Though given that we should expect goblinization any time now...
runs through thread with a burning torch
So long as I can get a thicknet coax cable installed into my skull and download megabytes of data into my brain from the matrix...
I'm cool with that.
If the government doesn't...the banks go under, and the TARP money was wasted.
The problem is that going ahead with the prosecutions is still the right thing to do in the long run.
I realize that the short-term damage this will cause would be catastrophic, but it is the only way to stop this disfunctional cycle.
*barely manages to resist urge to post the lyrics to "the Internationale"*
I agree that the banks got away with a crap load here. They probably should have been nationalized and would have been in most other countries in the world. It'd make getting to the bottom of any criminal negligence easier as well and would have sent a much clearer message.
Correct, Dave. Without title (clear title, specifically), real property cannot be bought, sold or much of anything else done with it.
It's why I like real property over finances. You have something that is unique. It may not differ much from what's to any direction from it, but that piece of property is yours.
Correct, Dave. Without title (clear title, specifically), real property cannot be bought, sold or much of anything else done with it.
It's why I like real property over finances. You have something that is unique. It may not differ much from what's to any direction from it, but that piece of property is yours.
Is this a bad time to point out that much of this country(and other's) economic principles are based on pyramid schemes?
Is this a bad time to point out that much of this country(and other's) economic principles are based on pyramid schemes?Correct, Dave. Without title (clear title, specifically), real property cannot be bought, sold or much of anything else done with it.
It's why I like real property over finances. You have something that is unique. It may not differ much from what's to any direction from it, but that piece of property is yours.
Depends - can I wallow in ignorant bliss anyway? ^_^
|
I agree that the banks got away with a crap load here. They probably should have been nationalized and would have been in most other countries in the world. It'd make getting to the bottom of any criminal negligence easier as well and would have sent a much clearer message.
Why hand over institutions to a body that, were it a private sector corporation, would be declaring bankruptcy right now? Send people to jail. Don't "GM-ize" banks. Yay. Government gets involved, makes GM produce the Volt, which turns out to just be a poorly made (compared to the Prius), overpriced hybrid, and not the 100% electric car we were led to believe it would be. Hooray government intervention.
Let things fail. Send people who did bad things to prison. The market has this weird way of correcting itself when government and quasi-government agencies (the Fed) let it be.
Oh, and speaking of the Fed, someone tell Bernarke to stop printing money, it makes it hard for anyone to take the U.S. seriously (see: Obama's recent Asia trip/G-20 in Toronto/any media source that doesn't have its head up Obama's ass).
|
|
Is this a bad time to point out that much of this country(and other's) economic principles are based on pyramid schemes?Correct, Dave. Without title (clear title, specifically), real property cannot be bought, sold or much of anything else done with it.
It's why I like real property over finances. You have something that is unique. It may not differ much from what's to any direction from it, but that piece of property is yours.
Um, bad liberal! How dare you call Keynesian economics unsound!
(Free clue, almost all Western social states are based on Keynesian economics. They're all pyramid schemes, in essence).
We need to have a beer or a coffee some time. I think I could change your mind on a lot of issues. Economic ones, anyway. We probably agree on most of the social ones.
;-)
I agree that the banks got away with a crap load here. They probably should have been nationalized and would have been in most other countries in the world. It'd make getting to the bottom of any criminal negligence easier as well and would have sent a much clearer message.Why hand over institutions to a body that, were it a private sector corporation, would be declaring bankruptcy right now? Send people to jail. Don't "GM-ize" banks. Yay. Government gets involved, makes GM produce the Volt, which turns out to just be a poorly made (compared to the Prius) hybrid, and not the 100% electric car we were led to believe it would be. Hooray government intervention.
Let things fail. Send people who did bad things to prison. The market has this weird way of correcting itself when government and quasi-government agencies (the Fed) let it be.
Oh, and speaking of the Fed, someone tell Bernarke to stop printing money, it makes it hard for anyone to take the U.S. seriously (see: Obama's recent Asia trip/G-20 in Toronto/any media source that doesn't have its head up Obama's ass).
The cheap shot here would be to insinuate you work for the company that makes the Prius(or own stock in it), so I'll avoid the obvious counter :-) . I'm not sure the Volt we're seeing now is the final version, so I'll hold off judgement until I'm able to drive one.
