In both Hausaland and Yorubaland it is called sadaka. Igbo is a rich language, regrattably I dont speak it and I missed many opportunities to learn it. I would like to know what my Igbo people call social welfare in their language. In english it is called almsgiving. In Christianity it is called tithe, in Islam they call it zakat and in Judaism its called tzadakat.

Sadaka is a social welfare system enjoining those who have abundance to share materially with those who are poor and have no meaningful resource or opportunity for gainful income or are destitute or are heavily burdened by debt. Almsgiving has both spiritual and material benefits to the giver and the recipient respectively but that's a whole different issue for why I am bringing this up and so I will not go into the depths, except to say it is a form of cleansing.

I saw an audio clip on YouTube, and it is attached as hyperlink below, of an interview with Barack Obama in 2001 when he was Illionis State Senator. In the interview Barack unmistakably clarified his position on civil injustice and unbalanced distribution of resources. He made clear that there ought to be a re-dress for how those who are dispossesed of a fair and equitable chance or opportunity at building wealth should be recompensed in default of their elimination at the starting block of economic mobility and proposed that there should be a legislative inclusion as a bill of rights for fair redistribution of wealth.

I do not believe in equality but I believe in fairness. There is no way humanly possible to produce two equitable results without a noticeable variation in their outcomes. For successful improvement in the quality of life we must not focus on averages but instead on variations and then respond to that by adjusting the index to maintain flexibility and balance. This is the bottom line of stock exchange market which is the bedrock of American economy and wealth.

We just witnessed a collapse of that market and the intervention of the government to use public treasury to redistribute the debt on Wall Street.
The income tax code in America uses a non-linear formula that creates a heavier tax burden on low income earners than it does the wealthy ones so that it is correct to say that across a broad demographics, the tax contribution ratio of a low income American to the Federal Treasury is far higher than that of a wealthy American. Dollar for dollar this is not true but it is fair to conclude that what is contributed to the social purse is in effect a disproportionate amount of discretionary dollar that otherwise could have gone towards household spending for the poor worker.

If America see no problem with redistributing debt to the tune of $700b from bottom to top, then neither should they have problem with Barack Obama's vision of reditributing wealth from top to bottom. Obama proposed redistributive wealth 7 years before the meltdown on Wall Street. If nobody believed in his philosophy back then, they should now looking at recession in the face. He is not a messiah but more than his intellectual gift, Obama has the strain of a divine messenger.

I have watched Obama's campaign closely and listened to and studied almost all of his speeches past and present to the point that I can predict what goes on in his mind. However, as his campaign progressed and his staff grew his originality changed and he took on political slogans in replacement for philosophical ideologies. That turned me off. True ideologues dont change and compromise their principles for complacent comforts. Listening to this audio clip those of you who think Obama is Great now will be more impressed to realize what a Greater person he was back then. This is the Obama I would love to vote for, not the one I have now but I haven't voted yet, so there is still chance that within the next seven days I could vote for him. Im watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Hey man.
This write-up drips of brilliance!
Clap,clap,clap.

Ronald Reagan was the first to "redistribute the wealth" by providing grants to people under a certain tax bracket. Theres nothing wrong with it. Just a redress to the policies of the last 30 years, nothing to do with redistribution.

@Negro_Ntns,

Appreciating your piece but ignoring the last paragraph, it seems you're beginning to see the light!

The Republicans are core hypocrites who will do anything under the sun to protect corporations but will stammer, blunder, womble and fumble to assist poor working-class folks.

I pray those Republican lose big time next week, we are tired of their evil practices!

James, Thank you! I'm glad you took time to read and appreciate it.

Ibime,

I disagree. What did Reagan call his social policy? What Reagan did or anyone else has done in years past is a administrative policy that, sought to look at averages in dispensing social resources. This is why there are so many statistical data that are far off from people's reality. When a low income person go to the social welfare office for assistance they are told that if you make within this bracket or have this many people in your household then you make too much or you are outside the band of coverage, in other words, in a standard deviation plot, you are an outlier. They never make attempt to review your case based on individual circumstance. The statistics of average may have overlooked or even never considered your bracket despite that your reality demands an immediate support to save you from caving under. They never use variation.

What Obama is saying is we should use variation based principles and in addition to that, as a secular issue removed from the arguments of capitalism, the wealthy owe it as a moral and social duty anyway to support the poor. To secure that definition on behalf of the poor he is proposing a constitutional right that is enforceable from the legislative bench. Do you know what this means? When you start talking about legislative bench, you cannot underestimate the influence of the President to effect dramatic broadbrush judicial makeover, starting with the US Circuit Court of Appeals and then with Supreme Court. I give it to Obama men! You have to listen to that audio clip and get the concrete meaning of what this guy was already thinking about 7 years ago. You see, Obama speak the white man language of political coding, he speaks it and he understands it very well, . thats why he could put some shyt like this out and no one attacked him. They underestimated his intelligence based on color of skin and dimissed his aptitude. This is the Barack I loved, serious!

Sorry Richy, I don't love the "Change We Can", Barack.

Negro_Ntns:

James, Thank you! I'm glad you took time to read and appreciate it.

Ibime,

I disagree. What did Reagan call his social policy? What Reagan did or anyone else has done in years past is a administrative policy that, sought to look at averages in dispensing social resources. This is why there are so many statistical data that are far off from people's reality. When a low income person go to the social welfare office for assistance they are told that if you make within this bracket or have this many people in your household then you make too much or you are outside the band of coverage, in other words, in a standard deviation plot, you are an outlier. They never make attempt to review your case based on individual circumstance. The statistics of average may have overlooked or even never considered your bracket despite that your reality demands an immediate support to save you from caving under. They never use variation.

What Obama is saying is we should use variation based principles and in addition to that, as a secular issue removed from the arguments of capitalism, the wealthy owe it as a moral and social duty anyway to support the poor. To secure that definition on behalf of the poor he is proposing a constitutional right that is enforceable from the legislative bench. Do you know what this means? When you start talking about legislative bench, you cannot underestimate the influence of the President to effect dramatic broadbrush judicial makeover, starting with the US Circuit Court of Appeals and then with Supreme Court. I give it to Obama men! You have to listen to that audio clip and get the concrete meaning of what this guy was already thinking about 7 years ago. You see, Obama speak the white man language of political coding, he speaks it and he understands it very well, . thats why he could put some shyt like this out and no one attacked him. They underestimated his intelligence based on color of skin and dimissed his aptitude. This is the Barack I loved, serious!

I don't get you. You loved him, now you hate him?

You love him but won't vote for him?

You loved him but may vote for him?

Bros, which ones?

I never hated Barack. Never! I criticized him yes! . . . but hate him, never! I think critically and ask penetrating questions. If Barack make a statement that ought to be critiqued, then so be it. Thats not hate!

We have folks saying Bleep redistribution of wealth while the govt bailed out Wall Street. What'st the difference. Remember Sarah favoured tax hike in Alaska and took out money from oil funds and redistributed to Alaskans. Its just that Obama and his team have made it clear that he would not fight smear for smear.

You are running the largest deficit in the world and you are calling someone whose tax policies would benefit atleast 85% of the US population as a communist.

Scott Pipen, Ted Turner, Paul Allen are getting millions of dollar as farm subsidies and nobody is crying foul. US farmer are subsized to the point that they get almost 50cents for every dollar. Isnt this socialism ?

adconline:

We have folks saying Bleep redistribution of wealth while the govt bailed out Wall Street. What'st the difference. Remember Sarah favoured tax hike in Alaska and took out money from oil funds and redistributed to Alaskans. Its just that Obama and his team have made it clear that he would not fight smear for smear.

