[quote=gogogosandiego]1. Where were there thousands of people in the streets in 2008? Be specific. It was not “all I could find”. It took 10 seconds to find. To find actual reported articles 8 years later I’d probably have to use Lexus or something else better than google and I’m not going to do that unless you have some actual specifics because I don’t remotely remember people in the streets.
2. Paul Krugman writes on the editorial pages. He or any other opinion piece or personality has nothing to do with what I am explaining to you about how large, world renowned papers like the NYT and WSJ work. ZH is clickbait. Nothing more, nothing less.
3. The Fed raised and then lowered as the economic cycle dictated, not bc of the stock market. Rates are irrelevant to lending standards all things being equal. The loosening (and outright fraud within the system) of lending standards was the primary cause of the housing bubble.
4. You don’t get it. You’re putting the cart WAY before the horse and you seem to think it’s OK for foreign countries to steal information from our government.
5. “Those who know what was going on”? You I suppose?
6. Prove that corps had more say that pols.
This is more or less what happened:
“Only the representatives of “We the People” should be involved, with input from corporate, environmental, and labor groups who are all given the same consideration.”
ISDS already exists in other trade agreements; I’ve already explained this to you. It’s not some boogie man that allows corps to just sue whomever they like for whatever they like.
7. You still don’t understand what happened with that bill.
8. I “oppose” sloppy, conspiracy based “reporting” that suggests Obama signed a anti free speech bill into law under the cover of Xmas.
You’re going to need to start presenting evidence for your claims if you’d like to continue. Actual, verifiable evidence. Not “I was there” or “I know” or “I was told”. That’s not how a “debate” works if you think we are debating.[/quote]
1.) Look at the video that I linked from the September 2008 protests. There were thousands of people in the streets. I was looking for news coverage at the time, and posted it on this site (the search function for Piggington is not working for me, but you can look it up). I specifically called out the fact that it was not being discussed in the media back in 2008. There was no more news coverage regarding that event in 2008 than there is now. Why do you think that is?
2.) The NYT is definitely more liberal in its bias. FYI, Krugman has been the face of the NYT’s left-leaning economic positions for years. Their choice of columnists reflects their views. The Op-Ed pages are usually the most widely read (and discussed in other media) pages of a newspaper. Whose opinions they place there matter greatly.
You can see here who their columnists are — the majority of them are liberal:
The WSJ is economically on the right. That stands to reason, since they represent the insights and interests of the business community.
When a member of the WSJ’s editorial board endorsed Clinton, it was widely reported on because the WSJ has a policy of not endorsing presidential candidates. FTR, many Republican leaders endorsed Clinton over Trump because her economic positions during the campaign were to the right of Trump (free trade, immigration reform, etc.).
Here’s how it was reported in The Hill. So much for not using sensationalist writing.
“A member of The Wall Street Journal’s traditionally conservative editorial board has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, calling her “eminently sane” and bashing Republican nominee Donald Trump as the candidate of “white supremacists and swastika devotees.”’
Keep pretending that they are not biased if that’s what makes you feel better at night.
3.) The stock market and the economy were on fire when they dropped rates after 1996 when Greenspan noted the “irrational exuberance.” There was no reason to lower rates. The stock market affects the economy because people have more (unrealized) wealth, which prompts them to spend more. Since ~70% of our economy is based on consumption, this is a big deal.
Rates are not at all irrelevant to lending standards. Claiming this shows a terrific lack of understanding about monetary policy.
“We find that insurance companies, pension funds, and, in particular, structured- finance vehicles take higher credit risk when investors expect interest rates to remain low. Banks originate riskier loans that they tend to divest shortly after origination, thus appearing to accommodate other lenders’ investment choices. These results are consistent with a search for yield” by certain types of shadow banks and, to the extent that Federal Reserve policies affected longer-term rates, the results are also consistent with the presence of a risk-taking channel of monetary policy. Finally, we find that longer-term interest rates have only a modest effect on loan spreads.
[Text didn’t format correctly, so check the original document for accuracy. -CAR]
4.) The Democratic Party is a private organization, it is not a governmental agency. Again, I don’t care how we get the relevant information and transparency. If our own system fails to provide transparency and hold people accountable, then other actors need to step in.
I want the government to investigate the actual fraud, not those who exposed it.
5.) Yes, those of us who were actively working on the ground knew what was going on and shook our heads at the contrived stories the MSM was making up about HRC being the presumptive nominee (she wouldn’t have been without the fraud), and then POTUS. Nobody who actually knew what was going on thought that HRC would win. Only those who followed the MSM’s propaganda and who lived in an echo chamber believed it (even her own people knew better…the fact that she was considered untrustworthy, unlikable, and unpopular was well known even among her most loyal insiders). Yes, I was actively involved in the presidential campaign, so knew what was going on.
6.) The fact that corporations are the ones who wrote most of the trade agreement shows that they had more power. Look up what our congressional representatives had to say about it.
7.) You’re the one who doesn’t understand what happened with that bill. The links and information regarding this legislation are posted throughout this thread.
8.) Apparently, anything that goes against your preconceived notions is “sloppy” reporting. The fact that this anti-free-speech bill passed under the radar isn’t a suggestion, it’s a fact.
You’re going to have to start presenting evidence for your claims if you’d like to continue. I’m the one who’s actually cited sources and links. For the record, those of us who were calling out the election fraud and DNC collusion were called “conspiracy theorists” and told that we were delusional (among other terms that were used to try to discredit us)…until Wikileaks proved us right. All too often, conspiracy theories are conspiracy facts. You’re painfully naive if you think that people in power aren’t working in concert to push an agenda that benefits themselves at the expense of others.
