NationStates Jolt Archive

Not just NSG, but the whole damned world.

We're all giving Obama 10 day, 20 day, 30 day, etc., checks. We're asking if he's failed, we're rating him on his performance. The man hasn't even been in office four months and we're calling him a failure.

We expect him to solve problems in days that have been decades in the making.

We're the TV and video game generations. We've grown accustomed to neat, tidy endings done in the course of an hour long show or the course of a video game where we can solve problems with a magic lightening bolt. But this isn't television or a video game - this is reality. It takes years to create problems, it'll take just as long to solve them.

Obama is one person working within the constraints of a system designed to restrict his power. He cannot, with a stroke of a pen or Presidential decree, make everything right. Even if he clearly understands the causes and sources of all the problems (and, admit it, even the august minds of NSG, cannot understand the sources and the causes of all the ills in the whole frakking world), it would still be impossible for him to do everything we think he should have done by now.

Give him a break, people, give him more than 120 days to save the world.

(Yeah, I know, get a blog).

Flash Gordon did it in 24 hours

In a couple months this man has already enacted policies that will have far reaching disastrous effects for years to come. That's not to say he hasn't also raised some good suggestions but clearly the bad has thus far outweighed the good.

In a couple months this man has already enacted policies that will have far reaching disastrous effects for years to come. That's not to say he hasn't also raised some good suggestions but clearly the bad has thus far outweighed the good.
Yeah, we do need a reality check. You especially need a reality check to remind you that tomorrow has not happened yet, and that fortunetellers are fakes. Thus, your statement that Obama has already done bad things based on what you predict the outcome of his policies WILL be someday in the future, is bullshit, Creskin.

In a couple months this man has already enacted policies that will have far reaching disastrous effects for years to come.

Prooo-oooooof!

Yeah, we do need a reality check. You especially need a reality check to remind you that tomorrow has not happened yet, and that fortunetellers are fakes. Thus, your statement that Obama has already done bad things based on what you predict the outcome of his policies WILL be someday in the future, is bullshit, Creskin.

That's not bullshit and not all fortunetellers are fakes. I met one who told me in 2003 that the Iraq War would turn out to be a disaster.

That's not bullshit and not all fortunetellers are fakes. I met one who told me in 2003 that the Iraq War would turn out to be a disaster.

You didn't need a crystal ball or Tarot deck to figure that one out.

That's not bullshit and not all fortunetellers are fakes. I met one who told me in 2003 that the Iraq War would turn out to be a disaster.

I bet he also predicted the sun would rise the following day.

That's not bullshit and not all fortunetellers are fakes. I met one who told me in 2003 that the Iraq War would turn out to be a disaster.

Is that really your best example-for? Many people could've told you that. I know I predicted that Obama wasn't going to be the second coming of Christ like a few people were convinced he was. Does that make me a psychic?

You didn't need a crystal ball or Tarot deck to figure that one out.

You don't need a crystal ball or tarot deck to figure out the path of disaster Obama is leading us on either. All you need is some understanding of basic economics.

Is that really your best example-for? Many people could've told you that. I know I predicted that Obama wasn't going to be the second coming of Christ like a few people were convinced he was. Does that make me a psychic?

Lol I wasn't trying to argue that the fortuneteller was truly "psychic".

That's not bullshit and not all fortunetellers are fakes. I met one who told me in 2003 that the Iraq War would turn out to be a disaster.
As others have already pointed out, there was plenty of evidence on which to base such a prediction. There were specific actions, policies and conditions to analyze, and there was evidence with which to lay out the foundation for an argument concerning the war. For example, we could point to the existing fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 despite Bush's claims otherwise and on that basis predict that the rationale for going to war would turn out to be false. We could look at the facts of Rumsfeld planned strategy for the war and compare it to the facts of the history of war in that region and on that basis predict that the war would not be the "cakewalk" that many in Bush's cabinet promised.

Kindly state what specific actions or policies of Obama's you think have already done so much harm to the nation. Kindly lay out the reasoning and facts about them that lead you to the conclusion that Obama has already done bad to the nation.

Because unless you have something more substantial than your own personal ideological bias, I'm going to stand by my bullshit call.

Oh, and while you are at it, kindly remind us of which unreasonable people it was who claimed that Bush had already harmed the US before his policies were actually implemented, let alone carried to their conclusions.

You don't need a crystal ball or tarot deck to figure out the path of disaster Obama is leading us on either. All you need is some understanding of basic economics.
Oh, I can't wait to hear this. This ought to be a real traipse down Reality Check Lane. Please, lay it on us.

As others have already pointed out, there was plenty of evidence on which to base such a prediction. There were specific actions, policies and conditions to analyze, and there was evidence with which to lay out the foundation for an argument concerning the war. For example, we could point to the existing fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 despite Bush's claims otherwise and on that basis predict that the rationale for going to war would turn out to be false. We could look at the facts of Rumsfeld planned strategy for the war and compare it to the facts of the history of war in that region and on that basis predict that the war would not be the "cakewalk" that many in Bush's cabinet promised.

Kindly state what specific actions or policies of Obama's you think have already done so much harm to the nation. Kindly lay out the reasoning and facts about them that lead you to the conclusion that Obama has already done bad to the nation.

Because unless you have something more substantial than your own personal ideological bias, I'm going to stand by my bullshit call.

To paraphrase using your boldface:

Specific actions: Stimulus plans, bank bailouts, automaker bailouts, and monetarist policies carried out by the federal reserve.

Existing fact: The existing problem is that private individuals are in too much debt- which is the current crisis we are dealing with. The government proposes to solve this problem by using all its means to incentivize and coax people and companies to get into even more debt, (in addition to actively expanding the government debt).

Facts of history: Getting into more debt does not solve existing debt. Central bank lowering interest rates has never in history corrected economic problems. Stimulus plans have never worked.

Oh, and while you are at it, kindly remind us of which unreasonable people it was who claimed that Bush had already harmed the US before his policies were actually implemented, let alone carried to their conclusions.

Could you clarify your request?

We are rating his plan, which is messiah-awful.

All you need is some understanding of basic economics.What goes up, must come down. The economy went up, now it has to come down. Basic, sure. Does Obama have a lot to do with it? No.

Very basic understanding. No complex college level courses or college degrees required.

not all fortunetellers are fakes*twitch*

So, Pissarro, were you able to see anything coming regarding Bush's economic policies? This is his mess Obama's trying to clean up, after all.

SNIP

True. They could at least give him 100 days AFTER he has his Cabinet is assembled (EDIT), not just 100 days after the inauguration.

What goes up, must come down. The economy went up, now it has to come down. Basic, sure. Does Obama have a lot to do with it? No.

Very basic understanding. No complex college level courses or college degrees required.

Obama can of course make sure what comes down stays down for a long, long time to come with his policies in effect.

To paraphrase using your boldface:

Specific actions: Stimulus plans, bank bailouts, automaker bailouts, and monetarist policies carried out by the federal reserve.

Ahh not exactly started by the President. The shrub did a fantastic job at giving out free money. Somebody told me Citigroup used took bailout money and got involved in some anti-union stuff with walmart. The bonus abuse, etc.

It will not do much; if the money doesn't go to address the problem.

Existing fact: The existing problem is that private individuals are in too much debt- which is the current crisis we are dealing with.

So how does a credit card cause this? The private cititizen is not the whole problem for this mess. They are a part but system is a major factor.

The government proposes to solve this problem by using all its means to incentivize and coax people and companies to get into even more debt, (in addition to actively expanding the government debt).

Ah What?


Facts of history: Getting into more debt does not solve existing debt. Central bank lowering interest rates has never in history corrected economic problems. Stimulus plans have never worked.

Ah what?

True. They could at least give him 100 days AFTER he has his Cabinet is assembled (EDIT), not just 100 days after the inauguration.

well if he would be so good as select people who had paid their taxes.

Obama can of course make sure what comes down stays down for a long, long time to come with his policies in effect.

Versus what? The shrubs policies?

well if he would be so good as select people who had paid their taxes.

Pfft. You eliminated most of the government.....

*twitch*

So, Pissarro, were you able to see anything coming regarding Bush's economic policies? This is his mess Obama's trying to clean up, after all.

Personally no, because I was 13 years old when Bush became president and therefore I had no idea what was going on at the time.

If it will make you feel better, the consensus among economists (Steven Keen, Peter Schiff, Mike Shedlock, etc) who correctly predicted Bush's economic policies would lead to disaster also agree that Obama's policies will lead to disaster, since Obama is merely repeating most of the policies that occurred during Bush's tenure.

Pfft. You eliminated most of the government.....

or not when giving a Republican a compromise position then stripping it of all its power.

Obama can of course make sure what comes down stays down for a long, long time to come with his policies in effect.Yes, because it's not like Congress controls the power of the purse, or anything. It's going to be President Obama's policies that screw the economy up for years to come. Not like former President Bush had anything to do with it, or any of the previous (Within the past twenty years.) presidents, or Congressional sessions. It's obviously President Obama's fault. I see your point.

I don't want a check, I want change! :mad:

or not when giving a Republican a compromise position then stripping it of all its power.

What position was that?

Ahh not exactly started by the President.

That just means Obama can be faulted for not stopping Bush's policies dead in their tracks. Instead Obama has expanded Bush's policies, which is quite absurd.

So how does a credit card cause this?

Where did I claim a credit card caused this? Credit cards are a significant, but relatively small fraction of the massive credit bubble that developed in the past few decades.

The private cititizen is not the whole problem for this mess. They are a part but system is a major factor.
You are correct that the root of the problem is government monetarist/keynesian interventions in the economy, especially when monetarist nonsense accelerated during the Reagan-Clinton years.



The government proposes to solve this problem by using all its means to incentivize and coax people and companies to get into even more debt, (in addition to actively expanding the government debt).
Ah What?

Do you not follow current events or something? The whole point behind the bank bailouts is to "get banks lending" and "get people borrowing" again. This is the clearly and explicitly stated objective of the Bush-Obama policies. Except none of this will solve a thing, and will just make matters worse.

Yes, because it's not like Congress controls the power of the purse, or anything. It's going to be President Obama's policies that screw the economy up for years to come. Not like former President Bush had anything to do with it, or any of the previous (Within the past twenty years.) presidents, or Congressional sessions. It's obviously President Obama's fault. I see your point.

Well the OP is about Obama which is why I mentioned the name Obama specifically. You are correct though that Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes, Congress, and pretty much everyone in Washington in the past few decades has had a hand in creating this mess.

I don't want a check, I want change! :mad:

Would you like that in pennies, nickles, dimes, quarters or half dollars?

Well this thread is about Obama which is why I mentioned the name Obama specifically. You are correct though that Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes, Congress, and pretty much everyone in Washington in the past few decades has had a hand in this mess.Fair enough, but it would be nice if we gave the new president a stretch of time not measured in days to dig in and work on the present pile-up on the NYSE/NASDAQ/etc. highway.

Versus what? The shrubs policies?

Versus Ron Paul's policies ;)

Versus Ron Paul's policies ;)

You think basing everything on the gold standard would increase the economy?

Fair enough, but it would be nice if we gave the new president a stretch of time not measured in days to dig in and work on the present pile-up on the NYSE/NASDAQ/etc. highway.

That would be nice had Obama not enacted new hamfisted policies, or expanded existing disastrous policies, in the few days he's been in office. All Obama's doing right now is preventing the pile-up from ever getting cleared out of the "highway".

Would you like that in pennies, nickles, dimes, quarters or half dollars?http://petersmithcoins.com/images/obama/president%20Obama.jpg

Obama coin, plz? Kthxbai!

That would be nice had Obama not enacted new hamfisted policies, or expanded existing disastrous policies, in the few days he's been in office. All Obama's doing right now is preventing the pile-up from ever getting cleared out of the "highway".And you gather this from a "basic understanding" of economics?

You think basing everything on the gold standard would increase the economy?

The words "increase the economy" don't constitute good grammar and don't even make sense. A healthy and prosperous economy is above all sustainable. Unconditional "increases" in the economy are just bubbles.

Ron Paul is about a lot more than just the "gold standard." In fact I don't even support his proposal of a currency standard.

http://petersmithcoins.com/images/obama/president%20Obama.jpg

Obama coin, plz? Kthxbai!

Epic Fail on a massive proportion.

In a couple months this man has already enacted policies that will have far reaching disastrous effects for years to come. That's not to say he hasn't also raised some good suggestions but clearly the bad has thus far outweighed the good.
that depends entirely on your perspective. the only problems i have with what mr obama has done so far are a few red flags where he seems to be headed toward keeping some bush policies that i dislike.

And you gather this from a "basic understanding" of economics?

I didn't say "basic understanding." I said "basic economics."

Epic Fail on a massive proportion.That's the real coin, dude.
>.>
<.<

And you gather this from a "basic understanding" of economics?

The kind in which anything gets named "socialism". :p

*twitch*

So, Pissarro, were you able to see anything coming regarding Bush's economic policies? This is his mess Obama's trying to clean up, after all.

It is a good deal Reagan's fault too--though Obama is making it worse.

We expect him to solve problems in days that have been decades in the making.
Decades? I thought everything from the inevitability of death to my toast landing butter-side down this morning was Bush's fault.

We're the TV and video game generations. We've grown accustomed to neat, tidy endings done in the course of an hour long show or the course of a video game where we can solve problems with a magic lightening bolt. But this isn't television or a video game - this is reality. It takes years to create problems, it'll take just as long to solve them.
But he promised hope and change. HOPE! Great white hope. And whou couldn't use a little more pocket change every now and then.

...the whole frakking world...
That's daggit felgercarb and you know it.

Give him a break, people, give him more than 120 days to save the world.
Why? He and his supporters set him up for this by setting such lofty goals and (at the very least implied) unrealistic timetables for them. He made a lot of promises and built up expectations that he either never intended to keep or simply can't because reality and wildly optomistic ideology seldom see eye-to-eye.

(Yeah, I know, get a blog).
If you already knew that then why did you pollute this pristine forum with your whiny filth?

I didn't say "basic understanding." I said "basic economics."Which is...the lowest level of economics. Hence the words "basic understanding". Unless your basic and mine differ in definition.

The kind in which anything gets named "socialism". :pI wouldn't go that far. Gotta throw "free market", "trade", "communism", and a few other things in there. :p

And the "ten rules of economics", or whatever it's called. (The sad thing is I just had a test on this last week. :D)

Which is...the lowest level of economics. Hence the words "basic understanding". Unless your basic and mine differ in definition.

Well, you are probably correct that with all the economic insanity and ignorance going on in Washington having merely a "basic understanding" can get you a long way these days and makes you better than most of the clowns in office.

The point I was trying to make originally though, was that understanding "basic economics" is sufficient to avert the mistakes Obama has been making. Understanding "advanced economics" is just the icing on the cake.

Well, you are probably correct that with all the economic insanity and ignorance going on in Washington having merely a "basic understanding" can get you a long way these days and makes you better than most of the clowns in office.

The point I was trying to make originally though, was that understanding "basic economics" is sufficient to avert the mistakes Obama has been making. Understanding "advanced economics" is just the icing on the cake.Fair enough. :p

Well, you are probably correct that with all the economic insanity and ignorance going on in Washington having merely a "basic understanding" can get you a long way these days and makes you better than most of the clowns in office.

The point I was trying to make originally though, was that understanding "basic economics" is sufficient to avert the mistakes Obama has been making. Understanding "advanced economics" is just the icing on the cake.
so you know more about economics than the top professional econimists in the country?

when is your book coming out?

http://petersmithcoins.com/images/obama/president%20Obama.jpg

Obama coin, plz? Kthxbai!

they are only for the military. though i find it a bit of a fail he put his picture in it.

That's the real coin, dude.
>.>
<.<

Why did you think I called it an Epic Fail?

so you know more about economics than the top professional econimists in the country?

when is your book coming out?

You give me too much credit. I consider myself still in the process of learning from the top professional economists in the country (just in case you're wondering- they're not in the white house).

they are only for the military. though i find it a bit of a fail he put his picture in it.Civilians can buy them. :p

Why did you think I called it an Epic Fail?I dunno. He promised change, and we got it. What's to be disappointed about?

I dunno. He promised change, and we got it. What's to be disappointed about?

1. Tacky as Hell, might as well have Obama Memorial Plates *waits for someone to post a link to an actual Obama Memorial Plate*

2. These things were coming out right after he won the election and he hasn't even done anything yet. Honestly if Obama turns out to be a disaster like Bush, I am going to find people who brought those coins and laugh in their face and mock their children. *nods*

What position was that?

