State of the Union

[Ecguy]

Most commonly mentioned word will be...?

[radditsu]

Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil,And the govt is lying about 9/11

[Kagatob]

Hillary

[Roku]

'I' or 'Me' or 'My'

[Kagatob]

Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil,And the govt is lying about 9/11

Quiet Huey.

[JayN]

wage

[radditsu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dPIvuj-NGM

[Reguiy]

'I' or 'Me' or 'My'

It'll more likely be "us", "our", or "we."

[radditsu]

Penatrating gaze.

[Ecguy]

Middle Class. Oh, wow, I'm such a newb. Guess that's what I get for coming up with the list a minute before the speech.

[Ecguy]

Executive branch is supposed to execute laws...not legislate.

[iiNGloriouS]

Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil,And the govt is lying about 9/11

[Ecguy]

Why $10.10? Let's just make it $50.

[Hailto]

you didnt even put health care on the list?

[Ecguy]

you didnt even put health care on the list?

Can't imagine he would want to talk about it too much. It hasn't exactly been a raging success. Wait until employees find out what the rate increase is for businesses in NOV of 2014. That cost will be passed on.

[hatelore]

Fuckin dumb president is dumb. We have American's who can't find work, and this lying sack of shit sits on tv talkin about the poor innocent illegals who broke the law, and how we should give them citizenship and give them our jobs too.

And what, 3% of the population gives a shit about illegal people who aren't supposed to be here getting citizenship??? Its a travesty in itself, I made my wife turn that bunk shit off my tv~

[hatelore]

Can't imagine he would want to talk about it too much. It hasn't exactly been a raging success. Wait until employees find out what the rate increase is for businesses in NOV of 2014. That cost will be passed on.


To the employer and taxpayer... Sorry, had to finish that sentence for you. Obamacare was basically geared to crash the healthcare industry anyways from what it looks like, so it can be totally nationalized. Either that or people write laws in the dark and sign them into law while sleeping.

[Emsee]

Hope he exclaims Republicans are illegal and should be shot on sight.

[HeallunRumblebelly]

To the employer and taxpayer... Sorry, had to finish that sentence for you. Obamacare was basically geared to crash the healthcare industry anyways from what it looks like, so it can be totally nationalized. Either that or people write laws in the dark and sign them into law while sleeping.

Forcing people to buy insurance, that's gonna crash the health insurance industry? Yeah you'll have to cover sick people, but those people get insane premiums / deductibles (not really limited in ACA) which they can't pay anyway! And Medicaid is fucking awful for chronic conditions, literally worst then the VA.

[Lemiddar]

Why $10.10? Let's just make it $50.

I really thought I'd see this on the FIRST page. RNF is slacking. There are a lot of reasons I don't agree with Republicans, even though I am one myself. Some I can see the party point of view and just happen to disagree. Stupid talking points like this don't fall into that category. The proposed wage might be rounded up (as usual) to the nearest 5 or 0, but it isn't at all arbitrary.

[Ecguy]

I really thought I'd see this on the FIRST page. RNF is slacking. There are a lot of reasons I don't agree with Republicans, even though I am one myself. Some I can see the party point of view and just happen to disagree. Stupid talking points like this don't fall into that category. The proposed wage might be rounded up (as usual) to the nearest 5 or 0, but it isn't at all arbitrary.

The point isn't that it's arbitrary. The point is that when a wage is mandated it has other consequences besides simply increasing the amount of money some people make.

[Laok]

Because of obamacare, my health insurance went from just over $300 a month with 2 (yes that's a two) office visits a year to $250 a month and unlimited visits. I am no longer restricted to being insured by only one company here in Michigan. I'm a big dude. Tall, but off the weight charts. I used to challenge insurance agents to foot races or to come play hockey with me. They would all apologize saying that it didn't matter what my physical condition was, they simply couldn't insure me because their charts said no. Now they can't ask your weight, so I have more options at much lower premiums.

We shall see if that stays the case in the future.

[Bones]

http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/ObamaUhhh.jpg

[radditsu]

The value of the minimum wage has fallen sharply over the past forty years. In 1968, for example, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 per hour, which translates to approximately $10.70 in 2013 dollars.

[radditsu]

Never adjusted for inflation.

[Sidelle]

'I' or 'Me' or 'My'

Well, he does seem pretty comfortable with the idea of bypassing legislators and doing things himself if he wants something.

[radditsu]

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/orders/

[Sidelle]

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/orders/

Which reminds of this funny gem:

http://terri0729.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/bush_dodges_shoes.gif?w=604

:D

[baalzy]

Which reminds of this funny gem:

http://terri0729.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/bush_dodges_shoes.gif?w=604

:D

Classic.

[Raavak]

Bush's fault

[Raavak]

The point isn't that it's arbitrary. The point is that when a wage is mandated it has other consequences besides simply increasing the amount of money some people make.Increasing minimum wage doesn't increase the amount of money available to pay people, so the whole concept sucks. And Econ 101 shows us that minimum wage causes a surplus in available labor. Its nothing more than a political ploy... it works because most people don't understand the concept in my first sentence. All money comes from Obama's stash, amirite?

[Raavak]

For the people with brains...
http://gdurl.com/pVtf
If you don't understand how it works, stfu.

[moklianne]

Bush's fault

Who's your avatar on the left? damn

[Lune]

Increasing minimum wage doesn't increase the amount of money available to pay people, so the whole concept sucks. And Econ 101 shows us that minimum wage causes a surplus in available labor. Its nothing more than a political ploy... it works because most people don't understand the concept in my first sentence. All money comes from Obama's stash, amirite?

As much as economics loves to pretend it's a real science up there with physics and chemistry, in reality it's just a filthy fucking mongrel somewhere between the other social sciences and real ones. So I wouldn't put much stock in some symbolic assessment of how they think minimum wage interacts with pure, hypothetical, or historical systems that are muddled with variables and complexities they are wholly incapable of properly accounting for.

Many of the economies who do far better than us (Not larger, better: Less inequality and poverty, more happiness and social mobility, higher per capita wealth) have dramatically higher wages for even their most unskilled workers, along with lower unemployment.

Part of the idea is to put cash back in the hands of perennially cash-strapped Americans who, in the last decade, have watched wages shrink and economic opportunity decline. People without money can't buy homes, or any of the other innumerable horseshit that drives our pig economy. (Note that one of the factors leading up to the bursting of the housing bubble in 2007 was the sustained, astronomical increase in the price of petroleum that sucked absurd amounts of cash out of every family and business in the United States, and catalyzed the crash like a needle popping a bubble).

This is one of the reasons the Obama and Bush administrations have pushed (ineffectually) to reduce oil consumption. It's because the moment our economy starts booming again, we will see a commensurate increase in the price and consumption of petroleum that will temper economic growth and act as a 'soft cap' on the extent to which our economy can thrive. We're lucky domestic production has increased so much, but it won't do much good in the long run.

[Raavak]

Minimum wage causes higher unemployment. If you don't understand that you are a babbling idiot.

[myriverse]

Minimum wage causes higher unemployment. If you don't understand that you are a babbling idiot.
History proves you wrong.
Economics experts know you are.

[Lune]

Minimum wage causes higher unemployment. If you don't understand that you are a babbling idiot.

It's not that simple. I know your Econ 101 professor sounded totally convincing and you feel confident parroting his perceived expertise everywhere you go, but sometimes (often) economists are wrong, or at the very least inaccurate or only marginally applicable to real circumstances.

This is some Alan Greenspan tier-"Financial regulation is bad!" followed by "I was wrong, sorry about that"-level horseshit.

Pull your head out of tea party ass and learn to think on your own

[baalzy]

It's not that simple. I know your Econ 101 professor sounded totally convincing and you feel confident parroting his perceived expertise everywhere you go, but sometimes (often) economists are wrong, or at the very least inaccurate or only marginally applicable to real circumstances.

This is some Alan Greenspan tier-"Financial regulation is bad!" followed by "I was wrong, sorry about that"-level horseshit.

Pull your head out of tea party ass and learn to think on your own

My Econ101 professor constantly touted giving money to the people who would spend it. IE: The people with low incomes who need to eat or bills to pay.

We've had 30 years of supply side trickle down bullshit which demonstrably doesn't work. Let's try something else.

[Raavak]

History proves you wrong.
Economics experts know you are.Uhm, you're a moron. Yes it does. Look at what happened when it was instituted. You need to stfu. Idiot, lol.

[Raavak]

You raise minimum wage.... where does the money for the wages come from? Its a fairly simple answer. If you think it comes from managements wages, overhead, R&D, or anything like that you are clueless. There are two answers.

[Raavak]

I've been doing this for decades now... I've had to deal with a number of minimum wage increases. The first reaction we have is to slim down, and get rid of lower performing employees. The second is to raise prices. In a steady-state dream world we will always be at maximum efficiency and would only raise prices because everyone would be necessary. But we are fairly large, and unproductive people come and go.

But in the long run what happens, prices go up, cost of living goes up, taxes go up along with the deadweight losses therein... so purchasing power of a minimum wage worker actually decreases despite being paid more.

[Lojik]

It's not that simple. I know your Econ 101 professor sounded totally convincing and you feel confident parroting his perceived expertise everywhere you go, but sometimes (often) economists are wrong, or at the very least inaccurate or only marginally applicable to real circumstances.

This is some Alan Greenspan tier-"Financial regulation is bad!" followed by "I was wrong, sorry about that"-level horseshit.

Pull your head out of tea party ass and learn to think on your own

You're right, it's not that simple. Instead of flat out causing unemployment you can see other effects: reduced hours, benefits reduction, increased prices of anything requiring cheap labor, and the effects can be blurred and muddled a bit. Prices tend to arrive at an equilibrium and wages are no different. After a while wages will rise or fall to the equilibrium level which is the marginal product of labor, and one of my professors did a pretty simple example of why this happens.

Why i don't care for constant minimum wage increases is that you're trying to correct a symptom instead of a problem. The problem is that there are workers who are not skilled enough to make a certain amount of money. They can become more skilled in two ways, either education or work experience, and often times raising the minimum wage prices out unskilled workers so the 2nd choice is not an option. Also, when you prevent a firm from being able to discriminate based on price, they can start to discriminate based on other things.

Another thing to consider with a minimum wage though is welfare. If a person would make as much or more from welfare than they would working 40 hours a week at XX dollars, then they have no incentive to work. Looking at the hourly wage equivalents for welfare in some states (Hawai $17.50!!), it actually makes sense to me that raising the minimum wage would decrease unemployment.

[Lune]

You raise minimum wage.... where does the money for the wages come from? Hurr durr this is the only approach to the problem simplistic enough for me to understand, so I'm going to ignore anything outside the confines of my false dichotomy etc etc derp

From here:

http://i.imgur.com/GCTYz6l.jpg

And here:

http://i.imgur.com/hWVn2o8.jpg

I've been doing this for decades now... I've had to deal with a number of minimum wage increases. The first reaction we have is to slim down, and get rid of lower performing employees. The second is to raise prices. In a steady-state dream world we will always be at maximum efficiency and would only raise prices because everyone would be necessary. But we are fairly large, and unproductive people come and go.

But in the long run what happens, prices go up, cost of living goes up, taxes go up along with the deadweight losses therein... so purchasing power of a minimum wage worker actually decreases despite being paid more.

Your bullshit doesn't mesh with a reality where a more highly compensated workforce is demonstrably more conducive to total economic prosperity in a developed economy. Take your bullshit anywhere else where labor is paid a living wage and you'll be laughed back to Ameristan.

You're living in the smoldering ruins of Reaganomics and you're still stupid enough to keep trying to sell it.

[Utmost]

My nephew is Nick Chute, can someone make a .gif of when Michelle stands up in front of him and starts clapping?

[Raavak]

...The problem is that there are workers who are not skilled enough to make a certain amount of money...Right. The CEO won't take a paycut to employ a minimum wage worker... The people who lose are the ones who could and should work for less, because equilibrium wage for what they do is below minimum wage. And now this unemployed unskilled worker has to live in a higher cost of living environment.

No one is really for "slave" labor, but pay a worker what the job is worth.

[Blink]

Once you get to know people that play on p99 and emu's in general 90% of them end up being total scum irl and play them because they are poor.

Reading the forums you would swear everyone here is a young doctor dating a super model.

[Blink]

Right. The CEO won't take a paycut to employ a minimum wage worker... The people who lose are the ones who could and should work for less, because equilibrium wage for what they do is below minimum wage. And now this unemployed unskilled worker has to live in a higher cost of living environment.

No one is really for "slave" labor, but pay a worker what the job is worth.


You do realize you are more than likely debating with said unskilled worker right? You are not going to convince a "victim" he doesn't deserve more.

[hatelore]

It's not that simple. I know your Econ 101 professor sounded totally convincing and you feel confident parroting his perceived expertise everywhere you go, but sometimes (often) economists are wrong, or at the very least inaccurate or only marginally applicable to real circumstances.

This is some Alan Greenspan tier-"Financial regulation is bad!" followed by "I was wrong, sorry about that"-level horseshit.

Pull your head out of tea party ass and learn to think on your own

I will agree with one thing regarding minimum wage... A worker working an hour for 2 gallons of gas sucks ass.. That I agree.

But what happens when it is raised? Do you think these corporations are just going keep all of there workers? No, there will be layoffs. raising it from 7 whatever to 10 is a pretty big jump. They will reduce there workforce and require more from the smaller workforce. These corporations that have a large amount of lower wage workers already have to deal with in an increase from obamacare, which will in turn cause more lay offs.

What makes a fruitful economy? Ask yourself that.. Here is a scary fact, All we have done since 2004 is artificially prop up our economy. The unemployment rate is also artificially propped up. We have propped up our economy with so many fucking fake tools that is truly is scary. Did you know the federal government buys 90% of our treasury bonds? This whole idea that if we increase minimum wage it will help our economy is bogus lies told to you by the same liars that run our country...

And to think this guy has the gall to get up on a fucking podium and tell us that we need to pass legalization for illegal aliens? That we need to up the number of migrant workers coming in each year so they can compete against American's who truly do need the fucking job?

Its all a smoke and mirror show here kids. The government has sold out to big business a long time ago, the rats on both sides, not just the democrats, both sides.

I will be honest. I truly do hope the republicans are stupid enough to go against the American people and grant Amnesty to illegals. That will be the end of the Republican party, and hopefully..... It will produce a new party of true conservatives, not a party full of fake ass rhinos.

That's just my 2 cents, I don't sit on here claiming I know it all or that I am an economist. But I am a solid worker who has been a part of the American workforce for almost 20 years. Things are not looking better, no matter what the President or the New Your Times tries to tell you. We are in for a big hurting from what the past two presidents have done to this country.

[hatelore]

I've been doing this for decades now... I've had to deal with a number of minimum wage increases. The first reaction we have is to slim down, and get rid of lower performing employees. The second is to raise prices. In a steady-state dream world we will always be at maximum efficiency and would only raise prices because everyone would be necessary. But we are fairly large, and unproductive people come and go.

But in the long run what happens, prices go up, cost of living goes up, taxes go up along with the deadweight losses therein... so purchasing power of a minimum wage worker actually decreases despite being paid more.

I completely agree with this.

[Lune]

You do realize you are more than likely debating with said unskilled worker right? You are not going to convince a "victim" he doesn't deserve more.

Once you get to know people that play on p99 and emu's in general 90% of them end up being total scum irl and play them because they are poor.

Reading the forums you would swear everyone here is a young doctor dating a super model.

And I bet you're a multi-millionaire, right?

Got a $50k job you feel lucky to have? "Th-thanks for keeping me on, b-boss, s-sure I will work more hours without a raise, i-it's tough out there..."

Here's a fun exercise for you. Walk into work and say the word "Union" and see how fast they throw your ass out the door and bring in some other asshole who thinks employers are doing him a favor by "providing a job".

Spineless middle class fucks like you are an even bigger threat to the American way of life than unskilled fuckups and their woes.

And it may be worth noting for the purposes of ad hominem, my family has money. Everything was handed to me and I never had to work a day in my life for it, but I did anyway. I was given more capital than you'll likely earn in your lifetime. Isn't that fair? Isn't capitalism great?

So when you say to pay people what their labor is worth, I think that should go both ways, for the top and the bottom. Right now it only seems to apply to deadbeats...

[Blink]

And it may be worth noting for the purposes of ad hominem, my family has money. Everything was handed to me and I never had to work a day in my life for it, but I did anyway. I was given more capital than you'll likely earn in your lifetime.

Another p99 young millionaire! Thank you for making my point.

[Orruar]

From here:

http://i.imgur.com/GCTYz6l.jpg

And here:

http://i.imgur.com/hWVn2o8.jpg
... (probably something meaningless said down here)

I love when people use graphs use two different scales for a single axis. Makes it easier to figure out which posts I don't need to read further on.

[doeda]

there is no way in hell I'm paying more than 1$ for my Mcdouble, my 5cents...

[Lune]

I love when people use graphs use two different scales for a single axis. Makes it easier to figure out which posts I don't need to read further on.

That's a valid complaint about the graphs--the first one is particularly misleading-- but it doesn't warrant ignoring the truth of the situation. It's oriented that way because employee compensation is naturally a much larger % of GDP... the profit axis nearly doubled itself, which wouldn't have otherwise been adequately portrayed.

Basically what you can take away is that compensation/GDP dropped roughly 10%, while corporate profits/GDP increased roughly 5%. This is a well known trend and you don't need to rely on a shitty graph to recognize it.

But none of it really matters anyway because you're a libertarian and won't be happy until the State of the Union is sponsored by Coca Cola

[Orruar]

That's a valid complaint about the graphs--the first one is particularly misleading-- but it doesn't warrant ignoring the truth of the situation. It's oriented that way because employee compensation is naturally a much larger % of GDP... the profit axis nearly doubled itself, which wouldn't have otherwise been adequately portrayed.

Basically what you can take away is that compensation/GDP dropped roughly 10%, while corporate profits/GDP increased roughly 5%. This is a well known trend and you don't need to rely on a shitty graph to recognize it.

But none of it really matters anyway because you're a libertarian and won't be happy until the State of the Union is sponsored by Coca Cola

Yes, because as everyone knows, there's nothing a libertarian loves more than when government and corporations are in bed together. Oh wait. No. That's the domain of the two major parties. So are you part of team corporate fascism or team corporate socialism?

[Aaron]

Did Obama really trot out that old bullshit statistic about women making 70% of what men make for the same job?

Doesn't he have fact-checkers?

That was the only part I saw before watching True Detective on HBO. Couldn't stomach any more than that.

[Orruar]

And to address the point that those two graphs are attempting (poorly) to make:
Corporate profits go back to the shareholders of those corporations. Ask yourself these questions: What happens when the stock holdings of the average American increases? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? What factors might increase our holdings of stocks? What actions are being taken by our government that contribute to these factors?

I'm sure you can't answer any of these questions right now, as you weren't smart enough to even consider them. But just think about them for a few days. Or post a quick emotional response that shows little ability for analytic thought.

[hatelore]

I heard the dumbass even said he cut the deficit in half lol. So it was 10 when he came in, now its 17, so after last night that means we only owe 7.5 trillion. This guy can lie as good as any con artist. lol

[Orruar]

Did Obama really trot out that old bullshit statistic about women making 70% of what men make for the same job?

Doesn't he have fact-checkers?

That was the only part I saw before watching True Detective on HBO. Couldn't stomach any more than that.

Wait a second... Obama's very first law passed when he became president back in 2009 was supposed to put an end to the wage gap. What happened?

[hatelore]

I meant 8.5 hah. I'm a troll, we don't count that good.

[Orruar]

I heard the dumbass even said he cut the deficit in half lol. So it was 10 when he came in, now its 17, so after last night that means we only owe 7.5 trillion. This guy can lie as good as any con artist. lol

There's a difference between deficit and debt... Deficit is the yearly shortfall while debt is what has built up over time.

[hatelore]

That wasn't the point I was making. the debt in as of dec 2013 was at 17 trillion, The debt as of jan 2014 is... wait for it..... here it comes...





















































17 fuckin trillion! Wtf was improved? Yeah the deficit fell 30 something percent due to cuts etc, but the debt has not fallen. It is still at 17 trillion.

[hatelore]

By the time he leaves office, our debt will have doubled most likely, especially with thecave-in pussy republicrats...

[baalzy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money Means we don't have to care about debt.

Isn't that pretty much what Dick Cheney meant when he said Reagan proved "Deficits don't matter"?

[Lune]

Yes, because as everyone knows, there's nothing a libertarian loves more than when government and corporations are in bed together. Oh wait. No. That's the domain of the two major parties. So are you part of team corporate fascism or team corporate socialism?

Interesting tangent but no, the implication was simply that the government was tied face down on the bed and the corporation is shoving pineapples in its asshole, which would be the proper libertarian paradise.

And to address the point that those two graphs are attempting (poorly) to make:
Corporate profits go back to the shareholders of those corporations. Ask yourself these questions: What happens when the stock holdings of the average American increases? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? What factors might increase our holdings of stocks? What actions are being taken by our government that contribute to these factors?

If this idealistic, naive horseshit were accurate, the "average American" wouldn't have spent the last decade being buttfucked, now, would they? Obviously those profits aren't making it into the "stock holdings of the average American". Even if your typical middle class porker is investing wisely, that's often nothing more than minor, supplemental income that isn't going to offset their wages and benefits being pillaged.

Blame the government as much as you want, but note that this economic catastrophe followed the most rampant deregulation since the beginning of the last century. Or in the words of Alan Greenspan, "OOPS I WAS WRONG LOL". Yes, the government and politicians played a huge role in the whole thing too, but I'm willing to bet you blame them wholly.

Libertarian Holds Reins of US Economy for 20 Years; It Turns to Shit - More at 11

[radditsu]

Ronald Reagan was the devil

[radditsu]

And hatelore. You smoke entirely too much pot to worry about macro economics.

[hatelore]

Yeah but, wtf am I going to do when I can;t even afford pot anymore! Its a fuckin travesty I tell you~

[Nads]

All I heard and saw were legislators cheering for the man who plans so walk all over them via executive order power.

[Nads]

to*

[Estolcles]

Yeah but, wtf am I going to do when I can;t even afford pot anymore! Its a fuckin travesty I tell you~

I'm at that point right now, AND IT SUCKS ASS! Now I can't shut the damn suicidal voices up that are in my head. >_<

[Orruar]

If this idealistic, naive horseshit were accurate, the "average American" wouldn't have spent the last decade being buttfucked, now, would they? Obviously those profits aren't making it into the "stock holdings of the average American". Even if your typical middle class porker is investing wisely, that's often nothing more than minor, supplemental income that isn't going to offset their wages and benefits being pillaged.


I gave you a big hint when I said you should think about the questions for a couple days, or make a quick emotional response devoid of any intellectual thought. You went with going full retard, so good job on that.

[Orruar]

Blame the government as much as you want, but note that this economic catastrophe followed the most rampant deregulation since the beginning of the last century. Or in the words of Alan Greenspan, "OOPS I WAS WRONG LOL". Yes, the government and politicians played a huge role in the whole thing too, but I'm willing to bet you blame them wholly.

Pretty awesome deregulation on display here:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0MCZ3FJXJJs/UA7zeOEIanI/AAAAAAAAFl8/N6z1g6k5XS0/s1600/number-pages-regulations-added-to-federal-register-each-year-1936-2012-projected.png

[Lune]

Pretty awesome deregulation on display here:

Total volume of new regulations ≠ volume of new financial regulations, which is the barely relevant figure.

Also, look at your fucking source: Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market advocacy group that opposes environmental regulation, green energy, and the widely accepted scientific position on climate change, among other abominable views. Not saying that discredits the data in any way, but it's worth noting.

Also, I'm pretty sure the technological revolution, the radical reformation of the American way of life, and the tripling of our population that has occurred since 1930 accounts for at least some of the increased rate of regulation additions.

Further, any law that has the net effect of deregulation, may still produce a sizable regulatory volume because it is still a written legislative document. For example, all of these laws which served to deregulate the financial industry were probably quite long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutions_Deregulation_and_Monetary_ Control_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn%E2%80%93St._Germain_Depository_Institutions_A ct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

[Orruar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutions_Deregulation_and_Monetary_ Control_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn%E2%80%93St._Germain_Depository_Institutions_A ct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

Are those really the greatest 3 cases of financial deregulation you could find? Because an act from 1980 that forced all banks in the country to abide by the Fed's policies, which can be created without consent of Congress, hardly sounds like massive deregulation. One or two bones thrown to the way of these banks is more than offset by the reams of rules imposed by the Fed.

[moklianne]

Are those really the greatest 3 cases of financial deregulation you could find? Because an act from 1980 that forced all banks in the country to abide by the Fed's policies, which can be created without consent of Congress, hardly sounds like massive deregulation. One or two bones thrown to the way of these banks is more than offset by the reams of rules imposed by the Fed.

Half of all financial regulation wouldn't exist if banks didn't act like organized crime outfits. Financial regulation is almost always due to specific events that trigger it.

[Orruar]

Half of all financial regulation wouldn't exist if banks didn't act like organized crime outfits. Financial regulation is almost always due to specific events that trigger it.

I don't disagree with that analysis. I just find it funny that some people think we had some kind of massive deregulation of the banking sector, which happens to be one of the most (if not THE most) highly regulated industries. And when someone who holds that belief comes up with 3 examples, one of which actually had a net effect of adding regulation over banks, I literally laugh my ass off.

[Lune]

I don't disagree with that analysis. I just find it funny that some people think we had some kind of massive deregulation of the banking sector, which happens to be one of the most (if not THE most) highly regulated industries. And when someone who holds that belief comes up with 3 examples, one of which actually had a net effect of adding regulation over banks, I literally laugh my ass off.

The acts didn't have the net effect of regulation simply because they added a few minor stipulations; their most major provisions were sweeping and decisive changes to the way banks were allowed to do business. I can't even fathom how you can dispute that meaningful financial deregulation didn't take place during that period, that's not something that is commonly disputed. If you take issue with the words I use to describe it, that's more understandable.

Here's another one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000) that excluded over-the-counter derivatives from being regulated, and reduced the scope of the CFTC.

I know you want so badly to believe a lack of regulation didn't contribute (as one of many factors) to our economy getting buttfucked, because that takes a shit on your tea party world view.

What will it take for you to accept the reality of what happened? Alan Greenspan literally admitting that his libertarianesque fiscal policy was wrong?

I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms ... I discovered a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.

The overall view I take of regulation is, I took an oath of office when I became Federal Reserve chairman. I'm here to uphold the laws of the land passed by Congress, not my own predilections.

[Orruar]

The acts didn't have the net effect of regulation simply because they added a few minor stipulations; their most major provisions were sweeping and decisive changes to the way banks were allowed to do business. I can't even fathom how you can dispute that meaningful financial deregulation didn't take place during that period, that's not something that is commonly disputed. If you take issue with the words I use to describe it, that's more understandable.

You have a very restricted set of information available to you if you have never considered whether regulation as a whole (not just specific laws, but also the agencies that write rules which are defacto law) has increased or decreased. I'm sure in the echo chamber that is your little corner of the world, you've not heard the story of "deregulation caused the problem!" being disputed.

[Orruar]

Also, it's probably not best to listen to Alan Greenspan's account of what happened. Do you think the police give much weight to the story of a bank robber after catching him red handed? Greenspan has every reason in the world to lie and deflect.

[Ahldagor]

what y'all's ages Lune and Orruar? curious party, and not trolling. this debate is good btw.

[hatelore]

I would put lune at about 24 or 23. Probably lives with his parent's still, Never had a true struggle in his life, plus probably has zero kids and is a closet cock smoker. Oh, and lies about the money he has.






But hey, I could be wrong yo~

[Lune]

I'm out of 'arguing on the internet' energy for now, as much as I enjoy it.

I would put lune at about 24 or 23. Probably lives with his parent's still, Never had a true struggle in his life, plus probably has zero kids and is a closet cock smoker. Oh, and lies about the money he has.

But hey, I could be wrong yo~

Pretty close... I'm 26. About the other stuff, you can believe whatever you want.

[Psionide]

O-BA-MA 0-BA-MA YES WE CAN YES WE CAN HOPE AND CHANGE

That is all.

[hatelore]

I'm out of 'arguing on the internet' energy for now, as much as I enjoy it.



Pretty close... I'm 26. About the other stuff, you can believe whatever you want.

Hahah, just trolling. I was wondering what the response would be though I won't lie.

[Orruar]

I'm out of 'arguing on the internet' energy for now, as much as I enjoy it.

How about instead of trying to argue, you attempt enlightenment instead. Learning new things shouldn't be a struggle. For example, let's say you want to find out whether financial regulation as a whole has increased or decreased over the last X years. How would you determine this? Certainly looking at 1 or 2 laws that were passed and using that as a measure of deregulation is like looking at one person who took snake oil and was cured of syphilis as scientific evidence? So what kind of metrics can we use instead? It's not something that is terribly easy to measure.

I'd probably go with something like the budgets (in inflation adjusted terms) or # of employees for the financial regulatory agencies (SEC mostly, but also FDIC and OCC). Laws are great and all, but they're worthless if nobody is there to enforce them. Of course, they could just be enforcing "don't throw your cigarettes on the sidewalk" rules instead of "don't kill people" rules. So even that kind of measure is imperfect. Can you think of something better?

[Orruar]

what y'all's ages Lune and Orruar? curious party, and not trolling. this debate is good btw.

Early 30s

[Ahldagor]

I'm 26.

thought so

Early 30s

thought so


i'm also 26, and find it weird that people in their mid 20's are developing into something of another lost generation in the usa.

btw if you think that reagan's increase of regulation didn't have more lawyering loop holes in it that enabled companies affected by the legislation to effectively game the system then you're deluding yourself. the laws passed now are hollow band-aids done up for news cycles. and the spineless middle-class is just as much to blame as those in charge because this is a democratically elected representational republic.

[Orruar]

btw if you think that reagan's increase of regulation didn't have more lawyering loop holes in it that enabled companies affected by the legislation to effectively game the system then you're deluding yourself. the laws passed now are hollow band-aids done up for news cycles. and the spineless middle-class is just as much to blame as those in charge because this is a democratically elected representational republic.

Just Reagan's? I'm pretty sure all legislation is designed to enrich those with connections to the people who vote on the legislation. Been that way since the beginning, and no amount of left-wing happy thoughts and hopes will change that. But they'll keep on voting in people who say they'll add "tough regulations" anyway.

[Lune]

How about instead of trying to argue, you attempt enlightenment instead. Learning new things shouldn't be a struggle. For example, let's say you want to find out whether financial regulation as a whole has increased or decreased over the last X years. How would you determine this? Certainly looking at 1 or 2 laws that were passed and using that as a measure of deregulation is like looking at one person who took snake oil and was cured of syphilis as scientific evidence? So what kind of metrics can we use instead? It's not something that is terribly easy to measure.

I'd probably go with something like the budgets (in inflation adjusted terms) or # of employees for the financial regulatory agencies (SEC mostly, but also FDIC and OCC). Laws are great and all, but they're worthless if nobody is there to enforce them. Of course, they could just be enforcing "don't throw your cigarettes on the sidewalk" rules instead of "don't kill people" rules. So even that kind of measure is imperfect. Can you think of something better?

How about when the guy who headed the FED explicitly admits financial deregulation occurred under his watch, and that it was a mistake? You tell me to attempt enlightenment and then, because you don't like what Greenspan has to say, tell me he's not a reliable source of perspective?

His statements during congressional testimony did indeed deflect blame onto lenders, but he did admit fault, and even gave specific ways he fucked up. That's like hearing the bank robber say, "Yea, the bank got robbed, but it wasn't me. But I was there. And I did have a gun. And I did shoot a bitch." and then thinking "Well we can't trust him, he's a criminal. Find out who shot that bitch."

Based on that reasoning, if anything, his role is worse than he admitted and he was deflecting indictment of the very worst of his culpability. But I don't think that's the case. I think Greenspan has integrity, and I think most of his testimony was correct, and that he does not deserve all the blame. I think you just don't like what he is saying, and you haven't really given compelling or specific reasons precisely why you think everything in his testimony was dishonest. And you'll probably just call me stupid for not automatically knowing why you think Greenspan is a lying fiend.

There's really no way it ends well for you. Either:

-Greenspan, one of Ayn Rand's disciples and diehard free market proponent, fucked up so badly with his policies that he has to lie about it during congressional testimony. And if you say he didn't actually fuck up, then he had no reason to lie.

or

-Greenspan explicitly admits deregulation was an error, while deflecting blame.

[Orruar]

How about when the guy who headed the FED explicitly admits financial deregulation occurred under his watch, and that it was a mistake? You tell me to attempt enlightenment and then, because you don't like what Greenspan has to say, tell me he's not a reliable source of perspective?

His statements during congressional testimony did indeed deflect blame onto lenders, but he did admit fault, and even gave specific ways he fucked up. That's like hearing the bank robber say, "Yea, the bank got robbed, but it wasn't me. But I was there. And I did have a gun. And I did shoot a bitch." and then thinking "Well we can't trust him, he's a criminal. Find out who shot that bitch."

