Snark,

Quote:
What we're looking at is the failure of pure free market economics.  The seeds were definately planted years ago, but the removal of any meaningful oversight has let the problem spiral completely out of control with the current administration. 

I guess my response to this would be we don't have anything close to a "pure free market" economic system in this country and haven't since at least the Great Depression. This crisis has all kinds of causes and blame can be fairly pointed in a number of different directions.

You are certainly correct that greed played a significant role in this debacle but unfortunately that will always be a problem when people are involved. More regulation and oversight are needed in some areas but it also is clear that government interference (driven by politics) played a important role in causing this mess. Government pressure on lenders as far back as the 1970's played a role in reducing the credit worthiness required for a mortgage over the last few decades. Quasi-governmental mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a key role in creating the market for these morgage backed securities that are the main source of all this mess.

Putting the government in even more control of the market is not a solution that will produce prosperity and economic growth. I agree that "pure" free market economics doesn't work but we don't haver that in the US anyhow. We also know that heavily state controlled economies produce only misery and despair. This leaves us somewhere in the middle which is where we ought to be. The main issue is how to curb abuses and greed to prevent major systemic problems without gutting the poweful free market based system's ability to generate prosperity.

By the way as a government employee I can assure you that greed is not a quality limited to Wall Street -- public employees can develop a strong sense of entitlement to their jobs and in some cases very generous benefits (which are in most cases better than what you can get in the private sector) and always want more and more at the taxpayers expense.

Brian

Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
Snark,

Quote:
What we're looking at is the failure of pure free market economics.  The seeds were definately planted years ago, but the removal of any meaningful oversight has let the problem spiral completely out of control with the current administration. 

I guess my response to this would be we don't have anything close to a "pure free market" economic system in this country and haven't since at least the Great Depression. This crisis has all kinds of causes and blame can be fairly pointed in a number of different directions.

You are certainly correct that greed played a significant role in this debacle but unfortunately that will always be a problem when people are involved. More regulation and oversight are needed in some areas but it also is clear that government interference (driven by politics) played a important role in causing this mess. Government pressure on lenders as far back as the 1970's played a role in reducing the credit worthiness required for a mortgage over the last few decades. Quasi-governmental mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a key role in creating the market for these morgage backed securities that are the main source of all this mess.

Putting the government in even more control of the market is not a solution that will produce prosperity and economic growth. I agree that "pure" free market economics doesn't work but we don't haver that in the US anyhow. We also know that heavily state controlled economies produce only misery and despair. This leaves us somewhere in the middle which is where we ought to be. The main issue is how to curb abuses and greed to prevent major systemic problems without gutting the poweful free market based system's ability to generate prosperity.

By the way as a government employee I can assure you that greed is not a quality limited to Wall Street -- public employees can develop a strong sense of entitlement to their jobs and in some cases very generous benefits (which are in most cases better than what you can get in the private sector) and always want more and more at the taxpayers expense.

Brian

Brian: They probably believe we are a Democracy too.

Skip

And they don't work sugar. don't try and tell me it works in UK. There are stories here all the time about people who die before their doctor's appointment because they can't get a tmely appointment and there are MANY Brits who come here to get health care rather than wait for the government to PERMIT them to see a doctor. As I said, there is NO place in the world where socialized medicine has EVER succeeded, it always FAILS just like the Communist system of government is always doomed to fail. IUt is NOT governments responsibility to take care of the people,it is their responsibility to take care of themselves and accept that responsibility for their OWN LIVES and WELFARE.

I should perhaps clarify from the viewpoint of many Americans Socilaized medicine has never been successful anywhere in the world.

Skip

Skip

Since your redicilous "nobody helped the US after Katrina" post I thought you would have realized that the news coverage you based your international knowledge on was completely inaccurate. It takes freekin' five seconds on Google to find out that the health care system currently ranked the best in the world by the WHO is the French.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

I am sure you can find other ratings that meassure things differently that will change the order. I doubt you will find any serious rating that put the US above France.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

I am sorry, but you are dead wrong on most of your generalizations.  As I said, I know people that have lost their homes.  I have relatives who have lost their homes.  They didn't take mortgages that they couldn't afford.  They took mortgages they knew they could afford. 

These people put their trust in the people who are supposed to know the industry.  They trusted that their payments would stay affordable.  They did not count on having their interest rate adjusted to a point where a $4500, afordable payment, turned into a $9500 unafordable payment.

I am really fascinated by this in particular.  How exactly did they accept a mortgage that they could afford, but then suddenly they could not afford and went into foreclosure?  People that took out ARMs and then suddenly couldn't afford the payments when the rates went up according to the schedule that they agreed to cannot blame the mortgage company that gave them the loan.  They are responsible for their finances, not someone else.  They had the responsibility to understand exactly what hey were signing, when the payments would go up and how they planned to cover those higher payments.  Anyone who "trusts" any business to have their best interest at heart is a fool.
BTW, my sister-in-law lost her house just a few months ago and is now in an apartment.  She made her own bed and is now living the consequences.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
It's funny how the only people who say these kinds of things are the ones who will be affected the least. 

You have absolutely no clue about how this would/will affect me!  My plans for retirement are fading right out of sight and to say that I am pissed about it is a serious understatement!

At this point I guess it doesn't really matter.  Looks like it won't be long before we'll be finding out how a modified healthcare system would work, barring some Al Queda attack in Peoria.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
government health care has not worked ANYWHERE in the world that has tried and that includes the canadian system.

Skip

I'd like to know how the system I know and love "has not worked"...

I've lived in countries with both government health care and without, and I much prefer having a public system. I will admit I wish Canada would allow privatized health care alongside the government one, but if I have to choose between one all-or-nothing system, I'm choosing the Canadian one.

What boggles me the most when it comes to those who are against public healthcare is that in countries where there's public health care, the government spends less per capita on health care than in the U.S., so how can it be the kind of money-gobbling machine so many are fearing?

KM

Cost is only one factor.  Quality and timeliness of service is far more important in my opinion.

You may be very happy with the Canadian system, however, there are many Canadians who are not and they often come across the border to have their needs addressed.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Cost is only one factor.  Quality and timeliness of service is far more important in my opinion.

Fair enough. This is why I'm an advocate of a dual-tier system.

Allow a dual-tier system and you've got that both bases covered. You'd still offer healthcare for everyone at a lower cost than you're spending now, and there'd be the private option for those that are concerned with the quality of care in the public hospitals.

Cheaper, better, more. What's wrong with that?

KM