Secretary of Commerce. Obama Nominated Judd Gregg. then Obama mentioned removing the responsibility of taking the census and a few other powers from the post. So Senator Gregg decided to remain in the Senate. Token positions suck, and its not as fun as secretary of state where even if it is a token position you get to travel the world.

You give me too much credit. I consider myself still in the process of learning from the top professional economists in the country (just in case you're wondering- they're not in the white house).
they dont have to be in the white house. all that has to happen is that the white house talks to them.

which they have and that is why we have the biggest stimulus plan that was politically feasible.

1. Tacky as Hell, might as well have Obama Memorial Plates *waits for someone to post a link to an actual Obama Memorial Plate*

2. These things were coming out right after he won the election and he hasn't even done anything yet. Honestly if Obama turns out to be a disaster like Bush, I am going to find people who brought those coins and laugh in their face and mock their children. *nods*
he doesnt have to DO anything to make commemorative shit worth something.

he will always be president even if his administration turns out to be worse than george bush's.

they dont have to be in the white house. all that has to happen is that the white house talks to them.

which they have and that is why we have the biggest stimulus plan that was politically feasible.

Yeah I should've clarified. "In the white house", "listened to by the white house", etc.

Civilians can buy them. :p



It doesn't mean the same thing. As a coin given to you by the president. A coin from a General or other officer normally represents a favor you can call in later. Harder to get that from the president. but the coin to the military represents earning it.

he doesnt have to DO anything to make commemorative shit worth something.

he will always be president even if his administration turns out to be worse than george bush's.

Can I still laugh in the faces of people who brought them, and mock their children? :(

Can I still laugh in the faces of people who brought them, and mock their children? :(
no.

unless they paid a premium for stuff that turned out to be better classified as a scam than as memoribilia....some of the "presidential coins" turned out to be regular coins with obama stickers pasted onto them.

no.

unless they paid a premium for stuff that turned out to be better classified as a scam than as memoribilia....some of the "presidential coins" turned out to be regular coins with obama stickers pasted onto them.

I actually saw one of those being sole on TV. It was painfully obvious that all it was was a sticker stuck on a Half Dollar Coin.

Five bucks says at least 500 people brought those.

1. Tacky as Hell, might as well have Obama Memorial Plates *waits for someone to post a link to an actual Obama Memorial Plate*http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm184/harakiri9/barack-obama-collector-plates-1.jpg
You meant a dinner plate, right? :D

I actually saw one of those being sole on TV. It was painfully obvious that all it was was a sticker stuck on a Half Dollar Coin.

Five bucks says at least 500 people brought those.
one of them were being sold by montel williams. thats good for at least 10,000 sales.

To paraphrase using your boldface:

Specific actions: Stimulus plans, bank bailouts, automaker bailouts, and monetarist policies carried out by the federal reserve.
What about them?

Existing fact: The existing problem is that private individuals are in too much debt- which is the current crisis we are dealing with.
Just you saying that is not convincing. Other people whose economic credentials are matters of public record -- such as various CEOs, and people named Volker, Geithner, Summers, Warren, and other financial professionals -- say that the crisis is caused by bad management in banking and by banks not lending to each other or making commercial loans, not personal ones.

If you are going to claim otherwise, you have to present the data that makes you reach your conclusion.

The government proposes to solve this problem by using all its means to incentivize and coax people and companies to get into even more debt, (in addition to actively expanding the government debt).
Wrong. The government proposes to use a portion of its resources to stimulate economic activity by providing a certain base number of jobs, either long term or short term, and by regulating banking in a manner so as to encourage interbank and commercial lending.

Facts of history: Getting into more debt does not solve existing debt. Central bank lowering interest rates has never in history corrected economic problems. Stimulus plans have never worked.
That is not a fact. That is a claim. Where are your facts?

Could you clarify your request?
What part of them did you not understand?

Not just NSG, but the whole damned world.

We're all giving Obama 10 day, 20 day, 30 day, etc., checks. We're asking if he's failed, we're rating him on his performance. The man hasn't even been in office four months and we're calling him a failure.

I didn't vote for him, and I don't particularly like him, but I haven't done any such thing. Cable news has. Talk radio has. Internet trolls probably have. In other words, the phonies have. But real people deserve a bit more credit.

we always need a reality check

Personally no, because I was 13 years old when Bush became president and therefore I had no idea what was going on at the time.
What's your excuse for still not understanding anything about it, considering that it has all be recorded?

If it will make you feel better, the consensus among economists (Steven Keen, Peter Schiff, Mike Shedlock, etc) who correctly predicted Bush's economic policies would lead to disaster also agree that Obama's policies will lead to disaster, since Obama is merely repeating most of the policies that occurred during Bush's tenure.
Oh, really? The economists and financial experts I mentioned disagree. Are you sure you want to claim consensus among economists, as opposed to just economists who happen to think the way you do?

Do you not follow current events or something? The whole point behind the bank bailouts is to "get banks lending" and "get people borrowing" again. This is the clearly and explicitly stated objective of the Bush-Obama policies. Except none of this will solve a thing, and will just make matters worse.
Wrong again. Black Forrest is not the one who isn't keeping up with current events, apparently. The point of the bank bailouts is to "get banks lending" to each other and to businesses, and to get "people" buying and spending again, not borrowing, by stimulating job growth.

Wrong again. Black Forrest is not the one who isn't keeping up with current events, apparently. The point of the bank bailouts is to "get banks lending" to each other and to businesses, and to get "people" buying and spending again, not borrowing, by stimulating job growth.

By "people" I meant both households and businesses. There's no reason for banks to lend to businesses, because businesses aren't profitable right now. Why would a bank lend to unprofitable businesses teetering on the brink of bankruptcy? By forcing banks to lend, the government forces banks to extend loans that will have a very high rate of default, thus dooming the banks. This is counterproductive and doesn't solve a thing.

By "people" I meant both households and businesses. There's no reason for banks to lend to businesses, because businesses aren't profitable right now. Why would a bank lend to unprofitable businesses teetering on the brink of bankruptcy? By forcing banks to lend, the government forces banks to extend loans that will have a very high rate of default, thus dooming the banks. This is counterproductive and doesn't solve a thing.
you really need to read up on this stuff before you post here.

business, even profitable businesses, need loans for operating money. if they cant get those loans they go out of business. banks stopped loaning money to GOOD risks as well as bad. that is what needed fixing.

What about them?

You asked for specific analyzable actions.



Just you saying that is not convincing. Other people whose economic credentials are matters of public record -- such as various CEOs, and people named Volker, Geithner, Summers, Warren, and other financial professionals

Of course CEOs and financial professionals are going to ask for any bailout they could get. Who wouldn't accept free money from the taxpayer? By "Warren" I'm assuming you mean Warren Buffett, who owns Wells Fargo and personally stands to gain hugely from the bailouts. Volker, Geither, and Summers are well connected with the bankers; they would never contradict the bankers' immediate interests.

-- say that the crisis is caused by bad management in banking and by banks not lending to each other or making commercial loans, not personal ones.

Obviously you haven't thought this through. Let's walk it through here.

Bad management leads to the banks lending out too much money - to each other and in the form of commercial loans - and it turns out they can't recover what they lent out because the borrowers have defaulted and go out of business. You think the way to solve this is to loosen lending and lend out even more money? Why force the banks to lend more money to even more uncreditworthy borrowers, when banks have already been badly burned by lending to uncreditworthy borrowers?

If you are going to claim otherwise, you have to present the data that makes you reach your conclusion.


That is not a fact. That is a claim. Where are your facts?
Stimulus did not end the Great Depression and only lengthened it. Stimulus did not solve the 1980s Japan bubble and only dragged out the systemic problems, for which Japan is continuing to suffer to this day.

What part of them did you not understand?

I don't understand the meaning of your request. Are you trying to claim Obama's policies haven't been implemented?

you really need to read up on this stuff before you post here.

business, even profitable businesses, need loans for operating money.
Where did I claim profitable businesses don't need loans?
if they cant get those loans they go out of business. banks stopped loaning money to GOOD risks as well as bad. that is what needed fixing.

Good risks do have access to loans. The government is trying to force banks to lend to bad risks.

Where did I claim profitable businesses don't need loans?


Good risks do have access to loans. The government is trying to force banks to lend to bad risks.
your facts are faulty.

I didn't vote for him, and I don't particularly like him, but I haven't done any such thing. Cable news has. Talk radio has. Internet trolls probably have. In other words, the phonies have. But real people deserve a bit more credit.
Hear, hear.

I'd wager most folks aren't (a) claiming Obama is the second coming, or (b) claiming he's the downfall of humanity.

your facts are faulty.

Back atcha. I assume you believe GM is a "good risk" that all banks should make loans to. When in reality GM has taken out loan after loan with no profitability in sight.

Back atcha. I assume you believe GM is a "good risk" that all banks should make loans to. When in reality GM has taken out loan after loan with no profitability in sight.
gm is getting loans from the government.

gm is getting loans from the government.

Lol that just proves my point. No bank is willing to lend to GM because it is 99% certain that GM won't be able to pay those loans back. Only the government is willing to lend to GM since the government doesn't need to worry about the creditworthiness of the borrower or about recovering its investment; after all any default-related losses sustained by the government can be subsidized by taxation.

By "people" I meant both households and businesses. There's no reason for banks to lend to businesses, because businesses aren't profitable right now. Why would a bank lend to unprofitable businesses teetering on the brink of bankruptcy? By forcing banks to lend, the government forces banks to extend loans that will have a very high rate of default, thus dooming the banks. This is counterproductive and doesn't solve a thing.

+1 to what Ashmoria said, and I add:

Um...Businesses need to borrow in order to pay out upfront costs of doing business, like costs of buying materials, making payroll, commercial rent or property taxes, utility bills, and similar costs that come due BEFORE they get the income from whatever good or service they are selling. Then they use that income to pay off those loans. Then they get new loans. It is true that insolvent businesses incur debt, but commercial loans are not made because businesses are not profitable. They are a way of ensuring the ability to cover the costs of doing business, without gambling on future income to cover today's debts.

Also, lending is part of the core purpose of banks. They lend in order to fuel the expansion of business. As business expands, the banks not only get more revenue back -- in payoffs plus interest -- they also get more and richer customers with the increases in jobs and economic activity.

You really don't understand anything about this issue at all, do you?

Lol that just proves my point. No bank is willing to lend to GM because it is 99% certain that GM won't be able to pay those loans back. Only the government is willing to lend to GM since the government doesn't need to worry about the creditworthiness of the borrower or about recovering its investment; after all any default-related losses sustained by the government can be subsidized by taxation.
no it doesnt prove your point at all.

the govt is not forcing banks to make stupid loans to gm.

unless you are changing points.

you would be much happier about the new administration if you stopped listening to people who have an agenda to mislead you and read up on this stuff yourself and made your own judgements.

that doesnt mean that you would agree that it is the best course of action but at least you will stop spouting nonsense and make your arguments out of an understanding of what is actually being done.

+1 to what Ashmoria said, and I add:

Um...Businesses need to borrow in order to pay out upfront costs of doing business, like costs of buying materials, making payroll, commercial rent or property taxes, utility bills, and similar costs that come due BEFORE they get the income from whatever good or service they are selling. Then they use that income to pay off those loans. Then they get new loans. It is true that insolvent businesses incur debt, but commercial loans are not made because businesses are not profitable.

Isn't that what I said? That commercial loans are not made because businesses are not profitable? Yet you advocate loans to be made to unprofitable businesses?

They are a way of ensuring the ability to cover the costs of doing business, without gambling on future income to cover today's debts.

Also, lending is part of the core purpose of banks. They lend in order to fuel the expansion of business. As business expands, the banks not only get more revenue back -- in payoffs plus interest -- they also get more and richer customers with the increases in jobs and economic activity.

You really don't understand anything about this issue at all, do you?

I seem to be the only one understanding the situation here. There's a very good reason banks aren't lending right now, that is there is very high chance of default. Your scenario of "business expanding" is nice and all but there's simply no way businesses is expanding in the next few years, especially in the consumer goods sector- cars, big screen TVs, etc. Basically you're advocating for banks to lend out money to companies that have a very high chance of default. Can you see the absurdity in that scenario?

no it doesnt prove your point at all.

the govt is not forcing banks to make stupid loans to gm.

You are correct, the government itself is making the stupid loans to GM.

unless you are changing points.

This is all one point. My point is that there are all these "bad risks" out there (like GM) that you believe should be given stupid loans, either by government, or by banks.

you would be much happier about the new administration if you stopped listening to people who have an agenda to mislead you and read up on this stuff yourself and made your own judgements.

that doesnt mean that you would agree that it is the best course of action but at least you will stop spouting nonsense and make your arguments out of an understanding of what is actually being done.

How do you know you're not being misled by people "with an agenda"?

You asked for specific analyzable actions.
And you did not analyze them. What about them makes you think they have done harm to the US?

Of course CEOs and financial professionals are going to ask for any bailout they could get. Who wouldn't accept free money from the taxpayer? By "Warren" I'm assuming you mean Warren Buffett,
No. Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Senate TARP oversight commission.

http://cop.senate.gov/about/bio-warren.cfm

who owns Wells Fargo and personally stands to gain hugely from the bailouts. Volker, Geither, and Summers are well connected with the bankers; they would never contradict the bankers' immediate interests.
So, are you saying you take all your understanding of the banking industry from people who are not connected to banking in any way? Well, that explains a lot.

Obviously you haven't thought this through. Let's walk it through here.

Bad management leads to the banks lending out too much money - to each other and in the form of commercial loans - and it turns out they can't recover what they lent out because the borrowers have defaulted and go out of business. You think the way to solve this is to loosen lending and lend out even more money? Why force the banks to lend more money to even more uncreditworthy borrowers, when banks have already been badly burned by lending to uncreditworthy borrowers?
You are wrong. I addressed this in my other, previous post.

Stimulus did not end the Great Depression and only lengthened it. Stimulus did not solve the 1980s Japan bubble and only dragged out the systemic problems, for which Japan is continuing to suffer to this day.
More claims unsupported by facts. I'm starting to reach a conclusion about why that is.

I don't understand the meaning of your request. Are you trying to claim Obama's policies haven't been implemented?
No, some of them have been implemented, at least partially. But none of them has run for more than a few days, which no reasonable person can claim is enough to judge results. And some people started blaming him even before any of his policies had been implemented.

So I am asking you to show me examples of people similarly claiming that Bush had already done harm -- as you did to Obama -- BEFORE his policies had either been implemented or begun to show results.

Remember, there is a difference between predicting that, based on this or that information, you think a policy will not work out well, and claiming, as you did, that the president has already done harm to the nation.

1. Tacky as Hell, might as well have Obama Memorial Plates *waits for someone to post a link to an actual Obama Memorial Plate*

2. These things were coming out right after he won the election and he hasn't even done anything yet. Honestly if Obama turns out to be a disaster like Bush, I am going to find people who brought those coins and laugh in their face and mock their children. *nods*

Those coins come out every election. I think this was the first time they tried paint.....

I seem to be the only one understanding the situation here. There's a very good reason banks aren't lending right now, that is there is very high chance of default.

Ahh no. The two lady's are spot on.

Isn't that what I said? That commercial loans are not made because businesses are not profitable? Yet you advocate loans to be made to unprofitable businesses?
No, it is not what you said, and no, that is not what I said. You really are not very good at this. Read the words again and, this time, think about it.

I seem to be the only one understanding the situation here. There's a very good reason banks aren't lending right now, that is there is very high chance of default. Your scenario of "business expanding" is nice and all but there's simply no way businesses is expanding in the next few years, especially in the consumer goods sector- cars, big screen TVs, etc. Basically you're advocating for banks to lend out money to companies that have a very high chance of default. Can you see the absurdity in that scenario?
The only absurdity I see is you failing to address the points presented to you as they are presented. Did I say banks should make bad loans to bad borrowers?

No, I did not.

What I said was that the purpose of banks is to move money around and one of the core ways they do that is by lending.

What part of that advocates making bad loans?

I'll wait while you make up some ideologically driven fantasy for you to try to put in my mouth. Or you could actually read what I wrote.

And you did not analyze them. What about them makes you think they have done harm to the US?

How haven't I analyzed them? I've expounded that point throughout this thread.


So, are you saying you take all your understanding of the banking industry from people who are not connected to banking in any way? Well, that explains a lot.
This actually is actually unrelated to the "understanding of the banking industry". Even though I do understand the banking industry, one doesn't need to understand the banking industry to realize that trillions of dollars should not be given to banks on account of advice from people who run those banks, just like the Iraq War should not have been fought on the advice of Halliburton.

You are wrong. I addressed this in my other, previous post.


