[patientrenter]

DWCAP: “Why do people keep needing the GOV to “save” us? I dont want the government to save me. I dont want the government deciding who deserves a house and who doesn’t (read: has to pay inflated prices).”

I agree 100%. It is true that risk in financial institutions was poorly regulated. Regulations should have thoroughly exposed all the risks. They didn’t. If they had forced such disclosure, markets would have forced the companies taking too much risk to stop. In future, companies and industries that take on risks that rely on bubbles not bursting should be spotlighted immediately and continuously until the market exuberance causing the pressure comes to its senses.

I am convinced that a very big cause of the housing bubble was govt intervention in the housing market. Without a deduction for mortgage interest, without FNMA, Freddie Mac, FHA loans or loan guarantees, without govt pressure on banks to lend to poor risks, without any of a myriad other govt-backed programs to funnel more and more money into housing, the bubble would have been much smaller, and would have deflated much earlier and quicker.

With little or no govt involvement in the housing market, and with vigorous govt-required disclosure of financial risks, grounded on leaning against cyclical ups and downs, the housing bubble would have been innocuous.

[patientrenter]

DWCAP: “Why do people keep needing the GOV to “save” us? I dont want the government to save me. I dont want the government deciding who deserves a house and who doesn’t (read: has to pay inflated prices).”

I agree 100%. It is true that risk in financial institutions was poorly regulated. Regulations should have thoroughly exposed all the risks. They didn’t. If they had forced such disclosure, markets would have forced the companies taking too much risk to stop. In future, companies and industries that take on risks that rely on bubbles not bursting should be spotlighted immediately and continuously until the market exuberance causing the pressure comes to its senses.

I am convinced that a very big cause of the housing bubble was govt intervention in the housing market. Without a deduction for mortgage interest, without FNMA, Freddie Mac, FHA loans or loan guarantees, without govt pressure on banks to lend to poor risks, without any of a myriad other govt-backed programs to funnel more and more money into housing, the bubble would have been much smaller, and would have deflated much earlier and quicker.

With little or no govt involvement in the housing market, and with vigorous govt-required disclosure of financial risks, grounded on leaning against cyclical ups and downs, the housing bubble would have been innocuous.

[patientrenter]

DWCAP: “Why do people keep needing the GOV to “save” us? I dont want the government to save me. I dont want the government deciding who deserves a house and who doesn’t (read: has to pay inflated prices).”

I agree 100%. It is true that risk in financial institutions was poorly regulated. Regulations should have thoroughly exposed all the risks. They didn’t. If they had forced such disclosure, markets would have forced the companies taking too much risk to stop. In future, companies and industries that take on risks that rely on bubbles not bursting should be spotlighted immediately and continuously until the market exuberance causing the pressure comes to its senses.

I am convinced that a very big cause of the housing bubble was govt intervention in the housing market. Without a deduction for mortgage interest, without FNMA, Freddie Mac, FHA loans or loan guarantees, without govt pressure on banks to lend to poor risks, without any of a myriad other govt-backed programs to funnel more and more money into housing, the bubble would have been much smaller, and would have deflated much earlier and quicker.

With little or no govt involvement in the housing market, and with vigorous govt-required disclosure of financial risks, grounded on leaning against cyclical ups and downs, the housing bubble would have been innocuous.

[patientrenter]

DWCAP: “Why do people keep needing the GOV to “save” us? I dont want the government to save me. I dont want the government deciding who deserves a house and who doesn’t (read: has to pay inflated prices).”

I agree 100%. It is true that risk in financial institutions was poorly regulated. Regulations should have thoroughly exposed all the risks. They didn’t. If they had forced such disclosure, markets would have forced the companies taking too much risk to stop. In future, companies and industries that take on risks that rely on bubbles not bursting should be spotlighted immediately and continuously until the market exuberance causing the pressure comes to its senses.

I am convinced that a very big cause of the housing bubble was govt intervention in the housing market. Without a deduction for mortgage interest, without FNMA, Freddie Mac, FHA loans or loan guarantees, without govt pressure on banks to lend to poor risks, without any of a myriad other govt-backed programs to funnel more and more money into housing, the bubble would have been much smaller, and would have deflated much earlier and quicker.

With little or no govt involvement in the housing market, and with vigorous govt-required disclosure of financial risks, grounded on leaning against cyclical ups and downs, the housing bubble would have been innocuous.

[patientrenter]

I work in the financial services industry, and much of my savings are invested in stocks, but this is thrilling.

For years, I’ve watched as people lived way beyond their means, based on borrowing and/or increasing asset prices. I saved at least 50% of my pay, and did not consider that to be extreme, but few others saved more than 20%, if that. I felt that I was an outcast, a nut. Now I am getting tremendous satisfaction from not being a complete idiot. Of course, I am personally much less well off, but I feel better poorer and grounded than well-off and a nut.

Anyone else out there in the same boat?

[patientrenter]

I work in the financial services industry, and much of my savings are invested in stocks, but this is thrilling.

For years, I’ve watched as people lived way beyond their means, based on borrowing and/or increasing asset prices. I saved at least 50% of my pay, and did not consider that to be extreme, but few others saved more than 20%, if that. I felt that I was an outcast, a nut. Now I am getting tremendous satisfaction from not being a complete idiot. Of course, I am personally much less well off, but I feel better poorer and grounded than well-off and a nut.

Anyone else out there in the same boat?

[patientrenter]

I work in the financial services industry, and much of my savings are invested in stocks, but this is thrilling.

For years, I’ve watched as people lived way beyond their means, based on borrowing and/or increasing asset prices. I saved at least 50% of my pay, and did not consider that to be extreme, but few others saved more than 20%, if that. I felt that I was an outcast, a nut. Now I am getting tremendous satisfaction from not being a complete idiot. Of course, I am personally much less well off, but I feel better poorer and grounded than well-off and a nut.

Anyone else out there in the same boat?

[patientrenter]

I work in the financial services industry, and much of my savings are invested in stocks, but this is thrilling.

For years, I’ve watched as people lived way beyond their means, based on borrowing and/or increasing asset prices. I saved at least 50% of my pay, and did not consider that to be extreme, but few others saved more than 20%, if that. I felt that I was an outcast, a nut. Now I am getting tremendous satisfaction from not being a complete idiot. Of course, I am personally much less well off, but I feel better poorer and grounded than well-off and a nut.

Anyone else out there in the same boat?

[patientrenter]

I work in the financial services industry, and much of my savings are invested in stocks, but this is thrilling.

For years, I’ve watched as people lived way beyond their means, based on borrowing and/or increasing asset prices. I saved at least 50% of my pay, and did not consider that to be extreme, but few others saved more than 20%, if that. I felt that I was an outcast, a nut. Now I am getting tremendous satisfaction from not being a complete idiot. Of course, I am personally much less well off, but I feel better poorer and grounded than well-off and a nut.

Anyone else out there in the same boat?

[patientrenter]

CA Renter wrote: “Most govt employees are the same ones who spend almost all of their income and live paycheck to paycheck.
Guess where all that money goes? Right back into the economy — your private business.
Directly or indirectly, we all benefit from government employment. It’s unfortunate so many people can’t make the connection between private and public employment.”

So, let’s imagine a desert island economy of 3 people. One person fishes well, and catches 3 fish per day. One person collects coconuts, and manages to pick up 3 per day. The last person catches seabirds that land on the island, and catches 3 per day.

It’s easy to see that, with a little trade, they can all make a good living. Now let’s say the bird-catcher negotiates an agreement with the other two to be the island’s government employee, and gets 1 coconut and 1 fish per day, guaranteed, if he spends just 1/3 of the time catching birds, and continues to give 2/3 of his daily catch to the other 2.

When there was no govt, the total daily bounty of the little community was 3 fish, 3 coconuts, and 3 birds. After the reorganization that removed the incentives for some of the people to be as productive as possible, the total bounty was 3 fish, 3 coconuts, and 1 bird = Less.

Sure, the government employee is passing along 2/3 of what he produces to the non-govt emplyees, but they are all worse off for having let a system develop that fails to encourage everyone to be as economically productive as possible.

So arguments that it’s OK if SOME govt employees are not being as productive as possible because they spend their money and thereby spread it to others, simply misses the point. Spending money does not provide goods and services to others. People’s contribution to society should be measured by the open market value of the goods and services they provide to others, not how much they get to spend because they had political leverage to get sweet job contracts.

[patientrenter]

CA Renter wrote: “Most govt employees are the same ones who spend almost all of their income and live paycheck to paycheck.
Guess where all that money goes? Right back into the economy — your private business.
Directly or indirectly, we all benefit from government employment. It’s unfortunate so many people can’t make the connection between private and public employment.”

So, let’s imagine a desert island economy of 3 people. One person fishes well, and catches 3 fish per day. One person collects coconuts, and manages to pick up 3 per day. The last person catches seabirds that land on the island, and catches 3 per day.

It’s easy to see that, with a little trade, they can all make a good living. Now let’s say the bird-catcher negotiates an agreement with the other two to be the island’s government employee, and gets 1 coconut and 1 fish per day, guaranteed, if he spends just 1/3 of the time catching birds, and continues to give 2/3 of his daily catch to the other 2.

When there was no govt, the total daily bounty of the little community was 3 fish, 3 coconuts, and 3 birds. After the reorganization that removed the incentives for some of the people to be as productive as possible, the total bounty was 3 fish, 3 coconuts, and 1 bird = Less.

Sure, the government employee is passing along 2/3 of what he produces to the non-govt emplyees, but they are all worse off for having let a system develop that fails to encourage everyone to be as economically productive as possible.

So arguments that it’s OK if SOME govt employees are not being as productive as possible because they spend their money and thereby spread it to others, simply misses the point. Spending money does not provide goods and services to others. People’s contribution to society should be measured by the open market value of the goods and services they provide to others, not how much they get to spend because they had political leverage to get sweet job contracts.

[patientrenter]

CA Renter wrote: “Most govt employees are the same ones who spend almost all of their income and live paycheck to paycheck.
Guess where all that money goes? Right back into the economy — your private business.
Directly or indirectly, we all benefit from government employment. It’s unfortunate so many people can’t make the connection between private and public employment.”

So, let’s imagine a desert island economy of 3 people. One person fishes well, and catches 3 fish per day. One person collects coconuts, and manages to pick up 3 per day. The last person catches seabirds that land on the island, and catches 3 per day.

It’s easy to see that, with a little trade, they can all make a good living. Now let’s say the bird-catcher negotiates an agreement with the other two to be the island’s government employee, and gets 1 coconut and 1 fish per day, guaranteed, if he spends just 1/3 of the time catching birds, and continues to give 2/3 of his daily catch to the other 2.

When there was no govt, the total daily bounty of the little community was 3 fish, 3 coconuts, and 3 birds. After the reorganization that removed the incentives for some of the people to be as productive as possible, the total bounty was 3 fish, 3 coconuts, and 1 bird = Less.

Sure, the government employee is passing along 2/3 of what he produces to the non-govt emplyees, but they are all worse off for having let a system develop that fails to encourage everyone to be as economically productive as possible.

So arguments that it’s OK if SOME govt employees are not being as productive as possible because they spend their money and thereby spread it to others, simply misses the point. Spending money does not provide goods and services to others. People’s contribution to society should be measured by the open market value of the goods and services they provide to others, not how much they get to spend because they had political leverage to get sweet job contracts.

[patientrenter]

CA Renter wrote: “Most govt employees are the same ones who spend almost all of their income and live paycheck to paycheck.
Guess where all that money goes? Right back into the economy — your private business.
Directly or indirectly, we all benefit from government employment. It’s unfortunate so many people can’t make the connection between private and public employment.”

So, let’s imagine a desert island economy of 3 people. One person fishes well, and catches 3 fish per day. One person collects coconuts, and manages to pick up 3 per day. The last person catches seabirds that land on the island, and catches 3 per day.

It’s easy to see that, with a little trade, they can all make a good living. Now let’s say the bird-catcher negotiates an agreement with the other two to be the island’s government employee, and gets 1 coconut and 1 fish per day, guaranteed, if he spends just 1/3 of the time catching birds, and continues to give 2/3 of his daily catch to the other 2.

When there was no govt, the total daily bounty of the little community was 3 fish, 3 coconuts, and 3 birds. After the reorganization that removed the incentives for some of the people to be as productive as possible, the total bounty was 3 fish, 3 coconuts, and 1 bird = Less.

Sure, the government employee is passing along 2/3 of what he produces to the non-govt emplyees, but they are all worse off for having let a system develop that fails to encourage everyone to be as economically productive as possible.

So arguments that it’s OK if SOME govt employees are not being as productive as possible because they spend their money and thereby spread it to others, simply misses the point. Spending money does not provide goods and services to others. People’s contribution to society should be measured by the open market value of the goods and services they provide to others, not how much they get to spend because they had political leverage to get sweet job contracts.

[patientrenter]

CA Renter wrote: “Most govt employees are the same ones who spend almost all of their income and live paycheck to paycheck.
Guess where all that money goes? Right back into the economy — your private business.
Directly or indirectly, we all benefit from government employment. It’s unfortunate so many people can’t make the connection between private and public employment.”

So, let’s imagine a desert island economy of 3 people. One person fishes well, and catches 3 fish per day. One person collects coconuts, and manages to pick up 3 per day. The last person catches seabirds that land on the island, and catches 3 per day.

It’s easy to see that, with a little trade, they can all make a good living. Now let’s say the bird-catcher negotiates an agreement with the other two to be the island’s government employee, and gets 1 coconut and 1 fish per day, guaranteed, if he spends just 1/3 of the time catching birds, and continues to give 2/3 of his daily catch to the other 2.

When there was no govt, the total daily bounty of the little community was 3 fish, 3 coconuts, and 3 birds. After the reorganization that removed the incentives for some of the people to be as productive as possible, the total bounty was 3 fish, 3 coconuts, and 1 bird = Less.

Sure, the government employee is passing along 2/3 of what he produces to the non-govt emplyees, but they are all worse off for having let a system develop that fails to encourage everyone to be as economically productive as possible.

So arguments that it’s OK if SOME govt employees are not being as productive as possible because they spend their money and thereby spread it to others, simply misses the point. Spending money does not provide goods and services to others. People’s contribution to society should be measured by the open market value of the goods and services they provide to others, not how much they get to spend because they had political leverage to get sweet job contracts.

[patientrenter]

TheBreeze: “Is agent retention a problem in today’s market? I would think not.”

Do you have any experience of independent insurance agents, TheBreeze?

[Author]

Posts