Why are the revolutionary left so smart?

[RGacky3]

The last of the progressives in the US are giving up on Obama.

After loosing on heathcare, after loosing on Iraq and afghanistan, after the unions being ignored, after the enviromentalists being ignored, after anti-corporate groups being ignored.

Obamas last test was essencially Financial reform. He blew it, he left the derivatives alone, no leverages, no capital requirements, no breaking up of the banks, no real regulations, no splitting of consumer and investment banks, no public control of the banking system, the consumer protection agency a little thing is UNDER THE FED!!!, NOTHING.

YET STILL, some progressives in the US still held on do their team democrat cap, and held on to Obamas pant leg desperately, the last argument was "No, Obama knows what he's doing, the consumer protection agency is gonna be under a progressive and a real regulator and its gonna be through the regulators."

However now we have this http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/109539-dodd-doubts-warrens-confirmability-for-new-consumer-protection-post, when they say we don't have the votes, BEFORE the vote, what it means is they don't want to have the vote because no one wants to be on the record as protecting the banks (aka supporting tim geithner), but they also want to save face with the bankers (aka they want to appear progressive but still support the banks, the way they do this is "oh we wish we could, we just don't have the votes"). So basically if one of Tims guys runs the agency, the whole thing was 100% a joke and not just 90%.

Heres the thing, Revolutionary socialists have been saying this FROM THE BEGGINING, from before he was even elected, we did'nt buy any of it, the progressives believed him, from Michael Moore to the unions to the community organizations to the progressive congressmen. But somehow, us on the far left knew he was full of it from the begining.

You wanna know why? Our little cristol ball? Its called class interests (aka follow the money)

[Barry Lyndon]

The last of the progressives in the US are giving up on Obama.

After loosing on heathcare, after loosing on Iraq and afghanistan, after the unions being ignored, after the enviromentalists being ignored, after anti-corporate groups being ignored.

Obamas last test was essencially Financial reform. He blew it, he left the derivatives alone, no leverages, no capital requirements, no breaking up of the banks, no real regulations, no splitting of consumer and investment banks, no public control of the banking system, the consumer protection agency a little thing is UNDER THE FED!!!, NOTHING.

YET STILL, some progressives in the US still held on do their team democrat cap, and held on to Obamas pant leg desperately, the last argument was "No, Obama knows what he's doing, the consumer protection agency is gonna be under a progressive and a real regulator and its gonna be through the regulators."

However now we have this http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/109539-dodd-doubts-warrens-confirmability-for-new-consumer-protection-post, when they say we don't have the votes, BEFORE the vote, what it means is they don't want to have the vote because no one wants to be on the record as protecting the banks (aka supporting tim geithner), but they also want to save face with the bankers (aka they want to appear progressive but still support the banks, the way they do this is "oh we wish we could, we just don't have the votes"). So basically if one of Tims guys runs the agency, the whole thing was 100% a joke and not just 90%.

Heres the thing, Revolutionary socialists have been saying this FROM THE BEGGINING, from before he was even elected, we did'nt buy any of it, the progressives believed him, from Michael Moore to the unions to the community organizations to the progressive congressmen. But somehow, us on the far left knew he was full of it from the begining.

You wanna know why? Our little cristol ball? Its called class interests (aka follow the money)

It's because the liberals themselves tend to be in a socio-economic position where no matter how bad it gets, they will never be affected by the hell the working poor and people of color go through(or so they think). Therefore, they can champion ineffectual politics that involve no sacrifice while posing as progressive.
It's pretty annoying, even infuriating at times, how liberals pretend their so much more intelligent and sophisticated then Marxists and anarchists, when in fact not only are they themselves extremely misguided, many are in fact quite stupid, with their childish naivete about elite capitalist politicians.

[#FF0000]

I don't think it's a matter of intelligence so much as it is honesty.

[Bud Struggle]

Politics, like love is a crazy game. And some are better players than others.

Also Capitalist aren't stupid--they are the smartest people around. Maybe you don't like their principals, but don't mistake them for ignorant. They are vastly educated and vastly compensated for the decisions they make.

And then lots of them are good Christians. Can life (and death) get any sweeter?

What has the Left to offer the best and the brightest?

[#FF0000]

What has the Left to offer the best and the brightest?

A fair and equal society.

Unless by "best and brightest" you mean "rich and powerful". In which case the answer is permanent employment in a salt mine or a shallow grave.

