Presidential Debate: Round 2

[questor]

Neither of these candidates has the slightest clue about what is happening in the global meltdown or what to do about it. Since there is so much pressure from the left on Obama, one may think that ,should he win, we will segue into

a high tax liberal utopia where capitalism will become just another dirty word.

The mighty engine of free enterprise that created this paradise of America we live in will crumble in power and importance while China takes over as the new superpower. The market doesn't care about race, color, or gender, but it does care about efficiency. Efficiency demands a certain amount of ruthlessness and good management that we no longer possess.

[Turtle]

... Efficiency demands a certain amount of ruthlessness and good management that we no longer possess.

 

Poppycock! Efficiency is as efficiency does and ruthlessness the same. Just not happy unless someone is gettin' brutalized, eh Questy? Goin' maverick on us are ya? :confused: ENOUGH!!!!

 

The general hum on the vine this morning is Obama for the win. :xx:

[pgrmdave]

I disagree with the idea of ruthlessness being needed, but we do need some good, scrupulous management that is more concerned with the company's profits than their own. For AIG execs to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars after having to beg the government to help them is absolutely shameful.

[questor]

Turtle,

Just not happy unless someone is gettin' brutalized, eh Questy? Goin' maverick on us are ya? ENOUGH!!!!

I don't make the rules, I just observe them. The same thing happens to me that happens to anyone else. How would you describe what is happening before our very eyes?

 

Dave, I did not say ruthlessness is needed or desired, I merely pointed out it is the nature of the market. Wouldn't you agree the market is being ruthless at the moment..wiping out years of savings and jobs?

[pgrmdave]

Efficiency demands a certain amount of ruthlessness

 

That's a pretty strong statement to me, and it implies that efficiency needs ruthlessness. And I would question that statement when combined with this one:

 

the market is being ruthless at the moment..wiping out years of savings and jobs

 

Are you saying that the market is being efficient right now? Is that the kind of ruthlessness you meant in your original post?

[Turtle]

Turtle,

I don't make the rules, I just observe them. The same thing happens to me that happens to anyone else. How would you describe what is happening before our very eyes?

 

Dave, I did not say ruthlessness is needed or desired, I merely pointed out it is the nature of the market. Wouldn't you agree the market is being ruthless at the moment..wiping out years of savings and jobs?

 

Popycock again! You relish ruthlessness and you see it in McCain and so relish him, and it takes only the thinnest reading between your lines to hear you say so. The idea of someone getting help they can't pay for sticks in your craw like a bone in a throat. We do make the rules because this is a democratic republic, and you can jolly well sit back & observe how we change them. :xx:

[Moontanman]

I can see some need for ruthlessness but not toward the people who are hurting. I think the CEOs and executives that are responsible and could have taken steps to stop this way before it got out of hand and instead through greed and just everyday not caring what happens as long as they make money. these people should not only be fired, not pass go and not collect their severance pay and golden parachutes they should pay billions in fines and do some real jail time. a couple years in maximum security should give them a pause to consider what sorry excuses for human beings they are. Both candidates seem to moving toward helping the economy but i want to see not only the people who lost their houses get help i want to see the people responsible suffer. I have no problem with someone getting rich, hell given the opportunity i would like to get rich but one thing i have never done is screw over someone to allow me to make money. I was told once that i would never be rich because i cared too much for the people I would have to screw to make money. one thing i do know is flim flam men or con artists when i see one and these people are just that, nothing more, common thieves and they should be treated as such. If me or you took money from people via lies and misdirection we would go to jail why not them?

[Turtle]

I can see some need for ruthlessness ...

one thing i do know is flim flam men or con artists when i see one and these people are just that, nothing more, common thieves and they should be treated as such. If me or you took money from people via lies and misdirection we would go to jail why not them?

 

This is still old school revenge.

1. feeling or showing no mercy

2. thorough and forceful, regardless of effect

ruthless - definition of ruthless by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

It is the 'regardless of effect' conotation that troubles me. Moreover, this ruthlessness does not allow any out for an individual to reform (which of course is flip-flopping, but that's another reprehensible kettle of rotten fish , eh? ;)). Mind you I do agree that any warranted prosecutions ought accompany the repairs, but none of a quality that does not consider the effects. Justice is blind, or so I have heard. :smart:

[questor]

Turtle, I sense anger in your reply. Do you think I want the market to fail?

Do you think I want to see people (including me) lose their savings? What makes you think I am masochistic enough to enjoy what is happening? You are correct if you assume I think people should try to pay their own way. I think that is the best way to have a healthy society. I have never said the least fortunate should not be helped, I have said people who refuse to work should be responsible for themselves. Am I living in a different world where there are millions of people starving? As far as I can determine,there are philanthropies, churches, homeless shelters and government programs to help the needy. Where is all this starvation taking place? The market now is trying to return to true value after several years of skyrocketing housing prices and manipulation of debt paper, people are going to be hurt just as they were in 1929 and 2000. This is what happens when excesses and fraud occurs. I agree the perpetrators should be punished severely.

 

You said:

We do make the rules because this is a democratic republic, and you can jolly well sit back & observe how we change them.

. What does this mean? Who is ''we''? and what helpful changes will be made?

[Moontanman]

This is still old school revenge. ruthless - definition of ruthless by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

It is the 'regardless of effect' conotation that troubles me. Moreover, this ruthlessness does not allow any out for an individual to reform (which of course is flip-flopping, but that's another reprehensible kettle of rotten fish , eh? ;)). Mind you I do agree that any warranted prosecutions ought accompany the repairs, but none of a quality that does not consider the effects. Justice is blind, or so I have heard. :smart:

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that if an individual is important he can do anything and not be punished? If a person important to our country was to murder someone in cold blood then he should not be punished to the full extent of the law because he's important? Eeww it feels icky to be almost in agreement with Questor ;)

[Turtle]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You are wrong in your twisting of my words. My contention is simply that 'ruthlessness' is no advantageous tactic in regard to efficiency or otherwise.

 

Turtle, I sense anger in your reply.

 

Now you have read in nothing that I wrote.

 

Back on the topic of the debate, the concensus is that Obama did better by remaining calm while McCain flailed & railed, and Barack is making headway on securing the necessary electoral votes.

[Moontanman]

You are wrong in your twisting of my words. My contention is simply that 'ruthlessness' is no advantageous tactic in regard to efficiency or otherwise.

 

 

 

Now you have read in nothing that I wrote.

 

Back on the topic of the debate, the concensus is that Obama did better by remaining calm while McCain flailed & railed, and Barack is making headway on securing the necessary electoral votes.

 

Only trying to understand, possibly we are not talking about the same thing.

[questor]

For those who have misconstrued..

The ruthlessness of which I speak is a feature of the market, not of individuals. The market has no feelings, no morals, no pity, it just tries to restore its own homeostasis and efficiency. It does not know it is ruthless.

 

For proof of this look in todays paper, the rich, the poor, the healthy, the sick, the black, the white, are all getting the same beating.

[REASON]

For those who have misconstrued..

The ruthlessness of which I speak is a feature of the market, not of individuals. The market has no feelings, no morals, no pity, it just tries to restore its own homeostasis and efficiency. It does not know it is ruthless.

 

For proof of this look in todays paper, the rich, the poor, the healthy, the sick, the black, the white, are all getting the same beating.

 

The market is not an entity unto itself, and it doesn't try to do anything. It is an abstraction. The market is created by human behavior and interaction. If there is ruthlessness in the market, it is a direct reflection of the ruthlessness displayed by those who are participating in it. We are not receiving a beating from the market, we are paying a price for behaviors and practices, many of which could be considered ruthless, that have been tolerated in it.

 

I interpret Turtle's reaction to the term such that he is saying that ruthlessness is a dysfunctional human failing that has no place in the market, or any other aspect of human relations in a civilized society.

 

If ruthlessness is allowed to continue to be an expected function of Capitalism, then it will only be a matter of time before it collapses in dysfunction.

 

Once again, we are bearing witness to such a collapse, and ruthlessness has been at the heart of the problem.

[questor]

We are arguing semantics about the market. It does exist as an entity whenever two or more people with opposing interests enter a negotiation. And it is abstract in that it is not palpable.

The fault here is not capitalism. The fault is human nature. It is natural that one would want to get the best deal for himself. If there is a freedom of exchange where one is willing to buy and the other is willing to sell, you have a win-win situation. This establishes true value. What has happened here is that the government interceeded in the transaction and created an atmosphere to skew true values by providing low cost loans to those who could not afford it. Unscrupulous lenders, seeing no oversight and the oppotunity to make money acted on the opportunity. In Jan. 2205, Chuck Hagel, a Repub., introduced legislation to create a regulatory agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie. This got no support from the congress. In 2006

McCain signed on to the legislation and made a 359 word speech in the Senate. The legislation failed to win approval. Obama was silent on the issue

but other Dem senators protected the interests of those companies and pushed them to expand their support for low cost housing. Don't forget that in Obama's position as community coordinator low cost housing was one of his priorities. This created a huge portfolio of debt owed by people who could not afford to pay. Now we are seeing the ''ruthlessness'' of the market as it tries to get back to true value. If you vote with your head in November, you better understand what happened here, because you will be maintaining the people in power that got us here.

[Zythryn]

Questor, you just don't seem to get it.

The problem is not high risk loans. Those are made in markets all the time.

The problem was that many loans were not properly labeled as being high risk. Agencies gave these loans AAA ratings when they should not have. And lack of oversight meant that no one questioned these outrageous ratings.

As for voting with your head, I agree, the last administration has been a disaster on a number of fronts, time to vote in someone like Obama rather than Bush redux;)

[REASON]

We are arguing semantics about the market. It does exist as an entity whenever two or more people with opposing interests enter a negotiation. And it is abstract in that it is not palpable.

The fault here is not capitalism. The fault is human nature.

 

That's what I was saying.

 

 

What has happened here is that the government interceeded in the transaction and created an atmosphere to skew true values by providing low cost loans to those who could not afford it. Unscrupulous lenders, seeing no oversight and the oppotunity to make money acted on the opportunity. In Jan. 2205, Chuck Hagel, a Repub., introduced legislation to create a regulatory agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie. This got no support from the congress. In 2006 McCain signed on to the legislation and made a 359 word speech in the Senate. The legislation failed to win approval. Obama was silent on the issue but other Dem senators protected the interests of those companies and pushed them to expand their support for low cost housing. Don't forget that in Obama's position as community coordinator low cost housing was one of his priorities. This created a huge portfolio of debt owed by people who could not afford to pay. Now we are seeing the ''ruthlessness'' of the market as it tries to get back to true value. If you vote with your head in November, you better understand what happened here, because you will be maintaining the people in power that got us here.

 

questor, I understand that it makes you feel comfortable to believe that liberal democrats are responsible for all of the ills in the world and that there is this clear definition of right and wrong in which you have positioned yourself on the right side of any issue.

 

Unfortunately, yours is a world of self delusion and continual manipulation by information peddlers who seek to distort reality for ideological and political gain.

 

If you are at all interested in gaining an objective understanding of the highly complex financial crises that we are currently experiencing, please read and view the links below. Otherwise, you're welcome to continue deluding yourself that it is all because of the Dems and lazy poor people.

 

FactCheck.org: Who Caused the Economic Crisis?

 

Wall Street's Shadow Market Video - CBSNews.com