alt.politics.economics

On Sep 7, 9:57 pm, Les Cargill wrote:
> Vide...@ wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 7:45 pm, Les Cargill wrote:
> >> Vide...@ wrote:
> >>> of course this mess will require government action to unwind this free
> >>> market debacle
> >>
>
> >>> "My credit record is good, but if this goes on it will stain it, and
> >>> make it harder for me to do anything to fix this," said Salazar, who
> >>> is married with three children. "It's too scary. I just wanted the
> >>> American dream for my family."
> >> This is the financial equivalent of the twinkie defense. Bummer, man -
> >> you lose. It's harder when you're stupid.
>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Les Cargill
>
> > unless he was lied to les.
>
> I actually agree - he probably *was*, but... what practical thing
> can be done to *fix* that? You mistake my sense of resignation for
> actual cycnicism.
>

you, cynical, gasp.


> I am just embarrased for this guy - he should have known better. I
> must invoke the "can't cheat an honest man" thing here. *HE*
> signed the paper.
>

please les, either you feel sorry for him, or you think he is a
chump, which is it cynic?
what if he was desperate to get his family into a stable situation,
and was lied to.
libertarians lack what it takes to be a complete human being. you are
missing things in your psyche.
try walking in someone else's shoes. but i am wasting my time. i have
said that to you many times before

> If you're saying "well, he can't be trusted to enter into contracts
> for himself", then where is he?

but you are directly contradicting libertarian dogma here. both
parties are rational correct?
no rational human being would sign a document like that unless they
are not rational, or are being lied to. so les, i have shown you the
error of your ideology again. aren't you getting tired of being taken
to the shed?

And now you've put me in the
> position of being grateful for all the "forty miles
> uphill in the snow" stories I got as a youngster.
>

you of course think all situations are like that. i am just
mentioning to you that that is your dogma others must live by.

> > in the past you have been a gullible
> > defender of this system. now it might be biting you in the ass,
>
> Hardly. And of "this system"? Not once. I stick to the portions of
> economics that can be shown demonstrably to be true. I was
> calling housing bubble on ... years ago (I'm too lazy
> to Google).
>

you probably were. except you have no idea why it started, by whom,
or for what.
your ideology allows this to happen. it is purely a private sector
debacle. no government interference of any sort.
where was the self regulation?
you know little about real sustainable equitable economics.

> > and
> > you are so stupid and mean that you blame the victim. you are a piece
> > of crap.
>
> And you're a stinky doo-doo head. Neener neener neener. See? I can
> revert to kindergarten , too.
>

except in your case, its true. need i remind you of your hero
frederick hayek, and your defense of a man who was a collaborator with
employers of nazi war criminals?


> --
> Les Cargill