Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Common sense economics?
> DPS wrote:
> One question for people saying give money to the banks. Didn't the government try that already, at the cost of almost 1 trillion dollars if I recall correctly, and it didn't work?
Um... you freaking gave it 6 months. What the hell do you expect in that time?
you cant have a successful economy without having successful banks. Japan spent so much money, their national debt is around 200% of their GDP, and they didnt bother to fix their banking system and they didnt stimulate the growth they were trying to. simply spending money wont fix the economy. you fix the banks, and the economy will fix itself, you [blorg!] the banks over, which is what the government did and Obama personally did, forcing them to give mortgages to people of lower income, and no matter how much money you give in tax breaks, people wont get loans and growth wont happen.
[mind the language!!]
Economics is a belief system. No paper currency has every withstood the test of time. The United States and most of the world is following the Keynesian form of economics. I believe it is a poor model, But it has lasted for the last 70 years. It will take a major breakdown to change the belief in a system that has appeared to be so successful. I believe we are looking at a breakdown that will put the depression to shame.
Keynesian basically is a system that allows for the creation of wealth through inflation. It actually does work for a period of time. But greed and corruption ultimately destroys it. The dollar is worth about 5% of what it was worth at the time the Federal Reserve came into existence, somewhere around 1914. Many people think the Federal Reserve is a government agency, but it is a private corporation making money off the debt of the United States.
Government is nothing but a parasite. Does that mean you should have no government. No there are many examples in nature where there is a symbiotic relationship for the mutual benefit of both. But you can not have a parasite that kills the host.
Remember That Government Creates Nothing!!!!!
> doughboy wrote:
> Remember That Government Creates Nothing!!!!!
no, the government creates debt.
> avogadro wrote:
> you cant have a successful economy without having successful banks. Japan spent so much money, their national debt is around 200% of their GDP, and they didnt bother to fix their banking system and they didnt stimulate the growth they were trying to. simply spending money wont fix the economy. you fix the banks, and the economy will fix itself, you [] the banks over, which is what the government did and Obama personally did, forcing them to give mortgages to people of lower income, and no matter how much money you give in tax breaks, people wont get loans and growth wont happen.
OMG!
I hate repeating myself. I think we had this conversation before and I think I'm still waiting for my reply on that 
.. but anyways
You were doing great Avo, I believe for the first time I was agreeing with you for a major part of your post...untill you got to your self-acclaimed "cause".
"you [] the banks over, which is what the government did and Obama personally did, forcing them to give mortgages to people of lower income, and no matter how much money you give in tax breaks, people wont get loans and growth wont happen."
WOW. A lot of things we have to break down here. The first I would say to you is, no major bank was really involved in giving out mortgages to people who couldn't afford it. This was the work of other somewhat minor "banks" such as Freddie & Fannie. We have to visit this problem again, housing was not the main issue for this recession, it was certainly part of it and it had a bigger hand than some other smaller things but still it wasn't the CORE, fundamental problem. But before I start again, I'm going to pose the same question I did in the other thread for which I still haven't gotten an answer.
Avo, what do you think really happened? What were the chain of events that led to the fall of investment banks and this recession?
Because you again and again keep coming back to how the stinky democrats forced banks to give money to people who couldn't afford it...but that doesn't really add up to how investment banks fell and suddenly had lost most their value
what really happened; government removed the motivation that capitalism provides banks that makes them strive to thrive. they have grown corrupt and dont fear bankruptcy because they are too large for the government to allow them to go bankrupt. they have no incentive to make good investments. now they lack the money to lend to businesses which is forcing companies to lay off workers and dramatically increase the recession. the banks were the worst of capitalism and communism, they werent motivated and they werent responsible to the people. im a libertarian, yet i prefer a national bank to the way banks are currently handled.
and i was merely using the housing market as an example how the government failed and created this crisis. greed was not the cause of this, socialists were the cause of it.
and im happy you agreed with me on all the parts of my post that were relevant to the topic, lets not hijack this thread.
you said you agreed witht the beginning of my post; does that mean you disagree with Obama?! 
