Hammer8

yeah thats whats going on now. everyones involved. like the whale watching in kaikoura but can you see the japanese go whale watching?

Yes i can.

Japanese culture has ingrained in it a very deep seated love and respect of nature.

The principles of Shinto are based on the idea of spirits enfusing nature and the wonder and celebration of the beauty and mystery of nature.

The Japanese are extremely careful protectors of their own natural environment and take great care and go to great lengths to preserve and care and protect their wildlife.

The Japanese are natural environmentalists of a very high order. It took some extraordinarily stupid efforts from arrogant western 'environmentalists' to effectively force the Japanese into the absurd position of being stuck whaling, when they never wanted to continue doing that anyway!

You mentioned the reason right there in your reply. Some degree of harm being agreed-upon, the point is established, and I'm moving on.

Not really, i'm asking how 'innocent' bystanders are being hurt. All i can see is some involved participants being hurt. A different principle entirely.

I didn't say taking a stance is always bad. But this country was founded on the principle of compromise. It's the most important factor behind the writing of the constitution.

I disagree. Where was the compromise with Britain? A compromise would have been some increased degree of home rule and lower taxation. Instead a completely uncompromising war of independence was fought.

The constitution and bill of rights aren't about the principle of compromise, naturally compromises had to be made between the different schools of thought, that was a necessity, not principle to be glorified.

How could that possibly be the case if compromise is never going to be right?

Of course a degree of compromise is necessary, but that does not make if a principle to aim for. The idea you enunciated is that two opposing ideas are 'extremes' and therefore positioned yourself as the moderate in favour of compromise. That's a common tactic in politics, label your opponent 'extreme' orr 'ideological' and present yourself as the 'moderate' in favour of 'compromise. It's a use of emotive terms to avoid rational discussion.

Let me just ask you point-blank: Are you willing to stand behind that and say it again, outright? Do you actually believe that compromise is never the correct answer to any situation, ever?

I never said that. Sometimes compromises are necessary. That does not make them desirable or something to be aimed at. A compromise between what is right and what is wrong is not going to be right, it just might be a bit less wrong than the alternative.

Not that I will mind if you state that belief -- more power to you. You're welcome to believe as you like.

I know i am, but thanks for the reassurance.

If they're trying to avoid socialist economic constraints, going to Europe is hardly a step in the right direction!

Nope, i wasn't referring to socialism at all.

I was referring to legal systems. The increased risk of litigation in the US is now effecting investment decisions.

You should have mentioned Shanghai instead of London. And I would have agreed with that point

No. I referred to London for the fact that a large number of multimation companies are choosing to register in London and not in New York bcause the legal environment is more business friendly. This is a fact openly acknowledged by the NYSE who have complained about London 'poaching' very large amounts of business from New York. So far Shanghai has not done this at all so your suggestion is incorrect.

--

more free trade zones in the US might be a good idea. I imagine you'll see that as a contradiction, but I've never made an ideological point about this -- that's your hangup, not mine

No, i'm quite aware of China's pro business policies and i fail to see what contradiction you are referring to?

As for 'ideological point', you make my argument for me! You choose to label my position with an emotive word, thereby avoiding having to actually confront my ideas with reason. Exactly the same tactics as when you talk about 'extreme' opinions and 'compromise' The idea that one persons ideas are 'ideological' (and therefore wrong somehow!) is a common trick, afterall everyone wants to portray themselves as 'bipartisan' and 'moderate' don't they? If you can do that then you don't need to actually defend your ideas or critic someone elses, all you need to do is give them a nasty label:rolleyes:

--

- I'm totally willing to take a mercenary approach to global trade. Again, compromise.

I fail to see where compromise is coming into this. You want America to have good economic policies and possibly some sort of free trade zones, ok, if you can make an argument for that then fine. Where is the element of compromise?

Sometimes we should do things that are more socialistic in nature. Other times we should take a more capitalist approach.

Yes, and not in this matter of home loans. Here over regulation was a problem, it infantilised people, it retarded business and it resulted in a larger state payroll.

Lightening the regulations was the correct move. When you give people freedom some will abuse it, some will make mistakes. That is the very price you pay for freedom, ad the result is that you learn to take responsibility for yourself and as a person and as a society you become more mature.

You don't really think Alan Greenspan went from objectivist cheerleader to the world's most powerful economic controller without changing his mind on these issues, do you?

Changing your mind is fine. Infact changing your mind when confronted with new evidence is a sign of intellectual integrity. What is not fine is automatically splitting the difference when confronted with two opposing points of view and calling it 'compromise'.

Pardon me. Too many people took out variable-interest mortgages, and defaults have topped half a million in the first half of 2007 alone -- a record. Several home loan mortgage companies (most notably yesterday American Home Mortgage) have shut their doors resulting in thousands of layoffs. There's a host of other obvious negative impacts associated with these events as well. In other words, tragedy of the commons. Too many took a bite from a dangerous pie.

The tragedy of the commons is where a public good is overexploited by private agents because of a lack of private property title. That is not what has happened here.

Yes, a lot of people may have borrowed too much, then again, a lot of people had the chance to buy a home which they had never previously had.

A market opened up, people moved in, some overextended themselves. The bubble deflates and at the end of the day the weaker players go under and the stronger ones continue. That happens in all markets, it happens with airlines, groceries, automobiles, lumber and so on. There is no need to be scared of it.

Now don't get me wrong, I realize there are positive aspects to those developments as well. I'm simply stating my belief (which I cannot prove, nor can you disprove, you can only state a counter-opinion) that the negatives outweight the positives in this area.

So you think that denying people with low credit rating the chance to take out a mortgage, restricting lending to approved groups and keeping it all a nice and cosy cartel with stifled innovation is more positive than simply letting companies measure lending risk themselves and make their own rational investment decisions?

Freedoms a bit too scary for you isn't it? Letting people take risks with their own money.

That's my opinion. Yours differs. Way it goes.

Indeed, i am aware that we have different opinions. I'm slightly confused why you repeatedly mention that fact.

(shrug) You asked for my opinion. I actually have no illusions about government's ability, I just have an even lower opinion of the general public.

So you think that the general public can't be trusted to make big decisions concerning their own money and that the government should step in to make those decisions for them? Have you considered the possibility that it is exactly because people have the attitude that the government should hold their hand all the time and protect them from the consequences of their own actions that is preventing people from maturing in the first place? It is the general cultural attitute in which no one is responsible for there own actions that is infantilising an entire civilisation.

By the way, I'm not "predicating the entire discussion", I'm simply stating my opinion, which you asked for. The discussion (i.e. this thread) is welcome to go where it wishes. I'm not steering anything, I'm just responding to your inquiry.

By 'predicating the discussion' i was referring to the underlying assumptions you were using in our discussion, i did not mean to imply that you were in any way steering the thread.

Just to be clear, it's actually not of interest to me to generally respond on issues that I'm not feeling particularly open-minded about. I just felt in this case it would be rude not to respond to such a direct question. Like I said, I respect your opinion on it. I've seen these arguments before, and used to be of that opinion myself, and over time have come to feel otherwise. You'll probably have a lot more luck talking to Sisyphus, who replied above. .

Well, just talking to people who agree with me seems pointless, i might as well go and talk to a mirror.

Sure. Just so long as your mistakes don't hurt me. .

You've raising this point a couple of times now, i really fail to see how any 'innocent' bystanders are being hurt. You yourself told us that the value of your house has risen since you bought it, what are the wider implications? A temporary blip in the stock market? Housing prices correcting from an overinflated high? Unless you are an active investor or property developer, in which case you know the risks, it is hard to see where people are really being hurt, let alone 'raped' as bascule put it.

There's something in between those two extremes, and that something is actually what we have today. It's a compromise, and I feel this compromise is better than either of those two extremes. .

All your other opinions i can respect, even when disagreeing with them. this one however, i can not.

The idea that when confronted by two opposing points of view that each one can be labelled 'extreme' (as if extremism is automatically bad! the word seems to induce a Pavlovian response, unthinking reaction) and that therefore some compromise in the 'middle' is 'better' is devoid of reason, logical or sense.

A compromise between right and wrong, between correct and incorrect is never going to be right. The instinct to head for a soggy compromise so as not to appear 'extreme' is an abdication of judgement and an acceptance of automatic conformity, in a sense the abdication of independent thought.

It is not a matter of looking to avoid being 'extreme' or being 'moderate' it is a matter of looking to make the right decision. To put it in context, think what constituted 'moderate' compromises in other socio political environments.

Sue me. At least you're still allowed to do that! .

Unfortunately! Have you noticed how many companies are looking for listings in London rather than New York recently? The American legal system is a serious factor in this.

My broader point is simple, the more you regulate to protect people, the more people come to expect government to take responsibility for their lives, they become infantilised and dependent, so justifying ever more regulation and intervention! This isn't a case of protecting people from a 'tragedy of the commons' ( you haven't explained how you feel this scenario fits in that catergory?), it's a case of some business's and some individuals making some bad decisions and suffering the consequences. An experience which might be unpleasant, but also a big lesson in lifes realities.

This is more a matter of personal ideological preference than objective truths, but I'll be happy to answer on that basis (i.e. this is just my opinion). My answer is that this is not a free-market economy, and ideologically free-market responses and beliefs are irrelvent to analysis of our actual economy. Therefore the point you're suggesting is moot.

I disagree, the fact that the economy is not free (obviously) does not invalidate agruments that the ecomony should be free and that restrictions and 'management' are counterproductive.

We have a managed economy that incorporates a certain compromise between management and freedom. To that end, in my opinion, we allowed too many risky loans to take place. The tragedy of the commons reared its ugly head, and that should not have come as a surprise or been allowed to happen.

Not 'allowed to happen'. Perhaps you should consider what you have written there.

We are talking about supposedly free adults going about their private business and you are talking about what they are 'allowed' to do. That is predicating the entire discussion on the assumption that adults need the permission of their betters in the benevolent, all seeing all knowing government. Rather than adults doing what they want in their own private affairs and taking responsibility for their own actions, in effect, being adults.

And i think you are misusing the metaphor of the tragedy of the commons. There is no over exploitation of a public good here.

Except that in the real world it's not just a matter of personal risk, it's also a matter of overall economic goals and progress. I don't give a rat's patootie if people want to throw their money away. What matters to me is what happens to mine. And mine is hurting right now because of what other people were allowed to do with theirs.

Other people shouldn't be allowed to take economic and business decisions that might not be in your best interests? Come on, you don't really mean that do you? Think about the implications there, that people need to be controlled and managed and have permission before they are allowed to do anything in case they might makes mistakes.

Better the free to make those mistakes and to learn from them than to abdicate all personal responsibility to an encompassing state.

Here I have to put on my moderator hat and remind you that you have an obligation not to participate in ad hominem arguments. It's ok to disagree with what a poster says. It's not okay to speculate that because you disagree with them, they therefore don't know what they're talking about with regard to the larger subject.

I'm not assuming anything, i'm pointing out where bascule made a factually inaccurate statement about the workings of the mortgage business. It isn't a question of disagreeing with him on that point, it's a question of him being incorrect on a matter of objective fact and my correcting him. I apologise if i seemed offemsive in any way, but having worked in the business i know for a fact that his statements on how foreclosures are operarted are completely wrong and highly misleading.

The reference to stars and galaxies and lakes 'evolving' is a complete giveaway.

It's a commn tactic of creationists to try and muddy the waters by talking about the 'evolution' of stars and other physical non-biological matters.

Direct and immediate proof of dishonesty on their part.

Where I might agree is with your criticism of the government's choice of opening up the markets with those crazy loans.

Why?

All the government has done is allow adults to freely lend and borrow money to each other on a completely voluntary and open basis.

If adults decide that they wish to risk their money lending it to adults with lower than average credit ratings and if those adults with lower than average ratings wish to borrow money freely agreeing to repayment terms and accepting the inherent obligations and risks that is a private matter between them.

To suppose otherwise is to suppose that adults need constant supervision and should not be allowed to make decisions about their own money and their own homes without state approval.

That is a very disturbing view where adults are treated like children and not allowed to be in control of their own decisions about their own lives because the government knows best.

I don't know about you, but i don't think the government knows best about my private finances and i deeply resent that presumptive attitude.

And on a related note, bascule appears to completely misunderstand how the mortgage business works.

When a mortgage holder defaults and a mortgage company reposses the property, it does not make a big profit, it is not RAPING anyone. The foreclosure process takes place where the property is worth less than the value of loans outstanding on it. So the mortgage company is LOSING money.

No one is making lots of money from foreclosures, no one is being raped.

Your basic premise is incorrect and your appraisal of the problem is exaggerated.

The US government deregulated some aspects of lending, this was not 'irresponsible', it was quite in line with the idea of treating adults like adults.

Letting adults buy homes and take out loans in partnership with private companies, taking responsibility for their own actions rather than being mollycoddled by nanny government. Inevitably some people make mistakes, some people borrow too much, companies go bust due to too much lending to poor credit risks. That's just part of life. Adults make decisions and take risks, complaining that government hasn't stepped in to protect people from the consequences of their own actions is to infantilise people.

The economic consequences are that some companies are in trouble, there is a squeeze in the market for debt, it's not going to destroy the world financial system and it isn't going to usher in a new depression.

,and also what tatics do you guys think will stop the whaling.

Exactly the same tactics that work everywhere else. Encourage people to see how special the whales are, let them see the money that can be made from whale watching tourism. Economics and sentiment then lead to an end to whaling.

,As it have been proven harassing the ships arent helping..

Not just not helping, those tactics activity incite more whaling.

But it has been proven in years ago that leaving the japanese goverment alone isnt goning to stop them either (just look at the japanese whaling before greenpeace intervened.) If they would just stop because of pride they would have done so before anybody tried to make them stop

You are so wrong it is hard to know where to start putting you right.

In the 1970's the Japanese were prepared to completely phase out whaling.

Then, anti whaling protesters from the 'West' decided that insulting the Japanese, and in particular physically attacking Japanese delegates to the International Whaling organisation was a good idea.

Getting good publicity for their anti whaling groups with these stunts.

The result? The Japanese decide that if they stop whaling it will look like they are giving in the pressure from self righteous foriegn idiots with no repsect for Japan. So they continue whaling.

Do you get the message? It's very, very simple.

People trying to feel good about themselves by stupid stunts and self righteous rants against the Japanese are the ones who are responsible for killing the whales.

And one last point, you have made several references to the Japanese hunting whales to extinction. This is also wrong. The species the Japanese hunt are not threatened with extinction. This is in fact not a problem. The Japanese will not whale a species to extinction, they are far to intelligent for that. It is a moral and NOT a conservation issue.