Financial News

[StrangeSox]

It failed to meet the projections for the economy even if they had not been spending a trillion dollars.

There's nothing left to call that but intentional intellectual dishonesty at this point.

[southsider2k5]

There's nothing left to call that but intentional intellectual dishonesty at this point.

 

That is a pretty harsh description of the White House, but fair.

[StrangeSox]

that's a pretty harsh "no u" burn right there, but it doesn't change the fact that you're making a disingenuous argument and are well aware of that fact.

[NorthSideSox72]

It failed to meet the projections for the economy even if they had not been spending a trillion dollars.

Again, exactly what I said, but only half what I said (the other half you will of course decide not to discuss).

 

[southsider2k5]

that's a pretty harsh "no u" burn right there, but it doesn't change the fact that you're making a disingenuous argument and are well aware of that fact.

 

I know you can't refute the argument that the stimulus failed, which is why it turns to answers like that, instead of why we got a trillion load that didn't stimulate the economy into recovery like it was supposed. The answer is it didn't fix any of the problems that caused the recession, and continue to prolong it. Stimulus II doesn't do that either. Throwing more money at union jobs isn't going to fix anything.

[southsider2k5]

Again, exactly what I said, but only half what I said (the other half you will of course decide not to discuss).

 

Sure, there is the half that we are doing more harm than good in the long run, without any real results in the present. For example, now we have the fed setting up a situation where we could re-create the SNL crisis of the 80s with the idiocy that is Operation Twist.

[StrangeSox]

I know you can't refute the argument that the stimulus failed, which is why it turns to answers like that, instead of why we got a trillion load that didn't stimulate the economy into recovery like it was supposed. The answer is it didn't fix any of the problems that caused the recession, and continue to prolong it. Stimulus II doesn't do that either. Throwing more money at union jobs isn't going to fix anything.

It failed to break the liquidity trap but succeeded in stopping the economy from falling off a cliff, as I've said here before. And I've also pointed you to numerous contemporary criticisms from Keynesian economists that said exactly that would happen because it wasn't big enough, but you hand-wave those away. And you've been shown that the Romer estimate was based on late-2008 data, which seriously underestimated the problem, but you continue to ignore that and make your sophomoric "they said it'd be 8%!" 'argument'.

[southsider2k5]

It failed to break the liquidity trap but succeeded in stopping the economy from falling off a cliff, as I've said here before. And I've also pointed you to numerous contemporary criticisms from Keynesian economists that said exactly that would happen because it wasn't big enough, but you hand-wave those away. And you've been shown that the Romer estimate was based on late-2008 data, which seriously underestimated the problem, but you continue to ignore that and make your sophomoric "they said it'd be 8%!" 'argument'.

 

So what you are saying is they were totally wrong and we bet a trillion dollars on it, but today they are right, and we should bet another half of a trillion on it. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

[NorthSideSox72]

Sure, there is the half that we are doing more harm than good in the long run, without any real results in the present. For example, now we have the fed setting up a situation where we could re-create the SNL crisis of the 80s with the idiocy that is Operation Twist.

Forget it. If you can't accept reports from all over the spectrum that said, clearly and demonstrably, that the stimulus did create jobs and prevent job losses, then you might as well go on believing in the tooth fairy because you are unwilling to deal in facts.

 

For frickin once, I'd like it if the righties on this board were willing to acknowledge data and facts AND the lefties were willing to acknowledge the same on this issue. Instead, we have you only willing to talk about the failure to meet projections, and we have Balta and SS only willing say that even more of something that failed in it's core mission is a good idea.

 

No wonder Congress can't get things done, they are like this board.

 

[StrangeSox]

So what you are saying is they were totally wrong and we bet a trillion dollars on it, but today they are right, and we should bet another half of a trillion on it. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

 

No, that's pretty clearly not what I'm saying. "They" is left undefined here, setting up a dishonest strawman argument for you to knock down. You've also used emotionally charged language like "bet," inflated the value to a trillion and failed to actually address any of the real policy recommendations from real economists. But that's what you've always done in this argument: refuse to acknowledge anything not said directly by the WH, who may be economically wrong ,pressing for the best thing they can pass politically or both, and ignoring the people who pointed out it would be too small to break the cycle, would only cushion the fall, and that it needed to be bigger, better targeted and that we need a second round.

 

But you don't want to focus on that. You only want to focus on what came out of the WH and an estimate based on data nearly 3 years old to the exclusion of everything else.

[StrangeSox]

we have Balta and SS only willing say that even more of something that failed in it's core mission is a good idea.

 

 

I'm not really sure what you're driving at here, but I'll throw out an analogy: if the doctor prescribes you some antibiotics and you don't take enough of them, you can end up making the infection stronger. That doesn't mean the doctor was some kind of moron for prescribing the antibiotics and that we now need to turn to tried-and-true blood-letting techniques.

Edited October 12, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

No, that's pretty clearly not what I'm saying. "They" is left undefined here, setting up a dishonest strawman argument for you to knock down. You've also used emotionally charged language like "bet," inflated the value to a trillion and failed to actually address any of the real policy recommendations from real economists. But that's what you've always done in this argument: refuse to acknowledge anything not said directly by the WH, who may be economically wrong ,pressing for the best thing they can pass politically or both, and ignoring the people who pointed out it would be too small to break the cycle, would only cushion the fall, and that it needed to be bigger, better targeted and that we need a second round.

 

But you don't want to focus on that. You only want to focus on what came out of the WH and an estimate based on data nearly 3 years old to the exclusion of everything else.

 

They is obviously the White House. How you didn't understand that is beyond me.

 

What you are essentially telling me is that I am not supposed to be focused on what the White House told us, but just accept that the White House is now correct in that we need another stimulus, even though their facts, figures, and assumptions were blatantly wrong last time they told me that we needed a stimulus. Yeah, not so much for me. What the White House said last time around is of vital importance, because it points to a flaw in the way they are figuring economic conditions. Its either that or they are flat out lying to the American public based on political gain, which is pretty much what you just eluded to in this post. Either way that doesn't make it "better". It sure doesn't lay down a foundation for which to ask for another half of a trillion dollars, which by all sense, still doesn't address the real problems with the economy.

 

Maybe should wait until the White House has three year old data again so that this time we know for sure what is going on, instead of wasting more taxpayer money, because that is apparently how long it takes for this White House to figure things out.

[southsider2k5]

Forget it. If you can't accept reports from all over the spectrum that said, clearly and demonstrably, that the stimulus did create jobs and prevent job losses, then you might as well go on believing in the tooth fairy because you are unwilling to deal in facts.

 

For frickin once, I'd like it if the righties on this board were willing to acknowledge data and facts AND the lefties were willing to acknowledge the same on this issue. Instead, we have you only willing to talk about the failure to meet projections, and we have Balta and SS only willing say that even more of something that failed in it's core mission is a good idea.

 

No wonder Congress can't get things done, they are like this board.

 

lol. The stimulus created temporary jobs, that have since dried up. That is not success. The next stimulus is a more pointed temporary union jobs program that still does not address the problems that are dragging the economy down. The irony is the utter dependence on government spending is one of the biggest problems.

[StrangeSox]

"They" wasn't clear because I was again pointing out to you that "The White House" isn't the only source for economic policy information.

 

I don't care what the White House says, as I've said numerous times. I don't think a second stimulus is a good idea because Barack Obama said so. I think it's a good idea because a variety of economists whose predictions have been fairly accurate say so, and because the economists who are steadfastly against it have been pretty spectacularly wrong over the past decade. I think it's a good idea because all of the data we have from the first stimulus and from the previous 7-8 decades pretty clearly indicates that it will, at worst, stabilize the economy.

[StrangeSox]

lol. The stimulus created temporary jobs, that have since dried up. That is not success. The next stimulus is a more pointed temporary union jobs program that still does not address the problems that are dragging the economy down. The irony is the utter dependence on government spending is one of the biggest problems.

 

An expanding economy where a strong majority people have had stagnant wages for decades has to rely on expanding government spending or expanding credit. We've done both. You've also said in the recent past that you have no problem with wage growth becoming decoupled from productivity growth and with an abnormally large-and-growing wealth and income inequality and shrinking economic mobility. Most people don't actually have enough income to create demand for a consumption-based economy to function.

[BigSqwert]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you...on to phase 3

[NorthSideSox72]

lol. The stimulus created temporary jobs, that have since dried up. That is not success. The next stimulus is a more pointed temporary union jobs program that still does not address the problems that are dragging the economy down. The irony is the utter dependence on government spending is one of the biggest problems.

Remove the "lol", and yet again, you are simply agreeing with what I said.

 

[BigSqwert]

 

Yeah, I'm oversimplifying, but only a little. The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together. There are currently two sizable coalitions of angry citizens that are almost on the same page about that, and they're too busy insulting each other to notice.

 

via

[southsider2k5]

Too bad exactly this didn't happen with the Tea Party. Instead they were mocked as idiots and racists, and now people are crying that the same thing is being done to the Occupy movement. Funny how that works.

 

Of course, the type of loudmouth gadflies who show up at all large outdoor political events, whether Tea Party gatherings, GOP coffee klatches, or Democratic National Conventions, can be found in Liberty Plaza. But to dismiss an entire movement—one that is gathering momentum in cities all around the country—based on the inarticulateness of a few teenagers is entirely the wrong response. It's far more useful to try and understand what is going on here, to grok the meaning of these protesters' motivations, before prematurely passing summary judgment.

[StrangeSox]

Too bad exactly this didn't happen with the Tea Party. Instead they were mocked as idiots and racists, and now people are crying that the same thing is being done to the Occupy movement. Funny how that works.

...that's exactly what this article was about?

[southsider2k5]

The SEC proposes the Voelker Rule, of course with exceptions for the Government... Banks can't make money off of you, but the government can!

 

http://www.securitiestechnologymonitor.com...lyClose__101211

 

The Securities and Exchange Commission proposed implementation of a set of requirements for a so-called Volcker Rule that would prohibit federally insured banks from trading for their own account.

 

But the SEC included several exemptions in its proposal Wednesday.

 

The proposal would exempt transactions in certain instruments from the prohibition on proprietary trading, including debt issued by:

 

• The U.S. government or a U.S. government agency

 

• Federal government-sponsored enterprises

 

• State and local governments

[Rex Kickass]

Too bad exactly this didn't happen with the Tea Party. Instead they were mocked as idiots and racists, and now people are crying that the same thing is being done to the Occupy movement. Funny how that works.

 

The reason it's happening with the Occupy movement is that the movement's face are the crazies who show up at these events. Since the movement has no public face or spokespeople, its really easy to paint a broad brush. I should point out that when I walked past Occupy Philly, there were a lot of Ron Paul people there.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Too bad exactly this didn't happen with the Tea Party. Instead they were mocked as idiots and racists, and now people are crying that the same thing is being done to the Occupy movement. Funny how that works.

 

Did you not notice, that is pretty much what this article is about? And when I just said a few days ago, how parallel these things really were, you instintively argued about it. Now they are the same?

 

The SEC proposes the Voelker Rule, of course with exceptions for the Government... Banks can't make money off of you, but the government can!

 

http://www.securitiestechnologymonitor.com...lyClose__101211

 

Um, pretty sure you have to exempt the US Government in this rule, since by nature any market activity they perform is on their own behalf, and furthermore you cannot split the US government into multiple entities. Paranoid much?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

This made me laugh. If the left can point out that the GOP has brainwashed conservatives to think what they think, so has the left. He likes to spit out the "facts" but has no idea what they actually are, or why what he wants is a good thing:

 

 

Edited October 13, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

This made me laugh. If the left can point out that the GOP has brainwashed conservatives to think what they think, so has the left. He likes to spit out the "facts" but has no idea what they actually are, or why what he wants is a good thing:

 

 

The parallels with some of the videos we have seen from Tea Party rallies are amazing. Different stupidity, but stupidity none the less. And in both cases, of course, one idiot does not characterize the entire movement either.