Comments on: Save Yourself! http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/ The Diatribes of a Laissez-Faire Individual Sun, 20 May 2012 11:51:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: MarinaLee http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/#comment-59 MarinaLee Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:33:01 +0000 http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/#comment-59 It was much more the fault of the low interest rates that the government instated to help us 'recover' from the tech bubble and 9/11 than the individuals who bought beyond their means. But if we intend to blame the people who failed to question the prices of their mortgages (like this guy http://marinalee.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/dont-bailout-the-homeowners/), what about the people who trusted the risk assessments of the mortgage backed securities they bought? Now THAT is where I believe that is where the government should step in. People should be smart enough to know their budgets, but not necessarily to question an *independent* risk assessment. When the 'independent' risk assessor has a vested interest in giving a good report (companies have to pay the risk assessor, and they can take their business elsewhere if they don't like it) then the government should let people know. However, in principle I agree with you. I do not want to be saved, no one is too big too fail, and when you don't have serious consequences for screwing up you're going to keep screwing up. The government is not there to protect us from ourselves, JJ, it's there to protect us from each other. I love this quote "The issue isn’t difficulty in assigning blame. I’m with you 100% that people that don’t do their homework deserve the deal they signed on for. But that doesn’t remove the problems that these investments cause for everyone else." Everyone else, on some level, that was affected, was part of the stupidity, whether through an investment or a poorly chosen bank. Now as I said the government should let people know about shady risk assessor, but they shouldn't bail them out. A final note on the practicality of the philosophical side of this: Even if you do want the government to bail us out, how do you want them to do that? Who are you hurting if you do? The people who messed up or the people doing everything right? Just doesn't seem fair. PS Nice add on facebook, webmaster :) (And it took me forever to figure out what you wanted with the math) It was much more the fault of the low interest rates that the government instated to help us ‘recover’ from the tech bubble and 9/11 than the individuals who bought beyond their means. But if we intend to blame the people who failed to question the prices of their mortgages (like this guy http://marinalee.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/dont-bailout-the-homeowners/), what about the people who trusted the risk assessments of the mortgage backed securities they bought? Now THAT is where I believe that is where the government should step in. People should be smart enough to know their budgets, but not necessarily to question an *independent* risk assessment. When the ‘independent’ risk assessor has a vested interest in giving a good report (companies have to pay the risk assessor, and they can take their business elsewhere if they don’t like it) then the government should let people know.

However, in principle I agree with you. I do not want to be saved, no one is too big too fail, and when you don’t have serious consequences for screwing up you’re going to keep screwing up. The government is not there to protect us from ourselves, JJ, it’s there to protect us from each other.

I love this quote “The issue isn’t difficulty in assigning blame. I’m with you 100% that people that don’t do their homework deserve the deal they signed on for.

But that doesn’t remove the problems that these investments cause for everyone else.” Everyone else, on some level, that was affected, was part of the stupidity, whether through an investment or a poorly chosen bank. Now as I said the government should let people know about shady risk assessor, but they shouldn’t bail them out.

A final note on the practicality of the philosophical side of this: Even if you do want the government to bail us out, how do you want them to do that? Who are you hurting if you do? The people who messed up or the people doing everything right? Just doesn’t seem fair.

PS Nice add on facebook, webmaster :) (And it took me forever to figure out what you wanted with the math)

