Rising gas prices are due to free market forces...

page: 23
19
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Look at the dollar numbers please. Just because some colleges and other organizations decided to donate loads of money as well still doesn't negate the fact that banks gave more money to Obama.........lots more. Over a million dollars was given to Obama by Goldman Sachs. How much was given to Bush or Romney by Goldman Sachs?

Is this the best you can argue? This is so ridiculous it is staggering. I'm not arguing for republicans as I've said many times and yet you argue as if I am. I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


If you do not actually take possession of a commodity, you should not be allowed to profit off of it.

I've always wondered what's to keep those with oil and gas interests from constantly fanning the flames of fear uncertainty and doubt with regard to supply or regional stability - just to increase their profits.

Here's a great example of cutting out the middleman and keeping the cost down:

www.guardian.co.uk...



Hammered by the financial crisis that has led to ever diminishing income, a group of residents in northern Greece have joined forces with potato farmers to slash consumer prices and ensure producers can get their crop to markets by cutting out the middle man.

Hundreds of families turned up Saturday in this northern Greek town to buy potatoes at massively reduced prices, sold directly by producers at cost price. They lined up in cars and with bicycles, on foot and with scooters to collect their bags of spuds from a truck that flung its doors wide open and was doing a roaring trade in the parking lot of a local courthouse.

Farmers say it costs about 20 cents ($0.27) to produce a kilogram (2 pounds) of potatoes, but that wholesalers will only buy them for 10-12 cents to get the crop to supermarkets, where they sell for about 60-70 cents a kilogram. Faced with making a loss, many producers say they have been unable to even get their products to the market.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 


Again, you are claiming the government forces people to commit fraud. That is nonsense.

There is no evidence that the free market would have found this out.

The concept of the free market is to get rid of regulation of business. Regulations are the laws written to prevent fraud. You are arguing to get rid of the laws that prevent fraud, because fraud continues to happen. You hide behind the term free market to pretend you don't support such a foolish concept of wanting to get rid of the laws and the people who enforce those laws because they fail to commit crime.

And who appointed Bernanke? Bush, the free market preaching politician.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Bush is no more free market than Obama. I have never argued that Republicans are free market. In fact I would argue that the current Republicans are just as bad as Democrats on free market principles. .................and who re-appointed Ben Bernanke? Obama.

My point that a free market would have found out the fraud is proven by Ron Paul's correct prediction 5 years before it happened. He even specifically names the fraud that will cause it
Let me say it again RON PAUL NAMED THE FRAUD AHEAD TIME!!!

Maybe you should watch the videos and see how accurate he was compared to how delusional Ben Bernanke was at the same time.
edit on 28-2-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 


So Goldman Sachs threw lots of money at Obama, doesn't mean he is committed to engage in fraud, as your argument claims.

Obama puts requirements on bailed out firms on bonuses, so doesn't look like Goldman Sachs bet paid off. GW and the republicans wanted no strings attached. These companies then responded by paying back bailout loans as quickly as possible. Look at what they do, and stop beating around the bush.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 


Like RP was the only one who predicted the collapse of that bubble. I predicted it myself back in 2000 when it began. Lots of people predicted the collapse, and most of them did not believe in the free market.

Well, the republicans certainly claim the support free market economics, and RP is a republican.

So how do you know which politician actually support true free market principles, and which one is blowing smoke to get rid of the law written to prevent fraud?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I did not say Obama specifically engaged in fraud. I simply pointed out that Dems love lobbyists just as much as Repubs. That is my only assertion made in order to show how all parties are complicit in making government about the corporations. Anything else said about my words is banter and false.

Also, my claims of complicity in fraud is focused on the Federal Reserve and how they were responsible for the bubble in the first place. What would happen to the Federal Reserve if they admitted that they caused the bubble? I still see no refutation of this claim that the Fed causes bubbles so my point of complicity stands. It also stands in the face of the fact that many free market analysts were predicting the housing bubble and the Fed and government IGNORED.....TOTALLY IGNORED these predictions. They had fair warning.

Notice how I answer all of your allegations specifically and how you avoid topics such as Ron Paul's precise prediction and Ben Bernanke's failure. Notice how you have not addressed the issue of monetary policy in any way whatsoever and have not produced an argument to support current government monetary policy. You have not addressed how bubbles are formed by the Federal Reserve or anything else specific. You simply do a little dance so that you don't have to address the main points and can focus on miniscule arguments that really don't matter.

Challenge: Find a Keynesian economist who predicted the housing bubble and told how it would occur...............with proof of course........saying, "I predicted it in 2000" isn't a valid argument either.
edit on 28-2-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 


It is the fraudulent business practices that caused the bubble, not the fed reserve making the funds available. Without the fraud, falsely rating bad loans as good, mortgage lenders would not have been able to keep making bad loans, which drove up the price of housing. Just because the money was there doesn't mean they have to steal it through fraudulent means. The Fed res failed to do what should have been done to prevent fraud, but that doesn't make them responsible for the actions of those who committed fraud.

