Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Has Greenspan lost his mind?
Topic Started: Oct 24 2008, 08:46 AM (484 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Um, the founders of this nation saw democracy as rule of mob instead of rule of law. For instance, if the majority of Americans decided to round up and kill all invalids, should that be allowed simply because the majority wanted it? I could go from minor to major examples, but the fact remains, people getting exactly what they want simply because the majority wishes it, isn't rule of the law, but rule of the mob.

That's scary stuff.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
I am responding to ONLY the title of this post - not any posts since then.

Yes, Greenspan HAS lost his mind. :rotfl:

The part of the testimony I heard would have been amusing had it not been so sad.

I didn't, however, get a chance to see how Andrea Mitchell, NBC reporter and his wife, chose to report on it however.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Oct 24 2008, 11:14 AM
:rotfl:

You gotta love it. Greenspan admits his ideology was flawed - let me repeat that - HIS ideology was flawed and HE admitted it - but somehow you, Dwayne, see that too as somehow "the Left"'s doing. :rolleyes: Tell me, just how did "the Left" coerce Greenspan into admitting a flaw that doesn't exist and into doing so publicly?

And good for Greenspan for being man enough to be able to admit a mistake and NOT blame everything on "the Left" or others simply because it's convenient.
I don’t know about that, the article seems to be putting words into Greenspan’s mouth. the first paragraph is not at all what Greenspan said in the quoted text of the second paragraph.


How ever I do not share your admiration for Greenspan being man enough for admitting a mistake. He had plenty of time to correct his mistake when he had the power, but simply did nothing. I feel his current posture is simply a way for himself to keep him self relevant. Greenspan and his administration did more then simply make a mistake, they willingly to a risky gamble and we all lost.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
Dwayne
Oct 25 2008, 11:53 AM
Um, the founders of this nation saw democracy as rule of mob instead of rule of law. For instance, if the majority of Americans decided to round up and kill all invalids, should that be allowed simply because the majority wanted it? I could go from minor to major examples, but the fact remains, people getting exactly what they want simply because the majority wishes it, isn't rule of the law, but rule of the mob.

That's scary stuff.
In democracies such as yours and mine (constitutional democracy)the argument you make is invalid Dwayne, inbuilt into such a system are limits on govt power (a constitution) which protect minority rights, political equality and freedom of choice, human rights high in the priority of protection. My use of the term "mayority rule" is made in context of such a system
Edited by whitestar, Oct 25 2008, 07:22 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


Correct me if I'm wrong, but America is a "Constitutional Republic". There are differences from the Canadian or Australian or British system.


For instance, the major party that wins an election determines who gets to be Prime Minister. Except for running in his own riding, there is no process in our parliamentry democracies to directly elect a leader.


And yes, I happen to agree with Dwayne that the basic concept of "majority rule" can lead to abuses in some cases; although likely less so in this day and age of mass communications.

Also, the power of the states in the US are different that the powers of our provinces in Canada. Canadian and British parliamentry systems as federal systems tend to be more centralized. For instance, in the US, individual states can have their own law about capital punishment, late term abortion, and so on, whereas in Canada, the provinces must adopt the edicts on such matters as it is made law for the whole country.

Which is better ? I think that the US system is best for America, due to it's tremendous territory and diversity of industry, commerce, and even cultural differences. It's an interesting comparison.



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
Franko
Oct 25 2008, 08:17 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but America is a "Constitutional Republic". There are differences from the Canadian or Australian or British system.


For instance, the major party that wins an election determines who gets to be Prime Minister. Except for running in his own riding, there is no process in our parliamentry democracies to directly elect a leader.


And yes, I happen to agree with Dwayne that the basic concept of "majority rule" can lead to abuses in some cases; although likely less so in this day and age of mass communications.

Also, the power of the states in the US are different that the powers of our provinces in Canada. Canadian and British parliamentry systems as federal systems tend to be more centralized. For instance, in the US, individual states can have their own law about capital punishment, late term abortion, and so on, whereas in Canada, the provinces must adopt the edicts on such matters as it is made law for the whole country.

Which is better ? I think that the US system is best for America, due to it's tremendous territory and diversity of industry, commerce, and even cultural differences. It's an interesting comparison.



My apologies Dwayne for diverting from the topic of the thread.
Franko, you refer to the election of a Head of State which obviously is the President in the American system, in our two versions the head of state is the Governer General, representing Queen Elizabeth. If the prevailing mood of the population of Canada is anything like Australia, that will change sooner rather than later (I predict it will happen here in the next term of Govt). Now taking that for granted, what happens to our present system of parlimentary democracy which has served us well and brought us to this point in our history.
We had a referendum on this matter in 1999. The choice given was limited by a 1998 Constitutional Convention which chose a model to be offered as alternative to the present regime. The convention not really perceived as a success and the model that finally emerged, deemed unpopular rather than what became the final rejection of a republic. It's downfall was that it only allowed for public election of presidential candidates, this list then used by parliament to choose a President from (almost a copy of what exists but an Australian Head of State instead of representing the Queen). The public wanted and I'm guessing, still wants to directly elect the President.
The plus for the model presented was that it would be a minor change to the present system but still be a revolution of becoming a republic. The aim being, to retain a parliamentary democracy and avoid wholesale constitutional changes. But the wisdom of the people had spoken, instead of leaping at the change to republic, it has chosen to defer that goal untill the right model is presented (better the devil we know). I honestley don't know what to choose, the present system with minor changes (which has served us well) to allow for an Australian Republic or direct election of a President with all the political wranglings that it brings and sweeping changes to our constitution, leading us into uncharted waters.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Greenspan has not lost his mind , he has simply admitted he was misguided and made a big mistake by following the policies he promoted.

The republicans have had power for 8 years to do something to avoid the crisis and did precisely nothing until it was too late - in the last few weeks - as an act of panic , what more more evidence that Bush's regime was incompetent do you folks need.

Tight regulation of the financial system is necessary.

The ideology of USA style capitalism is the root cause of the problem and has been found wanting.
Edited by somerled, Oct 28 2008, 02:12 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Somerled,

As bad as Bush has been, his administration doesn't get the blame for this. Every President from Carter through GW Bush has contributed to the problems.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
somerled
Oct 28 2008, 02:05 AM
The republicans have had power for 8 years to do something to avoid the crisis and did precisely nothing until it was too late - in the last few weeks - as an act of panic , what more more evidence that Bush's regime was incompetent do you folks need.

Tight regulation of the financial system is necessary.
*sigh* If only the world was 8 years old. :no:

It was regulation, Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act", that started all of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

timeline of the crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&NR

2004 Congressional hearing on the problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
None the less - Bush and his administration are the ones who are in power and have been in power for the 8 years , and the problem happened on their watch and nothing was done until it blew up in their collective faces.

Expecting the market to correct itself and self regulate is stupid.
Edited by somerled, Oct 29 2008, 10:38 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
What the ignorant ultimately fail to understand about what happened, is that it was not natural market forces that caused the problem, it was government interference of natural market forces that caused the problem.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Oct 29 2008, 09:51 PM
What the ignorant ultimately fail to understand about what happened, is that it was not natural market forces that caused the problem, it was government interference of natural market forces that caused the problem.
Bull dust.

BTW : Who are YOU calling ignorant ? .... anyone and everyone who disagrees with YOU ?
Edited by somerled, Oct 29 2008, 10:40 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
somerled
Oct 29 2008, 09:38 PM
None the less - Bush and his administration are the ones who are in power and have been in power for the 8 years , and the problem happened on their watch and nothing was done until it blew up in their collective faces.
Would it be possible for you to at least feign interest in what actually happened?

timeline of the crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&NR

2004 Congressional hearing on the problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^ People like that usually aren't interested.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Oct 29 2008, 11:26 PM
^^^ People like that usually aren't interested.
Like what dwayne ? :rotfl:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus