Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (144330)	10/30/2008 10:59:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Which claims do you say "facts not in evidence about". The main points are pretty much self evident or otherwise obvious, such as "Trying to subsidize X means, necessarily, you tax ~X.", and "Further, it then creates incentives for people to game these new incentives." Much of the rest is argument to support the assertions not assertions of fact so "facts not in evidence" is irrelevant, even silly in response to those points. In other cases the facts are very much in evidence looking at the history of what has happened, for example "So we have screaming that we need to help homeowners to keep them in their housing; we also need to make housing more affordable. We address the high rates of medical spending by giving more state-insurance and tax subsidization of medical expenditures. We address the high costs of college by giving more subsidies and tax breaks on education spending." There really isn't a key specific fact that's questionable. I think your problem is more with the arguments and ideas that the writer develops based on those facts, but if you think they are wrong "facts not in evidence" isn't a reasonable reply. Your counter arguments don't really address the issues presented but rather raise your own issues, which is fine, you may consider your issues more important, but if you want to change topics you should acknowledge that in some way or at least refrain from posting as if your statements did address the issues raised. Loan companies in California (and elsewhere I assume) were making loans for 750% of income. That is more than twice the maximum of 300% of income that used to be in place. Since they could securitize the loans and get rid of risk of default, they made these kinds of stupid decisions right and left...that is the FREE market acting as stupidly as it often does. People act stupidly in free markets as they do in any other system. People are imperfect, and that includes people in government, so your not going to eliminate the problem through letting the government take control People act stupidly in much greater numbers when government policy and pressure creates perverse incentives for their actions as it did in this case. And they are more likely to take risk which would otherwise be disdained as foolish, when they think they can keep the winnings if it pans out, and they will be bailed out by the government if it doesn't. It is always an option to let everyone fail. As I said, I did not like the bailout, I do not trust Paulson and Kashkari, I am not convinced that the abyss was actually an abyss. At last we agree on something. Why aren't there libertarian communities where it's everyone for themselves? Libertarian doesn't mean "everyone for themselves". In anarchist don't necessarily believe in everything for themselves as there are ways people help each other out that don't involve government, and in libertarians are not anarchists. By definition they agree with the idea of having a government, they just don't want government to do/control/spend/intervene as much as most governments do now.