There is no free market in banking in the US. If you'd like to prove that to yourself, go rent some space, and declare it a bank and start lending money. Have some video running when a SWAT team smashes in your door and you're brought up on federal charges. Banking is probably the most heavily regulated industry in the US and world, and that's saying something. It's also perfectly understandable because banks have the money and the government wants to control money. Your statement that a bubble can only happen in a free market is hilarious and completely wrong. It makes no economic sense whatsoever. I didn't say the government made bad loans, although surely Freddie and Fannie made some bad loans. When I say bad loans I mean loaning money to people that couldn't afford to pay it back, just to make sure we're on the same page. What the government did was have policy that encouraged loaning, and the Federal Reserve absolutely created the bubble in housing. It was their stated policy. And you'll have to provide numbers on the government getting a return on some investment because I've read the opposite.
Cool. Let's move on then because this is well past the point where a conversation is going to accomplish something. And flame me for being a smug douche, but I haven't seen posts like this since the good ole days when LaserSailor posted here.
http://wardsauto.com/blog/dear-taxpayer-your-auto-bailout-loan-repaid-interest http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ For most reasonable people, the bailout was considered successful from a financial standpoint. Lending is NOT a heavily regulated industry. See Pawn Stars, homie. Banking, as in lending, mortgages and taking cash deposits can be and used to be so heavily regulated it was boring to work in. The Clinton-era repeal of the laws that mandated banks, brokerages and insurance exist as separate entities (because they all thrive off giant pools of money), made a system of volatility and speculation possible. Dodd-Frank neutered some of it and re-established some restrictions on the so-called "Too Big to Fail", but it didn't seem to help much. There is no such thing as a "free market", because you as a consumer don't have perfect information about all the decisions you make, now do you? Every market is subject to some restriction and regulation. Generally, in finance, my understanding of the laws and regulatory position is a lot like OSHA: it was written in blood before it was written in a law that "you shouldn't ever do that." IE, the laws are a response to systemic and individual fuckery, not a vengeful force attempting to restrict free financial activity to "control the money".
Interesting... Bernie Sanders just spoke to 10k people in Madison tonight... seems some people are taking him quite seriously. Here's a pic from tonight.
I think he has the best campaign going, and probably the one that garnishes the least mudslinging. He has a long time still to go and is already a serious threat.
I'm going to say it again... so many people are underestimating his appeal to the silent majority. Among those are the mainstream media who have all but discounted him. He is a fresh voice who isn't all smarmy and condescending... he says shit because he means it, not because he thinks it'll get him votes. He has for over 30 years. Listen to one of his speeches compared to one of Clinton's... his actually has content, hers just panders to her followers without saying anything. "You wanted a pony, I wanted to be President... let's both have our dreams!" Seriously? WTF. Look at their comparative donors; his is all unions and individuals, hers are all banks and Wall Street. She is now begging her followers to donate small amounts so that she won't get vilified as being the candidate of a few, rich supporters, whereas Sanders is the "man of the people". There has been a silent rage building... it's not hard to see based on the popularity of Colbert and Stewart and Oliver. The old and stupid and bought politicians are in for a bit of a wake-up call, I think. As much of a long shot as it surely is, I just can't but hope that he goes all the fucking way. #feelTheBern
It sure would be interesting reaction in America to see a Jew behind the Oval Office desk. I mean, Clinton got one under it but that's not the same thing. An honest campaign is what the modern society needs. This generic bullshit speech. AMERICA NEEDS TO GROW A BACKBONE! NOW LETS SIT DOWN AND CUT BAIT SO WE CAN PULL ON OUR OARS AND PUT THE ICING ON THE CAKE WHILE THE IRON IS STILL HOT fuck off. Tell the truth: the country is split in half and almost everybody makes less than what they should. The middle class is dying and the lower class is being hunted and funnelled into prison. Two Broke Girls signed for 38 more seasons.