im really confused...oboma personally screwed over tha banks? but he wasnt in goverment when this started happening, and the federal reserve and banks are all supervised by a board, that is pretty much the goverment...so it was in fact bush and the republicans that did this. thats just my logic. Also, the goverment needs to spend money to make money. Everthing the goverment does for you requires money. They spend more on road repairs each year and infrastructure biulding and public service than the salary of all its employees, so to say the goverment is a parasite is a little inacurate. Spending money to make money. Any good business man knows how to make money. And thats that. you cant stimulate the economy without spending money. And if the economy is so bad..did you think it would be cheap?
and also, i dont see any facts behind your accustaion avogadro, about the removal of capitalist motivations and coruptness...sounds like borderline conspiracy theory to me.. its a clasic case of all opinion, no fact. one cant be without the other if you want your argument to have any grounds. I could say that the reason the economy is in trouble is not becuase of the goverment, and i have just as much proof.
its sad that there is no credit going to the goverment lol...its not like your country is a lower rate country in most respects, so obviously those parasites had to be doing something good. the fact that they are activly taking on a plan, win or loose, is better than what bush did before he left office...nothing..unless it had IRAQ on the header , he prob wouldnt even read the report.
fact. Goverments just changed
Fact. A plan has been implimented
Fact. Its been just a few days
Fact. The money hasnt even been put into the system yet and people are saying its a failure
Fact. Chances are taht most people will not have an inside knowlage of how the Economy really works, hence they will not know how to fix it.
Fact. If obomas plans work, then im coming back and reviving this topic to be all "i told you so" ...if not, feel free to do the same to me.
Fact There are probably a million ways to save the economy, some more right than others, but many will work..
Fact No matter what was decided, it would be critized just as heavily, maybe more
opinion. I think the goverment has more information on what needs to be done than what is available to the public. I think there may be things in his bill that are things they added because they want to hit more birds with one stone. I dont agree with that, but they also have to think longterm for America, so i understand. I think its a good idea to take an active stance and spend the money required now, rather than waiting till everyones comfortable with it...the sooner the money is in the economy, the sooner the wound heals.
Opinion. You all seem rather informed, and very smart in your reasoning for the most part. Especially with the lack of facts, you have made compelling arguments. BUt i do feel there is too much pestimism in here...if you feel that way why are you even playing games online? Its because deep down you know this will one day be the past..no matter how we get through it, we will.
opinion. Freedom tastes good.
"im really confused...oboma personally screwed over tha banks? but he wasnt in goverment when this started happening"
Obama was a lawyer that sued banks in order to force them to give bad mortgages to people of lower income.
"Also, the goverment needs to spend money to make money"
the government doesnt make money....
".so it was in fact bush and the republicans that did this"
the republicans werent in power, the democrats had the majority in congress, nice attempt distorting facts you son of a bitch.
"you cant stimulate the economy without spending money"
ummm, yeah you can. cutting taxes stimulates the economy, doesnt spend money. also, giving forbearance to certain banks wouldnt cost money. two ways to stimulate the economy without spending money, that took 5 secs tot hink of. also, im not against some spending, but if you looked at the package, instead of blindly beleiving in Obama because he's a good public speaker; you would see how little is being spent to actually improve the economy. its 800 billion dollars of pork.
"And if the economy is so bad..did you think it would be cheap?"
have you seen what the "stimlus package" consists of? you could claim maybe 10% of the 850 billion (very generous percent) is being spent to improve the economy, the rest is being spent for the sake of spending, and Japan has clearly shown that that doesnt work.
"and also, i dont see any facts behind your accustaion avogadro, about the removal of capitalist motivations and coruptness"
government officials from both parties have said some of the banks are too big to fail. if thats true, then they dont have to worry about bankruptcy which is what motivates companies in a capitalist system. and officials from both parties have blamed the crisis on greed or corruption.... i dont see why you have a problem with my statments.
"Fact. If obomas plans work, then im coming back and reviving this topic to be all "i told you so" ...if not, feel free to do the same to me."
what do you mean by work? if the US economy some day recovers fromt he recession? no one doubts that. alot of economists have the economy recovering before the majority of Obama's stimuls package being spent, simply because the economy tends to recover from these types of things; that doesnt mean that Obama isnt passing 800+ billion dollars of debt to our children so that he can pass some pork.
Obama was a lawyer that sued banks in order to force them to give bad mortgages to people of lower income.
-yeah, if he was a lawyer, and the courts forced them to give people bad morgages, dont blame oboma for doing his job, blame the court. If they won in court, that means there was some legal reason they had to. "
the government doesnt make money....
no, what i meant was the goverment needs to spend money in order for the economy to work and make money. Economys dont manage themselves, never have.
the republicans werent in power, the democrats had the majority in congress, nice attempt distorting facts you son of a bitch.
so i was wrong? Bush didnt havve office for 8 years as the economy become like this? please tell me how they distorted that fact.
ummm, yeah you can. cutting taxes stimulates the economy, doesnt spend money. also, giving forbearance to certain banks wouldnt cost money. two ways to stimulate the economy without spending money, that took 5 secs tot hink of. also, im not against some spending, but if you looked at the package, instead of blindly beleiving in Obama because he's a good public speaker; you would see how little is being spent to actually improve the economy. its 800 billion dollars of pork.
i beg to differ, cutting taxes makes it easier on people, but the taxes cover lots of things people NEED, im not going to list them all again. I looked at the package, and if you read my post, i said i dont agree with parts of it, but i dont pretend to know how thier plan works, cause i dont
"Fact. If obomas plans work, then im coming back and reviving this topic to be all "i told you so" ...if not, feel free to do the same to me."
my statement stands lol...and are you saying no matter waht oboma does the economy will recoveR? Then whats the problem? What did you thikn oboma OR mcain would do when they got into office? Save the money the needed to put thier plans into motion?
"my statement stands lol...and are you saying no matter waht oboma does the economy will recoveR? Then whats the problem?"
im saying it may take 6 months, it may take 60 years. and thats what the problem is. he is lengthening and worsening the problem.
"no, what i meant was the goverment needs to spend money in order for the economy to work and make money. Economys dont manage themselves, never have. "
umm, yeah, economy's can manage themselves. and although some government intervention is probably ideal, the government spending usually does more harm then good and certainly isnt a requirment for the economy to work.
"dont blame oboma for doing his job"
if someone is a thief, they are still responsible for the damage they do. he's a lawyer, he did his job, he's still responsible for what he does.
"so i was wrong? Bush didnt havve office for 8 years as the economy become like this? please tell me how they distorted that fact."
Bush was in office, but guess who has control over spending? the legislative branch, who had control over the legislative branch? Democrats. who drove us into this recession? Democrats. also, you claimed Bush AND the republicans were in power, so you werent just talking about Bush being president.
"
i beg to differ, cutting taxes makes it easier on people, but the taxes cover lots of things people NEED, im not going to list them all again"
taxes cover alot of things, but if taxes were cut, the programs wouldnt disappear, the national debt would increase.
The ACLU is famous for how many lawsuits they will put on one organization, to cripple it via nickle and dime issues that have no real basis, then offering salvation via doing what they want. They also tend to strike targets unable to fight back, or to pick area's where the judges are going to always side with the ACLU.
Claim they are corrupt and they will sue you from San Fransisco California, good luck traveling there, fighting your case, losing in the local courts, losing in the State Courts, losing in the Federal Courts, Losing in the Federal Appeals Court, by the time you have a chance to see it in the Supreme Court you have lost about 30 years of your life in the various hearings, delays, and tricks they can pull, or you gave up and lost about 3/4 of anything you have earned, will earn, and can marry into.