More claims unsupported by facts. I'm starting to reach a conclusion about why that is.
The facts are quite clear. To begin with, unemployment remained above 15% and often above 20% throughout the New Deal.

No, some of them have been implemented, at least partially. But none of them has run for more than a few days, which no reasonable person can claim is enough to judge results. And some people started blaming him even before any of his policies had been implemented.

So I am asking you to show me examples of people similarly claiming that Bush had already done harm -- as you did to Obama -- BEFORE his policies had either been implemented or begun to show results.

Remember, there is a difference between predicting that, based on this or that information, you think a policy will not work out well, and claiming, as you did, that the president has already done harm to the nation.
Obviously plenty of insightful people already knew the outcome of the Iraq War just a few days after the war began. And plenty of insightful people today already know the outcome of these economic policies just a few days after they've been enacted.

Also I have not once claimed in this thread that Obama "already did harm" in the sense of blowing things up or some other spectacular incident. Please point out one instance where I wrote the words "already done harm" .

Instead I have repeated and emphasized that he has expanded Bush's disastrous policies and put us on a course for more failure in the future.

Ahh no. The two lady's are spot on.

This coming from the gentleman who uses phrases like "increase the economy."

You are correct, the government itself is making the stupid loans to GM.



This is all one point. My point is that there are all these "bad risks" out there (like GM) that you believe should be given stupid loans, either by government, or by banks.



How do you know you're not being misled by people "with an agenda"?
before i give credence to anyone's opinion on the economy and the current administration's handling of it they have to pass a test....

1) they have to acknowlege that we (and the rest of the developed world) are in a huge economic crisis.

2) the have to acknowlege that it started before mr obama was elected. they have to acknowlege that mr bush and his secretary of the treasury pushed through an emergency bank bailout bill. and that they had good reason to do so. (they dont have to place blame on mr bush or mention that mr paulson didnt do a good job of oversight in the bank bailout)

3) they have to acknowlege that doing nothing would make a recession/depression last much longer (even if they feel that it will be better in the long run to do nothing)

4) they have to acknowlege (if asked) that any course of action is not guaranteed to work out for the better but is just any persons "best guess" at what has the best chance to get the desired outcome.

any bullshit about socialism or power grabbing or class warfare makes me ignore their opinion--there are plenty of dissenters who dont need to make shit up to make their points.

This coming from the gentleman who uses phrases like "increase the economy."

I don't understand your frustration.

I for one like getting slapped around by two women.

No, it is not what you said, and no, that is not what I said. You really are not very good at this. Read the words again and, this time, think about it.

This is what you said: "It is true that insolvent businesses incur debt, but commercial loans are not made because businesses are not profitable." You are correct, and I agree, that commercial loans are not made because businesses are not profitable.

The only absurdity I see is you failing to address the points presented to you as they are presented. Did I say banks should make bad loans to bad borrowers?

No, I did not.

What I said was that the purpose of banks is to move money around and one of the core ways they do that is by lending.

What part of that advocates making bad loans?

Well as long as you agree banks should not make bad loans to bad borrowers then we are in agreement. As long as banks have their own freedom to decide who to loan to, the credit market will continue to be frozen (rightfully) and lending won't pick up because the banks have no reason to extend loans right now, with so many economic uncertainties out there.

How haven't I analyzed them? I've expounded that point throughout this thread.
What you have done in this thread, and continue to do in this post, is merely make assertions without backing them up with either data or reasoning. You have said over and over that Obama's policies -- and you listed those ones -- would have disastrous effects.

What you have NOT done is show how or why they will have the effects you claim. You have shown us nothing. I am reaching the conclusion that this is because you have nothing to show.

This actually is actually unrelated to the "understanding of the banking industry".
Oh, I could tell that a mile off.

Even though I do understand the banking industry, one doesn't need to understand the banking industry to realize that trillions of dollars should not be given to banks on account of advice from people who run those banks, just like the Iraq War should not have been fought on the advice of Halliburton.
And yet you consistently fail to give correct explanations of why that is, when you bother to try to explain at all.

The facts are quite clear. To begin with, unemployment remained above 15% and often above 20% throughout the New Deal.
Sez you. What's your source? Where do you get those two numbers from? What context were they presented in? What do they refer to? Who compiled them from what data?

Obviously plenty of insightful people already knew the outcome of the Iraq War just a few days after the war began. And plenty of insightful people today already know the outcome of these economic policies just a few days after they've been enacted.
So this is another thing that you don't actually have any real data or information about then, eh?

Also I have not once claimed in this thread that Obama "already did harm" in the sense of blowing things up or some other spectacular incident. Please point out one instance where I wrote the words "already done harm" .

Instead I have repeated and emphasized that he has expanded Bush's disastrous policies and put us on a course for more failure in the future.
You are so full of it. You clearly stated that Obama was doing things that would cause harm to the country and implied that (see quote below) that the harm was already done.

Now you want to weasel out of that idiotic remark by claiming that you would have had to have been talking "blowing things up or some other spectacular incident", which is bullshit you just made up, and by trying to distance yourself from it by saying you never used the precise words that I used to describe the way you had been talking. You fail, P.

In a couple months this man has already enacted policies that will have far reaching disastrous effects for years to come. That's not to say he hasn't also raised some good suggestions but clearly the bad has thus far outweighed the good.

This is what you said: "It is true that insolvent businesses incur debt, but commercial loans are not made because businesses are not profitable." You are correct, and I agree, that commercial loans are not made because businesses are not profitable.



Well as long as you agree banks should not make bad loans to bad borrowers then we are in agreement. As long as banks have their own freedom to decide who to loan to, the credit market will continue to be frozen (rightfully) and lending won't pick up because the banks have no reason to extend loans right now, with so many economic uncertainties out there.
if banks dont make loans, they dont make money.

if they dont make money they go out of business.

they have every reason to extend loans that have a good chance of being repaid.

I don't understand your frustration.

I for one like getting slapped around by two women.

Ignoramus :tongue:

Now that I think of it, your catchphrase "increase the economy" actually sounds like a bushism...

they have every reason to extend loans that have a good chance of being repaid.

Indeed. I know people with excellent credit ratings and they are getting turned away.

For fun I inquired about refinancing and was told to calm them when I was two months behind.

I told that story to my chiropractor and his wife did the same and was told the same.

So evaluation of guaranteed repayment is not always in play.....

Ignoramus :tongue:

Now that I think of it, your catchphrase "increase the economy" actually sounds like a bushism...

:eek:

It's catching!

Indeed. I know people with excellent credit ratings and they are getting turned away.

For fun I inquired about refinancing and was told to calm them when I was two months behind.

I told that story to my chiropractor and his wife did the same and was told the same.

So evaluation of guaranteed repayment is not always in play.....
that is a very bad sign eh?

What you have done in this thread, and continue to do in this post, is merely make assertions without backing them up with either data or reasoning. You have said over and over that Obama's policies -- and you listed those ones -- would have disastrous effects.

What you have NOT done is show how or why they will have the effects you claim. You have shown us nothing. I am reaching the conclusion that this is because you have nothing to show.

I've cited many historical examples of the same things being tried. It failed in the 1930s and 1990s Japan. Unfortunately it will fail again.


Sez you. What's your source? Where do you get those two numbers from? What context were they presented in? What do they refer to? Who compiled them from what data?
US Census


So this is another thing that you don't actually have any real data or information about then, eh?

You are so full of it. You clearly stated that Obama was doing things that would cause harm to the country and implied that (see quote below) that the harm was already done.

Now you want to weasel out of that idiotic remark by claiming that you would have had to have been talking "blowing things up or some other spectacular incident", which is bullshit you just made up, and by trying to distance yourself from it by saying you never used the precise words that I used to describe the way you had been talking. You fail, P.

My quote was a totally reasonable expression of an opinion. The paraphrase of my opinion was: "Obama has already made a lot of bad policies." What's so unreasonable with the way I expressed my opinion, even if you disagree with the opinion itself? I seriously think you're seeing things.

This is what you said: "It is true that insolvent businesses incur debt, but commercial loans are not made because businesses are not profitable." You are correct, and I agree, that commercial loans are not made because businesses are not profitable.
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant unprofitable.

This is what I meant: Unprofitable businesses borrow money to try to keep going. If they never do anything but that, then they are bad loan risks. Like GM.

But profitable businesses also borrow money. They don't do it to make up shortfalls. They do it to guarantee they will be able to cover today's costs while they produce tomorrow's income. If they did not have credit so they could make sure they had enough capital to cover, say, payroll and suppliers' bills, regardless of the short term ups and downs of the market, then even a mild bear market could kill their businesses by leaving them unable to be sure they could cover necessary expenses from one quarter to the next (or even shorter periods of time).

So your argument, which is dependent on ALL borrowers being bad business managers, just fails. Good business managers also borrow money from banks, even though they are not experiencing shortfalls.

Also, you clearly don't understand anything about interbank lending, which is even more the issue in the current crisis, because it was not the collapse of GM (which has not yet collapsed) that triggered all this. It was the failure of investment banks which caused banks to stop lending to each other. This meant that, banks could not guarantee their own minimum required reserves (since banks are required to keep more money in their reserves than might be possible from day to day, so they make quickie loans to each other on a daily basis so that any given bank will have its numbers where they need to be when they have to report them).

When the investment banks went belly up, banks felt they could no longer trust that any other bank really had the reserves they said they had for purposes of interbank lending. And interbank lending froze. Which meant that banks did not have the cash to make either personal or commerical loans as per the ordinary course of business.

GM, though an utterly failed company kept lurching around like a zombie on artificial support, is NOT the villain here, nor are other companies that borrow money as part of doing business. And commercial lending is not the problem, either.

Well as long as you agree banks should not make bad loans to bad borrowers then we are in agreement. As long as banks have their own freedom to decide who to loan to, the credit market will continue to be frozen (rightfully) and lending won't pick up because the banks have no reason to extend loans right now, with so many economic uncertainties out there.
No, P, we are not in agreement about anything, because you have no idea what you are talking about. I am no economist and only understand it from the point of view of a private consumer, but at least I make an effort to listen to what many experts actually say on the matter. You seem to just pull stuff out of your ass and expect others to believe it.

if banks dont make loans, they dont make money.
if they dont make money they go out of business.
they have every reason to extend loans that have a good chance of being repaid.
Exactly. That's why banks don't need to be forced to extend loans. They already have to do it anyway. They are economically forced to extend loans to clients that at least might repay them.

I've cited many historical examples of the same things being tried. It failed in the 1930s and 1990s Japan. Unfortunately it will fail again.
Geez-gods, you really don't get it, do you? You have not "cited" a damned thing. You have just said such-and-such was the case at those times. You have not actually shown any evidence or made any argument that would support what you claim.

US Census
And you do it again, right here.

My quote was a totally reasonable expression of an opinion. The paraphrase of my opinion was: "Obama has already made a lot of bad policies." What's so unreasonable with the way I expressed my opinion, even if you disagree with the opinion itself? I seriously think you're seeing things.
And I seriously think you are sliding into personal jibes at people whose arguments you cannot counter or keep up with. First Black Forrest, and now me.

Go back to page 1. Read your post. Then read my first post in response to it. Think about it until you figure out what happend there.

Exactly. That's why banks don't need to be forced to extend loans. They already have to do it anyway. They are economically forced to extend loans to clients that at least might repay them.
thats why the govt (mostly under mr bush) gave them bushel baskets full of money. so they would have the money to make loans.

thats why the govt (mostly under mr bush) gave them bushel baskets full of money. so they would have the money to make loans.
Only they reneged, and did not restart lending.

I suspect the problems are greater and more systemic than they originally let on. Very likely we still have not seen just how bad the situation is.

if banks dont make loans, they dont make money.

if they dont make money they go out of business.

they have every reason to extend loans that have a good chance of being repaid.

You clearly aren't aware of the situation with the banking sector today. Banks don't have many reasons to loan out money these days, because they don't possess enough capital reserves to make these loans. When the government provides them with capital using bailout money, this doesn't solve any problem whatsoever because someone still has to pay for the bailouts. Money will still need to be withdrawn from the economy to deleverage the bailout fund (which is in reality a loan from the GDP to the government). All of this just shows economic contraction is unavoidable; the government cannot avoid it, though it can delay it and drag out the problem longer.

You clearly aren't aware of the situation with the banking sector today. Banks don't have many reasons to loan out money these days, because they don't possess enough capital reserves to make these loans.

You realize you have set a catch-22 situation?

They don't give loans because they don't have capitol. They don't have capitol because they don't give loans......

You clearly aren't aware of the situation with the banking sector today. Banks don't have many reasons to loan out money these days, because they don't possess enough capital reserves to make these loans. When the government provides them with capital using bailout money, this doesn't solve any problem whatsoever because someone still has to pay for the bailouts. Money will still need to be withdrawn from the economy to deleverage the bailout fund (which is in reality a loan from the GDP to the government). All of this just shows economic contraction is unavoidable; the government cannot avoid it, though it can delay it and drag out the problem longer.
I suppose it does not occur to you that avoiding economic contraction is not the point of this exercise at all, but rather merely to slow down the pace of contraction and relieve the impact on the private sector, in the hope that, if it doesn't get hit too badly all at once, the private sector will be able to turn the economy around, slowly. I suppose that never occurred to you? Just a suggestion.

You realize you have set a catch-22 situation?

They don't give loans because they don't have capitol. They don't have capitol because they don't give loans......
That's some catch, that Catch-22.

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant unprofitable.

This is what I meant: Unprofitable businesses borrow money to try to keep going. If they never do anything but that, then they are bad loan risks. Like GM.

But profitable businesses also borrow money. They don't do it to make up shortfalls. They do it to guarantee they will be able to cover today's costs while they produce tomorrow's income. If they did not have credit so they could make sure they had enough capital to cover, say, payroll and suppliers' bills, regardless of the short term ups and downs of the market, then even a mild bear market could kill their businesses by leaving them unable to be sure they could cover necessary expenses from one quarter to the next (or even shorter periods of time).

So your argument, which is dependent on ALL borrowers being bad business managers, just fails. Good business managers also borrow money from banks, even though they are not experiencing shortfalls.

The banks don't have the money to lend out. If the government attempts to provide them with the money through a capital bailout, that doesn't solve anything because that money still is withdrawn from the GDP whether through future taxation or present decreased standard of living/inflation.

Also, you clearly don't understand anything about interbank lending, which is even more the issue in the current crisis, because it was not the collapse of GM (which has not yet collapsed) that triggered all this. It was the failure of investment banks which caused banks to stop lending to each other. This meant that, banks could not guarantee their own minimum required reserves (since banks are required to keep more money in their reserves than might be possible from day to day, so they make quickie loans to each other on a daily basis so that any given bank will have its numbers where they need to be when they have to report them).

When the investment banks went belly up, banks felt they could no longer trust that any other bank really had the reserves they said they had for purposes of interbank lending. And interbank lending froze. Which meant that banks did not have the cash to make either personal or commerical loans as per the ordinary course of business.

GM, though an utterly failed company kept lurching around like a zombie on artificial support, is NOT the villain here, nor are other companies that borrow money as part of doing business. And commercial lending is not the problem, either.

The problem is that there is far too much debt in the economy, and all private participants (households and businesses) are in the process of deleveraging that debt. The government is trying to reinflate the credit-fueled bubble which will be disastrous. Please consult this graph:

http://yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/files/2008/06/img0009_2097970562.PNG

What goes up must come down and despite your hopes, no government intervention will be able to keep that bubble of debt expanding.

No, P, we are not in agreement about anything, because you have no idea what you are talking about. I am no economist and only understand it from the point of view of a private consumer, but at least I make an effort to listen to what many experts actually say on the matter. You seem to just pull stuff out of your ass and expect others to believe it.
Well obviously many of the experts have been proven wrong over and over again as they predicted each iteration of TARP would "unfreeze" lending. When it has done no such thing.

Private lending will not increase, and will in fact continue to decrease, which is precisely what occurred during 1990s Japan, when central bank's prime rate was lowered to historically low levels, and when banks were bailed out and zombified by the government.

You clearly aren't aware of the situation with the banking sector today. Banks don't have many reasons to loan out money these days, because they don't possess enough capital reserves to make these loans. When the government provides them with capital using bailout money, this doesn't solve any problem whatsoever because someone still has to pay for the bailouts. Money will still need to be withdrawn from the economy to deleverage the bailout fund (which is in reality a loan from the GDP to the government). All of this just shows economic contraction is unavoidable; the government cannot avoid it, though it can delay it and drag out the problem longer.
that doesnt make any sense.

yes. the banks dont have any money. it evaporated in the housing/deriviatives/blahblahblah bubble. the bankers and other financial professionals are in panic over the disaster they have caused.

if the banks continue to have no money the economy collapses. people lose their jobs. no one can sell their house because no one can get a loan to buy it. the entire economy grinds to a quick halt. businesses that need loans as a normal part of their operations (prettymuch ALL businesses) go bankrupt. its not because businesses are unsound; they die because of a cash flow crunch.

the only entity that has money is the federal government. so the feds give money to the banks for the purpose of using it to make those loans. businesses can get a loan to cover current expenses; they DO business and make a profit; they pay back the bank; the bank pays back the feds. the collapse of the economy is averted.

it does not fix things that caused the problems. its not a quick trip back to prosperity for everyone. it just stops the economy from grinding to a halt for lack of cash.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm184/harakiri9/barack-obama-collector-plates-1.jpg
You meant a dinner plate, right? :D

*sigh* People will buy anything.....

one of them were being sold by montel williams. thats good for at least 10,000 sales.

People will buy anything endorsed by celebrities....

*looks at his stack of "de-motivational" tapes.*

You realize you have set a catch-22 situation?

They don't give loans because they don't have capitol. They don't have capitol because they don't give loans......

That's why many banks need to go out of business before recovery can begin. The banking and financial sector has grown far too big over the past 20 years. Everyone thought all the derivatives and exotic financial engineering justified having such a huge financial sector, but it was all a house of cards.

*sigh* People will buy anything.....



White Supremacist have been buying them for skeet or some such.

the feds give money to the banks for the purpose of using it to make those loans.
Yes, that's what the feds intend them to do with the money.
businesses can get a loan to cover current expenses
But no, the banks just don't lend, anyway.

that doesnt make any sense.

yes. the banks dont have any money. it evaporated in the housing/deriviatives/blahblahblah bubble. the bankers and other financial professionals are in panic over the disaster they have caused.

if the banks continue to have no money the economy collapses. people lose their jobs. no one can sell their house because no one can get a loan to buy it. the entire economy grinds to a quick halt. businesses that need loans as a normal part of their operations (prettymuch ALL businesses) go bankrupt. its not because businesses are unsound; they die because of a cash flow crunch.

the only entity that has money is the federal government. so the feds give money to the banks for the purpose of using it to make those loans. businesses can get a loan to cover current expenses; they DO business and make a profit; they pay back the bank; the bank pays back the feds. the collapse of the economy is averted.

it does not fix things that caused the problems. its not a quick trip back to prosperity for everyone. it just stops the economy from grinding to a halt for lack of cash.

You are correct that without the bailouts, many banks and businesses will collapse. The economy won't grind to a halt though, because liquidation of businesses just means resources can be allocated to more profitable ends.

The economy never grinds to a halt from "lack of cash." Economies only grind to a halt from "lack of productive output" and that is exactly what we're seeing now, and no amount of money flooded into the system would be able to solve that. There are too many businesses making things no one demands. Therefore they need to go out of business, according to the principle of supply and demand.

You are correct that without the bailouts, many banks and businesses will collapse. The economy won't grind to a halt though, because liquidation of businesses just means resources can be allocated to more profitable ends.

The economy never grinds to a halt from "lack of cash." Economies only grind to a halt from "lack of productive output" and that is exactly what we're seeing now, and no matter how much money gets flooded into the system would be able to solve that. There are too many businesses making things no one demands. Therefore they need to go out of business, according to the principle of supply and demand.
if only that were true.

if only that were true.

What is your alternate explanation from the bizzarro parallel universe?

Yes, that's what the feds intend them to do with the money.

But no, the banks just don't lend, anyway.
well thats the theory anyway.

mr paulson seems to have made the same mistake that mr greenspan did. they both assumed that bankers would do what was best for their bank and for the country.

What is your alternate explanation from the bizzarro parallel universe?
that if there is no money, there can be no business done.

Geez-gods, you really don't get it, do you? You have not "cited" a damned thing. You have just said such-and-such was the case at those times. You have not actually shown any evidence or made any argument that would support what you claim.


And you do it again, right here.
Some readings for you

Popular article on the Great Depression: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html

Census data:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

And I seriously think you are sliding into personal jibes at people whose arguments you cannot counter or keep up with. First Black Forrest, and now me.I don't initiate the personal quips, I only provide the retorts.

Go back to page 1. Read your post. Then read my first post in response to it. Think about it until you figure out what happend there.

That doesn't change a thing.

that if there is no money, there can be no business done.

How's there no money? The entire country's business can be done just with the dollar bills in all the cash registers. That would mean a lot of deflation of course, but deflation is necessary to correct the preceding asset bubble.

well thats the theory anyway.

mr paulson seems to have made the same mistake that mr greenspan did. they both assumed that bankers would do what was best for their bank and for the country.

Bankers are doing what's best for their country by not lending. Please consult this graph which I earlier asked Muravyets to look at:

http://yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/files/2008/06/img0009_2097970562.PNG

To unravel that unsustainable and dangerous amount of debt, banks are doing exactly the right thing by not lending.

How's there no money? The entire country's business can be done just with the dollar bills in all the cash registers. That would mean a lot of deflation of course, but deflation is necessary to correct the preceding asset bubble.
*shaking my head*

Bankers are doing what's best for their country by not lending. Please consult this graph which I earlier asked Muravyets to look at:

http://yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/files/2008/06/img0009_2097970562.PNG

To unravel that unsustainable and dangerous amount of debt, banks are doing exactly the right thing by not lending.
what is your analysis of that graph? why would it make it good to drive profitable businesses into bankruptcy?

Geez-gods, you really don't get it, do you? You have not "cited" a damned thing. You have just said such-and-such was the case at those times. You have not actually shown any evidence or made any argument that would support what you claim.


And you do it again, right here.

No, he just answered your question. You wanted to know where he got his figures for the Great Depression - there they are.

Oh, and He's dead right. The New Deal stimulus aspects were a comprehensive failure, only buoyed up by the subsidization of basic industry and the labor-for-dole construction projects.

Nd incidentally, while Pissarro has made a number of claims, then backed them up with arguments, all you have managed are a parrotlike "No citations! No Citations!" and snarky references to strawmen Pissarro has politely ignored. How about coming up with a counterargument? As in: put up or shut up.


And I seriously think you are sliding into personal jibes at people whose arguments you cannot counter or keep up with. First Black Forrest, and now me.

WHAT arguments? You haven't made any!

Go back to page 1. Read your post. Then read my first post in response to it. Think about it until you figure out what happend there.

I did. You misread his statement badly then made an attack on his statement based on nothing in his statement, but rather upon the fact that he was willing to put HIS position on the line and make a prediction with it, which is a lot more than you have. What happened is that you didn't like Pissarro's position but had no answer to it.

what is your analysis of that graph? why would it make it good to drive profitable businesses into bankruptcy?

My analysis of the graph is that debt levels are too high and unsustainable, and must be deleveraged if we are to have any sort of "healthy", "long-term," and "sustainable" economy whatsoever. Banks refusing to lend helps this process along.

Also just because a business is profitable in the current economy doesn't mean it would survive in a healthy and sustainable "long-term" economy, just like as there is no reason for a McMansion real estate speculator/developer (which may have been solidly profitable 5 years ago) to survive in a healthy economy. Many businesses today subsist off the huge and unsustainable credit bubble we've accumulated in the past few decades. Getting rid of the unsustainable credit bubble will mean a lot of "profitable" businesses - especially in the consumer goods sector - will go under, but the overall economy will adjust and benefit, and the bankrupt assets will be liquidated and redirected to more sustainable uses.

speaking of checks wasn't there supposed to be checks in the mail according to the state of the union speech.

My analysis of the graph is that debt levels are too high and unsustainable, and must be deleveraged if we are to have any sort of "healthy", "long-term," and "sustainable" economy whatsoever. Banks refusing to lend helps this process along.

Also just because a business is profitable in the current economy doesn't mean it would survive in a healthy and sustainable "long-term" economy, just like as there is no reason for a McMansion real estate speculator/developer (which may have been solidly profitable 5 years ago) to survive in a healthy economy. Many businesses today subsist off the huge and unsustainable credit bubble we've accumulated in the past few decades. Getting rid of the unsustainable credit bubble will mean a lot of "profitable" businesses - especially in the consumer goods sector - will go under, but the overall economy will adjust and benefit, and the bankrupt assets will be liquidated and redirected to more sustainable uses.
yeah

im not all that excited by the idea of ruining massive numbers of businesses and families for the purpose of helping the process along.

So, we're all agreed that we need to give Obama more time before we decide that he's a complete washout. Right?

speaking of checks wasn't there supposed to be checks in the mail according to the state of the union speech.
i dont think so.

not that im sure.

i think youre just supposed to have a bit more money in your paycheck if you get one of the tax cut benefits.

So, we're all agreed that we need to give Obama more time before we decide that he's a complete washout. Right?

I get to poke fun at whoever the current sitting president is. regardless of how long he has been in office.

So, we're all agreed that we need to give Obama more time before we decide that he's a complete washout. Right?
i love him so far.

I get to poke fun at whoever the current sitting president is. regardless of how long he has been in office.

Poking fun is not the same as writing him off before he's had a chance to make more substantial changes. Three months isn't enough time for him to even make mistakes, discover the mistakes and correct them. It isn't enough time to even develop a learning curve.

yeah

im not all that excited by the idea of ruining massive numbers of businesses and families for the purpose of helping the process along.

You make it sound as if people lose their jobs and become indigents for the rest of their lives. Such hyperbole...

No one is "ruined" forever. Maybe a year or two of ruination, but no more than that. If the history of past economic depressions where government refrained from intervening is a guide, the adjustment period would be swift and indeed relatively painless as the economy naturally adjusts and starts up again.

And it won't be avoided anyways. There is no method that government can undertake that can prevent the deleveraging process. Even the most diehard Obama supporters agree that decreased standards of living are inevitable and unavoidable.

White Supremacist have been buying them for skeet or some such.

Hey, a sale is a sale.

You make it sound as if people lose their jobs and become indigents for the rest of their lives. Such hyperbole...

No one is "ruined" forever. Maybe a year or two of ruination, but no more than that. If the history of past economic depressions where government refrained from intervening is a guide, the adjustment period would be swift and indeed relatively painless as the economy naturally adjusts and starts up again.

And it won't be avoided anyways. There is no method that government can undertake that can prevent the deleveraging process. Even the most diehard Obama supporters agree that decreased standards of living are inevitable and unavoidable.
no thats not any more exciting to me.

I get to poke fun at whoever the current sitting president is. regardless of how long he has been in office.Thsi is why I love free speech. He could be the next best thing to perfect, and we could still make fun of him for the little things. :p

You make it sound as if people lose their jobs and become indigents for the rest of their lives. Such hyperbole...

No one is "ruined" forever. Maybe a year or two of ruination, but no more than that. If the history of past economic depressions where government refrained from intervening is a guide, the adjustment period would be swift and indeed relatively painless as the economy naturally adjusts and starts up again.

And it won't be avoided anyways. There is no method that government can undertake that can prevent the deleveraging process. Even the most diehard Obama supporters agree that decreased standards of living are inevitable and unavoidable.

How are lenders supposed to pay off their debt if they don't lend?

no thats not any more exciting to me.

Well, if history is a guide the current course of action won't be any more exciting to you either.

How are lenders supposed to pay off their debt if they don't lend?

This was already addressed in this thread. In that case the lenders will go out of business.

This was already addressed in this thread. In that case the lenders will go out of business.

Then who will do the lending?

Then who will do the lending?

loan sharks. they don't have issues with people defaulting.

loan sharks. they don't have issues with people defaulting.

Yay! :D

loan sharks. they don't have issues with people defaulting.

Might be a better loan. You get the high interest like a bank but you don't get nailed with fees.

Then who will do the lending?

Don't tell me you believe every single lender will go out of business all at once in a spectacular fireworks display.

...

There will always be lenders with sufficient capital, even if all the banks with the rotten assets collapse. It's not an "all-or-none" situation where "EVERYONE LENDS" or "EVERYONE DIES".

Might be a better loan. You get the high interest like a bank but you don't get nailed with fees.

and you dont miss a payment because then they break your arm.

Don't tell me you believe every single lender will go out of business all at once in a spectacular fireworks display.

...

There will always be lenders with sufficient capital, even if all the banks with the rotten assets collapse. It's not an "all-or-none" situation where "EVERYONE LENDS" or "EVERYONE DIES".

If there are a lot less lenders, there are a lot less lenders to compete with by offering reasonable rates.

If there are a lot less lenders, there are a lot less lenders to compete with by offering reasonable rates.

That's not actually a problem. Despite our addiction to credit cards and loans that monetarist policy has caused, the truth is that humans don't require low-interest loans to survive. History and empirical evidence shows us that businesses grow and prosper even if there is no credit bubble.

That's not actually a problem. Despite our addiction to credit cards and loans that monetarist policy has caused, the truth is that humans don't require low-interest loans to survive. History and empirical evidence shows us that businesses grow and prosper even if there is no credit bubble.

Perhaps already established businesses, but where's the new? How are the new entrepreneurs with fresh ideas going to turn their ideas into businesses without investment?

How is a person with a $10,000 down payment an a $50,000 a year income going to ever stop paying rent and own a $150,000 house without reasonable lending practices?

How is a business with a sudden and unexpected drop in productivity(a natural disaster destroys their warehouse) going to make payroll next month if someone won't lend them the money to keep in business long enough to recover?

How is a person with a $10,000 down payment an a $50,000 a year income going to ever stop paying rent and own a $150,000 house without reasonable lending practices?
Keep renting. Nowhere in the constitution says that everyone is automatically entitled to a house in the suburbs.


Perhaps already established businesses, but where's the new? How are the new entrepreneurs with fresh ideas going to turn their ideas into businesses without investment?

How is a business with a sudden and unexpected drop in productivity(a natural disaster destroys their warehouse) going to make payroll next month if someone won't lend them the money to keep in business long enough to recover?

I don't know, how has any of these things ever occurred throughout human history before the later half of the 1900s when government got into the business of bailing out banks? What you're implying is that innovation and economic expansion cannot occur without bank bailouts which is obviously thoroughly false.

You think basing everything on the gold standard would increase the economy?
It's not just that. For example, Paul also supports declaring all U.S. tender to no longer be worth anything.

It's not just that. For example, Paul also supports declaring all U.S. tender to no longer be worth anything.

Repealing the legal tender law? Makes sense.

Keep renting. Nowhere in the constitution says that everyone is automatically entitled to a house in the suburbs.


Ah what?

Repealing the legal tender law? Makes sense.

Sure if you want to wipe out the economy.

Ah what?

?:confused:

Sure if you want to wipe out the economy.

Actually it would strengthen the economy. (though it won't increase the economy. We don't need any more bubbles anyways)

Keep renting. Nowhere in the constitution says that everyone is automatically entitled to a house in the suburbs.




I don't know, how has any of these things ever occurred throughout human history before the later half of the 1900s when government got into the business of bailing out banks? What you're implying is that innovation and economic expansion cannot occur without bank bailouts which is obviously thoroughly false.

Wow. Just....wow.

I doubt it'll help, but let's see if we can find the discrepancy here...

Someone wants to buy a house. No problem.
He gets a mortgage. No problem.
An investor borrows money to buy the mortgate from the bank. Hmm....
The investor sells ten such mortgages to another investor who also borrows money to buy them. Now the dominos are lining up.

One or two of the packaged mortgages turns bad due to extenuating circumstances. Problem.
The investors can't afford to pay back their loans. Bigger problem.
The banks have bad debt so stop lending money. Huge problem.
A handful of busineeses with unforeseeable problems can't make expenses and can't get loans. They lay off workers. The workers can't afford the mortgages they could have afforded had they not lost their jobs. Gigantic problem.
More bad mortgages....more debt....less lending....more people laid off....low consumer confidence....less purchases....businesses have poor sales....can't make expenses...can't get loans...lay off workers.... balh blah blah.

A few bad loans(or even a few thousand) to homeowners and new or struggling businesses aren't the cause of this mess. The cause of this mess is unregulated securities investment and the lending of money to purchase.... promises to sell to other people making promises. THAT[ is what caused this mess.

Now that the mess is here, the way to arrest the downward spiral is NOT to stop lending becaus that's just going to continue to exacerbate the problem. The way out of this for the government to help these lenders make loans to people who actually contribute something to the system and will generate profit for the lenders AND regulate investors to keep them from risky unsafe profiteering off of effectively nothing when they know that they are overleveraged beyond compare.