[Bud Struggle]

A fair and equal society.

Unless by "best and brightest" you mean "rich and powerful". In which case the answer is permanent employment in a salt mine or a shallow grave.

All I can say is that the average pay on Wall street is $400,000. That where the people go.

[#FF0000]

All I can say is that the average pay on Wall street is $400,000. That where the people go.

Well, seriously, it's not like the smartest people on the planet are wall street executives. They have business sense but that doesn't make them brilliant people all around.

[¿Que?]

RGacky3, but isn't the point of financial regulation to prevent a financial crisis. If as revlefters we ultimately want to see the decline of capitalism, why support regulations that will attenuate crisis and perpetuate the system?

[Bud Struggle]

Well, seriously, it's not like the smartest people on the planet are wall street executives. They have business sense but that doesn't make them brilliant people all around.

No, they may not be the most brilliant--but they sure can fuck you and me over if there's a dollar in it for them to do so.

[Bud Struggle]

Why is this guy restricted?

He has a conscience and sticks to it. :(

[Conquer or Die]

1. Obama reversed Bush's stem cell research executive order. This is actually a huge win for those with life altering diseases.

2. Obama destroyed socialist medicine but provided better relief for the poor and student groups. This is a tactical defeat but a solid strategic gain.

3. Obama cooled relations with Russia.

Obama, as a president, is about 3.0/10. Narrowly defeating Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

[F9]

Cause all the people from the rest of political ideologies-tendencys are at least in few subjects completely idiots.

[MarxSchmarx]

Many union rank and file supported obama only because the alternative was immeasurably worse. In swing states with strong union presence like Ohio, faulting union workers for therefore voting for obama is somewhat unfair. It's a triage operation. Just because they voted for them doesn't mean they supported them or had much expectations of them.

[Sturzo]

Many union rank and file supported obama only because the alternative was immeasurably worse. In swing states with strong union presence like Ohio, faulting union workers for therefore voting for obama is somewhat unfair. It's a triage operation. Just because they voted for them doesn't mean they supported them or had much expectations of them.

That's the conundrum of American politics today - I can vote for two bad options, one is not-so-bad, but still pretty shitty, then there's the really-really-bad-warmongering corporatist Bush Mk.II...hmm....

There's just "bad," but I vote for a good alternative - like the Greens, we're probably going to get the "really really bad" instead - what happened last time with Al-Gore.

Don't get me wrong, I am just as angered and disillusioned about the political system as the next guy - and I would vote Socialist if I could - except that both parties have passed restrictions to make it extremely hard for third parties to get on the ballot in my state.

[RGacky3]

Politics, like love is a crazy game. And some are better players than others.

Also Capitalist aren't stupid--they are the smartest people around. Maybe you don't like their principals, but don't mistake them for ignorant. They are vastly educated and vastly compensated for the decisions they make.

And then lots of them are good Christians. Can life (and death) get any sweeter?

What has the Left to offer the best and the brightest?

Well, some of them are smart, some of them are not, there is really not much of a corrolation between wealth and intelligence, other factors make the difference.

But its not capitalists that voted for obama (many did), its the working class, who make up the vast majority, and they were lied too, what the left has to offer people is a more decent world.


All I can say is that the average pay on Wall street is $400,000. That where the people go.

which just goes to show how stupid Capitalism is, they could be solving problems that society faces, but capitalism sends them to make the rich richer. The point is progressives believed obama, and were disapointed, we never did, because we knew whats going on.


RGacky3, but isn't the point of financial regulation to prevent a financial crisis. If as revlefters we ultimately want to see the decline of capitalism, why support regulations that will attenuate crisis and perpetuate the system?

Why would we want everything to go to shit? People loose their jobs, people starve, are you serious? Also the way to get socialism is to show how socialistic practices make things better, the best thing for American socialists would have been public healthcare, because it would be one step showing that the public CAN win against corporate america, and they'll want more.


2. Obama destroyed socialist medicine but provided better relief for the poor and student groups. This is a tactical defeat but a solid strategic gain.


Which is a terrible idea, its essnecially just giving money to the capitalists, the government gives to the students who still get the loans from banks, and the poor still ahve to give their money to the corporations who charge what they want, so no, ultimately the capitalists won compleatly.


Many union rank and file supported obama only because the alternative was immeasurably worse. In swing states with strong union presence like Ohio, faulting union workers for therefore voting for obama is somewhat unfair. It's a triage operation. Just because they voted for them doesn't mean they supported them or had much expectations of them.

Thats true but you gotta admit, there was a lot of "hope" amung the center left (the progressives).

The fact is EVEN you Bud got into the trap of calling Obama a socialist and a win for the left, when really he's just a corporatist democrat, and we saw that from the beggining because we followed the money and thus their class interests.

[Bud Struggle]

What I meant was there aren't any good secular arguments against abortion.

Separate thread, please. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Well, some of them are smart, some of them are not, there is really not much of a corrolation between wealth and intelligence, other factors make the difference.

I just want to point out--from my expericence not only from myself but from others I've seen--and I hang out with a lot of these guys, is Wall street guys are almost universally intelligent--they are the best and the brightest that America has to produce, lots of high end Ivys. But they still have to have what most other businessmen (the not so smart ones) have--a knack for making money.

It's a gift.

[Sam_b]

Why is the revolutionary left so smart?

[Bud Struggle]

Why is the revolutionary left so smart?

Or, why does the revolutionary left think they are so smart?

Or, is the revolutionary left smart?

Or, where are the smart people in the revolutionary left?

Or, smart or just smartass which word really best discribes the revolutionary left?

Continue at will.

[mikelepore]

Cause all the people from the rest of political ideologies-tendencys are at least in few subjects completely idiots.

I actually like that answer. Look at the range of resources we use here -- people use data from history, draw connections between social issues and scientific discoveries, see economic forces at work in global politics, identify logical fallacies, apply moral theories, psychological theories, etc. Compared to this wide array, what does the right wing usually offer? God and patriotism and prejudice and blame-the-victim. Yes, we're smarter. It may be better habits, not better brain cells, but still -- smarter.

[¿Que?]

Why would we want everything to go to shit? People loose their jobs, people starve, are you serious? Also the way to get socialism is to show how socialistic practices make things better, the best thing for American socialists would have been public healthcare, because it would be one step showing that the public CAN win against corporate america, and they'll want more.
Well, considering that the bailouts did nothing to prevent foreclosures and real economic hardship for most people, who's to say that Warren is not just another crisis manager for capitalism? I guess what I'm asking is 1) how will more regulation actually help (and it's possible it could) and 2) how does it promote socialism (I'm more skeptical of this). In any case, I would like to see what you think the difference between the mechanisms of regulation are compared to that of public services, because I think a distinction needs to be made, and ultimately, Warren will be doing the latter.

[RGacky3]

But they still have to have what most other businessmen (the not so smart ones) have--a knack for making money.


I don't know many wallstreed guys, but even so, the fact that capitalism puts them in a position where all they do is make money from money for already rich people shows the way capitalism works.

They may be smart but their job is making money for the rich, I'm talking about smart as in us knowing that Obama was full of it ages before it became evident.


1) how will more regulation actually help (and it's possible it could)

Regulation helps if its the correct regulation and its enforced, in other words if it forces the banks to not screw people, and gamble with their money, and it makes sure credit usery is not extreme, also it puts public oversight on the derivatives markets and can stop it before it goes too far, there are many different things they can do.


2) how does it promote socialism (I'm more skeptical of this).

It promotes socialism because it destroys them myth of the free market and puts more power in public control.

But I'm not saying if warren is chosen its gonna be good, or its gonna change, but really if he does'nt pick warren, the team democrat progressives have NOTHING they can defend Obama with, and its clear his intentions arn't even close to progressive, either that or he's tim geithners total *****.


In any case, I would like to see what you think the difference between the mechanisms of regulation are compared to that of public services, because I think a distinction needs to be made, and ultimately, Warren will be doing the latter.

I'm not sure what you mean by public services. When it comes to regulation its public oversight over certain industries and setting rules, they can punish and set rules for industries, when it comes to public services (If I'm getting what you mean right), its basically a public industry, a service, without authority over anything but itself, its publically funded.

From what I understand though the consumer protection agency will ahve regulatory powers.

[stella2010]

Because we are HIGHLY TRAINED.

AIM FOR THE STARS LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

SHOOT SHINE AND RISE.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't know many wallstreed guys, but even so, the fact that capitalism puts them in a position where all they do is make money from money for already rich people shows the way capitalism works.

They may be smart but their job is making money for the rich, I'm talking about smart as in us knowing that Obama was full of it ages before it became evident.

An interesting story from my daughters's HS. (I believe I've told this story before--but it bears repeating here in context.) She goes to a pretty high end school and she's one of the better students (along with a number of Chinese kids from mainland China) and they mostly all planned to become doctors of some sort--taking lots of chem and physics courses till the problems with Goldman Sachs hit the news. When they saw how much money the bankers there made they petitioned the school to bring in some finance and accounting courses this year. They all want to go to Ivy colleges and become brokers for Goldman Sachs.

I imagine the same thing is going on in thousands of high schools through out the country.

[Hit The North]

You wanna know why? Our little cristol ball? Its called class interests (aka follow the money)

Spot on.

It's not that we're individually smarter, but that our preconceptions about how capitalism and power work, is truer to the reality of things. It is our class analysis which gives us a realism which is often lacking in more 'sentimental' accounts. We understand that in capitalism, politics is led by the nose by economic interests.

It was the same here in the UK when Blair swept to power and there was a lot of initial optimism amongst the working class. Only the revolutionary left had an analysis which penetrated beneath the rhetoric to the dominant power relations below.

Our rejection of the great man theory, top-down view of social change, in favour of a more complex interplay of factors, as mikelepore argues above, also provides us with a natural scepticism in the face of the self-important sermonising of self-selected 'great men'.

[RGacky3]

It's not that we're individually smarter, but that our preconceptions about how capitalism and power work, is truer to the reality of things. It is our class analysis which gives us a realism which is often lacking in more 'sentimental' accounts. We understand that in capitalism, politics is led by the nose by economic interests.

That was my point, it was'nt that we are actually individually smarter.

[Bud Struggle]

That was my point, it was'nt that we are actually individually smarter.

You kind of left that door open for a good one liner from a Cappie. :D

[RadioRaheem84]

I think it's just cause we base our arguments on a class analysis. Something that liberals, rightists and religous zealouts do not. :cool:

[Scary Monster]

I think it's just cause we base our arguments on a class analysis. Something that liberals, rightists and religous zealouts do not. :cool:

Ive always thought this too. This is what attracted me to leftism (besides starting to question why we have wars started for almost pointless reasons or why everyone barely has food n shit like that.). The left's arguments come from historical and scientific analysis, and logic and reasoning. What have the right got? Religious zealotry and power that would not exist without violence and systematically enforced ignorance.


When they saw how much money the bankers there made they petitioned the school to bring in some finance and accounting courses this year. They all want to go to Ivy colleges and become brokers for Goldman Sachs.

I imagine the same thing is going on in thousands of high schools through out the country.

Oh great, more yuppie pricks who want to join in on stealing from the entire country and wrecking people's lives? Fortunately, I havent heard of any of this going on around where i am. But then again, I live in a working class minority community, and dont know many of those upper class elite folks over in the west end.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I just want to point out--from my expericence not only from myself but from others I've seen--and I hang out with a lot of these guys, is Wall street guys are almost universally intelligent--they are the best and the brightest that America has to produce, lots of high end Ivys. But they still have to have what most other businessmen (the not so smart ones) have--a knack for making money.

It's a gift.I don't think anyone is arguing that well educated and well trained people would want high-paying jobs. But this doesn't say much about our system since their are climbers in China or the USSR who used their skills and training to adapt to the needs of the system.

In feudalism, the clever rich might go into the church and come up with brilliant theological formulations about how many angels fit on the head of a pin or what kind of curse words cause the most damage to Christ's flesh. They would have been the authorities on their society, but no matter how brilliant someone is at explaining God's plans for society, these brilliant people were always wrong because the system they based all their skilled thinking on was inherently flawed. So when people would challenge "God's perfect harmonious social caste system" - rather than seeing the system as flawed, the "smart people" would use their skills to figure out why people rebelled from God.

It's the same with capitalism now - since "smart people" (politicians, pundits, economists, think-tankers) have concluded (or are paid by less clever but more influential people and groups to conclude) that capitalism is perfect and harmonious. But when there is a economic crisis, strike, or revolution, or something else that challenges capitalism's infallibility, apologists use their smarts and skills to come up with totally useless explanations designed to excuse reality, not describe it.

So as others have pointed out, class is key for understanding all "hitherto" societies. Our understanding of class allows us to see the internal contradictions and problems inherent to capitalism and so that is why we have tended to have a more accurate view of events than average professional liberal or conservative apologists.

[RadioRaheem84]

I was a typical arrogant liberal yuppie that thought it was banking or consultant or bust. I had a good degree from a top school and felt intellectually safe as a liberal. Boy was I wrong when a marxist tore into me and brought me to a class analysis of society. I saw the social relations in the workplace that I once only felt! The left is the only rational option for a crazy world. I kid you not when I tell you that the leftist analysis is the only hope out there. I've seen the next generation of leaders and they're heavily indoctrinated in liberalism. Not even an old school progressive type of liberalism but a third way wonkish technocratic liberalism that is seething with arrogance.

[MarxSchmarx]

That's the conundrum of American politics today - I can vote for two bad options, one is not-so-bad, but still pretty shitty, then there's the really-really-bad-warmongering corporatist Bush Mk.II...hmm....

There's just "bad," but I vote for a good alternative - like the Greens, we're probably going to get the "really really bad" instead - what happened last time with Al-Gore.

Don't get me wrong, I am just as angered and disillusioned about the political system as the next guy - and I would vote Socialist if I could - except that both parties have passed restrictions to make it extremely hard for third parties to get on the ballot in my state.

Yup. It illustrates how in America the ballot box is pretty much a dead end.

[Stephen Colbert]

Abolish the electoral college gogo?

[MarxSchmarx]

Abolish the electoral college gogo?

Well it won't hurt, but it's only worth the effort if you think which corporate hack sits in the oval office matters all that much. The problem isn't merely procedural - it's also substantive. Even if every candidate had ballot access and the presidency were determined by popular vote, the sheer saturation of the airwaves and the catch-22 the few civic institutions like unions find themselves in both nationally and locally mean that changes have to go much, much deeper than that. There are presently much more viable alternatives than working to abolish the elector college, like organizing the unemployed.

[Stephen Colbert]

I suppose the abolishment of the electoral college in concert with all these finance shenanigans from the SCOTUS like the repeal of McCain-Feingold---could create a bit of a doozy when some far-right Fortune 500 hand picked populist rises to power vis-a-vis reactionary tea partiers. Its not that far-fetched :P

[RGacky3]

I personally don't see the answer as just one thing in itself, I'm a syndicalist because I believe that unions, worker organizations, community organizations and direct action should be the driving force for change, however I'm not discounting electoral politics completely, if your gonna vote, knowing what your getting, its a combination of things, if your just gonna vote for someone and hope it goes well your not gonna get anywhere, you have to have constant pressure from the left for it to do anything.

People look to the progressive hayday of the US, Frankin Roosavelt and before him Theodore Roosavelt, but they forget that during both of their presidencies there was a STRONG labor movement, strong socialist parties, strong farmers organizations, and grassroots organizations, its not like either of those presidents did progressive reforms because of the goodness of their hearts, they bowed to pressure, if there was'nt those pressures from the people they would have bowed to corporate pressure.

That being said I think politicians should just be another tool used by the left to get what they want, just as strikes are a tool, just as occupations are a tool.

As far as the US is concerned, campain finance reform would make it much easier to pressure from the left, as would not allowed politicians to get comfy rediculously paid lobbyist or consultant jobs after their terms (another way of bribary), the less money there is in politics the more democracy there is.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Yes you are all so smart just look at russia, china, north korea, these places are just bastions of reason. Don't get me wrong progressives are stupid and their continuing adulation for obama forces them to march blindly into the pits of statist hell. But that doesn't make you smart. Revolutionary leftists are always predicting economic turmoil b/c of capitalism and when it comes you feel as if you have right. And you are partially right b/c they economy did collapse but what you get wrong is that the economy is wrecked b/c of statist policies and state capitalism and yet you ignore the state's role in the collapse and just continue to vomit the same unscientific sophistries.

[RGacky3]

Yes you are all so smart just look at russia, china, north korea, these places are just bastions of reason.

??? The revolutionary left (except for some stalinists and leninsts) gave those places up in 1917. Strawman.


But that doesn't make you smart. Revolutionary leftists are always predicting economic turmoil b/c of capitalism and when it comes you feel as if you have right. And you are partially right b/c they economy did collapse but what you get wrong is that the economy is wrecked b/c of statist policies and state capitalism and yet you ignore the state's role in the collapse and just continue to vomit the same unscientific sophistries.

Thats interesting, Argentina, Iceland, the United States, the 3 countries that plummited, also had a much for free market then places like Canada, Norway and other more regulated markets that are doing ok.

Also almost all the major economists point to deregulation as the culprit.

But its like this, the more deregulated the worse it gets, until its totally deregulated, then you have utopia.

[#FF0000]

Yes you are all so smart just look at russia, china, north korea, these places are just bastions of reason.

Save for North Korea, the quality of life in all of these places literally skyrocketed after their revolutions, as did literacy rates, and infrastructure. Albania, for example, was one of the first countries in the world to have full electrification.

There was a ton of room for improvement in the area of political freedoms, but these places were way better for the working people under socialism than under capitalism.


Don't get me wrong progressives are stupid and their continuing adulation for obama forces them to march blindly into the pits of statist hell.

This is just so cute I can't even stand it!!!!!!!


But that doesn't make you smart. Revolutionary leftists are always predicting economic turmoil b/c of capitalism and when it comes you feel as if you have right. And you are partially right b/c they economy did collapse but what you get wrong is that the economy is wrecked b/c of statist policies and state capitalism and yet you ignore the state's role in the collapse and just continue to vomit the same unscientific sophistries.

Just so adorable!

[Raúl Duke]

But its like this, the more deregulated the worse it gets, until its totally deregulated, then you have utopia.

Reminds me of what one revleft poster made/posted here once:

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1394/tehfreemarketre5.jpg

[Comrade Anarchist]

Thats interesting, Argentina, Iceland, the United States, the 3 countries that plummited, also had a much for free market then places like Canada, Norway and other more regulated markets that are doing ok.

Also almost all the major economists point to deregulation as the culprit.

But its like this, the more deregulated the worse it gets, until its totally deregulated, then you have utopia.

Economies that are more protected are also less free. They do not grow as fast nor as much and in turn have to have a larger state to pick up the excess that strangled market can't support. No major economist other keynesians blame it on deregulation. A lot of people who think they are economists but who are nothing more than politicians blame deregulation. The federal government in the united states and its defunct programs are what started most of the crash. Fannie and freddie, the federal reserves pushing money into the housing market both of these subverted the free market and created a bubble.

But of course how could i have forgotten one of the most regulated and statist countries in the world is doing just dandy, now whats its name hmm greece.

[#FF0000]

Sounds like someone doesn't know jack about Greece either.

EDIT: what about literally every other country in the world that is not the U.S.

[RGacky3]

Economies that are more protected are also less free.

What does that even mean? Less free? Ask a worker in a factory where he's more free, in the US? Where his only option is quit or stfu and listen to his boss, or Germany, where the board of directors is required to have representatives from the unions on it and where the worker has a say.

Oh you mean less free for 1% of the population, the bottom 95% don't count.


They do not grow as fast nor as much and in turn have to have a larger state to pick up the excess that strangled market can't support.

Except in real life the market won't support most things anyway, theres not way a market would support affordable housing, cheep food for the poor, and so on, empirical evidence proves this. As far as growth, your right, free market economies "grow" more, but thats generally not from actual production, its from finance and betting schemes, and it ends up collapsing (as we just saw), in collapses the worst IN THE MOST MARKET ECONOMIES and collapses least IN THE MOST SOCIAL ECONOMIES, interesting huh?


No major economist other keynesians blame it on deregulation. A lot of people who think they are economists but who are nothing more than politicians blame deregulation.

In the US most politicians are corporatists and want more deregulation. But anyway, if you want to call all economists that blame deregulation keynesians, then yeah, there is an overwhelming majority of keynesians.


The federal government in the united states and its defunct programs are what started most of the crash. Fannie and freddie, the federal reserves pushing money into the housing market both of these subverted the free market and created a bubble.

But of course how could i have forgotten one of the most regulated and statist countries in the world is doing just dandy, now whats its name hmm greece.

Statist country???? Greece, what are you talking about?

Your saying the federal government FORCED the banks to make shitloads of money by refinancing peoples homes and raise the payments to where people lost thier houses? Because if the government was'nt involved they owuld'nt have made that money?

Or they FORCED the banks to make crazy derivatives bets where they won either way and made a ton of money on credit default swaps with dipositors money? The Government FORCED banks to make a profit on that?

What planet do you live on?