In terms of the Fed, while I actually do see where you're coming from and tend to agree, I feel that the counter argument made that most of the countries that are criticizing Bernake(and it's Bernake's idea- NOT Obama's, I know you didn't say that, but some on the conservative side of things are attributing things said by Bernake to Obama and it's just not true) have been doing this themselves for YEARS, and it's screwed over America; I'd put forth the old saying about geese and ganders.
Is this a bad time to point out that much of this country(and other's) economic principles are based on pyramid schemes?Correct, Dave. Without title (clear title, specifically), real property cannot be bought, sold or much of anything else done with it.
It's why I like real property over finances. You have something that is unique. It may not differ much from what's to any direction from it, but that piece of property is yours.
Um, bad liberal! How dare you call Keynesian economics unsound!
(Free clue, almost all Western social states are based on Keynesian economics. They're all pyramid schemes, in essence).
We need to have a beer or a coffee some time. I think I could change your mind on a lot of issues. Economic ones, anyway. We probably agree on most of the social ones.
;-)
Sure man. I'm down for beer and politics. Two flavors that taste better- TOGETHER!
|
|
I agree that the banks got away with a crap load here. They probably should have been nationalized and would have been in most other countries in the world. It'd make getting to the bottom of any criminal negligence easier as well and would have sent a much clearer message.Why hand over institutions to a body that, were it a private sector corporation, would be declaring bankruptcy right now? Send people to jail. Don't "GM-ize" banks. Yay. Government gets involved, makes GM produce the Volt, which turns out to just be a poorly made (compared to the Prius) hybrid, and not the 100% electric car we were led to believe it would be. Hooray government intervention.
Let things fail. Send people who did bad things to prison. The market has this weird way of correcting itself when government and quasi-government agencies (the Fed) let it be.
Oh, and speaking of the Fed, someone tell Bernarke to stop printing money, it makes it hard for anyone to take the U.S. seriously (see: Obama's recent Asia trip/G-20 in Toronto/any media source that doesn't have its head up Obama's ass).
The cheap shot here would be to insinuate you work for the company that makes the Prius(or owns stock in it), so I'll avoid the obvious counter. I'm not sure the Volt we're seeing now is the final version, so I'll hold off judgement until I'm able to drive one.
In terms of the Fed, while I actually do see where you're coming from and tend to agree, I feel that the counter argument made that most of the countries that are criticizing Bernake(and it's Bernake's idea- NOT Obama's, I know you didn't say that, but some on the conservative side of things are attributing things said by Bernake to Obama and it's just not true) have been doing this themselves for YEARS, and it's screwed over America; I'd put forth the old saying about geese and ganders.
Here's the difference. They were building their economies. China (whom I suppose you're referencing) went from nearly 100% communist to nearly 100% capitalist (more fascist, really, with the relationship between government and business, and the social controls still in place), in less than 20 years. You have to do some finagling to pull that off.
And their currency isn't the trade currency for major commodities. The U.S. dollar is. And devaluing the dollar in an attempt to correct trade imbalances a) doesn't work, and b) creates less faith in the viability of the dollar.
And Obama backs Bernarke, he can fire the incompetent fool any tim ehe likes. But Obama, much like his predecessor, seems to have trouble getting rid of the incompetents in his circle.
Ultimately, what China, Korea and India were telling the idiot in chief was this: Stop, or we will start trading in Yuan or Euros and marginalize you economically. This argument was articulated at the G-20 in Toronto as well, except by European leaders.
Obama is not respected by the people that matter in the world. Sure, the masses still like him, but the masses don't set global economic policy. We are currently seen as a bit of a joke, being led by someone who wasn't ready for the job he won.
We are not dealing from a position of strength right now. We don't get to dictate anything to the world economic powers any more. We had better start implementing actual effective economic policy and stop "hoping" every bad move we make will somehow "change" things for the better.
We are not dealing from a position of strength right now. We don't get to dictate anything to the world economic powers any more.
Amen.
Here's the difference. They were building their economies. China (whom I suppose you're referencing) went from nearly 100% communist to nearly 100% capitalist (more fascist, really, with the relationship between government and business, and the social controls still in place), in less than 20 years. You have to do some finagling to pull that off.