Based on that reasoning, if anything, his role is worse than he admitted and he was deflecting indictment of the very worst of his culpability. But I don't think that's the case. I think Greenspan has integrity, and I think most of his testimony was correct, and that he does not deserve all the blame. I think you just don't like what he is saying, and you haven't really given compelling or specific reasons precisely why you think everything in his testimony was dishonest. And you'll probably just call me stupid for not automatically knowing why you think Greenspan is a lying fiend.

There's really no way it ends well for you. Either:

-Greenspan, one of Ayn Rand's disciples and diehard free market proponent, fucked up so badly with his policies that he has to lie about it during congressional testimony. And if you say he didn't actually fuck up, then he had no reason to lie.

or

-Greenspan explicitly admits deregulation was an error, while deflecting blame.

A scientific mind does not accept the words of a single person as evidence of pretty much anything. I thought we all learned something from the Salem witch trials?

[Orruar]

Lune, don't take this the wrong way, but I want to give an analogy.

You have claimed that snake oil cures cancer. I asked for some evidence to support that claim. You then gave me 3 cases of people who took snake oil and then beat cancer, and the words of a guy who spent a good part of his life selling snake oil.

I hope you can think a little more critically than that.

[Lune]

A scientific mind does not accept the words of a single person as evidence of pretty much anything. I thought we all learned something from the Salem witch trials?

The whole point of the testimony was to examine the thoughts of the guy whose actions were under question; his actions were highly influential in guiding the direction of our economy for decades. The things he had to say were absolutely meaningful, and you can't discredit ideas solely because you object to their source.

And something being 'snake oil' goes both ways. I've provided a hell of a lot more evidence for the perniciousness of deregulation in this situation than you have against it. I'm claiming deregulation occurred and that it hurt, not that it was solely responsible for all our problems.

Also, I think there is a compelling case for government intervention in financial markets being immensely destructive and playing a major (probably causative) role in the crash. But you're not even making it, just jacking off to your blanket hatred of government intervention and trying to sloppily apply those principles to the discussion in this thread while being as condescending and dismissive as possible.

The "Greenspan Put" refers to the monetary policy approach that Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Board, and other Fed members exercised from late 1987 to 2000.

The term "Put" refers to a put option, in which the buyer of the put acquires the right to sell an asset at a particular price to a counterparty; it can be exercised if prices decline below that price. During Greenspan's chairmanship, when a crisis arose and the stock market fell more than about 20%, the Fed would lower the Fed Funds rate, often resulting in a negative real yield. In essence, the Fed added monetary liquidity and encouraged risk taking in the financial markets to avert further deterioration.

The Fed did so after the 1987 stock market crash, which prompted traders to coin the term Greenspan Put, later termed moral hazard. In 2000, Alan Greenspan raised interest rates several times. These actions were believed by some to have caused the bursting of the dot-com bubble. The Fed also injected funds to avert further market declines associated with the savings and loan crisis and Gulf War, the Mexican crisis, the Asian crisis, the LTCM crisis, Y2K, the burst of the internet bubble, the 9/11 attacks and repeatedly from the early stages of the Global Financial Crisis to the present.

The Fed's pattern of providing ample liquidity resulted in the investor perception of put protection on asset prices. Investors increasingly believed that in a crisis or downturn, the Fed would step in and inject liquidity until the problem got better. Invariably, the Fed did so each time, and the perception became firmly embedded in asset pricing in the form of higher valuation, narrower credit spreads, and excess risk taking. Joseph Stiglitz criticized the put as privatizing profits and socializing losses and implicates it in inflating a speculative bubble in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis.

Which would make 2008 a fairly direct result of a legacy of 'privatizing profits and socializing losses'. It must have been an awkward position for Greenspan.

There are wider problems with the system than a simple deregulation - regulation dichotomy, and I acknowledge that. But that's all outside the scope of the points I was trying to make, and the facts I was providing.

The reasons I dislike libertarianism and dislike the free market lie almost exclusively outside the scope of this thread. I'm not being narrow-minded just because I'm focusing on getting certain facts straight.

But really this has gotten pretty laughable.

Hitler: "I hate Jews, and I've systematically killed millions of them".

Historians: "Did Hitler really hate Jews? I mean, he says he did, and he exterminated them. But we can't really ever use a single person as evidence. He might by lying, or coerced. I guess we'll never really know whether Hitler actually hated Jews."

This thread has been Godwin'd. Thank you, and good night

[Orruar]

You type a lot of words yes. But you say very little. I'm asking you for a shred of evidence to back up your claims of massive deregulation. You offer anecdotes and testimony of people who give no evidence of your claims themselves. Just think critically and objectively for 5 minutes and try to think of a way to determine whether banking regulation decreased or increased as a whole during the period in question. You can go back to your emotion-based arguments after that 5 minute period, if you choose to.

[Lune]

No, you're just moving the goalposts. If you don't like my evidence, that's your problem. I've already explained it sufficiently and addressed your objections.

[Orruar]

No, you're just moving the goalposts. If you don't like my evidence, that's your problem. I've already explained it sufficiently and addressed your objections.

I'm moving the goalposts? When did I ever say that I'd accept anecdotal evidence and testimony devoid of data as evidence of your claim of deregulation? I think you may have picked the wrong cliche.

[Lune]

I've responded to every one of your assaults on my evidence, but now you're demanding that I reply in a very specific way and you're trying to dictate the conditions under which I can make my point. All this while implying I'm being subjective and ignoring my defense of my evidence.

Moving the goalposts isn't about the conditions you've omitted, it's about the ones you are trying to enforce.

The idea that a testimony isn't evidence is fucking laughable, especially when you don't even try to make a compelling case against Greenspan.

[radditsu]

Is not a testimony, by law, evidence?

[Lojik]

I think the point Orruar is trying to make is that the financial sector is pretty intricate, and for anyone person to simply say "deregulation caused this" is a little tough to swallow as convincing evidence considering that this is one of, if not the most heavily regulated industry. Also, there was no considerable deregulation after 2000, note the examples that Lune gave, and creating affordable housing goals dates back to 1932 and more simliar to what we see today in the late 60's. We're talking some serious policy lag here. Something else that was happening while this bubble was forming? Greenspan cut the fed funds rate from 6.5% in 2000 down to a low of 1%, which actually kept the real interest rate negative for 3 years. I'd argue the negative interest rates led more to a housing bubble than deregulation.

[Ahldagor]

Is not a testimony, by law, evidence?

precisely what orruar is not acknowledging because then they can continue to say that there hasn't been evidence provided by lune.

[Orruar]

Is not a testimony, by law, evidence?

In a strict sense, yes. But what is it evidence of? The goal of the testimony was not to support the claim that there has been deregulation of the financial sector, and so it was not evidence for the claim that Lune is making. I hope you were just being facetious.

[Orruar]

I think the point Orruar is trying to make is that the financial sector is pretty intricate, and for anyone person to simply say "deregulation caused this" is a little tough to swallow as convincing evidence considering that this is one of, if not the most heavily regulated industry. ...

Actually, that was going to be my second point.

Lune claimed that B occurred because A implies B.

From a logic standpoint:
My first goal was to get him to prove that A is true. He has utterly failed at this.
My second would be to get him to prove that A implies B is true.

[Raavak]

But starting in 1992 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given minimum requirements on buying what is deemed "high risk" mortgages (and these minimums were raised several times), based on changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977.

[Orruar]

precisely what orruar is not acknowledging because then they can continue to say that there hasn't been evidence provided by lune.

There's a huge difference between evidence given in testimony and actual scientific evidence. If someone wants to make claims about economic causation, they better come up with something a little more rigorous than "that old dude who ran the Fed says it's true". No physicist has ever talked about relativity and said "Einstein said it, so it's true."

And Greenspan wasn't even giving testimony in an attempt to prove what Lune is being asked to prove. It would be like if I asked you to give some evidence for the claim "the Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours" and you came back with some congressional testimony about the morning after pill where someone said "you can take it up to a day later and have it be effective". Yes, they vaguely referenced the fact that there is a concept of "day", but they weren't making any attempt to prove that claim.

[aowen]

Here is a 60 page or so breakdown of how Greenspan, Bernanke, Henry Paulson, and the financial sector are demonstrable vile pieces of shit. Far from the only document tracing forces and changes in laws/financial instruments to conclude that they are indeed scum of the earth.

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/conference_papers/SAFER/Ferguson_Johnson_Too_Big.pdf

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/conference/2010/materials/johnson_too_big_part2.pdf

[Ahldagor]

There's a huge difference between evidence given in testimony and actual scientific evidence. If someone wants to make claims about economic causation, they better come up with something a little more rigorous than "that old dude who ran the Fed says it's true". No physicist has ever talked about relativity and said "Einstein said it, so it's true."

And Greenspan wasn't even giving testimony in an attempt to prove what Lune is being asked to prove. It would be like if I asked you to give some evidence for the claim "the Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours" and you came back with some congressional testimony about the morning after pill where someone said "you can take it up to a day later and have it be effective". Yes, they vaguely referenced the fact that there is a concept of "day", but they weren't making any attempt to prove that claim.

question: are you making the assumption that economics is an exact social science?
there's a lot of guesswork that goes into those calculating algorithms they run. besides all of us aren't robots.

i understand your comment about lune's greenspan quotes, but that also doesn't discount that the man who headed the federal reserve(the most powerful person in the world, seemingly) admitted that the act of deregulation and his support for it was an act that upon reflection was not the best course of action (he can make the statement because he cannot change what has happened and is free of any scrutiny) due to the effects there of. the clinging to specificity of "evidence" is destroying your argumentative ground because it is equivalent of closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears, and going "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" just because you inherently disagree.

[Ahldagor]

Here is a 60 page or so breakdown of how Greenspan, Bernanke, Henry Paulson, and the financial sector are demonstrable vile pieces of shit. Far from the only document tracing forces and changes in laws/financial instruments to conclude that they are indeed scum of the earth.

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/conference_papers/SAFER/Ferguson_Johnson_Too_Big.pdf

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/conference/2010/materials/johnson_too_big_part2.pdf

the american dream has always been the desire for a license to steal

[baalzy]

I find it funny that someone is spouting off about needing scientific evidence while supporting libertarianism when there are 3 decades worth of economic data showing that the only 'trickle down' effect is the concentration wealth at the top.

[aowen]

I find it funny that someone is spouting off about needing scientific evidence while supporting libertarianism when there are 3 decades worth of economic data showing that the only 'trickle down' effect is the concentration wealth at the top.

This website needs a like button

[Orruar]

I find it funny that someone is spouting off about needing scientific evidence while supporting libertarianism when there are 3 decades worth of economic data showing that the only 'trickle down' effect is the concentration wealth at the top.

You achieved the rare feat of engaging in more fallacies than the number of words in your post. Very high density, congrats.

[Ahldagor]

You achieved the rare feat of engaging in more fallacies than the number of words in your post. Very high density, congrats.

enlighten us power seeker

[baalzy]

Didn't think I really had to try too hard when someones only response is the intellectual equivalent of 'nuh uh!'

[Lojik]

Didn't think I really had to try too hard when someones only response is the intellectual equivalent of 'nuh uh!'

http://i.imgur.com/eb5owLN.gif