Posted on 03/21/2009 7:41:56 AM PDT by Publius
Finally, what the barbarians of the Middle Ages and our current elite don’t understand is: What has already been created can be taken. However, if the person doing the creating doesn’t continue to create (either through death or disincentives) one winds up with a finite supply of goods that eventually disappear.
Once the creation of goods is killed, a society dies, because the skills required to keep a civilization going are lost. Those people who are left are nothing but savages, fighting over an ever dwindling supply of goods.
How do any of these easy-money lenders differ from George Bailey of the Bedford Falls Building and Loan?
Thanks for the link to the CNBC video. That was very informative.
Back in the fall, I started reading the role Wall St. had played in this crisis with the mortgage securities, but that video provided much more explanation. In reading some of your other comments on this thread, I suspect you and I might have similar views about what caused the economic crisis.
I don’t have sympathy for the people who lost their homes due to buying properties they could never afford and/or refinancing again and again. I’m a notorious penny-pincher; our house is relatively small, and our family has never taken a vacation. So, when I see the built-in swimming pools in their backyards, etc., and listen to how they lied about their incomes, I don’t feel sorry for them.
But, I never saw Wall St. as victims, either. They share the blame in this mess. Government also shares the blame, as Peter Schiff explains so well.
In “Atlas Shrugged”, Rand’s heroes are the businesspeople that produce something of value, like steel, a railroad system, sound loans, and more. I have to go back through the book or maybe earlier Freeperbookclub threads to find the lines I think she wrote that criticize the people who shuffle papers but produce nothing of real value. I don’t think I imagined those lines (or did I?). In any case, it might take me some time to find them.
I’ll be back later to respond to your other post and to reply again to Publius.
I believe that to be a very accurate analysis of what has happened and very well stated.
You are a fool for not understanding that the requests for bailouts are the result of the socializaion of business by the govenment as well as the lack of proper management of unionized labor.
I think that people no longer understand what a capitalist really is. Please read the book to find out.......
"... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ......just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
p.411, Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957
That is what it all boils down to. That is where we are.
That has long been my observation about gun laws. They are written in such a way so as to make law abiding citizens who own guns criminals.
Yes! There is that and the income tax comes to mind as well.
The request for bailout is a result of socialization of business?! You sir are the fool.
place marker.
Aw, Jimmy Stewart is such a nice guy, you forgive him for dangerous lapses in banking practices.
That was me in a reply to another FReeper. I pointed out that we converted our economy from manufacturing -- which we moved abroad to take advantage of lower labor costs -- to shuffling paper assets from one pile to another. The leasing industry, which exists because of lines in the tax code, is a good example of this. So is the entire derivatives industry on Wall Street -- which has gotten us into a real fix.
......just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers --
and you added
That is what it all boils down to. That is where we are.
I don't agree that is where we are but I do agree that we're getting pretty darn close. The unenforceable part has me confused. It sounds more like name calling, not criminalizing.
A strategy that is in use and gaining popularity is jury nullification---
Jury nullification is an act of a jury (its verdict) intended to make an official rule, especially a statute, void in the context of a particular case. In other words, "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."
A juror is bound only by his/her conscience. There is no law dictating a jurors decision.
I have heard that the IRS doesn't go to a jury trial so I suppose that this process may not apply there.
Any thoughts on the impact if jury nullification were to gain widespread use?
They don't. Well, Bailey got the money back, I believe. I take some heat pretty much every Christmas time when I observe, Grinch-like, that Bailey forgot whose money he was playing with. That's actually a little fuzzy in the movie - his firm was founded with his father's money but apparently it was enough of a bank to warrant a bank examiner (and a potential arrest for Bailey). If it was depositors' money then his first ethical duty was to the people who had entrusted him with their life savings and not to the community at large, however much its life was enriched by his misfeasance. If, on the other hand, it was his own, then as far as I'm concerned he can lend it to anyone he likes for any reason he likes. In which case, however, you'd have to wonder why he'd be worried about a bank examiner. Aw, heck, it's a silly Christmas story, just roll with it. Bah. Humbug.
Right as always, Bill.
I confess I cry every year when I watch this movie, but it is typical Capra populist drivel.
I have, however, used JS’s explanation of why his depositor’s money is not physically located in his vault to clarify to my wife why it doesn’t matter which bank our money is deposited with, as long as the bank itself is sound, and FDIC is overseeing it. Of course, if these two circumstances aren’t met, it wouldn’t matter where it is. She just doesn’t grasp the nature of banking.
BTW, I look forward to your analyses each week, and especially so when we get to the chapter containing the real description of what happened in Starnesville. That, and Frisco’s disquisition on money are my favorite parts of the book.
Kirk
You're going to be a very happy camper two Saturdays from now.
LOL! Just finished that and packed it off to Publius - hope it doesn’t disappoint. I recall a little girl watching IAWL and yelling “jump, George! Jump!” at the bridge scene to the horror of her parents. I put her up to it. Heh heh...
I can tell you with absolute certainty that jurist do not like the idea one little bit as I have personally had more than one heated discussion with them about it. I can also tell you that it is my personal belief that it was the intention of our founders that jurors have exactly the power you describe - to judge both the facts AND the law - and make their judgments accordingly.
Objectivism is more closely aligned with Conservatism and Classical Liberalism than Liberalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.