Ahhh. You're one of those. I know the conversation has moved on a bit, but I'd like to give you some advice that you probably won't listen to. My neighbor growing up prescribed to the same beliefs that you have outlined in this thread and it ended up going very badly for him. If your doing what he was doing, and trying to hide assests from the IRS you will get caught, and you will go to jail. Seriously, this was a genuinely good guy that got sucked into some extreme politically views that caused him to lose everything. He spent 6-7 years in federal prison for tax evasion. His wife divorced him, they lost their house, they lost their family business, and he lost a lot of years with his kids that he'll never get back. If you were to ask him if it was worth it, he would tell you absolutely not. What you think about the legitimacy of the federal government is irrelevant. The rest of the society you have chosen to live in has decided that it is legitimate, and you either have to accept that or leave. You don't want to recognize the US federal government, that's fine you can go live somewhere else then. You don't get to have the benefits of a society without playing by it's rules. There are plenty of lawless countries out there that you can try to make it by in, but you'll probably get eaten alive by the natives.
I've been bitching about the problems in this country the entire thread, but overall we're doing pretty ok relative to the rest of the first world. We're still filthy rich and more so per capita than every other first world nation that isn't either tiny and/or just stupid rich in natural resources. I graduated college during the financial crisis and while it sucked a fat one to be sure I wasn't exactly starving to death. If long term problems continue to be put on hold indefinitely then this country will have a melt down within the next 20-40 years, but for the nearer foreseeable future things aren't so terrible. I get that a lot of people on here adore these guys, but I honestly don't see how people can respect them so much and then turn around and trash news sites like CNN. That's not to say CNN is an exemplary news agency- they're not, but Stewart? I don't know man, when I've watched his show he does a lot of quote mining followed by silly faces while being that stereotypical guy who constantly rails about how stupid the whole country is. He used to be really funny until he started pushing his personal beliefs so hard. Whenever anyone calls him on his shit he falls back on 'whoa whoa this is just a comedy show.' You can't have it both ways. If all you're going to do is criticize people there's no reason you should be exempt yourself. John Oliver I've liked a bit better, but let's see... every bridge is about to collapse, every nuke is about to spontaneously go off, speeding tickets are evil, white people can't get arrested blah blah blah. Loved his rants about FIFA, but he has quite the streak of making fairly mundane problems seem infinitely worse than they actually are. I would love to see an independent win the presidential election, although I'm not quite sure I would call Sanders a true independent. I like what I've seen thus far, but I haven't followed the candidates closely enough yet to know if I'll vote for him. An independent non-Christian winning the election though? I just don't see it happening yet. Democrats are typically a bit less die hard loyal to the party than Republicans, which gives him a better shot than is he was more right leaning, but still can't see it happening.
Ron Paul ran 2 honest campaigns in 2008 and 2012 and received a lot of grassroots support too. I think it did some good, but didn't change Washington. As wrong as Bernie Sanders is on so many fundamental points, I think he'll have the same effect. Some good, but nothing major.
No. Debt that cannot be paid back adds instability to the system. That's why in normal circumstances a poor person can't borrow a million dollars. I don't understand how basic economic principles get flipped upside down when the government is involved.
Good lord, somewhere, the Gipper has a hard on pushing the top of his coffin lid open. Let's get right down to nuts and bolts, because I'm seeing an incredible amount of uncertainty and misunderstanding regarding taxes/stimulation/jobs/free trade. So first off, before you even can argue that taxes are too high or too low, you need to know what we spend tax money on. So for your edification. The top 3 categories are Social Security Insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense. I will tackle these in turn with a brief statement about each. Social Security: this is a mandatory item. This means that Congress does not have a choice year in and year out as to funding this expenditure. You hear the arguments about 'entitlements?' Do you actually know why they are entitlements? Because you pay for them. There is a tax deducted from every paycheck specifically to fund that program. Remember, it's called 'SSI' - the last bit being 'insurance.' Why does this matter? Because it's supposed to act like insurance. How does insurance work? You pay a premium over time, and the insurance company then invests that money so that when the day comes they can pay out the amount promised. In this case, what was supposed to happen is the government would take this particularized tax, invest it and grow it, then when you hit 65 (after paying into the system for almost 5 decades) you would receive a monthly check, much like a pension. What did the government do? Go into the SSI fund and leave lots of napkins with 'IOU' on them. SSI isn't underfunded because the program is inherently unfundable (insurance and pensions do it all the time) - the program is underfunded because the Government has mishandled the money. So I'm not really sure why the 'cut entitlements' argument holds so much weight, considering that money was taken (in the form of a tax) from you with the explicit promise that it would be returned to you, with interest, upon retirement. Medicaid/Medicare. Again, this operates similar to SSI, money (a tax) is taken out of your check. If you don't pay it, you can go to jail. Once again, this is not a discretionary part of the budget, Congress has to fund it year in and year out. The same principles apply as with SSI (though an argument can be made that Medicaid isn't necessarily a tax taken out of your check for you - it could be viewed as taking money from you to pay for someone else). Now we get to discretionary funding. Discretionary funding can be cut, increased, or whatever Congress (with Presidential approval) chooses to do in any given year. I will talk about one discretionary expenditure. Defense. We spend more on defense than all other discretionary expenditures combined. Theoretically, we spend slightly less on defense than SSI and Medicare - but I have doubts. The government has long used the budget process and categorization of certain expenditures to hide them. For instance, by agreement on both sides - the Iraq war was put 'on a credit card' and didn't count towards the budget for a number of years. Doesn't mean the money wasn't spent. We also - depending on the math you want to use and the 'facts' that are presented - spend more on Defense than the next 9-13 largest countries combined. How bad is that? Depends on your point of view. Eisenhower (who was a big deal general in WWII for you kids) - gravely warned Americans during his farewell address about the Military Industrial Complex. Yet no candidate seriously talks about cutting the budget. The most recent candidate to do so - Rand Paul - originally was saying it needed to be cut. Suddenly, he does a 180 and is giving a speech in front of an aircraft carrier talking about spending increases. By the way, military contractors (and their parent companies which include media outlets - See GE/Westinghouse) donate a shitload of money to campaigns. Next, once you know where the money goes, we collectively need to have a discussion as to what kind of society we want to live in. Goals need to be set, and we need to get serious about how to fund those choices. You will continually be told that 'the budget doesn't operate like your budget.' Bullshit. At its core, it's exactly that, a budget. You take in so much money, you spend so much money, and if you spend more money than you take in you need to borrow to make up the shortfall. Yes, lots of pundits will tell you that somehow there's magic in the beans, but there isn't. So back to goals. What kind of society do you want to live in? Where do you want the government to spend your money? Are you getting value for the money that is being spent? THAT question is the question that needs to be answered before you ever get into the idea of 'too high or too low.' Too high compared to what? Too low compared to what? I have mentioned in other posts that the penultimate question in any policy discussion is 'What do you want?' That question remains. As this post is too long, I'll get into the nuts and bolts of tax policy/stimulus/job creation in another post.
Sometimes you have no choice but to hate the Internet... ...yeah, that's Dylan Roof's sister, who personally started a crowd funding page for a "fresh start" since her wedding plans were "ruined" after her brother decided to cut a church group in half. All class. I guess she's the real victim here.
Not that it isn't incredibly tacky, but: Source: http://time.com/3944750/dylann-roof-sister-wedding/ It's kind of fucked up asking for money to recoup their losses in this tragedy, but until a member of your family murders a bunch of people in cold blood and creates a national tragedy I wouldn't be casting stones. You never know how you're going to react and attempt to deal with a fucked up situation that thankfully most of us will never have to deal with. Especially since there does seem to be a bit of history with mental illness in her immediate family. I completely agree that it seems to be self serving and callous, but we all deal with shit in our own ways and trying to wrap your head around your brother doing something so horrendous and a cancelled wedding might have just pushed her over the edge into doing something incredibly stupid. No matter what, she's forever marked as nothing more then "Dylann Roof's Sister." 20 years from now, if she discovers a cure for cancer the news story will begin "Amber Roof, sister of the notorious Dylann Roof who murder 9 people in a Charleston church..."
