Social Engineering, Not Capitalism, Has Failed America »
Posted By btatman22 6 months, 3 weeks ago in Political OpinionThe epic failure of social engineering, and not capitalism, is the real reason that the West finds itself staring at a fiscally vacuous future. Capitalism has not failed. Capitalism is standing firm against an assault of liberal social programs determined to bankrupt the United States, and bring down the free market, capitalist economy and Western way of life.
Read Full Story at freshconservative.com »
479 Views Share Story 66 Comments Report
Submitted By:
btatman22
Editor of Fresh Conservative which highlights conservative movements and exposes liberal shenanigans. I am Lutheran, yet not fanatical in my religion. I'll worship my ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 65 of 66 Comments (view all)
-
-
69%
hyperbola6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Same old silly sect chants from "freshconservative"!!!
Reply
The total "subprime mortgage" debts came to about 1% of the "funny derivative money" created by corrupt "investment" bankers during the Bush administration. AIG alone had over $65 TRILLION in this funny money and the total amount was several times the world's total GDP.
The final "puff" that broke this bubble of fraud was Bush/Greenspan LOWERING the reserve requirements on "investment" banks in 2005 to as little as 3% so that they could gamble more with Americans money.
This "gambling" with funny money "created" out of nothing by corrupt financial oligarchs was the same thing that caused the Great Depression and that caused both the junk-bond and the Savings and Loan scandals during the Reagan administration. All of which had to be "bailed out" by taxpayers at great cost.
Those kinds of repeated financial scandals during GOP admistrations, plus their "feeding" of the corrupt "military/industrial war profiteers" (e.g. RayGun's "star wars" corruption scheme) are what has bankrupted America.
And, "freshconservative" is either too obtuse to have the slightest idea of what is going on OR is simply a typical group of sect members chanting slogans to try to avoid reality. -
86%
tadair9196 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
corporatism failed.
Reply
you can't have a free market with fiat money controlled by central banks.
they artificially set interest rates low, and the masses start obtaining cheap credit and using it to buy things (like houses) that they normally couldn't afford. when the bubble bursts, and all this artificial wealth is destroyed, people stop paying their mortgage and they blame unfettered capitalism. and instead of allowing the housing prices to drop to market demand so people who can actually afford the houses could buy them, they decide to artificially prop up the prices by bailing out all the banks that would have lost their assets on all the speculation. so, now the dollar in your wallet is losing its value as we speak through inflation, and our unborn grandchildren are paying for the sins of the federal reserve and bought-and-paid for politicians.
make sense?-
75%
vader826 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree tadair, but even aside from the factors you mention above, the government has even been pressuring lenders to make unsafe loans through the Community Reinvestment Act since the Carter years. " Hey I work at Burger King, I can buy a house", well they can force someone to make a loan to said person, but they can't alter the reality that they can't pay their mortgage. I do ofcourse realize that the banks, AIG for example, are partially to blame for the economic downturn by using unethical and borderline illegal practices. AIG was insuring the insurance on mortgages, they called it something else to get around having to back up the "insurance" with collateral. Well when the homes were foreclosed and the mortgage insurers went to AIG to cash in, they simply didn't have the funds. AIG's solution, knock on the governments door and ask for capital. This is not how "capitalism" is supposed to work. Interestingly enough, both pres. candidates at the time both said they did not support any more bailouts, and turned around not but a week later and advocated intervention on AIG's behalf. Interestingly BOTH Mcain and Obama received large campaign contributions from AIG, hedging their bets for future favors I suppose?
Reply
-
-
100%
Tangent0016 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is no such thing as a 'free market'. The Fed controls interest rates. Speculators control commodities prices. The Health Insurance industry is exempt from anti-trust prosecution. Large corporations get subsidies, tax breaks, and access to off-shore tax shelters unavailable to small businesses.
Reply
More and more wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands which results in a Plutocratic control of society. When Reagan came into office there were over a hundred companies publishing school text books. Now there are six. Texas is hollering about removing Thurgood Marshall and Cezar Chavez from social studies civil rights materials, and with the state's buying power, they might just get it.
The middle class has steadily declined, with the far more descending into the lower class than ascending into the upper. With higher education costs rising and loans and grants declining, the situation will continue to polarize the nation economically. -
25%
calitennflo6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Social engineering is a concept in political science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behavior on a large scale ...
Reply
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(politica...
There is no such thing as political science even though it was one of my subjects in school. There again is no science to capitalism either, except if you want something that disparages and denys. Political science-politics: the study of government of states and other political units
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Seems like both have proven to be deminishing. -
64%
NoWayMan6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
more crap fromt he lameasss freshconservative blog.
Reply
if Phil Gramm and the Bush Admin hadn't worked so hard to remove the protections of Glass-Steagall Act (which had protected us from this very situation since the Great Depression) we wouldn't be in this huge of a mess and anyone with a brain stem knows that.
yes, its that simple. and yes, its true.-
40%
corl646 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Phil Gramm just introduced the bill, along with Jim Leach, Clinton signed it.
Reply
This is from Wikipedia (including the exact link that it's pulled from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act).....
" legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [14]
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[7]"
Also... "Financial events following the repeal:
The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, which was in 1999 the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities.[15] Elizabeth Warren,[16] co-author of All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan (Free Press, 2005) (ISBN 0-7432-6987-X) and one of the five outside experts who constitute the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, has said that the repeal of this act contributed to the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009,[17] [18] although some believe that the increased flexibility allowed by the repeal of Glass-Steagall mitigated or prevented the failure of some American banks.[19] ... "The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just five percent of all mortgage lending.[citation needed] By the time the credit crisis peaked in 2008, they were approaching 30 percent.[citation needed] This correlation is not necessarily an indication of causation, however, as there are several other significant events that have impacted the sub-prime market during that time. These include the adoption of mark-to-market accounting, implementation of the Basel Accords, the rise of adjustable rate mortgages etc. [20]"
-
-
80%
canadianrancher576 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Honestly I think that the blame for a failed economy can be place on both government and also the private sector. If an individual owns a company I have no problem him/her taking what ever wage that they want, but when you have a publicly traded company it just drives me crazy the wages and perks that they pay themselves.
Reply
Government with its social programs takes away alot of spending power from the consumer but when executive take too much from a company then the company has to outsource to keep profitable and keep the shareholder happy. The outsourcing causes a loss of jobs which leads to problems within the country and that leads to more government programs.
It seems when ever people whether in government of private business get to the top they lose all sense of logic. -
78%
juslen6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yet for some reason Obama has Alan Greenspan as his economic adviser. And what about the proposal to audit the federal reserve? Which is now being blocked by the Democrats? Over 5 trillion dollars is unaccounted for, and nobody is willing to audit the federal reserve which has complete control over the distribution of money in this country.
Reply
You want to blame this on capitalism or not? Capitalism requires competition and a free market. Do you think private banks like the Federal reserve being propped up by the government and buying up smaller banks and insurance companies is part of a free market system?
Fresh Conservative is correct in one very important aspect. This isn't due to capitalism. That is all you need to know. You can bitch and moan and blame it on war and corruption, but just remember.. those wars and those corruptions within private companies like AIG was made possible by a corrupt government which still exists today.
Obama promised us "Hope and Change" an end to politics as usual. Transparency and accountability. Where is all of this? Military spending has increased, there is no transparency, and Obama is breaking every last promise he gave in 2008.
Do you wish to be so ignorant that you defend him now, only to be just as I am today, knowing George W. Bush let me down? Obama is on the same path, only when he fails will you even consider doubting him. And by then, it will be too late for everyone.-
100%
tadair9196 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
some democrats have come around. nearly 90 have signed on to HR 1207. Here is Alan Grayson (D) killing Bernanke, yesterday:
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/07/22/youtube-... -
86%
truthiness6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the argument that social programs are bankrupting our national economy, when the cost of maintaining a military budget equal to 40% of the total world military budget is a bit ludicrous.
