As president, I have to address both domestic policy and foreign policy. Because of the way that the commander-in-chief role has evolved, I have far fewer political constraints on foreign policy action than domestic policy action. So let's think about this for a second. On the foreign stage, America's standing has returned from its post-Iraq low. Al Qaeda is now a shell of its former self. Liberalizing forces are making uneven but forward progress in North Africa. Muammar Gaddafi's regime is no longer, without one American casualty. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are winding down. Every country in the Pacific Rim without a Communist Party running things is trying to hug us closer.
Imagine what I could accomplish in domestic policy without the kind of obstructionism and filibustering that we're seeing in Congress -- which happens to be even more unpopular than I am, by the way. I'm not talking about the GOP abjectly surrendering, mind you, just doing routine things like sublecting my nominees to a floor vote in the Senate. I've achieved significant foreign policy successes while still cooperating with our allies in NATO and Northeast Asia. Just imagine what I could get done if the Republicans were as willing to compromise as, say, France.
Honestly one of the main reasons I voted for Obama, supported him and continue to do so is because of Foreign policy. The president does not have a very strong ability to dictate domestic policy, not nearly to the extent he does foreign. And I could not be happier with how he as done in that regard. Honestly, he has exceeded my expectations.
Don't get me wrong, I am not happy about HOW we went into Libya, and that was one of the major "what the shit, Obama!?" moments for me. But how we handled actually participating in that conflict was pretty spot on. Obama has done all the negotiating and re-establishing us on the global scale that I could have wanted, PLUS he managed to be very strong in areas people would have favored a republican. The actual conflict in Libya, Osama being killed, that pirate incident. They were all handled excellently and were just icing on a kudos cake.
No, the Libyan people did. We helped them out when Gaddhafi made it clear that he had no problem massacring them to retain power.
No you don't understand Captain C, much like Bosnia, when the US fires a missle anywhere with a democrat in charge, the war is entirely his everything.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
No you don't understand Captain C, much like Bosnia, when the US fires a missle anywhere with a democrat in charge, the war is entirely his everything.
Also too, winning is better than not winning. A few months is better than entire decades. No U.S. casualties is better than thousands. Even if I don't like a war, I have to concede this.
If you want to have a GOP equivalency fest, it's worth comparing the results.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I mean... we kinda fucked up Bosnia and pretty much anywhere we engaged military resources under Clinton.
I can understand being apprehensive if you're comparing it to that.
But, really, I don't recall Obama being anti-intervention, and I do recall the Republicans screaming about how it's our duty to spread freedom around the globe... so only one side is really being hypocritical, here.
Yeah, I mean... we kinda fucked up Bosnia and pretty much anywhere we engaged military resources under Clinton.
I can understand being apprehensive if you're comparing it to that.
But, really, I don't recall Obama being anti-intervention, and I do recall the Republicans screaming about how it's our duty to spread freedom around the globe... so only one side is really being hypocritical, here.
The worst thing about the GOP response to libya, they were literrally for it right until we did something. Than they were entirely against it.
And they still want to go into Iran, they wanted to when Iran was having their election difficulties in 2009. And they are keeping the dream alive with Iran's nuclear dreams now. So not only do americans have to fear a war should the GOP get elected again, we already know the god damn destination.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
And they still want to go into Iran, they wanted to when Iran was having their election difficulties in 2009. And they are keeping the dream alive with Iran's nuclear dreams now. So not only do americans have to fear a war should the GOP get elected again, we already know the god damn destination.
Iran scares me because Russia is already making noises that they will not abide the U.S. capturing that much of the world's oil production. I doubt that they'll start a shooting war, but I could see Cold War II being kicked off by an Iranian adventure. Imagine Iraq but with the insurgency supplied by Russian arms.
And China, while being a lot quieter, can't be too happy at a U.S.-occupied Middle East.
Yeah, I mean... we kinda fucked up Bosnia and pretty much anywhere we engaged military resources under Clinton.
I can understand being apprehensive if you're comparing it to that.
But, really, I don't recall Obama being anti-intervention, and I do recall the Republicans screaming about how it's our duty to spread freedom around the globe... so only one side is really being hypocritical, here.
