Not sure what had the "risk been shown" means. But as long as the rating agencies knew the rough amount of rotating balance of such instruments that any one bank had on hand, it became the rating agencies' job to calculate their own VAR. The fact that the rating agencies failed hardly makes it the banks' fault.
And I really don't know what "greed based occupation" means. I can assure you that the most poor people I know are much greedier than most rich people I know. That is if we are talking about greed as an emotion. But all a trader does is try to get as close as possible to being a market maker. Sometimes they end up holding, but in trading, the more you hold on hand the worse you are doing. They need to be flipping as soon as they can.
This repeated phrase "deregulation" sound pretty hollow at this point. I call bull shit. Anyone who wants to say "deregulation" has to say what specifically they are talking about. Which regulatory practices were abandoned and at what point in time. Otherwise, this statement is just repeated as a religious dogma.
I am not sure that we have evolved to deal with a group larger than a large size tribe. 150 is the order of magnitude that we can view as the largest possible social unit that we find ourselves in (a corporate branch, a small company, a church, etc.) Anything beyond that needs further subdivision or we call it "chaos". That's hasn't really stood in our way of development though. I think what stands in our way of development is that we view those outside of our unit as prey.
also, it's admirable the phenomenal progress you're already making on your stated goal. keep at it!
How funny. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/the-real-high-tech-immigrant-problem-theyre-leaving/ People are going back to India rather than stay here. I am sure you'll find a way to make a joke of it. But objectively it does make a statement about where we are. Of course, this is coming from a bastion of conservative propaganda NYTimes, so it must be heavily skewed to smear the current party in power.
Oh, if only I could mod that one phrase up for irony. You are feeding a troll during lunch. Oh, boy...
i never suggested that complexity is incomprehensible
You did just that. You never said it outright. But you certainly did suggest it. Your whole post makes no sense if you are ambivalent as to whether or not complexity can be understood. As for your correlational argument that you want regulation similar to the one present during a period when the entire world was rebuilding from WWII, then, since we are allowed to imply causality through correlation in this fantasy world, let's get back to the regulatory levels of the Gilded Age. The pace of improvement in the quality of life was faster then. Better yet, think of the poor! The rate of poverty was dropping rapidly until the government started the war on poverty. It stayed flat since then.
but i'm not aware of very many "people like me" in that regard
I was referring to the position you were presenting in your arguments -- not your personality outside of that position.
That's not greed. That's trading. Holding volatile trading instruments is a normal part of trading. It's just how it's done. Those who assign blame for a disaster on normal behavior almost certainly are diverting attention from the actual causes of the disaster.
As for your continued claim that "ideal monetary supply" is impossible. Well, duh! That's part of the point! The reason FED chair is appointed for such a long term is that he is supposed to be immune from political influence. So that his decisions would be based solely on an attempt to create a fiat currency that is as close as possible in availability as is needed by the current level of economic activity. This is done under the assumption that this careful planning can be as efficient as the commodity-backed negotiated currency but without influence by private interests. Naturally, you realize that such assumption is ludicrous in today's world. FED is heavily politicized and uses economic policy as the key to setting the rate rather than economic activity. Bubbles are much more limited with real money because one can't simply double the supply of a precious metal (for example). As for the "no one disputes" that inflationary policy is a good thing, that's just not true. The view that inflation is a form of taxation is becoming more and more prevalent.
Three quarters is not a recession adequate to correct for the scale of the dot com bubble. The myth that the business cycle is a cycle might be where the misunderstanding stems from. It's more of a e^(tx)sin(t) than sin(t) curve. With the e^(tx) peaks happening every time a new technology is introduced into the economy. The recession is supposed to get more severe if no new techs are introduced. And recovery is supposed to be very mild (because the uptick in the graph is too small). No major technological breakthroughs happened in the early 2k. The only thing that got economic activity going was the housing construction. Which of course had to crash in a major way because housing is not a new economic sector -- it doesn't stimulate further development of other techs and sectors.
Lastly, it's impossible to talk about causes without being wrong. It's only possible to talk about contributing influences. Because just as every action has multiple consequences, every event has multiple necessary contributing influences. Without acknowledging this, one can discredit every influencing factor as irrelevant. The litmus test for whether something may be a contributing influence or not is whether or not it was present before the event was set in motion. Were banks always greedy? Yes. Did rating agencies always lie? No. Was CRA heavily enforced in the 90's? No. Were banks always repackaging mortgages into bonds? Yes. Was FED rate lower before the bubble? No. The No's have a chance of contributing. The Yes's do not. The often repeated claim of lowered regulation may or may not be true. I am not certain, because I've also read the claim that Bush increased employment at regulatory agencies by 70% under the Republican Congress (the first 6 years). That doesn't seem like lower regulation. But, of course, it's a matter of what those regulators were doing. I can't say. But any blank statement that regulation was lowered better not originate from the same source as the one that discusses celebrities' breeding habits.
Man, I've lowered my standard for the kinds of people I respond to. Usually the ad hominems that include "learn to", "obviously", "think about it", etc. are precisely where I walk away from the conversation. The problem with this one is that otherwise reasonable people get excited enough that they step away from the rules of polite debate. I'll respond to you despite the "you are confused" vitriol. But honestly, my patience with these is wearing thin despite the fact that I am willing to give some leeway for the emotionally charged nature of this topic.
I didn't say that it was the rates or CRA. I said that the inflation was caused by lowered rates. And that is indisputable. Again, the rates were kept so artificially low that the government was (for a brief period of time) forced to lend at a loss. What the CRA did was make sure that the excess capital was soaked up by the housing industry and that the inflation would occur in that industry and not effect the rest of the economy. http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-folks-the-cra-really-did-require-crap-lending-standards-2009-6 outlines the premise. And the Q&A afterwards address a number of one-variable arguments that this assertion causes.
As for "turd bricks" comment, "ticking bombs" is more appropriate, but more to the point, I have no problems with putting people who work for the rating agencies in jails for a very, very long time. They seem to be guilty of fraud. So does Kramer & Co., but it looks like the fraudsters are the ones who are not called out at all. I did mention in some of the previous comments that I think the current mood is the opposite of what is right -- ignore the fraud and punish the greed. While greed is perfectly fine if its moderated by strong punishment for fraud.
Ok, this is such simple economics that the fact that most of the people are not getting is almost sad. The fact the media is reporting what they are told without a modicum of analysis is even sadder. It's a complete bankruptcy of main stream media as an institution, as far as I am concerned. It's just too simple to get it so wrong.
There is a certain level of economic activity at any one time. Let's call it X(t) (t is the variable indicating the point in time). Economic activity is based on exchange. It requires tokens that are used to negotiate exchange. Those tokens are called "money". Let's call the number of tokens in circulation at time t, M(t). Let's say some time passes. Let's say that time is d (short for delta). The economic activity is now X(t+d).
If M(t+d)=M(t)*X(t+d)/X(t), then you have equilibrium. If M(t+d)>M(t)*X(t+d)/X(t), you get inflation (because M(t+d)/X(t+d)>M(t)/X(t)). How is it that the entire population of COMMUNICATION MAJORS cannot communicate this is beyond me. Let's not pretend that this is high math either -- this is grade 7 (or grade 6 if you actually bother to study in school). Now, once inflationary condition exists (ie, M(t+d)/X(t+d)>M(t)/X(t)), the prices of SOME products will go up.
By keeping the interest rate too low, the FED made borrowing too cheap and thereby created the inflationary condition.
So why did the general price levels stayed flat while housing went up? Because the money was pushed in the direction of the housing industry. How do you do that? By lending money to those who cannot afford the mortgages. Why would banks engage in such self-destructive behavior? Did they lack foresight? No. They know how to mind the money. They were penalized for not lending to "low income borrowers". To avoid the penalties they had to invent new types of mortgages that were much riskier (that's what lending to those who can't afford it means -- taking higher risk). Of course, they knew that those mortgages were risky and didn't want to keep them on the books. So they sold them off in bonds. Mind you, selling mortgages off in bonds is nothing new. But if someone just forced you to buy junk and you have a store which sells stuff, you'll try to sell off that junk in your store.... apparently that makes you evil and greedy... I am not sure why. It seems to me that those who forced you to buy that junk are the ones at fault.
All the arguments that only a small percentage of mortgages were made to low income borrowers are incredibly deceptive. In general having a 5% shortage creates a 20% or higher jump in price. So as more and more new people entered the housing market, the prices went up faster than the number of people in the market.
Anyone who thinks that FED was not intentionally creating an inflationary policy is either lying or clueless. I remember how as far back as 2002 it was clear that the government was already lending money at a rate lower than the rate at which it was investing it. So it was already investing money at a loss just to keep this lending spree going.
It was done to postpone a recession. A recession which was supposed to happen after the dot com bust and never did. Anyone who was around technology in the 90's should remember that everyone talked about analogy of 7 years of biblical famine that were supposed to happen after the dot com bubble would finally burst. But it never happened. Why? Because the government tried to put it off by creating the housing bubble. And now they are desperately trying to blame middlemen for doing essentially what they are supposed to be doing. With all kinds of nonsense stories about excessively high salaries on Wall Street, etc. As if that's new. The creation and the burst of this bubble is squarely on the shoulder of those who tried to do economic planing -- to "ease the pain of the poor".
In 20-30 seconds, one could ask a simple question: which article of The Constitution gives you the authority to do any of what you are proposing? If you can't name the article, how do you reconcile your proposals with the 10th amendment explicitly prohibiting you from doing anything you are not explicitly authorized to do by The Constitution?
Many things that definitely are his job or at least partially his job (national budget, tax and tariff policies, war powers etc.) impact the economy to the point where he does bear some overall responsibility for it.
Not legally, but hey, what's law got to do with it? Congress holds the power of the purse and the power to declare war.
Who knows, maybe he should listen to you and stop worrying about it.
My hope is that it is precisely what he is doing. He has a lot of pressure from the loon-train of his party and his supporters to enact insanity into law. I am just hoping that he is a conservative at heart (as one of his Harvard professors thought he and his wife were). And that he is just passing the crazy ideas along hoping that somebody along the line will put a stop to them. A true conservative is not the one who spews conservative rhetoric but the one who puts the pieces in place so that the board assumes a conservative position. And a conservative president would do as little as possible about the economy and basically stay out of the way of people doing their work.
Just remember, if this man set his mind to wining, he would win. We've seen that much. The ambivalence with which he is proposing this legislature shows to me that he is happy to let it die. Of course, it's not a guarantee. Sometimes people are desperate and crazy enough to elect the golden calf to be god even when they know they just made it up out of their own jewelery (he is Aaron in this analogy, if it's not clear... with reasonable behavior being god).
LOL not in my house.
Why? The price of pot would drop to the price of tobacco cigarettes. As a matter of fact, tobacco companies would probably be the ones who'd start making packaging them.... which could be why he doesn't want the legalization: tobacco companies support the "other" party. Oh, I can just see a fanboi screaming "are you high? republicans would never legalize pot". For that fanboi: that's not at all what I am saying.
Lest it seem like I am attacking the messenger, let me be more clear. It's not that I think what he has to say is of no value because he is the one saying it. It is that I believe that he has zero commitment to honesty and has zero credibility as far as I am concerned. He has completely discredited himself at this point.
I've heard this guy talk before. I am happy to dismiss everything he has to say now in the same breath as I dismiss Chomsky and the rest of that crew. I don't care what the new Communist party has to say. It's nothing new. It's just repackaged. And I am bored with them.
lol. had to correct myself on this one. spell checkers are funny sometimes. secularized mortgages... there is an irony somewhere in that one. securitized is what i meant, of course.
complexity IS NOT incomprehensible. suggesting otherwise is an attempt at distraction from the issue under discussion. in SU the government controlled (and by corollary regulated) all the industry. we are not there yet... but people who think like you are really trying to get us there as fast as possible. i don't care anymore. if this country keeps on the road it's taken, i'm just going to commit myself to being as useless as possible. see if your slogans will feed you.
Home ownership went from 20% to 30% in 10 years. The deregulation only eased the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. Mortgages were ALWAYS secularized... well, at LEAST since the 80s. The propaganda campaign that is being pushed out is only convincing those who want to find the excuse with "capitalists" in the first place. Frankly, it's not convincing many of them, either. It doesn't sit right with anyone who has half a brain for a simple reason: it confuses cause and effect. The line about preventing the bubble by causing higher inflation was funny. Thanks for the laugh. Let's see... what have I not covered yet? I suppose that if you believe that the FED cannot keep money consistent with the level of economic activity, then you are gonna have to support disbanding it (because it was formed under the premise that it could and would do just that). Greed doesn't need to be kept in check. Fraud needs to be kept in check. Greed drives progress as long as fraud is kept in check. This government seems to be doing the opposite (allowing fraud to run rampant and engaging in it on its own while trying to keep the greed in check). Oh, yeah... he is not supporting the unions... right.... democratic party... unions are the largest donors.... first rule of any investigation is follow the money.... blah, blah, blah... let's ignore the obvious because we have no "proof"... right. whatever. we substituted an administration that was selling an obvious big lie for an administration that is trying to get away with a subtle bigger lie.
If the US is still in the midst of economic meltdown, cutting spending is the last thing they should be doing.
If I recall, the government of the Soviet Union spend quite a bit of money on the Soviet Union economy. Some might argue that is what caused their meltdown. But then again, some might argue that the only thing that anyone learns from history is that no one ever learns from history...
Toytas are made in America. Bailing out GM means sponsoring Toyota's competition. If GM went bankrupt, more jobs would have to be created by Toyota to make more cars that would be bought instead of the GM's that are being bought now. So he is sponsoring American jobs at a bad car companies while preventing a good American car company from hiring. This is done under the guise of "saving jobs". Why is he even bothering with the hypocrisy? Because GM is unionized and Toyota is not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FS5B-CynM exposes his hypocrisy on education quite well.
Oh, and the biggest hypocrisy of all is the attempt to blame the banking industry for the bubble created by Fannie Mae regulation. Yes, yes, I know... greed. It's new. They are trying greed for the first time. Before that there was none of it happening. The fact that Fannie Mae regulation REQUIRED banks to loan to less eligible borrows thus increasing the banks' exposure to risk is somehow swept under the rug. The fact that FED completely failed in its mission to keep monetary supply consistent with the level of economic activity is somehow conveniently overlooked when discussing what created the bubble. It was greed, greed, greed.... repeat after me... louder now!
The fact that he has NO (none whatsoever) education in economics somehow qualifies him to make predictions as to how his economic plan will pan out? Please, please, please, tell me that "he has good advisers"... because that was the line that everyone told each other to console themselves about the fact the the president was George Bush.
bleh... I'll stop... I am sure you'll want to jump in and divert attention from what I said to some way of saying that "but look at what the crazy evil stupid Republicans are doing." After all, it's Sunday night. And Timothy posted this one with what I can only suspect was a bucket of pop corn ready at his side.
Yep. The anxious need for schadenfreude is precisely what motivates me. You got me! I am also not the author of Progress and Nihilism.
Luckily for you, I am stupid enough to miss the fact that your question is loaded. It heavily relies on the false premise that the President is able to fix this problem. My attention span is short enough that I forget that this is the man that managed to run a presidential campaign against 9 more experienced rivals and then won the general election against a decorated veteran and a war hero. Couple that with the fact I and everyone else has no idea that large-scale campaigns (in order to be successful) must run daily polls on every angle of their message. Then you'll really have us scratching our heads as to why would a President with resources 10,000 times in excess of the resources of a candidate is not commissioning scientific polls, but is rather making a gesture appeal to one of the most loony audiences he can find.
I hope my dim mind sees the light for at least a brief enough moment to realize that appealing to loons in order to create the illusion of being a populist is just ANOTHER trick in the hands of con men. It is more creative than putting ring men among those who question you, but it is still just a sleight of hand.
aawee schadenfreude... it's soooo cute when shills learn from what they see on TV. Let me quote you another line from Alan Shore (since you are so clearly a fan): "sincerity...once you learn to fake that, there'll be no stopping you."
The Obama administration is far, far better than any Bush administration.
I agree. They are much, much better liars. Listening to Bush lie was boring. It was obvious. It insulted my intelligence. While Obama's lies are grandiose. They are eloquent. They take at least 10-15 seconds to parse through before the waaaait-a-minute moment. It's a pleasure. We are very fortunate to have a much more skillful entertainer in the White House.
As opposed to 100% moderated filtering of questions (for further dissemination as coming "from the people")? Questions which are collected from a heavily a polarized population (of youtube viewers) which lacks no lackeys? That makes him a MORE effective propagandist -- not some man of the people that you are trying to convince us that he is.
That statement doesn't leave room for "less than 50%"
Fair enough. My language could have been more accurate. Instead it was colloquial. I suspect the distinction caught your eye because you happen to be in the group which my language didn't account for.
I'm basing my observations on actual observation.
Unless that involves some sort of census position (private or public), that experience in anecdotal.
I've lived in the state for a while. I'd still like to know where you're getting your 4-5 million number from and why you think that they represent only highly-educated people. I know quite a few people that work in Manhattan, live in NJ, and who are not highly educated.
I've lived in a number of places in NJ and worked in and out of NYC. Having lived in a number of places in the state, I had a chance to observe commuting patterns. The numbers that I got for the population sizes and number of commuters are derived from general information sources (I used to read a number of of newspapers everyday... I had to scale it down quite a bit after I realized that I was going through 4 newspapers a day... so I am afraid I can't give you an exact link or reference). As for the level of education of NYC commuters, these people are going through the grueling commute only because much higher salaries can be had in the city. And I am talking about the 8-10, 4-7 commuters. So they are not students. They are professionals. So we are talking about professionals wth salaries large enough to justify grueling commute. I am not sure how much I can merge these wide-ranged personal experience with more general data that gathered from various news sources and which I find interesting enough that I, apparently, keep it in my head before I simply say that I am satisfied with the level of information that I have to reach the conclusion that I reached.
Another (seemingly unrelated) piece of evidence that speaks volumes for the education level of the state is that it is one of the few states (if not the only one) where the largest voting block are independents (ie, more independents than Republcans or Democrats). Despite all the attempted demonization of independents in the last election, these are the people who decide on case-by-case basis on the issues when they vote. And careful consideration (as opposed to blind commitment) is a mark of an educated mind.
All human activity requires energy. Decreasing energy consumption means decreasing the general level of all consumption (aka "standard of living"). If you want to be honest about it, call it a "Reduced Standard Of Living Act" and then see if the electorate still buys it. If you think there is a compelling argument for reducing the standard of living (in order to stretch out the life-span of humanity, for example), then make that argument. But deceiving the general public on such a grandiose scale (pretending that an innocuous bill is being passed that will somehow fix our future and yet have no effect on every-day Joe) is vile.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure what had the "risk been shown" means. But as long as the rating agencies knew the rough amount of rotating balance of such instruments that any one bank had on hand, it became the rating agencies' job to calculate their own VAR. The fact that the rating agencies failed hardly makes it the banks' fault.
And I really don't know what "greed based occupation" means. I can assure you that the most poor people I know are much greedier than most rich people I know. That is if we are talking about greed as an emotion. But all a trader does is try to get as close as possible to being a market maker. Sometimes they end up holding, but in trading, the more you hold on hand the worse you are doing. They need to be flipping as soon as they can.
This repeated phrase "deregulation" sound pretty hollow at this point. I call bull shit. Anyone who wants to say "deregulation" has to say what specifically they are talking about. Which regulatory practices were abandoned and at what point in time. Otherwise, this statement is just repeated as a religious dogma.
I am not sure that we have evolved to deal with a group larger than a large size tribe. 150 is the order of magnitude that we can view as the largest possible social unit that we find ourselves in (a corporate branch, a small company, a church, etc.) Anything beyond that needs further subdivision or we call it "chaos". That's hasn't really stood in our way of development though. I think what stands in our way of development is that we view those outside of our unit as prey.
also, it's admirable the phenomenal progress you're already making on your stated goal. keep at it!
How funny. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/the-real-high-tech-immigrant-problem-theyre-leaving/ People are going back to India rather than stay here. I am sure you'll find a way to make a joke of it. But objectively it does make a statement about where we are. Of course, this is coming from a bastion of conservative propaganda NYTimes, so it must be heavily skewed to smear the current party in power.
feeding trolls is a fun lunchtime break
Oh, if only I could mod that one phrase up for irony. You are feeding a troll during lunch. Oh, boy...
i never suggested that complexity is incomprehensible
You did just that. You never said it outright. But you certainly did suggest it. Your whole post makes no sense if you are ambivalent as to whether or not complexity can be understood. As for your correlational argument that you want regulation similar to the one present during a period when the entire world was rebuilding from WWII, then, since we are allowed to imply causality through correlation in this fantasy world, let's get back to the regulatory levels of the Gilded Age. The pace of improvement in the quality of life was faster then. Better yet, think of the poor! The rate of poverty was dropping rapidly until the government started the war on poverty. It stayed flat since then.
but i'm not aware of very many "people like me" in that regard
I was referring to the position you were presenting in your arguments -- not your personality outside of that position.
That's not greed. That's trading. Holding volatile trading instruments is a normal part of trading. It's just how it's done. Those who assign blame for a disaster on normal behavior almost certainly are diverting attention from the actual causes of the disaster.
As for your continued claim that "ideal monetary supply" is impossible. Well, duh! That's part of the point! The reason FED chair is appointed for such a long term is that he is supposed to be immune from political influence. So that his decisions would be based solely on an attempt to create a fiat currency that is as close as possible in availability as is needed by the current level of economic activity. This is done under the assumption that this careful planning can be as efficient as the commodity-backed negotiated currency but without influence by private interests. Naturally, you realize that such assumption is ludicrous in today's world. FED is heavily politicized and uses economic policy as the key to setting the rate rather than economic activity. Bubbles are much more limited with real money because one can't simply double the supply of a precious metal (for example). As for the "no one disputes" that inflationary policy is a good thing, that's just not true. The view that inflation is a form of taxation is becoming more and more prevalent.
Three quarters is not a recession adequate to correct for the scale of the dot com bubble. The myth that the business cycle is a cycle might be where the misunderstanding stems from. It's more of a e^(tx)sin(t) than sin(t) curve. With the e^(tx) peaks happening every time a new technology is introduced into the economy. The recession is supposed to get more severe if no new techs are introduced. And recovery is supposed to be very mild (because the uptick in the graph is too small). No major technological breakthroughs happened in the early 2k. The only thing that got economic activity going was the housing construction. Which of course had to crash in a major way because housing is not a new economic sector -- it doesn't stimulate further development of other techs and sectors.
Lastly, it's impossible to talk about causes without being wrong. It's only possible to talk about contributing influences. Because just as every action has multiple consequences, every event has multiple necessary contributing influences. Without acknowledging this, one can discredit every influencing factor as irrelevant. The litmus test for whether something may be a contributing influence or not is whether or not it was present before the event was set in motion. Were banks always greedy? Yes. Did rating agencies always lie? No. Was CRA heavily enforced in the 90's? No. Were banks always repackaging mortgages into bonds? Yes. Was FED rate lower before the bubble? No. The No's have a chance of contributing. The Yes's do not. The often repeated claim of lowered regulation may or may not be true. I am not certain, because I've also read the claim that Bush increased employment at regulatory agencies by 70% under the Republican Congress (the first 6 years). That doesn't seem like lower regulation. But, of course, it's a matter of what those regulators were doing. I can't say. But any blank statement that regulation was lowered better not originate from the same source as the one that discusses celebrities' breeding habits.
Man, I've lowered my standard for the kinds of people I respond to. Usually the ad hominems that include "learn to", "obviously", "think about it", etc. are precisely where I walk away from the conversation. The problem with this one is that otherwise reasonable people get excited enough that they step away from the rules of polite debate. I'll respond to you despite the "you are confused" vitriol. But honestly, my patience with these is wearing thin despite the fact that I am willing to give some leeway for the emotionally charged nature of this topic.
I didn't say that it was the rates or CRA. I said that the inflation was caused by lowered rates. And that is indisputable. Again, the rates were kept so artificially low that the government was (for a brief period of time) forced to lend at a loss. What the CRA did was make sure that the excess capital was soaked up by the housing industry and that the inflation would occur in that industry and not effect the rest of the economy. http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-folks-the-cra-really-did-require-crap-lending-standards-2009-6 outlines the premise. And the Q&A afterwards address a number of one-variable arguments that this assertion causes.
As for "turd bricks" comment, "ticking bombs" is more appropriate, but more to the point, I have no problems with putting people who work for the rating agencies in jails for a very, very long time. They seem to be guilty of fraud. So does Kramer & Co., but it looks like the fraudsters are the ones who are not called out at all. I did mention in some of the previous comments that I think the current mood is the opposite of what is right -- ignore the fraud and punish the greed. While greed is perfectly fine if its moderated by strong punishment for fraud.
You do realize that the claim of "greed" is made against those reselling the mortgages. Those holding them weren't acting greedy -- just plain dumb.
Ok, this is such simple economics that the fact that most of the people are not getting is almost sad. The fact the media is reporting what they are told without a modicum of analysis is even sadder. It's a complete bankruptcy of main stream media as an institution, as far as I am concerned. It's just too simple to get it so wrong.
There is a certain level of economic activity at any one time. Let's call it X(t) (t is the variable indicating the point in time). Economic activity is based on exchange. It requires tokens that are used to negotiate exchange. Those tokens are called "money". Let's call the number of tokens in circulation at time t, M(t). Let's say some time passes. Let's say that time is d (short for delta). The economic activity is now X(t+d).
If M(t+d)=M(t)*X(t+d)/X(t), then you have equilibrium. If M(t+d)>M(t)*X(t+d)/X(t), you get inflation (because M(t+d)/X(t+d)>M(t)/X(t)). How is it that the entire population of COMMUNICATION MAJORS cannot communicate this is beyond me. Let's not pretend that this is high math either -- this is grade 7 (or grade 6 if you actually bother to study in school). Now, once inflationary condition exists (ie, M(t+d)/X(t+d)>M(t)/X(t)), the prices of SOME products will go up.
By keeping the interest rate too low, the FED made borrowing too cheap and thereby created the inflationary condition. So why did the general price levels stayed flat while housing went up? Because the money was pushed in the direction of the housing industry. How do you do that? By lending money to those who cannot afford the mortgages. Why would banks engage in such self-destructive behavior? Did they lack foresight? No. They know how to mind the money. They were penalized for not lending to "low income borrowers". To avoid the penalties they had to invent new types of mortgages that were much riskier (that's what lending to those who can't afford it means -- taking higher risk). Of course, they knew that those mortgages were risky and didn't want to keep them on the books. So they sold them off in bonds. Mind you, selling mortgages off in bonds is nothing new. But if someone just forced you to buy junk and you have a store which sells stuff, you'll try to sell off that junk in your store.... apparently that makes you evil and greedy... I am not sure why. It seems to me that those who forced you to buy that junk are the ones at fault.
All the arguments that only a small percentage of mortgages were made to low income borrowers are incredibly deceptive. In general having a 5% shortage creates a 20% or higher jump in price. So as more and more new people entered the housing market, the prices went up faster than the number of people in the market.
Anyone who thinks that FED was not intentionally creating an inflationary policy is either lying or clueless. I remember how as far back as 2002 it was clear that the government was already lending money at a rate lower than the rate at which it was investing it. So it was already investing money at a loss just to keep this lending spree going.
It was done to postpone a recession. A recession which was supposed to happen after the dot com bust and never did. Anyone who was around technology in the 90's should remember that everyone talked about analogy of 7 years of biblical famine that were supposed to happen after the dot com bubble would finally burst. But it never happened. Why? Because the government tried to put it off by creating the housing bubble. And now they are desperately trying to blame middlemen for doing essentially what they are supposed to be doing. With all kinds of nonsense stories about excessively high salaries on Wall Street, etc. As if that's new. The creation and the burst of this bubble is squarely on the shoulder of those who tried to do economic planing -- to "ease the pain of the poor".
In 20-30 seconds, one could ask a simple question: which article of The Constitution gives you the authority to do any of what you are proposing? If you can't name the article, how do you reconcile your proposals with the 10th amendment explicitly prohibiting you from doing anything you are not explicitly authorized to do by The Constitution?
Many things that definitely are his job or at least partially his job (national budget, tax and tariff policies, war powers etc.) impact the economy to the point where he does bear some overall responsibility for it.
Not legally, but hey, what's law got to do with it? Congress holds the power of the purse and the power to declare war.
Who knows, maybe he should listen to you and stop worrying about it.
My hope is that it is precisely what he is doing. He has a lot of pressure from the loon-train of his party and his supporters to enact insanity into law. I am just hoping that he is a conservative at heart (as one of his Harvard professors thought he and his wife were). And that he is just passing the crazy ideas along hoping that somebody along the line will put a stop to them. A true conservative is not the one who spews conservative rhetoric but the one who puts the pieces in place so that the board assumes a conservative position. And a conservative president would do as little as possible about the economy and basically stay out of the way of people doing their work.
Just remember, if this man set his mind to wining, he would win. We've seen that much. The ambivalence with which he is proposing this legislature shows to me that he is happy to let it die. Of course, it's not a guarantee. Sometimes people are desperate and crazy enough to elect the golden calf to be god even when they know they just made it up out of their own jewelery (he is Aaron in this analogy, if it's not clear... with reasonable behavior being god).
LOL not in my house.
Why? The price of pot would drop to the price of tobacco cigarettes. As a matter of fact, tobacco companies would probably be the ones who'd start making packaging them.... which could be why he doesn't want the legalization: tobacco companies support the "other" party. Oh, I can just see a fanboi screaming "are you high? republicans would never legalize pot". For that fanboi: that's not at all what I am saying.
Lest it seem like I am attacking the messenger, let me be more clear. It's not that I think what he has to say is of no value because he is the one saying it. It is that I believe that he has zero commitment to honesty and has zero credibility as far as I am concerned. He has completely discredited himself at this point.
I've heard this guy talk before. I am happy to dismiss everything he has to say now in the same breath as I dismiss Chomsky and the rest of that crew. I don't care what the new Communist party has to say. It's nothing new. It's just repackaged. And I am bored with them.
lol. had to correct myself on this one. spell checkers are funny sometimes. secularized mortgages... there is an irony somewhere in that one. securitized is what i meant, of course.
complexity IS NOT incomprehensible. suggesting otherwise is an attempt at distraction from the issue under discussion. in SU the government controlled (and by corollary regulated) all the industry. we are not there yet... but people who think like you are really trying to get us there as fast as possible. i don't care anymore. if this country keeps on the road it's taken, i'm just going to commit myself to being as useless as possible. see if your slogans will feed you.
Home ownership went from 20% to 30% in 10 years. The deregulation only eased the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. Mortgages were ALWAYS secularized... well, at LEAST since the 80s. The propaganda campaign that is being pushed out is only convincing those who want to find the excuse with "capitalists" in the first place. Frankly, it's not convincing many of them, either. It doesn't sit right with anyone who has half a brain for a simple reason: it confuses cause and effect. The line about preventing the bubble by causing higher inflation was funny. Thanks for the laugh. Let's see... what have I not covered yet? I suppose that if you believe that the FED cannot keep money consistent with the level of economic activity, then you are gonna have to support disbanding it (because it was formed under the premise that it could and would do just that). Greed doesn't need to be kept in check. Fraud needs to be kept in check. Greed drives progress as long as fraud is kept in check. This government seems to be doing the opposite (allowing fraud to run rampant and engaging in it on its own while trying to keep the greed in check). Oh, yeah... he is not supporting the unions... right.... democratic party... unions are the largest donors.... first rule of any investigation is follow the money.... blah, blah, blah... let's ignore the obvious because we have no "proof"... right. whatever. we substituted an administration that was selling an obvious big lie for an administration that is trying to get away with a subtle bigger lie.
If the US is still in the midst of economic meltdown, cutting spending is the last thing they should be doing.
If I recall, the government of the Soviet Union spend quite a bit of money on the Soviet Union economy. Some might argue that is what caused their meltdown. But then again, some might argue that the only thing that anyone learns from history is that no one ever learns from history...
Wasn't bush-era science policy anti-clowning?
That was great. Absolutely brilliant! /hatoff
bleh... I'll stop... I am sure you'll want to jump in and divert attention from what I said to some way of saying that "but look at what the crazy evil stupid Republicans are doing." After all, it's Sunday night. And Timothy posted this one with what I can only suspect was a bucket of pop corn ready at his side.
Yep. The anxious need for schadenfreude is precisely what motivates me. You got me! I am also not the author of Progress and Nihilism.
Luckily for you, I am stupid enough to miss the fact that your question is loaded. It heavily relies on the false premise that the President is able to fix this problem. My attention span is short enough that I forget that this is the man that managed to run a presidential campaign against 9 more experienced rivals and then won the general election against a decorated veteran and a war hero. Couple that with the fact I and everyone else has no idea that large-scale campaigns (in order to be successful) must run daily polls on every angle of their message. Then you'll really have us scratching our heads as to why would a President with resources 10,000 times in excess of the resources of a candidate is not commissioning scientific polls, but is rather making a gesture appeal to one of the most loony audiences he can find.
I hope my dim mind sees the light for at least a brief enough moment to realize that appealing to loons in order to create the illusion of being a populist is just ANOTHER trick in the hands of con men. It is more creative than putting ring men among those who question you, but it is still just a sleight of hand.
aawee schadenfreude... it's soooo cute when shills learn from what they see on TV. Let me quote you another line from Alan Shore (since you are so clearly a fan): "sincerity...once you learn to fake that, there'll be no stopping you."
Only if you say it with a French accent and a bad shave.
The Obama administration is far, far better than any Bush administration.
I agree. They are much, much better liars. Listening to Bush lie was boring. It was obvious. It insulted my intelligence. While Obama's lies are grandiose. They are eloquent. They take at least 10-15 seconds to parse through before the waaaait-a-minute moment. It's a pleasure. We are very fortunate to have a much more skillful entertainer in the White House.
As opposed to 100% moderated filtering of questions (for further dissemination as coming "from the people")? Questions which are collected from a heavily a polarized population (of youtube viewers) which lacks no lackeys? That makes him a MORE effective propagandist -- not some man of the people that you are trying to convince us that he is.
That statement doesn't leave room for "less than 50%"
Fair enough. My language could have been more accurate. Instead it was colloquial. I suspect the distinction caught your eye because you happen to be in the group which my language didn't account for.
I'm basing my observations on actual observation.
Unless that involves some sort of census position (private or public), that experience in anecdotal.
I've lived in the state for a while. I'd still like to know where you're getting your 4-5 million number from and why you think that they represent only highly-educated people. I know quite a few people that work in Manhattan, live in NJ, and who are not highly educated.
I've lived in a number of places in NJ and worked in and out of NYC. Having lived in a number of places in the state, I had a chance to observe commuting patterns. The numbers that I got for the population sizes and number of commuters are derived from general information sources (I used to read a number of of newspapers everyday... I had to scale it down quite a bit after I realized that I was going through 4 newspapers a day... so I am afraid I can't give you an exact link or reference). As for the level of education of NYC commuters, these people are going through the grueling commute only because much higher salaries can be had in the city. And I am talking about the 8-10, 4-7 commuters. So they are not students. They are professionals. So we are talking about professionals wth salaries large enough to justify grueling commute. I am not sure how much I can merge these wide-ranged personal experience with more general data that gathered from various news sources and which I find interesting enough that I, apparently, keep it in my head before I simply say that I am satisfied with the level of information that I have to reach the conclusion that I reached.
Another (seemingly unrelated) piece of evidence that speaks volumes for the education level of the state is that it is one of the few states (if not the only one) where the largest voting block are independents (ie, more independents than Republcans or Democrats). Despite all the attempted demonization of independents in the last election, these are the people who decide on case-by-case basis on the issues when they vote. And careful consideration (as opposed to blind commitment) is a mark of an educated mind.
All human activity requires energy. Decreasing energy consumption means decreasing the general level of all consumption (aka "standard of living"). If you want to be honest about it, call it a "Reduced Standard Of Living Act" and then see if the electorate still buys it. If you think there is a compelling argument for reducing the standard of living (in order to stretch out the life-span of humanity, for example), then make that argument. But deceiving the general public on such a grandiose scale (pretending that an innocuous bill is being passed that will somehow fix our future and yet have no effect on every-day Joe) is vile.