Spent a little more time looking at Bernie Sanders' views and so many miscellaneous thoughts. Spoilered because this is long, rambling, and lot of people probably don't give a shit. Spoiler After learning more about him I really like his stance on most issues. I completely agree with Nett that he actually says something in his speeches rather than just mouthing empty words. There are few things more annoying than listening to political candidates talk on while saying absolutely nothing, either by trying to pander to everyone at once, or not taking a stance at all. The guy just gets to the fucking point, which is great to see for a change. Health Care - Our health care system at the moment is garbage, and I'm not sure why people want to push for less care. My boss and I were talking about this recently. He makes good money and has what is supposed to be great coverage. A few weeks ago he took his son to the doctor. The doctor saw him literally less than two minutes and after his comparatively better than most Americans coverage paid their end he still had to shell out almost $300. That's really fucking stupid and it's an awful way to manage the system. Why exactly are people so afraid of public health care? The morons who think all of our doctors are going to emigrate need to be beaten over the head with a crow bar. Where are they going to go exactly? The fucking Congo? The rest of the first world already has public health care. The whole 'the government wants you dependent on them' stance is total horse shit as well. Is public health care supposed to mean people can't protest anymore or something? What the fuck are people even attempting to convey when they say this? Income Inequality - Again, just can't see the other side of the aisle on this one. One family has more than the bottom 42% of the country COMBINED. One family has as much money as 150 million people. Who hears stuff like this and thinks 'Wow, that sounds really fucking great. We should cut their taxes more.' I think a lot of this has to do with the far upper class exploiting useful idiots. Namely, the people who think any effort to address income inequality will lead to total economic devastation. Climate Change- I heard a funny analogy for this recently. If 98% of scientists told you not to drink something because it was poisonous and it would kill you, and then 2% of scientists said it's totally a great idea to drink it and by the way I'm represented by the poisonous drink manufacturing company - would you drink it? No, you wouldn't, so stop acting like a clown and wake up. There's also something to be said for the people who proclaim it's reasonable to think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, but believing in climate change makes you a loony. Proving global warming is happening right now and that it has made an impact is easy to demonstrate and not particularly difficult to understand. What exactly will happen and when is a lot harder. In any case, it needs to be addressed sooner rather than later and the globe has done damn near fuck all up to this point. I get that people would rather not make sacrifices than face reality, but you can pretend it's not a lion chasing you all you want, it's still going to eat you. Minimum wage - I'm ok with raising the minimum wage, but $15 an hour is really high. Minimum wage to me should mean you can pay rent at a shitty apartment, afford groceries, a cable bill, and maybe go drinking a couple times a month. It should not mean living content and comfortable. Practically anyone who puts any modicum of effort into their career will not spend their lives making minimum wage. Paid sick leave - This is the one area I vehemently disagree with him on. You have to be completely naive to not realize people will abuse the ever loving shit out of this. At my company the regular workers can take an indefinite amount of family/medical leave and even with it unpaid some people exploit it to the utmost extremes. I do not want to envision trying to run my department with them getting paid for all that time off. It's incredibly easy to go to a doctor and get a 'please excuse so and so' note. Paying all that time off is just asking for abuse. The people in my position and higher up the food chain can take any amount of medical leave while still earning 100% of their salary, but you don't move up if you're the kind of person who abuses it, and if you are management will find a way to demote you. All in all, I'm much more in favor of some paid maternity/paternity leave (maybe a month) and then a set number of paid time off days per year that you can use however you wish. Once it's gone though that's all you get until the next year rolls around. Lobbyists buying politicians - This is a huge problem, and I just can't see how Americans aren't extremely pissed off about it. Why the hell would you want billionaires and corporations donating more to campaigns and making more under the table, or now even in plain sight kick backs? He's way behind Clinton in the polls right now, but that's to be expected. A lot of people don't even know who he is at the moment. I wonder if Hilary is going to fuck herself by doing what she did with Obama. That is, attempting a bunch of disingenuous character assassination. That stuff only works if there's something legit to go after, or you're pandering to people who already hate that person for other reasons. We'll see. I'm not sure he really has a shot yet. Once the election gets closer and people compare what he's saying to Hilary's empty words I imagine the gap will start to close.
So Bernie Sanders is going to be the fringe guy that people have a boner for this election cycle? Last two times it was Ron Paul, so its nice to not hear that bullshit this time around. His policies are nothing new, Obama had much of the same viewpoints when he campaigned and he was supposed to be the second-coming of Jesus Christ, but turned out be the second-coming of Jimmy Carter. He like a of his supporters point to Western Europe as a shining example of what we should be. Which is funny, because Europe has made itself more and more economically and politically irrelevant over the last 15 years. These liberal or conservative standard bearers never do well, and being a self-proclaimed socialist isn't going to get him anywhere. Very few economists support the idea of blatant income redistribution, it gets the little serious attention it has because it gives hardcore liberals the warm and fuzzies to think about giving free money to poor people. So again, Sanders isnt going to gain any ground unless Clinton fucks this up completely which I have a feeling Bill wont let happen this time around.
Obama said a lot of shit when he was running. I personally didn't care much for him then as I do now, but instead of outlining the differences (although yes, they are both quite left leaning you might want to take a look at immigration and expanding free trade for a start) I want to take a moment to ask you about this - I know people like the bury the problems under cute phrases like 'blatant income distribution' and 'warm and fuzzies' but instead of lazily doing that would you care to take a moment to explain why it's such a great idea to extend and further tax breaks for people that own more money than the 'bottom' 150 million in this country? Or why you think it's so terrible to throw a bone to the lower and middle classes anyway? It's not just about pulling on heart strings, it's concern over a series of legislations that have exacerbated a problem over the course of 40 years. Again, I would remind you that this country was not dying on the vine before the policies that furthered the income gap were in place. I'm not sure how you can so simply write off the problems involved in the super rich buying out politicians at the expense of everyone else. Also, the EU is far from irrelevant. Their combined economy and global trade is larger than the United States. There's all kinds of problems in Europe I would rather see avoided in this country, but irrelevant they are not. Yes, I know, we buy more of the useless break in two weeks junk China pumps out than they do, but that doesn't really make us all that special.
Also, while I realize you used the phrase 'income redistribution' rather than 'income inequality' I am curious as to who these economists are that think more is always better. The last time income inequality was as high as it is now the great depression happened. After it plummeted during the post depression era America grew at the fastest in it's history. Since the post 1970s when income inequality began to rise again growth has steadily declined with it. History tends not to be on the side of the trickle down/Ayn Rand/wholly made up horse shit economic belief systems. Granted, there is a lot more that goes into economic growth than income equality, and communism and it's spin offs are disastrous, but generally speaking higher income equality is a sign of economic health and higher standards of living, not the other way around.
I didnt say increasing upper tier taxes wasn't a good idea, I said income redistribution isn't. And no, the EU economy is not bigger than the United States, its about even. And nominal GDP is pointless, PPP is what actually matters. They don't think that, and people overly concern themselves with income gaps are missing the mark. It just sounds negative to people who don't understand microeconomics. Whats important is metrics on quality of life and marginal utility, which in the US is very high relative to most of the rest of the world. Income gaps dont really make a huge difference. You mentioned people and buying politicians. Thats a completely different topic, unless you want to curb income gaps because you dont like that some individuals have more influence than others? Thats a valid point, but the answer is not trimming up income, but changing campaign laws. Im not burying problems under cute phrases, I'm calling out pointless non-sequiturs. As far as Europes relevancy, Ive posted about it before, so Ill repost it: