Oh Zito... I admire your loyalty to dumb ideas.
Much like your boy Bernie
Oh Zito... I admire your loyalty to dumb ideas.
Much like your boy Bernie
Garmel (06-02-2016)
So you're denying what I said? Cool.Originally Posted by sturg33
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Have you refuted anything I've said..
All I've read is "or... it could have been something else YAY WOOOO"
Just to let you know, nobody is suggesting the free market capitalism will avoid economic downturns... they just wouldn't be as prolonged or severe.
Matter of fact, we're literally doing the exact same thing we've done over and over which will cause another crash. But hey - why understand the causes of credit cycle booms and busts when we can just point the finger at capitalism?
Oh... and no... i didn't read what you said. But I will. Like I'm sure you won't read Rothbard's text
Hey sturg...what killed Lehman Brothers, and AIG, and about a million commercial banks?So let's see... we have Bernie:
And we have Dr. Paul
Yeah... one might have a better clue on what causes economic bubbles than the other... just maybe
Gave it a quick read... looks like the pricing bubbles can be explained by debased currency by government expansion of monetary supply. if you're curious in an opposing view - the mises institute has an article on it. It is long... but worthwhile. Here's a snippet towards the end:
https://mises.org/library/truth-about-tulipmaniaLike other periods of heightened speculation, Dutch interest rates "declined sharply" in the seventeenth century according to Homer and Sylla (1996, p. 141) and tulip bulb futures could be traded with no margin required (Garber 2000, p. 44). The tulip trading clubs were "soundly organized" and "proved very effective in smoothing transactions" (Gelderblom and Jonker n.d.). Dash (1999, p. 110) writes that the masses speculated in the tulip trade as an outgrowth of "an increasingly feverish boom in the Dutch economy as a whole, which began in 1631 and 1632 and gathered pace toward the end of the decade and meant that in many cases there was more money around than ever before." As more novice florists became interested in tulip speculation, professional growers introduced "an unusually large number of new varieties in 1634, which had the effect of depressing prices," but provided an avenue for commoners to participate in the mania (Dash 1999, p. 111).
But what made this episode unique was that the government policy did not expand the supply of money through fractional reserve banking which is the modern tool. Actually, it was quite the opposite. As kings throughout Europe debased their currencies, through clipping, sweating or by decree, the Dutch provided a sound money policy, which called for money to be backed one hundred per cent by specie. This policy, combined with the occasional seizure of bullion and coin from Spanish ships on the high seas, served to attract coin and bullion from throughout the world.
The end result was a large increase in the supply of coin and bullion in 1630s Amsterdam. Free coinage laws then served to create more money from this increased supply of coin and bullion, than what the market demanded. This acute increase in the supply of money served to foster an atmosphere that was ripe for speculation and malinvestment, which manifested itself in the intense trading of tulips.
Meanwhile... I've asked 100 times, but are we all ready to mock Sanders for wanting us to be like Venezuela?
It could also be explained by out of control greed, corruption, not giving a damn about the law (ie I can follow the ones that benefit me and ignore the rest), make as much money as possible and let other people "pay the piper" if the lazy beestard gets paid at all, and basically just worry about feathering my own nest.
I have defended both Bernie and Dr. Paul in the past for being basically good honest men in a world where that just doesn't happen. Is either of them perfect??? No, but this "gotcha" stuff you guys are having so much fun with is one of the main reasons why we're looking right down the barrel of Hilldog vs B-Dog. What about trying to find some common ground based on positives? Does that even exist for any of us anymore?
Except there's no gotcha stuff on the Paul side... just an explanation of economic policies...
Nobody seems to have a defense of Bernie's insanity
By the way - of course there's greed... that's going to happen. We need a government that doesn't create policies that condone, incentivize, and enable shady practices.
Last edited by sturg33; 06-02-2016 at 08:35 PM.
It all starts with the interest rates and credit supply... Interest rates were pulled artificially low from Greenspan after the dot com bubble burst which incentivized banks to lend money like crazy.
Well there's certainly no explaining the Venezuela comment, as for the rest of his policies, yes they're crazy but IMO no more crazy than what we've been doing for the past 35 years or so, it's just that Bernie is saying let's give regular people a gravy train for a while not those in the top 10%, the finance industry and so on and while both really are crazy the only way I could see saying one side is crazier than the other is if a particular person is currently suckling at the teat of said corrupt insane teat.