How did we fuck up Bosnia? Sure, it ended up being partitioned, but that was because we needed a realpolitik solution designed to stop the fighting and restore peace first, with the goal of promoting re-integration later. It was the UN what fucked up in Bosnia, or rather, that the UN was unable to stop anything without a major power backing them up. (And we couldn't step in until Russia acquiesed).
dojango on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
And they still want to go into Iran, they wanted to when Iran was having their election difficulties in 2009. And they are keeping the dream alive with Iran's nuclear dreams now. So not only do americans have to fear a war should the GOP get elected again, we already know the god damn destination.
Iran scares me because Russia is already making noises that they will not abide the U.S. capturing that much of the world's oil production. I doubt that they'll start a shooting war, but I could see Cold War II being kicked off by an Iranian adventure. Imagine Iraq but with the insurgency supplied by Russian arms.
And China, while being a lot quieter, can't be too happy at a U.S.-occupied Middle East.
Do you think we're not already in Cold War II: Cold Harder?
Why do you think we're moving troops into the Pacific?
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I mean... we kinda fucked up Bosnia and pretty much anywhere we engaged military resources under Clinton.
I can understand being apprehensive if you're comparing it to that.
But, really, I don't recall Obama being anti-intervention, and I do recall the Republicans screaming about how it's our duty to spread freedom around the globe... so only one side is really being hypocritical, here.
How did we fuck up Bosnia? Sure, it ended up being partitioned, but that was because we needed a realpolitik solution designed to stop the fighting and restore peace first, with the goal of promoting re-integration later. It was the UN what fucked up in Bosnia, or rather, that the UN was unable to stop anything without a major power backing them up. (And we couldn't step in until Russia acquiesed).
I will admit that my recollection of Bosnia is about as old as the conflict itself, and I am only responding to my vague remembrance of it having not gone very well... though I could be mistaken on the finer details.
The aggressor components of Obama's foreign policy are, admittedly, rather hard to argue against. Drones with guided missiles instead of aircraft with general-purpose high explosive bombs, draw-down from the antiquated occupational strategy employed by the Republican administration, the dismissal of worthless super weapon programs like the F-22, etc.
The detention methods are still totally unacceptable, as is the dressing-up of assassinations, but none of that is really specific to Obama.
How about your special forces & intelligence community getting almost every single air strike target wrong in the opening days of the conflict, resulting in what amounted to a war on elementary schools, veterinary clinics and slums?
In the case of CountryWide Homes, this is simple bullshit. CountryWide can loan to ANYONE ANYWHERE they want to, and it should not be up to washington to say you cant give loans to people who cant pay them back. All this is going to do is make CountryWide want to either not loan at all or loan overseas where washington has no power to tell them they cant do shit, and either way that hurts jobs.
There's nothing wrong with this statement.
Yeah. Adults should be free to enter into bad deals, so long as there is no fraud or coercion.
Boeing was stupid to actually say they were moving the factory due to unionization. They should have just stayed quiet and said something about "costs" and moved the factory to Alabama or wherever and that would have been that.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah. Adults should be free to enter into bad deals, so long as there is no fraud or coercion.
Boeing was stupid to actually say they were moving the factory due to unionization. They should have just stayed quiet and said something about "costs" and moved the factory to Alabama or wherever and that would have been that.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but doesn't that last part of your statement make the first semantically impossible? Why would an adult in full knowledge enter into an objectively horrible deal if they were not defrauded or coerced into it? What possible reason would they have?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Yeah. Adults should be free to enter into bad deals, so long as there is no fraud or coercion.
Boeing was stupid to actually say they were moving the factory due to unionization. They should have just stayed quiet and said something about "costs" and moved the factory to Alabama or wherever and that would have been that.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but doesn't that last part of your statement make the first semantically impossible? Why would an adult in full knowledge enter into an objectively horrible deal if they were not defrauded or coerced into it? What possible reason would they have?
Do you think that selling a lottery ticket involves fraud or coercion?
Do you think that selling a lottery ticket involves fraud or coercion?
A lottery ticket is not a bad deal. Yes, you're taking an astronomical risk with the money you're investing, but the investment is trivially small and the potential reward is astronomically greater than what you put in.
Do you think we're not already in Cold War II: Cold Harder?
Why do you think we're moving troops into the Pacific?
Our Cold War with China is like a mutual training exercise. We're too tied together economically for things to get too hot, as it would be mutually assured economic destruction. Ain't shit going to happen with it unless someone really fucks up.
Russia, on the other hand, does not need our money or markets. They've also got an authoritarian leadership that takes "looking tough" extremely seriously. If they get pissed off enough, they might decide that the time is come to flex their muscles in a way that directly gets American soldiers killed.
Do you think that selling a lottery ticket involves fraud or coercion?
Actually, yes, yes I do. Money = Coercion = Power. The promise of fabulous wealth in times of absolutely ridiculous income/wealth inequality? That is strong enough to override the logical calculation of one's lottery odds and lottery addiction has routinely ruined people because of this. People want to be able to survive so dangling a virtually unattainable but massive cash prize in front of them is pretty evil. Imagine a really evil horse trainer, using the carrot to teach them to respond to commands, but at the end of the session randomly awarding it to one horse in a barn of millions only if all of them complete the training.
Pretty big Dick move huh? Sure you didn't "tell them" that they were getting the carrot but you created circumstances where it was obvious they weren't going to get it but they wanted it so badly that even with full knowledge of the inevitable defeat they did it anyway because all they had left was hope. So yes, the lottery is directly coercion. Coercion is simply creating systems of consequences to force someone to do something you want, those can be positive or negative consequences but when the result is inevitably bad for the person you're coercing? Yes, I'm pretty sure we can safely say we 'ought to stop doing that.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Yeah. Adults should be free to enter into bad deals, so long as there is no fraud or coercion.
Boeing was stupid to actually say they were moving the factory due to unionization. They should have just stayed quiet and said something about "costs" and moved the factory to Alabama or wherever and that would have been that.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but doesn't that last part of your statement make the first semantically impossible? Why would an adult in full knowledge enter into an objectively horrible deal if they were not defrauded or coerced into it? What possible reason would they have?
There's a difference between fraud/coercion and not understanding the possible consequences of a deal you're entering into.
As an example, if a seller makes certain representations about a house that he knows aren't true in order to induce you to buy the property, that's fraud. If he sells you a property "as-is" and makes no representations, and you fail to do an inspection, if you find out the house is on sinkhole or something, you're out of luck.
People make bad decisions all the time, but I don't really see why we should protect them from those decisions. Yeah, a mortgage where your interest rate shoots up after 5 years is not a good deal for the borrower, but if the borrower knew the terms of the loan from the start, it's not the lender's fault if the deal ends up being shitty for the borrower.
People make bad decisions all the time, but I don't really see why we should protect them from those decisions.
Because failure to do so results in the collapse of your economy?
So, we're talking about the bank bailout now?
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Why are homeowners the only subgroup that deserves to deal with consequences?
I am quite disappointed in the extent to which this administration has gone after people who did commit fraud... I mean, I guess it doesn't help that regulatory agencies like the SEC have puppet heads who are sympathetic to the people they're trying to regulate, and have been defunded to the point where they can't afford to be effective... but fuck.
No, I'm talking about the laissez faire attitude that caused the collapse in the first place. You're saying that,"I don't really see why we should protect them from those decisions," even after you just watched what happens when you don't protect people from bad decisions (and fraud, and deception).
People make bad decisions all the time, but I don't really see why we should protect them from those decisions.
If we protect business (people), why not individuals (people)?
I'm not in favor of protecting either of them, frankly. Unfortunately, the banks were allowed to set up a system where their failure would have had such dire consequences that we needed to save them from their own retardedness.
Ideally, we should have changed the laws after the crisis to not allow something like that to happen again. But, well......
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
People make bad decisions all the time, but I don't really see why we should protect them from those decisions.
If we protect business (people), why not individuals (people)?
I'm not in favor of protecting either of them, frankly. Unfortunately, the banks were allowed to set up a system where their failure would have had such dire consequences that we needed to save them from their own retardedness.
Ideally, we should have changed the laws after the crisis to not allow something like that to happen again. But, well......
That's the thing, though... we saved the banks... the world is no longer going to end... now we prosecute the criminals... that's what this administration should be doing.
There's a difference between fraud/coercion and not understanding the possible consequences of a deal you're entering into.
Really? What are they from your POV? I would consider any imbalance of knowledge in an agreement to constitute fraud because both parties do not fully understand the agreement. It's not in the same leagues as lying (or directly fabricating a false truth) but it is still a form of deception if practiced knowingly. Why should we not want this situation to become virtually impossible when it is this exact friction that is creating so many problems in the economy? Lenders lying to borrowers, banks lying to investors, etc.
