jcd11235

To an extent this is true. However, Cuba is placed at a severe disadvantage when they are forbidden to trade with the economic superpower ninety miles away. It doesn't sound all that different from how a free market works, after all. Just because something is available for sale doesn't mean that the poor automatically have access to it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Depending on whether you use IMF, WB or CIA numbers, the US ranks 7th or 9th in the world in terms of GDP per capita. The US ranks 12th in terms of human development index (i.e. there are eleven countries that are more developed than the United States). The US ranks 20th in terms of worldwide corruption perception (lower indicates less perceived corruption). There is little doubt that the United States is a successful country, but we are not the most successful country in the world. Furthermore, there are countries with mixed economies that are more successful. Indonesia under Suharto offers one such historical example. Chile under Pinochet offers another. Argentina under Videla was violently pro-capitalism. Capitalism offers no inherent safeguards against dictatorships. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Perhaps you weren't aware, but the housing market has been around in this country for many decades, offering a vast amount of historical data pertaining to market reactions to various stimuli. That is huge collective experience. The tech industry of the 90s did not have such historical data or collective experience available. Location does indeed affect housing prices, but it does so in a predictable manner. No investor expects the same building to cost the same on New York's Fifth Avenue as it would cost in Salena, Kansas. Such subtle differences have subtle price effects. This is true of anything in the market, from a Hershey's chocolate bar to a multi-national company like General Motors. Nothing has a market value greater than what someone in the market is willing to pay. Too low interest rates drastically increased demand in the real estate market. When interest rates were raised again, it reduced demand, but also increased supply, as so many people began to try to sell houses they could no longer afford, and speculative investors tried selling their holdings without buying additional real estate. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Apparently it didn't work. It only delayed the inevitable, possibly making it worse than it needed to be. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes. A POTUS can serve for two terms. Except Bush, Sr., we've had two-term presidents since then. And we had three during the 1970's alone. And 1960 had Eisenhower, JFK in 61, LBJ in 63, and Nixon in 69. Obviously, the 70's saw a scandal. The 60's saw an assassination. And the 30's - well, FDR dominated that. Just an ebb and flow. Pssst…Carter only served one term. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's the attitude that should have prevailed instead of lowering interest rates to unrealistic levels in order to delay an inevitable economic slowdown. Exactly the same, except there very little in the way of intangibles in the housing market, and there is a huge amount of collective experience in the housing market. So really, there very little similarity at all between the two situations. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Socialism/capitalism is an economic dichotomy. Dictatorship/democracy is a governmental dichotomy. While governments and economics are inherently intertwined, there is no fixed manner in which they are connected. Capitalism and dictatorship can be paired, as well as socialism and democracy. There is also the possibility of socialism and dictatorship, and democracy and capitalism. One type of economy does not imply a particular type of government. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I have exactly the same problems with university level economics classes. Some economic models and examples are often over-simplified to the extent that they are no longer realistic, and amount to little more than pro-capitalism propaganda. That is not to say that there is nothing good about capitalism. Clearly capitalism offers some benefits. But it also has its own inherent weaknesses and problems compared to other economic models. Socialism is the same; it has strengths and weaknesses. The problem lies in adopting an all or nothing approach. Both capitalism and socialism work well on paper where certain economic forces can be disregarded in order to simplify the model. Unfortunately, in the real world, those forces will continue to exist and have an effect, regardless of how things appeared on paper. The sooner people realize that it's about the most efficient use of available resources, and not about who's right and who's wrong, the better off everyone will be. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

On an individual basis, yes, I agree. The problem were seeing now is that common practices, such as stated income loans and ARMs that are not indexed to anything meaningful, have caused an unusually high number of people to default on their mortgages. Combined with falling housing prices, this affects far more than an individual lender and borrower; it has detrimental effects on a large portion of the entire economy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Experts also know that new companies often have a few years, sometimes several years, of losing money before they begin to turn a profit. Amazon was a company that did not anticipate making any profit for several years, yet did not fail. The dot com bust didn't occur because companies weren't making profits. It occurred because the companies were being sold at inflated values, since no one really knew how to value companies in an industry based on companies whose assets were largely intangible, who offered goods and services that also were largely intangible, and often new. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

In a legal sense, the "fine print" of a contract may well be adequate disclosure. In the real world, however, that is not always the case. People are often rushed through closings. I've also heard first hand accounts from people who arrived at closing only to find the contractual terms to be substantially different from the terms expected based on previous communications with the lenders. Some home buyers had no realistic alternative to going forward with the purchase. For those buyers, it doesn't really matter if they were forced to sign by the lender or because of circumstances, they felt compelled to sign anyway. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't disagree. What I disagree with is your assertion that only the borrowers are to blame. That assertion is incorrect, and cannot supported by the facts. As you stated, "both parties agreed to the contract as it was written on the paper." Thus, both parties share in the responsibility for agreeing to terms the debtors are unable to comply with. Creditors are not without blame if they make loans to debtors that cannot afford to pay back those loans, or if they accept insufficient collateral on those loans. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That still has nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. That was a new market, and even the experts did not know how the market would behave over the long term, since there was a lack of historical data. Economists have a pretty good understanding of how the housing market reacts to different stimuli, since there is an abundance of historical data. However, let's imagine for a minute that the two are similar, despite significant differences, just for argument's sake. Who was the Fed chairman during the dot com bubble and the recent housing bubble? Hint: It was the same person during both periods. Why would a previous policy mistake mitigate the responsibility for this one? Are you implying that two wrongs make a right? No, not typically. In relatively rare cases when a bank needed to diversify its portfolio to include more long term, low interest investments backed by real property, perhaps one bank might purchase mortgages from another bank, but most banks are not short on mortgages. More commonly, the mortgages are rolled up en masse and sold to investors on the secondary market, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. I don't believe either of those organizations claims to be a bank. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Respecting one's own knowledge on a topic and being respected by one's professional peers are two wholly different things. For example, I bet W. considers himself to be a good, if not great, president. Besides, common sense does not always lead to the correct answer, and is rarely an adequate substitute for knowledge. Common sense says Time in transit for an object can be found by dividing distance traveled by the velocity. Common sense says a fair coin, observed from start to finish, and flipped without any intent to manipulate the results, has an equal probability of landing on either side. Common sense says the Monty Hall problem offers a choice with 1:1 odds. In each case above, common sense leads to an incorrect solution. Yes, the borrowers share in the blame. No one is denying that. But the lenders and the fed are also to blame. Comments like these make it apparent that you have little idea what actuaries actually do, or why they are good sources of information on these sorts of topics. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I have to respectfully disagree here. Whether one agrees with the legitimacy of Bush's election win in 2000 (or 2004) or not, the American people have not taken necessary steps to remove Bush from power. We are a representative republic, and like it or not (I fall firmly in the "not camp, personally) he is our president. We, as a nation, are responsible for his actions and his policies. For example, as misguided as the war in Iraq has been, we "broke" Iraq, and now it is our responsibility to help fix it. It doesn't matter who wins in November, that responsibility won't go away. Back on topic, I don't believe that translates to the situation in Cuba, unless Cubans have been repeatedly voting for Castro in multi-candidate elections. IMO, economic sanctions have harmed Cuba far more than Castro has. Why wasn't the US concerned about the dictator that Castro overthrew? The sanctions are a remnant of the Cold War, because CommunismIsBad™. It is ironic that the fight against communism has done more harm to the Cuban people than communism. Everyone involved would have been better off if Cuba's communist economy had been allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits. Without sanctions, Cuba would have most likely adopted a hybrid socialist/capitalist economy by now, like China and other economically successful countries have. Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Just to add: > Sorry, but as a believer in personal responsibility So why is it you feel (unless I am misunderstanding your comments) that only borrowers should be personally responsible for their actions, while lenders and government servants should not be personally responsible for theirs? (For the record, Greenspan has said that their were political pressures to not raise the interest rates, so some of the fed's responsibility might be better placed with those doing the pressuring.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Having listened to 6-8 different actuaries (all very well respected in their field) in the past few months talk extensively about the topic, not one of which has seen the causes as you see them, I'm not inclined to be very concerned with whether or not you accept my (their) rationale. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

To be fair, that's no more illogical than to claim that the government doesn't do task X very well, so the government can't be effective or efficient at any task. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Many economists believed when it was being done that the fed was lowering interest rates when it shouldn't. Those same economists predicted a housing bubble. So yes, the government shares in the blame. The banks share a very large portion of the blame. As FDIC insured creditors, they had a responsibility to their owners, their customers, and the nation as a whole to make sure that the people receiving mortgages could afford those mortgages. In many cases, the lenders were only concerned that the customer could afford the payments until the bank was able to resell the mortgages. Yes, the borrowers also share in the blame. However, to claim that they are the only ones to blame shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I appreciate the offer, but I was unable to find a Mac OS X compatible version of PKR software. Thanks all the same. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I would love to see where in the tax code the exemption for "wages for your labor" is specified. I searched, an was unable to find it. I call BULLSHIT! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Agreed. However, unregulated markets can sometimes be counterproductive when it comes to providing freedom of opportunity. Just as we should be careful about which industries and markets we allow the government to regulate, we should be careful about which industries and markets we allow to be unregulated. Not all government intervention is bad, nor is it all good. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Possibly, but not necessarily. Liberty itself can be its own dichotomy. A free market implies property rights and freedom from government intervention in the market. Those things, however, do not imply freedom of opportunity or a level playing field. Many believe the latter two characteristics are more important to ensure the blessings of liberty than are the former two characteristics. Others have the opposite opinion. Personally, I believe that in order to "ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," freedom of opportunity must be preserved. That cannot always be done in a free market. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can't in good conscience say that anyone *should* support Senator McCain. While I think there are few people who would argue he would not do a better job as president than GW Bush has, I would argue that that is not setting the bar high enough. After spending some time reading his website, http://www.johnmccain.com, I found some worrisome aspects of Senator McCain's platform, of which I will address a very small number. Does Senator McCain expect us to believe that the looming crisis can be remedied without reducing benefits or raising contributions (taxes) going into the fund? If such a solution were possible, why hasn't McCain sponsored the necessary legislation to implement it? While actuaries are not fully in agreement as to how to best address the issue, the general consensus remains that either benefits must be reduced or contributions must increase. McCain here addresses the problem like a partisan senator. A good President doesn't work with the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress. A good President works with Congress, or, perhaps works against Congress, if trying to check their power. Trying to extend inter-party bickering between different branches of government is nothing more than a way to place blame elsewhere when an ill conceived idea fails. It would be interesting to see the details of Senator McCain's plan here. From what I have seen, the healthcare industry is not lacking in competition in the market, yet we have a crisis in this country when it comes to affordable health care. Perhaps a better solution would be to examine the healthcare systems of the many countries that offer their citizens superior healthcare at a lower cost than what is available in the US, and use those as models to help develop a real solution. What exactly has Senator McCain been doing during his tenure in Congress? If he still does not realize that taxes do not "automatically" raise themselves, do we want him in the Oval Office? Perhaps the good senator would do well to re-read Article I of the United States Constitution. Or, does he simply believe that his supporters lack the intelligence to understand how tax legislation works, and will respond well to such untruthful hyperbole? * * * Senator McCain dedicates a section of his platform to Second Amendment rights. I was, however, unable to find anywhere on his site where he addresses the importance of protecting First Amendment rights, or Fourth Amendment rights, or any other rights of the people that have been threatened by the government in recent years. * * * Although I was unable to find his official platform stance on his website, by all accounts I could find, Senator McCain does not support net neutrality. Considering the senator's faith in the market, and the market's treatment of broadband as a commodity, that stance seems at odds with not only the Clayton Act, but the very essence of the right to free speech, press and expression guaranteed by the First Amendment in this information age we live in. I certainly don't mean to imply that either H. Clinton (did you hear her husband got a blowjob?) or Obama have perfect platforms or ideologies. I have little doubt that inconsistencies in their rhetoric would be just as easily found. In the end, it appears that this year's presidential election, like every other presidential election I've witnessed, will be one of choosing the perceived lesser of two evils, where voters cast their votes against a candidate rather than for a candidate. Personally, I would be much more enthusiastic and optimistic if we could have billvon, rehmwa, Wendy W. and nerdgirl all working together to get into the Whitehouse. They could decide amongst themselves who would be President, Vice President, Chief of Staff and Secretary of State. I'm rather cynical of the status quo. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can't say that I've read Obama's book, although I probably should. The more I research the candidates, the more I think Obama may well be the best choice (of the remaining two) for the Democratic nomination. While I find his stance on healthcare (at least my understanding of his position) rather hollow, and inferior to Clinton's, I'm finding that on other issues I find important, but not necessarily key, his platform is more closely aligned with my beliefs than is Clinton's platform. While I don't necessarily dislike McCain, and consider him much better suited for the Oval Office than the current occupant, he's still far too conservative for my tastes. His lack of support for net neutrality is enough to keep me from voting for him. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!