Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Frazzled wrote:The House proposes and passes legislation. most importantly, the House is where the real stuff happens-budgets are proposed. He who controls the spice controls the universe!
But yes the important thing is that all sides will now have compromise to pass legislation. Historically this is the model the the US has had the last 100 years and help prevents radical legislation getting through. Welfare reform and Clinton's balanced budgets came through this method. Its when the US gets Conservatives controlling the Legislative and the Executive that bad things happen...
And the Cold War really had nothing to do with it. What are reading that gave you that impression?
Because it's 3 in the morning here, and I don't have the energy to write up a full response right now, I just have to say that my argument that it took the Cold War to get us out of the Great Depression is based on the understanding that if military spending had been suddenly cut after the end of WW2, like we tend to do at the end of most major wars, the economy would have plunged into the standard post war recession/depression the US economy takes every single time. The Cold War, however, resulted in military expenditures staying high, thus preventing the crash that was no doubt ready to happen after WW2.
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
ChrisWWII wrote:Because it's 3 in the morning here, and I don't have the energy to write up a full response right now, I just have to say that my argument that it took the Cold War to get us out of the Great Depression is based on the understanding that if military spending had been suddenly cut after the end of WW2, like we tend to do at the end of most major wars, the economy would have plunged into the standard post war recession/depression the US economy takes every single time. The Cold War, however, resulted in military expenditures staying high, thus preventing the crash that was no doubt ready to happen after WW2.
Not really, no. Military spending is a fairly poor form of stimulus, better than tax cuts but still pretty poor. More so, stimulus is a short term thing, it is a response to a cyclical downturn in economic activity, whereas the Cold War was a multi-generational thing.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
ChrisWWII wrote:Because it's 3 in the morning here, and I don't have the energy to write up a full response right now, I just have to say that my argument that it took the Cold War to get us out of the Great Depression is based on the understanding that if military spending had been suddenly cut after the end of WW2, like we tend to do at the end of most major wars, the economy would have plunged into the standard post war recession/depression the US economy takes every single time. The Cold War, however, resulted in military expenditures staying high, thus preventing the crash that was no doubt ready to happen after WW2.
Not really, no. Military spending is a fairly poor form of stimulus, better than tax cuts but still pretty poor. More so, stimulus is a short term thing, it is a response to a cyclical downturn in economic activity, whereas the Cold War was a multi-generational thing.
I've heard the argument that WWII helped pull us out of the Depression but I've never heard that the Cold War did.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
And the Cold War really had nothing to do with it. What are reading that gave you that impression?
Because it's 3 in the morning here, and I don't have the energy to write up a full response right now, I just have to say that my argument that it took the Cold War to get us out of the Great Depression is based on the understanding that if military spending had been suddenly cut after the end of WW2, like we tend to do at the end of most major wars, the economy would have plunged into the standard post war recession/depression the US economy takes every single time. The Cold War, however, resulted in military expenditures staying high, thus preventing the crash that was no doubt ready to happen after WW2.
While it may be true that military spending decreased, I have to revise my argument regarding the Cold War. It wasn't JUST military spending, but all the other spending the government took on. The rebuilidng efforts in Japan, the Marshall Plan in Europe....not to mention being the only Western nation that had NOT had its industrial base damaged or crippled by the war led to the world economy avoiding the post-war economic crash that almost inevitably follows the end of major wars.
So while I concede that it wasn't just military spending, I still hold on to the argument that if the Cold War had not started immediately after WW2, and the US had instead done its standard 'the wars over. Let's pack up and go home,' we would have seen an economic crash of major proportions, potentially a return to the Great Depression. But thanks to the Cold War starting, the increased demand placed upon the American economy due to the above mentioned reasons, not to mention the reductions in barriers to trade this caused, we managed to avoid that.
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
ChrisWWII wrote:
So while I concede that it wasn't just military spending, I still hold on to the argument that if the Cold War had not started immediately after WW2, and the US had instead done its standard 'the wars over. Let's pack up and go home,' we would have seen an economic crash of major proportions, potentially a return to the Great Depression. But thanks to the Cold War starting, the increased demand placed upon the American economy due to the above mentioned reasons, not to mention the reductions in barriers to trade this caused, we managed to avoid that.
I don't see how the American military presence abroad served to float the American economy. As has been pointed out, the military budget fell through the floor after the war ended, and it isn't as though the reconstruction effort was primarily the result of American corporate activity.
I also think your argument for a 'normal' post-war economic crash is odd, as there simply isn't enough data regarding the post-war economic performance of capitalist nation states to create any sort of metric for the determination of what is 'normal'. Not to mention the difficulty in determining what constitutes a 'normal' war.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote:...create any sort of metric for the determination of what is 'normal'.
America in recent decades has had a hard time calling on our government to declare an "official" war as well.
The spectrum of American conflicts is as thus since 1945:
Korean War
Vietnam War
Bay of Pigs Invasion
Actions in Dominican Republic
Grenada
Panama
Gulf War
Somali Civil War
Bosnian War
Kosovo War
Afghanistan War
Iraq War
WarOne wrote:We need to resurrect the corpse of Ronald Reagan and put him on the presidential ticket along with Sarah Palin for 2012.
By then the Republicans will sweep into office and offer equal rights for zombies and dead people, and send all the pot smokers to Canada.
Speaking of, California failed to pass the measure legalizing pot.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
dogma wrote:
I don't see how the American military presence abroad served to float the American economy. As has been pointed out, the military budget fell through the floor after the war ended, and it isn't as though the reconstruction effort was primarily the result of American corporate activity.
It wasn't so much the continued military presence abroad, but being the only industrial nation not devastated by war. That and the massive investment into the rebuilding of Europe and Japan was what accounted for the increase of spending that managed to avert a post war economic collapse.
I also think your argument for a 'normal' post-war economic crash is odd, as there simply isn't enough data regarding the post-war economic performance of capitalist nation states to create any sort of metric for the determination of what is 'normal'. Not to mention the difficulty in determining what constitutes a 'normal' war.
I'm basing my claim off both 'major' wars the US had fought previously to the Second World War. After both WWI, and the American Civil War, the nation experienced economic downturns (ESPECIALLY post WWI, with the post Civil War downturn mitigated by reconstruction efforts). As far as normal goes, I'm using an arbitrary definition (though perhaps major war would be a better word)...most people I think would qualify both American Civil War and World War I as 'major' wars as far as expense and mobilization goes, while other wars like the Central American interventions, and the Spanish-American War would be characterized as...not as major to minor wars/military actions.
With WWI, we can see that immediately after the war ended, we saw a short recession, followed by a much larger one a few years later from 1920-21 largely attributed to the shift away from a war time economy to a peacetime one. It is my argument that the start of the Cold War, with its attendant increases in spending for reconstruction in Europe and Japan along with the United States remaining alone as an untouched industrial power prevented such a post war economic downturn.
So you york did what America did by electing a son....
And whilst you're pointing and shouting at the boogeyman in the corner, you're missing the burglar coming in through the window.
Well, Duh! Because they had a giant Mining ship. If you had a giant mining ship you would drill holes in everything too, before you'd destory it with a black hole
Obama is sad but not sorry about the election results
Video
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, November 3, 2010; 6:02 PM
Barack Obama is a man of many talents. Contrition, however, is not high among them.
The president, facing the media in the East Room the day after what he called his "shellacking" at the polls, admitted it had been a "long night." He confessed that it "feels bad." He acknowledged "sadness" that so many friends and allies had lost their seats.
But what he would not acknowledge is that his policies had in any way contributed to the shellacking and sadness.
The Associated Press's Ben Feller asked if he would concede that the midterms had been "a fundamental rejection of your agenda."
Obama declined. "What they were expressing great frustration about is the fact that we haven't made enough progress on the economy."
NBC's Savannah Guthrie noticed that "you don't seem to be reflecting or second-guessing any of the policy decisions."
"Over the last two years, we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right," Obama volleyed.
