The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 197
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmedHope View Post
    I saw this explanation on Facebook and I think it's does pretty well in explaining the difference between the two.

    SOCIALISM
    You have 2 cows.
    You give one to your neighbor

    COMMUNISM
    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and gives you some milk
    I have heard:

    SOCIALISM
    You have two cows and you are evil for that.
    Your neighbor without a cow is entitled to one and the government will see that he gets it.
    Then the government will take half the milk.

    COMMUNISM
    You have two cows and are evil for that.
    The government will take both and teach you a lesson, put you to work for the government in a mine in Siberia so you forget you ever thought of owning anything.

    I will only say, you pick your poison.
    One fascist dictator for all, or several government picked dictators of any flavor for all.

    Whoever mentioned Europe becoming more and more socialist, yes and see where that is getting them, more and more governments failing and unrest all over.

    There will always be more to do and it's share of discontents to whom nothing is ever good enough, but we better not let them run the show.
    We have it good in the good old USA and so many don't realize how good.
    When it comes to government, the grass is really not greener across the fence.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    18,690

    Default

    One point of interest is that the fascist governments were explicitly anti-liberalism and anti-democracy. They were also explicitly socialist.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar. 19, 2003
    Posts
    374

    Default

    One thing to keep in mind. Buisness big and small, Banks and goverments are all run by people. People can be good or bad. Human nature never changes though it tries at times. I wish people would look at things for what they really are and not just what it looks or feels like. A bit of honesty with others and oneself could go along way.
    M
    Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from behind, or a fool from any direction


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jr View Post
    I haven't forgotten anything. First, our real estate bubble was in part caused by government policy that encouraged unwise lending. Then the problem was compounded with gov intervention using taxpayer dollars to bail out bad businesses. That is not capitalism. We should have let the weakest go bankrupt. Instead, our gov is now printing money and driving a new bubble in the stock market.

    Capitalism has flaws, but it's better than the rest. And if the government stops mucking with it, it works better....
    Before you can defend capitalism, you'd have to find a successful example of it. As you rightly point out, what the US has ain't it.

    Note, that logically does not make the US socialist, nor does it say anything about what does work in all times and all places.

    Oh, and the banks and people trading derivates weren't complaining about the government loopholes that allowed their respective businesses to grow. You can't put this all on government, or assume that the government was caught unawares. I think you can worry that legislation has become Wall Street's b!tch.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    3 members found this post helpful.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul. 3, 2012
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    I think this is like a bunch of kids playing together: the kids being capitalism. Then the parents and coaches come and take over: they being the government. Now if the kids are left to play on their own, they will figure out the rules. Sometimes it won't be pretty, there will be some knock-down, drag outs but they will end up with a game that suits everyone. Those that play hard will do better than those who try to cheat or slouch. When the parents/coaches get involved and start imposing THEIR rules based on THEIR idea of fairness, fair play, equality then nobody knows what the game is anymore and the kids of left powerless, except to try and follow ever-changing rules and regulations.

    Capitalism needs to keep parents and coaches out of the game. And you're right...we don't have that in the U.S. We have a bastardization of capitalism. And THAT doesn't work.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    This discussion is going to go into the shitter if we start by taking out working definitions from FaceBook.
    Gee, who the hell pissed in your cheerios?

    I forgot NO HUMOR ALLOWED!!

    Too bad, I'm posting the rest of the Facebook post because I thought it was FUNNY and we can all use a little bit of humor every once in a while on these types of topics. If that offends you well then good for you, here's a gold star.

    SOCIALISM
    You have 2 cows.
    You give one to your neighbour

    COMMUNISM
    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and gives you some milk

    FASCISM
    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and sells you some milk

    NAZISM
    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and shoots you

    BUREAUCRATISM
    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then
    throws the milk away

    TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
    You have two cows.
    You sell one and buy a bull.
    Your herd multiplies, and the economy
    grows.
    You sell them and retire on the income

    ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
    You have two cows.
    You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
    your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
    for five cows.
    The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
    The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
    The public then buys your bull.

    SURREALISM
    You have two giraffes.
    The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

    AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    You sell one, and force the other to
    produce the milk of four cows.
    Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why
    the cow has dropped dead.

    A GREEK CORPORATION
    You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds,
    dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds.
    You still only have two cows.

    A FRENCH CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
    cows.

    A JAPANESE CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce
    twenty times the milk.
    You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and
    market it worldwide.

    AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
    You have two cows,
    but you don't know where they are.
    You decide to have lunch.

    A SWISS CORPORATION
    You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
    You charge the owners for storing them.

    A CHINESE CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    You have 300 people milking them.
    You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
    You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

    AN INDIAN CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    You worship them.

    A BRITISH CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    Both are mad.

    AN IRAQI CORPORATION
    Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
    You tell them that you have none.
    No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
    You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

    AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    Business seems pretty good.
    You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

    A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    The one on the left looks very attractive...


    18 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2010
    Location
    Westford, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    But something that looks like Socialism in broad strokes worked really well for the banks and General Motors. We certainly do practice socialism for "too big to fail" corporations. My sense is that Socialism was never designed to protect the largest and most powerful sectors of society (except indirectly by keeping things stable).
    Yeah...privatized gains and socialized losses. Ugh.



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    18,690

    Default

    Here are some of the mostly socialist countries in Europe that seem to be working pretty well:
    Denmark
    Sweden
    Norway
    Germany
    Estonia
    Finland
    Latvia
    Poland
    Czech Republic
    Austria
    Hungary (?)

    What do they have in common? Fairly homogenous populations that make it easier to care for one's neighbors. Also pretty much all NORTHERN Europe.

    Lest we forget, Canada and New Zealand are far more socialist than the US.

    Most of the functional AND non-functional European countries are mostly socialist. So you really can't blame the non-functional ones on socialism, per se. The ones that are falling apart seem to be the traditionally poor ones, except for Iceland which is a case study in itself.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire


    7 members found this post helpful.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    10,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ezduzit View Post
    I think this is like a bunch of kids playing together: the kids being capitalism. Then the parents and coaches come and take over: they being the government. Now if the kids are left to play on their own, they will figure out the rules. Sometimes it won't be pretty, there will be some knock-down, drag outs but they will end up with a game that suits everyone. Those that play hard will do better than those who try to cheat or slouch. When the parents/coaches get involved and start imposing THEIR rules based on THEIR idea of fairness, fair play, equality then nobody knows what the game is anymore and the kids of left powerless, except to try and follow ever-changing rules and regulations.

    Capitalism needs to keep parents and coaches out of the game. And you're right...we don't have that in the U.S. We have a bastardization of capitalism. And THAT doesn't work.
    I think you suffer from incomplete thought processes.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    10,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jr View Post
    I haven't forgotten anything. First, our real estate bubble was in part caused by government policy that encouraged unwise lending. Then the problem was compounded with gov intervention using taxpayer dollars to bail out bad businesses. That is not capitalism. We should have let the weakest go bankrupt. Instead, our gov is now printing money and driving a new bubble in the stock market.

    Capitalism has flaws, but it's better than the rest. And if the government stops mucking with it, it works better....
    You, too, suffer from incomplete thought processes, because you're leaving out an entire side of the equation.

    A large part of what caused the crisis was dishonest people in banking and real estate taking advantage of loopholes in laws. Many regulations were loosened starting in the Reagan era (and it continued) and people took advantage.

    And no, I do not approve of bailing out said banks and no one going to jail. But it's very difficult to prosecute such crimes now within the current statutes of limitation.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Nov. 6, 2001
    Location
    Fairfax
    Posts
    1,771

    Default

    I guess you didn't read the part where I said that it was caused in part by.... That would mean that I recognize multiple causes including the one that you mentioned among several other variables as well. I chose to talk to the one I personally feel is key, but certainly not the only one.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jul. 3, 2012
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    I could write a book about it if you like. This is the internet...simplistic works best for most people.

    I do actually prefer the growth of a topic during a face to face conversation.

    You talk about dishonest people taking advantage of loopholes. So called *loopholes* are not against the law. Taking advantage of them is not being dishonest. Regulations loosened and people fulfilled them. That's not taking advantage.

    What are the crimes that were committed? Why should anyone go to jail when they haven't broken any laws?

    That you don't approve of it, I get. But you would take a deduction on your taxes for mortgage interest wouldn't you? To some, that's considered a loophole.

    So your thought process may be complete but they are based on incorrect assessments of information.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,167

    Default

    Why were regulations loosened?
    So people that normally would not have been able to get easy access to money, didn't have enough assets, didn't qualify as good risks, now, "make everyone equal", let everyone access the american dream.

    Well, it worked for those that were thrifty and smart and careful with their money.
    Didn't work with those many that were clueless about money and having access to it to buy stuff, mostly houses out of their reach normally, then could not make that work for them.

    No one was making the public borrow beyond their means, they did it themselves.

    The good, careful banks didn't fall for it, the big, greedy ones did and some of those failed.
    I too think they should have be let to fail, insurance paid and let the other banks catch up the slack.
    The customers of those failing banks had already lost.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2005
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    13,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Why were regulations loosened?
    So people that normally would not have been able to get easy access to money, didn't have enough assets, didn't qualify as good risks, now, "make everyone equal", let everyone access the american dream.

    Well, it worked for those that were thrifty and smart and careful with their money.
    Didn't work with those many that were clueless about money and having access to it to buy stuff, mostly houses out of their reach normally, then could not make that work for them.

    No one was making the public borrow beyond their means, they did it themselves.

    The good, careful banks didn't fall for it, the big, greedy ones did and some of those failed.
    I too think they should have be let to fail, insurance paid and let the other banks catch up the slack.
    The customers of those failing banks had already lost.
    It was also thought that when people owned the homes they lived in rather than renting them they would take better care of them and their neighborhoods. Stable neighborhoods also seemed to have children who did better in school than transients.
    I wasn't always a Smurf
    Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
    "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
    The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carolprudm View Post
    It was also thought that when people owned the homes they lived in rather than renting them they would take better care of them and their neighborhoods. Stable neighborhoods also seemed to have children who did better in school than transients.
    You would not think so if you see what some people do to new homes in the first few months they live there.

    I do agree, there are way more than one reason why some ideas don't work, or don't always work.

    There were plenty that, given a chance, some that regular well run banks would not have loaned to, a bit too risky, really did well with it and didn't have any trouble paying their interest on time and eventually the loans off.



  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jul. 13, 2008
    Posts
    2,826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bopper View Post
    Do you think this country is heading towards Socialism? As more and more of our society appears to become dependent on the government for necessities it would seem that at some point the scale would tip and socialism would take over completely. Some parties link the rise of liberalism with socialism, is that a valid association?
    Completely skipping the definition-demanding and the competition to see who can call who ignorant first, I'm just going to go with OP's apparent definitions. And say yes, I think that liberalism (if you're definining it as the current Democratic administration) is going to lead to a deepening of socialism (if you're definining it as a larger segment of the US population depending on government programs), because the one thing that forces people into government programs like welfare and disability is a lack of jobs that pay a living wage. And that issue has been avoided like the plague by both parties for 30 years as corporate America shipped jobs overseas and savaged unions and that's because corporate America and the 1% that owns the largest and most powerful companies, bought our &%(*$&%(*&$@W% government one fat, filthy politician at a time. But although both parties (if you can even call them two parties; they're like siamese twins at this point, joined at the wallet) got us here, the liberalism side of the problem is in power and is doing nothing to solve the problem. Which is very disappointing, for those of us who are quite liberal on social issues and would rather like to vote for pro-abortion candidates.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vacation1 View Post
    Completely skipping the definition-demanding and the competition to see who can call who ignorant first, I'm just going to go with OP's apparent definitions. And say yes, I think that liberalism (if you're definining it as the current Democratic administration) is going to lead to a deepening of socialism (if you're definining it as a larger segment of the US population depending on government programs), because the one thing that forces people into government programs like welfare and disability is a lack of jobs that pay a living wage. And that issue has been avoided like the plague by both parties for 30 years as corporate America shipped jobs overseas and savaged unions and that's because corporate America and the 1% that owns the largest and most powerful companies, bought our &%(*$&%(*&$@W% government one fat, filthy politician at a time. But although both parties (if you can even call them two parties; they're like siamese twins at this point, joined at the wallet) got us here, the liberalism side of the problem is in power and is doing nothing to solve the problem. Which is very disappointing, for those of us who are quite liberal on social issues and would rather like to vote for pro-abortion candidates.
    We all depend on the government hence my post with the list of government we ALL depend on. But hey "completely skipping the definition-demanding " therefore I skipped your post since it is pointless to address anything not defined and really your response is just rambling...



  18. #38
    Join Date
    Nov. 20, 2010
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    4,294

    Default

    Bluey - I don't necessarily agree with you about people making their own decisions about being qualified to buy or not. I do agree people do need to be responsible for their own decisions. But I have seen many lead down the garden path.

    And I don't mean to dump on you. But perhaps share my experiences.

    Amongst myriad other things, I've been a real estate agent, then broker, off and on since the early 80's. When first trained, we learned to qualify buyers ourselves, so that we were showing properties to those qualified, not to waste the sellers time, the buyers time, and our own. Back then banks were very careful about how they worked, and who they'd loan money to.

    Stepped away from it in the early 90's, then returned in the early 2000's back in my hometown, initially working with a poorly trained broker. I was then told not to even discuss finances with buyers, that they'd be qualified by their banks, mortgage companies, whatever... just show the houses. Crappy broker then slid to Florida for the winter, leaving me to do the closings. (When he returned I went out on my own.) I shuddered at several of them I attended. Using fly-by-night out-of-state mortgage companies that didn't have a clue, weren't prepared, didn't have the paper work right. Of course, it is all our fault as agents, even though they were unreachable and disorganized. Does having all the paperwork signed by a dummy authority sound familiar? And the buyers encouraged to go beyond their comfortable realistic situation? So what? As long as it helped some banks meet their quotas!

    And don't get me started on the appraisals that way over-appraised. I am now in a smaller market, with some high end homes. So we did have it tough in the other direction, as there was little to compare things to. But when banks see housing in a formulaic manner, with frankly no real ties to reality, it is danger time. You should have seen the houses well priced in horrible locations, or poorly constructed - very subjective items an appraiser adds or subtracts from - simply because the square footage and lot size are similar to another - albeit much nicer home. Yessir, Mr Appraiser, just do whatever it takes so we can get 'em closed, and we can all get our mortgage broker bonuses. Then lousy location home would be eventually dumped when their values were truly apparent as the housing market slid. Over and over again.

    One example in this neck of the woods. Lake A is very deep water, historic town, very desirable. Lake B is 10 miles away, but frankly hardly deep at all, so it is stinkier in the summer, and often dried up on the edges. City buyers coming to the area have all convinced themselves that when they bought Lake B property, because it is "on a lake", that now they can sell it for the big bucks. And other newbies think, "OK, looks good..." And then wonder why theirs doesn't have the better turn around time... You're right a buyer should have done his homework to make a good decision. But an appraisal might not reflect the different locales...

    And I've handled lots of foreclosures, having represented banks in sales. You wouldn't believe how many refused to winterize homes (fortunately my main bank was one of the good ones) - how many were damaged because large banks/mortgage companies were too disorganized to handle their messes. Certainly delinquent homeowners leave damage, but banks often have other priorities than worrying about a house dropping $100k because of the ruined HVAC system and significant water damage they didn't timely address.

    Frankly, I loved selling foreclosures, because I wouldn't take a listing that a bank would overprice. But then companies started popping up to oversee the brokers handling foreclosures. I gave up when one of these companies said they would only reimburse my expenses - which often were significant - coordinating locksmiths, clean-up crew, dumpsters, landscapers - if I mailed my proof on one of two allowed days a month I could postmark my letter on. Really...

    Frankly, it really all happened when mortgages were sold on the secondary market, and no one ever maintained the personnel to adequately oversee them. Period.
    Being right half the time beats being half-right all the time. Malcolm Forbes


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carolprudm View Post
    It was also thought that when people owned the homes they lived in rather than renting them they would take better care of them and their neighborhoods. Stable neighborhoods also seemed to have children who did better in school than transients.
    This is the thought that confuses cause and effect.

    Stable people and families are able to save a down payment to buy a house. A house doesn't make stable people and families. When the gov't forced house purchases with no money down, the unstable people and families were able to buy a house. Since they didn't have any skin or their money in the house, they didn't take care of the house or stripped it bare when they left it. This is the major cause of the housing bubble and when it burst, the damage we're living through today.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    No the housing "bubble" was created by the compete lack of accountability of the lenders, some of which were fresh and new to the banking market. Bad loans were never disclosed and the accounting was a sham, our loan on our house went through 4 banks. Yes, capitalism with no accountability created the housing bubble....wonder whats next...

    Repeal of the Glass Segal Act allowed insurance companies (they were too big to fail as an example) and other financial institutions to be in the loan business without disclosing bad loans. Free market for all, no disclosure to what the "assets" actually were.


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Listen Up You Liberal Dems!!
    By twotrudoc in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Nov. 22, 2012, 12:56 PM
  2. The liberal media cover up of Benghazi?
    By jetsmom in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 354
    Last Post: Nov. 8, 2012, 11:47 PM
  3. Fun naming thread.. liberal use of the word Puck
    By horse-loverz in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: Nov. 18, 2011, 11:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness