bostonbubble.com

[Mark]

[GenXer]

Mark: You write that 'Ever[y] time you and I vote we REGULATE the government. ' How I wish it were true. Right now the government got so big and so wasteful that we have an underclass of people who keep voting themselves more money paid for courtesy of those of us who are actually producing wealth. The system is broken. It will not fix itself. Banks COULD fix themselves if let to fail.

Regulating bank products does NOTHING to solve the problem which lies at the core of modern banking. You can write rules all you want, but who will regulate the pricing models based on false math? Government has no way of regulating banks. Lets get to the core of this. What is the definition of REGULATE?

1. To adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.

How about we add a third definition:
3. To write numerous rules and to pass numerous laws with multiple special interest loopholes and provisions that allow more money to be spent on overisght of the entity being regulated by the federal government; to create expensive requirements which increase the cost of doing business, resulting in higher prices for the consumers; to increase the participation of the government in private business and impose government inefficiency and beurocracy resulting in creation of more problems than the regulation is intended to solve

Did I forget anything?

[samz]

[GenXer]

samz: I'd say its axiomatic with an existential twist and an empirical flavor. And a little bit of Capitalism thrown in.

If it was 1770s Massachusetts, whose side would you be on? Lets look at the track history...how many hundreds of millions of people were murdered by the governments all over the world? I'm talking THEIR OWN PEOPLE, not wars.

As far as bailouts, throughout history, people always bailed themselves out. There are many ways to do it - start a business, immigrate somewhere better, work 3 jobs, etc. Our current society is built on entitlement and wealth redistribution. While we can not go back to 1770, this is not going to work going into the future...and it has never worked anywhere, if we still want people to work hard and create wealth. Why would they when everything is free?

[samz]

[john p]

This is a very good line of perspectives.

As far as the baby boomers hitting retirement. At the time most of the elderly were paying into Medicare and Social Security, the cost of living was much lower and we didn't have sophisticated and expensive medical care. In many cases people died of breast cancer, cancer, heart attacks when their time came. A lot of those problems went undetected and people died prematurely in today's standards. So, when it comes to spending money for a loved one, people will usually pay anything. Case in point, my uncle died of a heart attack 20 years ago two weeks after his retirement. That was a great deal for the State Pension. My father had a stress test and it was found that he needed a stent in his heart so he got surgery about 3 years ago. He would have been dead if he was 20 years older because the condition he had was called the "widow maker". I know of someone that stayed on life support for 3 months before they passed away. Imagine that hospital bill. In the old days that person would have died in their bedroom at home. It is safe to say that if everyone in a similar condition did that, we would not be able to sustain it for very long.

It's kind of like people buying into a life membership to a country club. Imagine the older members who paid for the country club when it was just a golf course, and now without paying any more, their membership includes a golf course, pool, a spa, valet car service, etc. My point is that the level of care that existed in the past was much less and that was the basis for the amount of money that people had to kick in. Now, despite not kicking in enough for this new level of care, people still want it because it is available, and let’s face it, when a loved one needs it, anyone would fight for it. So, the dilemma is, if we let politicians who want to be Santa Clause control things, we'll spend like drunks at an open bar and we'll run out of money.

I hate to be heartless, but we have to be realistic about how much things cost. Even though Government knows that there are economies of scale by nationalizing it, politicians don't want to be getting phone calls from people that got denied health care. They'd rather let the "Private Sector Insurance Companies" be the bad cop and make token pot shots to stay in political favor with the people. This can only last so long. It is a growing concern that is a political third rail. Unfortunately we need to hit the third rail and feel the electricity before these "leaders" act.

The flip side is that I went to an "initial visit" at an allergist in a hospital. The bill for the visit was $1,500. I had signed up for the cheapest insurance (very high deductable) because I never go to the doctor and I did in this one instance because the wife (the strong hen's will) overwhelmed me. I told the doctor to go screw himself with the bill and we settled on me paying him $200. Not only is the top half of wage earners in the private sector footing the bill for the overwhelming amount of the cost of government, but we pay even more in these scenarios where medical costs get tucked to us.

I know this doesn't relate to housing, but in reality, how we respond to these issues will determine whether we will be socialists or capitalists. I hate, I really hate to admit this, but I think we need just a pinch of socialism in the right spots because the ownership rich have pumped out so much from the working people recently. I see smaller companies taking down these gluttons and giving small business tax breaks was my vision because they were the pac-man that would eat up the greed and give wealth to the industrious members of society. However, the danger to socialism is that it makes people on the dole gluttons and if that is tolerated via creating scapegoats and straw men bogus arguments, the pendulum will swing back right, very hard if we don't go bankrupt in the meantime. People need to think like a member in a big family. You can't take seconds before everyone else has their first helping (when it comes to social spending). If people don't act like gluttons and we have a value of rationing what people take out and we maybe change the word "Entitlement" to "Relief" as Jay Severin suggests, we can find the middle ground as a people without having to switch from one dysfunctional political machine to another one.

I think a grass roots strengthening of our value structure independent of our political parties, one in the middle ground will create a gravitational force these polar parties who have been picking leaders like Obama who voted 97 percent of the time with his party, versus someone who is more centered. How much damage a far left wing political power can do is frightening and that will determine people's investment in our Nation. KEEP IN MIND THAT IF IN OTHER COUNTRIES IT IS THE WILD WEST AND PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ENVIROMENTAL STANDARDS, B.S. AND PAY FOR DEADBEATS ON THE DOLE THAT FEEL ENTITLED, WHO WOULD INVEST IN THE UNITED STATES? THEY'LL SEND THEIR MONEY TO THE WILD WEST. AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'LL BE IN SUCH DEEP YOGURT, WE'LL END UP WITH A TOUGH GUY AND WE'LL START TO GO FROM WIMPY METROSEXUAL SOCIALISTS TO AGGRESSIVE BASH YOUR HEAD IN AND SLASH YOUR TIRES UNION SOCIALISTS WHO WILL DECIDE THAT WE NEED TO FIRST IMPLEMENT PROTECTIONIST POLICIES AND WHEN THAT RUNS OUT, WE GO OUT THERE AND START TAKING AND BE PREDATORS. IT WILL HAPPEN. WE ARE TOO MIGHTY TO DISSOLVE; WE'LL START KICKING ASS BEFORE THAT HAPPENS. I'D RATHER SEE GOAL SCORERS THAN GOONS ON THE ICE, BUT IF THE GOAL SCORERS CAN'T FIND THE NET, YOU'LL SEE IT WILL BE THE UNITED STATES ELECTING A WAR MONGER WHO GOES OUT AND KICKS THE EVER LIVING SHIT OUT OF PEOPLE AND WE'LL JUST TAKE PEOPLE'S OIL AND WHATEVER WE WANT. WE'LL HAVE TO IF WE KEEP SCREWING UP DURING PEACETIME. THE PRICE FOR OUR INCOMPETENCE WILL BE THE MASSACRE OF OTHER NATIONS INNOCENT PEOPLE. IF YOU THINK I'M WRONG, THINK ABOUT THE DELUSION PEOPLE ARE BUYING INTO TO RATIONALIZE TAKING FROM OTHERS. WHEN PEOPLE VOTE TO TAKE OTHER'S MONEY FOR THEIR BENEFIT WHERE DOES THAT LEAD? WHAT'S THE END GAME WHEN THE WEALTH LEAVES A SOCIETY THAT APPROPRIATES TOO MUCH OF IT? THAT PREDATOR EITHER STARVES OR GOES HUNTING. DO YOU THINK THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD STARVE WHEN WE HAVE THE WORLD'S MOST LETHAL MILITARY? IF PEOPLE DON'T GET THEIR VALUES IN ALIGNMENT NOW, THIS WILL LEAD TO WWIII.

CAPITAL LETTERS...... way too much caffeine….

[GenXer]

john p: well said, but I don't think the movement to change will come from the 'middle'. It will have to come from the Constitutionalists who would like our country to stick to the limited powers that are granted to the goverment in our Constitution.

samz: there is no safety net. We are subsidizing bad decisions made by banks, and they will do it again when time comes, and they will be bailed out again. All this does is perpetuates the problem.

Socialism assumes that people are inherently unable to make decisions in their own self interest. Any amount of socialism assumes that people need to be guided by those who know better. This is always true!
Ask yourself, what type of socialism do you want? And surprise surprise! People are dumb and they need to be told what to do, and they need to be saved form themselves, etc. etc. A slippery slope.
Instead, people have to be judged for their actions, accept responsibility, and BE ALLOWED TO FAIL MISERABLY. Dont give drugs to junkie...

[balor123]

[quote="Mark"]

[balor123]

[samz]

This is a great topic -- thanks JohnP. Maybe we should start a new thread on the health-care system.

[Mark]

[balor123]

[samz]

[samz]

[balor123]