You are running the largest deficit in the world and you are calling someone whose tax policies would benefit atleast 85% of the US population as a communist.

Scott Pipen, Ted Turner, Paul Allen are getting millions of dollar as farm subsidies and nobody is crying foul. US farmer are subsized to the point that they get almost 50cents for every dollar. Isnt this socialism ?

@adconline,

We're on the same page!

Check out this write-up. . . . . the writer sums up my thoughts perfectly:


http://nigeriaworld.com/feature/publication/peterside/102808.html


Tax regime is all but one of the numerous interventionist tools with which governments can influence economic process. Just as inflation targeting framework or interest rate policy are often utilized by the Federal Reserve Bank to direct economic trend – all that doesn’t necessarily amount to socialist techniques, does it?

Come to think of it, such arguments about socialism today indeed sound hollow against the recent onslaught of governments to rescue their economies in midst of global financial crises. This is quite in-synch with popular economic ideas espoused during the early to mid part of last century by Dutch economist Jan Tinbergen (Theory of Convergence - 1959) or British scholar John Maynard Keynes (during the late 1920s), which served as basis for post-war reform in Western Europe and even the US. I imagine that it is not the intention of Barack Obama’s economic team to socialize this country with their tax and spend policy, but I’d say they are more in tune with the times and not far from current reality.

Theory of convergence propounded by Tinbergen gained momentum from 1989 when the iron curtain began to fall in Eastern Europe – to share a brief quote – “The division between capitalist democracies in Western Europe and North America and communist states in Eastern Europe is fading. The nature of industrial society leads both types to converge towards a common center. Capitalist societies are becoming more organized and managerial, communist societies more open to market methods and to greater political and civil freedom”.

If you carefully observe the trend of the last two decades, you will notice that such convergence has become reality with communist Russia and Eastern Europe transitioning to free market as US and Western Europe revert to the power of state to regulate their economies – case in point is European Union but China is indeed way ahead that game.

The failure of Russia and Eastern European countries in early 1990s put to rest the myth that communism was the answer to all human ailments or the most suitable form of organizing society and production processes. But look at current situation in the US and Western Europe and tell me what you see. Is it possible that unfettered free-market, as we know it is failing?

If that were the case, then Obama’s presidency might well usher in a whole new era of “Obamanomics” that seeks to regulate differently but better, driving economic growth from bottom-up, by bolstering middle class through taxes and other incentives targeted to the mainstream of society, as opposed to Reaganomics of President Reagan during the 1980s, (analogues to Bush/McCain tax plan for the rich) in which tax breaks were offered to the upper echelon of society, on the spurious believe that the benefits will “trickle down” to the lower class with time.

The result of that policy was run-away inflation, which was in double-digits, coupled with high interest rates that trended between 15-18 percent, culminating in a financial crash of 1987. Not until the election of President Clinton in 1992 did we experience normalcy in the economy. We learnt a lot thereafter and the ensuing change in focus precipitated the longest post-war economic expansion lasting from 1992-2000. Ironically the fulcrum of Clinton’s policy was middle class and small business owners that created over 20 million jobs during the mid to late 1990s. Was the economy stupid? If we recorded such unprecedented economic growth would you say the emphasis on middle class tax-cut is flawed or socialist? I don’t think so.

The second key issue at stake is the impact of deregulation and who ultimately benefits from it. Hence the effort to address current crises by focusing mostly on financial institutions or offering to purchase delinquent mortgage notes from lenders at full face-value (as McCain has proposed) is defective policy, which leaves the mainstream – nay ordinary homeowners out in the cold.

Who would argue that the policy to increase home-ownership in the US during the 1990s was not well intentioned? That resulted in access to capital for lower-to middle-income families and national home-ownership rate now stands at 68%. That momentum helped sustain the US economy during the early 2000 when the tech-bubble busted in the stock market. Essentially, home-ownership is not only an epitome of American dream but also a pillar of economic growth.

However when deregulation led to emergence of exotic financial products (credit default swaps, and other mortgage-backed securities), underwriting standard became relaxed and caution was thrown to the wind. Most of all, reasonable risk management guidelines were not adhered to by financial institutions, thus igniting the current credit crisis. The sensible alternative proposed by Obama is not simply to bail out banks but also extend some financial lifeline to average homeowners. Such an approach is not only fair and expedient but could go a long way in resuscitating consumers.

So the issue is not in terminologies, but the net-effect of policies on society at large. A new emphasis on mainstream tax incentives, smart regulation of the financial system that cuts across all layers of the market – at the institutional and consumer levels will definitely bring about more balanced long-term growth as we have seen previously – if that is the hallmark of Obama’s strategy then we ought to embrace it - by the way statistics show that 20-30% more Americans support that than do back McCain’s policy – you be the judge.

@Ibime

This your copy and paste article which ''sums up your thoughts perfectly'',na wa. It's the kind of article that you find in Nigerian sites.

The result of that policy was run-away inflation, which was in double-digits, coupled with high interest rates that trended between 15-18 percent, culminating in a financial crash of 1987. Not until the election of President Clinton in 1992 did we experience normalcy in the economy. We learnt a lot thereafter and the ensuing change in focus precipitated the longest post-war economic expansion lasting from 1992-2000. Ironically the fulcrum of Clinton’s policy was middle class and small business owners that created over 20 million jobs during the mid to late 1990s. Was the economy stupid? If we recorded such unprecedented economic growth would you say the emphasis on middle class tax-cut is flawed or socialist? I don’t think so.

Before pontificating on economic policy,one cardinal principle is to get your facts right. The result of Reagan's policy was run-away inflation in double digits and high interest rates?     When Reagan came into office,the last figures for the inflation rate under Carter was www.macalester.edu/courses/econ119/robertson/USinfUE.htm+US+inflation+in+1987&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk">10.36% and the Feds Funds rate was 21.50% At no point was the inflation rate in double digits nor did the Reagan era presage high interest rates-complete and utter lies!

The facts speak for themselves. One has to be careful about juxtaposing different eras,the proverbial apples to oranges comparison,when comparing Reagan's economic record to Clinton's. Clinton took over from Bush,not the hellish economic legacy of Carter. By the time Clinton took over,inflation was now down to 2.8%(Reagan took over from 10.3%)and the Fed prime rates was down to 6%(Reagan took over from 20%)

For this author to mock the Reagan economy that created 16million jobs is laughable. This was an era that saw strong economic growth.

Essentially,the author has drawn his conclusions on a premise that is based on a tissue of lies. 

Who would argue that the policy to increase home-ownership in the US during the 1990s was not well intentioned? That resulted in access to capital for lower-to middle-income families and national home-ownership rate now stands at 68%. That momentum helped sustain the US economy during the early 2000 when the tech-bubble busted in the stock market. Essentially, home-ownership is not only an epitome of American dream but also a pillar of economic growth.

Asking whether the home-ownership policy was driven by good intentions is merely folk economics and besides the point. The real question is not the intention behind a policy but the outcome of the policy. The road to perdition is paved with good intention.It is quite clear that the unbridled growth in mortgages has helped create an asset bubble which was unsustainable. Time was when you needed a certain amount of savings to buy a house,not any more.

Clearly,with astonishingly high levels of personal debt,any policy that encourages more personal debt,taking up mortgages, is doomed to fail,however well intentioned.

However when deregulation led to emergence of exotic financial products (credit default swaps, and other mortgage-backed securities), underwriting standard became relaxed and caution was thrown to the wind. Most of all, reasonable risk management guidelines were not adhered to by financial institutions, thus igniting the current credit crisis.

In Obama's entire legislative history,I can't recall one occasion he specifically demanded for smarter regulation  of these complex financial instruments. Many of these products mentioned,particularly CDS,took off during the Clinton era(an era both the author and Obama have praised to the high heavens).

What the economy needs is smarter regulation,not more or less regulation. The emphasis should be on the quality of the regulation and not the quantity. In an environment where bankers are better paid,thus better motivated,than regulators,the regulators will always be playing catch up.

However,regulation which targets over-leveraging and the capital ratios of financial institutions would be apt not a misty-eyed longing for the over-regulated era of stagflation. 
 
The reality is that the much praised Clinton economic era actually heralded greater deregulation than the much maligned Bush economic era. You can't have it both ways,you can't praise the economic policies of the 90s and still condemn deregulation.

this is the lowest bar for defining socialism. maybe they need to be retaught by Fidel Castro and Co on the tenets of socialism. By the way, these folks took stimulus check from government and never considered it socialism.

@ 4Play

So you are back? . . . . . the only Republican capable of holding a decent debate on Nairaland. . . . . let me adress your post, lest I let you misrespresent my views.

Firstly, I am a big fan of Reagan and Thatcher. . . . . . .I am a believer that if an economy goes too far left, it must move right to go back to the centre. . . . . this was the case with Reagan and Thatcher. . . . . I also believe that if the economy moves too far right, it must move back left. . . . . hence, more right-wing economics is not the answer to George Bush''s phock ups. . . . . . that is why it is the turn of the democrats this year. . . . . One thing I virulently hate is ideology. . . . thats why people like you, Tayo-D and Kobojunkie are a serious turn-off this year. . . . if the economy were too far left, I would be on your side of the argument, probably arguing against RichyBlack. . . . . it all depends on the state of play and where the economy is at the moment. . . . I am a centrist. . . . . . My posting of the article was to reflect my agreement on the theory of convergence as follows:

“The division between capitalist democracies in Western Europe and North America and communist states in Eastern Europe is fading. The nature of industrial society leads both types to converge towards a common center. Capitalist societies are becoming more organized and managerial, communist societies more open to market methods and to greater political and civil freedom”.

Everything else, I skimmed over.

As for the actual statistics of Reagan's performance, I am not a pedantic sadist to start checking the numbers that the writer put forward. IMO, Reagan did very well and that is the end of the matter. As for your inflation argument, any economist knows that there is always a battle between hawks and doves regarding inflation and interest rate and which better serves the interest of the nation. High inflation may be good if it brings down the interest rate and high interest rates may be good if it brings down inflation, hence I do not pay much attention to those figures, and I no get time to start checking on those figures in order to make a partizan argument. I always judge an economy by real GDP and no of jobs created. Full stop.

I always judge an economy by real GDP and no of jobs created. Full stop.

Ibime,

I know this is adressed to someone else and I really should not respond, however I could not help asking you about something that caught my eyes.

In labor statistics, how is "no of jobs created" defined? There is suspicion on the unemployment report and forecast by labor departments for this very reason.

Negro_Ntns:

There is suspicion on the unemployment report and forecast by labor departments for this very reason.

You and your conspiracy theories. . . . whether it comes to electoral votes or employment, you have a conspiracy theory for everything. . . . . .economic analysts will still use it to determine the state of the economy and Investors confidence. . . . . some things are beyond our control. . . . the good thing about the West is that their figures are not too far off the truth, unlike countries like Nigeria where it is hazardous to believe Govt statistics when carrying out top-down analysis.

Ibime:

Firstly, I am a big fan of Reagan and Thatcher. . . . . . .I am a believer that if an economy goes too far left, it must move right to go back to the centre. . . . . this was the case with Reagan and Thatcher. . . . . I also believe that if the economy moves too far right, it must move back left. . . . . hence, more right-wing economics is not the answer to George Bush''s phock ups. . . . . . that is why it is the turn of the democrats this year. . . . . One thing I virulently hate is ideology. . . . thats why people like you, Tayo-D and Kobojunkie are a serious turn-off this year. . . . if the economy were too far left, I would be on your side of the argument, probably arguing against RichyBlack. . . . . it all depends on the state of play and where the economy is at the moment. . . . I am a centrist.

Ibime,you cannot have a debate,more so on economics which takes flight from the facts. Leave that to the religion threads.

If your assertions are not backed up by the facts,then they are mere articles of faith with as much validity as assertions that planet earth is flat. Take the above suggestion that the economy has moved too far to the right. To the extent that it means that the Bush administration,over the past 8 years,has pursued neoliberal free market economics,that would amount to an abuse of truth and any basic understanding of economics .

In 1 area and 1 area alone can the Bush administration be said to have pursued neoliberal economics; tax policy. Bush did indeed cut taxes lower than Clinton,however,no sane person(not even the most rabid Obamabots) would claim that the present economic meltdown is as a result of taxes being too low. Even then,US corporate taxes are arguably higher than most states in the world,even communist China,but that is a debate for another day.

In every other respect,Bush has repudiated neoliberal economics. Take the cardinal issue of the size of the Government. The past 8 years has seen the biggest expansion of Government since LBJ. Indeed,if you take away defense and homeland security spending,the past 8 years has seen the biggest increase in Govt spending since the 1930s. In the light of this,to claim that the economy is "too far to the right" verges on lunacy.

Another cardinal principle of neoliberal economics and one which has become a common buzzword in today's debate is deregulation. Deregulation effectively refers to the reduction of or removal of Govt regulation. No person in possession of the facts can claim with a straight face that the past 8 years has witnessed a drive to reduce Govt regulation in the US. Funny enough,the general consensus up until a few months ago was on how over-regulation was stifling US growth and was prompting the gradual erosion of New York's status as the world's pre-eminent financial centre in favor of places like London,Hong Kong and Dubai.


No 2 legislative measures epitomize the contrast in regulatory policies between the Clinton and Bush eras as the Financial Services Modernization Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act respectively. Any person who claims that the Bush era has heralded a right-ward shift in economic policy,while continuing to praise Clinton,is engaging in voodoo economics.

Like I noted earlier in my previous post,you can't continue to praise the Clinton era while insisting that the real lesson of the past few years is that neoliberal economics has been repudiated. You simply can't have it both ways.

As for the actual statistics of Reagan's performance, I am not a pedantic sadist to start checking the numbers that the writer put forward. IMO, Reagan did very well and that is the end of the matter. As for your inflation argument, any economist knows that there is always a battle between hawks and doves regarding inflation and interest rate and which better serves the interest of the nation. High inflation may be good if it brings down the interest rate and high interest rates may be good if it brings down inflation, hence I do not pay much attention to those figures, and I no get time to start checking on those figures in order to make a partizan argument. I always judge an economy by real GDP and no of jobs created. Full stop.

My friend,stop waffling. What is economics without numbers? If an article ''sums up your thought perfectly'',one would expect that the numbers cited by the article would not be as far from reality as the Harry Porter epic.

Even then,the theory of convergence,again,like much of the article,falls flat in the face of reality. The tension is not between the vestiges of capitalism and communism(the latter has been thoroughly repudiated) but one version of capitalism(neo-liberal economics) and another(neoKeynesian economics) . The reality is that the past 3 decades,particularly since the Thatcher/Reaganite reforms, has seen a general shift,not towards the centre,but towards Hayek/Friedman's right of centre economics. Once again,the facts belie your points.

In life, your views are formed from the kind of literature you read. Almost everything you have written here are Republican points of view, not based in reality.

I am typing from my friend's laptop so I shall keep it brief.

4 Play:

Take the above suggestion that the economy has moved too far to the right. To the extent that it means that the Bush administration,over the past 8 years,has pursued neoliberal free market economics,that would amount to an abuse of truth and any basic understanding of economics .

