[dante1]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...ti-market.html

[Waterstpub87]

Interesting article. Makes some valid points, specifically in the first two paragraphs. I never understand why no one blames the people who took interest only and neg am loans. They are one of the parties with the most blame for the housing crash. The author is wrong on several points. Firstly, the "financial industry has not seen profits erode from new entrants." This is false. Many of the financial sectors that deal with limited customers (loans, investment banking ect.) have seen margins become thinner due to more competition. Secondly, the author fails to take into account the governments role in the crisis. I'm not going to rehash it, cause its been beat to death, and there is no point in attempting to even try to convince people who will never admit the government does anything wrong. Lastly, it cannot be said that we have tried republican principles in the past, because of government regulation. Disagree with the principles, but it is disingenuous to say that we have already tried that.

Good read though dante, thanks for posting it.

[guitarjosh]

The problem with the article is that it ignores the prosperity that was created from 1870-1900 when we had little gov't regulation and taxes and blames the current mess on lack of regulation while the Fed was doing everything it could to encourage more lending from banks.

[d2bets]

The problem with the article is that it ignores the prosperity that was created from 1870-1900 when we had little gov't regulation and taxes and blames the current mess on lack of regulation while the Fed was doing everything it could to encourage more lending from banks.

1870 lol come on man. Different world. Everything is so much bigger and more complicated now. The additional regulation is a natural necessary progression. We're not going back to 1870.

[guitarjosh]

1870 lol come on man. Different world. Everything is so much bigger and more complicated now. The additional regulation is a natural necessary progression. We're not going back to 1870.

Then look at the post WW2 economic growth of Hong Kong. It was a war-torn rock in August of 1945 and now it is one of the wealthiest places on earth in addition to having the freest economy in the world.

And that additional regulation is necessary at all, it is actually very regressive.

[andywend]

The democratic party platform:
1. Supports labor unions
2. Supports higher minimum wage
3. Supports higher corporate taxes
4. Supports more government regulation on big business
5. Supports trial lawyers/supports the little guy trying to win the lottery by suing the big, bad corporations

All of these items are extremely detrimental and have a huge negative impact on the earnings of any business.

Lower earnings = lower stock prices

The democratic party at its core is PURE POISON to the stock market.

In years past, it was the republicans who garnered the majority of political contributions from Wall Street but that has completely changed especially with the current Obama administration.

Wall Street now controls both parties with the democrats leading the pack in Wall Street contributions.

Obama has been quite the friend to Wall Street and in return has gleefully accepted their money.

[jw]

The democratic party at its core is PURE POISON to the stock market.

Obama has been quite the friend to Wall Street

So you're taking both sides of this one then ?

I always wondered about that friendly type of pure poison.

[d2bets]

The democratic party platform:
1. Supports labor unions
2. Supports higher minimum wage
3. Supports higher corporate taxes
4. Supports more government regulation on big business
5. Supports trial lawyers/supports the little guy trying to win the lottery by suing the big, bad corporations

All of these items are extremely detrimental and have a huge negative impact on the earnings of any business.

Lower earnings = lower stock prices

The democratic party at its core is PURE POISON to the stock market.

In years past, it was the republicans who garnered the majority of political contributions from Wall Street but that has completely changed especially with the current Obama administration.

Wall Street now controls both parties with the democrats leading the pack in Wall Street contributions.

Obama has been quite the friend to Wall Street and in return has gleefully accepted their money.

So which is it? Obama has been a friend to Wall Street or he's poison to Wall Street?