...so we shouldn't do something beneficial now, under current conditions, because at some indeterminate point in the future those conditions will have changed and we will need to do something else at that point? I'm glad I don't get stuck behind you at traffic lights.
Interest rates determine how much extra money gets tacked onto the debt every year. The bigger the debt load, the worse things get the second interest rates go back up.
Things currently are worse. Interest rates would only rise when things stop being worse. Which is, you know, a good thing.
No, see, the interest rates go back up when the Federal Reserve decides to raise them. Because it controls them. Which I don't like. One bit.
A huge potential problem is the fact that the Iran negotiations are not going smoothly but they are going in a generally positive direction. This is also having a positive impact in the war in Syria and Iraq which could quickly go tits up if a bunch if congressional morons start slapping massive sanctions on Iran or demanding Obama bombs Assad.
The odds of that shot up through the roof after last night.
Define "well." Because Iran getting to do whatever the damn Hell it wants isn't exactly a good outcome.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
After 2000, he predicted the Bush Tax cuts would destroy the deficit, which it did by taking us from a surplus to a fucking 1 trillion dollar a year deficit.
He predicted the housing market crash.
He predicted that the Obama stimulus plan didn't go far enough before it was enacted. Independent reviews by the CBO and other organizations confirm this prediction.
If you don't like his politics, that's cool, you don't have to. But to say his financial knowledge and predictions are wrong is ignorant.
1) That's not what did it. The massive increase in spending did. Tax receipts went up under Bush until the economy went to shit. And we all know TARP was a massive part of the trillion dollar deficit.
The tax receipts part of this has been refuted in an earlier thread, please stop repeating it.
2) When? Because if it wasn't before 2003, he was rather late to the party.
How far in advance of a 2008 crash does he have to predict a crash in order to have predicted the crash? You didn't say "Don't read Krugman, he's slow to be correct," you said, "Krugman is crazy and wrong." Here he is in 2006 talking about it:
The important point to remember is that the bursting of the stock market bubble hurt lots of people – not just those who bought stocks near their peak. By the summer of 2003, private-sector employment was three million below its 2001 peak. And the job losses would have been much worse if the stock bubble hadn’t been quickly replaced with a housing bubble.
So what happens if the housing bubble bursts? It will be the same thing all over again, unless the Fed can find something to take its place. And it’s hard to imagine what that might be. After all, the Fed’s ability to manage the economy mainly comes from its ability to create booms and busts in the housing market. If housing enters a post-bubble slump, what’s left?
Here he is talking about how a bubble is coming in 2002:
The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Throughout the entire decade, Krugman was accurately characterizing the economy as it went from a stock bubble and crash to a housing bubble and crash. What part of this is crazy and wrong?
3) The CBO report wasn't based on actual numbers but a computer model that didn't reflect the real world at all. And the stimulus failed because deficit spending is generally terrible at stimulating an economy outside of a ridiculous scale (WWII defense spending topped out at $30 trillion in today's money.)
I imagine destructive war efforts have a much lower multiplier as stimulus than constructive jobs programs.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A huge potential problem is the fact that the Iran negotiations are not going smoothly but they are going in a generally positive direction. This is also having a positive impact in the war in Syria and Iraq which could quickly go tits up if a bunch if congressional morons start slapping massive sanctions on Iran or demanding Obama bombs Assad.
The odds of that shot up through the roof after last night.
Define "well." Because Iran getting to do whatever the damn Hell it wants isn't exactly a good outcome.
ctrl-F "well" 0 results found
Scanners.jpg
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
1) Spending increases accounted for only 35% of the deficit increase.
2) The housing crash was in August 2008. There's a reason it's called "The day McCain lost the election."
3) The stimulus didn't fail. It just could have been better than it was.
Get. Your. Facts. Straight.
If you don't, I will fucking destroy you.
1) I don't know where you get that number, but this disagrees with you.
2) Yes, but it's a bubble. Please tell me you know a little more about economics than that. It didn't boom and bust in one day.
3) Yes, it did. The CBO report was based on a computer model, not the actual numbers of the real world. It is why no one takes that report seriously but partisans.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
I doubt the filibuster is going anywhere. The GOP will want to keep it around for when they inevitably become the minority party again, and since it only ever serves to keep Congress from accomplishing [something], the party that considers "government accomplishes nothing" a win condition will see more harm in removing it than not.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
So, 1995/1996 instead? Great mic drop on me there. Because I said "about," basing it on when the federal government started doing stupid shit in the housing sector.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
...so we shouldn't do something beneficial now, under current conditions, because at some indeterminate point in the future those conditions will have changed and we will need to do something else at that point? I'm glad I don't get stuck behind you at traffic lights.
Interest rates determine how much extra money gets tacked onto the debt every year. The bigger the debt load, the worse things get the second interest rates go back up.
Things currently are worse. Interest rates would only rise when things stop being worse. Which is, you know, a good thing.
No, see, the interest rates go back up when the Federal Reserve decides to raise them. Because it controls them. Which I don't like. One bit.
Which they change in response to changing macroeconomic conditions in order to ensure that inflation and employment are balanced to be in line with NAIRU. And, yes, in the future when conditions are different then policy should change to reflect that. But today conditions are what they currently are. Which is what current policy should reflect. Fiscal and monetary.
+2
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Willie no one in this conversation is trying to drop a mic except for yourself.
And if you can't be bothered to read well enough to ask about words I actually used, I'm certainly not going to waste the mobile posting annoyance to explain the difference between Going Well and Going In a Positive Direction in terms of international relations.
But I tend to think that Iran telling their proxies not to target American interests, planes, and troops is a good thing.
But I am pretty dumb.
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
Which they change in response to changing macroeconomic conditions in order to ensure that inflation and employment are balanced to be in line with NAIRU. And, yes, in the future when conditions are different then policy should change to reflect that. But today conditions are what they currently are. Which is what current policy should reflect. Fiscal and monetary.
No, that's what the defenders of the policy claim it does. The chairman can change the interest rate whenever she wants and give whatever reason she wants for it. Because she can. Nothing stopping her.
QE hasn't improved the economy at all except for Wall Street. Easy money tends not to be good for the average citizen.
But I tend to think that Iran telling their proxies not to target American interests, planes, and troops is a good thing.
But I am pretty dumb.
Because apparently we take Iran at their word now. I really don't trust those bastards to not sell the bomb they're clearly making to the highest bidder.
BREAKING: Alaskan Senate race called for the Republican. Begich won't concede.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
So, 1995/1996 instead? Great mic drop on me there. Because I said "about," basing it on when the federal government started doing stupid shit in the housing sector.
Which they change in response to changing macroeconomic conditions in order to ensure that inflation and employment are balanced to be in line with NAIRU. And, yes, in the future when conditions are different then policy should change to reflect that. But today conditions are what they currently are. Which is what current policy should reflect. Fiscal and monetary.
No, that's what the defenders of the policy claim it does. The chairman can change the interest rate whenever she wants and give whatever reason she wants for it. Because she can. Nothing stopping her.
And Obama can technically go all Martin Sheen on the football and nuke whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants, but all presidents after Truman have had a stated policy on when to fire the bombs and when not to, and so far they've adhered to it. The implication that the FED chair is one bad day away from capriciously destroying the economy is ludicrous.
Which they change in response to changing macroeconomic conditions in order to ensure that inflation and employment are balanced to be in line with NAIRU. And, yes, in the future when conditions are different then policy should change to reflect that. But today conditions are what they currently are. Which is what current policy should reflect. Fiscal and monetary.
No, that's what the defenders of the policy claim it does. The chairman can change the interest rate whenever she wants and give whatever reason she wants for it. Because she can. Nothing stopping her.
Aside from, you know, Economics.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Which they change in response to changing macroeconomic conditions in order to ensure that inflation and employment are balanced to be in line with NAIRU. And, yes, in the future when conditions are different then policy should change to reflect that. But today conditions are what they currently are. Which is what current policy should reflect. Fiscal and monetary.
No, that's what the defenders of the policy claim it does. The chairman can change the interest rate whenever she wants and give whatever reason she wants for it. Because she can. Nothing stopping her.
And Obama can technically go all Martin Sheen on the football and nuke whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants, but all presidents after Truman have had a stated policy on when to fire the bombs and when not to, and so far they've adhered to it. The implication that the FED chair is one bad day away from capriciously destroying the economy is ludicrous.
That sure was a crazy west wing episode
+2
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
Look, if you didn't predict this by 1994 at the latest, I can't take you seriously on economic issues.
There were plenty of economists who predicted it in the 1990s. And a lot of stories written about them in the aftermath of the 2008 housing bust.
