or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › USSA 2009: Another Step Towards Statism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USSA 2009: Another Step Towards Statism - Page 2

post #41 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

What is the difference between your "corporatists" and capitalists?

Dictionary definition: The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

This is exactly what the US has become.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #42 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Dictionary definition: The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

This is exactly what the US has become.

True, but this definition only partially covers the reality, which is corporatism. Take the health care debate, for example. It turns out, lo and behold, that the best legislation Congress will ever be able to pass is almost precisely the legislation advocated by the health insurance industry. They are getting everything they could ever want (insurance mandates, government assistance to pay premiums), and virtually nothing they didn't want (a public alternative).
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #43 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

True, but this definition only partially covers the reality, which is corporatism. Take the health care debate, for example. It turns out, lo and behold, that the best legislation Congress will ever be able to pass is almost precisely the legislation advocated by the health insurance industry. They are getting everything they could ever want (insurance mandates, government assistance to pay premiums), and virtually nothing they didn't want (a public alternative).

Just today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his decision to craft legislation including a public insurance option. Personally, I think that'll kill it, but that's just me.
post #44 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Just today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his decision to craft legislation including a public insurance option. Personally, I think that'll kill it, but that's just me.

Not just you. I wish it was different, but I don't think it has a prayer. I suppose at least we'll know who in Congress has the guts to vote against corporate interests.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #45 of 101
One can only hope Reid's last minute modification kills this monstrosity. It needs to face a loud, brutal, ignoble end.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #46 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I claimed what I wrote, not some other thing, convenient as that might be for you.

You wrote:

Quote:
....The problem is free market fundamentalism -- the theory that all is needed for a thriving economy is for the government to take a hands off approach.....

....I wonder where that leaves the people who still do. Way, way out on a distant fringe, I believe.

I cut sections only for brevity, not to change the meaning. I can understand perhaps if you merely disagreed with free market fundamentalism, as you put it. But you didn't do that. You said that anyone who still believes in it is on the distant fringe. That, of course, is ridiculous.

This seems to happen every time we have a serious recession or other economic problem. Free markets get the blame. "We have to reform the system!" people scream. That is, until things are going well. Then, it's the greatest system on the face of the Earth...and everyone is getting rich! The government takes credit, too. But whoah! When things go bad? The politicians attack the very free market system that created prosperity. It's an endless cycle.

As for the debate itself (putting aside your "fringe" reference), the fact is that free markets do create wealth faster and better than any other system. Government meddling and "involvement" makes things far worse and created the very kinds of crisis we see today. The support for this can be found in the latest crisis. It wasn't that the government allowed it to happen through deregulation, it's that the government encouraged the problem. Why?

1. We have and have had an inflationary monetary policy. Our economy has been dependent on artificially cheap money. This expands credit dramatically. The end result is inflation and frankly, people spending money they don't have on things they don't need. And it's all thanks to the Feds monetary policy.

2. The Federal Government is at the core of the housing crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act, created in the 1970s and reauthorized in the 1990s, essentially made banks make loans they normally wouldn't make. The federal government went so far as to basically threaten banks into making sub-prime loans. The federal government then bought many of these loans (indirectly) through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite their high risk. This expanded credit further, since lending standards had been lowered. In turn, this helped drive housing prices, which coupled with low interest rates and a good overall economy, led to a bubble that eventually burst.

With exception of CDS contracts and the creation of junk mortgage funds by the financial sector, the government ensured a financial crisis all on its own as it served to create the housing crisis. Had interest rates been a little higher, had the government left the banks alone and not pressured them, we would have had a more reasonable ascension prices. At least, it's a reasonable assumption.


Quote:

I'm not suggesting a different system, only that some of our assumptions about markets need to be reexamined. This is what Greenspan was doing in a very public way about a year ago.

Vague. What assumptions, exactly?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #47 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Vague. What assumptions, exactly?

You pretend to be knowledgeable about this subject, and yet you don't seem to know what Greenspan said about it just one year ago. Made headlines. Also, it's clear that you aren't paying much attention to what I actually write -- so end of discussion, if it ever was one.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #48 of 101
There's no getting around the fact that our entire global economic structure is one huge Ponzi scheme.

It's bound to continue collapsing repeatedly until we all realize the system needs to be replaced. Which is unfortunate for my 4 month old son and my two grand daughters.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #49 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

There's no getting around the fact that our entire global economic structure is one huge Ponzi scheme.

It's bound to continue collapsing repeatedly until we all realize the system needs to be replaced. Which is unfortunate for my 4 month old son and my two grand daughters.

Not necessarily. If it's replaced with a sounder, more realistic system, future generations will love us for it.

Unfortunately, the same people who built the current house of cards are trying to set up an elite system built around a perversion of capitalism backstopped by a system of global government.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #50 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Not necessarily. If it's replaced with a sounder, more realistic system, future generations will love us for it.

Unfortunately, the same people who built the current house of cards are trying to set up an elite system built around a perversion of capitalism backstopped by a system of global government.

I agree. It will take a complete monetary collapse and much greater pain than we're currently experiencing to make the needed changes, IMO. Gold-backed currency and elimination of the Federal Reserve would be a good start.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #51 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You pretend to be knowledgeable about this subject, and yet you don't seem to know what Greenspan said about it just one year ago. Made headlines. Also, it's clear that you aren't paying much attention to what I actually write -- so end of discussion, if it ever was one.


I don't pretend anything. I am giving my opinion on what caused the crisis. If you have another view, please post it. As for Greenspan, I think you are referring to this article in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...y/24panel.html

In it, Greenspan essentially questions the self-correcting power of free markets. OK, fine. I frankly don't agree. His statement seems to be entirely as a result of what happened in the financial sector. It's exactly what I said...when things are going well, there is no questioning. Whenever we have a problem, it's blamed "deregulation" and the call for "reforms" is made right away.

Secondly, your interpretation of Greenspan's remarks stems from a false assumption, that being we didn't already have massive regulation in the mortgage and finance industry. He (and you, apparently) ignore the policies that helped create the problem. Greenspan probably didn't manage things as well as we all thought when things were good. His comments now are just as questionable.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #52 of 101
Good for you, you found it. Greenspan advocated deregulation of the financial industry (as did many other), predicated on the belief that these industries were capable of looking after their own interests. He admitted that this was an error. You may have missed it, but this industry was heavily deregulated from the 1980s onwards, on the advice of Greenspan and others.

You are also claiming that I am in favor of some other economic "system," when I have made no such statement, and consequently you have no reason to make this assumption. That's why this is a futile discussion.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #53 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Good for you, you found it. Greenspan advocated deregulation of the financial industry (as did many other), predicated on the belief that these industries were capable of looking after their own interests. He admitted that this was an error.

Everyone likes to point to Alan Greenspan as some newly repentant and reformed "High Priest of Free-Market Capitalism". The problem is that as Fed Chairman he was anything but a free-market capitalist. He was the biggest and most central central planner of them all! He controlled the money and credit of the market for goodness sake! He helped to create the very problems he now claims to be shocked by. Greenspan is either trying to duck for cover and cover his ass from his own errors or he's completely blind to how his own inflationary, loose money and easy credit actions as the Fed Chairman led to the problems that were created, specifically the excessive risk taking and massive misallocation of capital.
post #54 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Everyone likes to point to Alan Greenspan as some newly repentant and reformed "High Priest of Free-Market Capitalism". The problem is that as Fed Chairman he was anything but a free-market capitalist. He was the biggest and most central central planner of them all! He controlled the money and credit of the market for goodness sake! He helped to create the very problems he now claims to be shocked by. Greenspan is either trying to duck for cover and cover his ass from his own errors or he's completely blind to how his own inflationary, loose money and easy credit actions as the Fed Chairman led to the problems that were created, specifically the excessive risk taking and massive misallocation of capital.

The mistakes he made does create the impression that his grasp of the situation isn't as comprehensive as he suggests.

I think that as long as the economy followed a particular sub-portion on the slope of a curve, Greenspan's instincts were accurate. Off that portion of the slope, he's really lost credibility.
post #55 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

The mistakes he made does create the impression that his grasp of the situation isn't as comprehensive as he suggests.

I think that as long as the economy followed a particular sub-portion on the slope of a curve, Greenspan's instincts were accurate. Off that portion of the slope, he's really lost credibility.

The point being talked around is that Greenspan was one of the primary cheerleaders for the deregulation of the financial industry from the 1980s onwards. Capital reserve requirements were lowered, and banks and brokerage houses were allowed to move into each other's businesses. When derivatives became a big market, the conventional wisdom among free-traders like Greenspan was that these companies could look after their own interests, therefore regulating these derivatives in the way other securities had long been regulated (for transparency, in particular) wasn't necessary. This is the place where Greenspan was forced to acknowledge a failure of wisdom last year, after the derivatives market brought down Lehman Brothers, and threatened to collapse the entire financial system.

So the main question raised by Greenspan's mea culpa last year was about the need to regulate derivatives as other securities markets are regulated. Greenspan was acknowledging that his assumptions about the ability of these companies to calculate risk accurately was wrong, resulting in a market failure of potentially catastrophic proportions. Since Greenspan was in fact one of the key advocates for a view that he now admits was wrong, I think it's fair to ask where that leaves people who still cling to it. Not anywhere near the mainstream, that's for sure.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #56 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The point being talked around is that Greenspan was one of the primary cheerleaders for the deregulation of the financial industry from the 1980s onwards. Capital reserve requirements were lowered, and banks and brokerage houses were allowed to move into each other's businesses. When derivatives became a big market, the conventional wisdom among free-traders like Greenspan was that these companies could look after their own interests, therefore regulating these derivatives in the way other securities had long been regulated (for transparency, in particular) wasn't necessary. This is the place where Greenspan was forced to acknowledge a failure of wisdom last year, after the derivatives market brought down Lehman Brothers, and threatened to collapse the entire financial system.

So the main question raised by Greenspan's mea culpa last year was about the need to regulate derivatives as other securities markets are regulated. Greenspan was acknowledging that his assumptions about the ability of these companies to calculate risk accurately was wrong, resulting in a market failure of potentially catastrophic proportions. Since Greenspan was in fact one of the key advocates for a view that he now admits was wrong, I think it's fair to ask where that leaves people who still cling to it. Not anywhere near the mainstream, that's for sure.

Yes but Greenspan, through his monetary policies, created the distortions which led to the inability of these companies to calculate risk accurately. This isn't a market failure. It's a failure resulting from the actions of government or quasi-government entities. If anything this is the market trying to correct the failings of government distortions, which no one will actually let happen, which will lead to further distortions and catastrophes of even larger proportions.
post #57 of 101
No "yes, buts." The point I am making stands, since nobody seems prepared to address it. Talking around it doesn't count.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #58 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No "yes, buts." The point I am making stands, since nobody seems prepared to address it. Talking around it doesn't count.

You're looking only at the superficial but not the root causes. You need to look deeper if you want to find the real causes and problems. If you don't want to because you insist on making some dogmatic ideological point then, fine, so be it. If you wish to define the boundaries of the debate so narrowly that you "win", great (for you) but it's meaningless to do so.
post #59 of 101
No, I'm not -- you're just missing the point. Your entire argument depends on what I'd call free market fundamentalism. That is, in short, the belief that if you just leave the markets alone, everything works out. My point is that Greenspan has over the course of his career been as devoted to this cause as anyone who's been even remotely associated with government. Your argument seems to be that he's not ideologically pure enough to worship at the alter of Adam Smith.

So be it -- but I think this is indicative of someone who's beliefs are found on the fringe, not even within hailing distance of the mainstream. This has been my entire point all along. You're entitled to believe what you like, but I'm also entitled to place those beliefs where I think they fit into the spectrum of beliefs. If you're move conservative on economics than Alan Greenspan, then you are very, very conservative indeed.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #60 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No, I'm not -- you're just missing the point.

You are the one missing the point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Your entire argument depends on what I'd call free market fundamentalism.

You can call it whatever you want. You can use whatever pejorative phrase makes you feel good about dismissing what I've said.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Your argument seems to be that he's not ideologically pure enough to worship at the alter of Adam Smith.

You've missed the point, which often happens when looking at someone's argument through ideological and dogmatic lenses (as you appear to be doing).

I am saying that the one person who has been in control of the least free-market entity in the world and whose policies in directing this entity were not free-market in any real way is in a very tenuous position to claim the problems were caused by free-market mechanisms when, in fact, his actions (in monetary policy) created the distortions that caused the problems in the first place.

It's about looking at proximate causes and ultimate causes. You are focused on the proximate cause.

It's like this. Let's say John Doe, who has a couple of kids, decides one day to be more permissive and let's his kids have some cigarettes and matches to smoke. Later he comes home and finds they have burned down the house. Your blame is on the father for being permissive in this way. Rightly so, until someone points out that John Doe spread gasoline all over the floors of the house. At that point, the ultimate cause is the gasoline spreading and the proximate cause was the permissiveness with the cigarettes and matches.

The so-called deregulation is the proximate cause in this case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

So be it -- but I think this is indicative of someone who's beliefs are found on the fringe, not even within hailing distance of the mainstream. This has been my entire point all along. You're entitled to believe what you like, but I'm also entitled to place those beliefs where I think they fit into the spectrum of beliefs.

As I said, you can call it whatever you want. You can use whatever pejorative phrase makes you feel good about dismissing what I've said. But the "fringeness" or "mainstreamness" of a belief or idea has no bearing on its truth or falseness. To claim otherwise is fallacious.
post #61 of 101
Look, if your economic philosophy is well to the right of Alan Greenspan, then why not just admit it? Just don't try to tell me that it's anywhere close to mainstream. If you find that fact to be a "pejorative," then that's not my problem.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #62 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Look, if your economic philosophy is well to the right of Alan Greenspan, then why not just admit it?

First, it isn't a question of a "philosophy" or belief if economics but, rather, an understanding of it. I've not made any specific claim of that in relation to Mr. Greenspan. The most of I've said is that his mea culpa, on which you seem fixated, is either an act of CYA or reflects his own ignorance of his own culpability in the causes of these events.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Just don't try to tell me that it's anywhere close to mainstream.

I haven't made any such claim. Furthermore, you are the one fixated on the "mainstreamness" or "fringeness" of what I've said rather than actually what I've said. It appears to be your means of dismissal and avoidance. So be it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

If you find that fact to be a "pejorative," then that's not my problem.

What I find is that people, like yourself, often chose to use phrases like "fundamentalism" and "fringe" (or "radical" or "outside of the mainstream", etc.) in a pejorative sense as a way to dismiss those people (or arguments) which you either don't like or disagree with but lack the willingness (or ability) to actually counter-argue.
post #63 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Look, if your economic philosophy is well to the right of Alan Greenspan, then why not just admit it? Just don't try to tell me that it's anywhere close to mainstream. If you find that fact to be a "pejorative," then that's not my problem.

Mainstream ... where? In a capitalistic society, pretty much by defintion the "mainstream" economic regulatory emphasis is in line with the laissez-faire philosophy...different degrees perhaps, but that doesn't take away from the facts.

So, I gotta disagree with you.
post #64 of 101
Whatever. I don't understand what the big deal is about this. You don't have to look very long or very hard to find very conservative people writing in very conservative publications lionizing Greenspan for his aggressive efforts to deregulate the banking industry, and for checking inflation during the '90s. At one time, he was the hero of believers in orthodox conservative economic theory (oops, sorry -- truths). Of course, this was all before 2008. Now that the storyline has changed, Greenspan is a goat, or maybe even a stealth socialist. Who knows? I'm sure not going to get a straight answer here.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #65 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Mainstream ... where? In a capitalistic society, pretty much by defintion the "mainstream" economic regulatory emphasis is in line with the laissez-faire philosophy...different degrees perhaps, but that doesn't take away from the facts.

So, I gotta disagree with you.

I'm not sure where you disagree with me, because there's certainly some truth in what you say. We live in a free market system, regulated to a greater or lesser degree depending on who is calling the shots at any given time. All I'm saying here is that Alan Greenspan was never on the "greater" side of that debate, but very much on the "lesser" side. Very, very much. At one time (like, two years ago) he was greatly admired by people who advocated reducing regulations (read: conservatives) -- and not on some theoretical, abstract basis, but because of what he actually did to deregulate the banking industry.

None of this should be very complicated to understand. Greenspan essentially admitted that his deregulation program went too far, that he overestimated the degree to which the banking markets could regulate themselves. Some take this admission as a "loss of credibility." I take it as an example of intellectual honesty.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #66 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Whatever. I don't understand what the big deal is about this. You don't have to look very long or very hard to find very conservative people writing in very conservative publications lionizing Greenspan for his aggressive efforts to deregulate the banking industry, and for checking inflation during the '90s. At one time, he was the hero of believers in orthodox conservative economic theory (oops, sorry -- truths). Of course, this was all before 2008. Now that the storyline has changed, Greenspan is a goat, or maybe even a stealth socialist. Who knows? I'm sure not going to get a straight answer here.

I think it's best to dispense with the labels ("conservatives") and to look at actions as trumping words. What people say and what they do are often on very divergent paths. The current president is a fine example. The previous one as well. Politicians in general provide us with ample examples to draw from.

Now just because someone is praised for something doesn't mean they actually did it. It doesn't mean that the praisers know what the hell they were talking about.

To illustrate let's take your statement that Greenspan was praised "for checking inflation during the '90s". Fine, he was praised for it. Does that mean he actually did it? Does it mean that the praisers knew what they were talking about? Let's see:

Between August 1987, when Greenspan became Fed Chairman, and November 2005, the monetary base rose from $233.5 billion to $782.5 billion, a 235% total increase or 6.8% at an annual rate. The M3 measure of money supply rose during the same period from $3.62 trillion to over $10 trillion, a 179% increase or 5.8% at an annual rate.

That's "keeping inflation in check"?!

Mr. Greenspan has significantly reduced the value of the dollar (which is the effect of monetary inflation) resulting in nominal dollar price inflation.

So these praises came from ignorance.

Let's look at the actual actions (not words) and trace them back to their original, ultimate causes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Greenspan essentially admitted that his deregulation program went too far, that he overestimated the degree to which the banking markets could regulate themselves. Some take this admission as a "loss of credibility." I take it as an example of intellectual honesty.

Or it's an example of someone covering their ass, trying to protect his "legacy" and divert blame away from his own actions.
post #67 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by taskiss View Post

the mistakes he made does create the impression that his grasp of the situation isn't as comprehensive as he suggests.

I think that as long as the economy followed a particular sub-portion on the slope of a curve, greenspan's instincts were accurate. Off that portion of the slope, he's really lost credibility.

ding ding ding!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #68 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The point being talked around is that Greenspan was one of the primary cheerleaders for the deregulation of the financial industry from the 1980s onwards. Capital reserve requirements were lowered, and banks and brokerage houses were allowed to move into each other's businesses. When derivatives became a big market, the conventional wisdom among free-traders like Greenspan was that these companies could look after their own interests, therefore regulating these derivatives in the way other securities had long been regulated (for transparency, in particular) wasn't necessary. This is the place where Greenspan was forced to acknowledge a failure of wisdom last year, after the derivatives market brought down Lehman Brothers, and threatened to collapse the entire financial system.

So the main question raised by Greenspan's mea culpa last year was about the need to regulate derivatives as other securities markets are regulated. Greenspan was acknowledging that his assumptions about the ability of these companies to calculate risk accurately was wrong, resulting in a market failure of potentially catastrophic proportions. Since Greenspan was in fact one of the key advocates for a view that he now admits was wrong, I think it's fair to ask where that leaves people who still cling to it. Not anywhere near the mainstream, that's for sure.

But derivatives didn't cause the problem. Lack of regulation didn't cause the problem.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 101
Inflation is normally measured by the CPI, not by any of the M-numbers or the value of the dollar. But I guess it's pick and choose time, so why not.

Admitting an error generally isn't the best way to cover one's posterior since (as is so well illustrated in this case), it exposes a person to even more criticism. Maybe admitting a mistake has become such a rare occasion, some of us don't know any other way of interpreting it. In Greenspan's case, I sure don't see how he got any cover out of it. Not a bit.

As for whether Greenspan did what so many conservatives admired him for, the answer is resoundingly yes. You could look it up. Of course, that's all in the past tense now, so feel free to ignore it.

As for derivatives not being the problem, you should talk to someone at AIG or Lehman or any of the other institutions that sunk under their weight. Or read Warren Buffet's warnings. Or you could just read a newspaper or something.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #70 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Inflation is normally measured by the CPI, not by any of the M-numbers or the value of the dollar. But I guess it's pick and choose time, so why not.

I know you'd like to dismiss this as so much random and convenient choosing of facts, but I'm afraid you'd be wrong. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. Period. It's effects are (somewhat) reflected in the general increase in prices, which is (somewhat) reflected in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Admitting an error generally isn't the best way to cover one's posterior since (as is so well illustrated in this case), it exposes a person to even more criticism.

Perhaps, but it depends on the error being admitted. He didn't really admit that anything he did was wrong. Nor that anything he did might have misled and distorted the market in ways that created these problems. Instead he took cover in a fairly easy admission (claim)...that the market, when unrestrained, can go off the rails.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

As for whether Greenspan did what so many conservatives admired him for, the answer is resoundingly yes. You could look it up. Of course, that's all in the past tense now, so feel free to ignore it.

What many conservatives did, said, admired, etc. is immaterial and irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me. I don't really care. Also, I don't ignore the past. But I don't ignore any of the past. Which many today seem wont to do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

As for derivatives not being the problem...

I don't believe I claimed they were not a problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Or you could just read a newspaper or something.



Maybe you could read an economics book or something.
post #71 of 101
You know, I really don't care anymore either.

Add your own smiley faces.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #72 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Inflation is normally measured by the CPI, not by any of the M-numbers or the value of the dollar. But I guess it's pick and choose time, so why not.

Admitting an error generally isn't the best way to cover one's posterior since (as is so well illustrated in this case), it exposes a person to even more criticism. Maybe admitting a mistake has become such a rare occasion, some of us don't know any other way of interpreting it. In Greenspan's case, I sure don't see how he got any cover out of it. Not a bit.

As for whether Greenspan did what so many conservatives admired him for, the answer is resoundingly yes. You could look it up. Of course, that's all in the past tense now, so feel free to ignore it.

As for derivatives not being the problem, you should talk to someone at AIG or Lehman or any of the other institutions that sunk under their weight. Or read Warren Buffet's warnings. Or you could just read a newspaper or something.


I say again: Derivatives were not THE problem. I'm not saying they weren't A problem. The root of our financial crisis was the housing bubble's burst, which was partially brought on by the government. This, in fact, is what caused derivatives and the Credit Default Swap market to go into meltdown. The underlying assets depreciated, causing the whole house of cards to come down. Add this to junk-mortgage funds (subprimes, mostly) and it's not hard to see what happened.

The above is my understanding. If you disagree with the reason I've stated (for the collapse), then I'd like to read your actual reasons, rather than a snide comment about reading the newspaper.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #73 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I say again: Derivatives were not THE problem. I'm not saying they weren't A problem. The root of our financial crisis was the housing bubble's burst, which was partially brought on by the government. This, in fact, is what caused derivatives and the Credit Default Swap market to go into meltdown. The underlying assets depreciated, causing the whole house of cards to come down. Add this to junk-mortgage funds (subprimes, mostly) and it's not hard to see what happened.

The above is my understanding. If you disagree with the reason I've stated (for the collapse), then I'd like to read your actual reasons, rather than a snide comment about reading the newspaper.

DMZ would differ with you.


Quote:
Watch Frontline's recent piece: The Warning and get back to us on how this is "all Bush's fault".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #74 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

DMZ would differ with you.

Then let him. Do you differ with those reasons?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #75 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Then let him. Do you differ with those reasons?

You watch the Frontline piece and get back to me.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #76 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You watch the Frontline piece and get back to me.

Regulatory capture _is_ a big part of this -- but let's not forget: this is an argument about whether to blame the pimps, the johns, or the whores.

None of us is as stupid as all of us.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #77 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Regulatory capture _is_ a big part of this -- but let's not forget: this is an argument about whether to blame the pimps, the johns, or the whores.

None of us is as stupid as all of us.


Ever see an old show called " The prisoner " ?

It wasn't a show about a spy that was locked up in a village where they put people with certain knowlege as much as it was about society and the individual. Everyone there had a number but you never saw number one ( the guy running the show ) until the final episode. When number 6 beat the system he found out number 1 was himself.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #78 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ever see an old show called " The prisoner " ?

It wasn't a show about a spy that was locked up in a village where they put people with certain knowlege as much as it was about society and the individual. Everyone there had a number but you never saw number one ( the guy running the show ) until the final episode. When number 6 beat the system he found out number 1 was himself.

I dunno, jimmac -- but I don't think it's an understatement to say that everyone involved here should be getting an eerie sense -- that this is way fracking beyond party politics.

At some point in the future, maybe there would be a time to yell at each other over gay rights, but when we are collectively cratering our entire economic system, someone (that would be all of us) need to call both a time out and an end to the madness -- the best I can tell is that we are buying our own bullshit: consumerism, toys, no-payments-till 2012, factory farming for our Jimmy Dean meat bombs on a stick -- and it's got to stop. (or it will stop us)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #79 of 101
It's so amusing to see all of the dyed-in-the-wool neo-cons grasping for some kind of "new truth" here. The roots of Libertarian economic philosophy are the only salve for getting your collective bums spanked in this last election. The house of cards collapsed and now the Rush Limbaugh fascists all run for cover under the banner of the tea parties, still pushing for a pseudo-Christian militaristic comeback. It's sad and it's sick. I can only hope we get the full measure of Obama for eight years to destroy our economy, scare off the upper class so there will be no one left to steal from and make everyone equally poor. Only then might America be good and ready to embrace the full measure of the "traditional liberal" view, what some call Libertarianism, or as I would call it, "freedom from government". Let's just see if there are enough nuts in the nutsack that are willing to reject militarism, corporatism, an unholy mixture of religion and politics and embrace real peace and freedom.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #80 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You watch the Frontline piece and get back to me.

I am asking YOUR opinion. In other words, if you disagree with what I posted as to the cause(s) of our current "crisis," then please say so...and explain why.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › USSA 2009: Another Step Towards Statism