Reply With Quote
Busts lasted a uva lot longer than two years.
The 19th century simply saw the subs ution of grinding poverty in a city for the grinding poverty of a farm.
History fail.
Contribution to judges re-election campaigns is perfectly legal, insult boy.
Busts lasted a uva lot longer than two years.
The 19th century simply saw the subs ution of grinding poverty in a city for the grinding poverty of a farm.
History fail.
I don't think government guaranteed mortgages are the "regulations" democrats have in mind. At all.
COngress does allow for elections, on a regular basis.
Large cartels and monopolies didn't need government regulations to squash compe ion, and drag economic growth.
More history fail.
Yeah the working man was in such great shape in 1870. Upton Sinclair says go yourself.
This is also nice revisionist history. Only problem was that Hoover did enact the policies that you are espousing when the market crashed and the bottom fell out like it never had before. There was no self correction. Zero evidence of that whatsoever.
As for your legal power, they indeed did not get broadened interpretation of the word persons until that time however there was absolutely no evidence that they were fettered in any way shape or form. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan all had pretty much absolute control over their dominion railroads were granted tremendous tracts of land. The medical industry was centralizing as was all other trades.
And the definition of middle class etc during that time period was a much different dynamic. This was the time period during which people moved home from rural areas and women and children were pressed into service in American factories. I would like to see your study talking about class movement during that time period because trying to paint it with the modern brush paints nothing at all.
It was the "innovation" of bundling mortages into bonds that freed up the banks that were originating the loans from facing the consquences of defaults. They had no motivation at all to have decent underwriting practices at that point, and good old fashioned capitalism did the rest.
You do know that the mortgages guaranteed by Fanny and Freddy were less than half of the total mortgages bundled into securities, right?
If anyone thinks 19th century America was an awesome place to live, we have plenty of lovely 3rd world countries all over the world that present a similar lifestyle. I'd recommend looking into it if you like 19th century America tbh.
It is less revisionist history than simple ignorance of history. It is the libertarian-colored glasses effect. Capitalism, like some sort of God is infallible, and all evidence to the contrary is suspect.
Do you even pay attention to the courts in Texas? You can literally contribute financially to the judge that is to review your case. You talk about how other people are ignorant but you do not even know whats going on around you. Being able to make contributions directly to the arbiter of your fate is the easiest thing in the world.
Lets get some timeline down here. Market crashed in 1929. Hoover was presented and had continued the policy of his predecessors barring Teddy of laissez fair free market policy. That policy continued for 1929-1933 which was Hoover's last year in office. Unemployment did not indicate some impending boom. It was at 25% in 1934 when FDR took over.
You bet your ass i am going to blame no holds barred laissez fair policy responsible as it was that for 100 years minus Ted's 3 years up to 1933. McKinley, Garfield, Harrison oh my.
But state government is still government... so you still have intervention, which isn't the role your system wants for government.
The system you propose isn't inherently wrong, but it's simply unattainable. An utopia. And the biggest problem is that you have to have the system in it's totality. You can't build towards it, because if it fails at some stage, the blame will always be on some control, regulation or government.
It saw a rise in the standard of living. America was in a period of transition from and agricultural society to an industrial one. The needs and demands of the people were changing little by little.
To think that the industrial age didn't bring prosperity shows your lack of economic history. The cost of goods were dropping year by year. Btw the great depression was the worst bust america ever encountered , and it was govt controls that caused it and prolonged it.\
So are u saying that they too want to get rid of Fannie and freddie?
That's right, because if we were to scale back the dept of education, no one would go to school, if we were to scale back our transportation budget, we'd all would lose DA ROADS!!! and then mcdonalds and kfc would have to bring da food to us, and make even more money!!!!!
If it wasn't for an rust laws, well you'd have corporations get so big that they would build armies and become their own countries and we cant have det!!!
WE'd have Taco Bell Invade Mexico!!!!!
By Golly!!! we'd have Tyson's Chicken attack the country of Turkey using private mercenaries from Bologna, Italy!!
We need govt guys!!!!!
If we privatized da rods, we wouldn't have xbox 360's!!!!
Steve Jobs would have never been born!!!
A govt that respects individual rights is a utopia.. okay.
I guess the cons ution is a utopian do ent.
The cons ution establishes much more than individual rights... including granting Congress the ability to regulate commerce and taxing powers, among other things.
To establish your utopian society the Cons ution would require some severe rewriting.
Panic of 1873?
I didn't say that the industrial revolution didn't raise living standards. It did.
It just didn't do much of it in the 19th century.
The "Great Depression" really only got the moniker because it was the first one in the modern era, and the first one for which fairly solid data was available.
You can't say "it was the worst bust america ever encountered" because of that overall lack of data. It just got the most press.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/...tm#DEPRESSIONS
The fact that the periodic busts throughout our history have been on hiatus since we enacted some sane financial regulation after the 1929 depression, and that repeal of some of the legislation from this period appears to be a contributing factor to the current bust does not help your cause.
In the interest of intellectual honesty, it should be noted that each of the busts above were caused, in no small part, from the actions of government.
That makes the case for the minimization of governmental intrusion into the economy, but not really a good case for *no* governmental oversight of economic activity.
Governmental regulation forms the underlying structure for a functioning economy. It provides the "ground rules" for a free market system to operate.
Meh. It has some nice parts, but needs to be scrapped and heavily re-written in my opinion.
I see you have me in the crushing grip of straw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
Both of these are fairly common results of pure capitalism.
So are distortions based on information assymetry.
Free markets and the ability to freely allocate capital in response to market demands are genuine drivers of growth and innovation.
But to function, you have to provide rules that minimize these distortive results.
That requires government, whether you like it or not.
I think free markets are good things, I just don't blindly worship them.
I think governments are good things, I just don't blindly worship them, either.
lol, again with this .. whose arguing for an anarchal society??
I'm not against taxation for the purposes of protecting life liberty and property, we didn't even have an income tax in this country until 1913.
Stop with the insanity, do some research will you!
Things like sales tax would preclude "voluntary mutual transactions free of govt". Furthermore, taxing in general is "wealth redistribution".
But what really makes your proposal utopian is that you believe government will restrict the use of those tools granted to them by the cons ution on their own volition.
It's not going to happen, which is why you either need to rewrite the cons ution abolishing those tools or simply stop entertaining this idea since it's really a waste of time.
No one is forcing you to pay income taxes.
You are no more held to paying income taxes than an employee who is upset about pay is held to a job.
Move. Go some place else. , stop working. become a hunter gatherer in the forest.
No one is forcing you to stay or work to pay income taxes. If you like like it, GTFO.
Some research is good. i would start by googling "civil war income tax." You need to go to where you get your 'facts' from and reevaluate. You have been fed bull dogma and its pretty obvious.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions