World Politics

[Anonymous]

You just explained rent-seeking behavior, using different words.

The result is, a sub-optimal allocation of resources. The market myth always purports to produce an optimal allocation of resources. I understand why companies are doing it, to get that competitive advantage, but they are doing that to avoid the harsh brutal reality of the competitive system, and in doing so they waste valuable resources (hiring lobbyists, as opposed to increasing output).

That is a market failure, and hence, when corporations lobby, and the more they do so, the less they really believe in the free enterprise system that forces them allocate their resources efficiently.

When people say the market is a solution for every public policy problem in the book, because it's 'efficient', and doesn't produce 'waste', we should certainly question that when even these so called 'efficient' companies, don't like the system that forces them to be efficient. That shows a deep lack of trust, by the very entities that are supposed to profit from it. Apparently they cannot profit from it, and therefore seek to rig the game.

Why are individuals asked to embrace a privatized health care system/privatized pensions/retirement accounts/privatized roads/privatized energy when the producers don't like to play by the rules of the same markets they propose.

I understand your point. I don't necessarily disagree.

Let's make a sports analogy. If your favorite NFL team could buy influence with the game's referees do you think they might be tempted? There's a lot of pressure to win. That's how thigs are.

If Jeff Immelt can curry favor with political leaders (he can and he does) then why wouldn't he?? Is it his fault that those in charge of the rules will bend them if there is enough cash involved??

It's a sorry state to be sure, but it's also human nature.

At the end of the day the public employee, the political leaders, the rule makers and rule enforcers have to be held to a higher standard. When corruption occurs within this group the whole thing begins to go sideways.

There would be no lobbyists if political favor could not be purchased.

 

[Anonymous]

...perfectly legal eh?...

...the jurisprudence of the USSR is littered with decisions that are, as you put it, perfectly legal but also morally repugnant...whatever gets you thru the night...

Cheers

blutto

So, B. Take a stab at it. Who's worse, the exec puying a politician or a politician being bought?

The politicians make the rules, the execs play by them and you whine about it.

Maybe the rules need to be changed, eh?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

....and you are, of course, free to offer your perspective, though it should be pointed out that your position is offered at a very safe distance...but even after considering your learned opinion I still think it would have nice if the people who are more directly in the line of fire actually had a say in their future...and I believe that would be considered reasonable by most people...

...and by the way, with as much respect as I have for your opinions, in this case I have to say I'm tying my horse to Reich's position...the Greek people may actually be better off if they went full Iceland...though I do understand this would hurt your friends in the banking industry...but hey somebody gotta pay the price so why not the guys who cooked up this sweet deal in the first place...

Cheers

blutto

I agree with you that it would be much better for the Greek’s to be bankrupt / default. There eventually comes a time when you have to stop floating checks to cover floated checks.

I am not trying to post nonsense so I hope no one thinks this next question and paragraph is a nonsense post. Does Greece produce anything that the world wants or needs? They have Olives, Tomatoes etc. Not sure how even if the reset and default what would that do?

 

[blutto]

...don't want to make it a habit of dragging dead bodies out of the swamp but I ran into the following article which has some interesting numbers that help undercut a position championed on these pages by SoCal not that long ago...

...so while it pales against the Greek drama it is interesting if only to show how spin and outright lies can permeate our world views...



A favorite conservative pastime since the financial crisis of 2008 struck is to try and deflect blame away from Wall Street and its excesses and onto Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and government housing policy. No matter how many times the theory that the government mortgage giants caused the crisis gets debunked, it keeps on coming back to life.

The latest political figure to join this parade was New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), who responded to a question about the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests by saying that the protesters’ grievances are “unfounded,” since “it was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis“:


“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress, who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I’m not so sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn’t have had them without that.

“But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.”


While the government sponsored mortgage giants were certainly not blameless, Federal Reserve data shows conclusively that it was private mortgage brokers, not Fannie and Freddie, who drove the subprime housing bubble:


– More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

– Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

As economist Robert Gordon has written, the lenders that made the bulk of subprime loans weren’t even covered by government laws to encourage homeownership. In fact, 94 percent of high-cost loans were totally unconnected from government homeownership laws.

As Paul Krugman has written, “Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending…In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.” But this is a zombie lie that refuses to be put to rest thanks to lawmakers like Bloomberg constantly promulgating it.

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

Do lobbyists sign bills into law? Um, no.

...naw, they get the hired help to do that....

Cheers

blutto

 

[Anonymous]

...naw, they get the hired help to do that....

Cheers

blutto

Yep. And that's where this situation has the best chance of being changed.

 

[Bala Verde]

...don't want to make it a habit of dragging dead bodies out of the swamp but I ran into the following article which has some interesting numbers that help undercut a position championed on these pages by SoCal not that long ago...

...so while it pales against the Greek drama it is interesting if only to show how spin and outright lies can permeate our world views...



A favorite conservative pastime since the financial crisis of 2008 struck is to try and deflect blame away from Wall Street and its excesses and onto Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and government housing policy. No matter how many times the theory that the government mortgage giants caused the crisis gets debunked, it keeps on coming back to life.

The latest political figure to join this parade was New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), who responded to a question about the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests by saying that the protesters’ grievances are “unfounded,” since “it was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis“:


“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress, who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I’m not so sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn’t have had them without that.

“But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.”


While the government sponsored mortgage giants were certainly not blameless, Federal Reserve data shows conclusively that it was private mortgage brokers, not Fannie and Freddie, who drove the subprime housing bubble:


– More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

– Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

As economist Robert Gordon has written, the lenders that made the bulk of subprime loans weren’t even covered by government laws to encourage homeownership. In fact, 94 percent of high-cost loans were totally unconnected from government homeownership laws.

As Paul Krugman has written, “Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending…In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.” But this is a zombie lie that refuses to be put to rest thanks to lawmakers like Bloomberg constantly promulgating it.

Cheers

blutto

I thought Freddy and Fannie didn't issue loans themselves in the first place, but they served merely as underwriters for banks who made loans to people who would have had more difficulties securing a mortgage (including rural whites, minorities and people with higher risks of delinquency?). A policy that was initiated by Clinton (?) and left intact during 8 years of W. Bush (?)

Hence, I don't think Fannie and Freddy were in the business of insuring primary lenders' loans made to people they knew in advance had ZERO, chance of repaying their mortgage, especially after the subprime rate expired, and then pay them 100cts to the $ in case of default.

However, Fannie and Freddy were, by law (?) liable for those losses, which allowed banks to take ever greater risks (Freddy and Fannie would bare) and issue loans to people who couldn't afford it, in an attempt to sell them at a premium to Wall Street bundlers, who could push fundamentally worthless, but 'securitized' bonds, onto unknowing investors (who didn't bother to delve into the actual bond's make-up, and double check the AAA ratings from the Moodies and Fitches)

Here is another article:

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis written in 2008.

On a related note, the FT mentioned Fannie and Freddy will need more dough ($6Bn...) Whoopdeedooo!

Freddie Mac seeks further $6bn from taxpayers

The home loan group said more homeowners were falling behind on their obligations and it could not count on mortgage insurers to reimburse the company for losses. Freddie set aside $3.6bn in provisions for credit losses, its highest total since the third quarter of last year.

The additional $6bn brings its total bailout from the government to $72.2bn, of which $14.9 has been returned in the form of dividends. Fannie Mae, Freddie’s much larger rival, is due to report its earnings in the coming days.

Complicating the company’s efforts to reduce credit losses has been a decrease in the number of troubled borrowers it has saved from foreclosure. Distressed properties generally fetch a 30 per cent discount to comparable homes, driving up losses.

 

[blutto]

Not at all. You guys think govt is the answer. Corruption never happens in a vacuum.

The question stands. Please answer...

...please be aware the term You Guys is one of the most successful products developed by Strawman Corp....as part of the Simplified Stereotype Series it has found wide acceptance in play-ground grade discussions that involve either religion or politics because they give the ignorant ( though often good hearted ) participants a sense that they actually have an inkling of what they are discussing....

...unfortunately the Simplified Stereotype Series has had trouble penetrating the discussion markets that require real understanding and insight...they also have problems in markets which make use of a functional moral compass because the Simplified Stereotype Series is often used by racists to extol their ideas about the dreaded other....Strawman Corp has worked hard to wash that stigma off its product but to be completely honest about it they are doing so well with it in the racist market a more thorough wash would lead to a revolt in the accounting department ( and as we all know there is nothing more noxious than an irate accountant )...

...so the bottom line here, SoCal, is that if you want to engage in that intelligent like discussions stuff you may want to drop the use of Strawman Corp products...they really don't work that well and have association issues that could reflect very badly on you...unless of course you want to, or you have to...and please dear gawd don't let that be the case...

Your Dear Pal

blutto

 

[Amsterhammer]

 

[blutto]

I agree with you that it would be much better for the Greek’s to be bankrupt / default. There eventually comes a time when you have to stop floating checks to cover floated checks.

I am not trying to post nonsense so I hope no one thinks this next question and paragraph is a nonsense post. Does Greece produce anything that the world wants or needs? They have Olives, Tomatoes etc. Not sure how even if the reset and default what would that do?

...great question actually because therein lies the big rub...and a bit historical perspective here may help...

...WW2 was as ugly in Greece as anywhere...the society was ripped apart by internal and external forces...and once the external problems left the internal ones raged on until on side finally won ( though leaving a real mess in its wake...political, social and economic )...so the post ww2 era started badly and was never given a chance to recover ( the Marshall Plan was not extended to Greece )...and it continued being not very productive because Greece's main job became being a bulwark against communism...and governments tied strongly to the military tend not to flower as beds of economic activity...in fact cronyism and corruption reigns supreme thereby trumping the rule of law that is so critical for efficient economies...and that system is still largely in place and is the actor that helped broker the stupid loans that are the problems now...

...so the short answer is no...and more is the pity for it because that is one of the main reasons that Greece is in the mess it is in today...their ability to work their way out of this mess is very restricted...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Amsterhammer]

...please be aware the term You Guys is one of the most successful products developed by Strawman Corp....as part of the Simplified Stereotype Series it has found wide acceptance in play-ground grade discussions that involve either religion or politics because they give the ignorant ( though often good hearted ) participants a sense that they actually have an inkling of what they are discussing....

...unfortunately the Simplified Stereotype Series has had trouble penetrating the discussion markets that require real understanding and insight...they also have problems in markets which make use of a functional moral compass because the Simplified Stereotype Series is often used by racists to extol their ideas about the dreaded other....Strawman Corp has worked hard to wash that stigma off its product but to be completely honest about it they are doing so well with it in the racist market a more thorough wash would lead to a revolt in the accounting department ( and as we all know there is nothing more noxious than an irate accountant )...

...so the bottom line here, SoCal, is that if you want to engage in that intelligent like discussions stuff you may want to drop the use of Strawman Corp products...they really don't work that well and have association issues that could reflect very badly on you...unless of course you want to, or you have to...and please dear gawd don't let that be the case...

Your Dear Pal

blutto

Post of the week, sir! I doff my hat in your general direction.

(before anyone rushes to accuse me of hypocrisy, I fully accept that I am sometimes as guilty of the above as Scott)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

...great question actually because therein lies the big rub...and a bit historical perspective here may help...

...WW2 was as ugly in Greece as anywhere...the society was ripped apart by internal and external forces...and once the external problems left the internal ones raged on until on side finally won ( though leaving a real mess in its wake...political, social and economic )...so the post ww2 era started badly and was never given a chance to recover ( the Marshall Plan was not extended to Greece )...and it continued being not very productive because Greece's main job became being a bulwark against communism...and governments tied strongly to the military tend not to flower as beds of economic activity...in fact cronyism and corruption reigns supreme thereby trumping the rule of law that is so critical for efficient economies...and that system is still largely in place and is the actor that helped broker the stupid loans that are the problems now...

...so the short answer is no...and more is the pity for it because that is one of the main reasons that Greece is in the mess it is in today...their ability to work their way out of this mess is very restricted...

Cheers

blutto

That really does make the situation in Greece very tough to solve. I am convinced that the global economy is crap. Of course that is just my opinion.

 

[Cobblestones]

You just explained rent-seeking behavior, using different words.

The result is, a sub-optimal allocation of resources. The market myth always purports to produce an optimal allocation of resources. I understand why companies are doing it, to get that competitive advantage, but they are doing that to avoid the harsh brutal reality of the competitive system, and in doing so they waste valuable resources (hiring lobbyists, as opposed to increasing output).

That is a market failure, and hence, when corporations lobby, and the more they do so, the less they really believe in the free enterprise system that forces them allocate their resources efficiently.

When people say the market is a solution for every public policy problem in the book, because it's 'efficient', and doesn't produce 'waste', we should certainly question that when even these so called 'efficient' companies, don't like the system that forces them to be efficient. That shows a deep lack of trust, by the very entities that are supposed to profit from it. Apparently they cannot profit from it, and therefore seek to rig the game.

Why are individuals asked to embrace a privatized health care system/privatized pensions/retirement accounts/privatized roads/privatized energy when the producers don't like to play by the rules of the same markets they propose.

Couldn't have said it better. Hence, I'll simply illustrate market inefficiency using a real world example.

This kind of stuff happens all the time, all over the world.

It is a simple and true statement in game theory that even rational, well informed, actors can end up with sub-optimal results in a market place. Never mind that most actors aren't even rational or well informed most of the time.

The statement that market forces will always generate an optimal use of resources, on the other hand, has been shown to be false, over and over again.

And of course, most markets are rigged, because companies who can rig the game, will in general make more profit than in a fair market.

 

[blutto]

So, B. Take a stab at it. Who's worse, the exec puying a politician or a politician being bought?

The politicians make the rules, the execs play by them and you whine about it.

Maybe the rules need to be changed, eh?

...unfortunately your game-board is missing one major player, which is the judiciary, and that is the group that interprets the rules, as in, they make things all polished in the legal sense...

..so now we have four players on the field....one of which is directly behoved to money and two that are indirectly behoved to money ( and as such could in the worst of circumstances be the servants of two masters )....the other player, the government is in your understanding this thing that more or less behaves as whatever is required to prove the point you are trying to make valid...but dear SoCal there are many different kinds of government...so please pick one, clearly define it and then lob stones at it...otherwise you are just ****in'....

... this is a complex issue and you are demanding a real simple answer....in fact its an answer that is much closer to Simple's dim-witted cousin, A. Dumbass Simplification....and sorry I don't like playing with him because, frankly, its a waste of time ...

..ask a question that is not a joke and I may consider answering it...

...that being said I do agree with you on the need for change, although I would also include some structural changes as well...


Cheers

blutto

 

[Anonymous]

...please be aware the term You Guys is one of the most successful products developed by Strawman Corp....as part of the Simplified Stereotype Series it has found wide acceptance in play-ground grade discussions that involve either religion or politics because they give the ignorant ( though often good hearted ) participants a sense that they actually have an inkling of what they are discussing....

...unfortunately the Simplified Stereotype Series has had trouble penetrating the discussion markets that require real understanding and insight...they also have problems in markets which make use of a functional moral compass because the Simplified Stereotype Series is often used by racists to extol their ideas about the dreaded other....Strawman Corp has worked hard to wash that stigma off its product but to be completely honest about it they are doing so well with it in the racist market a more thorough wash would lead to a revolt in the accounting department ( and as we all know there is nothing more noxious than an irate accountant )...

