ALL voters (of any political party) how much does high interest rates, failure to regulate – banks as in excessive approval for blind speculation on trends in growth such as real estate, wall street trends and commercial development & especially failure to regulate against fraud from happening on Wall Street – how much does this bankrupt who countries’ economies?
I mention this especially because of "Laissez Faire" economic policies that are foolishly thought of as "practical", "what works" & is even endorsed by the libertarians & is usually endorsed as a economic policy & for business practices and application on wall street, banks & a lot of business in general by the conservatives in power (especially the republicans). To make it worse is even a lot of non conservatives (yes this means the democrats & possible other non conservatives in other nations/countries) have endorsed and adapted this as an economic policy and way of doing business as well. The thing is though, while not going overboard on regulations is one thing, but it’s an entirely different matter than having too much regulations by going to extremes and having none. It’s an entirely different matter altogether, because to have policies of encouraging by deliberately ignoring financially destructive recklessness with an abundance of approvals of extremely risky bank loans & ignoring fraud ahead of time altogether by not allowing preventive measures & restrictions with laws & regulations to stop fraud & minimize, if not entirely stop extreme risks with bank loans – to have such policies brings on the risks of needing loans from international banks for economies. With the recent extremely high amount with trillions of dollars for an economic bailout for the economy – that’s an obvious example of such things happening. What if someday the the banks of the world refuse to take risks of loaning money if it’s needed anytime soon? What will the economy do then? Collapse?
Case in point even libertarian U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted he was wrong with his economic policies/philosophies all those years of non government involvement (avoiding regulations) in business. Yes, I’m talking about the same Alan Greenspan who was head of that office from August 11, 1987 – January 31, 2006 (which was while the US had mostly conservative presidents as well as a conservative majority on capitol hill in Washington most of the time).
Doubt Alan Greenspan would admit to being wrong? Well then have a look at this documentary – towards the end of this documentary (right at around the last 5 minutes) – yes, HE ADMITS TO HAVING BEEN WRONG WITH HIS ATTITUDE ABOUT LAISSEZ FAIRE ECONOMICS BEING "RIGHT" IN FRONT OF THE U.S. CONGRESS AND SENATE -

http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/

SO – is it worth bringing the ruining and collapse of the U.S.’s economy along with the economy of the world’s other countries and plunge the world into such deep economic depression and ruin that no country recovers and brings the entire world into world wars including worse world wars again?
In other words, like I asked at the top and beginning of this question, which pertains to what I’ve mentioned – how much does high interest rates, failure to regulate – banks as in excessive approval for blind speculation on trends in growth such as real estate, wall street trends and commercial development & especially failure to regulate against fraud from happening on Wall Street – how much does this bankrupt who countries’ economies?
"Bill Clinton’s creation ( The Subprime Mortgage) from his "Partners in America: National Homeownership Strategy" – Forced lenders to lend in markets and to borrowers who could never before quality. This created a Housing boom built on bad credit.
Fannie Mae ( Staffed by Clinton) Buying, packaging and selling those bad loans to Wall Street and our 401k’s.
Democrats who Blocked all 12 attempts by Bush to regulate Fannie Mae"
IF PEOPLE ACTUALLY WILL WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY THEY WILL SEE IT WAS GREENSPAN’S GANG WHO TOLD CLINTON (WHO NAIVELY TRUSTED GREENSPAN’S JUDGEMENT) – IT WAS GREENSPAN WHO ADVICED CLINTON TO NOT HAVE ENOUGH REGULATIONS.
"This mess is the direct result of Government intervention into the free market for the goal of getting more votes !" -Again- NO IT WAS GOVERNMENT’S LACK OF INTERVENTION in the free market THAT CAUSED "this mess"- EVEN GREENSPAN ADMITTED THIS – WATCH WHAT GREENSPAN SAID AND THEN COMMENT IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME.
Les S – I like your Gandhi avatar –
I hope you’re wrong about regulations not being allowed to work. The possible repercussions & scary future of regulations of the marketplace is very frightening to even consider the possibilities of, because economic collapse & poverty contributed to madmen such as adolf hitler rising to power & creating nazi Germany.
"Democrats who Blocked all 12 attempts by bush to regulate Fannie Mae" – "This mess is the direct result of Government intervention into the free market for the goal of getting more votes!" -
First of all HOW does that make any sense??? –
If someone like bush (supposedly) wasn’t allowed to intervene with regulations to regulate Fannie Mae – how was that the direct result of Government intervention into the free market for the goal of getting more votes!"??? because how is NOT regulating doing any regulating?
Granted there were some democrats who were just as guilty of not wanting regulations because of listening to Greenspan, but nobody told any of them to blindly listen to Greenspan who later admitted he was wrong and Greenspan was going by a Laissez Faire a Laissez Faire philosophy because he blindly thought ayn rand couldn’t be anything but right and ayn rand blindly followed nietzsche who blindly followed machiavelli.
"Proof? 2008 a very heated Election Year Both Houses controlled by Democrats. Yet.. incredibly there was NO Investigation as to why." -

No I realize it’s not hard for people to figure out that the democrats didn’t want there to be ANY question of using "fixed" voting machines & rigged/phony votes UNLIKE bush’s camp who used "whatever means necessary" to win their elections.
However- That’s besides the point because I don’t trust the democrats blindly as I don’t trust the conservatives or libertarians either – If I trusted any existing party in the U.S. more for honesty’s or reliability with their policies’ sake, it would be the Green Party, but they’re a bit too pacifist for me, because in the real world defense IS needed. However there’s a huge difference in the reasons about why the Iraq war went down as opposed to why it’s necessary for taking out the al qaeda for good. Stopping the terrorists and nutty taliban is more important than making money for bush & oil company CEOs.
Edit – Perhaps maybe it’s worse than a Plutocracy – maybe it’s a Kleptocracy.
So also if that’s the case – I hope not about that either.
Perhaps campaign finance reform would actually help to correct that, but considering that Capitol hill & especially their supporters probably would never let a bill like that go through – maybe some wealthy guys who didn’t like the other wealthy guys and their system that gives unfair & uncalled for advantages for the wealthy & corporations, might have to start sending lots in campaign money for a lot of independents who aren’t republicans, democrats or liberatarians and then imagine if those independents flooded out the others and not care about their system that makes paupers out the working class while the wealthy stays wealthy.
It sounds far fetched to think that wealthy people might get aggressive against other wealthy people & their whole system such as in like a Zorro or Robin Hood, but I’ve seen odd things happen before.

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!