Government says, "All your banks are belong to US." (was Freddie and Fannie thread)

[Danoff]

There is nothing wrong with socialism. We have a socialist democracy in this country, and I'd say that our democracy is a fine example of democracy done right, and something to be immensely proud of!

And yet you are complaining about how much our massive economy is affecting yours and not the other way around. I could go on, but basically, your nation's socialist agenda hampers it greatly. If you want to get into it, we can talk about human rights violations in the UK as well.

I always assumed that when a representative was elected into government, that gave them the power to act on your behalf, no matter what the situation. Not so in America.

Explain.

I was surprised how the majority of Americans could not get past the fact that they would have to pay higher taxes, as if that was their only concern.

Taxes are a major concern. Higher taxes strangle the economy and often generate LESS tax revenue. Every recent tax cut here has resulted in INCREASED government revenue because of the economic growth following it.

Again, economics is not something you can ignore or just wish away. Your government is trying to do so, so is ours, but they are both doomed to failure from the start.

Our government (with its bailout plan), has shown great financial leadership in this matter

As has ours, leadership into the abyss.

and proven that we understand economics, more so than any other country in the world.

Uh... no. Your nations policies prove quite the opposite, as do those of the US.

Just as a question, how do you define The People's Republic of China in terms of an economic system?

Capitalistish by leave.

Chinese people have no rights (as best I can tell). They are growing, yes, but they have so far to go. They still have many many years before they'll start running into problems like ours. But even if they had a better economic system, and life was more prosperous there, I would not want to live in a country where I did not have basic human rights.

But... as you say... China has figured out that it needs capitalism to prosper.

 

[Omnis]

The best thing about China, financially, is that they have tons of manufacturing, production, and savings. All they do is work, export, and save. I said before that I see it as like a reverse Fabianism, because I think their government is just holding the people back.

 

[FoolKiller]

China's growth looks impressive on paper but it has been in part due to ignoring other ethical concerns. For example, their pollution is ridiculous. They have cities that are experiencing cooling due to smog, some of their rivers are bordering on toxic and the general health will likely suffer over time.

If we ran manufacturing in the US without environmental or health concern we would be able to do it more cheaply as well. Add to that the lack of concern for workers rights or consumer safety and it is easy to see why it is much cheaper to do manufacturing in China.

The other thing is that China's manufacturing is reliant on other countries buying the products and so they will not go untouched by the current situation.

China's economy has faired well recently but with the amount of consumer health issues being raised in the news lately (lead on children's toys, anyone?) I see it slowing significantly if they don't shape up.

 

[Sureboss]

I mentioned earlier that the dollar should be taken out of economics in favour of another currency (namely Stirling), I think now more than ever is the time to do it! Our government (with its bailout plan), has shown great financial leadership in this matter and proven that we understand economics, more so than any other country in the world. It would be a logical step too, as we already are the financial capital of the world!

Have you got a saddle?



On the notion of China. I don't think many people realise that quite a few factory workers live in the factory for the week and only go home at the weekend. The West can't compete with countries where they work a 72-hr week for £30 a month.

 

[niky]

China... hmmm... melamine in the milk, toxins in the plastic, lead in the paint... China has one of the worst ecological/health/intellectual property rights abuses of any modern nation... with the slowdown of the consumer economies around it and these scandals that are seeing Chinese products and Chinese-made western products being pulled off the shelves everywhere, I think China's impressive growth may start to slow down...

A Chinese slowdown and US recession equals lower gas prices for the rest of us. Thanks guys!

China is a capitalism only if you're a party member or are sleeping with one. otherwise, it's still a communist country. But the newfound prosperity is crumbling the control the Communist Party has at ground level... it's only a matter of time.

 

[magburner]

And yet you are complaining about how much our massive economy is affecting yours and not the other way around. I could go on, but basically, your nation's socialist agenda hampers it greatly. If you want to get into it, we can talk about human rights violations in the UK as well.

I fail to see how my countries socialist agenda has hampered it in any way. In fact, I'd say that it has saved our great nation! All of us together, is what we believe in - no one left behind. Simple, effective, and true!

Human rights!? Human rights are strangling this country slowly to death! I'd be interested in hearing how we are violating anyone's human rights! You can't fart in the UK, without someone claiming it impinges on their human rights!

See, we have a wonderful ( and I say that sarcastically), piece of legislation called the Human Rights Act! Said act gives every scumbag in the country the right to challenge anything! We have had cases where prisoners have taken the government to court because their mattresses were not comfortable enough... and won!

The biggest human rights issue we have at the moment is that regarding locking up suspected terror suspects for up to 28 days without charge. The government had pushed for 42 days, but that was comprehensively thrown out by the House of Lords yesterday. Still, 28 days is a lot shorter than the twelfth of never eh?

If you are aware of any human rights violations in my country, please feel free to share them with us!

Explain.

As someone who has watched many crucial votes in the UK, the voting for the $700 billion dollar bailout was a very strange phenomenon. There were people casting votes, changing their minds, recasting their votes, keeping the vote open for way longer than it needed to be... I've always assumed that a vote was final. Like I said, not so in America.

Again, economics is not something you can ignore or just wish away. Your government is trying to do so, so is ours, but they are both doomed to failure from the start.

First of all, I would say that the problem over here is not quite the same as the problem you have over there. In the US many banks brought into the 'sub-prime' loans thing, and as such have massive debts. over here though, our banks are in trouble because they can't get funds, not because they have massive debts (though some may too have massive debts, its not the governing factor).

So whilst your government is buying up all the bad debt (and wondering what to do with it), our government is merely providing funds for our banks day to day operations - funds which have become hard to get because of the lack of trust between banks (due in no small part to those sub-prime loans).

Also, whereas your governments $700 billion is probably lost and gone forever, our governments $800~ billion will probably return a healthy profit for our country when the markets are back on a level. Our government has very wisely become shareholders with our banks (in some cases the majority shareholder). They will collect dividends for those shares, and once this crisis is over, the government will be able to sell them on for a profit.

As has ours, leadership into the abyss.

I will have to agree with you on this one, but I do believe that this crisis will be a watershed moment for our economy, especially for our banks.

Like I said earlier though, we have shown great financial leadership in this crisis, proof of this is that the EU, and now even America are following our rescue plan (read up):

US set to outline banking rescue (BBC)

Have you got a saddle?

Sure thing! You be the horse, and I'll be the rider!

The West can't compete with countries where they work a 72-hr week for £30 a month.

Funny thing about that though is that the West is in part responsible for perpetuating the decline in manufacturing by outsourcing to the China in the first place!

 

[Danoff]

I fail to see how my countries socialist agenda has hampered it in any way. In fact, I'd say that it has saved our great nation! All of us together, is what we believe in - no one left behind. Simple, effective, and true!

Yup, that's socialism. Here's another way to put it

"None of us together"

Human rights!? Human rights are strangling this country slowly to death! I'd be interested in hearing how we are violating anyone's human rights! You can't fart in the UK, without someone claiming it impinges on their human rights!

See, we have a wonderful ( and I say that sarcastically), piece of legislation called the Human Rights Act! Said act gives every scumbag in the country the right to challenge anything! We have had cases where prisoners have taken the government to court because their mattresses were not comfortable enough... and won!

If you think that's human rights, you need to visit my human rights thread.

If you are aware of any human rights violations in my country, please feel free to share them with us!

You practice redistribution of wealth (as do we), which is a property (human) rights violation. You also do not allow people to arm/defend themselves - another human rights violation. I don't know what your abortion laws are, but if you have any they are in violation of human rights. Do you have regulatory agencies making law? Those would also be in violation of human rights.

I'm sure I could go on, but this should give you a flavor.

As someone who has watched many crucial votes in the UK, the voting for the $700 billion dollar bailout was a very strange phenomenon. There were people casting votes, changing their minds, recasting their votes, keeping the vote open for way longer than it needed to be... I've always assumed that a vote was final. Like I said, not so in America.

I guess I'm still missing the problem.

First of all, I would say that the problem over here is not quite the same as the problem you have over there. In the US many banks brought into were forced by the government to buy into the 'sub-prime' loans thing, and as such have massive debts.

Fixed.

over here though, our banks are in trouble because they can't get funds, not because they have massive debts (though some may too have massive debts, its not the governing factor).

So whilst your government is buying up all the bad debt (and wondering what to do with it), our government is merely providing funds for our banks day to day operations - funds which have become hard to get because of the lack of trust between banks (due in no small part to those sub-prime loans).

That's not quite clear enough for me. Why are your banks having trouble providing cash? Because there isn't enough cash to go around? That's the government's job (one of the few that it really is supposed to perform).

Also, whereas your governments $700 billion is probably lost and gone forever, our governments $800~ billion will probably return a healthy profit for our country when the markets are back on a level.

I can see either turning a healthy profit, or being a waste of money. The question is not whether it's good for government revenue, the question is whether it's a proper role of government.

Our government has very wisely become shareholders with our banks (in some cases the majority shareholder).

In a very limited fashion, we have done the same. My problem with that has nothing to do with whether it's a good financial move for the government - my problem is that it's not part of the government's charter.

Like I said earlier though, we have shown great financial leadership in this crisis, proof of this is that the EU, and now even America are following our rescue plan (read up):

US set to outline banking rescue (BBC)

That's not something to brag about.

 

[Prosthetic]

Voteing Republican is a violation of human rights.

 

[FoolKiller]

Voteing Republican is a violation of human rights.

Explain.

 

[Prosthetic]

Explain.

Abortion and gay marrage=big no no to the Christian Church. Why can't they choose? Oh because the church they don't worship thinks that way.

 

[Danoff]

Abortion and gay marrage=big no no to the Christian Church. Why can't they choose? Oh because the church they don't worship thinks that way.

Just so you know, because you seem to be unaware, those are matters for the supreme court - not the presidency.

If you see a difference between republicrats and demopulicans, please, let me know.

 

[Prosthetic]

Just so you know, because you seem to be unaware, those are matters for the supreme court - not the presidency.

If you see a difference between republicrats and demopulicans, please, let me know.

The President can still help do something about it... But we had born again Christian as a president for 8 years that repeatidly said "Marrage is for between Men in Women only."

Samething with pro-choice scene.

 

[FoolKiller]

Abortion and gay marrage=big no no to the Christian Church. Why can't they choose? Oh because the church they don't worship thinks that way.

I was about to type up a nice big response, but none of this has anything to do with the government bailout.

I'll just say that you are setting stereotypes and prejudices.

 

[Sureboss]

The question is not whether it's good for government revenue, the question is whether it's a proper role of government.

I'd say one of the roles of government is to protect it's citizens and it's citizens interests. A large scale banking collapse would be catastrophic for Joe Public. It's not ideal, but I'd be horrified if a government wouldn't help protect savings, mortgages and effectively peoples lives.

 

[Danoff]

I'd say one of the roles of government is to protect it's citizens and it's citizens interests.

Uh.... so you mean like... if millions of people invest in Apple, then the government has to protect Apple stock to make sure people don't lose money?

I don't see why the government should protect citizens interests (that's awfully broad), and I don't think it can be done.

A large scale banking collapse would be catastrophic for Joe Public. It's not ideal, but I'd be horrified if a government wouldn't help protect savings, mortgages and effectively peoples lives.

I'm not strictly opposed to that statement, but it all depends on what you think the government is authorized to do. Buying bad mortgages with tax dollars isn't on the list.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd say one of the roles of government is to protect it's citizens and it's citizens interests. A large scale banking collapse would be catastrophic for Joe Public. It's not ideal, but I'd be horrified if a government wouldn't help protect savings, mortgages and effectively peoples lives.

All things that are being lossed because of individuals mistakes.

So how does the government continue protecting people from doing it again? Force people under a certain income bracket to never buy a home (even if they saved up to afford it), monitor everyone's investments to make sure they are secure? No, if government's roll is to protect us from accepting personal responsibility for mistakes then it must also prevent us from the freedom to make those mistakes. The cost of freedom must be personal responsibility. If government can't let us take that on then it cannot allow our freedom.

 

[Omnis]

I'd say one of the roles of government is to protect it's citizens and it's citizens interests. A large scale banking collapse would be catastrophic for Joe Public. It's not ideal, but I'd be horrified if a government wouldn't help protect savings, mortgages and effectively peoples lives.

Governments are only supposed to protect human life and liberty. It's hard enough for it to do the former, and ironically it likes to take away the latter. Any other pursuit winds up inimical to its original intent, historically.

 

[Sureboss]

Uh.... so you mean like... if millions of people invest in Apple, then the government has to protect Apple stock to make sure people don't lose money?

Fair point, though I was really referring to Mortgages. I think if we faced a situation where millions could become homeless, then the respective government of x country should step in.

I don't see why the government should protect citizens interests (that's awfully broad), and I don't think it can be done.

That comment from me was probably far too broad. As said above, I really was referring in the main to mortgages.

I'm not strictly opposed to that statement, but it all depends on what you think the government is authorized to do. Buying bad mortgages with tax dollars isn't on the list.

I agree that people should be responsible for their own actions/invests, but one of the big complaints is that it isn't the citizens fault, rather the banks for not being sensible, would that be a fair comment on the cause of the financial crisis?

I'm not saying that whenever we face problems the government must step in, but if not stepping in could result in millions homeless, is there a choice?

All things that are being lossed because of individuals mistakes.

So how does the government continue protecting people from doing it again? Force people under a certain income bracket to never buy a home (even if they saved up to afford it), monitor everyone's investments to make sure they are secure? No, if government's roll is to protect us from accepting personal responsibility for mistakes then it must also prevent us from the freedom to make those mistakes. The cost of freedom must be personal responsibility. If government can't let us take that on then it cannot allow our freedom.

I don't know how it is in America but some of the mortgages offered over here were ridiculous. Six times income were quite common, I even remember hearing one for a Ten times a joint income mortgage. I'm not really sure on house prices in America, but in my area the average house price is about £200,000 (maybe higher, Worthing hasn't actually been too affected by house prices falling, ours have been going up at about 4% in areas), whereas average income is about £20,000. I think we could do with a big house price fall for a start, not great for new buyers with negative equity, etc, but in the long term it's not at all sustainable when average house price is 9 times average annual income.

Then again, it's one thing being offered a huge mortgage like above, and accepting it. Maybe I'm just too kind.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't know how it is in America but some of the mortgages offered over here were ridiculous. Six times income were quite common, I even remember hearing one for a Ten times a joint income mortgage. I'm not really sure on house prices in America, but in my area the average house price is about £200,000 (maybe higher, Worthing hasn't actually been too affected by house prices falling, ours have been going up at about 4% in areas), whereas average income is about £20,000. I think we could do with a big house price fall for a start, not great for new buyers with negative equity, etc, but in the long term it's not at all sustainable when average house price is 9 times average annual income.

Did any of those banks force people into those mortgages? Did they have a goon with a gun standing behind them? Were they hypnotized? Drugged?

No. No. No. No.

Were they too caught up in having that cool house to actually take a responsible look at their finances?

Yes.

Now, why is it the job of government to fix that? And why now? Is it fair to the guy that lost his house for the same reasons two years ago that he just didn't hold out until a large number of people got hit at once?

Then again, it's one thing being offered a huge mortgage like above, and accepting it. Maybe I'm just too kind.

Exactly. These people are probably the same ones that actually read through the emails in their spam folder trying to decide which unbelievable deal they should take. A bigger, um, unit or the inheritance from Uganda?

Sorry, I have no sympathy for these people when my wife and I have sat by quietly saving up money so that we can put a nice down payment on a moderate house and get a mortgage that we can actually pay for.

 

[magburner]

You practice redistribution of wealth (as do we), which is a property (human) rights violation.

No we certainly do not! I don't know where the hell you got that idea from! Our nations socialist policies are paid for entirely through the tax regime, and backed up by numerous entries within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Are you seriously telling me that paying taxes is a human rights violation?

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to <b>social security</b> and is entitled to realization, through <b>national effort</b> and international co-operation and <b>in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity</b> and the free development of his personality.

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

That just about covers it! 👍

You also do not allow people to arm/defend themselves - another human rights violation.

Nowhere in the UDHR is there a single article that states a person has the right to arm or defend themselves. It is the role of the state solely to protect and defend it citizens, anything else is a human rights violation!

I don't know what your abortion laws are, but if you have any they are in violation of human rights.

Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks in the UK, with a couple of additional caveats.

Personally, I believe that the decision lies solely with the individual, and it is not mine or the states role to intervene. Based on your signature, I'd assume that you agree with me on this one, yes?

Do you have regulatory agencies making law? Those would also be in violation of human rights.

No, laws are passed through our nations devolved parliaments.

On the whole, I'd say that the UK follows the UDHR to the letter!

A bit of light humour from the BBC (Your credit crunch jokes)

Following the problems in the sub-prime lending market in America and the run on Northern Rock in the UK, uncertainty has now hit Japan. In the last 7 days Origami Bank has folded, Sumo Bank has gone belly up and Bonsai Bank announced plans to cut some of its branches. Yesterday, it was announced that Karaoke Bank is up for sale and will likely go for a song while today shares in Kamikaze Bank were suspended after they nose-dived. While Samurai Bank are soldiering on following sharp cutbacks, Ninja Bank are reported to have taken a hit, but they remain in the black. Furthermore, 500 staff at Karate Bank got the chop and analysts report that there is something fishy going on at Sushi Bank where it is feared that staff may get a raw deal.

 

[Sureboss]

Origami bank has folded? Is it now a swan?

 

[Danoff]

No we certainly do not! I don't know where the hell you got that idea from! Our nations socialist policies are paid for entirely through the tax regime, and backed up by numerous entries within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Are you seriously telling me that paying taxes is a human rights violation?

No, uneven application of taxes is a violation of citizens rights to be treated equally under the law. Your Universal Declaration has many guarantees in it that have no business being called "rights". One right cannot require another to be infringed, yet that's exactly what your UDHR requires.

