Nope.
I assume by blaming it on 'x' and 'y' you mean the poster you were responding to in your post (lowlypion).
Folks in general who make the claim.
More to the point though, my understanding from watching CSPAN is that it was the high risk stuff that started the big mess (well, a large part of it at least). So, I don't understand what 'free-markets in general', has to do with the problem. Could you more specifically say how it was 'over regulated', as you say, concerning the problem I mentioned.
The current attitude among quite a few is that the "conservative model" of deregulation, low taxes, etc...that we have followed for the past twenty-nine years has been "disproven." I disagree with that completely, as I do not see how the alternative works at all or how the "conservative model" has been disproven even.
However, this isn't to say that the deregulation in the financial markets doesn't share some of the blame, because although in the financial markets it created a lot of good, it also seems to have led to the creation of these very high-risk and complicated financial instruments which the creators though spread risk and perhaps individually they did, but altogether all it has led to was connecting the global financial system to our housing market.
It seems to have created twenty years of prosperity, then in 2000, about seven years of artificialy prosperity.
By "free markets" in general, I mean the attitude thus is that free-marketeers are too radically pro-free market, that their idea "doesn't work," and we need a "balance" between government and the market, with government "watching" the markets, etc...my point is that the free-market itself, for the most part, works fine. There has been no "failure" of it in the wider economy. The big problem is how to fix the bad things caused by the market in the financial sector, without undoing all of the good things (and also figuring out specifically what was done because of the market and what was done by legislation). But the multitude of other industries are functioning fine, it's just the financial sector is like a utility.
Otherwise, we have no excuse to grandly enlarge government, taxes, spending, etc...
The other thing is, on the individual level as well, people ignored the "conservative model" of savings, investment, proper budgeting, etc...and spent, spent, spent. Under President Bush and the Republicans, we also spent money like crazy. Bush was no fiscal conservative.
These things must be ended, not continued. People need to learn to live within their means and the government needs to learn to spend within its means. We need to keep taxes low, regulations light, but effective, government good and limited, follow sound fiscal policy, and be smart as a nation. More government is not the answer.
Well, I think economic experts are saying otherwise. At least the onces on CSPAN have said otherwise.
These particular "experts" are politically biased towards one way, and they need to take a look at history, considering government's very bad record. Government is large enough as it is, and inept as it is.
We tried the Keynesian-style economics in which government plays a very strong hand in the economy and it didn't work out well. We also to an extent tried it with the housing market, which helped contribute to this crises (legislation, Fannie/Freddie for example). And Japan tried it.
They put a profound faith in government to be able to do things, and not only that, but to actually maintain a "balance." The nature of a government enterprise is to grow and grow and grow, thus infringing more and more on the private sector and freedoms. Government is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless and it must be watched like a hawk.
Mmmmmmm...
Im curious, where do you read this stuff? I know its not from a book...
Various books. A recent one is:
They Must Be Stopped by Brigitte Gabriel
If the mortgage companies gave out bad loans like candy they would have buried themselves. The reason they did it and made money off of it is deregulation that assisted them in pawning off the bad loans on other financial institutions.
Depends, because they might have thought if they go under, the government would bail them out. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seemed to have no problem doing it. They also did it because the system got set up where they and the banks could sell off loans to Wall Street who then sliced them up, packaged them up, and sold them to various financial institutions around the world. Legislation also played a role in this as well.
However, even if deregulation played a role, just layering on regulation isn't going to fix the problem. We have to keep in mind all of the good things deregulation led to, through the development of finance, and then find the bad things, and work specifically to fix those bad things with GOOD regulation, and that's if the regulation will work.
Why would the Iranian government do something that would lead to their instantaneous loss of political power... Does that even add up?
You are assuming they are a logical-minded government that just wants to practice their religion in peace or something.
Their religion calls for them to create chaos. If you are a religious fanatic hellbent on destruction, I don't think you are too concerned about loss of political power.
The terrorists blowing themselves up have little problem with their immediate loss of life.
But let's assume they are just blustering. If so, then taking a strong, firm stance against them is not going to lead to any war. As you said, if they do not want to lose political power, they will become appeasement-minded.
That's what happened with the Soviet Union. They used to be very forceful, aggressive, etc...with the U.S. throughout the entire Cold War. Kruschev used to talk about how he'd nuclear bomb here and nuclear bomb there and the Warsaw Pact nations were actually shocked that the U.S. believed him. Until Reagan came and talked very forceful and bluntly towards them. He understood that the Soviet Union could never peacefully co-exist with the U.S., and had to be destroyed (because conquest was built into the Soviet system; the Soviet "Union" itself was an example of conquest, it was Russia, the master nation, holding together a bunch of weaker nations via military force).
He was right, and so the Soviets changed their tune and brought forth Gorbachev, a soft-liner (not of the Soviet hardliners who had controlled things for decades) who tried to "negotiate" with Reagan. Reagan spent the Soviets into oblivion, and their so-called "union" then collapsed in 1992.
So if the Iranians are truly not meaning to cause any harm, or if they truly want to remain in power, that will become pretty apparent if the U.S. maintains a strong stance towards them.
OTOH, if the U.S. acts weak towards them, they will interpret this as the Soviets did, and act forceful and aggressive.
And if they really intend to do harm, the latter is a dangerous way to handle them, because in their culture they abhor weakness and will see it as a defeatist attitude on the part of the U.S.
Remember, countries are headed by people. If the school yard bully wants to bully you, acting weak won't stop him. Acting strong likely will, but if he will attack you even if you stand up to him, he most definitely will if you cower in front of him.
Same thing applied to crowds of people. Riot control police tried tactics of being "friendly" towards rough crowds, in the idea that being aggressive would only stir up the crowd, while being friendly would keep things in control.
This usually resulted in the riot police getting the crap kicked out of them, for lack of better terms.
The riot control police who work best are those that have a reputation not to be messed with.
Countries are no different, especially these ones headed up by bully-like dictators. You act weak with them, they act forceful and bully-like back. You act strong and firm with them and they will be much more careful. And if they still act bully-like, you know they most definitely would act bad if you act weak to them.
No one knows for sure if Neville Chamberlain had stood up to Hitler, if Hitler would have backed down, but he might have. We know for sure acting soft sure didn't stop him.
I agree with Kyl on this one.
