Puzzlefeet, you must not understand that investors look forward; aka plan ahead.

Obama is never going to be responsible for the consequences of his policies.

WHICH POLICIES HE ISN’T IN OFFICE YET!

This is ridiculous obama hasn’t even been sworn in and already he’s ruined out country…

This is ridiculous obama hasn’t even been sworn in and already he’s ruined out country…

By destroying confidence with his Obamunism.

Deutschland vor allem

The market is forward looking, and doesn’t like what it sees!

WHICH POLICIES HE ISN’T IN OFFICE YET!
This is ridiculous obama hasn’t even been sworn in and already he’s ruined out country…

He’s certainly had a hand in it. His policies and votes have been helping to ruin our country.

And the policies that he has offered suck. The market is reacting. That is absolutely his fault.

In order to invest wisely, all factors must be taken into account in calculating a rate of return, and in today’s fiscal atmosphere, including the promised socialism changes proposed by Obama, that calculation doesn’t look favorable. The problem is not money, it’s confidence.

Invest in taxes, they are the only thing sure to go up under Obama.

Also, Seth, you are right, but it won’t end when Bush is gone. They will be blaming him until there is another prominent Republican that they can blame.

The only benefit for the 60 in the Senate is that there will be no-one else to blame for at least 2 years.

GOD SAVE US ALL!!!

Rob – See, most actors in the market are pro-active. Not reactive.

One could also say that the market is reacting to the future.

Same difference, though.

I’m not asking you the question, I’m merely identifying the fundamental question in modern political theory. I know that you are a faithful follower of the American Constitution and that you believe it is the blueprint for the appropriate role of government. I believe that the State should do more than you do but I don’t believe that the State should do everything. Anarchists believe the State should do less than you believe appropriate…it’s a continuum of opinions is all I’m saying.

I know that you are a faithful follower
of the American Constitution and that you believe it is the blueprint for the appropriate role of government. For the United States, its citizens, and any other country that would choose it or something similar.

I’m not a totalitarian, although “forcing” individual independence is a bit strained, don’t you think?

The disagreement I have, and have always had with your version of this topic is that you seem to assume that all govt intrusion is equal, and it’s only a matter of quantity. I regard quality as even more important. Again, it is definitely an intrusion on my individual independence to be taxed for a strong military, but there is a tradeoff here that I am willing to make, and it’s a cost/benefit calculation. I’m getting a good deal for my money, and so I don’t consider it onerous. On the other hand, when the govt takes my earnings to finance a useless social engineering pyramid scheme, with no parameters to judge its success, and just keeps on funding it, with yearly increases, without any measurable results, I’m not getting a good deal for my money, and consider that an onerous burden. Understand?
As it turns out, the Constitutional reasons for govt spending and intrusion are generally worthwhile, while the non-Constitutional ones are not, so there is a difference. All govt intrusions are not equal, in my book. I approve the ones that work out, and disapprove of the ones that are wasteful. It just seems adult to apply cost/benefit analysis to all govt action, doesn’t it?

…it’s a trade off as I’ve already said and our disagreement is really over how much individual power we should surrender.

I appreciate your opinion, but it’s not an accurate description of what I’m talking about. To give a full explanation would go way beyond the scope of a blog comment, so maybe I’ll craft an article on it in the Reader Blogs at some time in the future. For me, it’s a matter of who controls the govt: If I have a voice in my govt, a real choice(not the false promise of Marxism), I can have a say in the amount of interdependence(which is different from codependency) I will have in my life. This is the basic principle of limited govt at work. It’s not “small” govt, but limited, in the sense of the scope of what the govt is permitted to do with and for the individual. My experience is that govt tends to be an oppressive mother, who wants to keep her children(the socialist view of citizens) as dependent on her as possible, with that promise of security and comfort. I would prefer a govt that only does a few basic things “for me”, and stays out of my way most of the time, like a child who has become an adult, which is my reality. The socialist govt seeks to prolong childhood, IMO, and in fact never wants the “child” to grow up. The big mother socialist govt fears the child growing up and leaving home, and so it always trying to increase dependency.
BTW, conservatives aren’t “rightists”, because we don’t want power invested in the rulers, whoever they may be; we prefer to maintain the power to the individual citizen.

OK, I give… ODS??

I don’t agree that such intervention constitutes socialism BTW…you can look it up at the Economist if you don’t agree.

It’s at least socialistic, and if the govt effectively takes over the market, it is socialism, like our education system. All taxpayers pay for it, whether or not they use it. The govt schools are the standard, while private schools and homeschooling can be easily legislated out of business; I expect that might happen under Obamunism, btw.

…I’m not sure why you don’t see that you have surrendered some authority to the State already and thus the fundamental question is how much authority should appropriately be given to the State.

“How much” is a quantitative measure, I believe. I repeat, it’s not a simple matter of “how much”, but of the nature of what you call “authority”. Under the Constitution, that “authority” is given by the people, so it’s not really “authority”, but a duty to the citizens, which is why we call politicians and govt workers “public servants”. Obviously, the greedy political class isn’t satisfied with that, especially the leftie ones.

It’s not an economic term, unlike socialism. Your argument has more heat than light; it’s still not ownership or control of the means of production. It is market-rigging, though. Not socialism.
When Obama announces that he intends to “spread the wealth”, not because he needs the money, but because it will be “better for everybody”, he is expressing pure Marxist socialism.
Your expression “taking over part of the insurance market” is simply not true. Like all govt intrusion into markets, it distorts the supply/demand/price relationships, but it isn’t socialism, which would require the govt to actually take over the market or control all of it through regulation.

Again, socialism is not intrusion or influence; it is ownership or total control. When there is no longer any private sector ownership or control in a market, then it is a part of socialism.

Socialism is more than just govt spending; it’s the ownership/control of the means of production.

And the Medicaid/Medicare programs are more than “helping people with prescription drugs.” It is the government confiscating property from everybody to pay for the drugs and medical spending of certain classes of people. It’s the government negotiating (coercing) with drug companies to determine what the price of drugs should be. It is the government taking over a part of the insurance market. By any credible definition it is socialism.

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/

Just for fun I typed in “socialistic” since you decided I needed to “educate myself”. No results….hmmm…..

Rob: Actually, Fannie and Freddie were fed by the bad mortgages generated by the social engineering mandates.

The fact that President Bush is not a conservative is well known, but that doesn’t make him a socialist. His pandering to the Dems by instituting socialistic govt programs has undermined conservatism, as a matter of fact.
Socialism is the ownership by the govt of the means of production; President Bush did none of that.

robert108: But Bush had his socialist moments. The prescription drug program was not needed. Subsidies to wealthy farmers. Redistribution of Wealth?? We (I) criticize the bailout of the big 3, but we don’t mention the unnessary billions going to farmers, amtrak, airlines, etc.

“realitybased”bob – Recession is gop’s gift to America.

The recession that only came about after the Democrats retook the House in 2006 and really came into force after Obama was elected?

Wow! Those wascally Republicans. They’re responsible for the actions of another party now. To be fair though, if the Republicans acted like conservatives instead of the center left party they’re becoming, they would have most likely remained in power. So, in a way, you can blame them – if you’re reaching.

Puzzlefeet – So the market is not reacting to the meltdown in the housing market? So the market is not reacting to the meltdown on wall street? LOLOLOL!

Why are you laughing? These are serious matters.

Of course the market is reacting to the popped housing and credit bubbles brought on by big government.

You guys need to get real.
If you’re going to tell me that 8 years of Bush and republicans had no had in this downfall, then I’m going to laugh at you.

No one is saying that, Mrs. Maniacally-Laughing Straw-Man Creator.

Obama can’t change what is sound economic policy. Right now, the market is tanking because investors know his policies are unsound. If he at least gave lip service to good economic policies, there would be some relief, but of course, he’s not believable.

I know that you all think it is Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae:
but then there’s this:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/once-again-it-w.html

And this is an interim state between those two positions.

It’s like saying that being in the water is a state between being alive and drowning. That is why I called it “socialistic”, btw. I did explain the difference a few times.

I didn’t parse anything; you furnished your own interpretation of what I said, and you were wrong. Get over it.
If you don’t want to be educated, just ignore my recommendation. Your choice. I have no power to compel you, so the victim stuff is inappropriate to our conversation.
The difference between “socialistic” and “socialism” is the state of govt. A truly representative govt cannot be described as socialism, while one that gives lip service to representative governance while in fact ignoring the will of the people can be, and generally is, socialist in nature.
I’m not saying that the US cannot become a socialist country, but that would take a seizure of power and a change of how the govt works. Obama represents the greatest danger of that happening here since FDR.

He hasn’t started yet his job and is already responsible of the bad economy we suffer??? pathetic.