We need banks. Banks need profit. To make profit, the banks need to lend. The government needs to give them the ability to do so. Apparently someone has to be the grown-up clean up the mess. That someone is the government.

?:confused:

An aristocracy will not work here.

I think what you're seeing can be partly ascribed to an inevitable 'backlash' among his supporters. Hell, how many posts have we seen just here, in one fashion or another, maundering on about how they feel 'betrayed' by Pres. Obama? When you add that to the people who didn't like him to begin with...

I do agree that people on both sides of the aisle need to quit running around like chickens with their heads cut off and retain a sense of perspective.

Pfft. You eliminated most of the government...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Pfft. You eliminated most of the government.....

i am all for it then.

It is not necessary to hate Barack H. Obama to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Obama is in way over his head, and the country is headed for rough times because of his stupid economic policies and the massive debts he's running up. If that make me an Obama-hater, then sign me up.

Wow. Just....wow.

I doubt it'll help, but let's see if we can find the discrepancy here...

Someone wants to buy a house. No problem.
He gets a mortgage. No problem.
An investor borrows money to buy the mortgate from the bank. Hmm....
The investor sells ten such mortgages to another investor who also borrows money to buy them. Now the dominos are lining up.

One or two of the packaged mortgages turns bad due to extenuating circumstances. Problem.
The investors can't afford to pay back their loans. Bigger problem.
The banks have bad debt so stop lending money. Huge problem.
A handful of busineeses with unforeseeable problems can't make expenses and can't get loans. They lay off workers. The workers can't afford the mortgages they could have afforded had they not lost their jobs. Gigantic problem.
More bad mortgages....more debt....less lending....more people laid off....low consumer confidence....less purchases....businesses have poor sales....can't make expenses...can't get loans...lay off workers.... balh blah blah.

A few bad loans(or even a few thousand) to homeowners and new or struggling businesses aren't the cause of this mess. The cause of this mess is unregulated securities investment and the lending of money to purchase.... promises to sell to other people making promises. THAT[ is what caused this mess.

There's no thing as "unregulated." The whole thing is managed by bureacurats in the central bank. You are aware that the government forced interest rates down to historically low levels in the early 2000s? Had the free market been allowed to set those interest rates, rates would've been a lot higher since the dotcom bubble just burst and lending tightened, and real estate speculation would not have been possible. That is at the root of this mess, not "unregulated" crap. And if we go back a little bit further, the dotcom bubble itself was the result of the government forcing down interest rates during the mid 90s.

Now that the mess is here, the way to arrest the downward spiral is NOT to stop lending becaus that's just going to continue to exacerbate the problem.
Actually the problem will just be perpetuated by government efforts, since loans will be directed to unsustainable enterprises and unsustainable investments, just like how in 2001 government efforts at getting banks to step up lending and borrowers to step up borrowing created the real estate bubble where no bubble existed before. Only this time, we may very well be at the end of the line in terms of debt that the economy is able to sustain, and the nothing the government does will get people into more debt, and the deflation and deleveraging will proceed anyways.


The way out of this for the government to help these lenders make loans to people who actually contribute something to the system and will generate profit for the lenders AND regulate investors to keep them from risky unsafe profiteering off of effectively nothing when they know that they are overleveraged beyond compare.

We need banks. Banks need profit. To make profit, the banks need to lend. The government needs to give them the ability to do so. Apparently someone has to be the grown-up clean up the mess. That someone is the government.

The government created this mess, and they won't be able to get us out of it by using the same exact methods that got us into the mess in the first place (that is, implementing policies to incentivize lenders and borrowers to lend and borrow and get into as much debt as possible). The only way to clean up the mess is if government allows people to get out of debt, not to get into even more debt.

We need healthy banks. Not banks saddled down with enormous amounts of toxic assets and propped up on life support by the government. That does no good for the economy.

An aristocracy will not work here.

lolwut?

There's no thing as "unregulated." The whole thing is managed by bureacurats in the central bank. You are aware that the government forced interest rates down to historically low levels in the early 2000s? Had the free market been allowed to set those interest rates, rates would've been a lot higher since the dotcom bubble just burst and lending tightened, and real estate speculation would not have been possible. That is at the root of this mess, not "unregulated" crap. And if we go back a little bit further, the dotcom bubble itself was the result of the government forcing down interest rates during the mid 90s.


Actually the problem will just be perpetuated by government efforts, since loans will be directed to unsustainable enterprises and unsustainable investments, just like how in 2001 government efforts at getting banks to step up lending and borrowers to step up borrowing created the real estate bubble where no bubble existed before. Only this time, we may very well be at the end of the line in terms of debt that the economy is able to sustain, and the nothing the government does will get people into more debt, and the deflation and deleveraging will proceed anyways.




The government created this mess, and they won't be able to get us out of it by using the same exact methods that got us into the mess in the first place (that is, implementing policies to incentivize lenders and borrowers to lend and borrow and get into as much debt as possible). The only way to clean up the mess is if government allows people to get out of debt, not to get into even more debt.

We need healthy banks. Not banks saddled down with enormous amounts of toxic assets and propped up on life support by the government. That does no good for the economy.
And I continue to assert that the problem wasn't the lending to and borrowing by homeowners and businesses, but lending to and borrowing by investors seeking to cash in on those low interest rates while the government turned a blind eye to it.

I also continue to assert that the way back out is to reverse this by discouraging lending to irresponsible investors and opening the regulatory eye. Lending to homeowners and businesses is where the profits that will fill the hole back in will come from.

Now that the mess is here, the way to arrest the downward spiral is NOT to stop lending becaus that's just going to continue to exacerbate the problem.

Also I would like to point out that all the talk about "downward spiral" is nonsense. Downward spirals don't exist and free market economies self-adjust and inevitably find the equilibrium at which sustainable and long-term growth can occur.

The same dunces who brought us the "Theory of the Downward Spiral" also brought us the "Theory of the Upward Spiral" - that is, the theory that lowering interest rates, expanding lending, and getting people into ever more debt will result in an ever-expanding, unstoppable economy. This is exactly the dangerous theory that motivated policymakers to tinker with interest rates and monetarist economic interventions for the past 30 years of the so called "Great Moderation". And now you and all the policymakers seem to believe that this will continue to work - that expanding lending and getting people into more debt will allow the economy to keep expanding.

Lesson learned: there is no upward spiral.

Also I would like to point out that all the talk about "downward spiral" is nonsense. Downward spirals don't exist and free market economies self-adjust and inevitably find the equilibrium at which sustainable and long-term growth can occur.

The same dunces who brought us the "Theory of the Downward Spiral" also brought us the "Theory of the Upward Spiral" - that is, the theory that lowering interest rates, expanding lending, and getting people into ever more debt will result in an ever-expanding, unstoppable economy. This is exactly the dangerous theory that motivated policymakers to tinker with interest rates and monetarist economic interventions for the past 30 years of the so called "Great Moderation". And now you and all the policymakers seem to believe that this will continue to work - that expanding lending and getting people into more debt will allow the economy to keep expanding.

Lesson learned: there is no upward spiral.

Actually, I'm just hoping that Obama's policies can help people can stay in their homes and find work. In order to do that the banks have to receive help they don't deserve. After that, I'll accept any fiscal system that works and can't get exploited to the point of meltdown like the last one was.

And I continue to assert that the problem wasn't the lending to and borrowing by homeowners and businesses, but lending to and borrowing by investors seeking to cash in on those low interest rates while the government turned a blind eye to it.

How wasn't the problem lending to and borrowing by homeowners and businesses? During the credit bubble, mortgages were handed out with a 5% down payment , i.e. a 20 to 1 leverage. Some of the auto loans were even more leveraged, with a pittance for a down payment and 100 to 1 leverage. This was as bad as the 30 to 1 leverage in an investment bank and the scale was almost as big. Furthermore a lot of businesses (real estate, construction, car sales, retail, etc) derived their profits from people getting these leveraged loans. You claim businesses are angelic and can do no wrong because they are profitable. Not if a business derives its profits from a rotten system where someone can get hugely leveraged on loans for cars, houses, and consumer goods.

I also continue to assert that the way back out is to reverse this by discouraging lending to irresponsible investors and opening the regulatory eye. Lending to homeowners and businesses is where the profits that will fill the hole back in will come from.
Same as above.

How wasn't the problem lending to and borrowing by homeowners and businesses? During the credit bubble, mortgages were handed out with a 5% down payment , i.e. a 20 to 1 leverage. Some of the auto loans were even more leveraged, with a pittance for a down payment and 100 to 1 leverage. This was as bad as the 30 to 1 leverage in an investment bank and the scale was almost as big. Furthermore a lot of businesses (real estate, construction, car sales, retail, etc) derived their profits from people getting these leveraged loans. You claim businesses are angelic and can do no wrong because they are profitable. Not if a business derives its profits from a rotten system where someone can get hugely leveraged on loans for cars, houses, and consumer goods.


Same as above.

You didn't really compare someone who takes out a loan to someone who takes out a loan to buy loans to sell them to people who take out loans to buy loans, did you?

You didn't really compare someone who takes out a loan to someone who takes out a loan to buy loans to sell them to people who take out loans to buy loans, did you?

I don't see why the comparison is invalid. Even after all their financial engineering and taking out loans to buy loans and taking out loans to buy loans, leverage at most investment banks was about 30:1. Meanwhile millions of people were getting 100:1 leverage to buy gas guzzling SUVs, and 20:1 on their dream house. The motives may be different but the economic consequence is the same: unsustainable debt taken on by both the investment banks and the individual consumers. The bubble we just experienced wasn't just limited to "Wall Street" and the usual bogeymen.

I don't see why the comparison is invalid. Even after all their financial engineering and taking out loans to buy loans and taking out loans to buy loans, leverage at most investment banks was about 30:1. Meanwhile millions of people were getting 100:1 leverage to buy gas guzzling SUVs, and 20:1 on their dream house. The motives may be different but the economic consequence is the same: unsustainable debt taken on by both the investment banks and the individual consumers. The bubble we just experienced wasn't just limited to "Wall Street" and the usual bogeymen.

Okay, I'm done. As fun as bashing my head against a brick wall can be, it gets old after a while.

Okay, I'm done. As fun as bashing my head against a brick wall can be, it gets old after a while.

Even if you ignore the collapse of the investment banks unable to make good on their debts, the collapse of the consumers unable to make good on their debts would also be epic. But since you are a devoted follower of the "Debt is Good" school of thought, I guess you aren't able to understand these things.

Okay, I'm done. As fun as bashing my head against a brick wall can be, it gets old after a while.

.

I know how we got into the Great Depression (Pissaro, fyi, this was the result of an extended period of unregulated speculation on Wall Street that culminated in a crash in October of 1929) and how we got out of it. We got out as a result of adding regulation to the investment "industry," insuring banks through FDIC, Government makework jobs and bailouts, hard work and a war. It was removing that regulation from investment and banking that was a helped cause this economic problem (go back to Reaganomics) and it is the fact that banks are FDIC insured that has prevented many people from losing everything. Government makework and bailouts are a stopgap, but a needed one. Hard work is a given. A war ... well, I don't think that's going to help this time.

And now, perhaps we can go back to the original intent of the OP, which was, in essence, that we should give Obama a chance to prove himself instead of immediately declaring him a failure - as so many, including Pissaro, have done.

.

I know how we got into the Great Depression (Pissaro, fyi, this was the result of an extended period of unregulated speculation on Wall Street that culminated in a crash in October of 1929)

Nope, it was inflation and government forcing down interest rates during the 1920s - which is exactly what occurred under Bush and Greenspan in the 2000s. The free market is a powerful regulator against speculation because interest rates set by the free market tend naturally higher than what monetarists like to set them, and limit the availability of money for speculation. By contrast monetarist/keynesian government intervention in the credit markets aims to make as much money as possible available for lending, which inevitably leads to speculation.

.

and how we got out of it. We got out as a result of adding regulation to the investment "industry," insuring banks through FDIC, Government makework jobs and bailouts, hard work and a war. It was removing that regulation from investment and banking that was a helped cause this economic problem (go back to Reaganomics) and it is the fact that banks are FDIC insured that has prevented many people from losing everything. Government makework and bailouts are a stopgap, but a needed one. Hard work is a given. A war ... well, I don't think that's going to help this time.


Again you are wrong. Nothing the government did deterred the depression, and waging the war itself did not end the depression. Instead, it was the destruction of the world's productive capacity by war that ended the depression, since this meant Americans would have plenty of jobs when the war ended, in the manufacturing and exporting of products necessary for rebuilding war damages.

lolwut?

You are the one who said everybody should be renters.

You are the one who said everybody should be renters.

Where did I say that?

It is not necessary to hate Barack H. Obama to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Obama is in way over his head, and the country is headed for rough times because of his stupid economic policies and the massive debts he's running up. If that make me an Obama-hater, then sign me up.

If you are going to quote Molly at least mention her. Too bad she was talking about your God the shrub. If we still had him we would be heading into a depression now.

Even if you ignore the collapse of the investment banks unable to make good on their debts, the collapse of the consumers unable to make good on their debts would also be epic. But since you are a devoted follower of the "Debt is Good" school of thought, I guess you aren't able to understand these things.

Investment banking should have been kept separate from the consumer banking.

Where did I say that?

Your misguided reference to the Constitution and home ownership.

Okay, I'm done. As fun as bashing my head against a brick wall can be, it gets old after a while.

I don't have nearly the tolerance you do, I'm joining you.

Investment banking should have been kept separate from the consumer banking.

The Bushisms keep rolling in. They were kept separate. Only in 2008 after several investment banks collapsed did Congress finally allow investment banks to merge with retail banks (which were better capitalized than i-banks). From 1933 to 2008 investment banks were kept separate from "consumer banks".

Nope, it was inflation and government forcing down interest rates during the 1920s - which is exactly what occurred under Bush and Greenspan in the 2000s. The free market is a powerful regulator against speculation because interest rates set by the free market tend naturally higher than what monetarists like to set them, and limit the availability of money for speculation. By contrast monetarist/keynesian government intervention in the credit markets aims to make as much money as possible available for lending, which inevitably leads to speculation.


There was neve speculation before the New Deal???????????

You see where you "completely free marketers" fail to understand it's impossible to achieve a completely free market. Somebody will always cheat the system.

To have a free market; you need regulation.


Again you are wrong. Nothing the government did deterred the depression, and waging the war itself did not end the depression. Instead, it was the destruction of the world's productive capacity by war that ended the depression, since this meant Americans would have plenty of jobs when the war ended, in the manufacturing and exporting of products necessary for rebuilding war damages.

Tell that to the people who lived through it. It looks neat on text book pages but reality kicks in and waiting for the free market fairies to fix everything just won't happen.

The Bushisms keep rolling in. They were kept separate. Only in 2008 after several investment banks collapsed did Congress finally allow investment banks to merge with retail banks (which were better capitalized than i-banks). From 1933 to 2008 investment banks were kept separate from "consumer banks".

Just because you don't understand, there is no need for attempted personal comments.

There was neve speculation before the New Deal???????????
Where did I say that? I clearly stated that government interventions resulted in the atmosphere of easy money and speculation during the 1920s.

You see where you "completely free marketers" fail to understand it's impossible to achieve a completely free market. Somebody will always cheat the system.

To have a free market; you need regulation.
People could try to cheat the system but they won't succeed. The free market has powerful self-regulation against speculation. This is because in the free market there simply isn't that much money available to lend for speculation. Only when the government steps in and forces down interest rates, does the easy money start flowing, and speculation booms.


Tell that to the people who lived through it. It looks neat on text book pages but reality kicks in and waiting for the free market fairies to fix everything just won't happen.
There were no free market fairies. Both Hoover and FDR massively intervened in the economy, stymying recovery for years and causing chronic high unemployment. There's a reason the Hoover Dam is called the Hoover Dam. And it's not because FDR built it.

Just because you don't understand, there is no need for attempted personal comments.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Where did I say that? I clearly stated that government interventions resulted in the atmosphere of easy money and speculation during the 1920s.

People could try to cheat the system but they won't succeed. The free market has powerful self-regulation against speculation. This is because in the free market there simply isn't that much money available to lend for speculation. Only when the government steps in and forces down interest rates, does the easy money start flowing, and speculation booms.

There were no free market fairies. Both Hoover and FDR massively intervened in the economy, stymying recovery for years and causing chronic high unemployment. There's a reason the Hoover Dam is called the Hoover Dam. And it's not because FDR built it.


:D If only real life was like a text book.

What's funny is things will sort out and you will still be moaning if only the market was free. There has never been and never will be a completely free market. It's a concept, nothing more.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

You might want to repeat that to yourself a few times.

:D If only real life was like a text book.

What's funny is things will sort out and you will still be moaning if only the market was free. There has never been and never will be a completely free market. It's a concept, nothing more.

I have no doubt things will sort out; either A.) conditions in the economy with government intervention get so bad that the free market reasserts itself and government interventions fall apart in a Yeltsin-style "shock therapy" scenario, or B.) another global war destroys much of the world's productive capacity, ensuring that Americans will have jobs again and allowing the government to perpetuate the myth that government intervention ended the great 2008 depression when in reality destruction of productive capacity in war ended the depression. There are no other plausible outcomes.

And now, perhaps we can go back to the original intent of the OP, which was, in essence, that we should give Obama a chance to prove himself instead of immediately declaring him a failure - as so many, including Pissaro, have done.

Yes. In all fairness, you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't say 'that dog won't hunt' unless you actually take him out hunting and give him a chance to tree a 'coon. (N.B. for the over-sensitive types: Not a racial remark, that's really how you hunt racoons. The dog chases them up the tree and then you shoot them.)

Yes. In all fairness, you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't say 'that dog won't hunt' unless you actually take him out hunting and give him a chance to tree a 'coon. (N.B. for the over-sensitive types: Not a racial remark, that's really how you hunt racoons. The dog chases them up the tree and then you shoot them.)

That dog won't hunt. In his few days in office, Obama's already enacted many policies that are futile at best and disastrous at worst. People keep erroneously claiming we shouldn't judge him for his 40 or 50 days in office because "50 days is such a short time blah blah" when in fact he has enacted more far-reaching policies in 40 or 50 days than many presidents do in an entire year. The only way Obama is going to make his presidency not end up an abject failure is if he repeals Bush's economic policies and repeals his own economic policies that he's enacted thus far.

The only way Obama is going to make his presidency not end up an abject failure is if he repeals Bush's economic policies and repeals his own economic policies that he's enacted thus far.

Well howzabout you wait and see if that happens then? Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way a member of his booster club, but I've had to sit through eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, I'm not interested in listening to four years of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Well howzabout you wait and see if that happens then? Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way a member of his booster club, but I've had to sit through eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, I'm not interested in listening to four years of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Well I have no choice but to wait and see do I? :d

It is not necessary to hate Barack H. Obama to think he's a bad president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred. Poor Obama is in way over his head, and the country is headed for rough times because of his stupid economic policies and the massive debts he's running up. If that make me an Obama-hater, then sign me up.
no it just makes you someone who doesnt acknowlege that we are in a huge economic crisis that started before mr obama took office.

unless you can suggest a BETTER solution to the crisis you are not being the grownup you claim to be.

I don't have nearly the tolerance you do, I'm joining you.

Have a taco. *hands you a taco* :)

Have a taco. *hands you a taco* :)

I like tacos. *hugs*

So is it me, or is Pissandro's entire stance here... "Its new so its going to fail?"

Maybe I'm reading him wrong but that is what I get out of it.

So is it me, or is Pissandro's entire stance here... "Its new so its going to fail?"

Maybe I'm reading him wrong but that is what I get out of it.
i think his stance is "the situation is hopeless so it would be better to just get it over with instead of trying (useless) things to help us get through it. that only delays the inevitable rock bottom we are headed for"

i think his stance is "the situation is hopeless so it would be better to just get it over with instead of trying (useless) things to help us get through it. that only delays the inevitable rock bottom we are headed for"

Oh... defeatism is so much better than fascist-conservatism...

Oh... defeatism is so much better than fascist-conservatism...
its hard to tell if i am reading him right or not.

we have been lost in the desert of neoconservativism and "the government cant help you"ism for so long that those who lean against government anyway have lost all faith in its ability to do anything right. under bush2 is seldom did anything right and often did things horrifically wrong. they lied, they mismanaged, they did the right thing in incompetent ways.

after that it is hard to put your faith in a president ever again.

Have a taco. *hands you a taco* :)

since the only reason why I'm posting in this thread is because you're handing out tacos... can I have one?

oh, and to be on topic and to avoid hijacking this... interesting thread.

Like the education system, I will wait till his 'mid-term' before forming an opinion on his actions. then I will wait till his "final year" to decide if I should re-elect him or go with the next candidate.

in other words, ask me again in 2010-2011

The banks don't have the money to lend out. If the government attempts to provide them with the money through a capital bailout, that doesn't solve anything because that money still is withdrawn from the GDP whether through future taxation or present decreased standard of living/inflation.
You're absolutely just making this stuff up. The above comment (a) is over-simplified to the point of uselessness and (b) does not actually address what I said anyway. I feel like I'm debating with a parrot.

The problem is that there is far too much debt in the economy, and all private participants (households and businesses) are in the process of deleveraging that debt. The government is trying to reinflate the credit-fueled bubble which will be disastrous. Please consult this graph:

http://yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/files/2008/06/img0009_2097970562.PNG

What goes up must come down and despite your hopes, no government intervention will be able to keep that bubble of debt expanding.
Wrong. That is not what the government is trying to do. It is what some individuals in the financial industry would like to see happen (i.e. a continuation of the gravy train that just got derailed). But it is not what the government and lots of other people are trying to do now.

You are also wrong about what I hope to see happen, but I realize now that, when arguing with a parrot, I cannot expect the parrot's remarks to indicate any comprehension of what I have been saying to the parrot. Let's see if you can get this: I do not hope to see a bubble of debt continue to expand.

Well obviously many of the experts have been proven wrong over and over again as they predicted each iteration of TARP would "unfreeze" lending. When it has done no such thing.
Excuse me, not obvious at all.

First off, there are lots and lots of economic experts espousing many different concepts and plans. Some have been proven wrong. Some have been proven right. Some have not yet been tested. Some economic concepts are right in some circumstances and wrong in other circumstances. You're "well, obviously they're all wrong" nonsense does not make you seem more reasonable in your insistance that we can just ignore them all and take the unsupported word of some random internet guy for how the world works.

Private lending will not increase, and will in fact continue to decrease, which is precisely what occurred during 1990s Japan, when central bank's prime rate was lowered to historically low levels, and when banks were bailed out and zombified by the government.
More tea-leaf reading floating in mid-air with nothing at all to support it. In case you haven't noticed it, I am drifting more and more towards just laughing at you, considering how long you have been pushing this argument without actually having a real argument to present. I am confident you never will present one, because you don't have one -- you just have a little repertoire of pet talking points you like to repeat -- and you clearly have no intention of trying to build one.

Flash Gordon did it in 24 hours

We should have elected him, then.

Some readings for you

Popular article on the Great Depression: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html

Census data:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

I don't initiate the personal quips, I only provide the retorts.



That doesn't change a thing.
Those are neither arguments nor excuses. If you have actually read the information in your links, you should be able to tell us how they support YOUR ARGUMENT. Do that now, please, thank you.

Bankers are doing what's best for their country by not lending. Please consult this graph which I earlier asked Muravyets to look at:

http://yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/files/2008/06/img0009_2097970562.PNG

To unravel that unsustainable and dangerous amount of debt, banks are doing exactly the right thing by not lending.
By the way, I've seen that graph before. It is very nice. It does not actually relate to anything you have been saying, of course. If you think it does, you are going to have to explain how. You know, make an actual argument.

By the way, I've seen that graph before. It is very nice. It does not actually relate to anything you have been saying, of course.
Don't you see!?

The lines are going up!

UP, I tells thee.

No, he just answered your question. You wanted to know where he got his figures for the Great Depression - there they are.

Oh, and He's dead right. The New Deal stimulus aspects were a comprehensive failure, only buoyed up by the subsidization of basic industry and the labor-for-dole construction projects.

Nd incidentally, while Pissarro has made a number of claims, then backed them up with arguments, all you have managed are a parrotlike "No citations! No Citations!" and snarky references to strawmen Pissarro has politely ignored. How about coming up with a counterargument? As in: put up or shut up.




WHAT arguments? You haven't made any!



I did. You misread his statement badly then made an attack on his statement based on nothing in his statement, but rather upon the fact that he was willing to put HIS position on the line and make a prediction with it, which is a lot more than you have. What happened is that you didn't like Pissarro's position but had no answer to it.
It's so funny to me that people who make bad arguments rush to the defense of other people who make bad arguments. Let's walk through it:

First off, I have made no affirmative claims of fact of my own, nor any predictions of the future. Therefore, I don't have to present any sources. If I had said "Obama's policies will produce XYZ good results" then I would have to present the information and reasoning that caused me to make such a claim. But I have not made any such claim. All I have done is point out a flaw in Pissaro's statements, to wit:

Pissaro most certainly did make an affirmative claim. He has claimed that Obama's policies, which he says are continuations of Bush's policies, will have XYZ bad results, and he lists quite specific bad results.

Here's what Pisarro DOES NOT DO: He does not connect the dots. He does not explain how Policy A leads to Result Q. That is the flaw in his argument. He is stating something definite about the future, but he does not show the connection between now and then.

He and you claim that he has backed up his assertions with facts, but actually all he has done is post links to superficial summations of raw data. He does not give us any context for what that data represents, nor does he show how it relates to what he has been saying. Therefore it is not a support to his argument at all, because he has not connected it to his argument.

He has been asked multiple times to make that connection, and he has failed to do so every single time. From that I conclude that he cannot make the connection himself. This leads me to conclude that he does not know what he is talking about.

Now, it is entirely possible that Obama's policies could have negative effects rather than positive ones. It is also possibly true that Obama's policies are more like Bush's than different from them.

But Pisarro has not proven either of those to be the actual case. He has not shown us how Obama's policies will produce the results he predicts, nor has he directly compared Bush to Obama to find similarities or differences, nor has he attempted to show definitively that any such continuation would necessarily be a bad or good thing.

He has not constructed an argument that started from the current situation and then explored or modeled its most likely outcomes. Rather, he appears to have started with his preferred conclusion, based on his preferred premises, and made categoric statements based on those but without actually analyzing the issue before posting. After the fact, when pressed to back himself up, he went looking for data, but he is still not testing his own premise/conclusion connections. Therefore, he just finds sources that say debt to GDP is going up but not why, and that things got worse before they got better in the Depression, but not what that has to do with today's situation and policies. Therefore, those data sources remain unrelated to his arguments.

And THAT is what I am criticizing him for. Since the topic of this thread is "Do We Need a Reality Check?" and it is about people's attitudes about Obama's policies, I think it is entirely appropriate to call out a poster for making an unrealistic argument.

So, we're all agreed that we need to give Obama more time before we decide that he's a complete washout. Right?
That's my vote.

Keep renting. Nowhere in the constitution says that everyone is automatically entitled to a house in the suburbs.




I don't know, how has any of these things ever occurred throughout human history before the later half of the 1900s when government got into the business of bailing out banks? What you're implying is that innovation and economic expansion cannot occur without bank bailouts which is obviously thoroughly false.
They occurred by business owners getting loans. What do you think was the bedrock of the Florentine banks who drove the Renaissance? It was an ancient version of commercial lending.

You don't need a crystal ball or tarot deck to figure out the path of disaster Obama is leading us on either. All you need is some understanding of basic economics.

No. Not basic economics. Base economics. The economics of cavemen and people who own a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

The economists you seem to esteem said that W's policies would create wealth and jobs. People who saw what happened wherever else those policies were enacted were a failure.

Obama is trying to reverse them. I can't guarantee that it will have the desired effect. When the designated driver finally wrestles the drunk driver out of the seat and slams on the breaks, it only helps if the car hasn't gone off the cliff yet. Since the rest of us have our eyes closed it's hard to tell if we've driven off a cliff or if we've just crested a steep hill at high speed, like in all those old car chase scenes set in San Fransisco. But whichever Bush did, hitting the breaks now will be hopeless at worst, life-saving at best.

What Bush's policies have brought us to. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7297093.stm)

The results of Obama's economic policies. (http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50216897/Neon_Light_Wall_Clock.jpg)

That dog won't hunt. In his few days in office, Obama's already enacted many policies that are futile at best and disastrous at worst. People keep erroneously claiming we shouldn't judge him for his 40 or 50 days in office because "50 days is such a short time blah blah" when in fact he has enacted more far-reaching policies in 40 or 50 days than many presidents do in an entire year. The only way Obama is going to make his presidency not end up an abject failure is if he repeals Bush's economic policies and repeals his own economic policies that he's enacted thus far.
And right back to Square One. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

I'm with LG and ASD. Enough of banging our heads against the brickwall of you.

So, we're all agreed that we need to give Obama more time before we decide that he's a complete washout. Right?

Well, it seems only fair since we waited until after Dubya had thoroughly failed before deciding that he might, then we re-elected him to see if he could fix it.

Well, it seems only fair since we waited until after Dubya had thoroughly failed before deciding that he might, then we re-elected him to see if he could fix it.
Hehe, or just to see if he could do it again. ;)

It's so funny to me that people who make bad arguments rush to the defense of other people who make bad arguments. Let's walk through it:

First off, I have made no affirmative claims of fact of my own, nor any predictions of the future. Therefore, I don't have to present any sources. If I had said "Obama's policies will produce XYZ good results" then I would have to present the information and reasoning that caused me to make such a claim. But I have not made any such claim. All I have done is point out a flaw in Pissaro's statements, to wit:

Pissaro most certainly did make an affirmative claim. He has claimed that Obama's policies, which he says are continuations of Bush's policies, will have XYZ bad results, and he lists quite specific bad results.

Here's what Pisarro DOES NOT DO: He does not connect the dots. He does not explain how Policy A leads to Result Q. That is the flaw in his argument. He is stating something definite about the future, but he does not show the connection between now and then.

He and you claim that he has backed up his assertions with facts, but actually all he has done is post links to superficial summations of raw data. He does not give us any context for what that data represents, nor does he show how it relates to what he has been saying. Therefore it is not a support to his argument at all, because he has not connected it to his argument.

He has been asked multiple times to make that connection, and he has failed to do so every single time. From that I conclude that he cannot make the connection himself. This leads me to conclude that he does not know what he is talking about.

Now, it is entirely possible that Obama's policies could have negative effects rather than positive ones. It is also possibly true that Obama's policies are more like Bush's than different from them.

But Pisarro has not proven either of those to be the actual case. He has not shown us how Obama's policies will produce the results he predicts, nor has he directly compared Bush to Obama to find similarities or differences, nor has he attempted to show definitively that any such continuation would necessarily be a bad or good thing.

He has not constructed an argument that started from the current situation and then explored or modeled its most likely outcomes. Rather, he appears to have started with his preferred conclusion, based on his preferred premises, and made categoric statements based on those but without actually analyzing the issue before posting. After the fact, when pressed to back himself up, he went looking for data, but he is still not testing his own premise/conclusion connections. Therefore, he just finds sources that say debt to GDP is going up but not why, and that things got worse before they got better in the Depression, but not what that has to do with today's situation and policies. Therefore, those data sources remain unrelated to his arguments.

And THAT is what I am criticizing him for. Since the topic of this thread is "Do We Need a Reality Check?" and it is about people's attitudes about Obama's policies, I think it is entirely appropriate to call out a poster for making an unrealistic argument.

Bad arguments? Maybe. But he's presented some. You haven't. And don't give me any bullshit about "I'm opposing so I don't have to" - as far as I can see, you haven't shown jack shit. You haven't addressed his points, you've comprehensively failed to show, or even attempted to show, his errors in logic or reasoning. You just parrot on about him showing articles in support, then declaim from on high that those he does in fact produce are isufficient or wrong.

And you STILL totally misread his initial post and criticised it on an irrational basis. Given that inability to understand basic english, you'll pardon me if I DON'T consider an arrogant "not good enough" to be any sort of sufficient answer.

Bad arguments? Maybe.
Mr., you may have presented bad arguments but I haven't.

No. Not basic economics. Base economics. The economics of cavemen and people who own a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

The economists you seem to esteem said that W's policies would create wealth and jobs. People who saw what happened wherever else those policies were enacted were a failure.


Nope, the economists I esteem (such as Steven Keen, Peter Schiff, Mike Shedlock, and others) regard George W. Bush as one of the worst presidents of all time, and have consistently trashed his economic policies for years before the bubble burst and while all the neoconservatives and Keynesian liberals were still in lala-land believing that low interest rates and inflation would result in permanent prosperity. Steven Keen and Schiff in fact have both been arguing against the pro-debt policy of the Reagan-Clinton-Bushes since at least the 1980s.

By the way, I've seen that graph before. It is very nice. It does not actually relate to anything you have been saying, of course. If you think it does, you are going to have to explain how. You know, make an actual argument.
I did provide an "actual argument" in that very post. I stated banks should curtail lending so the process of unsustainable debt can end once and for all, as it's been repeatedly made clear to you that excessive debt is at the root of our current crisis. You yourself seem unable to "connect the dots." You repeatedly claim that you want to bring down debt-to-GDP ratio *and* prevent defaults, bankruptcies, and unemployment. How do you propose to achieve these two contradictory ends?

You're absolutely just making this stuff up. The above comment (a) is over-simplified to the point of uselessness and (b) does not actually address what I said anyway. I feel like I'm debating with a parrot.
You are simply the master of avoiding a point aren't you?

How did I "not actually address" what you said? You say bailouts are necessary to keep the economy afloat right now, but I countered that by pointing out that what is injected into the economy must be withdrawn from the economy; i.e. bailouts are withdrawn from the GDP. They have to be paid for some way, whether by inflation or outright taxation. Propping up the economy with a multibillion dollar bailout today means the economy has to be sunk in the future for that same multibillion dollar amount plus interest. How does that solve any economic problems rather than drag them out and magnify them?

Wrong. That is not what the government is trying to do. It is what some individuals in the financial industry would like to see happen (i.e. a continuation of the gravy train that just got derailed). But it is not what the government and lots of other people are trying to do now.

What do you think the government and "lots of other people" are trying to do? Get people to pay down debts? You do realize, right, that that would result (rightfully) in debt-deflation, reduced spending and consumption, bankruptcies, and business layoffs?

You are also wrong about what I hope to see happen, but I realize now that, when arguing with a parrot, I cannot expect the parrot's remarks to indicate any comprehension of what I have been saying to the parrot. Let's see if you can get this: I do not hope to see a bubble of debt continue to expand. For the bubble of debt to shrink, debt-deflation would have to occur, consumers and producers would have reduced spending and consumption, bankruptcies, and business layoffs. Yet you are opposed to each of these things. Do you or the monetarist economists have any proposal to shrinnk debt and prevent the debt-deflation and the bankruptcies?

First off, there are lots and lots of economic experts espousing many different concepts and plans. Some have been proven wrong. Some have been proven right. Some have not yet been tested. Some economic concepts are right in some circumstances and wrong in other circumstances. You're "well, obviously they're all wrong" nonsense does not make you seem more reasonable in your insistance that we can just ignore them all and take the unsupported word of some random internet guy for how the world works.
Where did I ever say "obviously they're all wrong"? The economists I've cited (especially Mike Shedlock) have predicted the cause and effects of every step of our current crisis, and particularly in relation to the point you're answering, he has stated again and again TARP would not work, and he has been proven right every time TARP money is given out without any effects on the credit markets and the government is forced to go back and give out more TARP bailouts.

More tea-leaf reading floating in mid-air with nothing at all to support it. In case you haven't noticed it, I am drifting more and more towards just laughing at you, considering how long you have been pushing this argument without actually having a real argument to present. I am confident you never will present one, because you don't have one -- you just have a little repertoire of pet talking points you like to repeat -- and you clearly have no intention of trying to build one.

How can you say there's nothing to support it? I keep giving you specific historical examples and you dismiss them. You demand evidence, I provide you with evidence, and you simply throw out evidence wholesale.

Please consult the scenario in Japan where private debt-to-GDP ratio decreased despite the government's best efforts. The same will occur in the US, and private lending and borrowing will continue to decrease despite your and the government's most strenuous attempts:

The private financial sector's debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 57 percent in 1979 to 144 percent in 1989. After the bubble burst it remained flat, illustrating that most of Japan's post-bubble debt was created by the government. Government debt, 60 percent of GDP in 1990, tripled to 180 percent by 2007. In contrast, non-financial companies saw their debt fall from 150 percent of GDP in 1995 to 91 percent in 2007. Household debt, which had peaked in 1999 at 71 percent of GDP, fell to 63 percent in 2007, as households too tightened their purse-strings.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/191646705.html

Here's what Pisarro DOES NOT DO: He does not connect the dots. He does not explain how Policy A leads to Result Q. That is the flaw in his argument. He is stating something definite about the future, but he does not show the connection between now and then.

He has been asked multiple times to make that connection, and he has failed to do so every single time. From that I conclude that he cannot make the connection himself. This leads me to conclude that he does not know what he is talking about.


I've connected the dots for you and walked you through and babied you through the entire process. I've presented the causative factors of the Bush-Obama policies and the resulting effects over and over again. I've presented historical examples of the exact same thing yet you repeatedly dismiss all the evidence I give to you.

To paraphrase what I've been repeatedly saying for 14 pages of this thread, the crisis is that the economy has too much debt, and to solve this crisis debt must be paid down. The only way to pay down debt is by contricting spending and consumption, contracting the economy, and, on aggregate, banks curtailing lending and borrowers curtailing borrowing. Yet you and Obama want to step up lending and expand lending? You claim to want for the debt bubble to come down but you haven't proposed any scenario where this can happen without massive job losses, bankruptcies, and economic contraction. How can you curtail lending without job losses? You don't see the absurdity and inherent contradiction in what you're proposing?

Therefore, he just finds sources that say debt to GDP is going up but not why,
Because people lent and borrowed too much. That's the only reason, why else do you think? And how do you propose to bring down debt to GDP ratio without massive defaults, bankruptcies, and unemployment?

and that things got worse before they got better in the Depression, but not what that has to do with today's situation and policies. Therefore, those data sources remain unrelated to his arguments.
You're the only one presenting historical examples that have nothing to do with today's situation. You talk about "things getting worse before they got better in the depression" but things only got better when war started. I don't see any global war occurring right now to solve our problems, even if one might occur a few years down the line, but if a global war does occur then what you say is true in that the destruction caused by war will end the depression.


They occurred by business owners getting loans. What do you think was the bedrock of the Florentine banks who drove the Renaissance? It was an ancient version of commercial lending.
Your historical example isn't even applicable. Florentine businesses during the Renaissance did not subsist on debt-driven mass consumption for their income. Just giving business owners loans won't solve a thing in the US. Unlike businesses of previous times, modern businesses in the US and other parts of the world depend on overleveraged consumers and if consumers can't get their loans to buy houses, cars, flatscreen TVs, etc, then the retailers and other businesses that provide these consumer goods will go out of business. There is simply no way Obama can get consumers to go on a debt-driven spending binge, and I'm not even sure he wants to do so. Economic contraction and business bankruptcies are therefore unavoidable despite your and Obama's most strenuous efforts to "give out business loans."

Mr., you may have presented bad arguments but I haven't.



Nope, the economists I esteem (such as Steven Keen, Peter Schiff, Mike Shedlock, and others) regard George W. Bush as one of the worst presidents of all time, and have consistently trashed his economic policies for years before the bubble burst and while all the neoconservatives and Keynesian liberals were still in lala-land believing that low interest rates and inflation would result in permanent prosperity. Steven Keen and Schiff in fact have both been arguing against the pro-debt policy of the Reagan-Clinton-Bushes since at least the 1980s.

1. Fair enough. Just because Bush was bad, does not make Obama good.

2. Keynesian economists were at the forefront of the opposition to Bushonomics. Watch your mouth.

3. Clinton balanced the budget - he, at least, had some idea of jsut how bad unlimited debt could be for the future generations.

4. Having said that, I'm not impressed by Obama's (lack of) grasp of economics.

It is true that in bad times (which are happening now), the Keynesian solution to such a problem is an increase in government spending to stimulate the economy. However, America's social/legal system precludes this for the following critical reason: the stabiliser is supposed to automatic - i.e., happening without discrete action on the part of the legislature. Consider:

Time I: "Good times". Taxes are flowing into the treasury, and the government is paying out relatively little in the form of social security etc. as virtually anyone who wants a job can get it. Under these circumstances, a government adhering to Keynesian economic theory will run a budget surplus, paying down past debt and withdrawing buying power from the economy in an attempt to minimise bubbles.

Time II: Inevitably, the bubble builds up (although less than in a laissez-faire market, look up the "South Sea Bubble Burst" sometime) and bursts, causing "bad times". Less taxes flow into the treasury, due to firms making smaller profits and less people receiving wages. At the same time, the government will be paying out more in the form of social security and pensions. A government operating according to Keynesian economic principles will at this stage of the cycle be running a deficit, takingon additional debt and injecting money (and purchasing power) back into the economy to restart it.

Taken together, this budgetary policy is known as "counter-cyclical demand management", and its goal is not to promote inherently higher growth rates, but to smooth out the boom-bust cycle of the market economy.

How is this relevant, you may ask. Simple.

Keynesian economic policy prescriptions advocate discrete "stimulus" spending as a limited, secondary measure to supplement the "automatic stabilisation" effects described above.

But the US doesn't have any social safety net worth mentioning (I'm from Australia - so shoot me!), which prevent the automatic stabilisers kicking in. Further, the US government has also got absolutely no fiscal discipline. The Bush Administration should have run budget surpluses from FY 2003-2006, at the very least (possibly 2002 and 2007 also), in order to moderate the bubble. Instead, the Bush Administration put vastly more money into the economy, radically inflating the bubble until, when it finally burst, the effects look very rough indeed.

Where does Obama come in to this? Simple - the "stimulus" bill, besides not being Keynesian economic, isn't. It isn't a stimulus bill, that is. My objections to the "stimulus" bill:

I. Far too much of it is being used on pork projects. While some of these projects may indeed be worthy uses of the government's money, now is not the time for anything but essentials. Certainly, now is not the time for local-scale spending on the part of the Federal Government.

II. The banking system is at the heart of this particular crisis. All too many bankers made bad loans in attempts to inflate their return-on-equity ratios. You may recognise the names: Merrill Lynch, Bear Sterns etc. etc. You know, all those banks that want bailout money because the loans went bad.

Given that these banking institutions are at the heat of the problems, why bail them out? Rewarding bad practices only encourages more of the same. And I am just as opposed to the practice of "privatising profits and socialising losses" as I am to the reverse. Guess what? Risk is part of doing business. By all means, guarantee individuals (even businesses') deposits with banks - no reason for people to be punished because their bank made stupid decisions. But don't reward bad banking practices.

Moral/long-term objections to one side, money given to these banks is not used to stimulate the economy or make more credit available. It's used to prop up their balance sheets - until the next lot of bad loans is found, at which point they go straight back to the government, begging for more. The many billions of dollars given to these banks, therefore, fails to qualify as being in any way a "stimulus" to the economy. It simply deepens the public debt (and its burden on future generations), without achieving anything at all of value.

If the Government wants to do something about the banking system without allowing the many unfortunate depositors (the pensioners etc.) to go under, it should simply have the Fed guarantee individual deposits. Better, make nationalisation a condition of bailout money. That way, only the banks that will actually go under sans bailout $$ will actually accept them, and the Fed. can step in at that point and get credit going again.

III. Obama is specifically attempting to push through univeral healthcare, among several pet projects of his.

While I can understand a desire to push for it (and am thankful that I live in a country with universal public healthcare), again, now is not the right time for these projects. After the recession has been moderated, and after the USA's financial systems are back on their feet is the time for that. Not now. When the country can afford it, when the economy is stable - those are the right times to institute something like that.

Allow me to reiterate that last. I am all for most of these projects - they are wonderful ideas. But now is the wrong time to do such things. The first priority of a skilled economic manager atthe moment must be to get the economy back onto an even keel, not put an order for cabin amenities.

Bad arguments? Maybe. But he's presented some. You haven't. And don't give me any bullshit about "I'm opposing so I don't have to" - as far as I can see, you haven't shown jack shit. You haven't addressed his points, you've comprehensively failed to show, or even attempted to show, his errors in logic or reasoning. You just parrot on about him showing articles in support, then declaim from on high that those he does in fact produce are isufficient or wrong.

And you STILL totally misread his initial post and criticised it on an irrational basis. Given that inability to understand basic english, you'll pardon me if I DON'T consider an arrogant "not good enough" to be any sort of sufficient answer.
Well, if your response to me is a big "fuck you", then I guess I'll respond in kind.

I say that I presented my criticism of him based on the content or lack thereof in his posts. I say that I presented my reasoning for the criticism very specifically and as clearly as I can. Having read through the thread several times, I am satisfied that I am right in stating the flaws in his arguments, and I stand by every word I posted in reference to them.

If you don't like that, fine, but if you think I'm going to be affected in any way at all by you attacking me on his behalf, you are wrong. Bitch away, if it amuses you, but as far as I'm concerned, my statements stand.

1. Fair enough. Just because Bush was bad, does not make Obama good.
Jesus Christ. Please read the thread. I just spent 14 pages of this thread arguing that Obama isn't good.

2. Keynesian economists were at the forefront of the opposition to Bushonomics. Watch your mouth.

Bushonomics included Keynesianism. Keynesianism was actively pursued during the Bush era and government expenditures as a percentage of GDP expanded uninterrupted.

I did provide an "actual argument" in that very post. I stated banks should curtail lending so the process of unsustainable debt can end once and for all, as it's been repeatedly made clear to you that excessive debt is at the root of our current crisis. You yourself seem unable to "connect the dots." You repeatedly claim that you want to bring down debt-to-GDP ratio *and* prevent defaults, bankruptcies, and unemployment. How do you propose to achieve these two contradictory ends?
I never said any such thing. I never said a single thing about the debt to GDP ratio, except in a brief reference to the graph you posted, nor have I said anything at all about preventing defaults, bankruptcies and unemployment. Not one word. You are perhaps confusing me with several other posters in this thread.

In fact, I have not presented my opinions about dealing with the economic crisis at all this thread. You know why?

It's because that is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is about attitudes towards Obama and whether they are realistic or not.

During the course of our back and forth, you said a few things that were wrong on the facts, and I pointed that out, but the vast bulk of all my comments to you have not been about your opinions about what should be done about the economy.

Rather, I have been criticizing you for presenting an argument based on predicting the future and criticizing Obama for something that has not happened yet. I criticized that on the grounds that it is unrealistic in very much the same way the OP talks about. I may think you are entirely wrong about that, but you are entitled to your beliefs on that score. My problem with your argument is that it is not based on real facts of what is happening now. It is based on a priori assumptions based on ideological bias, but not adjusted to apply to the present situation. Hence, not based in current reality, i.e. unrealistic.

You are simply the master of avoiding a point aren't you? <snip>
No, that title belongs to you, no question. Or perhaps you are more the master of missing the point than avoiding it.

It is true that in bad times (which are happening now), the Keynesian solution to such a problem is an increase in government spending to stimulate the economy. However, America's social/legal system precludes this for the following critical reason: the stabiliser is supposed to automatic - i.e., happening without discrete action on the part of the legislature. Consider:

Time I: "Good times". Taxes are flowing into the treasury, and the government is paying out relatively little in the form of social security etc. as virtually anyone who wants a job can get it. Under these circumstances, a government adhering to Keynesian economic theory will run a budget surplus, paying down past debt and withdrawing buying power from the economy in an attempt to minimise bubbles.

Time II: Inevitably, the bubble builds up (although less than in a laissez-faire market, look up the "South Sea Bubble Burst" sometime) and bursts, causing "bad times". Less taxes flow into the treasury, due to firms making smaller profits and less people receiving wages. At the same time, the government will be paying out more in the form of social security and pensions. A government operating according to Keynesian economic principles will at this stage of the cycle be running a deficit, takingon additional debt and injecting money (and purchasing power) back into the economy to restart it.


Also I should point out that the economic bust is the cure for the economic boom. There were no "good times" - that was all a debt-fueled illusion, and therefore the boom was actually the disease. Consult the graph I've posted in this thread showing the ballooning of the debt-to-GDP ratio. Furthermore, for the past 70 years governments have consistently expanded - and never scaled back - keynesian/monetarist policies so your claim that keynesianism is cyclical is thoroughly fallacious.

Your claim that the South Sea Bubble is an example of a "laissez faire free market" is particularly disingenuous, given that that particular economic crisis was directly caused by government intervention in the free market; i.e. inflation through overissue of government-backed bonds, just as government-mandated inflation caused the 1920s bubble and 1929 bust, and just as government-mandated inflation caused the 1990s-2000s bubble and the 2008 bust. Had not British government inflated the speculative bubble by guaranteeing loans and bonds for speculation, no South Sea Bubble would ever have come into existence.

I. Far too much of it is being used on pork projects. While some of these projects may indeed be worthy uses of the government's money, now is not the time for anything but essentials. Certainly, now is not the time for local-scale spending on the part of the Federal Government.


