Sorry, it’s the same economic system. Capitalism.
So, China and the USSR were capitalist?
Then why all the bluster about socialism? (can’t have it both ways)
Because capitalism has a far better record at improving standards of living across populations. Socialism has no track record of doing so.
No, they’ve seen the graphs of inequality just like you have. It’s not a myth. It’s capitalism out of control. And it’ll get fixed or it will get ugly.
Then it’s going to get ugly, as it is beyond the power of the government to fix. It’s a secular shift in how value moves. Jeff Bezos/Amazon is the perfect example — he invented *nothing*, other than a new way to retail items. So, he routes all the money that used to be going into the pockets of retailers small (mom, pop) and large (Target, Sears, WMT to an extent) into the pockets of one individual — himself. This phenomenon is being repeated over and over again all through the technology world.
Bull$hit. Retail banks issued the loser loans and they were bundle into derivatives.
This is not correct.
- First, a substantial majority of nonprime loans were issued by nonbank lenders such as Countrywide, Quicken Loans, First Franklin, etc., that were not G-S regulated.
- Secondly, those nonprimes would never have been written if somebody wasn’t willing to underwrite them. (This makes the institution who originated the loan irrelevant.), The first underwriter of these loans were the investment banks like Goldman Sachs, who were never regulated by G-S. THEN, the GSE’s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who also wanted to play in the casino, were deregulated in the late 90’s by order of the HHS Secretary to permit them to underwrite crap loans. This happened PRIOR to G-S repeal.
- Thirdly, the packaging of those loans into derivatives was legalized by the National Housing Act of 1968. Again, not Glass Steagall.
- Finally, the CDS’s, which were the final player in the house of cards, were created by AIG. The primary regulator of AIG is the NY Insurance Regulator.
You can nitpick all you like but that whole debacle sits at the feet of capitalism out of control, and all your idealized excuses are irrelevant to the on-the-ground, real-world results.
Not arguing that. So what you do is cure the baby, not toss him out the window.
How can the Reps cut the budget in the name of deficit reduction without reducing services?
Because Medicare is being funded by an existing pool of funds. The question is if or when the pool runs dry.
Oh, please. Y’all are as bad as the Dems:
There was no vote to steal anything from Social Security. That was a vote on a balanced budget amendment. The blogger is engaging in sophistry.