Political Matrix

[greg]

And these things should stay banned. It is about protecting children and animals from exploitation.
Lethe already answered this. If we ban everything that some people think is filth, we end up banning everything. The solution is to ban the worst filth and minimize the problems of rest of the filth.

Exactly. Before long, we'll have nothing but the wall to stare at. And then people will ban the wall because it might make you think of filthy things out of boredom. And then people might ban your brain because it might make you think of filthy things, too. And then everyone will be dead.

[Josquin des Prez]

Any intelligent person knows this is PURE HOGWASH!  For example there are many women inventors Famous Women Inventors of the Modern Era

Here's your answer:

http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html



Feminine success, an exception rather then the rule, is only really masculine success under a different guise. Elder George is of course speaking of the masculine principle in an absolute sense, which often times happens to apply to a rare subset of women as well, whom because of whatever biological mishap are more man then woman, as per Weininger's theory. As you can see, there are no holes in my argument.

[DavidRoss]

Oh, my....  I see that Gurn's locking of Teresa's "Progressives" thread has only shifted the site of the madness.  Looking through the last few pages of this thread and seeing the ≈1:10 ratio of common sense to lunacy, my initial amusement soon turned to despair. 

You are officially the scariest person on this forum. I can already imagine the progressive utopia, a lesser grim/dark version of ingsoc with more technological enslavement and dependence. But hey, there probably won't be as much paperwork.

Funny...but Kafka might disagree.

I highly recommend Religion, unlike some I will not try to force mine on you

Your "Progressive" agenda is nothing but an effort to force your wacky religion on EVERYONE.

Well, the final solution would be for people to not use drugs, have sex, or commit crimes. But people are stupid...

Sigh.  Ain't it the truth!  And what's really tragic is that the stupidest of all think they're really smart, that they know what's best for everyone else, and when Pie in the Sky is on offer they turn out en masse at the polls to place their orders!

No wonder your ideas are so goofy you have been listening to unintelligent people

This may be the most hilariously ironic statement I've seen all year!

You are a scream.  For a person who stresses individual freedom, you sure have an obsession with banning.

Her thread on "Progressives" already made quite clear that she supports totalitarianism as long as it's justified by pretty rhetoric (bet she loved "the Workers' Paradise").  Isn't it comforting to know that if you and she resided in the same jurisdiction, her vote would count as much as yours?

[71 dB]

Here's your answer:

http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html

"Selected by Kevin Solway
from the 1906 English Edition"

Didn't you find answers older than that? These 1906 conceptions might be too modern to your mind.
The status of females and concept of equity in the society has changed dramatically during the last 100 years.

[oabmarcus]

Here's your answer:

http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html



Feminine success, an exception rather then the rule, is only really masculine success under a different guise. Elder George is of course speaking of the masculine principle in an absolute sense, which often times happens to apply to a rare subset of women as well, whom because of whatever biological mishap are more man then woman, as per Weininger's theory. As you can see, there are no holes in my argument.

Bravo, not only you are a racist, you are a sexist too? Wow, you are a piece of work, aren't you.

[71 dB]

Bravo, not only you are a racist, you are a sexist too? Wow, you are a piece of work, aren't you.

Don't be too harsh with him, most people in the 19th century were racist and sexist too!   

It is a shocking reality that many people have got a loooong way to the 21st century. 

[Todd]

The abortion itself is irresponsible, or the pregnancy?

Or are you saying that the only responsible way to deal with a pregnancy is to bring it to term?

By the way, in those statistics we've been bandying about, there's still no breakdown of how often an unwanted pregnancy is the result of contraceptive failure.

Both.

No. 

Not a very high percentage.  And how would one determine if it is truly contraceptive failure, or a failure to use contraception properly?  You'd think contraception would be easy enough to use, but that may not always be the case for everyone.

As a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as baby-making machines.  Indeed I look forward to the day when babies never grow in our bellies but are grown in laboratories from our removed egg and sperm cells. 

IMHO since men cannot bear children they should have NO opinion one way or the other on abortion, it is a woman's issue NOT a man's issue.  Men are ONLY sperm donors and all the work of producing a viable human being is completely in the wombs of women.  If would be different if Men could get pregnant but they cannot not!

Candidate for dumbest paragraphs yet posted on this forum.

In addition I would completely ban pornography and movies rated R and up, ALL the great movies I have seen have been rated G, PG and PG-13.

Will the real forum totalitarian please stand up?

Freedom is a fine balance, there is freedom to and freedom from.

Yes, and freedom is about freedom to.  You've got it completely wrong.

[kishnevi]

I also voted to restrict the amount of filth our children are exposed to in the media.  Indeed I would go further as children are mirrors of us.  I would support a ban on all dirty words, graphic descriptions of violence, rape and murder from all forms of music.  In addition I would completely ban pornography and movies rated R and up, ALL the great movies I have seen have been rated G, PG and PG-13.

However I am for monitored foreign aid that actually gets to the people in need, controlled immigration, gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. 

Finally I agree with you our civil rights should not be violated to stop terrorism.  I do not believe in giving up ANY of my freedoms to feel safer.  Give me liberty or give me death.

Okay, any standard GOP member's head just imploded on reading that.

I am, btw, a sort of mainstream libertarian who wants no part of either the GOP or the Democrats; in my more reflective moments I tend to think we need to throw out the entire system and start over again.

[oabmarcus]

Okay, any standard GOP member's head just imploded on reading that.

I am, btw, a sort of mainstream libertarian who wants no part of either the GOP or the Democrats; in my more reflective moments I tend to think we need to throw out the entire system and start over again.

see, the part I disagree with libertarians is the fact that they worship laissez-faire capitalism to death. They believe in absolutely no regulation, no government involvement whatsoever. How in the world can anyone, after the 2008 financial collapse, still believe in such a thing? do they think that if we deregulated it all, everything will magically get better? Sorry, but that almost sound childish to me.

[Franco]

see, the part I disagree with libertarians is the fact that they worship laissez-faire capitalism to death. They believe in absolutely no regulation, no government involvement whatsoever. How in the world can anyone, after the 2008 financial collapse, still believe in such a thing? do they think that if we deregulated it all, everything will magically get better? Sorry, but that almost sound childish to me.

Except the 2008 financial collapse was caused in large part by government action, with Congress putting pressure on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage more loans to the lower class demographic.  This resulted in irresponsible lending practices since the mortgage brokers simply passed along the risk to FM/FM - which over leveraged them well beyond their capacity to deal with the potential losses.

Regarding deregulation in general, it is a profound reality that markets work best with as little as possible manipulation by outside agents (of which government is the largest) and as much information possible readily available.  Most attempts to control the economy are futile since the variables at play are numerous and subtle, and the opportunity for unintended consequences much more likely than beneficial results so that the best and brightest within (and without) government reliably bring about financial crisis after crisis in the quest for economic stability.

[oabmarcus]

Except the 2008 financial collapse was caused in large part by government action, with Congress putting pressure on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to make more loans to the lower class demographic.

I am perfectly aware of who pressured Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the lending standards, the democrats. But, do you know who pressure these democratic senators to lower the lending standards? Want to take a guess? Wall street bond traders! Yep, those people who first came up with mortgae backed securities needs more crappy Mortgages to sell to their customers, so they lobbied the politicians hard to ease the lending standards. EVERYTHING, and remember everything, came from the Wall Street, the rich run this country, don't ever forget that.

Regarding deregulation in general, it is a profound reality that markets work best with as little as possible manipulation by outside agents (of which government is the largest) and as much information possible readily available.

Your argument has been used countless times, as a talking point FOR deregulation. Well, let's construct a thought experiment. Let's peel off some of the government regulations we have right now, and let's see where we would end up:

1) It's a law that people who have insider information inside a company can't trade their stocks without disclosure to SEC first. Let's take that away. Suppose I own company XYZ, for which you are also a share holder. Your entire pension consisted of investment in this single stock. Well, I also happen to be a crook, I knew that my XYZ is nothing but a fraud. I faked my financial statements, reported high earnings(actual earning=0), but everything has been a sham. Knowing this (being the only one), i sold all my holding of the XYZ company and profited enormously, I fled the country to live on some remote island. Your life savings are decimated, XYZ stock goes to 0.

government? or no government? you decide

let's peel off more regulations, let's say publicly traded companies don't even have to disclose their financial statements to the public.

2) Say my company ABC, a legit publicly traded company. Is hemorrhaging money this whole year, but I am not obligated by law to disclose the actual profitability of my company. For my sake (I own shares in the company), i tell the people on the outside that the company is doing great, we are making more money than ever,  come and invest in our stock, etc.... you also happen to be an investor, you hold x amount of ABC stocks. One day, knowing the company is rapidly falling off a cliff, i rapidly sell off all of my shares, the price of ABC tumbles to 0, the company files for bankruptcy, your pension is gone.

in a "free" system such as the one you suggest, how does an investor from the outside, e.g YOU, prevent something like this to happen? You tell me.

[Franco]

There's nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities - unless the majority of the underlying mortgages are loans to people who should never gotten one. 

[Philoctetes]

I am perfectly aware of who pressured Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the lending standards, the democrats. But, do you know who pressure these democratic senators to lower the lending standards? Want to take a guess? Wall street bond traders! Yep, those people who first came up with mortgae backed securties needs more crappy Mortgages to sell to their customers, so they lobbied the politicians hard to ease the lending standards. EVERYTHING, and remember everything, came from the Wall Street, the rich run this country, don't ever forget that.

Well that isn't wholly true. I mean when both of those organizations started getting power, it wasn't about the bond market, it was about 'fairness', and the fear of of banks being brought to task for their lending practices. It became a beast that fed upon itself.

[Philoctetes]

There's nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities - unless the majority of the underlying mortgages are loans to people who should never gotten one.

And as an interesting sidenote to this whole affair, is this is not the first time the market crashed due to bad home loans. This was either the sixth or seventh time it happened. You'd think that the politicians would notice this, but the tendency towards populism tends to win out in the end.

[oabmarcus]

There's nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities - unless the majority of the underlying mortgages are loans to people who should never gotten one.

Of course not. But, the issue here is not MBS, or CDOs or CDSs. The issue here is deregulation, if everything were well regulated, (that includes lending standards) these financial instruments wouldn't have been so destructive/profitable.

[Philoctetes]

Of course not. But, the issue here is not MBS, or CDOs or CDSs. The issue here is deregulation, if everything were well regulated, (that includes lending standards) these financial instruments wouldn't have been so destructive/profitable.

Well there were regulations back then, they simply weren't enforced, for a variety of reasons, the chief being government pressure on the bank followed by the incentive for untold profits.

[Franco]

Of course not. But, the issue here is not MBS, or CDOs or CDSs. The issue here is deregulation, if everything were well regulated, (that includes lending standards) these financial instruments wouldn't have been so destructive/profitable.

The lending industry is one of the most regulated, but if lenders are told to produce loans to low income people by government regulators, they are encouraged to let people claiming incomes they cannot document buy homes they cannot afford and write the loans anyway.

This crisis was not because of under-regulation, but in typical fashion, government causes a cirisis then positions itself as the necessary savior through yet more government action.

[oabmarcus]

Well there were regulations back then, they simply weren't enforced, for a variety of reasons, the chief being government pressure on the bank followed by the incentive for untold profits.

Yes. and I can understand Franco's frustration with Government's involvement in regulation. I know how inept SEC is at regulating the financial industry. You don't have to go far, just look at the entire Madoff affair. It doesn't take an expert to figure out how ineffective SEC is at regulating the Wall Street. The more pressing issue is not really political, but social. The incentive system is all rigged in Wall Steet's favor. If I work for the regulators, I only get paid this much. But, if I help out turning a blind eye to Goldman Sachs, i might get a job offer there later. This is why SEC fired Gary Aguirre, it's disgraceful.

At the same time, we shouldn't buy into right wing propaganda, and just "deregulate it all". If you do that, they have won.

[Philoctetes]

The lending industry is one of the most regulated, but if lenders are told to produce loans to low income people by government regulators, they are encouraged to let people claiming incomes they cannot document buy homes they cannot afford and write the loans anyway.

This crisis was not because of under-regulation, but in typical fashion, government causes a cirisis then positions itself as the necessary savior through yet more government action.

Well I don't think I agree with your conclusion. The government did start out with good intentions, modeled after the 'new deal', and they have to act withing the bounds of the public sphere. And the people simply did not see the bubble, they simply saw the house market expanding, living that 'American dream'.  I mean, for me, the main lesson is that one should not act out of a populist attitude, but rather be concerned with the overall good of the economy, but of course this would most likely lead to them not being reelected, and hence the cycle.

[oabmarcus]

The lending industry is one of the most regulated, but if lenders are told to produce loans to low income people by government regulators, they are encouraged to let people claiming incomes they cannot document buy homes they cannot afford and write the loans anyway.

This crisis was not because of under-regulation, but in typical fashion, government causes a cirisis then positions itself as the necessary savior through yet more government action.

See, that's too simple. The reality is not that simple. The people who are selling subprime mortages obviously have enormous financial incentives to do so. I mean, why don't they sell people cheap housing? why just cheap loans? Again, everything came from the people who makes the most money at that time. Bond traders in those investment banks. They WANTED people to buy things they couldn't afford. So, they can package those thing up as financial products and profit from it.
let me quote Steve Eisman:
..."What-the entire American population woke up one morning and said, 'Yeah, I'm going to lie on my loan application'? yeah, people lied. They lied because they were told to lie."