Actually it's not just China. Other, rarely heard from countries that I believe may or may not be suckling on China's teat do this as well. While I"m sure there was a LOT of ugly things going on behind the scenes with respect to China's change, their criticism, and that of others, is VERY hypocritical. I'm not QUITE willing to say that everything is their fault, but on a global scale...
And their currency isn't the trade currency for major commodities. The U.S. dollar is. And devaluing the dollar in an attempt to correct trade imbalances a) doesn't work, and b) creates less faith in the viability of the dollar.
Here, I agree to an extent. I'm not crazy about Bernake's move, but I don't think it's necessarily doomed to failure, for reasons I will get into later. Still, this gets into a bit of a tyranny of the majority, I think, with respect to the american dollar on a global scale, although I could be getting my analogies wrong(probably am).
And Obama backs Bernarke, he can fire the incompetent fool any tim ehe likes. But Obama, much like his predecessor, seems to have trouble getting rid of the incompetents in his circle.
I guess. You already know my thoughts on Bernake's decision.
Ultimately, what China, Korea and India were telling the idiot in chief was this: Stop, or we will start trading in Yuan or Euros and marginalize you economically. This argument was articulated at the G-20 in Toronto as well, except by European leaders.
I'd like to see them do this and get away with it. Really, I would. While there is a chance(a VERY SMALL CHANCE) that they would succeed, on the whole they'd be slitting their own throats on this one, and they know it. It's why I think Bernake's move may succeed, although if I was president, I'd probably ask for his resignation unless he cut down the number of bills he was putting out by a few trillion. I'd sweat if they said they would trade in precious metals, however, but noone seems to want to do this anymore.
Obama is not respected by the people that matter in the world. Sure, the masses still like him, but the masses don't set global economic policy. We are currently seen as a bit of a joke, being led by someone who wasn't ready for the job he won.
We are not dealing from a position of strength right now. We don't get to dictate anything to the world economic powers any more. We had better start implementing actual effective economic policy and stop "hoping" every bad move we make will somehow "change" things for the better.
Here, we must disagree, unfortunately. I don't think Obama's hated to the extent Bush was, nor is he seen as quite insane. I don't want to "go there" but I think some of the people you mentioned in earlier topics have uglier reasons for disliking the president, particularly Putin. I would say we haven't been in a position of strength since Iraq started. However, I do expect more from the president on economic matters, although I continue to suspect constant opposition from his political opponents is styming him.
|
|
Here, we must disagree, unfortunately. I don't think Obama's hated to the extent Bush was, nor is he seen as quite insane. I don't want to "go there" but I think some of the people you mentioned in earlier topics have uglier reasons for disliking the president, particularly Putin. I would say we haven't been in a position of strength since Iraq started. However, I do expect more from the president on economic matters, although I continue to suspect constant opposition from his political opponents is styming him.
Um, Obama may not be "hated" or "insane", but even Putin waited until Bush was in Beijing during the Olympics in the last six months of his term to pull that s%!~ in Georgia.
Bush may have been hated, but he was also feared. Fear is useful sometimes. And, you know I think Bush is an idiot, but he surrounded himself with people the world leaders already knew and respected, for the most part, and he always had James Baker in his back pocket if he needed instant cred.
Obama, on the other hand, is perceived as weak, incompetent, and in way over his head by world leaders, and, increasingly, the press, although the domestic usual suspects (CNN/NYT/WaPo) are a little slow on the uptake. Furthermore, he pretty much rejected quite a bit of Bill Clinton's team, who would have given him a little cred on the global stage. Instead, he surrounded himself with a bunch of Chicago machine operators (Emanuel), Academia types who no nothing beyond classroom theory (Sumner), incompetent demagogues and lightweights (99% of his Cabinet - including Hilary "why don't people respect me" Clinton), a V.P. who says s@%& that makes Dan Quayle look smart and a Treasury Secretary who was in charge of the S.E.C. when all of the shenanigans went down. Considering where most Wall Street money goes these days, Geithner should be indicted for conspiracy for all the crap that went down in his S.E.C. tenure.
European leaders shake their heads at him trying to expand government when they're trying to shrink it, and China is pissed because we're essentially trying to pay off the trillions we owe them with counterfeit money. South Korea just got done telling him to kiss off (I think S.K. preferred Bush, to be honest; North Korea didn't try any of that "blow up an island/sink a ship" crap when the lunatic in chief was in charge. They knew better. Obama scares them about as much as he scares Iran, which is to say, not at all.)
