What the hell is "economic freedom"?

[Vepres]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness. However, excessive government spending, things like an individual mandate to have health insurance, and such are clearly anti-economic freedom.

Freedom from want and hunger, the knowledge that your employment situation is fairly safe, and a strong social safety net ready to catch you if you ever fall.

That's so 1960s

[Vepres]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

[Vepres]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Those people don't have to take the loans, freedom hater.

Because only a Nazi would oppose irresponsible lending

[Vepres]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Uh, yeah, he has the freedom to take risks, and to accept responsibility when those risks turn sour. It would not be in any bank's best interest to make such loans.

Stop trying to re-define freedom into "non-freedom".

Banks misleading people which causes them to lose capital, without which your freedom goes down significantly, is inherently anti-market and hurts the country.

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Those people don't have to take the loans, freedom hater.

Because only a Nazi would oppose irresponsible lending

The only irresponsibility is on the part of people who would sign a contract without ensuring they could finance it, no matter if it is the banker or the client. That is their problem, not mine.

[quote]Empathy n.: 1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

[Vepres]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Uh, yeah, he has the freedom to take risks, and to accept responsibility when those risks turn sour. It would not be in any bank's best interest to make such loans.

Stop trying to re-define freedom into "non-freedom".

Banks misleading people which causes them to lose capital, without which your freedom goes down significantly, is inherently anti-market and hurts the country.

Banks misleading people? Nobody forced anyone to take out loans. What was "misleading"?

The banks basically lead them to believe they had the financial ability pay off these sub-prime loans. That's sleazy and  anti-market as I call it. Now, I don't think the people who were mislead deserve much help beyond what others get because yes, they did choose to take out those loans. Basically, I want to make sure that the banks don't do this again because it hurt our financial system which hurt many people who didn't take irresponsible loans.