Reply
If we cut our military budget down to defending just our sovereign territory, we would be running a surplus.
the economies of europe weren't in any kind of serious trouble till their investments in our economy failed.
the original push to put poor people in homes instead of helping them afford rentals was part of compassionate conservatism.
anyone who thinks it is better to save money and build bombs than educate children and provide health care.... well, hope you're never in a fox hole with them.
-
-
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned2 Replies
-
71%
mmrhe6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Propaganda disguised as news!
Reply
The scary part is many people believe this scenario.
Unfortunately, we live in a time when many Americans seem unwilling or unable to do their homework on issues like this.
That's when loud mouthed sophists like Limbaugh, Beck and this BTAT clown come in with their over simplistic sloganeering.
Sound familiar?
We are in a very dangerous place. -
78%
cowboygrandpa6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fresh Conservative Bull Crap.
Reply
Greed is not good. If you still have not learned that then you are lost.
People need to work, employers should make a profit. There is something good about that.
But when the employers want all the pie leaving only the crumbs for those who do most of the work. That is slavery, not capitalism.
Capitalism is not being protected by the laws so that others cannot compete against you.
Capitalism is not corporatism, nor is it businesses in bed with the government to control the markets of certain products.
Capitalism does not absolve one from their financial responsibility due to the failure to produce a saleable product.
Capitalism does cause competition between companies that fosters cost and quality factors.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmph
You jokers who think we are a capitalist society are really clueless!!!!!! -
theorangetrailblazerComment removed: Hard Banned
-
67%
chevydog6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This article could have been a thoughtful analysis of what capitalism is, what allows it, its limitations, etc. Would have been much longer and maybe not as readable. But the writer chose to wave the usual buzzwords and lost a good opportunity. Maybe he never wanted that opportunity. Oh well.
Reply
It seems to me that capitalism is quite well. What the writer is complaining about is what one does with the fruits of capitalism. There are potential extremes. One is to basically confiscate all profts from a capitalist venture; then it withers on the vine and can't replenish itself. One can use this confiscated wealth to conduct "social engineering" or do any number of other things. The other extreme is to let a capitalist keep all the money earned from a venture. This doesn't seem to me to be very reasonable. After all, we live in a society. The structure and framework of society is the backdrop that allows capitalist ventures to succeed. And government, like it or not, is the underlying faactor that defines society. Not to return some of the fruits that govt has enabled by its existence seems to me to be both foolish and counterproductive. Without the framework, capitalism couldn't be practiced.
Between the two extremes are taxation rates that are governed by political push-pull. This lets government maintain the framework that is necessary for capitalist ventures to exist. Think that you will always have disagreement as to what is "proper" in this area.
A corporation is a special kind of capitalist venture established by law. The problems they pose do not lie in their existence per se. To me they lie in the achieving and abusing political power to protect themselves from the normal economic forces that beset us all.
This author could have written a thoughtful piece; but he chose not to. I'm sure that somewhere out there are articles and books that do justice to what he chose to avoid by ranting. -
-
50%
Wolfie20076 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Capitalism works every time it's tried and the wonderful thing about capitalism is it plays no favorites. Capitalism doesn't discriminate in regard to race, religion or national origin the only thing that drives capitalism is the marketplace. Capitalism is the engine of freedom and liberty.
Reply-
-
67%
djn3nunez36 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Except that because of greed it alway fails and social reforms become necessary because the greedy robber barrons using questionable business practices or scams in order to become powerful or wealthy. Unregulated Capitalism leads to monopolies and it has been a proven failure in our history.
Reply -
50%
canadianrancher576 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wolfie - In your Idea of Capitalism do the ideas of honesty and integrity have a place, or is it fair to do whatever one has to to remain in business. You talk of how capitalism plays no favorites and the only thing that drives it is the market. I live in that world that you talk of where I have to compete against cattle from countries that never see winter or the cost associated with it, I compete with countries that have a lower cost of labor and lower costs from taxes, less government regulation, so I have to compete against the world, which is your idea of capitalism.
Reply
I sure hope your not going to tell me that the US became a great country because of capitalism, like all governments of the world your country has been interfering in the market place forever, it is guilty of tarrifs and duties against foreign products for a long time, it has been guilty of giving in to lobbiest from large companies, or special interest groups,or producer organizations and if you want an example, I can give you one, no problem.
When we had the BSE outbreak the border closed to our cattle under international rules, to me this was acceptable, within 90 DAYS, Cargill which has packing plants up here, was moving boxed beef from our country into the US , before any saftey study had been done, they went to the Canadian and American governments and received permission to move meat, which minght not have been safe, into your country for the sake of making a buck. It took 30 MONTHS before the border opened to our live Animals, and this was under a so called right wing government, the ones who are supposed to believe in capitalism as well as honesty and integrity.
-
-
-
75%
Wolfie20076 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lloyd
Reply
It's the truth and only people who are ignorant of how the economy works would deny it. Well, there are those folks who want to end capitalism so they can have power over others. Capitalism doesn't work well in a society that isn't free. Our president thinks he can reshape the US with corporatism. Here's a quote to mull over:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini
Does anything about this seem familiar?
-
-
0%
sinophil496 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is so distressing again to read an article that purports to be an intelligent analysis of a complex situation, then lays blame solely on one side or the other. In this case, the article blames "social engineering" and the liberal agenda.
Reply
That is only partially the case.
Of course, the Democrats and Clinton were partially to blame for making banks provide more loans to higher risk home purchasers in 1993. But conservatives conveniently neglect to say that from 1993 to 2004, only 9% of all home mortgages issued were in the subprime category - a still acceptable and safe ratio.
From about 2004 on a couple of events occurred that made the entire banking industry much more unstable. Alan Greenspan and Bush lowered the mandated reserves for banks. allowing them to leverage a much larger percentage of their portfolios. This alone put the banks in a much riskier position.
Secondly, the banking industry got greedy. They realized they could inflate their declared assets by issuing more loans and, thereby reap more profit. Home values became over-valued. Banks began pushing more and more high risk borrowers into these over-valued, high risk, subprime mortgages. As a result, the percentage of subprime mortgages jumped up to 21% of all loans issued.
Thirdly, banks packaged these high risk mortgages into derivatives that they bought and sold as secure investments. In fact, since these were based on high risk financial wizardry, they were high risk investments.
This situation is almost identical Japan's real estate collapse of the late 1980's to mid 1990's. Theirs was also caused by overvalued real estate and increasingly risky loans.
Inevitably, when our housing market collapsed, the banks who had over-leveraged themselves found their portfolio values falling into a black hole of nothingness.
So to blame the collapse on the failure of social engineering is false, disingenuous, and ultimately dangerous. Social engineering may have been the initial background situation that set things up. However, unrestrained capitalistic greed, blindness, and arrogance then set off the cascade of economic failures.
This does not mean that social engineering has failed or needs to be abandoned. It was working and helping the working poor up to 2004. It simply means that subprime lending needs to have limits set.
The collapse also shows that Capitalism needs to be restrained and regulated. As an unrestrained economic force, capitalism inevitably seeks ways to increase profits without regards to long term consequences financially and socially. Capitalism has no conscience or enlightenment.
It also does not mean Capitalism per se failed. It means that Capitalism needs to be controlled by enlightened humans and intelligent laws.-
100%
tadair9196 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't forget, also, that the housing market crash wags the dog on the enormous costs of the war of terrorism. If people knew that this crisis was also brought about by our constant drain of borrowing from China and printing money out of nowhere, then they could properly lay blame square where blame is due.
Reply
"It also does not mean Capitalism per se failed. It means that Capitalism needs to be controlled by enlightened humans and intelligent laws."
If Capitalism is not at fault, then this doesn't say anything about capitalism. You seem to understand that we should not call it capitalism but believe the remedy for the undefined problem.is controlling capitalism. this is a logical fallacy.
besides, free-market capitalism *is* inherently regulated. what could be more regulating than allowing the banks to fail? there is no force in the world stronger than insolvency. too big to fail is just a catch-phrase invented by banksters and incorporated by external influencing governments.
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.