Hammer8

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!

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 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. 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. 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. I know i am, but thanks for the reassurance. 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. 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. -- 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 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? 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. 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'. 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. 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. Indeed, i am aware that we have different opinions. I'm slightly confused why you repeatedly mention that fact.

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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