Its a power play by Democrats more than recovery. If they could have recovery without new controls they wouldn't want it. They also want a trillion dollars in pork and they want Republicans to agree its all necessary. They may have to settle for 2 out of 3
> avogadro wrote:
> what really happened; government removed the motivation that capitalism provides banks that makes them strive to thrive. they have grown corrupt and dont fear bankruptcy because they are too large for the government to allow them to go bankrupt. they have no incentive to make good investments. now they lack the money to lend to businesses which is forcing companies to lay off workers and dramatically increase the recession. the banks were the worst of capitalism and communism, they werent motivated and they werent responsible to the people. im a libertarian, yet i prefer a national bank to the way banks are currently handled.
and i was merely using the housing market as an example how the government failed and created this crisis. greed was not the cause of this, socialists were the cause of it.
and im happy you agreed with me on all the parts of my post that were relevant to the topic, lets not hijack this thread.
ughhhhhh not quite
Investment banks like the Lehman Brothers, banks that were doing so well off suddenly collapsing? They lost a ton of money, they might not care for bankruptcy but they do care for cash. The government didn't start "bailing out" until after the banks had basically gone under. You have to understand the causes were not political at all, there were some things that the government implemented that helped the crisis but the government had its own good reasons for implementing those policies. I don't really blame the Bush government for not seeing that the lower interest rate would cause a housing bubble, niether do I blame the clintons for allowing universal banks (Investment banks & commercial banks together) which increased competition between the classic investment banks(Lehman brother) and universal banks(bank of america). What caused the crisis was a desire for more money, it was greed. Investment banks saw the money in risky assets especially securitized mortgages and the bought in...that is simply GREED! Sure, people were given mortgages they couldn't afford but because of the banks greed or smarts(whichever way you wanna look at it) caused them to sell those in the market place, and they had buyers because of GREED!
Avo, if you're interested and have the time I'll provide you with an un-biased article, it's fairly lengthy but a great read.
BTW .. " government removed the motivation that capitalism provides banks that makes them strive to thrive. they have grown corrupt and dont fear bankruptcy because they are too large for the government to allow them to go bankrupt. they have no incentive to make good investments. now they lack the money to lend to businesses which is forcing companies to lay off workers and dramatically increase the recession"
sounds more like the after math, not how it started 
Gladiator, I believe avogadro is specifically trying to talk about the Community Reinvestment Act when he says that banks were required to lend to poor people.
"sounds more like the after math, not how it started wink"
well, you have to think, did the banks know whether the environment in washington would allow them to go bankrupt? it was clear before the crisis that they wouldnt, and it is why the risky yet profitable investments, really didnt have much risk for the bankers.
"You have to understand the causes were not political at all,"
everything is political, you're just claiming it isnt political because socializing the american economy is the cause for the collapse, and you support such politics.
> avogadro wrote:
> "sounds more like the after math, not how it started wink"
well, you have to think, did the banks know whether the environment in washington would allow them to go bankrupt? it was clear before the crisis that they wouldnt, and it is why the risky yet profitable investments, really didnt have much risk for the bankers.
"You have to understand the causes were not political at all,"
everything is political, you're just claiming it isnt political because socializing the american economy is the cause for the collapse, and you support such politics.
This is where you're wrong, they engaged in risky strategies because they were getting beat out by universal banks, not because they knew if they failed they would be rescued. I'll even tell you why they were getting beat by universal banks, universal banks like i explained before are commerical banks combined with investment banks, as you can imainge these banks would obviously have more capital allowed by anyone who deposits money in their account. Now these universal banks did not need to engage in such risky assets as they obviously had more capital and could gain more money from a very unrisky investment, this could not be done by investment banks as they only had the cash coming from specific people or companies who were looking to increase their profits. As time went on, investment banks obviously saw their business going down as universal banks were looking better and better and better. The only solution? Risky investments, as you probably know, the bigger the risk the bigger the return(or loss). Through I believe it was 2005-2007(mid year, althouth I don't remember the exact year, but that's the general time) investment banks were getting a lot of money back for their risky investments and so they bought in even more. Here is where the securitized mortgages come in, remember I told you my last post they were sold back around in the marketplace, and there were willing buyers who obviously knew the HUGE risk, but they were blinded by the greed! After this all happened and then the stock market started taking a nose dive, as foreclosures happened, these risky investments for the investment banks went down first and then these caused the other assets to be basically un-measurable as they were measured earlier by the marketplace, but no buyers means there is no true value(this is where it gets very complicationg, and I haven't researched it here yet either). From here I think you can add up what happens. If you want I can even provide you with the 20 or so sources, I've researched this for quite a while, for school. BTW, if you want politics to be blamed, blame bush for the interest rate in 2001 and congress during clinton era for allowing universal banks by reversing the Glass-Steagel Act, something that was implemented in the great depression. But all this was done for good reason during those times, and I don't blame either one for not being able to forsee into the future.
what you said didnt contradict what i said; also you dodged one of my questions "you said you agreed witht the beginning of my post; does that mean you disagree with Obama?!" because Obama has said
Actually my post pretty much went against what you think is what "caused" the "crisis". Your logic there is flawed, you have the aftermath down, I can get my little brother to do that, but you somehow think the economic conditions start at the fault of politics and end there too, specifically democratic politics.