All government spending is pork spending. This is because without a profit-loss mechanism the government has absolutely no way of implementing spending programmes that aare actually sustainable, no matter how grandiose and all-encompassing the government spending schemes get. When all the unemployed are put on public works projects and all the potholes in the streets get filled, what next? What project should they work on for an encore? How can such an economy be sustainable? The Soviets tried this and failed; just building endless infrastructure and heavy industry does not a sustainable or productive economy make, if none of the products of the economy are self-sustaining. As such GDP growth achieved by Keynesianism is purely illusory, temporary, and unsustainable. All the economic output achieved by Keynesianism are purely malinvestments, and when the stimulus stops, they will inevitably be swiftly liquidated due to their unsustainability, resulting in mass economic displacement anyways. As you can see, Keynesianism simply drags out and perpetuates the underlying problems with the economy instead of actually addressing and correcting them.

<snip>

How is this relevant, you may ask. Simple.

<snip>
Although interesting, well thought out, and full of good points to discuss and argue, none of your post is relevant to this thread, actually. Please reread the title and the OP to see why.

However, since the OP herself has concluded that there is general agreement -- with only a few exceptions -- that indeed it is unrealistic to start blaming and dismissing Obama after only such a very short time in office, you chase Pisarro around the economic policy barn for a while. The thread, I guess, has reached its conclusion and the OP seems uninterested in stopping the threadjack.

Although interesting, well thought out, and full of good points to discuss and argue, none of your post is relevant to this thread, actually. Please reread the title and the OP to see why.

However, since the OP herself has concluded that there is general agreement -- with only a few exceptions -- that indeed it is unrealistic to start blaming and dismissing Obama after only such a very short time in office, you chase Pisarro around the economic policy barn for a while. The thread, I guess, has reached its conclusion and the OP seems uninterested in stopping the threadjack.

Not uninterested, just resigned. And really, after being bludgeoned by repetitions of the same discussion again and again and again... I have no hope of getting it back on track - and the track was really kind of short to begin with.

Although interesting, well thought out, and full of good points to discuss and argue, none of your post is relevant to this thread, actually. Please reread the title and the OP to see why.

However, since the OP herself has concluded that there is general agreement -- with only a few exceptions -- that indeed it is unrealistic to start blaming and dismissing Obama after only such a very short time in office, you chase Pisarro around the economic policy barn for a while. The thread, I guess, has reached its conclusion and the OP seems uninterested in stopping the threadjack.

Sorry about that. I was just wearing my 4th-year economics student's hat when I saw that post, and had to respond.

On the original topic, whilst it is too early to completely judge Obama, I don't like much of what he's done so far.

Thsi is why I love free speech. He could be the next best thing to perfect, and we could still make fun of him for the little things. :p

There's this line of thinking in theatre and choral singing--probably all the performing arts, in fact--that the pettier and finicky the criticism, the better job the artist is doing.

The reasoning is that if the artist wasn't doing well, the criticism would be more fundamental and less cosmetic; the petty comments exist because they are the most severe critique possible at that point.

So I hope we get to the point where the worst that can be said about Obama is that his tie was slightly crooked.

Not uninterested, just resigned. And really, after being bludgeoned by repetitions of the same discussion again and again and again... I have no hope of getting it back on track - and the track was really kind of short to begin with.
It's kind of sad, but since the Dark Lord contingent never showed up, I guess it was inevitable.

Technically, Pisarro is doing exactly what you described in the OP, but he has also successfully hijacked the thread into being what he feels like talking about, which he has been doing, more or less, in lots of threads lately. It's a pretty common habit, especially this spring, I've noticed.

Sorry about that. I was just wearing my 4th-year economics student's hat when I saw that post, and had to respond.

On the original topic, whilst it is too early to completely judge Obama, I don't like much of what he's done so far.
Hey, not liking the policies is fine. Having a grim outlook on the policies is fine. Just like liking them and being optimistic about them is fine, too. We are at the beginning of the race, and we are all free to make our predictions about who or what has the best or worst chances of winning it.

I just take exception to arguments that blame Obama for predicted outcomes that have not happened yet. Just like I hate it when Obama supporters claim that he has saved the economy just because they like what he is doing.

My personal opinion is that this crisis is way too big and has too much momentum of its own to make predictions right now about how ANY policy will affect it, or when. To stand smug upon one's personal assumptions and claim a result as if it already exists is the height of unrealistic thinking, in my opinion.

There's this line of thinking in theatre and choral singing--probably all the performing arts, in fact--that the pettier and finicky the criticism, the better job the artist is doing.

The reasoning is that if the artist wasn't doing well, the criticism would be more fundamental and less cosmetic; the petty comments exist because they are the most severe critique possible at that point.

So I hope we get to the point where the worst that can be said about Obama is that his tie was slightly crooked.
Nicely said. :D

I, too, hope that things get to that point - for it means that things will be going well.

Unlike a lot of people who dislike Obama, I actually don't hope that he fails. After all, if he fails, America suffers.

It's kind of sad, but since the Dark Lord contingent never showed up, I guess it was inevitable.

Technically, Pisarro is doing exactly what you described in the OP, but he has also successfully hijacked the thread into being what he feels like talking about, which he has been doing, more or less, in lots of threads lately. It's a pretty common habit, especially this spring, I've noticed.


Hey, not liking the policies is fine. Having a grim outlook on the policies is fine. Just like liking them and being optimistic about them is fine, too. We are at the beginning of the race, and we are all free to make our predictions about who or what has the best or worst chances of winning it.

I just take exception to arguments that blame Obama for predicted outcomes that have not happened yet. Just like I hate it when Obama supporters claim that he has saved the economy just because they like what he is doing.

My personal opinion is that this crisis is way too big and has too much momentum of its own to make predictions right now about how ANY policy will affect it, or when. To stand smug upon one's personal assumptions and claim a result as if it already exists is the height of unrealistic thinking, in my opinion.

I don't see why you continue to insist that the way I presented my opinions is "unreasonable" even if you believe the content of my opinions themselves are unreasonable.

If I'm genuinely convinced Obama's policies will result in disaster (and I think my genuine conviction of this should have come across to any reasonable reader of the postings I've made in this thread), then isn't it completely reasonable for me to blame and denounce Obama for his policies just a few days into his policies?

As I've stated repeatedly Muryavets, the error in your line of logic is similar to accusing an avowed pacifist, or a Middle East realist, of being "unreasonable" if the pacifist or realist blames and denounces Bush for the Iraq War in early 2003 just a few days into the war.

Oh, and Pisarro, please don't bother me in private messages. Especially, please do not copy/paste things from the thread into a private message.

originally posted by Pisarro in my messages:
Today 19:16
Pissarro
The link to go with my previous comment: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=212

Today 19:12
Pissarro
You repeatedly claim that you want to bring down debt-to-GDP ratio *and* prevent defaults, bankruptcies, and unemployment. How do you propose to achieve these two contradictory ends?

kthxbai.

If that's your request, then fair enough.

Well, if your response to me is a big "fuck you", then I guess I'll respond in kind.

I say that I presented my criticism of him based on the content or lack thereof in his posts. I say that I presented my reasoning for the criticism very specifically and as clearly as I can. Having read through the thread several times, I am satisfied that I am right in stating the flaws in his arguments, and I stand by every word I posted in reference to them.

If you don't like that, fine, but if you think I'm going to be affected in any way at all by you attacking me on his behalf, you are wrong. Bitch away, if it amuses you, but as far as I'm concerned, my statements stand.

Then you're right, there is no more to say. Since it seems you are perfectly willing to criticize, but not to take criticism, I see no point in wasting my words against you, nor my time reading of yours.

I don't see why you continue to insist that the way I presented my opinions is "unreasonable" even if you believe the content of my opinions themselves are unreasonable.

If I'm genuinely convinced Obama's policies will result in disaster (and I think my genuine conviction of this should have come across to any reasonable reader of the postings I've made in this thread), then isn't it completely reasonable for me to blame and denounce Obama for his policies just a few days into his policies?

As I've stated repeatedly Muryavets, the error in your line of logic is similar to accusing an avowed pacifist, or a Middle East realist, of being "unreasonable" if the pacifist or realist blames and denounces Bush for the Iraq War in early 2003 just a few days into the war.
Yes, I realize that you have no idea what I'm talking about even though I have spent hours over two days explaining it to you. I give up. My words are posted for all to see. You can reread them at your leisure if you feel like it. Others can also read them to see if they are as nonsensical as you find them to be. I don't care anymore. I have already explained exactly the points that would answer what you claim to be confused about. I've explained it several times. I will not explain it again, nor will I point you to it in the thread.

Then you're right, there is no more to say. Since it seems you are perfectly willing to criticize, but not to take criticism, I see no point in wasting my words against you, nor my time reading of yours.
Good. 'Bye.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're seeing things Muravyets. That was really what set off this long and protracted debate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're seeing things Muravyets. That was really what set off this long and protracted debate.
And I'll say this again: You resort to personal snipes at people when you can't win or dominate the argument, but that doesn't help your arguments.

You may have the last word now.

I actually don't know how to point that out without making a personal statement. What should I say instead, "Someone was seeing things and your arguments are based on what 'that someone' saw?"

If you are going to quote Molly at least mention her. Too bad she was talking about your God the shrub. If we still had him we would be heading into a depression now.
My God the shrub? I believe in no God, no invisible man in the sky.

The real problem is that people are arrogant and impatient and always propose the same failed solution to every issue. There are quite a few who seem to think that the only way to fix all the ills of the world and the world itself is to throw money at all of the perceived problems. Last I checked species go extinct at a rate of about 25 a day regardless of human activity. I say let them go. Let the weak and stupid and unfortunate and old perish to make room for the strong and the cunning and the new.

It is the height of arrogance to think that we humans will doom the planet, a planet that has existed for four and a half billion years, with some plastic bags and aluminum cans. We've only been here for about a hundred thousand, maybe two hundred thousand, and of that time we've only been engaged in heavy industry for about two hundred years. It is even more arrogant to believe that we can save not only individual species from extinction, but the entire Earth from catostrophic global ecological failure.

I look at the economies of the world in the same way I look at the ecosystems of the world. Whenever people say that things aren't how they should be and decide to charge themselves with saving everyone and everything from their perception of impending doom they fuck everything up. This arrogant meddling is what causes the most damage. The most damage to economies, the most damage to environments, the most damage to people. We don't even know how to take care of ourselves or each other and these moralists, these crusaders are hell-bent on enforcing their philosophies on everyone because they think they know best.

"...there is something more powerful than each of us, a combination of our efforts, a Great Chain of industry that unites us. But it is only when we struggle in our own interest that the chain pulls society in the right direction. The chain is too powerful and too mysterious for any government to guide. Any man who tells you different either has his hand in your pocket, or a pistol to your neck." The moralists may not like the direction but people are prone to error and can be blinded by their desires. A lot of people want to be a hero. A lot of people want to believe in heroes. A lot of people want to feel safe, want to know that everything will work out in the end. It's these desires that drive people to make up gods and demons and heavens and hells. It's these desires that drive people to try to force their beliefs on others to protect them from themselves. And it is these desires that will eventually destroy civilization and all of humanity. It is this twisted altruism that has been the source of every massacre in recorded history. I'm sure Hitler and Stalin and all the Popes and every leader who has ever killed en masse thought they were helping the world. People can't be forced to love and they shouldn't be forced to give. If you ever think you have it all figured out, you're probably way off.

My God the shrub? I believe in no God, no invisible man in the sky.

The real problem is that people are arrogant and impatient and always propose the same failed solution to every issue. There are quite a few who seem to think that the only way to fix all the ills of the world and the world itself is to throw money at all of the perceived problems.


Indeed. Isn't it interesting that Republicans(I am sure Demos too) use the verbiage? They complain about throwing money at education but the allocate funds to the military.

Last I checked species go extinct at a rate of about 25 a day regardless of human activity. I say let them go. Let the weak and stupid and unfortunate and old perish to make room for the strong and the cunning and the new.


Ok so where did you check that?


"...there is something more powerful than each of us, a combination of our efforts, a Great Chain of industry that unites us. But it is only when we struggle in our own interest that the chain pulls society in the right direction. The chain is too powerful and too mysterious for any government to guide. Any man who tells you different either has his hand in your pocket, or a pistol to your neck." The moralists may not like the direction but people are prone to error and can be blinded by their desires. A lot of people want to be a hero. A lot of people want to believe in heroes. A lot of people want to feel safe, want to know that everything will work out in the end. It's these desires that drive people to make up gods and demons and heavens and hells. It's these desires that drive people to try to force their beliefs on others to protect them from themselves. And it is these desires that will eventually destroy civilization and all of humanity. It is this twisted altruism that has been the source of every massacre in recorded history. I'm sure Hitler and Stalin and all the Popes and every leader who has ever killed en masse thought they were helping the world. People can't be forced to love and they shouldn't be forced to give. If you ever think you have it all figured out, you're probably way off.


So how is Bioshock?

Ok so where did you check that?

The UNDP says "Since the total number of species on earth can only be estimated, the exact rate of current species loss is difficult to gauge. The figure probably stands at between 50 and 150 extinctions per day."

Cosmos magazine claims that "Approximately 100 species continue to go extinct each day..."

So how is Bioshock?

That's all you have in response...video game references?

Indeed. Isn't it interesting that Republicans(I am sure Demos too) use the verbiage? They complain about throwing money at education but the allocate funds to the military.
Everyone has their pet projects. The reason that anyone goes into government is to manipulate the rules of the game to favor their interests.

Ok so where did you check that?
HS textbook or something. I don't bother to worry about the little things like species preservation. And I doubt that they added that people aren't to blame but since well over 90% of all the species that have ever existed are gone and the vast majority died out long before we got here and a lot of the yet undiscovered species are some minor variation of ants and the like that can get crushed by an animal without a second (or first) thought I don't see how humans going back to the dark ages will really help anything except our would-be predators.

So how is Bioshock?
One of my favorite games. You haven't noticed the quote in my sig?

reality checks don't check if they're needed, they just happen anyway. kind of like kharma on a collective scale. indeed that is precisely what i see makiavellianism's reality check bouncing as.

reality checks don't check if they're needed, they just happen anyway. kind of like kharma on a collective scale. indeed that is precisely what i see makiavellianism's reality check bouncing as.

"Makiavellianism" will never be checked.

"Makiavellianism" will never be checked.

Although it might could be spell-checked, heh.

"Makiavellianism" will never be checked.
it will in one of two ways; by humanity's self imposed extinction, if not by our collectively waking up and using better sense.

and this IS a CHOICE, NOT a 'fate'!

it will in one of two ways; by humanity's self imposed extinction, if not by our collectively waking up and using better sense.

and this IS a CHOICE, NOT a 'fate'!

Collective action results in disasters. Only individual actions result in better sense.

Collective action results in disasters. Only individual actions result in better sense.

true enough. it was the collective acceptance of makiavellianism i was refering to, and to the collective acceptance of the big lie that everything that isn't makiavellian has to be procustian or worse.

true enough. it was the collective acceptance of makiavellianism i was refering to, and to the collective acceptance of the big lie that everything that isn't makiavellian has to be procustian or worse.
Actually it was literally collective action - government action and intervention - that got us into this mess.

Actually it was literally collective action - government action and intervention - that got us into this mess.
the government action of kissing the ass of economic intrests at the expense of reality, yes.

in short, denying the existence of it, when standing in a pile of our own excriment up to our necks, its pretty illogical NOT to expect the bouncing of reality checks.

the government action of kissing the ass of economic intrests at the expense of reality, yes.

in short, denying the existence of it, when standing in a pile of our own excriment up to our necks, its pretty illogical NOT to expect the bouncing of reality checks.

Nope, it was the government action of forcing down interest rates to unnaturally low levels. This bubble would not have occurred in the free market without government action and intervention.

true enough. it was the collective acceptance of makiavellianism i was refering to, and to the collective acceptance of the big lie that everything that isn't makiavellian has to be procustian or worse.

Of course, the main problem with being procrustean is what to do with all the severed feet that keep piling up.

Of course, the main problem with being procrustean is what to do with all the severed feet that keep piling up.
same problem with makiavellian, except in this case its whole bodies rotting in the sun because of famine and disease caused by environmental colapse precipitated by economic intrests.

and then in both cases there is also the totally infantilism of war.

Collective action results in disasters. Only individual actions result in better sense.
Surely you don't hold these as truisms?

That would be wacky.

The UNDP says "Since the total number of species on earth can only be estimated, the exact rate of current species loss is difficult to gauge. The figure probably stands at between 50 and 150 extinctions per day."

Cosmos magazine claims that "Approximately 100 species continue to go extinct each day..."



That's all you have in response...video game references?

Psst. Where do you think his quote came from?