I have answered those questions over and over again, and you have responded by refusing to put the blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of those who engaged in fraud. The only way to prevent this fraud is to regulate the finance industry to prevent fraud in the first place. Experiments in de-regulation have only resulted in an increase in fraud. It has proven that free market concepts do not work.

You have not answered any of my questions. All you have done is ignore the evidence that proves you wrong, and blame the government for the actions of private sector crooks.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Did I not agree that the banks and corporations committed fraud? I agreed with you on this point and so this is not the area of contention.

The area of contention is that I believe the Federal Reserve was the reason these actions could take place and were not caught. Their artificial values placed on assets that were not real caused huge capital and credit surges that the banks used to do what they did. Also, government regulation forced banks to hand out loans to lower income people because government believed all deserved a home even if they couldn't afford it.

What I am looking for is an argument that disproves the Federal Reserve's part in the formation of the bubble. This is where you have not given any argument to the contrary but have only said, "It didn't happen". I want a concise argument that explains why money printing, false interest rates, and false bond yields don't cause bubbles. I want you to point to Ron Paul's argument in the video and tell me why it's false and not just say it is. Let me be very clear. I believe that the banks were fraudulent and I believe even more strongly that they should have failed and should be prosecuted.

You apparently don't believe they should be prosecuted or should have failed.........even though you think they were fraudsters. This confuses me greatly as you support the government action that actually saved them all from the consequences of their fraudulent actions. This does not compute as logical but seems delusional to me. All you do is continue to banter that, "It's the fault of the free market" when the free market saw the bubble 5 years ahead of time, pointed out the fraud in the system, and government failed to act on these predictions and foresight. That is 100% ridiculous and anyone who can't see that has serious problems and fail at critical thinking. Anyone who doesn't see it is a sheep that follows their ideology and cannot be swayed by facts but will hold to their arguments no matter the proof that is revealed to them. I fear this is you.

Let me be clear again before you misread everything above. I believe in everything you stated about the fraud of the banks. Their loans were a part of the issue with the housing bubble and allowed them to hide bad assets. However, like I said, I believe that it was the Federal Reserve that made this all possible in the first place.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the proof of the Keynesian economist who predicted the housing bubble.
edit on 28-2-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Sanders cnn article sums it up pretty well
www.cnn.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Yes, you can get gasoline for 15 cents a gallon in Venezuela.
articles.marketwatch.com...
Free market my posterior.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Yes, you can get gasoline for 15 cents a gallon in Venezuela.
articles.marketwatch.com...
Free market my posterior.


Speculation isn't happening my posterior



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
meh were fkd
edit on 28-2-2012 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by hawkiye
 


The Commerce clause is not restricted by the constitution only to prevent tariffs, the wording is not there, and that was not the intent, or it would have been restricted only to cover tariffs. That is a false argument.

Just because you have one case where it appears that the fed gov over stepped its boundaries does not mean that all interstate commerce regulation should be ended and restricted to a narrow definition, that ignores a whole variety of actions aimed at preventing states from writing law enabling them to engage in unfair trade practices.

And the whole video is filled with propaganda rhetoric, blame it on the commies nonsense that destroys its credibility.



The constitution was written to restrict the federal government not the states or the people. the maxim of law is if it is not in there the federal government cannot do it! You make all sorts of claims here but provide not a single shred of evidence. What particularly in the video was propaganda and where is your evidence that it is? We have abundant writings and commentary from the men who wrote and approved the constitution and their meaning which was clear to all in their culture. However today the waters have been so muddied that people like you think they can interpret things anyway they want. Perhaps you could provide us with one of the founders perspectives in his own words that matches yours?


US Constitution Article 1 Section 9

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Please explain to us poet1b how this is not a restriction on the federal government?

"To make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State" Thomas Jefferson 1791 Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank

edit on 28-2-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


Venezula subsidies gasoline to get the price that low. There is nothing free market about it.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I already provided the link showing that your claim that roads were built by private enterprise and not the government were in fact false, follow the replies back, you will find my link.

Now you provide a link that still does not back your claim.

You are the one being dishonest, the one who is lying.

On Standard oil, once again, you prove only that Standard oil managed to continue its monopoly in spite of government effort to end its monopoly. Just because Standard oil found a end run way of continuing its monopoly, only shows that it is private industry that creates the monopoly.

The only thing you prove is that free enterprise seeks to break the system that prevents fraudulent business practices.



So how exactly does providing a link that government road building started mainly after 1956 not prove my point?. Who built the vast majority of roads before that? Certainly not government....

Standard Oils monopoly on fuels for cars was enabled by government through the Volstead act. If you want a complete history on their monopolies they still paid off politicians to corner every market they have monopolized. You continue to lie and try to say we claimed government created Standard oil No one ever said that! You are nothing but a liar and you just get pathetically desperate when confronted with your lies because you are not very good at it. Government got in bed with standard oil through bribes to enable them to create all the monopolies they have just like every other politically connected mega corp. You have not and cannot disprove that. You can say it aint true and you have over and over but the evidence proves you are nothing but a liar who knows he's lying but to emotionally attached to his false beliefs to admit the truth!
edit on 28-2-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
You continue to lie and try to say we claimed government created Standard oil No one ever said that!


Yep Standard oil was not created by the government, standard oil runs the government.


Ever since John D. Rockefeller founded Standard Oil in 1870, the federal government has pretty much given the oil men exactly what they wanted, when and where they wanted it–from oil depletion allowances to tariff protection to cheap leases on the federal public domain (which includes the outer-continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, site of the Deepwater Horizon disaster). Periodic government attempts to contain or regulate the industry have been little more than temporary annoyances, rather than major obstacles to Big Oil’s power or profits. This is hardly surprising, considering the amount of influence the oil companies wield at all levels of the U.S. government.

motherjones.com...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Oil Profits up 75% - Protect the billionaires - protect their casino = Free Market



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye


I wonder where it say's that the Federal Government should sit around and let international
Business Cartels inflict economic warfare on the American People??? Oh I know, it's not
in the constitution, it is in the free market handbook for global domination.

Free Market is like fixing a broken arm by praying for it... When free Marketeers us free market, it
is like breaking both legs and the other arm so at least there is consistency.
edit on 29-2-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-2-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 


It saddens me that someone can actually buy into this nonsense.


Their artificial values placed on assets that were not real caused huge capital and credit surges that the banks used to do what they did. Also, government regulation forced banks to hand out loans to lower income people because government believed all deserved a home even if they couldn't afford it.


I have already pointed out what nonsense this is, blaming the police because crime exists.

The artificial values were created by the mortgage lenders creating exotic loan packages with balloon payments and other such nonsense to justify loaning people more money than they could afford to pay back. This enabled them to make larger bids on the homes they wanted to buy. With the practice of closed bids, the person willing to sign the biggest loan got the house. Those who didn't agree to the crazy loan terms found themselves losing out to the highest bidder time and time again, which convinced even the more intelligent borrowers to agree to the crazy loan terms.

The government didn't force the banks to make these loans. That is just pure ignorant nonsense put out by people who want to blame the government for everything, and especially to cover up and ignore the crooked business practices that wrecked out economy, and the failure of free market economic policies.

The government made funds available to people in the lower incomes, because there were a great many people who could afford to make the mortgage payments, but couldn't get a real estate loan. If the mortgage companies had done their job and loaned people money based on what they were able to pay, home prices wouldn't have been artificially inflated.


What I am looking for is an argument that disproves the Federal Reserve's part in the formation of the bubble.


You need to provide an actual argument that proves the Fed Res role in the formation of the bubble. You have yet to do this. All you have done is throw around terms, as if this is evidence, without ever identifying how these things did what you claim.

I have pointed out time and time again that blaming government for the actions of the fraudsters is pure nonsense, and you have yet to face the fact.

First, you need to point to the sections in RPs video that you think proves your claim. Then I will offer a rebuttal.

You might want to consider that if you can't point out the actual language in the video that proves your point, then it doesn't really exist. I am not debating some video, I am debating you.


You apparently don't believe they should be prosecuted or should have failed.........even though you think they were fraudsters.


Where in any of my posts did I state any of this? I certainly believe the fraudsters should be prosecuted, and all their ill-gained wealth be stripped from them, and then some. As we speak the DoJ under Obama is doing this.

As far as letting the banks fail, you have yet to address my point that this wouldn't have stopped the crooks from getting away with the money, as that had already been distributed out to them. Letting these firms fail only would have screwed the investors, and that is why the banks were bailed out. A great deal of wealth would have disappeared, maybe even the original fraudsters would have lost out in the tsunami of failed firms. Personally, I was against the bailout. Sadly a lot of innocent people would have lost their life's savings, but in the crooked way the boomers have screwed future generations, it would be better in the long run for everyone.

Wearing expensive jewelry in public makes it possible for for one to get robbed, but that doesn't make the person wearing the jewelry responsible for the actions of the criminal. This is why your desire to blame government for the actions of the crooks is wrong. I have made this clear numerous times now. I don't understand how you can even think this way.

edit on 1-3-2012 by poet1b because: typos
edit on 1-3-2012 by poet1b because: correct first line, had an extra can.
edit on 1-3-2012 by poet1b because: change would loose to would have lost.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join