State of the Union

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Originally Posted by The Greenspan Put

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]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.