When even Cris Cox admits that the deregulation of the SEC led to the current crisis, then you must put up your hands and admit you are talking rubbish. George Bush may have regulated many parts of the economy, but that does not extend to the financial markets and the Investment banks. Even as a fan of Reagan, there is a precedent for this in his deregulation of the Savings and Loans industry that led to the S&L crisis. When it comes to deregulation of the financial services to miltary spending to tax breaks for the rich, you must be losing your marbles to suggest that George Bush has moved to the left, based on the fact that non-military spending has increased by 3.8% yearly adjusted for inflation. Newsflash: If you don't create enough jobs to match expanding population, you will have more domestic spending to pay for the unemployed.

4 Play:

In 1 area and 1 area alone can the Bush administration be said to have pursued neoliberal economics; tax policy. Bush did indeed cut taxes lower than Clinton,however,no sane person(not even the most rabid Obamabots) would claim that the present economic meltdown is as a result of taxes being too low. Even then,US corporate taxes are arguably higher than most states in the world,even communist China,but that is a debate for another day.

And it didn't work. These tax cuts didn't produce jobs so why is McCain pursuing the same policy under the false premise of job creation?

4 Play:

In every other respect,Bush has repudiated neoliberal economics. Take the cardinal issue of the size of the Government. The past 8 years has seen the biggest expansion of Government since LBJ. Indeed,if you take away defense and homeland security spending,the past 8 years has seen the biggest increase in Govt spending since the 1930s. In the light of this,to claim that the economy is "too far to the right" verges on lunacy.

For someone who is a stickler for facts, this is the most factually incorrect statement I have heard. Trust Republicans to blame everything on "liberal policies" when their man phocks up. Adjusting for inflation, both Nixon and Ford increased non-military spending by a greater margin than Bush. Republicans seem to think they have a monopoly on "small spending" but infact, Bill Clinton is the smallest spending President in history, followed by Reagan, Carter and Truman. That is three democrats in the top four. From what I can see that is a very good record of "fiscal conservatism" from the democrats. And we haven't even started talking about military spending. . . . . .

4 Play:

Another cardinal principle of neoliberal economics and one which has become a common buzzword in today's debate is deregulation. Deregulation effectively refers to the reduction of or removal of Govt regulation.

(1.) No person in possession of the facts can claim with a straight face that the past 8 years has witnessed a drive to reduce Govt regulation in the US.

(2.) Funny enough,the general consensus up until a few months ago was on how over-regulation was stifling US growth and was prompting the gradual erosion of New York's status as the world's pre-eminent financial centre in favor of places like London,Hong Kong and Dubai.

(1.) Are you refering to regulation of the financial markets or other non-descript regulations? If it is the former, then you must be smoking seaweed.

(2.) Another evidence of "You are what you read." Are we talking about Governments or markets: because markets always prefer deregulation even to the point of self-destruction (Remember Barings Bank in Singapore?). However, the sensible amongst Wall Street warned about deregulation. Warren Buffet called for regulation of CD's back in 2003 as did many others. However, we know which crowd of Wall Street most Republicans prefer to listen to.

4 Play:

No 2 legislative measures epitomize the contrast in regulatory policies between the Clinton and Bush eras as the Financial Services Modernization Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act respectively. Any person who claims that the Bush era has heralded a right-ward shift in economic policy,while continuing to praise Clinton,is engaging in voodoo economics.

Look at this nonsense. . . . . why not tell us about Phil Gramm and his Republican cohorts who sponsored and pushed the Financial Services Modernisation Act through, although most democrats opposed it?. . . . so you want to shift blame now?. . . . why did you not not use the correct name of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act so we can all see that it was a Republican move by Republican Senators? If you recall, many Democrats criticised Clinton for signing the act. . . . . last time I checked, Phil Gramm was in hiding after Anderson Cooper named him as one of the culprits of the crisis on CNN.

. . . if not for Enron and Worldcom, would it have crossed George Bush's mind to sign in Sarbanes-Oakley? He was simply reacting to obvious public pressure. . . .if McCain implements regulation on OTC's if he becomes President, you can be sure it is not because he is that way inclined but because he is under obvious public pressure to do so.

The stats do not lie: 22.5 million jobs created under Clinton and 4.5 million jobs created under Bush. You cannot argue with that.

Speaking of voodoo economics, your economics defies the law of gravity. You seem to be the one waffling and making up facts.

When even Cris Cox admits that the deregulation of the SEC led to the current crisis, then you must put up your hands and admit you are talking rubbish. George Bush may have regulated many parts of the economy, but that does not extend to the financial markets and the Investment banks. Even as a fan of Reagan, there is a precedent for this in his deregulation of the Savings and Loans industry that led to the S&L crisis.

The typical tactic of the clueless when they are found out is to engage in a gradual retreat from their claims. From suggesting that the economy is too far to the right, a rather clumsy appellation,you have now narrowed it down to the financial markets.

To back up a rather baseless suggestion of a Bush policy of an overly deregulated economy,you have now cited Chris Cox . Unless you are a dolt,nowhere did Cox claim that deregulation is somewhat a recent phenomenon that started under Bush. Deregulation of financial markets go back decades and does not have a partisan face.

One of the dumbest things about the Bush deranged mob is that they try to put a partisan face to a global problem. You would think that the facts that European banks seem more vulnerable than their American counterparts would dispel some of the derangement. I wonder whether Bush and Republicans are at fault for Northern Rock,Bradford & Bingley,Dexia,Hypo Real Estate,e.t.c

For someone who is a stickler for facts, this is the most factually incorrect statement I have heard. Trust Republicans to blame everything on "liberal policies" when their man phocks up. Adjusting for inflation, both Nixon and Ford increased non-military spending by a greater margin than Bush. Republicans seem to think they have a monopoly on "small spending" but infact, Bill Clinton is the smallest spending President in history, followed by Reagan, Carter and Truman. That is three democrats in the top four. From what I can see that is a very good record of "fiscal conservatism" from the democrats. And we haven't even started talking about military spending. . . . . .

My friend,your mendacity knows no bounds. I would like to see the evidence that Nixon and Ford's real spending growth outstrips Bush's. . . .  .quite frankly,for even citing Ford,you are an ignoramus. Fact: Bush has overseen the biggest expansion of Govt since LBJ;so much for an economy to far to the right,or is it just the financial markets?

3 Democrats in the top 4? Are you now praising fiscal conservatism? For an Obamabot who just claimed the economy is too far to the right,you seem hopelessly confused.

(1.) Are you refering to regulation of the financial markets or other non-descript regulations? If it is the former, then you must be smoking seaweed.

(2.) Another evidence of "You are what you read." Are we talking about Governments or markets: because markets always prefer deregulation even to the point of self-destruction (Remember Barings Bank in Singapore?). However, the sensible amongst Wall Street warned about deregulation. Warren Buffet called for regulation of CD's back in 2003 as did many others. However, we know which crowd of Wall Street most Republicans prefer to listen to.

(1) What a stupid question! The relevant quoted post was your rants about "right-wing economics" and the "economy moving too far to the right". Thanks for narrowing it down to a sector of the economy. Deregulation of the financial markets is decades old but some discombobulated folks manage to heap praise on Clinton while simultaneously blaming everything on Bush. The latter was less of a deregulator of the financial markets than the former,that is a clear fact 

What ''crowd'' was the Clinton administration listening to,including Clinton's Treasury Sec,Rubin,who is an Obama adviser. Only the clueless  still see today's economic crisis through a partisan prism. 

Look at this nonsense. . . . . why not tell us about Phil Gramm and his Republican cohorts who sponsored and pushed the Financial Services Modernisation Act through, although most democrats opposed it?. . . . so you want to shift blame now?. . . . why did you not not use the correct name of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act so we can all see that it was a Republican move by Republican Senators? If you recall, many Democrats criticised Clinton for signing the act.