You are a queer little man, 108.

Boob, there is never a single cause in the economy.

Rube on November 20, 2008 at 06:13 pm

It all started with Fannie and Freddie and was a domino effect from there. Anyone claiming otherwise is either engaging in partisan-driven history revision or is stupid.

Rube on November 20, 2008 at 04:29 pm

I’m neither queer nor little, so you lie again. You’re probably just projecting, as is typical of narcissism.

You do it to everyone.

Poor baby! You’re so oppressed because I call you on your bullshit. It’s not going to stop until you stop trying to include me in your bullshit. Speak for yourself, don’t try to speak for me. You always get it wrong, and then get your panties in a wad when I correct you.
If you don’t know the difference between socialist and socialistic, it’s not my fault.

Woof: FYI, there is only one way to have economic growth. It just so happens at this point in history that the only politicians who have any idea how to do that are Republicans. The Dems could support sound economic policy, but it goes against their Marxist ideology. What you said is true, but you have no idea why it is true.

Only a fool would be ignorant of what it takes to make real economic growth. It’s wise capital investment, in a free market. The less capital available, due to excessive taxation caused by unwise govt spending, the less growth can take place. What you lefties don’t know is that the govt can’t create economic growth; it is entirely dependent for its funding on the achievements of successful individuals. Obstruct the individual through taxation and regulation, and you get reduced growth. Reduce growth enough, and you get recession(negative growth) and eventually depression if the unwise economic policies are continued. Usually, leftie administrations plunder the prosperity built up before they take power, and then the following Republican administration builds it back up again, so that the next “promise them the moon and stars” leftie administration goes aplundering again. In this case, the plundering started early, and now your Messiah is on a very short leash. He has to turn the economy around right away, and the only way he can do that is to institute policies that allow the private sector to create economic growth. If he tries to plunder the economy right away, his failed economics will be revealed in stark detail. Good luck with that.

Are the rocky economic times entirely Obama’s fault?

It’s desperation based on the probable implemetaion of Obama’s socialist policies.

What explains the despair? Well, a look at Obama’s policy proposals suggests that he plans four big changes that, if actualized, could have terrible economic consequences.

First is a bill called the “Fair Currency Act.”

That could ignite a trade war similar to the Smoot-Hawley catastrophe that contributed to the Great Depression.

Second is “The Employee Free Choice Act.”

Costs to businesses would skyrocket, profits would tank, and bankruptcies and job destruction would follow.

Third is the little-known footnote to his tax policy plan — a call to end the deferral of tax on the profits of U.S. multinational corporations.

This is the most alarming of his many proposals.

If Obama successfully ends deferral, our multinationals will suddenly find that costs have dramatically shifted in their disfavor. They will lose business to competitors that operate in low-tax jurisdictions, and cut back employment both here and abroad.

The fourth is massive regulation.

Given this list of bad policies, it’s little wonder that investors have headed to the exits.

The collapse of housing prices and the financial calamity that ensued certainly started the process, but it’s hard to imagine that the market would have plunged this far without the magnifying effect of Obama’s policies — and the most chilling thought is that the market probably has not fully factored these four policy proposals into current stock prices.

Let’s not forget that Bush, also, had his socialist moments. Remember the medicare prescription drug nightmare and big farm subsidies in his first four years. All of these programs to get elected to the next 4 years. Now he veto’d the most recent farm program. Fiscal conservatism and Bush should not be used in the same sentence.

He hasn’t started yet his job and is already responsible of the bad economy we suffer???

Actually, it’s a socialist triple whammy: First, the social engineering-caused home loan debacle, which has caused real estate values to be in doubt; Second, the so-called “bailout”, which puts the value of a great many investments in doubt, and Third, the election of an avowed socialist who essentially promises to destroy the integrity of our economic system.
Most investors are simply withdrawing from the stock market and the real estate market, since the future of those two markets is seriously in doubt. In order to invest wisely, all factors must be taken into account in calculating a rate of return, and in today’s fiscal atmosphere, including the promised socialism changes proposed by Obama, that calculation doesn’t look favorable. The problem is not money, it’s confidence.
While the temporary high fuel prices were originally blamed for a weakening economy, the big decline in those prices has not “cured” the problem, so we must look elsewhere.

Waxman: … Freddie and Fannie “certainly played a role” in the current situation …”Do any of you believe that they were the cause of this financial crisis?”

Alan Greenspan — “…not the primary cause”

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox — “I would agree with that”

Former Treasury Secretary John Snow — “I agree with that, there is no single cause…”

ODS- False equivalence* from the left with “BDS”.

*It’s what they do best!

…since you decided I needed to “educate myself”.

I did not such thing; I’m not responsible for either your level of education or your actions.

Please explain what you mean by that.

A world such as espoused by Ayn Rand. A world where the individual has minimal obligations to other individuals…I visualise it as the polar opposite of the collective.

Whether or not you regard my question as “applicable”, what is your answer?

It’s not applicable because I’m not promoting collectivism. I’d guess that the same thing would happen to an individual who defies the collective’s laws as would happen today to an individual who defies the law.

Not my question, but it’s not really about security and comfort, but the promise of security and comfort. The Soviet Union, Mao’s China and the inner cities of the US illustrate that such a promise is generally not kept.

That’s fine but we all give up some of our individual rights and “powers” when we live in countries like America and Canada. You are prepared to give up less in terms of decision making ability than I am…you favour lower taxes than I do for example, partly because it’s better for the economy and partly because you wish to retain more say over how your money is spent. In general, we surrender certain individual rights or “powers” to the State in exchange for the State’s promise to protect and respect the rights that we keep.

After you have handed your freedom over to the politicians, and they have failed to deliver on their promises, what is your recourse?

In our case, our recourse is the ballot box and the courts. In the case of less free societies, the recourse is civil disobedience and ultimately revolt.

HG…very true.

A world such as espoused by Ayn Rand. A world where the individual has minimal obligations to other individuals…I visualise it as the polar opposite of the collective. I’m not familiar with your source, but I don’t agree with your stuff about “minimal obligations to other individuals. What is your version of one individual’s responsibility to another individual? Isn’t it to respect the other’s individuality? Isn’t it to be honest and forthright? What’s wrong with that? If you mean some obligation of codependency, that’s another matter, and is simply collectivism.

It’s not applicable because I’m not promoting collectivism. I’d guess that the same thing would happen to an individual who defies the collective’s laws as would happen today to an individual who defies the law. Not an excuse, but I don’t blame you for not wanting to admit the horror of over 100 million slaughtered in the effort to impose collectivism, along with the degeneration of the inner cities due to our version of collectivism. Not a pretty sight.

That’s fine but we all give up some of our individual rights and “powers” when we live in countries like America and Canada. That’s always the excuse collectivists make. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. You are prepared to give up less in terms of decision making ability than I am…you favour lower taxes than I do for example, partly because it’s better for the economy and partly because you wish to retain more say over how your money is spent. In general, we surrender certain individual rights or “powers” to the State in exchange for the State’s promise to protect and respect the rights that we keep. You can’t seem to shake the habit of speaking for me and then arguing with your own version of my reality, rather than mine, but you are not as wrong as usual this time.

In our case, our recourse is the ballot box and the courts. In the case of less free societies, the recourse is civil disobedience and ultimately revolt.

You assume that you will still have the freedom of the ballot box; not necessarily a valid assumption, as the shenanigans of ACORN and the MSM illustrated in this last “election”. How free are you when votes can be so easily manufactured, and when public opinion can be so thoroughly manipulated through propaganda?

…it does mean that I have to factor in the
condition of others when I make my individual decisions.

I don’t think that one has to do that, in a free society, but many people choose to do it; if it’s coerced, it’s just an onerous obligation, with no joy or virtue.
I don’t know where you got your warped view of conservatism/individualism, but it doesn’t resonate with any of my real life experiences. The mean and exclusive people I have met are all lefties, who talk one game and live another.
The only real giving is voluntary.
You just don’t trust the individual, and I have no trust whatsoever for groups and factions.
I’m not going to get in some futile discussion of what you will admit is collectivism, but for me, it’s the submergence of individual freedom to the will of the collective.
Your willingness to give up your freedom for the promise of security and comfort is just a step on the slippery slope to collectivism and dependence on govt, IMO.
And don’t go to the old “it isn’t perfect” argument, either. No one is “perfectly” independent, but govt functioning to facilitate individual freedom is drastically different from govt trying to engineer social outcomes.

I’m not familiar with your source, but I don’t agree with your stuff about “minimal obligations to other individuals.

You can google her if you’re interested. I know you don’t agree…that is the fundamental difference between our perspectives.

If you mean some obligation of codependency, that’s another matter, and is simply collectivism.

If by codependency you mean that we all have a responsibility to and for each other then you are correct although I wouldn’t call it collectivism. Collectivism implies an equality of condition which is impossible to achieve IMO. I’m thinking more in terms of the Christian Commandment to love my neighbour as myself. That doesn’t mean that I have to give up enough so that we’re all equal but it does mean that I have to factor in the condition of others when I make my individual decisions. I don’t expect you to agree or even understand and I have to point out that it’s not a belief system that is ever likely to form the basis for a governing philosophy.

Not an excuse, but I don’t blame you for not wanting to admit the horror of over 100 million slaughtered in the effort to impose collectivism, along with the degeneration of the inner cities due to our version of collectivism. Not a pretty sight.

You’ve lost me on this point. Are you suggesting that collectivist regimes haven’t faced public opposition and that they’ve never fallen? Perhaps you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.

That’s always the excuse collectivists make. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

It’s not an excuse but a fact. You have transferred authority to make some decisions to the State.

How free are you when votes can be so easily manufactured, and when public opinion can be so thoroughly manipulated through propaganda?

That’s why vigilance is important. I don’t believe those problems are as serious as you suggest but they are things to be guarded against.

Sparkie

Thinkers churn out countless possible worlds. Unfortunately, we live in a real one. Bummer, eh?

It is…I would like to live in Homer Simpson’s “Land of Chocolate” but I’m not holding my breath.

Look it up in an econ dictionary.

Could you recommend one? TIA.

I don’t want to live as part of a collective nor do I want to live in a Randian type world Please explain what you mean by that. so the question isn’t really applicable. Whether or not you regard my question as “applicable”, what is your answer? Since you have already stated that you don’t want to live as part of a collective, I think you have an answer, but just don’t want to deal with that reality. The question really is how much individual freedom is one prepared to surrender in exchange for living securely and comfortably. Not my question, but it’s not really about security and comfort, but the promise of security and comfort. The Soviet Union, Mao’s China and the inner cities of the US illustrate that such a promise is generally not kept. After you have handed your freedom over to the politicians, and they have failed to deliver on their promises, what is your recourse? I’ll give up more than you will but I won’t give up as much as the communists want…I’m in the mushy middle as usual. Just so you don’t give away my freedom in the process of giving up yours. That’s always the problem with collectivism.

Wrong again! We have 46 States and 4 Commonwealths.

I’m not sure why you don’t see that you have surrendered some authority to the State already and thus the
fundamental question is how much authority should appropriately be given to the State.

Actually, I see it quite clearly, and have spoken of it countless times in countless threads. Again, it’s the concept of limited govt, limited to strictly Constitutional powers of govt. That is our protection from the slippery slope of collectivism. The idea of the US is a team, not a homogeneous group. The limitation of govt’s ability to rule our lives is essential to the team concept, while the group submerges individual identity to group identity. This is the debate that is intended to be ongoing: the tension between State’s and individual rights vs the powers of the federal govt. The federal govt is necessary for only a few functions, including national defense, enforcement of contracts and basic laws, and some basic infrastructure, like a national highway system. The rest, per conservative principles, should be left to the States or the individual citizens. It is this limitation of the central govt that distinguishes our Constitution from other forms of governance.
You really don’t know this? It is the essence of conservatism. If you don’t know this, you really have no idea of what American conservatism is all about.
Your idea of a smooth continuum between a bit of govt authority is not “surrendering” to total dominance by govt. The Constitution is our protection against exactly that.

Obama is never going to be responsible for the consequences of his policies.

I look forward to reading your post since I’m not sure why you don’t see that you have surrendered some authority to the State already and thus the fundamental question is how much authority should appropriately be given to the State.

BTW, conservatives aren’t “rightists”, because we don’t want power invested in the rulers, whoever they may be; we prefer to maintain the power to the individual citizen.

I will note your usage for future reference.

Boob, there is never a single cause in the economy. But just because Fannie/Freddie weren’t the only cause doesn’t mean they weren’t the catalyst.

Trying knowing stuff next time.

A world such as espoused by Ayn Rand.

Thinkers churn out countless possible worlds. Unfortunately, we live in a real one. Bummer, eh?

I know that you all think it is Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae:
but then there’s this:

Fannie and Freddie had 51% of the mortgage market. If that big a chunk of the credit market goes under it leaves a huge gap.

It all started with Fannie and Freddie and was a domino effect from there. Anyone claiming otherwise is either engaging in partisan-driven history revision or is stupid.