Balta1701 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 16, 2011 -> 01:44 PM) That .com bubble bursting was also helped along by poor fed decisions under Greenspan, who kept rocketing up the interest rates to "control" the markets. The only problem was that control was an illusion, at best. I dunno, I think that raising interest rates in 1999 was probably the right move just as it was in 2006. The problem is that once a big enough bubble is inflated, there's no way to slowly let the air out of it at the Fed level. You might have been able to do it with federal policy, i.e. start in 2004 with stronger controls on mortgage qualifications, but once its built, a small prick is enough to pop it, and one it pops, it's going to go almost the whole way down. The alternative would have been a significant inflationary response in both cases, which would have popped the bubble anyway, probably in more catastrophic ways. Especially with the 2007 commodity price binge. The Feds mistakes were in the runup, not in the actual popping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 16, 2011 -> 12:47 PM) I dunno, I think that raising interest rates in 1999 was probably the right move just as it was in 2006. The problem is that once a big enough bubble is inflated, there's no way to slowly let the air out of it at the Fed level. You might have been able to do it with federal policy, i.e. start in 2004 with stronger controls on mortgage qualifications, but once its built, a small prick is enough to pop it, and one it pops, it's going to go almost the whole way down. The alternative would have been a significant inflationary response in both cases, which would have popped the bubble anyway, probably in more catastrophic ways. Especially with the 2007 commodity price binge. The Feds mistakes were in the runup, not in the actual popping. It wasn't just raising the interest rates, it was using the interest rates to attempt to "control" the stock market, which was a fools game. Yes, raising the interest rates -- to a point -- was the right thing to do, but not for the sake of controlling the NASDAQ...there is no "controlling" markets...they do what they do, and if you try to leverage them one way or the other, they will eventually hit a tipping point in which you'll lose all control -- and that's what happened. He pumped the interest rates way up, market collapsed, and then subsequently dropped them down. He admitted he screwed up, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 16, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) It wasn't just raising the interest rates, it was using the interest rates to attempt to "control" the stock market, which was a fools game. Yes, raising the interest rates -- to a point -- was the right thing to do, but not for the sake of controlling the NASDAQ...there is no "controlling" markets...they do what they do, and if you try to leverage them one way or the other, they will eventually hit a tipping point in which you'll lose all control -- and that's what happened. He pumped the interest rates way up, market collapsed, and then subsequently dropped them down. He admitted he screwed up, too. The Nasdaq was responding to the enormous investment by everyone in tech stocks and the assumption that it would never go down. Just like the real estate market was responding to the believe that real estate never goes down. That belief is an inflationary belief, and raising rates was the appropriate response. The screwup was in the runnup, not in the popping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 16, 2011 -> 01:04 PM) The Nasdaq was responding to the enormous investment by everyone in tech stocks and the assumption that it would never go down. Just like the real estate market was responding to the believe that real estate never goes down. That belief is an inflationary belief, and raising rates was the appropriate response. The screwup was in the runnup, not in the popping. Saying the screwup was in the run up, not in the popping is basically saying 1+1=2. Without the run up (bubble) there can be no pop (.com collapse), one must exist for the other to exist. One is a cause, one is an effect of that cause. The problem in raising the interest rates to "control" the run up is that it didn't work. If it had worked, there would have been no pop. This goes back to my original point of the "illusion of control". Raising the rates wasn't being done just to control inflation, it was being done to control the NASDAQ in specific, however it also affected every other area of the economy that wasn't in the midst of a bubble, including the Dow, NYSE, etc...and therein was the problem. A problem Greenspan admitted to screwing up on. He never had control from the get go, interest rates or not...you can't try to control ONE very specific area of the economy (tech stocks), without adversely affecting others when you use a global control mechanism like interest rates. That's what he tried to do, and that's what failed to work. Edited July 16, 2011 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 16, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) Worth pointing out...very few of those things on your list would have a positive impact on the economy. I'd contend that in 10 years or so the PPACA will be a strong positive, but not any time in the near future. Deficit ≠ economy, no argument there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 16, 2011 -> 10:59 AM) Yes, like how Obama waited until he lost his democratic SUPERmajorities in the house AND senate...when he COULD HAVE DONE THINGS but was so preoccupied with his barely-anything-resembling-Obamacare that he didn't? Stop giving Obama excuses if you aren't going to afford Bush the same exact excuses. Bush was ONE guy. He lost his majority house/senate half way into office, and still got things passed despite a supermajority democratic house/senate. So if anything, the democratic house/senate passed everything you're b****ing about now...yet you blame Bush, and only Bush. That makes no sense. And while he had those supermajorities, fierce opposition wouldn't have mattered. His own party sold him out during the healthcare debate, when they didn't have too...because they're bought and paid for by the same corporations that own the republicans, too. These aren't excuses, they are facts. I'm not pinning anything on Bush except the deficit (you must've skipped over the part where I specifically said "I'm not pinning the 2008 recession on him"). It took years of Bush's policies (btw, much of the damage was already done by 2006 and the ball was rolling ahead at full speed) when he'd lost his majorities 3/4 of the way, not halfway through office). The Democratic Party is a bunch of p*****s who are too afraid to defend themselves when they're right which makes the supermajority useless. No argument there. Obama probably shouldn't have prioritized HCR (although he probably would've never had another opportunity) or let an incompetent Congress handle it either. Also no argument there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 If there was any hope of getting the extra $500 bil or so in infrastructure spending we need through the congress or the couple hundred bil more we need in state and local aid, I'd agree. But after the stimulus tax cut package was already pared back, I struggle to believe that not doing the PPACA would have translated to good economic stimulus legislation. He'll, the admin had the authority to do a lot more good in the housing market and spent 3% of the allocated mobey because they didn't want people complaining that they were paying their neighbors mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Newscorp appears to have broken into Jude Law's phone while he was on American soil, putting it in violation of U.S. law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) Newscorp appears to have broken into Jude Law's phone while he was on American soil, putting it in violation of U.S. law. wtf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) wtf? AKA Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 03:54 PM) AKA Fox. yes i know who it is. why are they hacking celebrity cell phones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 04:58 PM) yes i know who it is. why are they hacking celebrity cell phones? The same reason why they hacked into thousands of people's cell phones in England. For news scoops. Money. The big thing here is probably that if a celebrity was hacked by newscorp on U.S. soil, then that not only justifies an extensive FBI investigation, it pretty much compels it. And somehow, it seems pretty unlikely that the "News of the World" was the only group in Murdoch's empire doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) The same reason why they hacked into thousands of people's cell phones in England. For news scoops. Money. The big thing here is probably that if a celebrity was hacked by newscorp on U.S. soil, then that not only justifies an extensive FBI investigation, it pretty much compels it. And somehow, it seems pretty unlikely that the "News of the World" was the only group in Murdoch's empire doing this. my oh my. will Rupert go to jail? he should, at least, be sued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) my oh my. will Rupert go to jail? he should, at least, be sued. The UK has first dibs, frankly. Does this mean you haven't been following? The buyoffs of police? Hacking thousands of people's voice mail/cell accounts, including celebrities, the former PM, hacking into the voice mail account of a missing teenage girl then deleting voice mails so that the account wouldn't fill up and making her parents think that the girl was still alive because she was accessing her voice mail account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) The UK has first dibs, frankly. Does this mean you haven't been following? The buyoffs of police? Hacking thousands of people's voice mail/cell accounts, including celebrities, the former PM, hacking into the voice mail account of a missing teenage girl then deleting voice mails so that the account wouldn't fill up and making her parents think that the girl was still alive because she was accessing her voice mail account? i haven' t been following it. too busy lately. sounds pretty good though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 05:14 PM) i haven' t been following it. too busy lately. sounds pretty good though. Yeah, if this had broken in the US it would be probably the biggest media scandal ever here. It still is mostly in England, mostly in 1 paper, but it's getting bigger by the hour. And if US laws were broken, as I noted, that pretty much compels the FBI to get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Shut down WSJ and Fox news now... we must have more NYT and MSNBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 05:28 PM) Shut down WSJ and Fox news now... we must have more NYT and MSNBC. It's ok if they broke the law, they're Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 06:22 PM) It's ok if they broke the law, they're Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I'm sure everyone in this thread has this page bookmarked already... https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstan...FormId=23779454 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) I'm sure everyone in this thread has this page bookmarked already... Why? I want a bigger public debt right now, not a smaller one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2011 -> 08:23 AM) Why? I want a bigger public debt right now, not a smaller one. Which is all of the more reason to donate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) Which is all of the more reason to donate! Yes, if I donate to decrease the debt, that will increase the debt! Wait, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2011 -> 09:07 AM) Yes, if I donate to decrease the debt, that will increase the debt! Wait, what? If you donate, that is that much more money that can be lent out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 What a coincidence! The phone-hacking whistleblower was found dead. I agree with the quote in this story though, this isn't suspecious. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/1...orld-sean-hoare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts