the right religion

[Guy Threepwood]

Fannie & Freddie were symptomatic of the problem but not the cause. Two huge mistakes were made, one in 1999 when Phil Gramm and some economists convinced Congress and Clinton that banks should be allowed to carry less money at hand, and in 2005 when Congress and Bush made the decision that normally secure holdings, such as pensions and 401-K's should be allowed to be traded in the shadow-banking system.

The government backed loans the market wouldn't- no way around that, not only making lending riskier but driving up the cost of housing way beyond what the market would have. I had to take the FHA loan on my first house. had they not driven up the prices, I'd have been able to make the necessary % down payment without it. Something had to give, and my home now is worth less than it was 10 years ago.. anecdotal but I don't think I'm alone!

 

[Cephus]

The government backed loans the market wouldn't- no way around that, not only making lending riskier but driving up the cost of housing way beyond what the market would have. I had to take the FHA loan on my first house. had they not driven up the prices, I'd have been able to make the necessary % down payment without it. Something had to give, and my home now is worth less than it was 10 years ago.. anecdotal but I don't think I'm alone!

That's because housing prices before the housing bubble broke were artificially inflated, they weren't really worth that much. My house and property during the height of the housing bubble were appraised to be worth a couple of million dollars. Had I sold then, I would have pocketed a hefty sum. I didn't and now my house is "worth" a million and change. Value is only a representation of what someone is willing to shell out for the property at the moment. You didn't lose money, it was never money that you had, it was entirely imaginary until you actually put your house on the market.

 

[Shad]

The original question was about worshipping science, rather than God, and I think the USSR demonstrates the danger in that.

Before communism, Russia was the breadbasket of Europe, Stalin replaced the farmer's traditional practices with more 'scientific' ones, and millions starved to death..

The USSR didn't worship science, it was centered on the ideology of a political party which encompassed all facets of life. The USSR rejected Darwinian Evolution. It supported Lysenkoism with fake data and omission of failures in experimentation. If one distorts or completely ignores scientific methodology one can hardly claim they worshiped science. Such distortions were used to support the political ideology which is what the USSR really wanted people to adhere to. If anything the Soviets displayed the dangers of ideologies and the lengths people will take to protect said ideology.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's because housing prices before the housing bubble broke were artificially inflated, they weren't really worth that much. My house and property during the height of the housing bubble were appraised to be worth a couple of million dollars. Had I sold then, I would have pocketed a hefty sum. I didn't and now my house is "worth" a million and change. Value is only a representation of what someone is willing to shell out for the property at the moment. You didn't lose money, it was never money that you had, it was entirely imaginary until you actually put your house on the market.

yes, inflated in part by the 'benevolent' government creating lots of loans that the 'cruel' free market would have otherwise refused. Of course this inflates prices.

the money you pay, the down payment and loan for the inflated house, are not imaginary. Neither is equity

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The USSR didn't worship science, it was centered on the ideology of a political party which encompassed all facets of life. The USSR rejected Darwinian Evolution. It supported Lysenkoism with fake data and omission of failures in experimentation. If one distorts or completely ignores scientific methodology one can hardly claim they worshiped science. Such distortions were used to support the political ideology which is what the USSR really wanted people to adhere to. If anything the Soviets displayed the dangers of ideologies and the lengths people will take to protect said ideology.

As before that's the nature of the beast, 'science' and ideology are as often as not the same thing. Just a label that says 'not to be questioned'

'science' was worshipped, in effect, as a gospel to replace traditional beliefs and practices- like those traditional 'unscientific' farming techniques

 

[Blackmarch]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

Seek God, in humility, prayer, study and work (IE Heart, might, and mind). and when you recieve inspiration you act on it. If he tells you to go be muslim you be muslim, if he tells you to go be christian, go be christian, or which ever sect/religion. If he tells you to do the hokey pokey, do the hokey pokey.

 

[Shad]

As before that's the nature of the beast, 'science' and ideology are as often as not the same thing. Just a label that says 'not to be questioned'

'science' was worshipped, in effect, as a gospel to replace traditional beliefs and practices- like those traditional 'unscientific' farming techniques

A facade of science was to be a principle in which people acted upon or followed in their lives. However it takes very little research to show that this facade is nothing more than pseudoscience when it served the state's purpose. If science was to be worshiped, along with it's methods, the state would require no arrests or execution of critics. It would of never of endorsed failed hypothesis nor suppress work by foreigners, the bourgeois and capitalists. They no more represent science than various political leaders represent a religion, crying out God's virture and laws while killing their fellow man for not believing or believing in the wrong way. Both are facades which are used for an ideological purpose rather than being a source of the ideology itself.

 

[metis]

The government backed loans the market wouldn't- no way around that, not only making lending riskier but driving up the cost of housing way beyond what the market would have. I had to take the FHA loan on my first house. had they not driven up the prices, I'd have been able to make the necessary % down payment without it. Something had to give, and my home now is worth less than it was 10 years ago.. anecdotal but I don't think I'm alone!

Actually the government back loans had become the minority of monies for housing investment (in the 60's, FHA had 90% of that market), and it was the private mortgage investments that were more the catalyst for creating the bubble because there was much more than just the housing market that was involved with these over-speculative investments. Freddie and Fannie actually didn't begin to use these same reckless techniques until 2005, if my memory is correct.

Our house was only 40% of the 2006 assessed value in 2010 but now has rebounded to 90%.

 

[Cephus]

yes, inflated in part by the 'benevolent' government creating lots of loans that the 'cruel' free market would have otherwise refused. Of course this inflates prices.

the money you pay, the down payment and loan for the inflated house, are not imaginary. Neither is equity

My house is worth significantly more than I paid for it when I bought it but that value remains only as good as what a buyer is willing to pay me at the time that I sell it. If a realtor tells me my house is worth a billion dollars but I can't find anyone to pay me more than $500,000 for it, then it was never worth a billion dollars, no matter what anyone says.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

My house is worth significantly more than I paid for it when I bought it but that value remains only as good as what a buyer is willing to pay me at the time that I sell it. If a realtor tells me my house is worth a billion dollars but I can't find anyone to pay me more than $500,000 for it, then it was never worth a billion dollars, no matter what anyone says.

Actually the government back loans had become the minority of monies for housing investment (in the 60's, FHA had 90% of that market), and it was the private mortgage investments that were more the catalyst for creating the bubble because there was much more than just the housing market that was involved with these over-speculative investments. Freddie and Fannie actually didn't begin to use these same reckless techniques until 2005, if my memory is correct.

Our house was only 40% of the 2006 assessed value in 2010 but now has rebounded to 90%.

if the free market was over speculating, the last thing it needed was the government underwriting that over speculation, as I recall FHA covered about 30% of all loans in the county be bought in at the time, which was a wealthy county, poorer ones were higher- i.e. the program ended up hitting the people it was supposed to help the hardest. Which has been my observation of socialism the world over- coming back to Stalin's farming techniques...

 

[metis]

if the free market was over speculating, the last thing it needed was the government underwriting that over speculation, as I recall FHA covered about 30% of all loans in the county be bought in at the time, which was a wealthy county, poorer ones were higher- i.e. the program ended up hitting the people it was supposed to help the hardest. Which has been my observation of socialism the world over- coming back to Stalin's farming techniques...

I agree that the government should not be "underwriting" it unless not doing as such would cause more harm than good. I'd much rather see temporary nationalization than just bailing them out, which is one reason why I'm very upset with the Republican amendment on the new budget bill that has the taxpayer bailing them out again if another banking crisis were to happen.

And don't blame socialism for this as is was the ill effects of too-lightly regulated free-market capitalism that led to this mess, especially the risky activities within the shadow-banking system, contrary to what some hear on the Fox Propaganda Channel.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I agree that the government should not be "underwriting" it unless not doing as such would cause more harm than good. I'd much rather see temporary nationalization than just bailing them out, which is one reason why I'm very upset with the Republican amendment on the new budget bill that has the taxpayer bailing them out again if another banking crisis were to happen.

And don't blame socialism for this as is was the ill effects of too-lightly regulated free-market capitalism that led to this mess, especially the risky activities within the shadow-banking system, contrary to what some hear on the Fox Propaganda Channel.

The government doesn't underwrite Rush/Fox, it underwrites NPR/ PBS... regardless of which you prefer, that's freedom of speech versus state propaganda- in the USSR the former would be shut down.

hey were getting waay off topic here!

 

[metis]

The government doesn't underwrite Rush/Fox, it underwrites NPR/ PBS... regardless of which you prefer, that's freedom of speech versus state propaganda- in the USSR the former would be shut down

hey were getting waay off topic here!

... and you saying things I didn't state nor imply, and I'll take NRR/PBS any time of the week over the Fox Cesspool.

Have a great weekend.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

... and you saying things I didn't state nor imply, and I'll take NRR/PBS any time of the week over the Fox Cesspool.

Have a great weekend.

it's good for a laugh sometimes, have a good one!

 

[Muffled]

If one who's supposedly in science operates out of blind faith on much of anything, then they are not operating out of a scientific paradigm. It's the reason why scientists in general don't tend to make for good theists, and even those that are theistically are often inclined to be rather unorthodox in their theological drift.

Is science the right religion? I believe science has messed things up royally at times and it certainly was the religion of the Soviet Union.

 

[metis]

Is science the right religion? I believe science has messed things up royally at times and it certainly was the religion of the Soviet Union.

Science is not a "religion", and the problems that the Soviets created had nothing to do with science in spite of the fact that they claimed they were being scientific. Their self-created problems had much more to do with terrible inefficiency, oppression at all different levels, and a horribly bureaucratic structure that simply didn't operate a more free market economy.

 

[Muffled]

Science is not a "religion", and the problems that the Soviets created had nothing to do with science in spite of the fact that they claimed they were being scientific. Their self-created problems had much more to do with terrible inefficiency, oppression at all different levels, and a horribly bureaucratic structure that simply didn't operate a more free market economy.

Communism was officially atheistic. It believed the world would be a better place without religion but I beleive no-one who has Jesus as Lord and Savior could ever murder millions of people the way Communist leaders have.

 

[Cephus]

Communism was officially atheistic. It believed the world would be a better place without religion but I beleive no-one who has Jesus as Lord and Savior could ever murder millions of people the way Communist leaders have.

And that kind of misconception is entirely nonsense. It was nothing of the kind. And since Hitler was a Christian and killed millions of Jews, I guess you're just wrong.

 

[metis]

Communism was officially atheistic. It believed the world would be a better place without religion but I beleive no-one who has Jesus as Lord and Savior could ever murder millions of people the way Communist leaders have.

One really can't blame "communism" nor even "Marxism" for what the Soviet leaders did as it's not implicit with either. These leaders were totalitarian in their approach, having no mercy for those who disagreed with them. Yes, Marx taught that revolting against authorities may be necessary, much like the colonists did here in the States, but massacring masses of people was the antithesis of his teaching.

 

[Muffled]

One really can't blame "communism" nor even "Marxism" for what the Soviet leaders did as it's not implicit with either. These leaders were totalitarian in their approach, having no mercy for those who disagreed with them. Yes, Marx taught that revolting against authorities may be necessary, much like the colonists did here in the States, but massacring masses of people was the antithesis of his teaching.

I believe it was a quite scientific approach. Eliminate anyone who believes in capitalism and/or God and then teach communism as the truth and the society will become atheistic and communistic.

I believe this is not so different from God's appraoch of eliminating idol worshippers from Palestine so that there would only be a community that worships Him.

I believe God has changed that approach via Jesus, to allowing tares among the wheat.

I believe however the old adage may still apply that a bad apple will spoil the barrel.