[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, what was remarkable about the situation was the potential for short-term credit, which most companies rely upon for operations, would have blown up. Instead of the weak being culled out we would have likely seen otherwise stronger companies burn up their cash trying to stay alive. This would have been much more serious that the bad situation we actually saw...and it appears we were very close.

What bad situation? If the bailouts were restorative, than all they did was restore us to a position that the next crisis can be bailed out. Never mind that a bad private sector credit situation was transferred or transformed into a bad Federal Government credit situation. But, I guess we've learned that Federal debt is irrelevant.

I think it's a reasonable argument that reduced federal power would bring less potential for federal abuse, but the flip side is less beneficial oversight. Believe it or not a lot of Federal regulations are positive and I don't think the States are equipped to make up the balance.

Federal power does not have to be reduced, per se. It must be constrained to its constitutional limits. Within those limits, those enumerations, it is all powerful.

The most beneficial oversight would be that which constrains government to its proper role.

Federal regulations can be positive when they regulate Constitutionally derived legislation. When Federal regulations intrude on State or local power, or on individual rights, they grow the power of Central Government and diminish the rest, and they nullify the Constitution. In so doing, if not checked, such regulations also can, eventually, nullify the need of States, or individual rights, and thus create, rather than a federal sysem of government, a centrally administered all powerful government--the administrative State rather than a representative form of government with checks and balances.

Yes, and the Tea Party spits on black people.

Is this supposed to be a response to my pointing out that some of the Wall Street Occupiers stated that one of their goals was the elimination of capitalism, which was a response to your statement that you didn't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism? What is the parallel? I said "some" of the occupiers not the entire, rather incoherent, "movement." There was an alleged instance of a supposed Tea Partier spitting on a black man. To say that the Tea Party spits on black people is incredible and has no relation to the discussion.

So you're saying it's all a "spectrum"?

There you go with the "all" thing again. Spectrums can be perceived in every aspect of existence, excepting the possibility of a basic unit of matter. That everything may be seen as existing on a spectrum is, in itself, a duh observation. Inferences and speculations may be inferred from such observation --but even those inferences and speculations can be on a spectrum. I assume there is a grand spectrum of spectrums--or various and even contradicting spectrums of spectrums, and maybe and infinite number of dimensions inhabiting the same space and the spectrums therein. As far as degrees of "free market" and degrees of "socialism" I prefer greater degrees of free market to greater degrees of socialism--especially since a totally free market as a whole system beyond a single buyer and seller is an extremely ephemeral possibility, as is likewise, a purely and totally socialistic economic form of government given human nature.

I think the two movements are a reflection of the undercurrent (frustration with the "system" be it government, private industry or a combination) expressed through two large lenses that make up the USA.

The Tea Party might not have camped out, but then again they probably had to be at work in the morning.

Isn't there always some undercurrent of frustation with government. To claim that as a similarity is another duh observation and not instructive as to the intentions of the two movements.

It's relative. When times are good people are more likely to ignore it.

Being relative, then, it's not a point of discussion, so why point it out. Besides, the protesters being angry about the "game" being increasingly rigged is hypocritical, since they want to rig it in their favor.

Don't understand this paragraph.

It was an attempt to deconstruct your vague somewhat amorphous even vaporously mystical paragraph:

"I guess the bottom line is if you believe our current system {government and private} is really best positioning our resources and people to achieve in this century. It can't all be left to the free market, much of which has long since sold out a lot of the USA in the name of shareholder value."

I think we'd both agree that our current trajectory (in many regards) in not sustainable. Regardless of ones politics, our future leadership will be required to lead America into an even more competitive global economy, with at present less than firm footing and the daunting task of addressing our fiscal issues. This will require innovative thinking...not just lower taxes and less regulation. Doesn't mean we have to give up our identity, but we have to adapt so that we can continue to lead.

-spence

I do agree that our current trajectory is not sustainable. I think one of, if not the main, reason is that our current trajectory is being guided more by central government administrative "experts" rather than innovative entrepeneurs who can think outside the administrative box. If our future political leadership sticks to constitutional governance and lets the market be mostly free and self regulating so that innovaters can operate and profit, the fiscal task will be much less daunting--though daunting will always exist. Without daunting , stagnation creeps in. But if the innovation must come from central planners, and the fiscal issues are government issues, adaptation will stagnate. If we insist on "leading" by government oversight and regulation, we can look forward to leading from behind.