Can we keep to the topic please, the discussion has been fine - apart from complaints about moderators!
Printable View
Can we keep to the topic please, the discussion has been fine - apart from complaints about moderators!
I don't know. I'd probably use some plain language, like "people who stand for unlimited competition" or something. In the process of debating some newer and more adequate definitions and recognition signs would emerge and make it to the common language.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
We recently had parliamentary elections in Belarus. One of the candidates in my district was a member of a communist party (we have at least two of these). He fully supports the current government and the President who combines Soviet-style welfare state and populist rhetoric with tough Latin American-style government capitalism. On top of that the candidate is a radio host with a bohemian lifestyle and most likely gay, which is anathema to traditional communist demographics. You see, using the "communist" label to describe him is a bit misleading.
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/e.../obamunism.jpg
Ingraining A Culture Where If You Earn Money You Are Not Entitled To It, But If You Want It, And Do Not Have It, You Are !
[youtube]t3GnWTy8Ebg[/youtube]Quote:
Originally Posted by DanicaFan
That was a long absence.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanicaFan
If you are to return to the thread, maybe you could do so with some thoughts of your own, rather than yet more pictures off the internet?
It does seem to be the case in politics discussions that e.g. posting articles which "prove" your point is seen as the way to go, rather than using your own arguments.
PS. Don't post full articles they'll get deleted ;)
Just a thought:
Was it Obama, the Republican Party, the Democrats, the Communists, the Socialists, the Liberals, the Green Party, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or someone else who made the decision enabling the US lending agencies to grant mortgages to "sub-prime" customers? And who made the decision to fund these from the world's banking system. Who tried to sort out the resultant mess?
In other words, are people shooting at the right target?
With regards to the lending crisis it is all of us. Oversimplified, Republicans push for relaxed banking regulations and to allow the creation of new investment instruments and Democrats push for relaxed lending standards and to eliminate "red-lining" of certain areas and classes of borrowers. Meanwhile, after the dot-com bubble, investors are looking for the next big thing. Real Estate is always good and it always goes up!! Plus there's all these new type financial instruments, mortgage backed securities, tranches, credit default swaps, real estate investment trusts. After all, even us little guys want our mutual funds and 401k's to keep going up, up, up.
So money starts getting poured into real estate, the rational people that we are, prices are rising, Flip This House (not to be confused with Flip That House :D ) becomes a popular TV show. Since prices are rising, we might as well take out a home equity loan even if we don't want to move, after all real estate only goes up, right? So we created an asset bubble of the very homes we lived in. So asset bubbles do what all asset bubbles do ever since Tulip Mania back in the 1600's, It crashed. It's also interesting to me that a change in accounting rules to fair market rules exacerbated the problem. By making value such a moving target in a declining market, banks would have to sell off assets to maintain adequate capitalization, but since the market was deflating the assets would then be lower,then requiring them to sell off more assets. It was a death spiral. Not sure when it changed but before they could hold assets and record them as the value paid.
So who caused it? We all did.
We have seen the enemy and he is us!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
These pictures say it best. They are so true.... Sorry, I know the truth is hard sometimes. :)