[quote=aldante]
ZK,
How is making something incompetent bigger an improvement?
[/quote]
Simply making it bigger isn’t an improvement. It needs to be improved. Whether it’s bigger or smaller isn’t the issue. Improvement isn’t free, though. So some resources would be necessary to implement any improvements.
[quote=aldante]
So we agree that the trillions are coming from the taxpayer? That the FED is able to print money exponentially based on the fact that the U.S. taxpayer must pay their taxes or go to jail right?
The vast majority of the $$ goes to multinational “defense” contractors and companies. This is why the absolute best thing that America does is make weapons. No one even comes close to our ingenuity. Then there are the permanent banker/governement families that sit right next to the FED as the money is being created. If you look at who the top regulators are, they all tend to know one another because they congregate in the same place. That place is Washington D.C. where they draw up “laws” that enable them to continually grow and protect their own wealth.
[/quote]
Unless I’m reading that wrong, you’re saying that corruption is rampant. If I agree with that (and I do up to a point), I still don’t see how a generally smaller government helps that problem.
[quote=aldante]
The reason that I say a smaller “Government” is that people are given a false sense of security by the pronouncements and actions of these regulators. People act on those pronouncements.
[/quote]
I don’t understand that paragraph at all. So if government was smaller, people wouldn’t have a false sense of security? And that would fix the problems?
[quote=aldante]
Here is a what if: Do you think that if Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke came to the public in summer of 2008 and said ” The Housing market is overbought, please avoid buying a house until the dust settles” billions of dollars would have been saved by those people who bought their house becasue at that time becasue they trusted these “Regulators?” BTW: This is exactly what Paulson was saying to the insiders….this is going down..stay away form Fannie and Freddie.
[/quote]
First of all, by the time he gave the warning he gave, housing prices were already collapsing. Second, he didn’t say, “the housing market is overbought and going down, stay away from Fannie and Freddie.” He is alleged to have said, “Fannie and Freddie are going down due to the (already happening) housing collapse.” So, if he said that to the general public, then certain investors would’ve made different moves, but it wouldn’t have affected home buyers to any significant extent.
[quote=aldante]
No these really “smart and trusted” authorities created an atmoshpere that encouraged capital to be misdirected on a very large scale. That is why your tax money this very morning is being pledged to bail out some very wealthy people in Europe.
[/quote]
Not sure I see the connection there. Please be more specific.
[quote=aldante]
Please give me examples of how many times Bernanke has been right on the economy. In the mean time here is a link you may enjoy:
The same thing is played out day after day after day. Our futures are being used (via a tax system legitmized by the use of Force) to create wealth for the wealthy.
If the regulators missed Madoff and the biggest bubble ever how in the HELL can anyone believe that they will get it right the next time????? How big do you want the Governement to be?
BTW, what if one of those really powerful people who were ever elected, or vetted by the public is a percription drug addict? Or just plain incompetent? Or evil? How much power do you suggest we give these folks?
No thanks ZK. A great example is when BAC wanted to add a fee to their debit cards. The government did not act. People did and BofA quickly changed their mind.
If you have not already take 30 minutes and read “The Law” by Frédéric Bastiat. He explains why governemt is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and at the same time needs to be kept to its proper SIZE.[/quote]
You keep talking about corruption and incompetence (and now potential drug addicts) in the government. Nothing you’ve said in any of your posts adequately explains why you think a smaller government will fix this.
You’re a small-government conservative. Which is fine, to a point. And that point is the point at which you stop using reason and start saying things like, “In the face of all this evidence that POWER CORRUPTS how anyone can claim that a big government is necessary is IDIOTIC…..IMHO.” The problem with passionate ideologues is that they rarely use or respond to reason, logic, evidence, or facts. And even when they try to (as in your statement above, which talks about evidence that power corrupts), their logic frequently fails, as does yours. You say that there’s “all this evidence that POWER CORRUPTS” and then say that therefore anyone who claims that a big government is necessary is idiotic. You can’t see, because you’re blinded by your biases, that the two aren’t necessarily automatically connected. You are so certain that they are (because of your bias), that it doesn’t occur to you that your logic here is faulty.
As I said in my first post, there’s no talking common sense with someone who can be so ridiculously blind to his own biases. And, as you’ve shown, I was right. If you want to prove me wrong, explain to me how a small government would fix or would have prevented the (mostly republican) corruption that caused these problems in the first place.