As for Dr Paul, you know I've never said an ill word about him here, or anything else that I can think of, but there's nobody who hasn't said something dumb, it just used to be slightly less common than what we're seeing lately.
Well it should start with laws, reasonable regulations and rules that everyone has to follow, STARTING with the Fed, which I know you're in favor of auditing. If we were to really audit that sh*thole things might be so ugly (ala Bernie Madeoff times a BILLION) that we might just call the rest of the whole thing off, you know what I mean?
that's the thing OHawk... the policies that Bernie wants to implement will put our current policies in hyperdrive.
he doesn't understand simple economics.
And what we've gotten over the last 35 years has been a disaster... Bernie wants us to step on the gas
The law should be supply/demand economics. Not bull **** artificial regulations that manipulate free markets.
Agreed but the bailout of 2007-2009 (m/l) wasn't supply/demand economics it was let the greedy lunatics loot the asylum and they're already bitching about "too many regulations" in the finance industry. We actually need some adults, those without a vested financial interest, to run things for a change.
Correct.. and I wouldn't have bailed them out
I don't completely agree with you, but I don't completely disagree either. When you hear some business guru on Faux or anywhere else for that matter talk about cutting entitlements you know he's talking about welfare, food stamps, and worse yet Social Security, something people paid into their whole lives and I'm talking about hard working people who always played by the rules. When they do talk about those cuts though we both know he's not talking about the back door, on the down low, stuff the corporations and the 1% get all the time, stuff I know you aren't in favor of.
There's no way Bernie can fund all the stuff he wants to do. Really all he's doing though, and I know this bothers you a LOT, is to, as I said earlier, give the same gravy train to the lowly dregs of this country that the upper crust has been munching on ever since Lord Reagan gave them the keys to the bank vault in exchange for helping him win the Cold War.
And if we're ever going to fix this country we're all going to have to give and sacrifice a LOT to make it happen. The poor can't give much because they don't have much and in spite of some people around here's philosophy the middle class didn't just morph into the upper class, some of them may have well over half have descended into the upper parts of the lower classes. The top 10% in this country own over 90% of all wealth in this country, I know the old "you can't punish the wealthy, they already pay all the taxes", which is true to a point, at least on income taxes, but if you're looking for money and 1/10 of people in any group own 90% of it where would any sane person go on their "quest"?
I think what we both agree we need as a starting point is some sanity, unfortunately that's what is in shortest supply around Washington.
But it takes two to tango, right? Did the credit crash and subsequent recession happen solely because the government was promoting home ownership, or because the private sector was—on a MUCH larger scale—enabling it through the creation of CDOs based on subprime mortgages? The smaller guys fell to ruin ****ing around in the subprime mortgage market—most of the big institutions that failed did so because they were trading in what amounted to a completely unregulated insurance market. It seems like the height of chutzpah to blame it on government intervention when the banks were hawking CDOs based on ****ty mortgages, using their leverage to strongarm the ratings agencies into calling them AAA, and the whole thing was backstopped by the trading of credit default swaps, which was a trillion-dollar industry completely unregulated by the government. So was it too much government, or not enough? Without the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and with reasonable regulation of the credit default swap market, it wouldn't have happened.
We need more cowbell...I mean memes. Enough with the arguments.
Yes it takes two to tango... but that's the entire point of the interest rate policy... they lower the rates to encourage lending to boost the economy... this is artificial and creates bubbles.
It's the same reason tuition costs have gone up. The government subsidizes the loans - creating easy credit access - and costs will ALWAYS go up as a result. The all the students take the loans and then are stuck with the debt, and they can't pay them back.
It's the same thing that happened with housing. The fed creates the policy to encourage lending. The banks give out the money because that is how the banks will make money. The people invest in homes and home prices go up. Eventually - the debt can't be paid back and the bubble bursts. And that's before we even get into the concept of fractional reserve banking - which can only happen in a fiat currency economy.
A true free market economy doesn't artificially prop these things up and bubbles don't get created.
We're in the middle of yet another artificial credit cycle... because the fed is trying to prolong this "recovery" as long as it can... but like all bubbles, it will eventually pop
That's just the thing, though. In an economy of this scale, there is not—nor will there ever be—a perfect, frictionless free market. Laws will exist. Regulations will exist. Why did this bubble, the worst in many generations, burst?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