...so the bottom line here, SoCal, is that if you want to engage in that intelligent like discussions stuff you may want to drop the use of Strawman Corp products...they really don't work that well and have association issues that could reflect very badly on you...unless of course you want to, or you have to...and please dear gawd don't let that be the case...

Your Dear Pal

blutto

...please be aware the term You Guys is one of the most successful products developed by Strawman Corp....as part of the Simplified Stereotype Series it has found wide acceptance in play-ground grade discussions that involve either religion or politics because they give the ignorant ( though often good hearted ) participants a sense that they actually have an inkling of what they are discussing....

That's a fair amount of effort to dodge the question. What are you afraid of?

...unfortunately the Simplified Stereotype Series has had trouble penetrating the discussion markets that require real understanding and insight

This is an interwebz forum. Even you are smart enough to come here and play.

they also have problems in markets which make use of a functional moral compass because the Simplified Stereotype Series is often used by racists to extol their ideas about the dreaded other.

Well there's a brand new tactic. Call the other side racist

...so the bottom line here, SoCal, is that if you want to engage in that intelligent like discussions stuff you may want to drop the use of Strawman Corp products...

If I gave a crap about intelligent discussions I would certainly never respond to anything you write.

This is entertainment, slick.

they really don't work that well and have association issues that could reflect very badly on you.

This assumes I give a wit about what you think. Don't assume, it reflects badly on you.

Your Dear Pal

Me too.

 

[Anonymous]

Post of the week, sir! I doff my hat in your general direction.

(before anyone rushes to accuse me of hypocrisy, I fully accept that I am sometimes as guilty of the above as Scott)

It was written for the benefit of the echo chamber. He was expecting adulation and you obliged.

Congratulations.

 

[blutto]

That really does make the situation in Greece very tough to solve. I am convinced that the global economy is crap. Of course that is just my opinion.

....agree whole-heartedly...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Anonymous]

Post of the week, sir! I doff my hat in your general direction.

(before anyone rushes to accuse me of hypocrisy, I fully accept that I am sometimes as guilty of the above as Scott)

It was written for the benefit of the echo chamber. He was expecting pats on the back and you obliged.

Congratulations.

 

[Anonymous]

...unfortunately your game-board is missing one major player, which is the judiciary, and that is the group that interprets the rules, as in, they make things all polished in the legal sense...

..so now we have four players on the field....one of which is directly behoved to money and two that are indirectly behoved to money ( and as such could in the worst of circumstances be the servants of two masters )....the other player, the government is in your understanding this thing that more or less behaves as whatever is required to prove the point you are trying to make valid...but dear SoCal there are many different kinds of government...so please pick one, clearly define it and then lob stones at it...otherwise you are just ****in'....

... this is a complex issue and you are demanding a real simple answer....in fact its an answer that is much closer to Simple's dim-witted cousin, A. Dumbass Simplification....and sorry I don't like playing with him because, frankly, its a waste of time ...

..ask a question that is not a joke and I may consider answering it...

...that being said I do agree with you on the need for change, although I would also include some structural changes as well...


Cheers

blutto

You are quickly entering Rhubroma's rhelm. Lots and lots of words saying nothing and all the while dodging the question.

 

[rhubroma]

I agree with you that it would be much better for the Greek’s to be bankrupt / default. There eventually comes a time when you have to stop floating checks to cover floated checks.

I am not trying to post nonsense so I hope no one thinks this next question and paragraph is a nonsense post. Does Greece produce anything that the world wants or needs? They have Olives, Tomatoes etc. Not sure how even if the reset and default what would that do?[/QUOTE]

I don't mean to be pedantic, but the question, as I see it, should be what has Greece given humanity?

How about the world's greatest patrimony of consciousness and aesthetics.

Now I know these immaterial things mean absolutely nothing to the world of the market economy we live with today.

But this is also why our existence has become infinately less noble and depressing, from those days when men contemplated things like beauty and justice.

In any case, the Greece debacle isn't just a regional economic tragedy, but one of a human patrimony in terms of a civilization and culture of incalculable worth.

On the bright side, we always have the comedy of Italia.

 

[rhubroma]

I understand your point. I don't necessarily disagree.

Let's make a sports analogy. If your favorite NFL team could buy influence with the game's referees do you think they might be tempted? There's a lot of pressure to win. That's how thigs are.

If Jeff Immelt can curry favor with political leaders (he can and he does) then why wouldn't he?? Is it his fault that those in charge of the rules will bend them if there is enough cash involved??

It's a sorry state to be sure, but it's also human nature.

At the end of the day the public employee, the political leaders, the rule makers and rule enforcers have to be held to a higher standard. When corruption occurs within this group the whole thing begins to go sideways.

There would be no lobbyists if political favor could not be purchased.

Apart from sports analogies being the worst kind, especially in this case, didn't your father ever tell you that one liner every kid hears as his first lesson in ethics: "two wrongs don't make a right."

Just because the ilicit and unjust practices exist, isn't an alibi for them.

And in fact because cynicism on the one hand and hypocrisy on the other, have been given a free reign over democracy (as I already tried to express in a previous post), the situation has deteriorated to as bad and desperate as it has actually become.

In the long run, as yet another demonstration, the short term gains of such practices prove lethal, or near fatal, in the long run: if not for the profiteers and exploiters, but to society at large. This why an alternative needs to be found, if democracy has a future.

In fact the worst thing about the effects of what this financial system has produced, is that the folks who are mostly to blame for the predicament in which society now finds itself, haven't been the ones who've been punished, but rather society itself.

This is why your anlaysis is no more than a rather loathsome justification for the practices of the killers and the obliterators, in both the political and business establishments.

As long as there are people who are a cycnical as you, who tolerate and even try to make pathetic excuses for such practices, chalking it up to it's just human nature and so forth, and who vote, then deomcracy, if it ever had the possibility of producing something more nobel and just than all the other ignoble and unjust systems that came before it, is finished; obliterated by the killers whom you suport.

This is where capitalism and the economy have ruined democracy, because as you yourself have stated: everything (and everybody) can be bought for the right price and anything can be sold. This is pretty much also what has been meant by, the American Way of Life.

 

[spiny_norman]

From the BBC archive
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/11/the_ghost_of_the_colonels.html

 

[Cobblestones]

Zizek talks.

 

[rhubroma]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/financial-crisis-charities

 

[Anonymous]

Apart from sports analogies being the worst kind, especially in this case, didn't your father ever tell you that one liner every kid hears as his first lesson in ethics: "two wrongs don't make a right."

Just because the ilicit and unjust practices exist, isn't an alibi for them.

And in fact because cynicism on the one hand and hypocrisy on the other, have been given a free reign over democracy (as I already tried to express in a previous post), the situation has deteriorated to as bad and desperate as it has actually become.

In the long run, as yet another demonstration, the short term gains of such practices prove lethal, or near fatal, in the long run: if not for the profiteers and exploiters, but to society at large. This why an alternative needs to be found, if democracy has a future.

In fact the worst thing about the effects of what this financial system has produced, is that the folks who are mostly to blame for the predicament in which society now finds itself, haven't been the ones who've been punished, but rather society itself.

This is why your anlaysis is no more than a rather loathsome justification for the practices of the killers and the obliterators, in both the political and business establishments.

As long as there are people who are a cycnical as you, who tolerate and even try to make pathetic excuses for such practices, chalking it up to it's just human nature and so forth, and who vote, then deomcracy, if it ever had the possibility of producing something more nobel and just than all the other ignoble and unjust systems that came before it, is finished; obliterated by the killers whom you suport.

This is where capitalism and the economy have ruined democracy, because as you yourself have stated: everything (and everybody) can be bought for the right price and anything can be sold. This is pretty much also what has been meant by, the American Way of Life.

You don't like sports analogies because they blow gaping holes in your way of thinking in such a simple way that most five-year-old's can grasp it.

As for the rest? I can always tell when I strike close to what you know to be true because you get so pissy.