This sums it up pretty well

Stiglitz makes some good points about the seriousness of the issue but I have to disagree that a lack of regulation was any part of the problem and that we should be spending on infastructure ect to create a stimilus. Those are basic Neo-Keynesian ideas that have been pretty much debunked and not the majority view in modern economics.
 
Desh said:
I base this on the years of converstaion I have had with this guy on matters of economics and his years of insults for ANYONE who wavers from his beliefs.
Click to expand...

Desh, if you want to actually discuss the issue, then lets do so. But posting biased articles and pretending they aren't biased despite evidence to the contrary is simply idiotic.
 
Superfreak said:
Dumbass.... I have been saying we are entering into a recession this year. From that, what makes you think I believe there is good economic data out there right now?
Click to expand...
well then we if no good news how can we be cheerry picking when we post bad stuff ?
 
Obfuscate said:
Stiglitz makes some good points about the seriousness of the issue but I have to disagree that a lack of regulation was any part of the problem and that we should be spending on infastructure ect to create a stimilus. Those are basic Neo-Keynesian ideas that have been pretty much debunked and not the majority view in modern economics.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The lack of regulation was the part he was correct about. It was the systematic elimination of Glass Steagall that allowed the situation to become as bad as it is.
 
Superfreak said:
I disagree. The lack of regulation was the part he was correct about. It was the systematic elimination of Glass Steagall that allowed the situation to become as bad as it is.
Click to expand...

Yep on the credit issue.
I kept getting called a GED when I mentioned that in the past.
I saw this coming years ago.
 
I'm curious. Since it's not been settled that we are in a recession, how do we know it hasn't already bottomed out and everything done from this point on is worthless? Seems to me that the economic data runs more than 6 months behind reality.
 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsered by whom?

Yes Clinton signed it and maybe he should not have but I think he saw an oppertunity which may have not been entirely bad. Does that mean NO futher changes could have been made to avert the current situation once it was realized that the industry was abusing the system in a harmful way?
 
uscitizen said:
well then we if no good news how can we be cheerry picking when we post bad stuff ?
Click to expand...

The fact that the article discusses the current credit crunch is NOT the cherry picking part goofball. The cherry picking part is in her searching for articles that blame Bush and the lenders and acts as though the borrowers were not equally culpable. Not to mention ignores the fact that the whole problem started long before the current Bush took office. THAT is cherry picking.
 
Superfreak said:
The main culprit shouting about more millionaires is another LEFTY Desh.

As for the "borrowers were told not to worry about their mounting debt"... that is bullshit. It makes the assumption that borrowers are too fucking stupid to understand that they have to pay back the debt or that ever increasing debt is a bad idea.
Click to expand...


Toppy is not a lefty hes just an oppertunist.

He was talking up how great the Bush economy was for years.
 
That presumes the regulators would have done the "correct regulation" which hardly is ever the case, I'm sure they would have messed that up and we would of never had a boom that was needed after 9-11. This recession will be alot less than what post stock market bubble/ 9-11 could have been without the boost in real estate.
 
Superfreak said:
The fact that the article discusses the current credit crunch is NOT the cherry picking part goofball. The cherry picking part is in her searching for articles that blame Bush and the lenders and acts as though the borrowers were not equally culpable. Not to mention ignores the fact that the whole problem started long before the current Bush took office. THAT is cherry picking.
Click to expand...
Yes but bush and his bunch eagerly embraced the coming storm.

It inflated the bush economy in an unsustainable manner and was doomed to fail. Any "expert" that could not see this coming deserves to be fired.
 
Obfuscate said:
That presumes the regulators would have done the "correct regulation" which hardly is ever the case, I'm sure they would have messed that up and we would of never had a boom that was needed after 9-11. This recession will be alot less than what post stock market bubble/ 9-11 could have been without the boost in real estate.
Click to expand...

Do you really think 911 could have destroyed the entire US economy?

This has hurt our economy badly and the effects will be felt for years to come. This is by far worse economically.
 
uscitizen said:
Yes but bush and his bunch eagerly embraced the coming storm.

It inflated the bush economy in an unsustainable manner and was doomed to fail. Any "expert" that could not see this coming deserves to be fired.
Click to expand...

I do not take away any responsibility from Bush. I agree that he could have done more (or anything for that matter). But that does not change the fact that no one forced the borrowers to spend more than they could afford. No one forced the lenders to jeopordize THEIR future by allowing the borrower to spend more than they could afford. It also does not change the fact that the destruction of Glass Steagall began long before Bush came to office.

YES, Bush also played a hand in this, but he is no more/less to blame than Clinton. Or the Reps and Dems in Congress.
 
Obfuscate said:
That presumes the regulators would have done the "correct regulation" which hardly is ever the case, I'm sure they would have messed that up and we would of never had a boom that was needed after 9-11. This recession will be alot less than what post stock market bubble/ 9-11 could have been without the boost in real estate.
Click to expand...

The destruction of Glass Steagall allowed for looser and looser lending practices. Clinton and Bush both championed "more people owning their own homes" because it made them feel better.
 
Superfreak said:
Not from me... that was from your fellow lefty toppy.
Click to expand...

yes recently, you ragged on me about it in the past though. Kudos for coming around to reality.
you an I mostly agree on the current and likely future situation.
topper is living in a jar or something, I am not sure what is wrong with that boy.
 
Desh said:
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsered by whom?

Yes Clinton signed it and maybe he should not have but I think he saw an oppertunity which may have not been entirely bad. Does that mean NO futher changes could have been made to avert the current situation once it was realized that the industry was abusing the system in a harmful way?
Click to expand...

I really don't care Desh, because the very fact that Reps AND Dems played a part in this is EXACTLY the point I am trying to convey to you.
 
Desh said:
Do you really think 911 could have destroyed the entire US economy?
.
Click to expand...

No, but we did have a Recession and unemployment went to something like 6.5%. If it were not for the low rates that spurred growth those #'s would have been worse. I don't think this recession will be much worse than that one was. Rates were too low and global rates were historic lows but they needed lower rates at that time and 9-11 was differant as economists had to forecast the economy based on non economic situations of 9-11.
 
uscitizen said:
yes recently, you ragged on me about it in the past though. Kudos for coming around to reality.
you an I mostly agree on the current and likely future situation.
topper is living in a jar or something, I am not sure what is wrong with that boy.
Click to expand...

I did not rag on you for your education level. When toppy started doing that I constantly pointed out the success of people like Bill Gates to show him that a degree does not necessarily equate to "education". There are plenty of people that earn degrees that are idiots. Just as there are plenty of people without degrees that are highly intelligent. Not to mention my constant stance that intelligence is dependent on the topic being discussed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top