As far as political opposition, well, his political opposition right now consists of just about any country not led by a lunatic, and maybe Brazil, since he gave them $2 billion for off shore oil exploration the same week he engineered a false report (just came out, the scientists who did the study on off shore drilling said - "um, that wasn't our conclusion, you made that up - and how much press did that generate? Probably none outside of states dependent on oil exploration for jobs).
Hell, we're nearly two years in and Der Speigel was wondering in an Op-Ed when Obama was going to stop running against Bush.
Anyone who thinks the world's leaders have any respect for Obama, or think he's competent, has their head in the sand, sorry.
Here, we must disagree, unfortunately. I don't think Obama's hated to the extent Bush was, nor is he seen as quite insane. I don't want to "go there" but I think some of the people you mentioned in earlier topics have uglier reasons for disliking the president, particularly Putin. I would say we haven't been in a position of strength since Iraq started. However, I do expect more from the president on economic matters, although I continue to suspect constant opposition from his political opponents is styming him.Um, Obama may not be "hated" or "insane", but even Putin waited until Bush was in Beijing during the Olympics in the last six months of his term to pull that s!*! in Georgia.
Bush may have been hated, but he was also feared. Fear is useful sometimes. And, you know I think Bush is an idiot, but he surrounded himself with people the world leaders already knew and respected, for the most part, and he always had James Baker in his back pocket if he needed instant cred.
Obama, on the other hand, is perceived as weak, incompetent, and in way over his head by world leaders, and, increasingly, the press, although the domestic usual suspects (CNN/NYT/WaPo) are a little slow on the uptake. Furthermore, he pretty much rejected quite a bit of Bill Clinton's team, who would have given him a little cred on the global stage. Instead, he surrounded himself with a bunch of Chicago machine operators (Emanuel), Academia types who no nothing beyond classroom theory (Sumner), incompetent demagogues and lightweights (99% of his Cabinet - including Hilary "why don't people respect me" Clinton), a V.P. who says s!*! that makes Dan Quayle look smart and a Treasury Secretary who was in charge of the S.E.C. when all of the shenanigans went down. Considering where most Wall Street money goes these days, Geithner should be indicted for conspiracy for all the crap that went down in his S.E.C. tenure.
European leaders shake their heads at him trying to expand government when they're...
I must wonder, to an extent, what the importance of the respect of world leaders is? I remember when Bush was being criticized right and left for his policies; noone thought the opinion of world leaders was important then, in fact, there was an undercurrent that any and all who disagreed with the POTUS should be dismissed. Why is it so important now? And how is Putin "waiting" to pull off the crap he did in Georgia a sign of Bush's power, and North Korea firing on South Korea a sign of Obama's weakness?
|
|
I must wonder, to an extent, what the importance of the respect of world leaders is? I remember when Bush was being criticized right and left for his policies; noone thought the opinion of world leaders was important then, in fact, there was an undercurrent that any and all who disagreed with the POTUS should be dismissed. Why is it so important now? And how is Putin "waiting" to pull off the crap he did in Georgia a sign of Bush's power, and North Korea firing on South Korea a sign of Obama's weakness?
Putin waited until it was next to impossible for Bush to help Georgia in any meaningful way (mostly to send a message to the Ukraine, btw) because it was prudent.
As to Obama's weakness, every move he make sin international affairs paints him as a lightweight who doesn't have to be considered in anything. I'm pretty sure the world has no problem waiting two more years to see if we get off our losing steak of unqualified incompetents in the Oval Office. Until then, they'll keep capping on us and ignoring everything the empty suit in chief says.
Dude, seriously, I know he's "historic" and all, but give it up. He's Bush with better reading skills. And less backbone.
I agree that the banks got away with a crap load here. They probably should have been nationalized and would have been in most other countries in the world. It'd make getting to the bottom of any criminal negligence easier as well and would have sent a much clearer message.Why hand over institutions to a body that, were it a private sector corporation, would be declaring bankruptcy right now? Send people to jail. Don't "GM-ize" banks. Yay. Government gets involved, makes GM produce the Volt, which turns out to just be a poorly made (compared to the Prius), overpriced hybrid, and not the 100% electric car we were led to believe it would be. Hooray government intervention.
Let things fail. Send people who did bad things to prison. The market has this weird way of correcting itself when government and quasi-government agencies (the Fed) let it be.
Truth is I suspect we are pretty close to saying the same thing here. When you nationalize a bank pretty much everyone but small scale accounts and very short term industrial accounts get pretty much liquidated. Usually the bank is then cleaned up and might be sold off or sometimes the government runs it or its just shut down. The goal is not so much to give the government an asset - though that's a reasonable plan if its making money to help defray the depositors insurance.
The main goal is to keep it from bringing down healthy industries nearby when the short term deposit for 1 billion they made to park their cash somewhere suddenly vanishes. Mr. Lube Auto Repair should not be declaring bankruptcy and having to fire all the staff just because they got unlucky with where they parked their cash.
Furthermore having a wide spread panic where everyone, everywhere tries to liquidate their cash causes all the rest of these kinds of institutions to fail and the whole system collapses like a house of cards. Everyone suddenly goes down pretty much overnight. Not sure where you work but I run a small business and I keep the money for that small business in a Credit Union. I have, like 6 grand in it - not much but I just need to pay an employee. If the banks collapse so does my credit union and now I don't pay my employee. I can't buy new stock either so I'm out of business and my employee is probably out of a home when she does not pay her rent ('cause I never paid her). Even if my deposit is insured I'm still screwed because it takes X number of months to sort that out and in the meantime I'm bankrupt and my employee is homeless. This is pretty much the same boat for almost all businesses large or small. Almost overnight every business in America tells their employees - 'by the way your not getting paid' and none of them can cover their rent.
Nationalization means taking control of this crap in such a way as to not effect the rest of the economy. You still don't bother paying back the shareholders and you fire all the upper management. Which is meant to send a message to investor types to make sure that the banks being run properly.
Oh, and speaking of the Fed, someone tell Bernarke to stop printing money, it makes it hard for anyone to take the U.S. seriously (see: Obama's recent Asia trip/G-20 in Toronto/any media source that doesn't have its head up Obama's ass).
The reason everyone else is crying is that printing money makes US dollars less valuable - which means its not as easy for the rest of the world to undercut American manufacturing and its easier for Americans to compete on manufacturing. Its probably good for your economy if your dollar gets weaker.
And their currency isn't the trade currency for major commodities. The U.S. dollar is. And devaluing the dollar in an attempt to correct trade imbalances a) doesn't work, and b) creates less faith in the viability of the dollar.
Reducing the value of the currency to correct trade imbalances (or to create favorable ones) works for everyone else. Why would it not work for America? Even if commodities are traded in US dollars the net effect of devaluing the currency should be to raise the cost of the commodities. Something that should help to shrink the trade imbalance as fas prices go up at the pump incentivising Americans to be more efficient in gas usage.
Even beyond this my understanding is that the dollar is being devalued at least as much to avoid the specter of deflation as it is being devalued to reduce trade imbalances.
I think S.K. preferred Bush, to be honest; North Korea didn't try any of that "blow up an island/sink a ship" crap when the lunatic in chief was in charge. They knew better.
Sure they did. Bush invades Iraq ostensibly to stop them from developing nuclear weapons during the same period (2002 through 2003) North Korea declares itself no longer bound by the nuclear non proliferation treaty - they kick out the inspectors and restart their nuclear weapons program.
In 2006 they go so far as to actually do a nuclear weapons test and have been intermittedly testing out their delivery systems.
They even keep trying (and so far not really succeeding) to get an ICBM going with enough range to hit the west coast of the US.
If this is not thumbing their nose at Bush's America then what is?
I agree that the banks got away with a crap load here. They probably should have been nationalized and would have been in most other countries in the world. It'd make getting to the bottom of any criminal negligence easier as well and would have sent a much clearer message.Why hand over institutions to a body that, were it a private sector corporation, would be declaring bankruptcy right now? Send people to jail. Don't "GM-ize" banks. Yay. Government gets involved, makes GM produce the Volt, which turns out to just be a poorly made (compared to the Prius), overpriced hybrid, and not the 100% electric car we were led to believe it would be. Hooray government intervention.
Let things fail. Send people who did bad things to prison. The market has this weird way of correcting itself when government and quasi-government agencies (the Fed) let it be.
Truth is I suspect we are pretty close to saying the same thing here. When you nationalize a bank pretty much everyone but small scale accounts and very short term industrial accounts get pretty much liquidated. Usually the bank is then cleaned up and might be sold off or sometimes the government runs it or its just shut down. The goal is not so much to give the government an asset - though that's a reasonable plan if its making money to help defray the depositors insurance.
The main goal is to keep it from bringing down healthy industries nearby when the short term deposit for 1 billion they made to park their cash somewhere suddenly vanishes. Mr. Lube Auto Repair should not be declaring bankruptcy and having to fire all the staff just because they got unlucky with where they parked their cash.
Furthermore having a wide spread panic where everyone, everywhere tries to liquidate their cash causes all the rest of these kinds of institutions to fail and the whole system collapses like a house of cards. Everyone suddenly goes down pretty much overnight. Not sure where you work but...
Why shouldn't they follow the same rules as everyone else and restructure through bankruptcy?
If someone drives their business into the ground they should not be rewarded with special treatment because they own more politicians. This flies in the face of how a free market should work. If you fail to provide a good product or service at a good price you deserve to fail.
Rewarding bad behavior hurts everyone in the long run.
And their currency isn't the trade currency for major commodities. The U.S. dollar is. And devaluing the dollar in an attempt to correct trade imbalances a) doesn't work, and b) creates less faith in the viability of the dollar.Reducing the value of the currency to correct trade imbalances (or to create favorable ones) works for everyone else. Why would it not work for America? Even if commodities are traded in US dollars the net effect of devaluing the currency should be to raise the cost of the commodities. Something that should help to shrink the trade imbalance as fas prices go up at the pump incentivising Americans to be more efficient in gas usage.
Even beyond this my understanding is that the dollar is being devalued at least as much to avoid the specter of deflation as it is being devalued to reduce trade imbalances.
I think deflation is a red herring at best. Contrary to what government says I think inflation is much worse in the US than the government line says. Elites who think there is little or no inflation don't seem to have to shop for basic food to feed a family from pay check to pay check.
Inflation is brutally regressive. When gas and food go up it doesn't matter so much if gas and food are a small fraction of ones income. If someone is living from pay check to pay check then a modest increase in the price of these needs hurts a lot. Printing hundreds of billions of dollars weakens the dollar and hurts the working poor and retirees the most. We can't inflate our way out of the national debt without crushing working people.
|
I must wonder, to an extent, what the importance of the respect of world leaders is? I remember when Bush was being criticized right and left for his policies; noone thought the opinion of world leaders was important then, in fact, there was an undercurrent that any and all who disagreed with the POTUS should be dismissed. Why is it so important now? And how is Putin "waiting" to pull off the crap he did in Georgia a sign of Bush's power, and North Korea firing on South Korea a sign of Obama's weakness?Putin waited until it was next to impossible for Bush to help Georgia in any meaningful way (mostly to send a message to the Ukraine, btw) because it was prudent.
As to Obama's weakness, every move he make sin international affairs paints him as a lightweight who doesn't have to be considered in anything. I'm pretty sure the world has no problem waiting two more years to see if we get off our losing steak of unqualified incompetents in the Oval Office. Until then, they'll keep capping on us and ignoring everything the empty suit in chief says.
Dude, seriously, I know he's "historic" and all, but give it up. He's Bush with better reading skills. And less backbone.
I think you need to stop looking at events across the world through an American prism.
Putin pulled that stunt in Georgia because of domestic and east-European political issues. The timing had little to do with where the US President was, Bush wasn't going to do anything about it whether he was in the White House or on the farm.
Bush was widely perceived to be incompetent. Living here in Europe I don't get the message that people are very interested in the US. They're too busy mending problems in their own backyard. It's all about Ireland and Portugal in Europe right now.
China, to be frank, is stuck in a self-destructive pattern. Artificially holding down their currency has been a success for them in the past and they don't have the wit/culture/systems to see when that needs to change. But, they've never been interested in what other nations leaders think of them, it is both their strength and their weakness that they plow their own furrow and let other people react to them.
The backbone comment is interesting, there was a famous line about Thatcher at the end of her time as PM in the UK when she was losing it: "What's the point of being strong if you're wrong."
All in all, it's pretty strange to see you making really confident statements about the way leaders from many diverse nations view Obama without any real explanation.