Dubstepforum.com

pkay wrote: If you think I'm supporting Wall Street then you need to learn to fucking read kid. My argument is don't be mad at the dope dealer for selling you dope when you have the ability to stop buying dope.

What is this? Do you think the average consumer should just never take out credit?

but for real tho, pkay. credit unions lend money without fucking people over.

pompende wrote:

pkay wrote:Then you're fucking with risk and reward.

If Walmart is limited to making as much money as lets say a commodity or energy or whatever then Walmart never exists because no one in their mind would take the riskier avenue to make the same reward. They'd go with the surefire thing and at that point you're fucking with innovation, job growth, lending, etc. Walmart only exists because the money is there.

Some may say that's great but we'd simply create another walmart because our consumer demands have not changed.

No you're not fucking with risk/reward. look at denmark. Maersk and Oticon pay plenty in taxes but they're still there aren't they?

again, you do not know what you're talking about. you sound like you're running for a republican nomination right now.... and you keep wanting to talk about walmart? why?

I'm a democrat you fucking moron. I simply understand how supply and demand works.

As long as we demand superficial shit, as long as we ask to live outside our means, someone is going to provide it because there is a dollar to be made.

You already have all the control to stop wall street on the consumer end. The solution already exists.

^^^ by going to credit unions and not having credit cards?
and again, why do you think it is wrong that there should be a law to prevent making a profit that way?
also, why have you stopped talking about walmart?

pompende wrote:but for real tho, pkay. credit unions lend money without fucking people over.

you've got nothing to say to that do you? you have no response to my several examples of industries that succeed despite upper limits on their profitability...

and omfg..."you're addicted to credit!" I'm addicted to oil too!!! are you sure you're not running for the republican presidential nomination?

double post!

AllNightDayDream wrote:

pkay wrote: If you think I'm supporting Wall Street then you need to learn to fucking read kid. My argument is don't be mad at the dope dealer for selling you dope when you have the ability to stop buying dope.

What is this? Do you think the average consumer should just never take out credit?

Honestly, most americans, no. The problem is Americans want more than their means provide. We view credit as a civil right these days which is a massive fucking problem.

pompende you're posting at a spastic rate. unclench your jaw and chill the fuck out.

magma wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

magma wrote:

Genevieve wrote:You know, America's anti-monopoly laws were lobbied by corporations to keep the competition from growing. Believing that granting the government 'more control' over the market that they already fully control is really contradictory. How about you get rid of all regulations, so that regulatory authority cannot be abused by the government?

I'd rather put the ability to "abuse" the market in the hands of an elected government than an unelected and purely profit driven market.

Yes, we did that. That's what I'm saying. Government uses the ability to abuse the market by granting power to the corporations you don't like. No government is no way for a business (corporations shouldn't legally exist, but right now that's a different, idealistic topic) to regulate the market.

You want accountability? How accountable is a government that grants a president the authority to kill Americian civilians overseas without a fair trial, compared to a private business owner who can be tried if their product/service kills you?

Hmm, I'm pretty sure what people are asking for is for the system to change so that this is less likely to happen. More transparency means more accountability.

Hacking down a call for change with the status quo is a bit short sighted - things will change if we change them (that's what change means!), the way the government interacts with corporations will have to be part of that.

The only reasonable way where this can change is when you don't allow the government to regulate at all and leave it to the people. The only change in comunication between the government and corporations is that there should be none.

Though honestly, the most realistic way to achieve that is by no having no government at all, which I'm obviously in favor of. But that's not gonna happen any time soon. Until then, thinking that government will 'magically change' to favor the people over their own self-interest is a pipedream in each and every way.

pompende wrote:^^^ by going to credit unions and not having credit cards?
and again, why do you think it is wrong that there should be a law to prevent making a profit that way?
also, why have you stopped talking about walmart?

pompende wrote:but for real tho, pkay. credit unions lend money without fucking people over.

you've got nothing to say to that do you? you have no response to my several examples of industries that succeed despite upper limits on their profitability...

and omfg..."you're addicted to credit!" I'm addicted to oil too!!! are you sure you're not running for the republican presidential nomination?

geeze you really don't like hearing that Americans are irresponsible.