Oh, sure, in the aftermath. Why should I listen to an economist's predictions if all they do is write accurately about the past and present? Anybody like that is just crazy and wrong.
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
Oh, sure, in the aftermath. Why should I listen to an economist's predictions if all they do is write accurately about the past and present? Anybody like that is just crazy and wrong.
A lot of other economists were saying the housing gravy train would never end. And a lot of politicians listened to them. Most notably, Barney Frank. A year before everything went tits up, he said Fannie and Freddie were doing fine going forward.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
1) Spending increases accounted for only 35% of the deficit increase.
2) The housing crash was in August 2008. There's a reason it's called "The day McCain lost the election."
3) The stimulus didn't fail. It just could have been better than it was.
Get. Your. Facts. Straight.
If you don't, I will fucking destroy you.
1) I don't know where you get that number, but this disagrees with you.
2) Yes, but it's a bubble. Please tell me you know a little more about economics than that. It didn't boom and bust in one day.
3) Yes, it did. The CBO report was based on a computer model, not the actual numbers of the real world. It is why no one takes that report seriously but partisans.
Bzzzzt, wrong.
1) That Business Insider article, I read that, did you? I'll even quote it for you:
President Bush, you will recall, inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit with a recession, he took the budget into deficit. Then he cut taxes, growing the deficit to $400 billion a year... President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal revenue, while federal spending growth continued apace. This combination ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.
Guess what, $400 billion dollars is 2/5 of the deficit! Crazy, right!
2) So? The bubble crash was caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was regulated mortage-adjustment rates. It was repealed under Clinton, if that makes you feel any better. But it shouldn't, cause major effects didn't start until 2003 when it exploded upwards. So yes, Krugman was correct.
3) From that same article that you so helpfully provided, but didn't actually read:
On the other hand, President Obama's stimulus certainly hasn't had as big an impact on the economy (and, therefore, government revenues) as he and his advisors promised it would. Given the extent of the mess Obama inherited, it's possible that nothing would have fixed it by now. But even huge Obama supporters are justifiably frustrated with his over-promising, as well as with many of the decisions he has made.
So it seems fair to lay some of the responsibility for our current deficit at President Obama's feet as well.
So again, like I said. Bush is the one that fucked up and Obama's plan worked, but just didn't go far enough.
To you:
Quit fucking up your facts. Thanks for providing a link to prove me correct though, you're a true bro.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
2. The Community Reinvestment Act and the GSE's affordability mission didn't cause the crisis.
Many conservatives argue that the "affordability goals" of the GSEs, as well as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which was created in the 1970s to make sure poor communities had access to credit, either directly or indirectly led to subprime loans.
Research from the Federal Reserve by Neil Bhutta and Glenn B. Canner (helpfully summarized in this Randy Kroszner speech), argues that the CRA couldn't have been behind the subprime and housing bubbles. "The very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis." Only six percent of higher-priced loans (their proxy for subprime loans) were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or CRA neighborhoods.
A recent paper found that while the CRA might have introduced slightly larger risks in lending portfolios, extra loans done to meet CRA compliance weren't more likely to have higher interest rates, lower loan-to-value, or be balloon/interest-only/jumbo/buy-down mortgages, or hold other subprime characteristics. So it is unlikely that the CRA was priming the pump for subprime, or subtly encouraging subprime mortgages to be made by private lenders.
Jason Thomas and Robert Van Order's research argues that subprime loans were only 5 percent of the GSEs' losses. The GSEs' affordability mission led them to buy the highly rated tranches of mortgage bonds, for which there was already a ton of demand and were not essential to the completion of the deals.
If that isn't good enough for you, I can dig deeper. Most articles saying the CRA caused the crisis rely on "gut" numbers rather than actual numbers.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Oh, sure, in the aftermath. Why should I listen to an economist's predictions if all they do is write accurately about the past and present? Anybody like that is just crazy and wrong.
A lot of other economists were saying the housing gravy train would never end. And a lot of politicians listened to them. Most notably, Barney Frank. A year before everything went tits up, he said Fannie and Freddie were doing fine going forward.
So anybody who did say that the housing gravy train was a bubble would be an economist worth listening to?
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
1) That Business Insider article, I read that, did you? I'll even quote it for you:
President Bush, you will recall, inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit with a recession, he took the budget into deficit. Then he cut taxes, growing the deficit to $400 billion a year... President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal revenue, while federal spending growth continued apace. This combination ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.
Guess what, $400 billion dollars is 2/5 of the deficit! Crazy, right!
2) So? The bubble crash was caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was regulated mortage-adjustment rates. It was repealed under Clinton, if that makes you feel any better. But it shouldn't, cause major effects didn't start until 2003 when it exploded upwards. So yes, Krugman was correct.
3) From that same article that you so helpfully provided, but didn't actually read:
So again, like I said. Bush is the one that fucked up and Obama's plan worked, but just didn't go far enough.
To you:
Quit fucking up your facts. Thanks for providing a link to prove me correct though, you're a true bro.
1) See, the $400 billion number didn't stay there and wasn't the only cause. It didn't balloon it from zero. Good job.
2) That's a canard many like to push forth. It was the only piece of deregulation for the entire decade. You're forgetting Sarbanes-Oxley and all the other financial regulation that happened in the '90s and '00s.
3) The stimulus failed. Only partisans say it "didn't go far enough." Because deficit spending doesn't work unless on a massive scale of like $30 trillion. At that point, you might as well split it by the population of the country and give every man, woman, and child the resulting amount. Anyone who knows anything about the structure of borrowing knows that the government spending a lot of money it doesn't have crowds out the borrowing of everyone else and takes funds that would have been loaned to someone else to the government. But, you know, that's what a business degree taught me.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
If that isn't good enough for you, I can dig deeper. Most articles saying the CRA caused the crisis rely on "gut" numbers rather than actual numbers.
I said "started there" not "sole cause." Banks started lending more freely to people likely not to pay the loans back. It started with the CRA. And then certain economic factors led to more housing loans and more housing loans. Then, housing prices started rising due to the demand along with a bunch of housing construction to meet the "new demand." A bunch of other things, like the AAA bond rating for MBS and continued low interest rates just made it all that much worse. And then, bam, housing bust.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
So anybody who is accurate about the economy, but not the first person to be accurate, isn't worth listening to? Is, as you put it, a crazy idiot?
The concept of "dog-piling" is what I was referring to with the whole "late to the party" business. If you're the last person to admit that something that is clearly happening is happening, you're probably not the brightest bulb in the drawer.
Capital is a finite resource. If the government needs loans to the tune of several hundred billion dollars a year, that's several hundred billion dollars not getting loaned out to anyone else. Unless the government just starts printing money. But then we get massive inflation. Something the Federal Reserve has only been able to tamp down on because of QE (which will have to end eventually.)
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
3) The stimulus failed. Only partisans say it "didn't go far enough." Because deficit spending doesn't work unless on a massive scale of like $30 trillion. At that point, you might as well split it by the population of the country and give every man, woman, and child the resulting amount. Anyone who knows anything about the structure of borrowing knows that the government spending a lot of money it doesn't have crowds out the borrowing of everyone else and takes funds that would have been loaned to someone else to the government. But, you know, that's what a business degree taught me.
You want to know whateveryone's screaming at you to stop? This.
3) The stimulus failed. Only partisans say it "didn't go far enough." Because deficit spending doesn't work unless on a massive scale of like $30 trillion.
Anyone who knows anything about the structure of borrowing knows that the government spending a lot of money it doesn't have crowds out the borrowing of everyone else and takes funds that would have been loaned to someone else to the government.
Painting anyone who disagrees as ignorant fools, again without evidence for claims.
Forecast date: 2002
Dean Baker, US, Co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research;
Forecast date: 2005
Fred Harrison, UK, Economic commentator
Forecast date: 2006
Dean Baker, US, Co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research;
Michael Hudson, US, Professor, University of Missouri;
Steve Keen, Australia, Associate professor, University of Western Sydney;
Jakob Brøchner Madsen, Denmark, Professor, Copenhagen University;
Robert Shiller, US, Professor, Yale University;
Nouriel Roubini, US, Professor, New York University;
Kurt Richebächer, US, Private consultant and investment newsletter writer;
Forecast date: 2007
Wynne Godley, US, Distinguished scholar, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College;
Eric Janszen, US, Investor and iTulip commentator;
Peter Schiff, US, Stock broker, investment adviser and commentator.
Now of these eleven commentators and economists:
(1) Five (45%) are Heterodox/Progressive Keynesians or Post Keynesians (Baker, Godley, Hudson, Keen, Sorenson);
(2) Two (18%) are basically maverick neoclassicals (Roubini and Shiller);
(3) Two (18%) are in the Austrian tradition (Richebächer and Schiff).
(4) One (Fred Harrison) calls himself as a Georgist (a follower of Henry George)
(5) One is a combination of Austrian and Post Keynesian (Janszen).
(on the classifications, see Barkley Rosser, J. “Did Heterodox Economists Do Better At "Calling It" Than Mainstream Ones? August 28, 2009).
So in other words eight (72%) of the eleven made accurate predictions about the bubble and crisis and were non-Austrians. The largest group (45%) were actually Heterodox Keynesians.
The idea that Austrian economists were the only ones to predict the actual crisis of 2008 is utterly false. Moreover, just because some Austrians correctly called the housing bubble, it simply does not follow that the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (their explanation of the crisis) has been vindicated. Many other economists from different schools also called the housing bubble and a financial crisis. Are we, for example, to say that because Fred Harrison correctly predicted a housing bubble that his actual Georgist economics is therefore proven right? This simply does not follow, nor does it follow that Austrian economics is correct, merely because some Austrians identified the housing bubble as Harrison did.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
Anyway, I PMed the mods, so hopefully this thread will be locked soon.
While I'm not disagreeing that it should be (although my congressional rep has yet to be chosen), there's a deeper systemic problem because this keeps happening.
If that isn't good enough for you, I can dig deeper. Most articles saying the CRA caused the crisis rely on "gut" numbers rather than actual numbers.
I said "started there" not "sole cause." Banks started lending more freely to people likely not to pay the loans back. It started with the CRA. And then certain economic factors led to more housing loans and more housing loans. Then, housing prices started rising due to the demand along with a bunch of housing construction to meet the "new demand." A bunch of other things, like the AAA bond rating for MBS and continued low interest rates just made it all that much worse. And then, bam, housing bust.
That sounds like a failure of regulation to rein in risky economic behavior, not government interference forcing bad loans, which is what you first stated as the cause of the bubble.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Posts
Define "well." Because Iran getting to do whatever the damn Hell it wants isn't exactly a good outcome.
PM me with yours if you add me
The tax receipts part of this has been refuted in an earlier thread, please stop repeating it.
How far in advance of a 2008 crash does he have to predict a crash in order to have predicted the crash? You didn't say "Don't read Krugman, he's slow to be correct," you said, "Krugman is crazy and wrong." Here he is in 2006 talking about it:
Here he is talking about it in 2005:
Here he is talking about how a bubble is coming in 2002:
Throughout the entire decade, Krugman was accurately characterizing the economy as it went from a stock bubble and crash to a housing bubble and crash. What part of this is crazy and wrong?
I imagine destructive war efforts have a much lower multiplier as stimulus than constructive jobs programs.
Yeah that's a real missed opportunity now that I think about it.
Anyway.
I'm not real excited about the next two years but I'm bit terrified either.
We've lived through worse.
I will be having a word or two with my local party leadership after this latest display, though.
...nope:
ctrl-F "well" 0 results found
Scanners.jpg
2) Yes, but it's a bubble. Please tell me you know a little more about economics than that. It didn't boom and bust in one day.
3) Yes, it did. The CBO report was based on a computer model, not the actual numbers of the real world. It is why no one takes that report seriously but partisans.
PM me with yours if you add me
PM me with yours if you add me
Which they change in response to changing macroeconomic conditions in order to ensure that inflation and employment are balanced to be in line with NAIRU. And, yes, in the future when conditions are different then policy should change to reflect that. But today conditions are what they currently are. Which is what current policy should reflect. Fiscal and monetary.
And if you can't be bothered to read well enough to ask about words I actually used, I'm certainly not going to waste the mobile posting annoyance to explain the difference between Going Well and Going In a Positive Direction in terms of international relations.
But I tend to think that Iran telling their proxies not to target American interests, planes, and troops is a good thing.
But I am pretty dumb.
QE hasn't improved the economy at all except for Wall Street. Easy money tends not to be good for the average citizen.
Because apparently we take Iran at their word now. I really don't trust those bastards to not sell the bomb they're clearly making to the highest bidder.
BREAKING: Alaskan Senate race called for the Republican. Begich won't concede.
PM me with yours if you add me
1997, in response to the fiscal policies you prefer; surpluses eliminating treasuries.
PM me with yours if you add me
And Obama can technically go all Martin Sheen on the football and nuke whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants, but all presidents after Truman have had a stated policy on when to fire the bombs and when not to, and so far they've adhered to it. The implication that the FED chair is one bad day away from capriciously destroying the economy is ludicrous.
Aside from, you know, Economics.
Did you predict the housing bubble in 1993?
Many did in the '90s. Lots of people of the Austrian School persuasion.
You really think Greenspan keeping the interest rates low throughout the early 2000s was based on solid economic reasoning?
PM me with yours if you add me
Look, if you didn't predict this by 1994 at the latest, I can't take you seriously on economic issues.
Tell it to me straight.
If Moniker digs up one of Krugman's high school essays about boom and bust cycles you're going to bring up kipper und wipperzeit aren't you?
This is also verifiably false if you look at the actual economic data.
That sure was a crazy west wing episode
PM me with yours if you add me
Oh, sure, in the aftermath. Why should I listen to an economist's predictions if all they do is write accurately about the past and present? Anybody like that is just crazy and wrong.
PM me with yours if you add me
Bzzzzt, wrong.
1) That Business Insider article, I read that, did you? I'll even quote it for you:
Guess what, $400 billion dollars is 2/5 of the deficit! Crazy, right!
2) So? The bubble crash was caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was regulated mortage-adjustment rates. It was repealed under Clinton, if that makes you feel any better. But it shouldn't, cause major effects didn't start until 2003 when it exploded upwards. So yes, Krugman was correct.
3) From that same article that you so helpfully provided, but didn't actually read:
So again, like I said. Bush is the one that fucked up and Obama's plan worked, but just didn't go far enough.
To you:
Quit fucking up your facts. Thanks for providing a link to prove me correct though, you're a true bro.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Its pretty easy to find an article refuting this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/13/no-marco-rubio-government-did-not-cause-the-housing-crisis/
If that isn't good enough for you, I can dig deeper. Most articles saying the CRA caused the crisis rely on "gut" numbers rather than actual numbers.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
So anybody who did say that the housing gravy train was a bubble would be an economist worth listening to?
2) That's a canard many like to push forth. It was the only piece of deregulation for the entire decade. You're forgetting Sarbanes-Oxley and all the other financial regulation that happened in the '90s and '00s.
3) The stimulus failed. Only partisans say it "didn't go far enough." Because deficit spending doesn't work unless on a massive scale of like $30 trillion. At that point, you might as well split it by the population of the country and give every man, woman, and child the resulting amount. Anyone who knows anything about the structure of borrowing knows that the government spending a lot of money it doesn't have crowds out the borrowing of everyone else and takes funds that would have been loaned to someone else to the government. But, you know, that's what a business degree taught me.
PM me with yours if you add me
I said "started there" not "sole cause." Banks started lending more freely to people likely not to pay the loans back. It started with the CRA. And then certain economic factors led to more housing loans and more housing loans. Then, housing prices started rising due to the demand along with a bunch of housing construction to meet the "new demand." A bunch of other things, like the AAA bond rating for MBS and continued low interest rates just made it all that much worse. And then, bam, housing bust.
PM me with yours if you add me
So anybody who is accurate about the economy, but not the first person to be accurate, isn't worth listening to? Is, as you put it, a crazy idiot?
Government borrowing isn't like personal debt. You can't finance your honda on a 150 year loan.
And again, we aren't double dipping and Europe is.
Guess who tried austerity and who didn't
Capital is a finite resource. If the government needs loans to the tune of several hundred billion dollars a year, that's several hundred billion dollars not getting loaned out to anyone else. Unless the government just starts printing money. But then we get massive inflation. Something the Federal Reserve has only been able to tamp down on because of QE (which will have to end eventually.)
PM me with yours if you add me
You want to know whateveryone's screaming at you to stop? This. Grand claim with no supporting evidence. Sweeping strawman nobody's arguing for. Painting anyone who disagrees as ignorant fools, again without evidence for claims. And appeal to authority.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Anyway, I PMed the mods, so hopefully this thread will be locked soon.
Here is an analysis of the various predication of the housing bubble: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/12/austrians-predicted-housing-bubble-but.html
Important bit:
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
PM me with yours if you add me
While I'm not disagreeing that it should be (although my congressional rep has yet to be chosen), there's a deeper systemic problem because this keeps happening.
That sounds like a failure of regulation to rein in risky economic behavior, not government interference forcing bad loans, which is what you first stated as the cause of the bubble.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".