As an example, if a seller makes certain representations about a house that he knows aren't true in order to induce you to buy the property, that's fraud. If he sells you a property "as-is" and makes no representations, and you fail to do an inspection, if you find out the house is on sinkhole or something, you're out of luck.
To me that sounds like you're simply decrying the obvious graft and asking the grifter to be a little smarter in how he tricks you. Why do allowing these situations benefit anyone other than people looking to basically screw someone over? What is the tangible economic benefit?
People make bad decisions all the time, but I don't really see why we should protect them from those decisions. Yeah, a mortgage where your interest rate shoots up after 5 years is not a good deal for the borrower, but if the borrower knew the terms of the loan from the start, it's not the lender's fault if the deal ends up being shitty for the borrower.
Well, I'm not saying that we should force people to stop making bad decisions. But we should most certainly do our best to ensure that they are fully informed of the agreement in all aspects before they can agree to it. I think that's only moral and makes sense economically. If both parties are fully aware it no longer becomes a "bad" deal because they understand and accepted the full ramifications of the deal beforehand. "Bad deal" only occurs when one party does not understand every aspect of a deal but another does, and presses the deal forward knowing it will favor them in some form. By not informing the other, it becomes deception and at least in my mind tantamount to fraud. It's what caused the 2008 crash, banks skirted the letter of the law (although they flat out broke it in some cases) to violate its spirit and lie to sell loans they knew people could not pay.
If we do nothing to address the core issue, deceptive and shady business deals, they will only continue to be a problem for the entire economy and we'll see far more crashes like this happen.
it's a ridiculous model to expect people to deal with the consequences of a bad deal?
It's a ridiculous model to not require both parties have the most complete, and direct understandings of all workings of every deal they sign. By allowing inequities and imbalances in information you enable clever predatory business practices which pray on the majority who may be uninformed of how such graft takes places.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Obama did try to change the regulatory structure to protect consumers... isn't that what the CFRB is all about? if only one party hadn't vowed to kill it dead it might be able to play a role in enforcing current regulations
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
How about your special forces & intelligence community getting almost every single air strike target wrong in the opening days of the conflict, resulting in what amounted to a war on elementary schools, veterinary clinics and slums?
That's the thing, though... we saved the banks... the world is no longer going to end... now we prosecute the criminals... that's what this administration should be doing.
Not that I ever really had hope they would.
But should be.
You'll hear no arguments for me. At the very least, there should have been a housecleaning at the banks we bailed out, as well as AIG. Theregulations should have been changed to prevent a potential cascading collapse of the banks if one went under.
Generally speaking, if a company is about to go under, the government should let it go. The taxpayers should not be backstopping dumb business decisions, any more than they should be saving homebuyers from their own dumb decisions.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
That's the thing, though... we saved the banks... the world is no longer going to end... now we prosecute the criminals... that's what this administration should be doing.
Not that I ever really had hope they would.
But should be.
You'll hear no arguments for me. At the very least, there should have been a housecleaning at the banks we bailed out, as well as AIG. Theregulations should have been changed to prevent a potential cascading collapse of the banks if one went under.
Generally speaking, if a company is about to go under, the government should let it go. The taxpayers should not be backstopping dumb business decisions, any more than they should be saving homebuyers from their own dumb decisions.
Yeah, ideally I'd be fully against the bailouts, but I understand the unfortunate necessity for them.
I'm pretty pissed they were basically no-strings-attached in a lot of cases, but what's done is done... and that wasn't all this administration's doing anyway. Everybody's to blame for that.
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Do you think we're not already in Cold War II: Cold Harder?
Why do you think we're moving troops into the Pacific?
Our Cold War with China is like a mutual training exercise. We're too tied together economically for things to get too hot, as it would be mutually assured economic destruction. Ain't shit going to happen with it unless someone really fucks up.
Russia, on the other hand, does not need our money or markets. They've also got an authoritarian leadership that takes "looking tough" extremely seriously. If they get pissed off enough, they might decide that the time is come to flex their muscles in a way that directly gets American soldiers killed.
I'm really concerned about recent Russian developments. Putin Puppet #2 said the other week that they want US/NATO air defenses removed (that we're planning to put somewhere in Southern Europe ostensibly to combat an Iranian missle attack) and that Russia will not tolerate their nuclear deterrent being weakened. Not to mention the fact that Putin's basically President for life now.
