OT: US Pres election

[Edratman]

My own take on left wing/right wing:

A right winger is opposed to any and all change unless he himself (or those close to him) profits from the change.

A left winger will accept change where he himself does not gain any benefit as long as someone less fortunate gains.

(Guess which way I lean.)

[Edratman]

Azelendor,

I agree entirely. But I do not think Marx would be very proud of us. I believe that he intended for the working man to reap some benefit. The G. Bush version has privitized profit and socialized the risk and burden.

[Skirmisher]

Here's something for you all to chew on.

http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/illumin.htm

[lch]

I assume that was a joke.

I didn't read anything on that page because it was displayed in an unreadable way. I force-forwarded through http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/money.htm instead but it was already quite obvious that the site was built by lunatics.

[JimMorrison]

I like that crazy emote.

Again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just feel that the current system IS far too open to exploitation by people with more power than wisdom, and that many events have very much appeared to be at least minor exploitation of the system by those in control of it.


Horse drawn carriages can't perform the tasks necessary for the efficient execution of modern life. But while it is easy to see the glaring difference between legs and wheels, I do not see the same difference in transferring the currency of our monetary system from something tangible, to something intangible. Furthermore, even if we could magically agree that at the time it made sense, and that it ultimately helped our economy become what it is today (crumbling?), it is obviously not sufficient to deal with our current modern situation. It seems to me readily apparent that we have to attach our currency to something real again, so that we are not at the mercy of 7 untouchable bankers who could suddenly stumble on accident, or on purpose.

[Skirmisher]

OK maybe this then.

http://www.rense.com/general83/ilum.htm

[lch]

Well, how real do you want your money to become again? Back to exchanging real goods and resources? Those three eggs and the hen in your purse could become a bit unhandy. Money has always been just a token. The simple principle is that you can give it to somebody and he gives you something in return, a good or a service. The wonder is that he actually does accept that you give him just that mere token. That only works because of trust. Trust, that this token is worth something. That's the principle on how labor can be traded. Banks only work on trust, too. No bank is able to pay back all the money of its customers if they'd all come, because that money is inaccessible, it's been given out in loans that run for years, lots of years, thirty years or more. The problem is partly because the banks started trading those debts, yes, but on the other hand it's because people were living way over what they were possibly able to pay back, too. The fun thing to consider: what we see right now is only the beginning.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by lch

The problem is partly because the banks started trading those debts, yes, but on the other hand it's because people were living way over what they were possibly able to pay back, too. The fun thing to consider: what we see right now is only the beginning.

Again, in case you missed my earlier post, my family belongs to the segment of the population affected by "distressed loans". Though we were first lied to, and our original mortgage was about 30% higher than our agent quoted us, it was within our means so we went through with it. We carried that loan for 5 years, and though it may have been a bit of a burden, it was worth it, and we paid it. Over a 6 month period, our payments got hiked by another 30%, due to being tricked into an Adjustable Rate Mortgage. So you see, we could pay the loan that we took, we just couldn't pay 30% more still, as they thought they could milk from us, due to a cleverly worded loan, and their reassurances that with our payment history, the rate would most likely slightly decline, lowering our payments.

These lenders were incredibly predatory, and shifting the blame to the buyers completely ignores not only the lending practices that bordered on usury, but also the devious methods that agents (like car salesmen) use to get you into the largest home you can possibly afford.


And no, I do not wish to see us go back to the barter system. However, our currency needs to at least represent something more tangible than "trust", because I'll tell you one thing, no bank has ever shown me a shred of trust, and they get none back from me. Apparently that makes my money worth nothing, unfortunately my lack of trust does not void the cruelly exhorbitant loan that I am defaulting on.



And Atrocities, I am in full and complete agreement with your last post. I'm glad, that we can find some mutual ground to stand on.

[Azselendor]

Now we're talking.

Something we are just starting to see discussion of in the news is trust. Specifically, the betrayal of consumer trust. The law has a specific section of code dealing with that, called Fraud.

Whoever the next president is, they need to open public investigations into each and every one of these organizations and get back every last penny that was conned out of the government and public trust.

[Skirmisher]

I was against that because it hasn't changed anything. We all knew it wouldn't before they passed it. Somebody(s) made out like a bandit. Did you see how joyful the president looked as it showed him signing that bill? Personally ,I've never seen him so happy.
It failed the first vote probably because at the last minute,they needed more golden parachutes. So a revised package was in order.