]]> By: Terry http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/#comment-46 Terry Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:37:21 +0000 http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/#comment-46 What great posts! I am really impressed with the depth of thought, insight, knowledge, and logical thinking exhibited by every one of you. And truly, there are, at the very least, two sides to every story. There are no easy answers, especially when dealing with these complex issues and the variety of positions and philosophies that people can legitimately hold on them. My two cents to the issue of the role of government is this: I like to believe that the role of the federal government is, and should be, kept very limited. I believe that the founding fathers had a lot of these very same arguments/discussions/differences of opinion that you are having, and I believe that they got it right the first time. Through the years the federal government has expanded its reach and breadth of control way too much, and should be retracted. In terms of the good that the government has done, is doing, or could do by way of enacting more regulation over the free market, the argument can only be made when comparing the scenario of an expanded role and control of government with the alternate, null scenario where the government does not get involved. When the government does not enact the regulation, then the invisible hand of capitalism takes over and controls it in its own way. What the current argument fails to recognize is that there are other controlling mechanisms that take over when the government does not interfere/intervene/regulate. In the early history of capitalism in this country, when business was conducted on a more local or regional scale, these other control mechanisms flourished, and were more community based. Flim flam men and con artists were able to fleece unwitting and innocent victims on occasion, but were typically discovered eventually and then tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail after being relieved of their booty. By the way, the ones who got taken advantage off were almost universally the ones who refused to believe that something that was too good to be true wasn't. Con artists, then as now, prey on another person's greed. Even up until your grandparents days, most everyone knew who you could trust when it came to buying a car or a house, hiring a reputable contractor, or investing in securities. And the ones who didn't know who to trust usually tested the waters cautiously before turning over their life savings. Those that dove headfirst into unsafe waters had to learn the hard way. But, as the market expanded and things became at first more national, and then more global, it was incredibly more difficult to do the necessary homework, and as Geoff points out, very inefficient, to check out the investments and financial stability of the institutions with which one might do business. But, despite the promises of the nanny state to protect us, many private enterprises have arisen to do the homework for us, and they are far more trustworthy and efficiently run than the federal government. The publishers of Consumer Reports is a good example, as are the various organizations that rate the performance of financial institutions. But the difference between these organizations and the government is that they are there to provide information to assist in decision making for those who want to learn more, and they have no ability to enforce their control through coercive force they way that government can. They leave the decision making up to the individual, and the control comes through the collective action of large groups of individuals making their own choices, which ultimately forces those that perform poorly or dishonestly out of business. What great posts! I am really impressed with the depth of thought, insight, knowledge, and logical thinking exhibited by every one of you. And truly, there are, at the very least, two sides to every story. There are no easy answers, especially when dealing with these complex issues and the variety of positions and philosophies that people can legitimately hold on them. My two cents to the issue of the role of government is this:
I like to believe that the role of the federal government is, and should be, kept very limited. I believe that the founding fathers had a lot of these very same arguments/discussions/differences of opinion that you are having, and I believe that they got it right the first time. Through the years the federal government has expanded its reach and breadth of control way too much, and should be retracted. In terms of the good that the government has done, is doing, or could do by way of enacting more regulation over the free market, the argument can only be made when comparing the scenario of an expanded role and control of government with the alternate, null scenario where the government does not get involved. When the government does not enact the regulation, then the invisible hand of capitalism takes over and controls it in its own way. What the current argument fails to recognize is that there are other controlling mechanisms that take over when the government does not interfere/intervene/regulate. In the early history of capitalism in this country, when business was conducted on a more local or regional scale, these other control mechanisms flourished, and were more community based. Flim flam men and con artists were able to fleece unwitting and innocent victims on occasion, but were typically discovered eventually and then tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail after being relieved of their booty. By the way, the ones who got taken advantage off were almost universally the ones who refused to believe that something that was too good to be true wasn’t. Con artists, then as now, prey on another person’s greed. Even up until your grandparents days, most everyone knew who you could trust when it came to buying a car or a house, hiring a reputable contractor, or investing in securities. And the ones who didn’t know who to trust usually tested the waters cautiously before turning over their life savings. Those that dove headfirst into unsafe waters had to learn the hard way. But, as the market expanded and things became at first more national, and then more global, it was incredibly more difficult to do the necessary homework, and as Geoff points out, very inefficient, to check out the investments and financial stability of the institutions with which one might do business. But, despite the promises of the nanny state to protect us, many private enterprises have arisen to do the homework for us, and they are far more trustworthy and efficiently run than the federal government. The publishers of Consumer Reports is a good example, as are the various organizations that rate the performance of financial institutions. But the difference between these organizations and the government is that they are there to provide information to assist in decision making for those who want to learn more, and they have no ability to enforce their control through coercive force they way that government can. They leave the decision making up to the individual, and the control comes through the collective action of large groups of individuals making their own choices, which ultimately forces those that perform poorly or dishonestly out of business.

]]> By: Charles Butler http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/#comment-43 Charles Butler Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:11:16 +0000 http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/#comment-43 I agree so much! These folks who think that the government is capable of taking care of us have no idea that the well-intended programs that we have set up with bankrupt this country. We are really going the wrong way and it will lead to the financial ruin of this country. This is why I hate the politicians on Capital Hill. They are so heartless and they do not care about the little guy. All they care about is votes. I agree so much! These folks who think that the government is capable of taking care of us have no idea that the well-intended programs that we have set up with bankrupt this country. We are really going the wrong way and it will lead to the financial ruin of this country. This is why I hate the politicians on Capital Hill. They are so heartless and they do not care about the little guy. All they care about is votes.

]]> By: JJ http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/#comment-41 JJ Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:28:18 +0000 http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/#comment-41 That's a fair argument. My point is that there are multiple ways to look at this. No decisions are happening in a vacuum and unintended consequences are everywhere. Deregulating the market will solve some of these issues as well as create new ones. Tightening the regulations will solve some and cause others. I wonder how much of these financial issues can be solved by fixing the inflation index due to crazy spending (foreign and domestic) caused by obscene social programs and crappy ROI on our insane DOD budget. That’s a fair argument. My point is that there are multiple ways to look at this.

No decisions are happening in a vacuum and unintended consequences are everywhere. Deregulating the market will solve some of these issues as well as create new ones. Tightening the regulations will solve some and cause others.

I wonder how much of these financial issues can be solved by fixing the inflation index due to crazy spending (foreign and domestic) caused by obscene social programs and crappy ROI on our insane DOD budget.

]]> By: Erica http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/#comment-40 Erica Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:52:30 +0000 http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/18/save-yourself/#comment-40 Well then thats a decison Americans are making now. Are we willing to sacrifice our liberties and freedoms for secutiry from the government- much like the Patriot Act- but this is "financial" security. Wall Street can't take the risks they used to, won't make the money they used to because they can't take such risks, and now they will have another hoop to jump through. Is sacrificing those liberties worth the security in return? That is an individual preference. Sometimes bone head people make bonehead decisions which affect us all, but what are we willing to sacrifice to keep catering to the lowest common denominator? Its at the point now where we can BUY an air conditioner, but we have to set it at certain speeds. We can BUY a car, but it has to be a specific emissions standard car, we can smoke cigarettes but you will be told when,where, and how to smoke them. Are we maintaining freedom? obviously no, not with these regulations, its slipping away. But it seems that the good of the collective is more important the freedoms and rights of the individual. you say that individual stupidity shouldn't be allowed to spoil things for the rest of us, but I think allowing the government to set hundreds of regulations on our lives is allowing that stupidity to spoil it for the rest of us. Well then thats a decison Americans are making now. Are we willing to sacrifice our liberties and freedoms for secutiry from the government- much like the Patriot Act- but this is “financial” security. Wall Street can’t take the risks they used to, won’t make the money they used to because they can’t take such risks, and now they will have another hoop to jump through. Is sacrificing those liberties worth the security in return? That is an individual preference. Sometimes bone head people make bonehead decisions which affect us all, but what are we willing to sacrifice to keep catering to the lowest common denominator?

Its at the point now where we can BUY an air conditioner, but we have to set it at certain speeds. We can BUY a car, but it has to be a specific emissions standard car, we can smoke cigarettes but you will be told when,where, and how to smoke them. Are we maintaining freedom? obviously no, not with these regulations, its slipping away. But it seems that the good of the collective is more important the freedoms and rights of the individual. you say that individual stupidity shouldn’t be allowed to spoil things for the rest of us, but I think allowing the government to set hundreds of regulations on our lives is allowing that stupidity to spoil it for the rest of us.

]]>