If blame attaches to the Republican Congress for the economic policies of the Clinton era you don't like,how come in your books,Clinton gets the credit for the economic successes,Mr non-partisan?

No intelligent person even thinks the 1999 Act is at fault for the current problem,it actually saved G.Sachs and Morgan Stanley from imploding. However, I  cited that Act to illustrate that deregulation was even more substantive under your beloved Clinton administration than under Bush even if you clumsily try to narrow down your description of the economy as the financial markets. 

Look at your naff attempts to explain away Sarbanes-Oxley. How would you explain away the attempts by  Bush The Deregulator to regulate Fannie and Freddie,torpedoed by Congress. Your viewpoints are an obsession in search of a justification.

You and your conspiracy theories. . . . whether it comes to electoral votes or employment, you have a conspiracy theory for everything

Lmao at conspiracy theories.

It is innovative to let your imaginations run wild, very adventurous. Did you see Manchurian Candidate? Did you read Robert Ludlum? Do you watch James Bond? Million maker novels and movies based on political conspiracies. Siddon there, I shall be a millionaire soon.

I don comot my shirt . . . pesin go wound today. . . . make una hold me o!. . . . . Lord, please help me to be civil

4 Play:

Even then,the theory of convergence,again,like much of the article,falls flat in the face of reality. The tension is not between the vestiges of capitalism and communism(the latter has been thoroughly repudiated) but one version of capitalism(neo-liberal economics) and another(neoKeynesian economics) . The reality is that the past 3 decades,particularly since the Thatcher/Reaganite reforms, has seen a general shift,not towards the centre,but towards Hayek/Friedman's right of centre economics. Once again,the facts belie your points.

See this one dey form ITK. Between Keynesian and Saysian economics, we have seen entrenchment, not convergence, so what does this have to do with theory of convergence? Either you dey try form ITK or you are stating the bleeding obvious. The fact that we have seen virtual nationalisation of companies like AIG and part nationalisation of many others does not tell you that there has been a shift to the left? The fact that Russia, China etc have moved toward the right does not tell you that there is a convergence toward the centre? The fact that businesses are now borrowing directly from the FEDS does not show you a convergence? Wake up and smell the coffee. Invariably, extreme forms of ideology do not work because they rely too much on human influence and humans are inefficient as George Soros taught me.

4 Play:

The typical tactic of the clueless when they are found out is to engage in a gradual retreat from their claims. From suggesting that the economy is too far to the right, a rather clumsy appellation,you have now narrowed it down to the financial markets.

You are on the defensive here, not me. . . . . .only a Forrest Gump incarnate would dare to dissociate the financial markets from the economy. . . . can you recall a single occasion where the financial sector took a strategic hit and the economy did not follow?. . . . we are talking about a credit-fuelled economy here, however diversified it may be. . . . a $50 trn dollar US industry which permeates all other sectors and affects all walks of life. . . . and this guy is trying to tell me that right-wing policies on the financials do not represent right-wing policies on the economy as a whole.

. . . financial markets have taught me that each economic cycle begins and ends with the Financial sector. . .  . . .  if you apply right-wing economics to the financials, then as far as I am concerned, you are applying right-wing economics to the economy. Factor in a right-wing tax policy and George Bush ticks all my boxes. Add runaway military spending and I don't know what else to call it except right-wing policies. Your only rebuttal is George Bush's spending, but we will deal with that later in the post. . . .

Again, this is the thing that amazes me about Republicans. Their ideology must always be right. If their man phocks up, it is only because he did not carry out that ideology to the letter of the law. One simple question, if the Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress, who else do they have to blame? Did they lose their ideological compass. . . . . claiming that George Bush implemented left-wing policies is a stunning act of Maradona-style trickery. . . . 4 Play is trying to pull off the greatest hoodwink in the history of mankind. . . . . George Bush is from the far right reaches of the Republican party where Palin dwells. . . . I cannot think of any significant social policies that he implemented. . . . his so-called "big spending" was spent on war, unemployment benefits (since he didn't create jobs), medicaid for Health industries whose drug prices are unregulated and pork barrel scratchings written into various bills to serve the interests of big business. . . . . there is nothing socialistic about George Bush.

4 Play:

To back up a rather baseless suggestion of a Bush policy of an overly deregulated economy,you have now cited Chris Cox . Unless you are a dolt,nowhere did Cox claim that deregulation is somewhat a recent phenomenon that started under Bush. Deregulation of financial markets go back decades and does not have a partisan face. .

Look at this serial denier. . . . . who introduced voluntary regulation into the financials. . . . was it not under Bush? . . . . Did Cox not say that he thought the instinct of self preservation would make voluntary regulation work?. . . . now he is admitting it was a failure. . . . no doubt, the Subprime Crisis was caused in most part by credit instruments. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html


WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street's largest investment banks had contributed to the financial crisis, and he shut the program down.

The SEC's oversight responsibilities will largely shift to the Federal Reserve.

Also Friday, the SEC's inspector general released a report strongly criticizing the agency's performance in monitoring Bear Stearns before it collapsed in March. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said he agreed that the oversight program was "fundamentally flawed from the beginning."

"The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work," Cox said in a statement. The program "was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily."

The program Cox abolished was unanimously approved in 2004 by the commission under his predecessor, William Donaldson. The program allowed the SEC to monitor the parent companies of major Wall Street firms, even though technically the agency had authority over only the firms' brokerage firm components.

The commission created the program after heavy lobbying for the plan from the major investment banks. At the time, Henry Paulson Jr. was the head of Goldman Sachs. He left two years later to become the Treasury secretary.

The investment banks favored the SEC as their umbrella regulator because that let them avoid regulation of their European operations by the European Union.

4 Play:

One of the dumbest things about the Bush deranged mob is that they try to put a partisan face to a global problem. You would think that the facts that European banks seem more vulnerable than their American counterparts would dispel some of the derangement. I wonder whether Bush and Republicans are at fault for Northern Rock,Bradford & Bingley,Dexia,Hypo Real Estate,e.t.c .

You seem to forget that we are living in a globalised economy. For clarity, I shall highlight the last part of my post. . . .

The investment banks favored the SEC as their umbrella regulator because that let them avoid regulation of their European operations by the European Union

Wriggle your way out of that one.

4 Play:

My friend,your mendacity knows no bounds. I would like to see the evidence that Nixon and Ford's real spending growth outstrips Bush's. . . .  .quite frankly,for even citing Ford,you are an ignoramus

If I am an ignoramus, then you are ignorantus. . . . inflation adjusted yearly non-military growth was 8.6% and 6.2% for Nixon and Ford respectively. . . . and 3.8% for Dubya

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/fiscalconservative.htm

And please do not come here and start doing extra calculations including the bailout package as part of spending because that has not been spent yet. . . .

4 Play:

Look at your naff attempts to explain away Sarbanes-Oxley. How would you explain away the attempts by  Bush The Deregulator to regulate Fannie and Freddie,torpedoed by Congress. Your viewpoints are an obsession in search of a justification.

Not at all. . . . .Sarbanes-Oxley came on the back of a National outcry over Enron and Worldcom. . . . don't get slick and try to act like George Bush just plucked this bill out of nowhere. . . . it was an obvious necessity at the time.

4 Play:

3 Democrats in the top 4? Are you now praising fiscal conservatism? For an Obamabot who just claimed the economy is too far to the right,you seem hopelessly confused.

Obamabot? How derogatory! I am offended! What did you call Colin Powell when he cast his lot in with Obama. . . . . either he is an idiot or you are a psychophantic ideologue.