Obama did try to change the regulatory structure to protect consumers... isn't that what the CFRB is all about? if only one party hadn't vowed to kill it dead it might be able to play a role in enforcing current regulations
Let me repeat, as I so love to do. Goldman Sachs entire executive board LIED, UNDER OATH, TO CONGRESS and nothing was done. We have proof of this because we recovered all of their emails later when we were investigating the 2008 crisis which directly contradicted their prior testimony. Let that sink in harder, lied, under oath, to congress. If you or I even consider that? We go directly to jail, do not collect $200. But Goldman's board? Entirely ignored. People want to see these people entirely removed from power and suffer significant negative consequences of their participation in the 2008 crash where they knowingly lied to their customers to make billions on the crash. Goldman Sachs, MADE TONS OF MONEY directly out of the suffering the 2008 crash created. Again, Goldman, made money directly from suffering.
Yes the Dodd-Frank act was a nice step in the right direction. But if we can seize a normal person's home, car, and remaining assets for even thinking they might have sold crack, why can we not do, you know, something, about the Big Banks directly because of this? Dodd-Frank, as nice as it was, did nothing to address the too-big-to-fail problem and did not reinstate the separation rules of Glass-Steagall I believe.
Does this not suggest to you there is still something very wrong and that we are not in desperate need of doing oh so much more about this?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Discussing the bailouts is interesting because I find it is one area where the right and the left agree. The government had so much leverage in negotiating with those companies before giving them bailout money, and nothing got done with it besides hoping that the banks would use the money in the best interest of the country, and not their own profits. Forget about a criminal investigation, there wasn't even a single forced resignation that I am aware of.
Discussing the bailouts is interesting because I find it is one area where the right and the left agree. The government had so much leverage in negotiating with those companies before giving them bailout money, and nothing got done with it besides hoping that the banks would use the money in the best interest of the country, and not their own profits. Forget about a criminal investigation, there wasn't even a single forced resignation that I am aware of.
Just mind boggling how poorly it was executed.
And it is hard to get away from the idea that this was because the people who fucked up were friends and former bosses/coworkers of the decision makers in the Obama Administration. When you have people like Rahm Emmanuel making $16.2 million in two years at Wasserstein Perella, despite not having any investment banking experience and rarely showing up to the office, it's hard not to think that all the power players in both parties are - legally - on the take from Wall Street.
Posts
Honestly one of the main reasons I voted for Obama, supported him and continue to do so is because of Foreign policy. The president does not have a very strong ability to dictate domestic policy, not nearly to the extent he does foreign. And I could not be happier with how he as done in that regard. Honestly, he has exceeded my expectations.
Don't get me wrong, I am not happy about HOW we went into Libya, and that was one of the major "what the shit, Obama!?" moments for me. But how we handled actually participating in that conflict was pretty spot on. Obama has done all the negotiating and re-establishing us on the global scale that I could have wanted, PLUS he managed to be very strong in areas people would have favored a republican. The actual conflict in Libya, Osama being killed, that pirate incident. They were all handled excellently and were just icing on a kudos cake.
Most people were okay or neutral with Afghanistan, and a lot of people still are. Iraq was by far the more controversial and unpopular war.
And there are a ton of people who prefer the Democrats who freaked out about Libya.
No you don't understand Captain C, much like Bosnia, when the US fires a missle anywhere with a democrat in charge, the war is entirely his everything.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also too, winning is better than not winning. A few months is better than entire decades. No U.S. casualties is better than thousands. Even if I don't like a war, I have to concede this.
If you want to have a GOP equivalency fest, it's worth comparing the results.
I can understand being apprehensive if you're comparing it to that.
But, really, I don't recall Obama being anti-intervention, and I do recall the Republicans screaming about how it's our duty to spread freedom around the globe... so only one side is really being hypocritical, here.
The worst thing about the GOP response to libya, they were literrally for it right until we did something. Than they were entirely against it.
And they still want to go into Iran, they wanted to when Iran was having their election difficulties in 2009. And they are keeping the dream alive with Iran's nuclear dreams now. So not only do americans have to fear a war should the GOP get elected again, we already know the god damn destination.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Iran scares me because Russia is already making noises that they will not abide the U.S. capturing that much of the world's oil production. I doubt that they'll start a shooting war, but I could see Cold War II being kicked off by an Iranian adventure. Imagine Iraq but with the insurgency supplied by Russian arms.
And China, while being a lot quieter, can't be too happy at a U.S.-occupied Middle East.
