< If you consider 20% unemployment and relying on actual superpowers to take care of your national defense "successful" I guess.>
An example of your inaccurate use of 'facts'. We have a vastly better unemployment rate than USA and we rely on our own defense and in fact maintain military superiority in the region. And there's only 20million of us defending a country 95% the size of yours. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin S. Goff Sent: Monday, 16 February 2009 3:41 PM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [OT] Federal Obligations Exceed World GDP Geoff, I hate to break the news to you, but Bob is right. It's government intervention that's largely to blame....not "capitalism" run amok. It's like blaming the depression on free-market economics - the depression was caused by government manipulation of the monetary supply. But since it was done by Republicans, people mistakenly "blame" these economic disasters on the free market. Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Flight [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:25 PM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [OT] Federal Obligations Exceed World GDP < Most of our current economic woes are not the result of free market run amok but rather government intervention and fiscal promiscuity ran amok. This is not the same as saying regulation is bad... just that too much of the wrong kind can bring disaster, and I think what's happening now is an illustration of this point.> I hope you are aware that almost nobody believes that. The lack of regulation is generally ackcnowledged as the cause of this problem. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Calco Sent: Monday, 16 February 2009 2:31 PM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [OT] Federal Obligations Exceed World GDP > I'm not blaming anyone. That's rich. News, too. > I'm blaming EVERYONE D and R who both seemed to > give > this 'free market' far more freedom than it deserved. Most of our current economic woes are not the result of free market run amok but rather government intervention and fiscal promiscuity ran amok. This is not the same as saying regulation is bad... just that too much of the wrong kind can bring disaster, and I think what's happening now is an illustration of this point. The mortgage crisis that created the house of cards and then pulled the rug out from under it was a direct result of long-term government intervention in the housing market. Certain interventionist types felt the market was "inadequately" serving the needs of the downtrodden, and they made new regulations to encourage the predatory lending they now bemoan. Worse, they created these "government sponsored entities" or GSEs, which managed to elude any regulatory frameworks, these very same people say are now needed. I merely pointed out a fact that it was Republicans who wanted to regulate the GSEs---a fact that is totally lost on most people because of the shameful reporting in this country--and all of a sudden you became Mr. Pox on Both Their Houses. I have repeated many times, and argued fervently, that both parties are to blame...but you still call me a partisan. Our "health care" cost crisis is the same... too much of the wrong kind of regulation and intervention. But I know.. don't bother me with facts. You want to believe Oprah. I don't think these "crises" are accidents. The whole way government gets involved in most of these social problems seems designed to fail... and then I learn about things like the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and it all starts to come together, especially when you understand Alinsky as a key figure in its inspiration, and the relationship of both Obama and Hillary to Alinsky. I have evidence to back up my claim that you simply choose to ignore so you can sit back and lob assertions about my mental health instead of actually examining the issues. I personally am OK with a lot more regulation of trade than I am of internal market dynamics, but neither I nor any conservatives I'm aware of were trying to DE-regulate the housing market in 2005. Quite the contrary. If you paid any attention whatsoever to the links I sent you you'd realize you aren't paying any attention to my actual arguments. Either that or you're just being disingenuous. > Mixed economies > are > the worlds successful ones - ones where fee capitalism is allowed to > reign > within the limits of regulation. If you consider 20% unemployment and relying on actual superpowers to take care of your national defense "successful" I guess. > It is why Australia isn't in the mess > you > are in. Forget the partisan politics. Your economic failure is the > product > of decades of faulty financial philosophy and under-regulation. I disagree, I think it's excessive regulation of the wrong kind, and lack of regulation of government sponsored entities, that got us where we are. That plus a total lack of spending discipline of the federal government---again, no free market entity, that. It's popular to say we have laissez faire economics reigning supreme, but it's so far from the truth that I wonder how well you mind is tethered to reality? - Bob [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