""you said you agreed witht the beginning of my post; does that mean you disagree with Obama?!" because Obama has said
"but you somehow think the economic conditions start at the fault of politics and end there too, specifically democratic politics."
ok, you blame greed for the collapse, right? im saying that the system that politicians put in place, damn well should of thought of people being greedy. its in human nature; the politics is flawed fundamentally if they dont account for greed. its like forcing communism and when it doesnt work, saying, oh, its not our fault it didnt work, greed caused it not to work, lets do it again, after we blame a scapegoat for being greedy, so that they wont be greedy again.
what you said happened doesnt go against what i say is happen, except you dont blame Clinton and Bush and all of Congress for not seeing the disaster ahead of time, i do. i say how can you not think greed will happen? how can you take away the fear of bankruptcy and have little public responsibility and expect them to work their asses off for not whats best for them, but for the country?
If the free market determined interest rates we wouldn't have these bubbles. BAM there's the fault of politics being the start of the problem.
> avogadro wrote:
> "but you somehow think the economic conditions start at the fault of politics and end there too, specifically democratic politics."
ok, you blame greed for the collapse, right? im saying that the system that politicians put in place, damn well should of thought of people being greedy. its in human nature; the politics is flawed fundamentally if they dont account for greed. its like forcing communism and when it doesnt work, saying, oh, its not our fault it didnt work, greed caused it not to work, lets do it again, after we blame a scapegoat for being greedy, so that they wont be greedy again.
what you said happened doesnt go against what i say is happen, except you dont blame Clinton and Bush and all of Congress for not seeing the disaster ahead of time, i do. i say how can you not think greed will happen? how can you take away the fear of bankruptcy and have little public responsibility and expect them to work their asses off for not whats best for them, but for the country?
If you think congress and presidents (who let me remind you are humans) can for see the future using some mystical high-tech technology, you need a reality check!
Like I said, ever move any government has made is with good intentions (i say this loosely as we just came off a Dicky Cheyney government ) but it is with good intentions.
"how can you take away the fear of bankruptcy and have little public responsibility and expect them to work their asses off for not whats best for them, but for the country?"
OMG, I spent twenty minutes telling you what actually happened and you go back to "bankruptcy wasn't fearfull enough for them, so they said 'hmm, let's try our luck at that, what do we have to loose other than a couple of billion dollars?'". DAMN
Read my post again if you have to.
"asses off for not whats best for them, but for the country",
wait are you talking about congress or corporations here? If corporations, OH BOY, you have something coming your way
In short, get out of fairy tale land, people can not for see the future. They can only try to learn from the past and neither of the causes really ever were evident to fail in the past.
> V.Kemp wrote:
> If the free market determined interest rates we wouldn't have these bubbles. BAM there's the fault of politics being the start of the problem.
But the interest rates weren't part of the real problem, they were just part of the sub-sub problem
BTW it was the "free market" advocated who lowered the interest rates, the american "system" is sorta flawed but they at that time again did it for good reason, I don't blame them 
>>ever move any government has made is with good intentions <<
...Wow. That's not the most ignorant and naive statement... ever.
>>But the interest rates weren't part of the real problem, they were just part of the sub-sub problem<<
The bubble was. Which was the point. Go back. You missed it. They weren't part of the real problem? Wow. That's quite the position.
>>BTW it was the "free market" advocated who lowered the interest rates<<
It was the US Federal Reserve Bank. You have no idea what you're talking about.
when the free market determines interest rates they're at 23%.
They'll have to be 8% within the decade, anyhow.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Common sense economics?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.