How did we fuck up Bosnia? Sure, it ended up being partitioned, but that was because we needed a realpolitik solution designed to stop the fighting and restore peace first, with the goal of promoting re-integration later. It was the UN what fucked up in Bosnia, or rather, that the UN was unable to stop anything without a major power backing them up. (And we couldn't step in until Russia acquiesed).
Do you think we're not already in Cold War II: Cold Harder?
Why do you think we're moving troops into the Pacific?
I will admit that my recollection of Bosnia is about as old as the conflict itself, and I am only responding to my vague remembrance of it having not gone very well... though I could be mistaken on the finer details.
The detention methods are still totally unacceptable, as is the dressing-up of assassinations, but none of that is really specific to Obama.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Right: Obama's Cold War with New Zealand.
And I say its about time we let that war go hot. The Hobbit movie must be stopped.
pleasepaypreacher.net
How about your special forces & intelligence community getting almost every single air strike target wrong in the opening days of the conflict, resulting in what amounted to a war on elementary schools, veterinary clinics and slums?
Boeing was stupid to actually say they were moving the factory due to unionization. They should have just stayed quiet and said something about "costs" and moved the factory to Alabama or wherever and that would have been that.
Rigorous Scholarship
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but doesn't that last part of your statement make the first semantically impossible? Why would an adult in full knowledge enter into an objectively horrible deal if they were not defrauded or coerced into it? What possible reason would they have?
So, this is you admitting that you champion ridiculous models for the sake of your ideology even after they're shown to be wrong?
Do you think that selling a lottery ticket involves fraud or coercion?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
A lottery ticket is not a bad deal. Yes, you're taking an astronomical risk with the money you're investing, but the investment is trivially small and the potential reward is astronomically greater than what you put in.
Our Cold War with China is like a mutual training exercise. We're too tied together economically for things to get too hot, as it would be mutually assured economic destruction. Ain't shit going to happen with it unless someone really fucks up.
Russia, on the other hand, does not need our money or markets. They've also got an authoritarian leadership that takes "looking tough" extremely seriously. If they get pissed off enough, they might decide that the time is come to flex their muscles in a way that directly gets American soldiers killed.
Actually, yes, yes I do. Money = Coercion = Power. The promise of fabulous wealth in times of absolutely ridiculous income/wealth inequality? That is strong enough to override the logical calculation of one's lottery odds and lottery addiction has routinely ruined people because of this. People want to be able to survive so dangling a virtually unattainable but massive cash prize in front of them is pretty evil. Imagine a really evil horse trainer, using the carrot to teach them to respond to commands, but at the end of the session randomly awarding it to one horse in a barn of millions only if all of them complete the training.
Pretty big Dick move huh? Sure you didn't "tell them" that they were getting the carrot but you created circumstances where it was obvious they weren't going to get it but they wanted it so badly that even with full knowledge of the inevitable defeat they did it anyway because all they had left was hope. So yes, the lottery is directly coercion. Coercion is simply creating systems of consequences to force someone to do something you want, those can be positive or negative consequences but when the result is inevitably bad for the person you're coercing? Yes, I'm pretty sure we can safely say we 'ought to stop doing that.
As an example, if a seller makes certain representations about a house that he knows aren't true in order to induce you to buy the property, that's fraud. If he sells you a property "as-is" and makes no representations, and you fail to do an inspection, if you find out the house is on sinkhole or something, you're out of luck.
People make bad decisions all the time, but I don't really see why we should protect them from those decisions. Yeah, a mortgage where your interest rate shoots up after 5 years is not a good deal for the borrower, but if the borrower knew the terms of the loan from the start, it's not the lender's fault if the deal ends up being shitty for the borrower.
It's a ridiculous model to expect people to deal with the consequences of a bad deal?
Rigorous Scholarship
Because failure to do so results in the collapse of your economy?
Rigorous Scholarship
I am quite disappointed in the extent to which this administration has gone after people who did commit fraud... I mean, I guess it doesn't help that regulatory agencies like the SEC have puppet heads who are sympathetic to the people they're trying to regulate, and have been defunded to the point where they can't afford to be effective... but fuck.
And because much of the Treasury Department is a colony of Goldman Sachs.
Rigorous Scholarship
No, I'm talking about the laissez faire attitude that caused the collapse in the first place. You're saying that,"I don't really see why we should protect them from those decisions," even after you just watched what happens when you don't protect people from bad decisions (and fraud, and deception).
You're either lying or choosing not see.
Ideally, we should have changed the laws after the crisis to not allow something like that to happen again. But, well......
Rigorous Scholarship
That's the thing, though... we saved the banks... the world is no longer going to end... now we prosecute the criminals... that's what this administration should be doing.
Not that I ever really had hope they would.
But should be.
Really? What are they from your POV? I would consider any imbalance of knowledge in an agreement to constitute fraud because both parties do not fully understand the agreement. It's not in the same leagues as lying (or directly fabricating a false truth) but it is still a form of deception if practiced knowingly. Why should we not want this situation to become virtually impossible when it is this exact friction that is creating so many problems in the economy? Lenders lying to borrowers, banks lying to investors, etc.
To me that sounds like you're simply decrying the obvious graft and asking the grifter to be a little smarter in how he tricks you. Why do allowing these situations benefit anyone other than people looking to basically screw someone over? What is the tangible economic benefit?
Well, I'm not saying that we should force people to stop making bad decisions. But we should most certainly do our best to ensure that they are fully informed of the agreement in all aspects before they can agree to it. I think that's only moral and makes sense economically. If both parties are fully aware it no longer becomes a "bad" deal because they understand and accepted the full ramifications of the deal beforehand. "Bad deal" only occurs when one party does not understand every aspect of a deal but another does, and presses the deal forward knowing it will favor them in some form. By not informing the other, it becomes deception and at least in my mind tantamount to fraud. It's what caused the 2008 crash, banks skirted the letter of the law (although they flat out broke it in some cases) to violate its spirit and lie to sell loans they knew people could not pay.
If we do nothing to address the core issue, deceptive and shady business deals, they will only continue to be a problem for the entire economy and we'll see far more crashes like this happen.
It's a ridiculous model to not require both parties have the most complete, and direct understandings of all workings of every deal they sign. By allowing inequities and imbalances in information you enable clever predatory business practices which pray on the majority who may be uninformed of how such graft takes places.
Terrorist Vet Clinics
But yeah, Bosnia was a bit of a clusterfuck.
Generally speaking, if a company is about to go under, the government should let it go. The taxpayers should not be backstopping dumb business decisions, any more than they should be saving homebuyers from their own dumb decisions.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah, ideally I'd be fully against the bailouts, but I understand the unfortunate necessity for them.
I'm pretty pissed they were basically no-strings-attached in a lot of cases, but what's done is done... and that wasn't all this administration's doing anyway. Everybody's to blame for that.
I'm really concerned about recent Russian developments. Putin Puppet #2 said the other week that they want US/NATO air defenses removed (that we're planning to put somewhere in Southern Europe ostensibly to combat an Iranian missle attack) and that Russia will not tolerate their nuclear deterrent being weakened. Not to mention the fact that Putin's basically President for life now.
Let me repeat, as I so love to do. Goldman Sachs entire executive board LIED, UNDER OATH, TO CONGRESS and nothing was done. We have proof of this because we recovered all of their emails later when we were investigating the 2008 crisis which directly contradicted their prior testimony. Let that sink in harder, lied, under oath, to congress. If you or I even consider that? We go directly to jail, do not collect $200. But Goldman's board? Entirely ignored. People want to see these people entirely removed from power and suffer significant negative consequences of their participation in the 2008 crash where they knowingly lied to their customers to make billions on the crash. Goldman Sachs, MADE TONS OF MONEY directly out of the suffering the 2008 crash created. Again, Goldman, made money directly from suffering.
Yes the Dodd-Frank act was a nice step in the right direction. But if we can seize a normal person's home, car, and remaining assets for even thinking they might have sold crack, why can we not do, you know, something, about the Big Banks directly because of this? Dodd-Frank, as nice as it was, did nothing to address the too-big-to-fail problem and did not reinstate the separation rules of Glass-Steagall I believe.
Does this not suggest to you there is still something very wrong and that we are not in desperate need of doing oh so much more about this?
Just mind boggling how poorly it was executed.
And it is hard to get away from the idea that this was because the people who fucked up were friends and former bosses/coworkers of the decision makers in the Obama Administration. When you have people like Rahm Emmanuel making $16.2 million in two years at Wasserstein Perella, despite not having any investment banking experience and rarely showing up to the office, it's hard not to think that all the power players in both parties are - legally - on the take from Wall Street.