I've seen that conveniently classifies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as "wall street" and tries to attack the fact it was a private institution when really the government had let these businesses run with business models that a truly private business could never use and be profitable.

This is only one small example in the article that shows the author isn't concerned with being objective but wants to make a predetermined point. There's a lot more if you read through...

The Treasury started sponsoring and took over the two in 2008, after the financial crisis had started. Don't really see what you are getting at, all the articles I posted hint at the two being a large part of why the economy collapsed under 2007/early 2008.

 

[Swirv]

the way you phrased that sentence about the rich being fair to everybody and letting them all eat. it just seemed like a very non-american attitude or naive.

Its an idea, just as rule of law or this wall street tax. If enough people buy into the idea of less greed maybe improvements can be made for the betterment of all.

Do you not agree less greed is good?

Yes i was born in America. Ive experienced enough to not have the pleasure of naivete.

 

[Blackking]

This isnt the fault of capitalism... you're aiming at the wrong target.[/COLOR]

Not saying it is the fault of capitalism... I'm saying it is especailly dangerous to have this brand of capitalism if the economic leaders are also the political drivers.

Glamorizing? You must not have a clear picture of the world pre-capitalism.

The picture is clear...

And nations who have seen comparable market growth, have all adopted the market economy. China in particular is in many ways more capitalist than we are.

China's economy is Communist and Capitalist.. and is in some ways socialist. Ours is Capitalist and socialist- with some of the dependency and assistance policies. Officially they have a socialist market economy, NOT like (but with cross over qualities of) our so-called Free market economy. They have a system closer to what I feel is OK. Of course they used to be more restrictive... But economically speaking the Main party controls the economy... they do nothing but encourage growth (which is a slap in the face of all the people who drink the 'business and random CAC are the only way to grow an economy") . They survive and maintain even when the world economy is shaky and they make adjustments so that the entire economy can grow steady during times like this ---- instead of str8 capitalism that will naturally allow the rich to get richer and poor to take on most of the effects of a depress economy.( Hence this thread) . They can stimulate their own economy without wasting the money on feeding the huge banks... because the own a large % of the banks and business so that money can actually cycle through the economy from consumers (from around the world ) back into government programs and subsidy's. Muthafackas actually believe that it was only their adoption of Western Capitalist policies that changed their GDP and increase the status of their poor... in reality they've adopted socialism markets.. with some private ownership and Chinese traditions. In a free for all wild west economy like the one you champion... there is no control or incentive for anyone to not push the poor into obscurity and push the wealthy to gawd statues with the wealth gap.

You are making a judgement based on emotion. You don't like it, there for it must go...
What actual data do you have to support disdain for the gap?

What we got going on right now sure does look similar to what happened before the Great Depression, doesn't it...

 

[Trustus]

Reading this is sad and depressing .