Sure you aren't a republican?

pkay wrote:pompende you're posting at a spastic rate. unclench your jaw and chill the fuck out.

so you're just gonna dodge the question now? instead of defending your assertion you will now change the subject?
i've got ironing to do.

pkay wrote: You already have all the control to stop wall street on the consumer end. The solution already exists.

The only plausible solutions are ones that can be made by the authority of the government.

And once any market falls victim to market speculation, supply and demand go out the window. Do you think gas prices go up because all of a sudden there's significantly less oil in the world? That's what they'd like you to believe

pkay wrote:
Honestly, most americans, no. The problem is Americans want more than their means provide. We view credit as a civil right these days which is a massive fucking problem.

Actually, the problem lies within investors wanting more than their means provide. Credit is essential in our current environment, but when people overlap credit onto more credit and speculate on credit that is not theirs (i.e. risk free) there lies a deep problem. I feel like you are blaming society at large for allowing this to happen, but absolutely everyone including investors and banks were fooled into accepting a trojan horse.

AllNightDayDream wrote:Actually, the problem lies within investors wanting more than their means provide.

Actually, what you're describing is human nature. The problem lies with governments artificially enabling the investors to get more than their means provide.

It's dumbfounding to see how people blame private investors for things they wouldn't even be able to do if the government didn't make them happen. Everyone wants the world to work in their favor, not just private companies. The problems start when an exploitative force makes that happen for certain people.

AllNightDayDream wrote:Actually, the problem lies within investors wanting more than their means provide. Credit is essential in our current environment, but when people overlap credit onto more credit and speculate on credit that is not theirs (i.e. risk free) there lies a deep problem. I feel like you are blaming society at large for allowing this to happen, but absolutely everyone including investors and banks were fooled into accepting a trojan horse.

Yep yep yep yep. Subprime mortgages were a symptom of the broken investment market - derivatives getting so far abstracted that the only way to support them was to con more and more people into taking on loans they wouldn't be able to keep up.... largely by advertising them (and credit checking) based on low introductory rates without ever checking if people could keep up the payments on the real rates.

The idea that 300 Million should have to watch their backs so that 3 million don't have to at all is the unreasonable position... for some reason, 300 Million bailing out 3 Million has been sold and swallowed as "logical"... it's even gone so far that pkay thinks the economic rape victim brought it on herself. Truly, the American right is a phenomenal brainwasher... how can so many have-nots so vehemently support such powerful (and few) haves?! As if anything trickles down...


Genevieve - I agree that everyone wants things their way. The entire point of having a government is to make sure that compromises are found and things are made fairer. Surely protecting the weak from the strong is exactly what a government should be concerning itself with?!

Genevieve wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:Actually, the problem lies within investors wanting more than their means provide.

Actually, what you're describing is human nature. The problem lies with governments artificially enabling the investors to get more than their means provide.

It's dumbfounding to see how people blame private investors for things they wouldn't even be able to do if the government didn't allow them happen. Everyone wants the world to work in their favor, not just private companies. The problems start when an exploitative force makes that happen for certain people.

Fixed.

It confounds me every single time that people don't understand the symbiotic relationship between government and the markets. Like in sports, government makes the rules, and firms are the players. There are rules for everything, down to how many seams are supposed to be on a baseball. If there happens to be a bad rule, it's stupid to just do away with every rule all-together because then you just end up with 18 idiots with bats on a grassy field.

Firstly, the government doesn't make investors do anything. It's investment banks that allow investors to leverage themselves on-top of more credit.

Secondly, the government had previously placed rules that separated commercial banks and investment banks, so all the deposits you make can't be sold to someone else to be gambled on wall street. These rules are no longer in place as of 1999 (beginning of housing bubble, whoda thunk?)

Thirdly, all these institutions that were involved and orchestrated these events were in danger of bankruptcy. Under a fair competitive capitalist system, they should've failed and better companies allowed to take their place. Various tarp funds and bailout money kept these same people in power and basically threw hordes of cash at them, which they used to inflate their bonuses and invest overseas (does jack shit for the economy here).

Fourthly, we have government departments (SEC, Justice dept.) that are supposed to watch out for these things and attack them when there is fraud or conflicts of interest going on. The law was literally laid out for them, but they simply did nothing and refused to do their job, partially because many of those officers worked for wall street firms before miraculously being appointed as their regulators.

So yeah, government sucks, but only because it isn't acting like a government should. But if you were to abolish it like you'd suggest, all of us would be living in the 1800s and the people who own everything would be living in the 23rd century.

magma wrote:Genevieve - I agree that everyone wants things their way. The entire point of having a government is to make sure that compromises are found and things are made fairer. Surely protecting the weak from the strong is exactly what a government should be concerning itself with?!

That's a trickier question than you think. When you think about it, there's no 'universal' job description for governments. 'Government' is best defined as being the acquistion of undserved authority through force. What they use that force for depends on the government you're talking about. Traditionally, in America it's the government's job to protect people's individual freedoms and each other from coercive force. Which I don't think they've ever done, to be honest.

And right now, all governments use their artifical authority to create the strong and create the weak.

magma wrote: Yep yep yep yep. Subprime mortgages were a symptom of the broken investment market - derivatives getting so far abstracted that the only way to support them was to con more and more people into taking on loans they wouldn't be able to keep up.... largely by advertising them (and credit checking) based on low introductory rates without ever checking if people could keep up the payments on the real rates.

The idea that 300 Million should have to watch their backs so that 3 million don't have to at all is the unreasonable position... for some reason, 300 Million bailing out 3 Million has been sold and swallowed as "logical"... it's even gone so far that pkay thinks the economic rape victim brought it on herself. Truly, the American right is a phenomenal brainwasher... how can so many have-nots so vehemently support such powerful (and few) haves?! As if anything trickles down...

Precisely. Classic snake oil salesmen shit.

What's worse in some ways, is that this kind of "logic" is taught to university students.

AllNightDayDream wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:Actually, the problem lies within investors wanting more than their means provide.

Actually, what you're describing is human nature. The problem lies with governments artificially enabling the investors to get more than their means provide.

It's dumbfounding to see how people blame private investors for things they wouldn't even be able to do if the government didn't allow them happen. Everyone wants the world to work in their favor, not just private companies. The problems start when an exploitative force makes that happen for certain people.

Fixed.

Nope, you broke it. As I explained before, they actively do it. It's not just 'allowing'. Laws are written for the corporations. You know, like I explained before, all those beautiful anti-monopoly laws that are in place right now were made for and lobbied by the corporations. Supposedly in the name of protecting the 'weak', but they're used to control the opposition and keep them from turning into competition.

AllNightDayDream wrote:It confounds me every single time that people don't understand the symbiotic relationship between government and the markets. Like in sports, government makes the rules, and firms are the players. There are rules for everything, down to how many seams are supposed to be on a baseball. If there happens to be a bad rule, it's stupid to just do away with every rule all-together because then you just end up with 18 idiots with bats on a grassy field.

Yep and look where it got us.

AllNightDayDream wrote:Firstly, the government doesn't make investors do anything. It's investment banks that allow investors to leverage themselves on-top of more credit.

I didn't say the government 'makes' investors do anything. I'm saying that investors aren't any worse than other people and you can't blame them for trying to be more successful than they already are. Everyone wants the world to work in a way that is beneficial to them. Government gives them the actual ability to do it.

The government creates an environment where malinvestment is rewarded. The people making money off of it are just doing what they can do. It sucks, but if the government didn't do it, there would be no way for those investors to make the risky investments that they make. Hayek wrote about this.

AllNightDayDream wrote:Secondly, the government had previously placed rules that separated commercial banks and investment banks, so all the deposits you make can't be sold to someone else to be gambled on wall street. These rules are no longer in place as of 1999 (beginning of housing bubble, whoda thunk?)

Irrelevant, if fiat money didn't exist and competing currencies were allowed, this wouldn't happen.



The last peak, during world war I was caused by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The previous 3 peaks were during times when America also had central banks, but allowed for competing currencies in the market place.

All of these supposed regulations only made the economy worse and the currency weaker.

AllNightDayDream wrote:Thirdly, all these institutions that were involved and orchestrated these events were in danger of bankruptcy. Under a fair competitive capitalist system, they should've failed and better companies allowed to take their place. Various tarp funds and bailout money kept these same people in power and basically threw hordes of cash at them, which they used to inflate their bonuses and invest overseas (does jack shit for the economy here).

No, you're criticizing the same aspect of modern day state capitalism, but you think the answer is to get more government involvement, thinking it won't be abused by the same government that created these current conditions in the first place. The government that started the Iraq war and the same government that executed Al-Awlaki, someone who was merely a suspect of several crimes and an American citizen, without a fair trial, is supposed to make the rules that favor the citizens? Please. Government itself is a failed experiment. Might as well limit it if it has to exist.

AllNightDayDream wrote:So yeah, government sucks, but only because it isn't acting like a government should. But if you were to abolish it like you'd suggest, all of us would be living in the 1800s and the people who own everything would be living in the 23rd century.

You don't abolish anything, you phase things out. But I know that we live in a statist society so that won't happen. So the only thing we should work towards phasing out is central banking and fiat currency and corporations.

AllNightDayDream wrote:

magma wrote: Yep yep yep yep. Subprime mortgages were a symptom of the broken investment market - derivatives getting so far abstracted that the only way to support them was to con more and more people into taking on loans they wouldn't be able to keep up.... largely by advertising them (and credit checking) based on low introductory rates without ever checking if people could keep up the payments on the real rates.

The idea that 300 Million should have to watch their backs so that 3 million don't have to at all is the unreasonable position... for some reason, 300 Million bailing out 3 Million has been sold and swallowed as "logical"... it's even gone so far that pkay thinks the economic rape victim brought it on herself. Truly, the American right is a phenomenal brainwasher... how can so many have-nots so vehemently support such powerful (and few) haves?! As if anything trickles down...

Precisely. Classic snake oil salesmen shit.

What's worse in some ways, is that this kind of "logic" is taught to university students.

lol you're expecting the same government that bailed these fucks out to regulate them.... do you not see the flaw in that logic?

You guys seem to think because I'm against your ideals that I'm on the exact other side of your argument which is false. I'm of a tertiary position that thinks this whole system is beyond saving and that collapse is imminent. My first post said there is no solution. We are beyond repair because no one is willing to change. Government wont change, wall street wont change, consumers wont change. The 3 possible points of change aren't budging and no one is willing to sacrifice.

So in 15-20 years we'll be like the former USSR. I'll live likely in the republic of texas aka north mexico. You guys are all welcome to come visit and try our authentic Tex-Mex which will now be considered a cultural delicacy of the country of North Mexico :p

pkay wrote:As long as we demand superficial shit, as long as we ask to live outside our means, someone is going to provide it because there is a dollar to be made.

You already have all the control to stop wall street on the consumer end. The solution already exists.

You might think that people are manipulated in to following false desires and confuse 'wants' with 'needs'... The book 'Affluenza' by Oliver James outlines how it's mostly a problem with the English-speaking world (e.g. including Singapore) due to the ubiquity of marketing and the amount of money going about in the respective economies. Though it is not common to all English-speaking nations, e.g. citizens of New Zealand and Denmark do not have an incessant materialistic drive and have more pro-social values, it is generally the case that the phenomenon is being more frequently observed and to a greater extent where it is present.

Of course we could deal with consumer end but then we would be dealing with the symptom, not the cause, and so we would be wasting a lot of effort.

test recordings wrote:

pkay wrote:As long as we demand superficial shit, as long as we ask to live outside our means, someone is going to provide it because there is a dollar to be made.

You already have all the control to stop wall street on the consumer end. The solution already exists.

You might think that people are manipulated in to following false desires and confuse 'wants' with 'needs'... The book 'Affluenza' by Oliver James outlines how it's mostly a problem with the English-speaking world (e.g. including Singapore) due to the ubiquity of marketing and the amount of money going about in the respective economies. Though it is not common to all English-speaking nations, e.g. citizens of New Zealand and Denmark do not have an incessant materialistic drive and have more pro-social values, it is generally the case that the phenomenon is being more frequently observed and to a greater extent where it is present.

Of course we could deal with consumer end but then we would be dealing with the symptom, not the cause, and so we would be wasting a lot of effort.

I think your argument works exactly towards what I'm saying. If were willing to change materialistic we are as a society the stock market would be less influential on our lives. But we don't want to be New Zealand or Denmark. We want to be the USA with the same result as NZ and Denmark which isn't going to happen.