Nowhere in the UDHR is there a single article that states a person has the right to arm or defend themselves. It is the role of the state solely to protect and defend it citizens, anything else is a human rights violation!

Regardless of whether the UDHR includes it, it is the right of each person to arm and defend himself. It is the role of government to defend its citizens, but it is not the role of government to prevent citizens from defending themselves. That would be a rights violation.

Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks in the UK, with a couple of additional caveats.

Then, after 24 weeks, the UK violates the property rights of women (body is included in property).

No, laws are passed through our nations devolved parliaments.

But do you have regulatory agencies that say things like... "cars must have airbags" or "dumping substance y in the river carries with it fine x"? These are effectively law, but in the US regulations of that type are not made by elected officials. We don't call them "laws", strictly speaking "laws" are created in congress. But regulations of these kinds are essentially "law".

On the whole, I'd say that the UK follows the UDHR to the letter!

Unfortunately the UDHR requires human rights violations to follow to the letter.

For example this:"protection against unemployment."

Requires someone else to provide employment. Such an requirement violates the rights of the person required to provide it.

 

[Prosthetic]

I was about to type up a nice big response, but none of this has anything to do with the government bailout.

I'll just say that you are setting stereotypes and prejudices.

This will be my last post on this, but what I said is NOT prejudice nor a stereotype. What I said is a FACT that the Christian church does NOT believe in gay marriage or abortion. There is no judging in that.

 

[YSSMAN]

Governments are only supposed to protect human life and liberty. It's hard enough for it to do the former, and ironically it likes to take away the latter. Any other pursuit winds up inimical to its original intent, historically.

Liberty in the definition of freedom or liberty in the definition of property?

I'm only thinking of it because I've been reading some of Hofstadter's work this week in regards to the founders...

Sorry, move along... Move along...

 

[FoolKiller]

This will be my last post on this, but what I said is NOT prejudice nor a stereotype. What I said is a FACT that the Christian church does NOT believe in gay marriage or abortion. There is no judging in that.

Just remember, stereotypes and prejudice are not only committed against minority groups. And usually people who assign stereotypes and prejudice aren't aware they are doing it because they think they are basing their opinions on fact.

I can give you examples to show you that your "facts" are innacurate, but if you wish to do that there are threads based on these topics. Based on your statements I can say that I believe you have assumed that all Christian denominations are Catholic, which they are not.

 

[Sage]

Anybody else tremendously disappointed with Greenspan&#8217;s latest statements? And to think he was once part of Rand&#8217;s &#8220;Collective&#8221; and wrote parts of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal&#8230;

 

[Duke]

This will be my last post on this, but what I said is NOT prejudice nor a stereotype. What I said is a FACT that the Christian church does NOT believe in gay marriage or abortion. There is no judging in that.

Sorry, capital letters don't make it true.

Some Christian churches don't believe in gay marriage or abortion. I'd even go so far as to say many do. But it is hardly a FACT that "the Christian church" (as if there was just one) unilaterally disapproves of those things.

 

[Joey D]

Yup, the Episcopalian church I go to from time to time (like xmas and family functions) with Kate flying the gay pride flag out front and has no problem accepting homosexuals as one of their own. Pretty interesting church to say the least.

 

[YSSMAN]

Anybody else tremendously disappointed with Greenspan’s latest statements? And to think he was once part of Rand’s “Collective” and wrote parts of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal…

In reference to the suggestion that we need another stimulus check? I'm not at all surprised by the notion, it has been passed around in Congress for the past month or two, but I do not believe it to be necessary. With energy prices correcting themselves and presumably having food prices match that curve (Hopefully! I buy the groceries for my family, it has been crazy!), the need for a check is greatly diminished... Especially when they had been calling for the low-end to swing in at $600 to start (no idea of how they're going to bracket it) and possibly go as high as $2000 or more per family.

 

[Keef]

In reference to the suggestion that we need another stimulus check? I'm not at all surprised by the notion, it has been passed around in Congress for the past month or two, but I do not believe it to be necessary. With energy prices correcting themselves and presumably having food prices match that curve (Hopefully! I buy the groceries for my family, it has been crazy!), the need for a check is greatly diminished... Especially when they had been calling for the low-end to swing in at $600 to start (no idea of how they're going to bracket it) and possibly go as high as $2000 or more per family.

It's okay YSSMAN, the liberals will take care of you. Just take their magic money. The liberals will take care of you even when this global recession takes a drastic downturn and starts spelling its name with a "D" on the front. I'd take their magic money in the short term, and not to take advantage of their idiocy, but because I know I'll need it when nobody can afford groceries anymore.