Bernanke has spoken. Do you Bernanke has spoken. Do you believe him?
Bernanke says policymakers prevented ‘cataclysm’ worse than Great Depression
By Neil Irwin
Friday, April 9, 2010; A15
The world’s economic policymakers successfully learned the lessons of the Great Depression, helping to avert a horrendous economic outcome from the 2008 financial crisis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Thursday.
I’m convinced some of the I’m convinced some of the bailouts were necessary. Not as convinced they were all necessary, but then again I see just a sliver of the information that those making the decisions have at their disposal.
I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
SD Realtor
April 9, 2010 @
9:59 AM
Sure I believe everything Sure I believe everything that the govt, fed or treasury tells me. They would never mislead the public.
NotCranky
April 9, 2010 @
10:16 AM
SD Realtor wrote:Sure I [quote=SD Realtor]Sure I believe everything that the govt, fed or treasury tells me. They would never mislead the public.[/quote]
Going a step further…I think it is naive to believe much of it.
SD Realtor
April 9, 2010 @
10:46 AM
Oh come on Rus… They told Oh come on Rus… They told us that we were on the edge! They told us there would be a total meltdown if we didn’t bail the institutions out. Hot lava in the streets, raining cats and dogs, institutionalized failure of the economy. How they saved us all…. Whew good thing our govt is watching out for us…
And look there has not been a meltdown so by golly they really did save us! Surely there could have been no other outcomes right? I mean they said it had to be that way. It should be intuitively obvious to fellows like you and me that they are looking out for our best interest and that surely this was not only the best remedy for the economy but also for the public and society overall. We really should trust those in power that they are acting in OUR best interest. In fact I trust them so much I think we should have another bailout! If they tell us so it must really be necessary…isn’t it?
NotCranky
April 9, 2010 @
11:26 AM
SD Realtor wrote:Oh come on [quote=SD Realtor]Oh come on Rus… They told us that we were on the edge! They told us there would be a total meltdown if we didn’t bail the institutions out. Hot lava in the streets, raining cats and dogs, institutionalized failure of the economy. How they saved us all…. Whew good thing our govt is watching out for us…
And look there has not been a meltdown so by golly they really did save us! Surely there could have been no other outcomes right? I mean they said it had to be that way. It should be intuitively obvious to fellows like you and me that they are looking out for our best interest and that surely this was not only the best remedy for the economy but also for the public and society overall. We really should trust those in power that they are acting in OUR best interest. In fact I trust them so much I think we should have another bailout! If they tell us so it must really be necessary…isn’t it?[/quote]
I hear you. Trying to shorten my list of things to go ballistic about. That said, anyone who thinks Hank Paulson is not a butt-faced-lying-ass crook, lacks instincts. Take it from then to now… and well, lets just say we really haven’t broken any new ground with how things work for the wealthy and powerful during this “crisis”.
SD Realtor
April 9, 2010 @
11:48 AM
Yep… I am not sure what is Yep… I am not sure what is scarier, the fact that they keep doing these things, (they the govt, not the dems or the repubs) or the fact that so many people tacitly agree, or shake their heads and go whatever it will all be okay.
There was an interesting guest on coast to coast the other night, (AKA the show my wife likes to call kookarama) and he is the brother of a senator. The topic was mind control. Anyways he was talking about about Zbignew Brzinski the old national security advisor from the carter era (sorry for hacking the name up).
Anyways there is a current congressman in his family as well. Darn I forgot the guys name. His entire discussion is about HAARP mind control. However for a moment he went off topic and was saying that no matter what the political party is, there is simply no matter. That the challenge is simply to create an environment where enough of the public is sufficiently confused, or agitated to buy into whatever is put in front of them, will not only keep elected officials in power, but INCREASE their hold on that power. The more that the general public can be convinced that they need this measure or that measure due to current or PROPOSED conditions, the more the govt can entrench themselves. It really was pretty fascinating. It can be very much applied to the fear mongering of BUSH or OBAMA… Different parties, different environments, same results.
NotCranky
April 9, 2010 @
12:46 PM
SD Realtor wrote:Yep… I am [quote=SD Realtor]Yep… I am not sure what is scarier, the fact that they keep doing these things, (they the govt, not the dems or the repubs) or the fact that so many people tacitly agree, or shake their heads and go whatever it will all be okay.
There was an interesting guest on coast to coast the other night, (AKA the show my wife likes to call kookarama) and he is the brother of a senator. The topic was mind control. Anyways he was talking about about Zbignew Brzinski the old national security advisor from the carter era (sorry for hacking the name up).
Anyways there is a current congressman in his family as well. Darn I forgot the guys name. His entire discussion is about HAARP mind control. However for a moment he went off topic and was saying that no matter what the political party is, there is simply no matter. That the challenge is simply to create an environment where enough of the public is sufficiently confused, or agitated to buy into whatever is put in front of them, will not only keep elected officials in power, but INCREASE their hold on that power. The more that the general public can be convinced that they need this measure or that measure due to current or PROPOSED conditions, the more the govt can entrench themselves. It really was pretty fascinating. It can be very much applied to the fear mongering of BUSH or OBAMA… Different parties, different environments, same results.[/quote]
Sounds Machiavellian, If I recall correctly from an interview, Bush said he had read “The Prince” and that it definitely affected how he governed. I think he said he read it 3 times. I would guess that Obama has read it no less than 17 times.
If I recall properly one of the ideas was not to tell the masses little lies because they would catch on very quickly since they are used to little lies from their wives, co-workers ect. It was very important that lies were very big to accomplish the breakdown desired. Throw in a round of HORSE during the NCAA finals to show what a real guy you are,and presto, the masses fall asleep….and the best tehy can manage is to be conquered and divided partisans. Mission accomplished.
sd_matt
April 13, 2010 @
2:26 PM
SD Realtor wrote:Yep… I am [quote=SD Realtor]Yep… I am not sure what is scarier, the fact that they keep doing these things, (they the govt, not the dems or the repubs) or the fact that so many people tacitly agree, or shake their heads and go whatever it will all be okay.
There was an interesting guest on coast to coast the other night, (AKA the show my wife likes to call kookarama) and he is the brother of a senator. The topic was mind control. Anyways he was talking about about Zbignew Brzinski the old national security advisor from the carter era (sorry for hacking the name up).
Anyways there is a current congressman in his family as well. Darn I forgot the guys name. His entire discussion is about HAARP mind control. However for a moment he went off topic and was saying that no matter what the political party is, there is simply no matter. That the challenge is simply to create an environment where enough of the public is sufficiently confused, or agitated to buy into whatever is put in front of them, will not only keep elected officials in power, but INCREASE their hold on that power. The more that the general public can be convinced that they need this measure or that measure due to current or PROPOSED conditions, the more the govt can entrench themselves. It really was pretty fascinating. It can be very much applied to the fear mongering of BUSH or OBAMA… Different parties, different environments, same results.[/quote]
Jerry Doyle said something to the same effect the other night.
SD Realtor
April 13, 2010 @
4:12 PM
Brian as a libertarian my Brian as a libertarian my beliefs are that govt should play a limited role in governing our country. Funny how you said there was nothing but the roaring 20’s and now all of the sudden maybe there was something of a downturn. You are the student of history right?
I am not sure there is a response you make that doesn’t reference Bush. Someday maybe you will understand it is not about Bush or Clinton or Obama.
Worse then that you may find out it is not about Brian…
Nice sidestep around the mounting debt and interest. Just keep skipping along man. It will all be okay.
briansd1
April 13, 2010 @
4:46 PM
SD Realtor wrote: Funny how [quote=SD Realtor] Funny how you said there was nothing but the roaring 20’s and now all of the sudden maybe there was something of a downturn. You are the student of history right?
[/quote]
In the 1920s we had a downturn followed by a roaring boom of ephemeral wealth, followed by the Great Depression (which was caused by the earlier decade of profligacy).
[quote=SD Realtor]
I am not sure there is a response you make that doesn’t reference Bush. Someday maybe you will understand it is not about Bush or Clinton or Obama.
[/quote]
I try to not respond in kind unless someone mentions the Tea Party, Obama and the like first. Read my posts again.
[quote=SD Realtor]
Nice sidestep around the mounting debt and interest. Just keep skipping along man. It will all be okay.[/quote]
Not side stepping. I believe that our future is not so bright as a nation. That’s why I avoid debt and try to plan for my own financial well-being.
I believe that America is declining in strength and wealth relative to others. We won’t get poorer, but we’ll be less rich relative to others. That will definitely affect our national psyche and sense of well-being.
I also believe that current government policies are dealing with paying up for past blunders and rectifying economic mistakes.
meadandale
April 13, 2010 @
4:49 PM
briansd1 wrote:I also believe [quote=briansd1]I also believe that current government policies are dealing with paying up for past blunders and rectifying economic mistakes.[/quote]
That has to be one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time.
sd_matt
April 13, 2010 @
5:10 PM
Brian
I don’t see how you Brian
I don’t see how you can be any more or less disgusted with either party. Review the last ten years. Both are to financial regulation what drunken sailors are to thirteen year old Thai prostitutes.
You have been reading this blog for a long time and there are numerous accounts of both sides voting out/in regulations that turned our financial system into a casino.
Yet you hold onto your partisanship. The writers of the Manchurian Candidate would shake their heads in irony at you level of voluntary indoctrination.
briansd1
April 9, 2010 @
12:48 PM
This poll feature here is a This poll feature here is a little limiting.
And of course, the issue is complex. The answer was not to either 1) do everything that the government did or 2) do nothing at all.
I believe that if nothing had been done, we would have experienced a financial meltdown. Something had to be done — not necessarily the bailouts the way they were carried out.
Some sort of a third way would have been preferable to me.
briansd1
April 9, 2010 @
12:51 PM
Russell wrote:SD Realtor [quote=Russell][quote=SD Realtor]Sure I believe everything that the govt, fed or treasury tells me. They would never mislead the public.[/quote]
Going a step further…I think it is naive to believe much of it.[/quote]
In that same perspective, I wonder if the people who lied about the need for war also lied about the need for the bailouts.
These were such massive undertakings that once they got implemented, there was no return.
BTW, I separate terrorism from war and financial crisis from bailouts. The terrorism and financial crisis were real. The solutions leave much to be desired.
SD Realtor
April 9, 2010 @
2:22 PM
Brian it doesn’t really Brian it doesn’t really matter. You believe what they told you. Maybe you didn’t believe the war stuff maybe you do believe the meltdown stuff or you do believe the “return” on the investment. You have faith in the government and that they are looking out for our best interests (in this case) and I don’t. Most people fall into your category and believe in the govt as well. Clearly the growth of our govt in terms of size, scope, spending, employment of the population is something that is about as contrary to my beliefs as a libertarian as it gets. I don’t think we are better for it, you do. I am pretty sure our children will not live as well as we did either.
briansd1
April 9, 2010 @
3:02 PM
SD Realtor, I’m pretty sure SD Realtor, I’m pretty sure that your children will live better than you are living.
I bet that you will leave each one of them a house that is paid for so they won’t have to work as hard as you are working to pay for housing.
Perhaps a greater share of their incomes will be spent on savings and leisure.
Other people’s children? Well… that’s another issue.
SD Realtor
April 9, 2010 @
3:22 PM
brian brian brian…
Keep on brian brian brian…
Keep on believing man…your govt loves ya.
svelte
April 9, 2010 @
3:26 PM
You know, the government You know, the government can’t win.
When they did nothing to avoid the financial meltdown in 1929, everyone has been pissed off for the last 80 years that they stood around and let people suffer for a decade until WWII pulled us out of it.
This time, trying to learn from the lessons of the Great Depression, they took swift and decisive action. What happens? They get spat upon.
Well, those folks doing the spitting will get a chance to have that saliva blown back in their face during the next financial meltdown because I predict the govt has eaten so much sh*t for these bailouts, that next time they will once again do nothing.
More than likely we’ll all be in nursing homes by then, but those nursing homes will likely close due to lack of funds and we’ll be tossed into Hoovervilles with our wheelchairs and IV drips since our 401Ks and other retirement funds will only be worth enough to buy a cardboard box and a can of spam.
You can call me naive for believing that the government is doing what they believe is best for the country, but I’ll call you naive for believing everything would have been hunky dory had they done nothing after October 2008.
meadandale
April 9, 2010 @
3:40 PM
Comeon svelte…many people Comeon svelte…many people agree that the actions of FDR (i.e. doing exactly what Obama is doing…going on a wild spending spree and piling up debt and entitlements) extended and worsened the great depression.
The Fed was a primary contributor to the crash of 1929. What exactly are we doing to reign in the Fed now (or have we done over the last 80 years)?
Financial reform? Everyone surrounding Obama (and that surrounded Bush as well) are former Goldman Sachs or Fed flunkies. You think that any meaningful reform is going to come from these people? There’s a serious conflict of interest there (many of their cronies still are employed at both institutions).
Arraya
April 9, 2010 @
4:09 PM
Come on, look at Team Come on, look at Team Obama…. Can’t go wrong with wall street making all the decisions. Don’t worry they are looking out for you
Neal Wolin
Deputy secretary of the treasury (Tim Geithner’s No. 2)
Exec at one of the largest insurance and investment firms
Mark Patterson
Treasury secretary’s chief of staff
Goldman Sachs lobbyist
Gene Sperling
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made nearly $900,000 advising Goldman Sachs
Larry Summers
Obama’s chief economic adviser
Made $50 million as managing director of a hedge fund
Rahm Emanuel
White House chief of staff
Made $16 million as a partner at a Chicago investment bank
Herbert Allison
Assistant secretary of the treasury (oversees TARP)
Longtime exec at Merrill Lynch; headed Fannie Mae
Kim Wallace
Assistant secretary of the treasury for legislative affairs
Managing director at Barclays Capital and Lehman Brothers
Karthik Ramanathan
Acting assistant treasury secretary for financial markets
Foreign exchange dealer at Goldman Sachs
Matthew Kabaker
Deputy assistant secretary of the treasury
Blackstone Group in 2008-2009
Lewis Alexander
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Chief economist at Citigroup; paid $2.4 million in 2008-2009
Adam Storch
Managing executive of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement
VP of Goldman Sachs’ Business Intelligence Group
Lee Sachs
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made more than $3 million at a New York hedge fund
Gary Gensler
Chairman of Commodity Futures Trading Commission
18 years at Goldman Sachs, where he made partner
Michael Froman
Deputy assistant to Obama, deputy nat’l security adviser
Managing director of a Citigroup investment arm
Robert Rubin and Summers are really the king pins of the operation and Bernake is a Greenspan protege… So it’s all good
SD Realtor
April 9, 2010 @
4:18 PM
Now now Arraya, surely if Now now Arraya, surely if gentlemen like these tell us that something HAS to be done, who are we not to believe them.
Arraya
April 9, 2010 @
4:20 PM
I have no doubt the policies I have no doubt the policies will be wonderful for them.
SD Realtor
April 9, 2010 @
4:42 PM
Svelte I don’t think I ever Svelte I don’t think I ever implied things would be hunky dory if the govt did nothing. My point is that we have been told that doing nothing would bring calamity. Those who told us we must do something had the most to gain by doing something and possibly the most to lose by not doing anything. Furthermore, each time there is an agreement to let them do these things, the general population becomes more and more cowed while those in become further entrenched. Rus was right, maybe I am to Machiavellian today…I guess it is to close to April 15th…
briansd1
April 9, 2010 @
4:51 PM
Do you believe a doctor who Do you believe a doctor who tells you that you need surgery? Or do you believe a mechanic who tells you need a new transmission? If not, then who do you believe?
I tend to trust Bernanke because he’s an academic who’s spent his whole career studying the depression.
I believe the bailouts were necessary only in the sense that liquidity needed to be injected in the the market.
There could have been other ways of achieving that goal. At time of the crisis, the government decided to bailout the banks directly. I can certainly understand taking issue with that.
As an academic, I don’t think that Bernanke cared how liquidity was to be injected into the market. He knew that it needed to be done very quickly.
Once we started down the road of direct bailouts, there was no return.
Most who study economics agree that something had to be done. What that something should have been is subject to debate.
patientrenter
April 9, 2010 @
4:41 PM
Arraya wrote:….
Robert [quote=Arraya]….
Robert Rubin and Summers are really the king pins of the operation and Bernake is a Greenspan protege…[/quote]
Good summary. There is a community at the top of finance and politics that feathers their own nest before all else.
NotCranky
April 9, 2010 @
5:10 PM
svelte wrote:You know, the [quote=svelte]You know, the government can’t win.
When they did nothing to avoid the financial meltdown in 1929, everyone has been pissed off for the last 80 years that they stood around and let people suffer for a decade until WWII pulled us out of it.
This time, trying to learn from the lessons of the Great Depression, they took swift and decisive action. What happens? They get spat upon.
Well, those folks doing the spitting will get a chance to have that saliva blown back in their face during the next financial meltdown because I predict the govt has eaten so much sh*t for these bailouts, that next time they will once again do nothing.
More than likely we’ll all be in nursing homes by then, but those nursing homes will likely close due to lack of funds and we’ll be tossed into Hoovervilles with our wheelchairs and IV drips since our 401Ks and other retirement funds will only be worth enough to buy a cardboard box and a can of spam.
You can call me naive for believing that the government is doing what they believe is best for the country, but I’ll call you naive for believing everything would have been hunky dory had they done nothing after October 2008.[/quote]
I don’t agree that everything would have been hunky dory at all. I think it was clear that there would be a price to pay. I don’t think the U.S was in dire straights. It was just more about who would pay the price and who wouldn’t. Maybe we all should have paid a price. I would still be in the “bring it on” crowd for that, if it was a deal that I believe attempted some kind of morality rather than a grab or two or three, followed by an attempt to return to an already ugly status quo but with an extra layer of moral hazard, but I admit, that’s pretty naive.
blahblahblah
April 9, 2010 @
3:32 PM
Nationalization like we did Nationalization like we did with GM. Bailout money should come with conditions. If you come begging hat in hand and we decide to help, we need to own a piece of the action afterwards. Just think of all the great uses that some of those record bank profits could be put towards — health care for more people, better veteran’s benefits, getting SS and medicare shored up, maybe even figuring out a way to “win” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead that money will just go to buy yachts and summer houses in the Hamptons. What a shame…
DWCAP
April 9, 2010 @
4:54 PM
I disagree with the way the I disagree with the way the poll was written. I would check we are worse off, but the bailouts were not useless. They were/are very successful at both saving bankers asses/$$$/privalge, and pushing problems off into the future. Considering the way alot of these bills were written, I consider this to be the central goal of many of the bailouts. So, they were very successful at the actual goals of the legeslation and not useless. (I also feel that the banks were saved more by the yeild curve induced by 0% than by GOV handouts.)
My position is that we have traded short term (3-5 years)agony for long term (10-?) pain. It all depends upon where you draw the finish line in this race. If we had drawn the line at 2006 then the 2001-2004 Fed/GOV actions would have made perfect rational sense and served as a perfect template for future courses of action in ‘pump priming’. Instead we are here now.
Currently we have not taken any actions to pay for all the bailouts/goodies of the past 2 years. Interest rates are still 0% (Fed funds) and sub 6% for 30 year fixed mortgages. Federal spending is still growing without any real major tax increases to compensate. Entitelments are still being given out without real fundemental understanding of the consequences/costs of it.
To put it in another context, we just ran up the Credit Card big time and are still enjoying all the goodies we got. The bill is in the mail, but that will wait for another day. I dont think we can judge if it was a good buy till the bill is paid.
briansd1
April 9, 2010 @
5:08 PM
DWCAP, I completely agree DWCAP, I completely agree with you.
I didnt’ know how to best create the poll since you can only answer yes to one question; and I didn’t want to have too many questions.
I don’t think that bill is in the mail, yet.
It’s more like having dinner at a fancy restaurant and we are only at the appetizer, just past the aperitif. Even after the meal, you charge the Amex and then it’s not a month later ’til you get the bill. And then you have another month to pay it.
CA renter
April 9, 2010 @
11:57 PM
Yes, good post, DWCAP. Yes, good post, DWCAP.
Arraya
April 10, 2010 @
9:46 AM
This guy did not think the This guy did not think the bailouts would work….
Stephen Jones, 46, of Monksbridge Road, said he had been stockpiling the drug in the event of riots in the street, rising oil prices and power shortages.
When police entered his house in May 2009 they found large amounts of food supplies in the hall and secret rooms which Jones had built for drug cultivation and to prepare for the impending crisis.
Aecetia
April 10, 2010 @
7:52 PM
Maybe he was going to trade Maybe he was going to trade the pot for food. Nice list of the Obama Illuminati, Arraya.
scaredyclassic
April 9, 2010 @
5:44 PM
well, personally, I don’t well, personally, I don’t trust a doctor who says i need surgery. id get several opinions, and do some of my own reserach, maybe talk to other people with the same problem. there is for instance a LOT of unnecessary back surgery int his country. i don’t trust my dentist. or my mechanic. or anyone pretty much who tells me something must be done. I trust my mom, though. She is very honest.
briansd1
April 11, 2010 @
1:37 PM
scaredycat wrote:well, [quote=scaredycat]well, personally, I don’t trust a doctor who says i need surgery. id get several opinions, and do some of my own reserach, maybe talk to other people with the same problem. there is for instance a LOT of unnecessary back surgery int his country. i don’t trust my dentist. or my mechanic. or anyone pretty much who tells me something must be done. I trust my mom, though. She is very honest.[/quote]
Very good point. There’s some amount of caveat emptor. But in the end, you don’t have much choice but to trust the experts.
[quote=Aecetia] Nice list of the Obama Illuminati, Arraya.[/quote]
Remember that the bailouts were all put into motion by Bush. What’s done is hard to take back.
scaredyclassic
April 11, 2010 @
2:08 PM
I’d say there is little I’d say there is little choice but to distrust the experts. If a doctor told me i had to have angioplasty or a bypass operation, i’d probably tell him to f off. i’ve seen a lot of dumb lawyering with unintended consequences. I wouldn’t trust any accountant. i don’t see why i have little choice but to trust expert opinion, except in the sense that things are going to be done without my permission, which is understandable, but that doesn’t mean i trust or respect their opinion. I mistrust everyone who claims to know. Again, except my mom.
CA renter
April 11, 2010 @
6:02 PM
briansd1 wrote:scaredycat [quote=briansd1][quote=scaredycat]well, personally, I don’t trust a doctor who says i need surgery. id get several opinions, and do some of my own reserach, maybe talk to other people with the same problem. there is for instance a LOT of unnecessary back surgery int his country. i don’t trust my dentist. or my mechanic. or anyone pretty much who tells me something must be done. I trust my mom, though. She is very honest.[/quote]
Very good point. There’s some amount of caveat emptor. But in the end, you don’t have much choice but to trust the experts.
[quote=Aecetia] Nice list of the Obama Illuminati, Arraya.[/quote]
Remember that the bailouts were all put into motion by Bush. What’s done is hard to take back.[/quote]
Brian,
Are you saying we’re supposed to trust the “experts” who brought on this calamity? The very same ones who supposedly “didn’t see it coming”?
Either they are idiots, or they are the most diabolical monsters who need to be strung up for their crimes against U.S. citizens.
Why in the world should we trust them?
Arraya
April 11, 2010 @
6:52 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Remember that [quote=briansd1]
Remember that the bailouts were all put into motion by Bush. What’s done is hard to take back.[/quote]
And the deregulation was put into motion by Clinton
it was Rubin, and his “Democratic” proteges Lawrence Summers & Timmy Geithner, who helped uber-Right-Wing Republicans Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, Thomas Bliley, Dick Armey, Enron-Ken Lay, et al, PUSH President Clinton to SIGN the DEREGULATION atrocities, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 1999 & 2000, respectively.
i think the best course of i think the best course of action would not be to think about this stuff at all…
Arraya
April 11, 2010 @
7:18 PM
scaredycat wrote:i think the [quote=scaredycat]i think the best course of action would not be to think about this stuff at all…[/quote]
Not much else to do when you are “landed poor”
briansd1
April 12, 2010 @
11:41 AM
Arraya wrote:
And the [quote=Arraya]
And the deregulation was put into motion by Clinton
it was Rubin, and his “Democratic” proteges Lawrence Summers & Timmy Geithner, who helped uber-Right-Wing Republicans Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, Thomas Bliley, Dick Armey, Enron-Ken Lay, et al, PUSH President Clinton to SIGN the DEREGULATION atrocities, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 1999 & 2000, respectively.
[/quote]
Yes, you are correct. The uber-Right-Wing Republicans came up with the bright ideas.
At that time, they created new wealth for America. We were losing manufacturing jobs so a new financial industry seemed like a great idea.
If you take a world view, the American debt binge did save the world. We borrowed to consume and allowed the rest of the world to recover back in 1999. I believe that China benefited the most.
We felt rich for half a decade.
Back in 2008, we could have let the crisis take it own course or bailed out the banks, or intervene in some other way.
Bush, Paulson and Bernanke chose to bailout the banks.
We just have to pay for our profligacy over time. It’s arguably preferable to pay for our mistakes over time, than in one painful shot.
We now live in a globalized world. And we have to do everything to keep the world economy growing.
I’m sure nationalizing the I’m sure nationalizing the banks was discussed in detail. They probably concluded it was not politically palatable as accusations of Socialism would be flung with reckless abandon. I support a fourth option – Targeted Bailouts to Maintain Liquidity in the Credit Market. As one example, companies that enjoyed exceptional growth in the last decade went into heavy debt with little attention to their cash flow position. The precipitous decline in 08/09 revenues, much of it driven by irrational fear and not poor forecastng imo, scared the crap out of the leadership, resulting in edicts to conserve cash at all costs (layoffs, no discretionary spending, inventory purge, etc). This was necessary to payoff maturing bonds and provision for the possible freezing of the bond market. Those unable to pay but able to refinance would pay loan shark rates and may even be forced to collateralized assets. Those unable to refinance their corporate debt would meet probable death as their credit rating falls to junk status and stock prices collapse. Yes, don’t believe govt rhetoric. Next time talk to the leadership in your company if you work in the private sector and you might be surprised how many additional jobs hung in the balance. Where I work, I can tell you with absolute certainty the list for the next wave of layoffs were already completed by late 08, and these weren’t contract or entry level positions, but 100K+ solid middle class jobs. Luckily for us, all layoffs stopped by end of 08.
It’s true the banks are like inoperable cancer. Cut it out and you kill the host. I don’t support punishing the masses for the sins of the few. Lastly, let’s not forget these are loans with interest or equity ownership arrangements. When this is all over, I don’t think the taxpayer will lose as much as current projections. The GSE bailouts remains to be seen.
SD Realtor
April 12, 2010 @
11:20 PM
In 1920 the country was in a In 1920 the country was in a pretty bad situation. Extremely high tax rates, the fed was printing money like there was no tomorrow, and we had just come out of a really tough world war. Interesting how the recovery from that depression was dealt with as opposed to the one that followed 10 years later.
meadandale
April 13, 2010 @
8:32 AM
SD Realtor wrote:In 1920 the [quote=SD Realtor]In 1920 the country was in a pretty bad situation. Extremely high tax rates, the fed was printing money like there was no tomorrow, and we had just come out of a really tough world war. Interesting how the recovery from that depression was dealt with as opposed to the one that followed 10 years later.[/quote]
Don’t get started…you aren’t supposed to talk about this unfortunate bit of history because it doesn’t fit with the Progressive agenda of spending and taxing our way out of recession.
briansd1
April 13, 2010 @
11:06 AM
SD Realtor wrote:In 1920 the [quote=SD Realtor]In 1920 the country was in a pretty bad situation. Extremely high tax rates, the fed was printing money like there was no tomorrow, and we had just come out of a really tough world war. Interesting how the recovery from that depression was dealt with as opposed to the one that followed 10 years later.[/quote]
There was no depression in the 1920s. That’s why call them the Roaring 20s. The bad mistakes of the 1920s cause the Depression in the 1930s.
Are you saying that we are repeating the mistakes of the 1920s?
meadandale
April 13, 2010 @
11:17 AM
briansd1 wrote:SD Realtor [quote=briansd1][quote=SD Realtor]In 1920 the country was in a pretty bad situation. Extremely high tax rates, the fed was printing money like there was no tomorrow, and we had just come out of a really tough world war. Interesting how the recovery from that depression was dealt with as opposed to the one that followed 10 years later.[/quote]
There was no depression in the 1920s. That’s why call them the Roaring 20s. The bad mistakes of the 1920s cause the Depression in the 1930s.
Are you saying that we are repeating the mistakes of the 1920s?[/quote]
Read some freaking history Brian..
briansd1
April 13, 2010 @
11:46 AM
meadandale wrote:
Read some [quote=meadandale]
Read some freaking history Brian..[/quote]
Like our president, I’m a history buff.
meadandale
April 13, 2010 @
11:54 AM
briansd1 wrote:meadandale [quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]
Read some freaking history Brian..[/quote]
Like our president, I’m a history buff.[/quote]
And like him, you know just about as much about it.
SD Realtor
April 13, 2010 @
12:55 PM
Wow Brian… Love can be Wow Brian… Love can be blind but at least try not to change history okay?
Here is a wiki link. You seem like a wiki kind of guy.
The depression of 1920 was actually pretty bad from what I read. No we are not repeating the mistakes of the 1920’s we are repeating the mistakes of the 30’s only to a much greater magnitude. It is okay though, at our present rate of govt spending our INTEREST alone will be at 800B a year in a decade from now. No problem though right?
meadandale
April 13, 2010 @
1:18 PM
Let’s see:
~50% decline in Let’s see:
~50% decline in the stock market
Unemployment of upwards of 12% (depending on who’s figures you use)
Sound familiar?
What was the response of Harding and Coolidge? Dramatic increases in government spending? Tax increases? More regulation?
Nope…
He sharply cut the size of government and taxes resulting in the boom of the roaring 20’s where the American middle class saw the largest standard of living increase in our history.
No, Obama is following clearly in FDR’s footprints. Expanding government, taxation and entitlements and we are going to see a similar result: an economic malaise that drags on for a decade. Maybe we should go to war against somebody–that’s what finally ended the Great Depression…not any of FDR’s policies.
briansd1
April 13, 2010 @
1:49 PM
meadandale wrote:
What was [quote=meadandale]
What was the response of Harding and Coolidge? Dramatic increases in government spending? Tax increases? More regulation?
Nope…
He sharply cut the size of government and taxes resulting in the boom of the roaring 20’s where the American middle class saw the largest standard of living increase in our history.
[/quote]
The policies of the 1920s caused the Great Depression.
Sounds like the Bush years. And what did we get?
[quote=meadandale]
No, Obama is following clearly in FDR’s footprints. Expanding government, taxation and entitlements and we are going to see a similar result: an economic malaise that drags on for a decade.
[/quote]
FDR inherited the depression and he set us up on the path to growth and stability.
[quote=meadandale]
Maybe we should go to war against somebody–that’s what finally ended the Great Depression…not any of FDR’s policies.[/quote]
Didn’t we try that already? We have 2 wars still going on.
SK in CV
April 13, 2010 @
5:09 PM
meadandale wrote:
No, Obama [quote=meadandale]
No, Obama is following clearly in FDR’s footprints. Expanding government, taxation and entitlements and we are going to see a similar result: an economic malaise that drags on for a decade. Maybe we should go to war against somebody–that’s what finally ended the Great Depression…not any of FDR’s policies.[/quote]
Not exactly. Government has grown, as much by the Bush bailout as the Obama bailout. Entitlements would have grown even if there had been no significant legislation, but there have also been additions, though most won’t take effect for awhile. But expanding taxation? with 98% of working families and individuals getting tax cuts you’re dead wrong on that one.
And beyond that, some more history lessons are in order. Over the last 50 years, employment has been better, economic growth has been better, stock market performance has been better, the reduction in the number of people living at or below the poverty level has been better, deficits have been smaller (or surpluses have been bigger) under Democratic presidents.
And an added bonus. This fiscal year deficit will be smaller than the previous fiscal year deficit, which included 4 months of the Bush administration and 8 months of the Obama administration.
You can argue that the economy has been better under Republican administrations. The facts, however, would not be very supportive.
sd_matt
April 13, 2010 @
5:13 PM
It may very well have been It may very well have been different if WW2 never happened. After the war much of the rest of the world was literally destroyed and we were the owners of technology and had the biggest industry. We had no excuse not to rule the latter half of the 20th century.
briansd1
April 13, 2010 @
7:17 PM
sd_matt wrote:It may very [quote=sd_matt]It may very well have been different if WW2 never happened. [/quote]
Does it mean that serendipity or God (for those who believe in intelligent design) has consistently put Democrats at the right place at the right time?
Maybe he is the messiah after all. 😉
SD Realtor
April 13, 2010 @
10:32 PM
That is the problem at hand That is the problem at hand Brian. You keep referencing a two party system and it is a no party system. You choose to find fault with a given party but seem to fall way short that the system is broke and that parties are meaningless. you may tacitly admit okay the system is broken but then you cling to well given things are f-cked I will defend to the end my party and my guy. You bite into the system hook line and sinker. As much as I have disagreement with Arraya on certain issues, he sees right through the charade of the system we have as well. He listed a host of many current players in the administration and you had not a word to say about it. It is a shame you cling with such veracity to your beliefs simply saying, well this turd is better then the turd we had so I am all in with this turd… People that used to debate with you don’t anymore, not because you are right or wrong but because you don’t have any recognition of how blindly and unquestioningly you have accepted things. It is certainly admirable, but also troubling in a certain manner of how others blindly believed what they were told in past history.
briansd1
April 14, 2010 @
1:31 PM
SD Realtor wrote:That is the [quote=SD Realtor]That is the problem at hand Brian. You keep referencing a two party system and it is a no party system. You choose to find fault with a given party but seem to fall way short that the system is broke and that parties are meaningless. [/quote]
I respect your independence. It’s fine that you decided to turn your back on the two parties to find a third way.
I think that the two parties are not meaningless because they hold power. I feel that it’s better to work to change the direction of the parties.
Putting things into perspective, I believe that my position is much more reasonable than the Palin-as-savior mentality. Why would anyone want to put an uneducated airhead in power?
meadandale
April 14, 2010 @
1:45 PM
briansd1 wrote:I believe that [quote=briansd1]I believe that my position is much more reasonable than the Palin-as-savior mentality. Why would anyone want to put an uneducated airhead in power?[/quote]
Of course you believe that your kool-aid sipping and water carrying for liberal progressive Democrats is more reasonable. Every liberal that I’ve met thinks that they are superior, more enlightened and better educated than the vast unwashed masses of ‘mouth breathing neo-cons’.
Believing something, even if you are a Democrat, doesn’t make it so. Maybe you should try clicking your heels together a couple of times?
sd_matt
April 14, 2010 @
12:10 AM
briansd1 wrote:sd_matt [quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]It may very well have been different if WW2 never happened. [/quote]
Does it mean that serendipity or God (for those who believe in intelligent design) has consistently put Democrats at the right place at the right time?
Maybe he is the messiah after all. ;)[/quote]
Granted I did throw a blow with the Manchurian Candidate comment. But it’s true. I’ll say it again. Look at the two in terms of accountability.
What are your standards for accountability? It’s a rhetorical question.
FYI I don’t believe in god.
I am not the dumbest nor smartest guy on the planet. I do like to read some history though. And even an average Joe like me can look at history and start to see patterns. It would behoove you to do the same.
Most everyone else here is thinking like a chess player. Sometimes I see you doing the same. Only sometimes. Then you switch back to party lines. I guess some of us need the grounding of something we can believe in, whether it is true or not. You may disagree with A.M. talk radio but you share their basic need. Different lines of rhetoric but the same pattern.
briansd1
April 13, 2010 @
7:09 PM
sd_matt wrote:
I don’t see [quote=sd_matt]
I don’t see how you can be any more or less disgusted with either party. [/quote]
I never said that Democrats are angels. But a 2-party system Democrats are just much more preferable.
If I’m presented with a hamburger or a chicken sandwich for lunch, I’ll definitely choose the chicken sandwich. Ideally, I might prefer something else that’s not on the menu.
And as SK said:
[quote=SK in CV]
And beyond that, some more history lessons are in order. Over the last 50 years, employment has been better, economic growth has been better, stock market performance has been better, the reduction in the number of people living at or below the poverty level has been better, deficits have been smaller (or surpluses have been bigger) under Democratic presidents.
[/quote]
~50% decline in the stock market
Unemployment of upwards of 12% (depending on who’s figures you use)
Sound familiar?
What was the response of Harding and Coolidge? Dramatic increases in government spending? Tax increases? More regulation?
Nope…
He sharply cut the size of government and taxes resulting in the boom of the roaring 20’s where the American middle class saw the largest standard of living increase in our history.
No, Obama is following clearly in FDR’s footprints. Expanding government, taxation and entitlements and we are going to see a similar result: an economic malaise that drags on for a decade. Maybe we should go to war against somebody–that’s what finally ended the Great Depression…not any of FDR’s policies.[/quote]
IMHO, credit expansion was responsible for the “good times” in the Roaring Twenties, just as it’s been responsible for most of the “growth” since the early 80s.
Lower taxes probably had very little to do with it when you compare the effects of lower taxes to the effects of massive credit expansion.
———————–
In 1920-1921 there was an acute recession, followed by the sustained recovery throughout the 1920s. The Federal Reserve expanded credit, by setting below market interest rates and low reserve requirements that favored big banks, and the money supply actually increased by about 60% during the time following the recession. By the latter part of the decade “buying on margin” entered the American vocabulary as more and more Americans over-extended themselves to speculate on the soaring stock market and expanding credit. Very few expected the crash that began in 1929, and none suspected it would be so drastic or so prolonged.
AND THIS:
The 1920s was a decade of increased consumer spending and economic growth fed by supply side economic policy. The post war, post progressive era political environment saw three consecutive Republican administrations in the U.S. All three took the moderate position of forging a close relationship between those in government and big business.
Sounds a lot like what the Republicans and Obama have been doing this past decade, and it’s exactly what caused the Great Depression and it’s what caused the “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.” Credit expansion is fun on the way up, but it’s hell on the way down. We have still not learned our lesson.
briansd1
April 14, 2010 @
11:17 AM
CA renter wrote:
Sounds a lot [quote=CA renter]
Sounds a lot like what the Republicans and Obama have been doing this past decade, and it’s exactly what caused the Great Depression and it’s what caused the “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.” Credit expansion is fun on the way up, but it’s hell on the way down. We have still not learned our lesson.[/quote]
Yes, the thing is that the 2008 Financial Crisis caused a huge contraction in credit. The government stepped in the fill the gap and to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
The idea is that the government will step back when normalcy returns.
But of course, the profligacy of 2000-2008 will have to be paid back over time. It like charging a big wedding party on credit cards and paying for it over years.
CA renter
April 14, 2010 @
2:01 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Yes, the [quote=briansd1]
Yes, the thing is that the 2008 Financial Crisis caused a huge contraction in credit. The government stepped in the fill the gap and to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
The idea is that the government will step back when normalcy returns.
But of course, the profligacy of 2000-2008 will have to be paid back over time. It like charging a big wedding party on credit cards and paying for it over years.[/quote]
Brian,
Sometimes, the “wheels of commerce” need to come to a screeching halt, particularly when credit bubbles grossly distort certain markets, and when money is being misallocated (as with asset bubbles).
Personally, I prefer the expensive wedding never happened. If it has to happen, I definitely prefer paying it off as quickly as possible. It’s foolish to pay for weddings over time.
briansd1
April 14, 2010 @
2:25 PM
CA renter wrote:
Personally, [quote=CA renter]
Personally, I prefer the expensive wedding never happened. If it has to happen, I definitely prefer paying it off as quickly as possible. It’s foolish to pay for weddings over time.[/quote]
I agree with you.
But think of the magical memories of the dream wedding. You do it not just for you, but for your parents, friends and family; so it’s a sacrifice for the greater good. Plus it’s a once in a lifetime deal, right?
If you pay for it quickly, you have to endure that rented apartment, the beater car, and dinner at home.
Wouldn’t you rather lease that Lexus, buy that house using zero percent down, and charge the dinners out? 😉 It’s good for a long as it lasts.
Most young families don’t know of any other way. They got those credit cards upon high-school graduation and the rest is history.
CA renter
April 15, 2010 @
4:49 PM
Don’t even get me started on Don’t even get me started on the “magical dream wedding” scam.
briansd1
April 13, 2010 @
1:43 PM
SD Realtor wrote:
The [quote=SD Realtor]
The depression of 1920 was actually pretty bad from what I read.
[/quote]
We had more frequent booms and busts in the past.
The economic gyrations up and down are much less now, thanks to government intervention.
[quote=SD Realtor]
No we are not repeating the mistakes of the 1920’s we are repeating the mistakes of the 30’s only to a much greater magnitude. [/quote]
I thought the golden years of the American Century were the period after the Great Depression, during and after the WWII (when America enjoyed world dominance and the greatest share of world GDP).
[quote=SD Realtor]
It is okay though, at our present rate of govt spending our INTEREST alone will be at 800B a year in a decade from now. No problem though right?[/quote]
Are you expecting a depression to result?
GH
April 13, 2010 @
10:27 AM
Smaller banks should have Smaller banks should have been shored up with bailout funds and the large banks such as Citi, Chase, Wells Fargo and BOFA should have been allowed to go under taking their investors down with them. Today we would have healthy competition and lots of healthy smaller banks instead of 4 huge uncompetitive ones!
April 8, 2010 @ 8:43 PM
Bernanke has spoken. Do you
Bernanke has spoken. Do you believe him?
April 9, 2010 @ 8:04 AM
I’m convinced some of the
I’m convinced some of the bailouts were necessary. Not as convinced they were all necessary, but then again I see just a sliver of the information that those making the decisions have at their disposal.
I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
April 9, 2010 @ 9:59 AM
Sure I believe everything
Sure I believe everything that the govt, fed or treasury tells me. They would never mislead the public.
April 9, 2010 @ 10:16 AM
SD Realtor wrote:Sure I
[quote=SD Realtor]Sure I believe everything that the govt, fed or treasury tells me. They would never mislead the public.[/quote]
Going a step further…I think it is naive to believe much of it.
April 9, 2010 @ 10:46 AM
Oh come on Rus… They told
Oh come on Rus… They told us that we were on the edge! They told us there would be a total meltdown if we didn’t bail the institutions out. Hot lava in the streets, raining cats and dogs, institutionalized failure of the economy. How they saved us all…. Whew good thing our govt is watching out for us…
And look there has not been a meltdown so by golly they really did save us! Surely there could have been no other outcomes right? I mean they said it had to be that way. It should be intuitively obvious to fellows like you and me that they are looking out for our best interest and that surely this was not only the best remedy for the economy but also for the public and society overall. We really should trust those in power that they are acting in OUR best interest. In fact I trust them so much I think we should have another bailout! If they tell us so it must really be necessary…isn’t it?
April 9, 2010 @ 11:26 AM
SD Realtor wrote:Oh come on
[quote=SD Realtor]Oh come on Rus… They told us that we were on the edge! They told us there would be a total meltdown if we didn’t bail the institutions out. Hot lava in the streets, raining cats and dogs, institutionalized failure of the economy. How they saved us all…. Whew good thing our govt is watching out for us…
And look there has not been a meltdown so by golly they really did save us! Surely there could have been no other outcomes right? I mean they said it had to be that way. It should be intuitively obvious to fellows like you and me that they are looking out for our best interest and that surely this was not only the best remedy for the economy but also for the public and society overall. We really should trust those in power that they are acting in OUR best interest. In fact I trust them so much I think we should have another bailout! If they tell us so it must really be necessary…isn’t it?[/quote]
I hear you. Trying to shorten my list of things to go ballistic about. That said, anyone who thinks Hank Paulson is not a butt-faced-lying-ass crook, lacks instincts. Take it from then to now… and well, lets just say we really haven’t broken any new ground with how things work for the wealthy and powerful during this “crisis”.
April 9, 2010 @ 11:48 AM
Yep… I am not sure what is
Yep… I am not sure what is scarier, the fact that they keep doing these things, (they the govt, not the dems or the repubs) or the fact that so many people tacitly agree, or shake their heads and go whatever it will all be okay.
There was an interesting guest on coast to coast the other night, (AKA the show my wife likes to call kookarama) and he is the brother of a senator. The topic was mind control. Anyways he was talking about about Zbignew Brzinski the old national security advisor from the carter era (sorry for hacking the name up).
Anyways there is a current congressman in his family as well. Darn I forgot the guys name. His entire discussion is about HAARP mind control. However for a moment he went off topic and was saying that no matter what the political party is, there is simply no matter. That the challenge is simply to create an environment where enough of the public is sufficiently confused, or agitated to buy into whatever is put in front of them, will not only keep elected officials in power, but INCREASE their hold on that power. The more that the general public can be convinced that they need this measure or that measure due to current or PROPOSED conditions, the more the govt can entrench themselves. It really was pretty fascinating. It can be very much applied to the fear mongering of BUSH or OBAMA… Different parties, different environments, same results.
April 9, 2010 @ 12:46 PM
SD Realtor wrote:Yep… I am
[quote=SD Realtor]Yep… I am not sure what is scarier, the fact that they keep doing these things, (they the govt, not the dems or the repubs) or the fact that so many people tacitly agree, or shake their heads and go whatever it will all be okay.
There was an interesting guest on coast to coast the other night, (AKA the show my wife likes to call kookarama) and he is the brother of a senator. The topic was mind control. Anyways he was talking about about Zbignew Brzinski the old national security advisor from the carter era (sorry for hacking the name up).
Anyways there is a current congressman in his family as well. Darn I forgot the guys name. His entire discussion is about HAARP mind control. However for a moment he went off topic and was saying that no matter what the political party is, there is simply no matter. That the challenge is simply to create an environment where enough of the public is sufficiently confused, or agitated to buy into whatever is put in front of them, will not only keep elected officials in power, but INCREASE their hold on that power. The more that the general public can be convinced that they need this measure or that measure due to current or PROPOSED conditions, the more the govt can entrench themselves. It really was pretty fascinating. It can be very much applied to the fear mongering of BUSH or OBAMA… Different parties, different environments, same results.[/quote]
Sounds Machiavellian, If I recall correctly from an interview, Bush said he had read “The Prince” and that it definitely affected how he governed. I think he said he read it 3 times. I would guess that Obama has read it no less than 17 times.
If I recall properly one of the ideas was not to tell the masses little lies because they would catch on very quickly since they are used to little lies from their wives, co-workers ect. It was very important that lies were very big to accomplish the breakdown desired. Throw in a round of HORSE during the NCAA finals to show what a real guy you are,and presto, the masses fall asleep….and the best tehy can manage is to be conquered and divided partisans. Mission accomplished.
April 13, 2010 @ 2:26 PM
SD Realtor wrote:Yep… I am
[quote=SD Realtor]Yep… I am not sure what is scarier, the fact that they keep doing these things, (they the govt, not the dems or the repubs) or the fact that so many people tacitly agree, or shake their heads and go whatever it will all be okay.
There was an interesting guest on coast to coast the other night, (AKA the show my wife likes to call kookarama) and he is the brother of a senator. The topic was mind control. Anyways he was talking about about Zbignew Brzinski the old national security advisor from the carter era (sorry for hacking the name up).
Anyways there is a current congressman in his family as well. Darn I forgot the guys name. His entire discussion is about HAARP mind control. However for a moment he went off topic and was saying that no matter what the political party is, there is simply no matter. That the challenge is simply to create an environment where enough of the public is sufficiently confused, or agitated to buy into whatever is put in front of them, will not only keep elected officials in power, but INCREASE their hold on that power. The more that the general public can be convinced that they need this measure or that measure due to current or PROPOSED conditions, the more the govt can entrench themselves. It really was pretty fascinating. It can be very much applied to the fear mongering of BUSH or OBAMA… Different parties, different environments, same results.[/quote]
Jerry Doyle said something to the same effect the other night.
April 13, 2010 @ 4:12 PM
Brian as a libertarian my
Brian as a libertarian my beliefs are that govt should play a limited role in governing our country. Funny how you said there was nothing but the roaring 20’s and now all of the sudden maybe there was something of a downturn. You are the student of history right?
I am not sure there is a response you make that doesn’t reference Bush. Someday maybe you will understand it is not about Bush or Clinton or Obama.
Worse then that you may find out it is not about Brian…
Nice sidestep around the mounting debt and interest. Just keep skipping along man. It will all be okay.
April 13, 2010 @ 4:46 PM
SD Realtor wrote: Funny how
[quote=SD Realtor] Funny how you said there was nothing but the roaring 20’s and now all of the sudden maybe there was something of a downturn. You are the student of history right?
[/quote]
In the 1920s we had a downturn followed by a roaring boom of ephemeral wealth, followed by the Great Depression (which was caused by the earlier decade of profligacy).
[quote=SD Realtor]
I am not sure there is a response you make that doesn’t reference Bush. Someday maybe you will understand it is not about Bush or Clinton or Obama.
[/quote]
I try to not respond in kind unless someone mentions the Tea Party, Obama and the like first. Read my posts again.
[quote=SD Realtor]
Nice sidestep around the mounting debt and interest. Just keep skipping along man. It will all be okay.[/quote]
Not side stepping. I believe that our future is not so bright as a nation. That’s why I avoid debt and try to plan for my own financial well-being.
I believe that America is declining in strength and wealth relative to others. We won’t get poorer, but we’ll be less rich relative to others. That will definitely affect our national psyche and sense of well-being.
I also believe that current government policies are dealing with paying up for past blunders and rectifying economic mistakes.
April 13, 2010 @ 4:49 PM
briansd1 wrote:I also believe
[quote=briansd1]I also believe that current government policies are dealing with paying up for past blunders and rectifying economic mistakes.[/quote]
That has to be one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time.
April 13, 2010 @ 5:10 PM
Brian
I don’t see how you
Brian
I don’t see how you can be any more or less disgusted with either party. Review the last ten years. Both are to financial regulation what drunken sailors are to thirteen year old Thai prostitutes.
You have been reading this blog for a long time and there are numerous accounts of both sides voting out/in regulations that turned our financial system into a casino.
Yet you hold onto your partisanship. The writers of the Manchurian Candidate would shake their heads in irony at you level of voluntary indoctrination.
April 9, 2010 @ 12:48 PM
This poll feature here is a
This poll feature here is a little limiting.
And of course, the issue is complex. The answer was not to either 1) do everything that the government did or 2) do nothing at all.
I believe that if nothing had been done, we would have experienced a financial meltdown. Something had to be done — not necessarily the bailouts the way they were carried out.
Some sort of a third way would have been preferable to me.
April 9, 2010 @ 12:51 PM
Russell wrote:SD Realtor
[quote=Russell][quote=SD Realtor]Sure I believe everything that the govt, fed or treasury tells me. They would never mislead the public.[/quote]
Going a step further…I think it is naive to believe much of it.[/quote]
In that same perspective, I wonder if the people who lied about the need for war also lied about the need for the bailouts.
These were such massive undertakings that once they got implemented, there was no return.
BTW, I separate terrorism from war and financial crisis from bailouts. The terrorism and financial crisis were real. The solutions leave much to be desired.
April 9, 2010 @ 2:22 PM
Brian it doesn’t really
Brian it doesn’t really matter. You believe what they told you. Maybe you didn’t believe the war stuff maybe you do believe the meltdown stuff or you do believe the “return” on the investment. You have faith in the government and that they are looking out for our best interests (in this case) and I don’t. Most people fall into your category and believe in the govt as well. Clearly the growth of our govt in terms of size, scope, spending, employment of the population is something that is about as contrary to my beliefs as a libertarian as it gets. I don’t think we are better for it, you do. I am pretty sure our children will not live as well as we did either.
April 9, 2010 @ 3:02 PM
SD Realtor, I’m pretty sure
SD Realtor, I’m pretty sure that your children will live better than you are living.
I bet that you will leave each one of them a house that is paid for so they won’t have to work as hard as you are working to pay for housing.
Perhaps a greater share of their incomes will be spent on savings and leisure.
Other people’s children? Well… that’s another issue.
April 9, 2010 @ 3:22 PM
brian brian brian…
Keep on
brian brian brian…
Keep on believing man…your govt loves ya.
April 9, 2010 @ 3:26 PM
You know, the government
You know, the government can’t win.
When they did nothing to avoid the financial meltdown in 1929, everyone has been pissed off for the last 80 years that they stood around and let people suffer for a decade until WWII pulled us out of it.
This time, trying to learn from the lessons of the Great Depression, they took swift and decisive action. What happens? They get spat upon.
Well, those folks doing the spitting will get a chance to have that saliva blown back in their face during the next financial meltdown because I predict the govt has eaten so much sh*t for these bailouts, that next time they will once again do nothing.
More than likely we’ll all be in nursing homes by then, but those nursing homes will likely close due to lack of funds and we’ll be tossed into Hoovervilles with our wheelchairs and IV drips since our 401Ks and other retirement funds will only be worth enough to buy a cardboard box and a can of spam.
You can call me naive for believing that the government is doing what they believe is best for the country, but I’ll call you naive for believing everything would have been hunky dory had they done nothing after October 2008.
April 9, 2010 @ 3:40 PM
Comeon svelte…many people
Comeon svelte…many people agree that the actions of FDR (i.e. doing exactly what Obama is doing…going on a wild spending spree and piling up debt and entitlements) extended and worsened the great depression.
The Fed was a primary contributor to the crash of 1929. What exactly are we doing to reign in the Fed now (or have we done over the last 80 years)?
Financial reform? Everyone surrounding Obama (and that surrounded Bush as well) are former Goldman Sachs or Fed flunkies. You think that any meaningful reform is going to come from these people? There’s a serious conflict of interest there (many of their cronies still are employed at both institutions).
April 9, 2010 @ 4:09 PM
Come on, look at Team
Come on, look at Team Obama…. Can’t go wrong with wall street making all the decisions. Don’t worry they are looking out for you
Neal Wolin
Deputy secretary of the treasury (Tim Geithner’s No. 2)
Exec at one of the largest insurance and investment firms
Mark Patterson
Treasury secretary’s chief of staff
Goldman Sachs lobbyist
Gene Sperling
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made nearly $900,000 advising Goldman Sachs
Larry Summers
Obama’s chief economic adviser
Made $50 million as managing director of a hedge fund
Rahm Emanuel
White House chief of staff
Made $16 million as a partner at a Chicago investment bank
Herbert Allison
Assistant secretary of the treasury (oversees TARP)
Longtime exec at Merrill Lynch; headed Fannie Mae
Kim Wallace
Assistant secretary of the treasury for legislative affairs
Managing director at Barclays Capital and Lehman Brothers
Karthik Ramanathan
Acting assistant treasury secretary for financial markets
Foreign exchange dealer at Goldman Sachs
Matthew Kabaker
Deputy assistant secretary of the treasury
Blackstone Group in 2008-2009
Lewis Alexander
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Chief economist at Citigroup; paid $2.4 million in 2008-2009
Adam Storch
Managing executive of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement
VP of Goldman Sachs’ Business Intelligence Group
Lee Sachs
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made more than $3 million at a New York hedge fund
Gary Gensler
Chairman of Commodity Futures Trading Commission
18 years at Goldman Sachs, where he made partner
Michael Froman
Deputy assistant to Obama, deputy nat’l security adviser
Managing director of a Citigroup investment arm
Robert Rubin and Summers are really the king pins of the operation and Bernake is a Greenspan protege… So it’s all good
April 9, 2010 @ 4:18 PM
Now now Arraya, surely if
Now now Arraya, surely if gentlemen like these tell us that something HAS to be done, who are we not to believe them.
April 9, 2010 @ 4:20 PM
I have no doubt the policies
I have no doubt the policies will be wonderful for them.
April 9, 2010 @ 4:42 PM
Svelte I don’t think I ever
Svelte I don’t think I ever implied things would be hunky dory if the govt did nothing. My point is that we have been told that doing nothing would bring calamity. Those who told us we must do something had the most to gain by doing something and possibly the most to lose by not doing anything. Furthermore, each time there is an agreement to let them do these things, the general population becomes more and more cowed while those in become further entrenched. Rus was right, maybe I am to Machiavellian today…I guess it is to close to April 15th…
April 9, 2010 @ 4:51 PM
Do you believe a doctor who
Do you believe a doctor who tells you that you need surgery? Or do you believe a mechanic who tells you need a new transmission? If not, then who do you believe?
I tend to trust Bernanke because he’s an academic who’s spent his whole career studying the depression.
I believe the bailouts were necessary only in the sense that liquidity needed to be injected in the the market.
There could have been other ways of achieving that goal. At time of the crisis, the government decided to bailout the banks directly. I can certainly understand taking issue with that.
As an academic, I don’t think that Bernanke cared how liquidity was to be injected into the market. He knew that it needed to be done very quickly.
Once we started down the road of direct bailouts, there was no return.
Most who study economics agree that something had to be done. What that something should have been is subject to debate.
April 9, 2010 @ 4:41 PM
Arraya wrote:….
Robert
[quote=Arraya]….
Robert Rubin and Summers are really the king pins of the operation and Bernake is a Greenspan protege…[/quote]
Good summary. There is a community at the top of finance and politics that feathers their own nest before all else.
April 9, 2010 @ 5:10 PM
svelte wrote:You know, the
[quote=svelte]You know, the government can’t win.
When they did nothing to avoid the financial meltdown in 1929, everyone has been pissed off for the last 80 years that they stood around and let people suffer for a decade until WWII pulled us out of it.
This time, trying to learn from the lessons of the Great Depression, they took swift and decisive action. What happens? They get spat upon.
Well, those folks doing the spitting will get a chance to have that saliva blown back in their face during the next financial meltdown because I predict the govt has eaten so much sh*t for these bailouts, that next time they will once again do nothing.
More than likely we’ll all be in nursing homes by then, but those nursing homes will likely close due to lack of funds and we’ll be tossed into Hoovervilles with our wheelchairs and IV drips since our 401Ks and other retirement funds will only be worth enough to buy a cardboard box and a can of spam.
You can call me naive for believing that the government is doing what they believe is best for the country, but I’ll call you naive for believing everything would have been hunky dory had they done nothing after October 2008.[/quote]
I don’t agree that everything would have been hunky dory at all. I think it was clear that there would be a price to pay. I don’t think the U.S was in dire straights. It was just more about who would pay the price and who wouldn’t. Maybe we all should have paid a price. I would still be in the “bring it on” crowd for that, if it was a deal that I believe attempted some kind of morality rather than a grab or two or three, followed by an attempt to return to an already ugly status quo but with an extra layer of moral hazard, but I admit, that’s pretty naive.
April 9, 2010 @ 3:32 PM
Nationalization like we did
Nationalization like we did with GM. Bailout money should come with conditions. If you come begging hat in hand and we decide to help, we need to own a piece of the action afterwards. Just think of all the great uses that some of those record bank profits could be put towards — health care for more people, better veteran’s benefits, getting SS and medicare shored up, maybe even figuring out a way to “win” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead that money will just go to buy yachts and summer houses in the Hamptons. What a shame…
April 9, 2010 @ 4:54 PM
I disagree with the way the
I disagree with the way the poll was written. I would check we are worse off, but the bailouts were not useless. They were/are very successful at both saving bankers asses/$$$/privalge, and pushing problems off into the future. Considering the way alot of these bills were written, I consider this to be the central goal of many of the bailouts. So, they were very successful at the actual goals of the legeslation and not useless. (I also feel that the banks were saved more by the yeild curve induced by 0% than by GOV handouts.)
My position is that we have traded short term (3-5 years)agony for long term (10-?) pain. It all depends upon where you draw the finish line in this race. If we had drawn the line at 2006 then the 2001-2004 Fed/GOV actions would have made perfect rational sense and served as a perfect template for future courses of action in ‘pump priming’. Instead we are here now.
Currently we have not taken any actions to pay for all the bailouts/goodies of the past 2 years. Interest rates are still 0% (Fed funds) and sub 6% for 30 year fixed mortgages. Federal spending is still growing without any real major tax increases to compensate. Entitelments are still being given out without real fundemental understanding of the consequences/costs of it.
To put it in another context, we just ran up the Credit Card big time and are still enjoying all the goodies we got. The bill is in the mail, but that will wait for another day. I dont think we can judge if it was a good buy till the bill is paid.
April 9, 2010 @ 5:08 PM
DWCAP, I completely agree
DWCAP, I completely agree with you.
I didnt’ know how to best create the poll since you can only answer yes to one question; and I didn’t want to have too many questions.
I don’t think that bill is in the mail, yet.
It’s more like having dinner at a fancy restaurant and we are only at the appetizer, just past the aperitif. Even after the meal, you charge the Amex and then it’s not a month later ’til you get the bill. And then you have another month to pay it.
April 9, 2010 @ 11:57 PM
Yes, good post, DWCAP.
Yes, good post, DWCAP.
April 10, 2010 @ 9:46 AM
This guy did not think the
This guy did not think the bailouts would work….
http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Man-grew-drugs-impending-world-chaos/article-1991425-detail/article.html
A YOUTH boxing coach grew dozens of cannabis plants at his Brixham home because he feared the world economy would collapse leading to a breakdown in society.
Stephen Jones, 46, of Monksbridge Road, said he had been stockpiling the drug in the event of riots in the street, rising oil prices and power shortages.
When police entered his house in May 2009 they found large amounts of food supplies in the hall and secret rooms which Jones had built for drug cultivation and to prepare for the impending crisis.
April 10, 2010 @ 7:52 PM
Maybe he was going to trade
Maybe he was going to trade the pot for food. Nice list of the Obama Illuminati, Arraya.
April 9, 2010 @ 5:44 PM
well, personally, I don’t
well, personally, I don’t trust a doctor who says i need surgery. id get several opinions, and do some of my own reserach, maybe talk to other people with the same problem. there is for instance a LOT of unnecessary back surgery int his country. i don’t trust my dentist. or my mechanic. or anyone pretty much who tells me something must be done. I trust my mom, though. She is very honest.
April 11, 2010 @ 1:37 PM
scaredycat wrote:well,
[quote=scaredycat]well, personally, I don’t trust a doctor who says i need surgery. id get several opinions, and do some of my own reserach, maybe talk to other people with the same problem. there is for instance a LOT of unnecessary back surgery int his country. i don’t trust my dentist. or my mechanic. or anyone pretty much who tells me something must be done. I trust my mom, though. She is very honest.[/quote]
Very good point. There’s some amount of caveat emptor. But in the end, you don’t have much choice but to trust the experts.
[quote=Aecetia] Nice list of the Obama Illuminati, Arraya.[/quote]
Remember that the bailouts were all put into motion by Bush. What’s done is hard to take back.
April 11, 2010 @ 2:08 PM
I’d say there is little
I’d say there is little choice but to distrust the experts. If a doctor told me i had to have angioplasty or a bypass operation, i’d probably tell him to f off. i’ve seen a lot of dumb lawyering with unintended consequences. I wouldn’t trust any accountant. i don’t see why i have little choice but to trust expert opinion, except in the sense that things are going to be done without my permission, which is understandable, but that doesn’t mean i trust or respect their opinion. I mistrust everyone who claims to know. Again, except my mom.
April 11, 2010 @ 6:02 PM
briansd1 wrote:scaredycat
[quote=briansd1][quote=scaredycat]well, personally, I don’t trust a doctor who says i need surgery. id get several opinions, and do some of my own reserach, maybe talk to other people with the same problem. there is for instance a LOT of unnecessary back surgery int his country. i don’t trust my dentist. or my mechanic. or anyone pretty much who tells me something must be done. I trust my mom, though. She is very honest.[/quote]
Very good point. There’s some amount of caveat emptor. But in the end, you don’t have much choice but to trust the experts.
[quote=Aecetia] Nice list of the Obama Illuminati, Arraya.[/quote]
Remember that the bailouts were all put into motion by Bush. What’s done is hard to take back.[/quote]
Brian,
Are you saying we’re supposed to trust the “experts” who brought on this calamity? The very same ones who supposedly “didn’t see it coming”?
Either they are idiots, or they are the most diabolical monsters who need to be strung up for their crimes against U.S. citizens.
Why in the world should we trust them?
April 11, 2010 @ 6:52 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Remember that
[quote=briansd1]
Remember that the bailouts were all put into motion by Bush. What’s done is hard to take back.[/quote]
And the deregulation was put into motion by Clinton
it was Rubin, and his “Democratic” proteges Lawrence Summers & Timmy Geithner, who helped uber-Right-Wing Republicans Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, Thomas Bliley, Dick Armey, Enron-Ken Lay, et al, PUSH President Clinton to SIGN the DEREGULATION atrocities, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 1999 & 2000, respectively.
[img_assist|nid=13142|title=What bubble?|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=304|height=400]
April 11, 2010 @ 7:02 PM
i think the best course of
i think the best course of action would not be to think about this stuff at all…
April 11, 2010 @ 7:18 PM
scaredycat wrote:i think the
[quote=scaredycat]i think the best course of action would not be to think about this stuff at all…[/quote]
Not much else to do when you are “landed poor”
April 12, 2010 @ 11:41 AM
Arraya wrote:
And the
[quote=Arraya]
And the deregulation was put into motion by Clinton
it was Rubin, and his “Democratic” proteges Lawrence Summers & Timmy Geithner, who helped uber-Right-Wing Republicans Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, Thomas Bliley, Dick Armey, Enron-Ken Lay, et al, PUSH President Clinton to SIGN the DEREGULATION atrocities, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 1999 & 2000, respectively.
[/quote]
Yes, you are correct. The uber-Right-Wing Republicans came up with the bright ideas.
At that time, they created new wealth for America. We were losing manufacturing jobs so a new financial industry seemed like a great idea.
If you take a world view, the American debt binge did save the world. We borrowed to consume and allowed the rest of the world to recover back in 1999. I believe that China benefited the most.
We felt rich for half a decade.
Back in 2008, we could have let the crisis take it own course or bailed out the banks, or intervene in some other way.
Bush, Paulson and Bernanke chose to bailout the banks.
We just have to pay for our profligacy over time. It’s arguably preferable to pay for our mistakes over time, than in one painful shot.
We now live in a globalized world. And we have to do everything to keep the world economy growing.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990206-1,00.html
April 12, 2010 @ 8:56 PM
I’m sure nationalizing the
I’m sure nationalizing the banks was discussed in detail. They probably concluded it was not politically palatable as accusations of Socialism would be flung with reckless abandon. I support a fourth option – Targeted Bailouts to Maintain Liquidity in the Credit Market. As one example, companies that enjoyed exceptional growth in the last decade went into heavy debt with little attention to their cash flow position. The precipitous decline in 08/09 revenues, much of it driven by irrational fear and not poor forecastng imo, scared the crap out of the leadership, resulting in edicts to conserve cash at all costs (layoffs, no discretionary spending, inventory purge, etc). This was necessary to payoff maturing bonds and provision for the possible freezing of the bond market. Those unable to pay but able to refinance would pay loan shark rates and may even be forced to collateralized assets. Those unable to refinance their corporate debt would meet probable death as their credit rating falls to junk status and stock prices collapse. Yes, don’t believe govt rhetoric. Next time talk to the leadership in your company if you work in the private sector and you might be surprised how many additional jobs hung in the balance. Where I work, I can tell you with absolute certainty the list for the next wave of layoffs were already completed by late 08, and these weren’t contract or entry level positions, but 100K+ solid middle class jobs. Luckily for us, all layoffs stopped by end of 08.
It’s true the banks are like inoperable cancer. Cut it out and you kill the host. I don’t support punishing the masses for the sins of the few. Lastly, let’s not forget these are loans with interest or equity ownership arrangements. When this is all over, I don’t think the taxpayer will lose as much as current projections. The GSE bailouts remains to be seen.
April 12, 2010 @ 11:20 PM
In 1920 the country was in a
In 1920 the country was in a pretty bad situation. Extremely high tax rates, the fed was printing money like there was no tomorrow, and we had just come out of a really tough world war. Interesting how the recovery from that depression was dealt with as opposed to the one that followed 10 years later.
April 13, 2010 @ 8:32 AM
SD Realtor wrote:In 1920 the
[quote=SD Realtor]In 1920 the country was in a pretty bad situation. Extremely high tax rates, the fed was printing money like there was no tomorrow, and we had just come out of a really tough world war. Interesting how the recovery from that depression was dealt with as opposed to the one that followed 10 years later.[/quote]
Don’t get started…you aren’t supposed to talk about this unfortunate bit of history because it doesn’t fit with the Progressive agenda of spending and taxing our way out of recession.
April 13, 2010 @ 11:06 AM
SD Realtor wrote:In 1920 the
[quote=SD Realtor]In 1920 the country was in a pretty bad situation. Extremely high tax rates, the fed was printing money like there was no tomorrow, and we had just come out of a really tough world war. Interesting how the recovery from that depression was dealt with as opposed to the one that followed 10 years later.[/quote]
There was no depression in the 1920s. That’s why call them the Roaring 20s. The bad mistakes of the 1920s cause the Depression in the 1930s.
Are you saying that we are repeating the mistakes of the 1920s?
April 13, 2010 @ 11:17 AM
briansd1 wrote:SD Realtor
[quote=briansd1][quote=SD Realtor]In 1920 the country was in a pretty bad situation. Extremely high tax rates, the fed was printing money like there was no tomorrow, and we had just come out of a really tough world war. Interesting how the recovery from that depression was dealt with as opposed to the one that followed 10 years later.[/quote]
There was no depression in the 1920s. That’s why call them the Roaring 20s. The bad mistakes of the 1920s cause the Depression in the 1930s.
Are you saying that we are repeating the mistakes of the 1920s?[/quote]
Read some freaking history Brian..
April 13, 2010 @ 11:46 AM
meadandale wrote:
Read some
[quote=meadandale]
Read some freaking history Brian..[/quote]
Like our president, I’m a history buff.
April 13, 2010 @ 11:54 AM
briansd1 wrote:meadandale
[quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]
Read some freaking history Brian..[/quote]
Like our president, I’m a history buff.[/quote]
And like him, you know just about as much about it.
April 13, 2010 @ 12:55 PM
Wow Brian… Love can be
Wow Brian… Love can be blind but at least try not to change history okay?
Here is a wiki link. You seem like a wiki kind of guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321
The depression of 1920 was actually pretty bad from what I read. No we are not repeating the mistakes of the 1920’s we are repeating the mistakes of the 30’s only to a much greater magnitude. It is okay though, at our present rate of govt spending our INTEREST alone will be at 800B a year in a decade from now. No problem though right?
April 13, 2010 @ 1:18 PM
Let’s see:
~50% decline in
Let’s see:
~50% decline in the stock market
Unemployment of upwards of 12% (depending on who’s figures you use)
Sound familiar?
What was the response of Harding and Coolidge? Dramatic increases in government spending? Tax increases? More regulation?
Nope…
He sharply cut the size of government and taxes resulting in the boom of the roaring 20’s where the American middle class saw the largest standard of living increase in our history.
No, Obama is following clearly in FDR’s footprints. Expanding government, taxation and entitlements and we are going to see a similar result: an economic malaise that drags on for a decade. Maybe we should go to war against somebody–that’s what finally ended the Great Depression…not any of FDR’s policies.
April 13, 2010 @ 1:49 PM
meadandale wrote:
What was
[quote=meadandale]
What was the response of Harding and Coolidge? Dramatic increases in government spending? Tax increases? More regulation?
Nope…
He sharply cut the size of government and taxes resulting in the boom of the roaring 20’s where the American middle class saw the largest standard of living increase in our history.
[/quote]
The policies of the 1920s caused the Great Depression.
Sounds like the Bush years. And what did we get?
[quote=meadandale]
No, Obama is following clearly in FDR’s footprints. Expanding government, taxation and entitlements and we are going to see a similar result: an economic malaise that drags on for a decade.
[/quote]
FDR inherited the depression and he set us up on the path to growth and stability.
[quote=meadandale]
Maybe we should go to war against somebody–that’s what finally ended the Great Depression…not any of FDR’s policies.[/quote]
Didn’t we try that already? We have 2 wars still going on.
April 13, 2010 @ 5:09 PM
meadandale wrote:
No, Obama
[quote=meadandale]
No, Obama is following clearly in FDR’s footprints. Expanding government, taxation and entitlements and we are going to see a similar result: an economic malaise that drags on for a decade. Maybe we should go to war against somebody–that’s what finally ended the Great Depression…not any of FDR’s policies.[/quote]
Not exactly. Government has grown, as much by the Bush bailout as the Obama bailout. Entitlements would have grown even if there had been no significant legislation, but there have also been additions, though most won’t take effect for awhile. But expanding taxation? with 98% of working families and individuals getting tax cuts you’re dead wrong on that one.
And beyond that, some more history lessons are in order. Over the last 50 years, employment has been better, economic growth has been better, stock market performance has been better, the reduction in the number of people living at or below the poverty level has been better, deficits have been smaller (or surpluses have been bigger) under Democratic presidents.
And an added bonus. This fiscal year deficit will be smaller than the previous fiscal year deficit, which included 4 months of the Bush administration and 8 months of the Obama administration.
You can argue that the economy has been better under Republican administrations. The facts, however, would not be very supportive.
April 13, 2010 @ 5:13 PM
It may very well have been
It may very well have been different if WW2 never happened. After the war much of the rest of the world was literally destroyed and we were the owners of technology and had the biggest industry. We had no excuse not to rule the latter half of the 20th century.
April 13, 2010 @ 7:17 PM
sd_matt wrote:It may very
[quote=sd_matt]It may very well have been different if WW2 never happened. [/quote]
Does it mean that serendipity or God (for those who believe in intelligent design) has consistently put Democrats at the right place at the right time?
Maybe he is the messiah after all. 😉
April 13, 2010 @ 10:32 PM
That is the problem at hand
That is the problem at hand Brian. You keep referencing a two party system and it is a no party system. You choose to find fault with a given party but seem to fall way short that the system is broke and that parties are meaningless. you may tacitly admit okay the system is broken but then you cling to well given things are f-cked I will defend to the end my party and my guy. You bite into the system hook line and sinker. As much as I have disagreement with Arraya on certain issues, he sees right through the charade of the system we have as well. He listed a host of many current players in the administration and you had not a word to say about it. It is a shame you cling with such veracity to your beliefs simply saying, well this turd is better then the turd we had so I am all in with this turd… People that used to debate with you don’t anymore, not because you are right or wrong but because you don’t have any recognition of how blindly and unquestioningly you have accepted things. It is certainly admirable, but also troubling in a certain manner of how others blindly believed what they were told in past history.
April 14, 2010 @ 1:31 PM
SD Realtor wrote:That is the
[quote=SD Realtor]That is the problem at hand Brian. You keep referencing a two party system and it is a no party system. You choose to find fault with a given party but seem to fall way short that the system is broke and that parties are meaningless. [/quote]
I respect your independence. It’s fine that you decided to turn your back on the two parties to find a third way.
I think that the two parties are not meaningless because they hold power. I feel that it’s better to work to change the direction of the parties.
Putting things into perspective, I believe that my position is much more reasonable than the Palin-as-savior mentality. Why would anyone want to put an uneducated airhead in power?
April 14, 2010 @ 1:45 PM
briansd1 wrote:I believe that
[quote=briansd1]I believe that my position is much more reasonable than the Palin-as-savior mentality. Why would anyone want to put an uneducated airhead in power?[/quote]
Of course you believe that your kool-aid sipping and water carrying for liberal progressive Democrats is more reasonable. Every liberal that I’ve met thinks that they are superior, more enlightened and better educated than the vast unwashed masses of ‘mouth breathing neo-cons’.
Believing something, even if you are a Democrat, doesn’t make it so. Maybe you should try clicking your heels together a couple of times?
April 14, 2010 @ 12:10 AM
briansd1 wrote:sd_matt
[quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]It may very well have been different if WW2 never happened. [/quote]
Does it mean that serendipity or God (for those who believe in intelligent design) has consistently put Democrats at the right place at the right time?
Maybe he is the messiah after all. ;)[/quote]
Granted I did throw a blow with the Manchurian Candidate comment. But it’s true. I’ll say it again. Look at the two in terms of accountability.
What are your standards for accountability? It’s a rhetorical question.
FYI I don’t believe in god.
I am not the dumbest nor smartest guy on the planet. I do like to read some history though. And even an average Joe like me can look at history and start to see patterns. It would behoove you to do the same.
Most everyone else here is thinking like a chess player. Sometimes I see you doing the same. Only sometimes. Then you switch back to party lines. I guess some of us need the grounding of something we can believe in, whether it is true or not. You may disagree with A.M. talk radio but you share their basic need. Different lines of rhetoric but the same pattern.
April 13, 2010 @ 7:09 PM
sd_matt wrote:
I don’t see
[quote=sd_matt]
I don’t see how you can be any more or less disgusted with either party. [/quote]
I never said that Democrats are angels. But a 2-party system Democrats are just much more preferable.
If I’m presented with a hamburger or a chicken sandwich for lunch, I’ll definitely choose the chicken sandwich. Ideally, I might prefer something else that’s not on the menu.
And as SK said:
[quote=SK in CV]
And beyond that, some more history lessons are in order. Over the last 50 years, employment has been better, economic growth has been better, stock market performance has been better, the reduction in the number of people living at or below the poverty level has been better, deficits have been smaller (or surpluses have been bigger) under Democratic presidents.
[/quote]
April 14, 2010 @ 1:51 AM
meadandale wrote:Let’s
[quote=meadandale]Let’s see:
~50% decline in the stock market
Unemployment of upwards of 12% (depending on who’s figures you use)
Sound familiar?
What was the response of Harding and Coolidge? Dramatic increases in government spending? Tax increases? More regulation?
Nope…
He sharply cut the size of government and taxes resulting in the boom of the roaring 20’s where the American middle class saw the largest standard of living increase in our history.
No, Obama is following clearly in FDR’s footprints. Expanding government, taxation and entitlements and we are going to see a similar result: an economic malaise that drags on for a decade. Maybe we should go to war against somebody–that’s what finally ended the Great Depression…not any of FDR’s policies.[/quote]
IMHO, credit expansion was responsible for the “good times” in the Roaring Twenties, just as it’s been responsible for most of the “growth” since the early 80s.
Lower taxes probably had very little to do with it when you compare the effects of lower taxes to the effects of massive credit expansion.
———————–
In 1920-1921 there was an acute recession, followed by the sustained recovery throughout the 1920s. The Federal Reserve expanded credit, by setting below market interest rates and low reserve requirements that favored big banks, and the money supply actually increased by about 60% during the time following the recession. By the latter part of the decade “buying on margin” entered the American vocabulary as more and more Americans over-extended themselves to speculate on the soaring stock market and expanding credit. Very few expected the crash that began in 1929, and none suspected it would be so drastic or so prolonged.
AND THIS:
The 1920s was a decade of increased consumer spending and economic growth fed by supply side economic policy. The post war, post progressive era political environment saw three consecutive Republican administrations in the U.S. All three took the moderate position of forging a close relationship between those in government and big business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties
——————
Sounds a lot like what the Republicans and Obama have been doing this past decade, and it’s exactly what caused the Great Depression and it’s what caused the “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.” Credit expansion is fun on the way up, but it’s hell on the way down. We have still not learned our lesson.
April 14, 2010 @ 11:17 AM
CA renter wrote:
Sounds a lot
[quote=CA renter]
Sounds a lot like what the Republicans and Obama have been doing this past decade, and it’s exactly what caused the Great Depression and it’s what caused the “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.” Credit expansion is fun on the way up, but it’s hell on the way down. We have still not learned our lesson.[/quote]
Yes, the thing is that the 2008 Financial Crisis caused a huge contraction in credit. The government stepped in the fill the gap and to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
The idea is that the government will step back when normalcy returns.
But of course, the profligacy of 2000-2008 will have to be paid back over time. It like charging a big wedding party on credit cards and paying for it over years.
April 14, 2010 @ 2:01 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Yes, the
[quote=briansd1]
Yes, the thing is that the 2008 Financial Crisis caused a huge contraction in credit. The government stepped in the fill the gap and to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
The idea is that the government will step back when normalcy returns.
But of course, the profligacy of 2000-2008 will have to be paid back over time. It like charging a big wedding party on credit cards and paying for it over years.[/quote]
Brian,
Sometimes, the “wheels of commerce” need to come to a screeching halt, particularly when credit bubbles grossly distort certain markets, and when money is being misallocated (as with asset bubbles).
Personally, I prefer the expensive wedding never happened. If it has to happen, I definitely prefer paying it off as quickly as possible. It’s foolish to pay for weddings over time.
April 14, 2010 @ 2:25 PM
CA renter wrote:
Personally,
[quote=CA renter]
Personally, I prefer the expensive wedding never happened. If it has to happen, I definitely prefer paying it off as quickly as possible. It’s foolish to pay for weddings over time.[/quote]
I agree with you.
But think of the magical memories of the dream wedding. You do it not just for you, but for your parents, friends and family; so it’s a sacrifice for the greater good. Plus it’s a once in a lifetime deal, right?
If you pay for it quickly, you have to endure that rented apartment, the beater car, and dinner at home.
Wouldn’t you rather lease that Lexus, buy that house using zero percent down, and charge the dinners out? 😉 It’s good for a long as it lasts.
Most young families don’t know of any other way. They got those credit cards upon high-school graduation and the rest is history.
April 15, 2010 @ 4:49 PM
Don’t even get me started on
Don’t even get me started on the “magical dream wedding” scam.
April 13, 2010 @ 1:43 PM
SD Realtor wrote:
The
[quote=SD Realtor]
The depression of 1920 was actually pretty bad from what I read.
[/quote]
We had more frequent booms and busts in the past.
The economic gyrations up and down are much less now, thanks to government intervention.
[quote=SD Realtor]
No we are not repeating the mistakes of the 1920’s we are repeating the mistakes of the 30’s only to a much greater magnitude. [/quote]
I thought the golden years of the American Century were the period after the Great Depression, during and after the WWII (when America enjoyed world dominance and the greatest share of world GDP).
[quote=SD Realtor]
It is okay though, at our present rate of govt spending our INTEREST alone will be at 800B a year in a decade from now. No problem though right?[/quote]
Are you expecting a depression to result?
April 13, 2010 @ 10:27 AM
Smaller banks should have
Smaller banks should have been shored up with bailout funds and the large banks such as Citi, Chase, Wells Fargo and BOFA should have been allowed to go under taking their investors down with them. Today we would have healthy competition and lots of healthy smaller banks instead of 4 huge uncompetitive ones!