What do Colin Powell, Bill Gates, George Soros and Warren Buffet have in common?

And whose policies did Michael Bloomberg support on Fareed Zakaria GPS?

Damn it, even Ronald Reagan's Chief of staff and Ronald Reagan's son endorsed Obama.

Compared to all the Obamatrons above, 4Play is nothing but an insignificant gnat who loves displaying his pedantry on public forums, trawling through voluminous data in order to validate wrongly held beliefs he has imbibed from God knows where.

See this one dey form ITK. Between Keynesian and Saysian economics, we have seen entrenchment, not convergence, so what does this have to do with theory of convergence? Either you dey try form ITK or you are stating the bleeding obvious. The fact that we have seen virtual nationalisation of companies like AIG and part nationalisation of many others does not tell you that there has been a shift to the left? The fact that Russia, China etc have moved toward the right does not tell you that there is a convergence toward the centre? The fact that businesses are now borrowing directly from the FEDS does not show you a convergence? Wake up and smell the coffee. Invariably, extreme forms of ideology do not work because they rely too much on human influence and humans are inefficient as George Soros taught me

This copy and paste mooncalf can't conduct a consistent argument to save his life. After kicking off the debate by glibly suggesting that the US economy has moved too far to the right,he now claims that the Theory of convergence is simultaneously apt and asks whether I haven't witnessed a shift left.

Only a first rate idiot like Ibime will simultaneously lament a right-ward  shift in economy while praising a 1960s theory which proclaimed that Western economies will be moving towards the socialist model. If your knowledge of economic history tells you that the past 4 decades has witnessed greater centralisation of Western economies,you are a dunderhead.

To try to crassly explain away this your incoherent gabble by citing events of the past few months makes you look even more stupid. Even by today's standard,as even your confused self admitted,most economies are much more liberalised than they ever were at the time the discredited theory originated. Idiot Ibime,make up your mind,is the economy ''too right-wing'' or has it been converging all along in line with the theory? 

You are on the defensive here, not me. . . . . .only a Forrest Gump incarnate would dare to dissociate the financial markets from the economy. . . . can you recall a single occasion where the financial sector took a strategic hit and the economy did not follow?. . . . we are talking about a credit-fuelled economy here, however diversified it may be. . . . a $50 trn dollar US industry which permeates all other sectors and affects all walks of life. . . . and this guy is trying to tell me that right-wing policies on the financials do not represent right-wing policies on the economy as a whole.

You are a two-faced idiot. In referring to the economy,there is no implicit understanding of it to mean the financial services industry. The fact that the financial services industry is a cornerstone of the economy doesn't make it a synonym for the economy.

Lets be honest,the reason why you retreated into yapping about the financial markets is that you made a baseless suggestion:that the economy was moving too far to the right under Bush. Caught pants down lying,you started an inglorious retreat.

In the context of a debate about deregulating the economy,deregulation of  varying sectors:airline,communication,energy,mining,manufacturing,tourism,e.t.c:cannot be narrowed down into merely a discussion about deregulating the financial markets.

Again, this is the thing that amazes me about Republicans. Their ideology must always be right. If their man phocks up, it is only because he did not carry out that ideology to the letter of the law. One simple question, if the Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress, who else do they have to blame?

Again,the non-partisan Ibime engages in a hare-brained rant about his bogey men,Republicans. This dolt obviously doesn't know what being unbiased means. Again,let me ask,if you blame Republicans for the bad policies of the Clinton administration,who do you applaud for the good policies?

I still maintain that a President that throws money at subsidizing the agriculture and oil industry,a so-called big government conservative,the same fellow who imposed steel tariffs,cannot with a straight face be tagged as pursuing a policy of deregulating the economy.

Look at this serial denier. . . . . who introduced voluntary regulation into the financials. . . . was it not under Bush? . . . . Did Cox not say that he thought the instinct of self preservation would make voluntary regulation work?. . . . now he is admitting it was a failure. . . . no doubt, the Subprime Crisis was caused in most part by credit instruments. . . .

You copy and paste an article about a self-regulatory decision made in 2004 as evidence that Bush was deregulating the economy. . . . this is really an attempt to clutch at straws. There were far more substantive deregulatory measures under Clinton and Reagan in regards to the financial markets. The problems of the financial markets today do not largely owe to one single policy decision in 2004.

The sub-prime crisis can be blamed on a wide variety of causes including even the imposition of a regulatory measure,the Community Reinvestment Act,which required financial institutions,particularly Fannie and Freddie, to pour money into low income communities. No doubt good intentioned,it is a clear example that bad regulation is as deleterious as no regulation.

To simply hang on to one policy measure from the SEC to prove your point smacks of desperation.

You seem to forget that we are living in a globalised economy. For clarity, I shall highlight the last part of my post. . . .

The investment banks favored the SEC as their umbrella regulator because that let them avoid regulation of their European operations by the European Union

We live in a globalised world but it's an act of stupidity to blame the global financial crisis on the GOP. I asked you about the collapse of the likes of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley,your response is to cite a quote about the regulatory preferences of US investment banks. To carry on justifying blaming Northern Rock or Dexia's collapse on the GOP is lunacy.

You still haven't been able to explain why these European banks were as much at risk as US banks. Your attempts to manufacture partisan explanations are quite daft.

If I am an ignoramus, then you are ignorantus. . . . inflation adjusted yearly non-military growth was 8.6% and 6.2% for Nixon and Ford respectively. . . . and 3.8% for Dubya

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/fiscalconservative.htm

I will give you credit for this one,though,my statement earlier,reproduced here:T[i]he past 8 years has seen the biggest expansion of Government since LBJ. Indeed,if you take away defense and homeland security spending,the past 8 years has seen the biggest increase in Govt spending since the 1930s.[/i]:are also backed up if like you,we resort to googling:http://www.independent.org/images/article_images/charts/040624_spending.gif,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article570387.ece

All show that far from moving too far to the right,Bush has overseen a major expansion of Govt.

I cannot think of any significant social policies that he implemented. . . .

You cannot think,simple. You can google though,try googling what happened to the education budget under Bush. Abi,education is not part of social policy?

Your attempt to explain away increases in social spending are plainly inane.

Obamabot? How derogatory! I am offended! What did you call Colin Powell when he cast his lot in with Obama. . . . . either he is an idiot or you are a psychophantic ideologue.

What do Colin Powell, Bill Gates, George Soros and Warren Buffet have in common?

Look at this cretinous mediocrity putting himself in the same league as Buffet and Soros. An Obamabot is anyone,including you,who trots out Obama talking points without an ability to reason for themselves. 

In your short stay on this forum,you have managed to produce some classic dumb lines(who will forget Bush has an IQ of 90)picked from a long discredited web article.

Like any clueless beer parlor style analyst,you resent any calls to stick the facts even while discussing economics. Like every Obamabot,your worldview is dictated in the strategy rooms of Axelrod and Plouffe. 

Up Roma! (Hope they finish off the job in the 2nd half)

Hehehehe. . . . . . this guy is a fool. . . . . . I shall keep this as brief as I can because I am following the election. . . .

4 Play:

After kicking off the debate by glibly suggesting that the US economy has moved too far to the right,he now claims that the Theory of convergence is simultaneously apt and asks whether I haven't witnessed a shift left.

Only a first rate idiot like Ibime will simultaneously lament a right-ward shift in economy while praising a 1960s theory which proclaimed that Western economies will be moving towards the socialist model. If your knowledge of economic history tells you that the past 4 decades has witnessed greater centralisation of Western economies,you are a dunderhead.

