Random Thoughts (Thomas Sowell)

Jewish World Review ^ | August 11, 2009 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

Exactly, Smooth, very good point. Obama has already made a huge installment in his payback to the unions with this pathetic action and there’ll surely be more to come.

It’s sickening just how much he can help these blood suckers and like you say, it’ll be with our tax dollars.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I wonder how many White MSM types, Liberals, Democrats would be called a " Racist " if they opposed Thomas Sowell if Thomas Sowell were to run for the office of the President of the USA ??? ....

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Any BROWN SHIRT MEDIA folks here on FR reading this ? ...
Any Liberals here on FR reading this ? .....

Would you call me a " Racist " if I were to support Thomas Sowell for President of the USA if he were to run for President ? .... then ? how can you call me a " Racist " if I oppose Mr. Obama for his policies and Ideology and not because he is black ( even though, his black back ground and hatred of whites do effect his decision making ) ....

[takenoprisoner]

Was it really greed? Did bankers and investors actually believe the poor could make the hefty payments on their mortagage? Did they not view income to debt ratio as a qualifying prospectus? Or did they know in advance, the fed govt, with the taxpayer dollar, would bail them out when the time came?

I have my money on they knew they would be bailed out. Which is exactly what occured.

As a result, banker’s and investor’s decisons were based on assumptions the govt, with taxpayer dollars, would always bail them out when deliquency ratios exceded an unacceptable level. They did, and as always assumed, they were bailed out by the taxpayer without their consent.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Sherman Logan]

Mr. Sowell isn’t really black, just as Sarah Palin isn’t really a woman.

[TopQuark]

"Plus, your post made very little sense as a response to my post."

This is funny. I pointed out that YOUR post makes little sense without a definition of greed. In response, you suggest that my question make little sense. Funny indeed.

Why don't you define greed in economic decisions of people and put your "rant" on some kind of foundation. As it stands, it has none.

[coconutt2000]

So far you’re the only one with significant problem with my “rant”, however if want to you’re free to clarify exactly what about my use of “greed” in my post and that of Sowell you don’t agree with or don’t understand.

Expecting me to respond to your post when in fact you haven’t specified clearly what you’re looking for is kind of disingenuous. Frankly, I think the way “greed” is used by Sowell and myself is fairly simple as a concept and has nothing to do with your request that it be defined even further. Seems like you just want to be ornery.

[TopQuark]

So much reading of my mind... So much hiding behind the numbers of the supposedly like-minded readers...

So little of an answer (none) to a clarifying question about YOUR statements... Surely you'd give if you had any.

The upshot is that none of what you said makes any sense in the absence of a definition of greed.

I'll let the ussue rest.

[coconutt2000]

Greed is aptly defined in a dictionary.

If you want to debate the merit or lack of it of my post, please present me with something to respond to, such as your definition of greed in respects to its function in our social and economic exchanges and government. What you are asking me to do is define a word in your frame of reference, which really only truly you can do, so have at it.

Please elaborate on your own opinion on the function of greed in our social and economic transactions and provide your definition of greed itself from within your own frame of reference. It may prove enlightening to the rest of us.

[TopQuark]

Thank you for your reply. There are affected words that, although neutral in the past, are weapons used by the Left in class warfare. Most economists, until recently, have used "wealthy" when referring to individuals and nations. If you want to entice envy, you use "rich" instead. Similarly, one can speak of "profit-seeking," which implies no wrong-doing; or "gouging," which implies unjust "exploitation" and victimization of the masses.

Greed used to meen self-interest. It is of that self-interest that Adam Smith and Sowell speak. When used too loosely, this word begins to sound, however, as yet another blow to free-markets from the Left or their sympathizers (and there are plenty of such on FR).

Thus, when one says, as you did, "greed played a part in it," the statement blends with the litany of free-market-bashers such as Obama, Waxman, Frank, etc.

In consequence, I urged you to be a bit more precise in your use of that word. Just reread your post with "greed" substituted with "self-interest:" it acquires an altogether different TONE and CONTENT.

[coconutt2000]

Ah see, we don’t disagree at all. We just view the class warfare issue differently is all. The Left has taken and defined, and redefined so many common words so as to make association with those words dirty. While you are correct that this occurred and that many readers will not comprehend the meaning and use of many common words, but we can’t go around defining our use of these words at every turn or not using those words because we’re afraid of offending people.

Greed, self-interest, profit motive, and pursuit of happiness are all different faces of the same idea, but what Sowell was doing by using “greed” in that context was to show that inherently greed itself was not the source of crisis nor was it the root, but that it, like gravity, is merely part of how things went wrong.

[MosesKnows]

You should stop using this word (greed) or define it.

Greed is not wanting to keep what you’ve earned. Greed is wanting something that somebody else earned.

We should quit thinking of capital and labor as somehow antithetical and competitive with one another and understand they are perfectly complimentary.