Obama is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930

[mRx 16]

Google derivatives. And you have no proof it is otherwise...

You claimed the free market caused this crisis. I merely asked for proof...

I don't need to postulate an opposing theory in order to prove you wrong.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Don't buy into that "robber baron" #######, Bill.

J. Rockefeller of Standard Oil drastically slashed the price of oil during his domination of the US-petrol industry.

Rockefeller merely outperformed his opponents during his time. His inefficient opponents labeled him as a "robber baron." But he just ran a more efficient business...

I was thinking more of the railroads, especially in the west. They took large swaths of land, exercising eminent domain on the behalf of the US Government. The US should have nationalized the railroads from the beginning, like the rest of the highways and waterways.

[Ali G. 37]

Where'd the money come from, BY? The Federal Reserve, of course. AFAIK, that's the only place in the USA that can legally create money. Of course, you're welcome to prove that wrong...

As a side observation:

Greedily handing out loans? LOL! That's an oxymoron, if I've ever seen one!

The private sector (free market) is pretty much allowed to do as they please here. As a result, they were able to loan money to people that otherwise would not have qualified. While times were good, the money and commission rolled in for the reps that pushed such loans so they pushed even more; with many fudging the applications in order for their clients to qualify. Like any house of cards, eventually the structure collapsed from its own weight; as the foundations were never built to support such a weight. The higher built, the harder they fall.

Greed from top to bottom and zero government regulation, allowed certain people to turn a blind eye towards these extremely risky practices. As you pointed out, some of the money came from the Federal Reserve, therefore, the private sector thought sweet, lets just push out even more irresponsible loans. Why would they do this? Simple, for starters they were greedy; they also knew they would not be punished. Had they pulled this off in one of many other non-libertarian / non Stone Age republican first world countries, they would be sitting in a cell now. People's savings, home values and pensions would be intact.

It's why we have rules in every other first world country, because the free market model works in theory but unfortunately does not factor in corruption or greed. It does not factor in people that would sell out their country out for a profit, furthermore, use shifty schemes to hide risky loans. That is when the model crumbles and demands government regulation to prevent such exploitation and collapses from occurring in the first place.

PS Tell me you have been keeping up with Aus property prices, which rose yet again..

[Ali G. 37]

I was thinking more of the railroads, especially in the west. They took large swaths of land, exercising eminent domain on the behalf of the US Government. The US should have nationalized the railroads from the beginning, like the rest of the highways and waterways.

Say it isn't so. We actually agree on something.

Railroads remaining private is why Amtrak is not profitable, is why there is negligible competition in rail. I handful of private companies own the majority of the US rail.

[Revenesque 2]

Just like they are now?

Exactly. The two recessions are not very different from each other. However, the government policies are different in that back in Great Depression, money supply contracted while under Obama, expenditures increased. IMO, that's the right way to deal with recessions--In good times, spend less and save; in bad times, open up the pocket book and keep the economy going.

[Revenesque 2]

It's why we have rules in every other first world country, because the free market model works in theory but unfortunately does not factor in corruption or greed. It does not factor in people that would sell out their country out for a profit, furthermore, use shifty schemes to hide risky loans. That is when the model crumbles and demands government regulation to prevent such exploitation and collapses from occurring in the first place.

PS Tell me you have been keeping up with Aus property prices, which rose yet again..

Agreed. The Canadian property prices also went up.

[Ali G. 37]

Agreed. The Canadian property prices also went up.

I think you will find lots of people here are quite ignorant to the success of both Canada and Australia. They tend to joke on both countries, while ignoring the massive disparity in quality of life between the two, when compared to the US. Apparently much like' the wizard of oz', all it takes to be the best in the world in the US is to say it and just think it. Really funny to watch..

For example, how many American could rents, lent alone buy, in Vancouver, Melbourne or Sydney? Not many..

Exactly. The two recessions are not very different from each other. However, the government policies are different in that back in Great Depression, money supply contracted while under Obama, expenditures increased. IMO, that's the right way to deal with recessions--In good times, spend less and save; in bad times, open up the pocket book and keep the economy going.

Bingo! The strategies some people here endorse is akin to attempting to treat cancer using less Chemo. Furthermore, totally ignoring the person who managed to treat their cancer in half the time.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Booyah

[mawilson 2,133]

Greed from top to bottom and zero government regulation, allowed certain people to turn a blind eye towards these extremely risky practices.

Companies and individuals can do whatever they want with their own money. If they want to put

their money at risk, I have no problem with it. Under a free market system, they would have

simply lost their money when the pyramid collapsed.

Unfortunately, as Matt pointed out, it wasn't their money they put at risk - it was ours.

[Ali G. 37]

Companies and individuals can do whatever they want with their own money. If they want to put

their money at risk, I have no problem with it. Under a free market system, they would have

simply lost their money when the pyramid collapsed.

Unfortunately, as Matt pointed out, it wasn't their money they put at risk - it was ours.

I agree 110%, well within reason. Just because it's their money doesn't mean they should have the right to screw Americans or the power to take down the entire economy with their bad choices.

What Matt refuses to acknowledge is that this crisis is why other countries have adequate government regulation. The strongest financial nations as well as those with the healthiest economies all have reasonable government regulation. I even created a thread for Matt today regarding this http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...amp;pid=3725321

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I agree 110%, well within reason. Just because it's their money doesn't mean they should have the right to screw Americans or the power to take down the entire economy with their bad choices.

What Matt refuses to acknowledge is that this crisis is why other countries have adequate government regulation. The strongest financial nations as well as those with the healthiest economies all have reasonable government regulation. I even created a thread for Matt today regarding this http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...amp;pid=3725321

You mean, like the EU in general?

[Ali G. 37]

You mean, like the EU in general?

No I mean like China or Australia, which you labeled socialist yesterday

Edited February 19, 2010 by Booyah

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No I mean like China or Australia, which you labeled socialist yesterday

China is a financial model for you? I don't think Australia is much of a player, even if it wanted to be. Australia can't even keep up with Mexico.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[Ali G. 37]

China is a financial model for you? I don't think Australia is much of a player, even if it wanted to be. Australia can't even keep up with Mexico.

China is the one sitting on $2.4 trillion USD in liquid cash, with a further $800 billion owed to them, heck by you bud.

Australia's GDP is $920 Billion. Mexico's has dropped to $866 billion. Australia has 22 million, Mexico has 110 million.

Debt as % of GDP:

China: 16%

Australia: 14%

US: 71%

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

BY, Why dont your comparisons take into account population and productivity?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

2008 List by the International Monetary Fund

Rank Country GDP (millions of USD)

— World 60,917,477[4]

— European Union 18,387,785[4]

1 United States 14,441,425

2 Japan 4,910,692

3 China 4,327,448h

4 Germany 3,673,105

5 France 2,866,951

6 United Kingdom 2,680,000

7 Italy 2,313,893

8 Russia 1,676,586

9 Spain 1,601,964

10 Brazil 1,572,839

11 Canada 1,499,551

12 India 1,206,684

13 Mexico 1,088,128

14 Australia 1,013,461

2008 List by the World Bank

Rank Country GDP (millions of USD)

— World 60,587,016

1 United States 14,204,322

— Eurozone 13,565,479a

2 Japan 4,909,272

3 China 4,326,187

4 Germany 3,652,824

5 France 2,853,062b

6 United Kingdom 2,645,593

7 Italy 2,293,008

8 Brazil 1,612,539

9 Russia 1,607,816

10 Spain 1,604,174

11 Canada 1,400,091

12 India 1,217,490

13 Mexico 1,085,951

14 Australia 1,015,217

2009 List by the CIA World Factbook

Rank Country GDP (millions of USD)

— World 57,530,000

— European Union 15,990,000

1 United States 14,270,000

2 Japan 5,049,000

3 China 4,758,000

4 Germany 3,235,000

5 France 2,635,000

6 United Kingdom 2,198,000

7 Italy 2,090,000

8 Brazil 1,482,000

9 Spain 1,438,000

10 Canada 1,319,000

11 Russia 1,255,000

12 India 1,243,000

13 Australia 920,000

14 Mexico 866,300