"You still resist the notion that voters rejected the policy choices you made?"
"Voters are not satisfied with the outcomes," the president said.
No matter how many ways reporters phrased the question, the answer was the same. CNN's ED Henry suggested there may be "a majority of Americans who think your polices are taking us in reverse," and asked: "You just reject that idea altogether that your policies could be going in reverse?"
"Yes," Obama said sharply.
What failures he did admit were those of tactics and communications. It's not that he has poisonous relations with business, he said, but that he needs to do better at "setting the right tone publicly." It's not that his economic policies were flawed, he said, but that people "don't see" the progress.
Peter Baker of the New York Times asked Obama for areas in which he'd be willing to compromise with Republicans. "I've been willing to compromise in the past, and I'm going to be willing to compromise going forward," the president fired back.
Obama ultimately absolved himself of even the communications mistakes he acknowledged. "You know, a couple of great communicators, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, were standing at this podium two years into their presidency getting very similar questions, because, you know, the economy wasn't working the way it needed to be," he said.
On item after item, Obama indicated there would be no bending. In an opening reference to GOP hopes of repealing the health-care legislation, he said that Americans don't want "to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two." When Fox's Mike Emanuel pointed out that one in two voters, according to exit polls, favors a repeal, Obama replied: "It also means one out of two voters think it was the right thing to do."
The only olive branch extended to Republicans on health care was an admission that a single piece of it, "the 1099 provision," should be dropped because it creates too much paperwork for small business.
He said "everybody in the White House understood" that his efforts to rescue the economy might be portrayed as government intrusions into the private sector, but "we thought it was necessary." He declined to rule out an effort by the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. He vowed to push back against Republican efforts to cut spending on education, research and infrastructure, reminding his audience that "we already had a big deficit that I inherited."
Awaiting Obama's arrival in the East Room, CNN's Henry did a live stand-up speculating about a "mid-course correction" from Obama. But when the president arrived, subdued and in somber gray, his course corrections were largely superficial: He didn't use the teleprompter for his opening statement; he gave the third question to Fox News; and, responding to a suggestion by CBS's Chip Reid, he smiled broadly and said he might host incoming House Speaker John Boehner for a "Slurpee Summit" -- a reference to the 7-Eleven drink Obama had claimed Republicans were sipping while Democrats tried to fix the economy.
On more substantive matters, Obama said he asked himself: "Could I have done something differently?" But he didn't seem to have an answer.
His closest admission to a failure of substance was that he failed in his pledge to "change how business is done in Washington." He explained: "We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn't change how things got done."
In a presidential lament made by many of his predecessors, Obama spoke of "being in the bubble" in the White House. "When you're in this place, it is hard not to seem removed," he said, wishing he could do more to give Americans "confidence that I'm listening to them."
Obama's conclusion: "Getting out of here" -- the White House -- "is good for me."
On that, at least, he'll probably get Republican support.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
ChrisWWII wrote:While it may be true that military spending decreased, I have to revise my argument regarding the Cold War. It wasn't JUST military spending, but all the other spending the government took on. The rebuilidng efforts in Japan, the Marshall Plan in Europe....not to mention being the only Western nation that had NOT had its industrial base damaged or crippled by the war led to the world economy avoiding the post-war economic crash that almost inevitably follows the end of major wars.
Spending money on overseas economic activity is not stimulus. Dollar need to spend inside your own borders to have a stimulus effect.
So while I concede that it wasn't just military spending, I still hold on to the argument that if the Cold War had not started immediately after WW2, and the US had instead done its standard 'the wars over. Let's pack up and go home,' we would have seen an economic crash of major proportions, potentially a return to the Great Depression. But thanks to the Cold War starting, the increased demand placed upon the American economy due to the above mentioned reasons, not to mention the reductions in barriers to trade this caused, we managed to avoid that.
No. US manufactured goods were in great demand around the world, in part due to the competitive advantage of superior US manufacturing, and in part due to no-one else having any factories after they were all blown up in the war. That drove the US economy in the post war period, not government spending.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:I'm basing my claim off both 'major' wars the US had fought previously to the Second World War. After both WWI, and the American Civil War, the nation experienced economic downturns (ESPECIALLY post WWI, with the post Civil War downturn mitigated by reconstruction efforts).
The downturn in US economic activity in the wake of WWI just doesn't exist on the scale of the depression.
Here's a graph of US GDP over that period;
See the difference between the little dip in 20/21 and the big dip in 27?
Heh, Fraz when the economy dipped and numbers turned against McCain you were the first to point out that while the economy isn't in the control of the economy, they're often held accountable. Yet now you're not saying that so much...
It couldn't be because the other team is in the Whitehouse?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/11/04 17:10:52
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:the economy isn't in the control of the economy,
While you obviously made a typo, I like what you wrote better than what you meant.
Ditto.
To the Q. The President doesn't control the economy, but does influence it, along with Congress and the Fed.
Reagan focused on two things. Fighting the Evil Empire and getting the economy going again. This President/Congress didn't and they paid for it. If they don't focus going forward, they'll pay for it again in 2012.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
ChrisWWII wrote:While it may be true that military spending decreased, I have to revise my argument regarding the Cold War. It wasn't JUST military spending, but all the other spending the government took on. The rebuilidng efforts in Japan, the Marshall Plan in Europe....not to mention being the only Western nation that had NOT had its industrial base damaged or crippled by the war led to the world economy avoiding the post-war economic crash that almost inevitably follows the end of major wars.
So while I concede that it wasn't just military spending, I still hold on to the argument that if the Cold War had not started immediately after WW2, and the US had instead done its standard 'the wars over. Let's pack up and go home,' we would have seen an economic crash of major proportions, potentially a return to the Great Depression. But thanks to the Cold War starting, the increased demand placed upon the American economy due to the above mentioned reasons, not to mention the reductions in barriers to trade this caused, we managed to avoid that.
The UK didn't have its industrial base crippled by the war, neither did Canada, which amazingly ended up with the world's second biggest economy. (Spain, Switzerland, Sweden.)
It was the financial hangover of having to pay for nearly six years of massive warfare that crippled the UK.
The Cold War did not start immediately after WW2. It started properly in 1947 with the victory of Mao over Chiang Kai Shek, hotted up in 1948 with the Berlin Blockade, and became blatant with the Korean War in 1950.
Marshall Plan and other reconstruction efforts should not be discounted, of course, though there was and is dispute as to how effective these schemes were in reality. The Marshall Plan and other reconstruction grants amounted to about 1.4% of US GDP between the end of the war and the end of the plan in 1952.
Frazzled wrote:This President/Congress didn't and they paid for it. If they don't focus going forward, they'll pay for it again in 2012.
What evil empire should they focus on fighting?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:
It wasn't so much the continued military presence abroad, but being the only industrial nation not devastated by war. That and the massive investment into the rebuilding of Europe and Japan was what accounted for the increase of spending that managed to avert a post war economic collapse.
Are we talking global economic collapse, or American economic collapse? Because if we're talking about an American economic collapse, then again I don't see how economic aid to foreign nations prevented it. If we're talking about a global economic collapse, then you should be looking at Bretton Woods for a primary cause.
ChrisWWII wrote:
I'm basing my claim off both 'major' wars the US had fought previously to the Second World War. After both WWI, and the American Civil War, the nation experienced economic downturns (ESPECIALLY post WWI, with the post Civil War downturn mitigated by reconstruction efforts).
That's not a very large data-set; certainly not large enough to make predictive claims; especially given how very different US involvement in both those wars happened to be. Indeed, if you're trying to argue that WWI caused the Great Depression then, well, the numbers simply don't add up. The GD wasn't caused by government spending, loss of life in the war, or really anything related to the military at all. the Civil War definitely caused an economic down-turn, but killing off that many of your working-age men will do that in a society where women work for profit infrequently. Not to mention how much industrial damage was incurred in the South.
ChrisWWII wrote:
With WWI, we can see that immediately after the war ended, we saw a short recession, followed by a much larger one a few years later from 1920-21 largely attributed to the shift away from a war time economy to a peacetime one.
What war time economy? World War I wasn't a war of total mobilization for the US. If you mean the transition from the war time economy in Europe, then sure, but that was a matter of trade imbalance with respect to the US, not a drop in US war production.
ChrisWWII wrote:
It is my argument that the start of the Cold War, with its attendant increases in spending for reconstruction in Europe and Japan along with the United States remaining alone as an untouched industrial power prevented such a post war economic downturn.
But there were two post-war recessions in the US, one in 1945, and one in 1949, both caused by essentially the same things as the Post-WWI recessions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/11/04 23:27:25
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Mr Mystery wrote:And having briefly dipped their toe into the sea of reason and elightenment, the country with no brain returns to frolic upon insanity beach.
Seriously...back to the dark ages or what?
We aren't Europe, we don't like that Governmental model. Deal with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
ChrisWWII wrote:
And the Cold War really had nothing to do with it. What are reading that gave you that impression?
Because it's 3 in the morning here, and I don't have the energy to write up a full response right now, I just have to say that my argument that it took the Cold War to get us out of the Great Depression is based on the understanding that if military spending had been suddenly cut after the end of WW2, like we tend to do at the end of most major wars, the economy would have plunged into the standard post war recession/depression the US economy takes every single time. The Cold War, however, resulted in military expenditures staying high, thus preventing the crash that was no doubt ready to happen after WW2.
Clearly there was an immediate and massive reduction in military spending and it did not provoke a crash.
There was a minor recession after WWII, but no crash. It was the result of so many servicemen returning with no jobs available, the ecomony adjusted about 1948 and the jobless rate steadily declined.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:
Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
WarOne wrote:We need to resurrect the corpse of Ronald Reagan and put him on the presidential ticket along with Sarah Palin for 2012.
By then the Republicans will sweep into office and offer equal rights for zombies and dead people, and send all the pot smokers to Canada.
Speaking of, California failed to pass the measure legalizing pot.
California has pretty much defined failure lately. They're not the best example.
Hey, New York ain't better.
We just elected the son of a former governor as governor. It was either him or a guy who threatened to lead the way with a baseball bat.
I would have preferred a self made billionaire to a former HUD sercretary who was partially to blame for the housing crisis.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/11/05 03:38:21
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
MeanGreenStompa wrote:The Republicans take the House, they now block everything that Obama does.
So, as I understand it, they cannot themselves legislate. So nothing gets done?
The country remains in the economic mire, they did their heels in about making taxes like they were under Bush, the vast sums of the country's money used to prevent a full blown depression and the debts accrued to communist China under Bush continue to errode the ability of the nation to recover.
So, are they going to try and impeach Obama? Is that a serious question even?
Republicans, would you seriously... SERIOUSLY... vote for the Palin woman?
Here's the thing with our government, stuff can get done even when it shouldn't get done seeing as though they're all lawyers.
Anywho,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/11/05 03:51:41
ChrisWWII wrote:I believe the crash of 2008 was a result of banks being complete and utter morons. Not the GOP. Banks were the ones who stupidly decided that it was a good idea to make a gamble that the housing market would keep growing at an unsustainable rate, and it was a good idea to try and give loans to people who had no possible way to pay back those loans. I don't think you can blame the GOP for that. You have to blame the heads of the banks for that. I also believe that the stimulus plan, especially the plan to save the banks, was a horrible horrible move. The FDIC exists so that people with money in banks know that if the banks fail their money doesn't go away.
How were the banks morons? They made a ton of money through various unethical and/or risky ventures, which means big bonuses for the guys running the banks, and then got the government to protect them from the bad consequences of their risks, and only got some minor regulations added, no one went to jail or had their business crippled. How can that mean they're morons? The guy who set out to make money, and does so with no significant consequences for himself is not a moron, he's a good planner. He's morally bankrupt, and were it up to me he'd be worried about getting a needle in his arm, but since it's not up to me I can't see how he is a moron.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Anywho,
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/11/05 05:30:14
I think I'm going to have to yield on the Cold War argument.....the evidence really is against me, and I have no response.
But to BearersOfSalvation, yes they made a lot of money, but if you notice a lot of them suffered heavily when the housing bubble turned back down. If we had a true capitalist system, where the government wasn't waiting to rescue the failed banks and the executives who got away with causing their businesses to fail then the invisible hand would have very clearly shown why they were idiots. You can't gamble that the market will keep going up, and base your entire business on that assumption. THAT was the idiotic decision the banks made, but you're right. In the end it didn't hurt them at all.
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
ChrisWWII wrote:I believe the crash of 2008 was a result of banks being complete and utter morons. Not the GOP. Banks were the ones who stupidly decided that it was a good idea to make a gamble that the housing market would keep growing at an unsustainable rate, and it was a good idea to try and give loans to people who had no possible way to pay back those loans. I don't think you can blame the GOP for that. You have to blame the heads of the banks for that. I also believe that the stimulus plan, especially the plan to save the banks, was a horrible horrible move. The FDIC exists so that people with money in banks know that if the banks fail their money doesn't go away.
How were the banks morons? They made a ton of money through various unethical and/or risky ventures, which means big bonuses for the guys running the banks, and then got the government to protect them from the bad consequences of their risks, and only got some minor regulations added, no one went to jail or had their business crippled. How can that mean they're morons? The guy who set out to make money, and does so with no significant consequences for himself is not a moron, he's a good planner. He's morally bankrupt, and were it up to me he'd be worried about getting a needle in his arm, but since it's not up to me I can't see how he is a moron.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Anywho,
Remember Barney Frank was just re-elected...Evil lives!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
ChrisWWII wrote:But to BearersOfSalvation, yes they made a lot of money, but if you notice a lot of them suffered heavily when the housing bubble turned back down. If we had a true capitalist system, where the government wasn't waiting to rescue the failed banks and the executives who got away with causing their businesses to fail then the invisible hand would have very clearly shown why they were idiots. You can't gamble that the market will keep going up, and base your entire business on that assumption. THAT was the idiotic decision the banks made, but you're right. In the end it didn't hurt them at all.
How is it idiotic to plan based on the government we have rather than a platonic ideal of government that we don't? Their goal was to make money in the real world, not to do something that would make money in an ideal world. You can gamble that the government will bail you out and base your business on that assumption if you've got the connections and campaign contributions to count on it, which is what they did. This is like saying that P T Barnum was an idiot for counting on there being a sucker born every minute, since ideally everyone would be smart enough not to get fooled.
ChrisWWII wrote:I think I'm going to have to yield on the Cold War argument.....the evidence really is against me, and I have no response.
But to BearersOfSalvation, yes they made a lot of money, but if you notice a lot of them suffered heavily when the housing bubble turned back down. If we had a true capitalist system, where the government wasn't waiting to rescue the failed banks and the executives who got away with causing their businesses to fail then the invisible hand would have very clearly shown why they were idiots. You can't gamble that the market will keep going up, and base your entire business on that assumption. THAT was the idiotic decision the banks made, but you're right. In the end it didn't hurt them at all.
I'd be curious as to what constitutes 'a lot of them'... And yes, you can gamble that the market will keep going up. It's probably not the smartest thing to do, but there's nothing stopping you from doing it. I presume that that's what you meant to say.
Anyway, I wouldn't even say that the majority of them were gambling. They had rigged the system from the outset. From the origination and underwriting of loans to the securitization of known toxic assets, the banks, lenders, and rating agencies participated in a massive fraud. No, I wouldn't call it gambling.
I could say none of them, but seriously they're there for themselves and their constituents.
My senator wants to make us happy, not some people in California and the representatives in California want to make Californians happy and could care less as to what I want. That's politics folks.
<-- Finally, level 666! 
707th Lubyan Aquila Banner Motor Rifle Regiment (6000 pts)
Battlefleet Tomania (2500 pts)
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" 