To try to crassly explain away this your incoherent gabble by citing events of the past few months makes you look even more stupid. Even by today's standard,as even your confused self admitted,most economies are much more liberalised than they ever were at the time the discredited theory originated. Idiot Ibime,make up your mind,is the economy ''too right-wing'' or has it been converging all along in line with the theory?

If the idiot had read up on the theory, he would have seen that the premise of the theory is that Nations would learn that extreme positions on Capitalism or Communism would blow up in their face. . . . . this fool seeks to presume that the convergence referred to is a steady quasi-linear movement toward the centre. . . . . how is that possible when Governments change direction every 4 or 5 years depending on the policy of the party voted into power?. . . . . . well, as someone who is into algorithms, I need to remind this fool that convergence can occur over a handful of iterations as well as millions of iterations. . . . . . the premise of the theory was simply that convergence will be brought about by violent swings after ideological failures. . . . . . in order to support his argument, he has sought to apply a 40 year timeline to the theory. . . . . Communist convergence to the centre occured almost overnight in 1990 as a result of the failure of Communism. . . . . if the theory holds for a swing period of months in 1990, then sure as hell, it holds for the quick swing we have witnessed in the West over the last one year. . . . .we have seen a steady progression to the right, followed by a violent lurch to the left in the last few months. . . . the fact is that the theory of Convergence was never more apt than at the present moment. . . . . .

4 Play:

You are a two-faced idiot. In referring to the economy,there is no implicit understanding of it to mean the financial services industry. The fact that the financial services industry is a cornerstone of the economy doesn't make it a synonym for the economy.

Lets be honest,the reason why you retreated into yapping about the financial markets is that you made a baseless suggestion:that the economy was moving too far to the right under Bush. Caught pants down lying,you started an inglorious retreat. In the context of a debate about deregulating the economy,deregulation of varying sectors:airline,communication,energy,mining,manufacturing,tourism,e.t.c:cannot be narrowed down into merely a discussion about deregulating the financial markets.

Please somebody tell this idiot that the Financial Industry is THE cornerstone of the economy. I have a beautiful picture for you. . . .



At what point do you not understand that the Financial sector dictates the economic cycle in Western markets? I have not even started to look into other sectors that Bush deregulated. This fool would have you believe that Bush regulated all sectors except the financials, which is simply not true. I pointed out the tax-policies and runaway military spending. . . . and yet, his only rebuttal is that Bush increased spending. . . . although that fell flat on it's face because I showed that Bush did not actually spend as much as he would have you believe when you adjust for inflation.

4 Play:

Again,the non-partisan Ibime engages in a hare-brained rant about his bogey men,Republicans. This dolt obviously doesn't know what being unbiased means. Again,let me ask,if you blame Republicans for the bad policies of the Clinton administration,who do you applaud for the good policies?

Firstly, this idiot says that the FSM act was not a bad act because it saved Morgan Stanley, now he is calling it a bad policy. . . . where is the consistency in this blathering idiot's argument?

Look in the mirror please. . . . . . . I did not blame Republicans for Clinton's policies. . . . you tried to make a biased argument about Clinton's policies, but you did not tell us the full truth. . . . I only had to correct you and give the full story: which is that the FSM act was sponsored and pushed through by a Republican congress and was opposed by many Democrats. That is the undeniable truth. Clinton also takes some blame, but tell us the full story please. The FSM act was a bi-partizan agreement. Infact, it was supported more overwhelmingly by the Republicans than the Democrats. So please, stop your beer parlour analysis. . . . .comparing the FSM act to the Sarbanes-Oxley act in an assinine attempt to draw a contrast between Bush and Clinton is as nonobjective as it gets.

4 Play:

I still maintain that a President that throws money at subsidizing the agriculture and oil industry,a so-called big government conservative,the same fellow who imposed steel tariffs,cannot with a straight face be tagged as pursuing a policy of deregulating the economy.

erm. . . . last time I checked, subsidizing the oil industry is actually a regular Republican habit. . . . so all this big spending you are talking about was spent on Republican issues, not socialistic. . . .

4 Play:

The sub-prime crisis can be blamed on a wide variety of causes including even the imposition of a regulatory measure,the Community Reinvestment Act,which required financial institutions,particularly Fannie and Freddie, to pour money into low income communities. No doubt good intentioned,it is a clear example that bad regulation is as deleterious as no regulation.

Like you said yourself, most of this crisis was caused by unregulated derivatives. . . . I have said before that blaming the Community Reinvestment Act for the current crisis is similar to placing a grenade next to a nuclear bomb (CD's) and then blaming the grenade for acting as the detonator when the nuclear bomb blows up the whole city.

4 Play:

I will give you credit for this one,though,my statement earlier,reproduced here:T[i]he past 8 years has seen the biggest expansion of Government since LBJ. Indeed,if you take away defense and homeland security spending,the past 8 years has seen the biggest increase in Govt spending since the 1930s.[/i]:are also backed up if like you,we resort to googling:http://www.independent.org/images/article_images/charts/040624_spending.gif,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article570387.ece

All show that far from moving too far to the right,Bush has overseen a major expansion of Govt.

Mr man, stop beating an inglorious retreat. . . . . you made an assinine comment having misread articles through your partizan lens and you have been abruptly corrected. . . . . ignoring inflation when judging Bush's spending policy is similar to stating that a house which was bought for $10,000 in 1900 is cheaper than a house which is bought for $200,000 in 2008. Only a beer parlour partizan like yourself would make a point like this without corroborating the facts and placing them in the proper context.


What a dork!


Go Celtic!

Ibime:

If the idiot had read up on the theory, he would have seen that the premise of the theory is that Nations would learn that extreme positions on Capitalism or Communism would blow up in their face. . . . . this fool seeks to presume that the convergence referred to is a steady quasi-linear movement toward the centre. . . . . how is that possible when Governments change direction every 4 or 5 years depending on the policy of the party voted into power?. . . . . . well, as someone who is into algorithms, I need to remind this fool that convergence can occur over a handful of iterations as well as millions of iterations. . . . . . the premise of the theory was simply that convergence will be brought about by violent swings after ideological failures. . . . . . in order to support his argument, he has sought to apply a 40 year timeline to the theory. . . . . Communist convergence to the centre occured almost overnight in 1990 as a result of the failure of Communism. . . . . if the theory holds for a swing period of months in 1990, then sure as hell, it holds for the quick swing we have witnessed in the West over the last one year. . . . .we have seen a steady progression to the right, followed by a violent lurch to the left in the last few months. . .  . the fact is that the theory of Convergence was never more apt than at the present moment. . . . . .

You are a first grade charlatan. Not only have you never read Tinbergen's theory,apart from recent snippets from the net,you have demonstrated the comprehension abilities of a numskull. You have cited a 1959 theory that propounds that capitalist and communist nations are coming together towards a common centre.

I appreciate that you are a bonehead but no reading of history,no matter how twisted, will show that between 1959 and today,Western economies have converged towards the centre. Even with the last few months' emergency measures,Western economies are still far more liberalised than anyone could have conceived in the late 50s. 10 steps to the right,1 ad hoc step to the left does not amount to a convergence to the centre.

To call you a dolt will be an insult to dolts. From an inane screed about the economy being too far to the right,this googling fraud now supports a theory that capitalist economies are converging towards the centre. The inability to see the obvious contradiction demonstrates a bizarre example of mental confusion. . . . . the kind of confusion that entertains belief in a human's ability to simultaneously swim with one hand while firing AK47s with the other.

Please somebody tell this idiot that the Financial Industry is THE cornerstone of the economy. I have a beautiful picture for you. . . .
At what point do you not understand that the Financial sector dictates the economic cycle in Western markets? I have not even started to look into other sectors that Bush deregulated. This fool would have you believe that Bush regulated all sectors except the financials, which is simply not true. I pointed out the tax-policies and runaway military spending. . . . and yet, his only rebuttal is that Bush increased spending. . . . although that fell flat on it's face because I showed that Bush did not actually spend as much as he would have you believe when you adjust for inflation.

To carry on this charade of referring to the financial markets as a synonym for the economy beggars belief. Between the 2 of us,we both know that your hasty retreat into the ''safer'' confines of the financial markets is as a result of a desire not to lose face.

Financial services is a cornerstone of the economy, thanks for reciting my quote,but it is not the economy. 10% of the economy is not the economy anymore so than the heart is a synonym for the human body.

You cannot make a case for Bush deregulating the economy. I noticed your lazy nod to ''run away military spending'' under Bush,and even crasser,tax policy. How does increased  military spending advance your case that the economy is too far to the right? How is a tax regime,recently described by the OECD asthe most progressive advance your view?

Firstly, this idiot says that the FSM act was not a bad act because it saved Morgan Stanley, now he is calling it a bad policy. . . . where is the consistency in this blathering idiot's argument?

Look in the mirror please. . .  . . . . I did not blame Republicans for Clinton's policies. . . . you tried to make a biased argument about Clinton's policies, but you did not tell us the full truth. . . . I only had to correct you and give the full story: which is that the FSM act was sponsored and pushed through by a Republican congress and was opposed by many Democrats. That is the undeniable truth. Clinton also takes some blame, but tell us the full story please. The FSM act was a bi-partizan agreement. Infact, it was supported more overwhelmingly by the Republicans than the Democrats. So please, stop your beer parlour analysis. . . . .comparing the FSM act to the Sarbanes-Oxley act in an assinine attempt to draw a contrast between Bush and Clinton is as nonobjective as it gets.

I guess your crassness leads to quibbling over little details. I do not think for one moment that the 1999 Act was a bad policy measure. Perhaps,it might have negated your hunger for ''minutiae triumphs'' if I had used bad in inverted commas.

Again,Mr Non-partisan trys to reconcile the irreconcilable in his trademark moronic manner. What emerges is a confused fudge typical of a man who once attributed the US's projected social security liabilities to Bush. Clinton never signified an iota of intention to oppose the 1999 Act. He and his Treasury Secretary Rubin were as keen on it as Rubin's fellow Wall Street alumni,Phil Gramm. Saying the Republican majority Congress pushed through legislation under Clinton is as intellectually enlightening as saying that humans need food. It belies your absurd attempt to give Clinton credit for the economic successes of the 90s,while dumping purported failures on the GOP.

Make no mistake,the 1999 Act was by no means the sole example of a deregulatory policy under Clinton.

erm. . . . last time I checked, subsidizing the oil industry is actually a regular Republican habit. . . . so all this big spending you are talking about was spent on Republican issues, not socialistic. . . .

One can even say that increased spending under the GOP is habitual but a policy of subsidising the agriculture industry,bailing out the airline industry or authorizing monumental increases in health and education spending,cannot be reconciled with a daft suggestion that the economy was moved too far right.

Like you said yourself, most of this crisis was caused by unregulated derivatives. . . . I have said before that blaming the Community Reinvestment Act for the current crisis is similar to placing a grenade next to a nuclear bomb (CD's) and then blaming the grenade for acting as the detonator when the nuclear bomb blows up the whole city.

Unlike you,I'm not a simpleton who will attribute the global financial meltdown to one major cause. There were myriad causes;from boneheaded legislative measures like the CRA,to extraordinarily low interest rates,a dysfunctional remuneration regime,unregulated derivates,global imbalances,e.t.c. By no means an exclusive list but much more aligned to reality than your simple-minded idiotic attempts to boil down complex economic issues to your glib anthem:blame the GOP

Mr man, stop beating an inglorious retreat. . . . . you made an assinine comment having misread articles through your partizan lens and you have been abruptly corrected. . . . . ignoring inflation when judging Bush's spending policy is similar to stating that a house which was bought for $10,000 in 1900 is cheaper than a house which is bought for $200,000 in 2008. Only a beer parlour partizan like yourself would make a point like this without corroborating the facts and placing them in the proper context.

I can forgive you for being a mendacious charlatan but your descent into blindness is a new low. Check out the imbecilic rant about adjusting for inflation,yet,in the very post of mine he has quoted contains articles that state thus:  LBJ boosted domestic discretionary spending in inflation adjusted dollars by a mere 33.4%.In five years, Bush has increased it 35.1%. and a chart with this heading: T[b]otal and Nondefense Spending Growth During Each Presidential Term Since LBJ(Percent Changes Are Adjusted For Inflation)[/b]

Ibime,you an unbridled charlatan whose knack for copying and pasting cannot mask the fact that you are as dumb as a stump.

Bloody Chelsea supporting ashawo! Up Roma jare.

This guy, you still dey here? All these are pre-election debates, intended to paint our preferred candidates in the best light and their opponents in the worst light. I can carry on, but I have no wish to, my man is already President-elect. .

The ideology you espouse has beaten a hasty retreat into the dark confines of the Deep South and Apalachian Mountains. If you don't like it, go and die!

4Play is still arguing?
O boy change has already passed you by.

Joe the plumber was even on welfare once . . . what a clueless opportunist.

Leave Joe the plumber to make his money jare. Even Tito the builder is cashing in.

4Play,



ntoor!

Ibime:

This guy, you still dey here? All these are pre-election debates, intended to paint our preferred candidates in the best light and their opponents in the worst light. I can carry on, but I have no wish to, my man is already President-elect. .

The ideology you espouse has beaten a hasty retreat into the dark confines of the Deep South and Apalachian Mountains. If you don't like it, go and die!

Look at this Chelski glory hunter. While debates about the direction of the economy have been going on for centuries,this guy sees issues only through the prism of his homo-erotic passion for a politician.

I too I'm thrilled to have a US president of a black African father but my instincts tell me that on the cardinal issues of today's world-Islamofascism and the US economy-Obama has the wrong instincts. Obamabotism is not for me and neoliberal economics ,which neither Bush nor Obama have supported, is alive and well !!!  

DavidDylan:

4Play is still arguing? O boy change has already passed you by. Joe the plumber was even on welfare once . . . what a clueless opportunist.

Lets hope that as the joy of having a US president of African background is tempered by the mugging effects of reality over the coming months,the sort of mental confusion that leads people to proclaim that a guy whose middle name is ''Joseph'' has no business calling himself Joe dissipates.

Which is more glory seeking, the Gullit-era Blue or the Fergie Red? The Jewish Oligarch fell into my lap, I didn't follow him here.

Ibime:

Which is more glory seeking, the Gullit-era Blue or the Fergie Red? The Jewish Oligarch fell into my lap, I didn't follow him here.

Gullit era wetin,who you dey deceive? In 2 years time,you will be supporting Man City.

I'm not reading all this drivel.

White Amerikkka is ABOUT enriching the ELITES!!!!!

If you are a HAVE-NOT you are shit out of luck!

***********************

Amerikkka had welfare for the poor (which was MOSTLY POOR WHITE TRASH PEOPLE).

Amerikkka took it away and gave it to the RICH WHITE PEOPLE with tax cuts, loans, grants, contracts, etc.

WAKE UP!

Amerikkka is a country that EMBOLDENS the Rich!

You CAN however, work your way up from poverty into the Elite Atmosphere- usually these people NEVER take care of their own.

LOOK AT NIGERIA!

********************

Oprah is the Exception.

Stop believing the M E D I A.  Africans believe any and everything beamed towards them.


stop being so gullible and loving the WHITEMAN - he NEVER had your interest at heart.