In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 16 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote: Nah, there's no reason why a woman can't win the presidency. However, I strongly suspect that Clinton isn't going to be the first female president. I get the sense that another democrat will win the primary.
You really think Warren will win the primary? I would love that but its hard for me to imagine Clinton losing again or are you saying its gonna be down the road a ways?
Definitely ready to elect a woman president.
Clinton has to be careful with the whole inevitability elephant. But you can pretty much guarantee there will be a woman on the Democratic ticket. Republicans won't be able to help themselves from making chauvinistic asshole comments and getting obliterated on women's issues. By the time the VP debate (where I suspect Warren would be) comes it will be all but a forgone conclusion that Republicans alienated way to many women and minorities to win even if they agreed with many of their policies.
Warren's refusal to even give a kind word to the people begging her to run/raising money for her makes me think Hillary promised her a VP slot and support for a presidential run (mostly gifting her machine more than any personal support [sorry Biden at least you made it to VP]).
The wild card is what Hillary does. If she decided not to run (doesn't want 4-8 years of Republican social maiming and wants to go into grandma mode) and she throws her support behind someone other than Warren they could very well grab the nomination and the White House.
Not sure who Hillary would be grooming for such a position. The closest political pragmatist I can think of is Grimes but she wont be ready after only 2 years in the Senate.
My money is on Hillary and her machine trouncing any challengers and Warren and someone who is more close to Hillary's positions duking it out behind the scenes for a VP slot. I predict the fight will come down to how competitive the republicans are (If Jeb makes it out of the primaries [no one else has a shot in hell]). If it's Jeb than Hillary will have a tough choice between attempting to unite the party (Warren) or picking a more complacent politician who will be more loyal and be able to be the 'friendly old white guy' (Obama's Biden) she can send to the South.
If Warren abandons her positions that cause static for Hillary (and a potential run) she would get the slot for sure but would lose some important credibility. So my actual prediction is that Jeb loses in the Primary to a (Rand) Paul (Ryan) or a total whacko (Bachman type) Hillary picks her Biden and we get 4-8 more years of basically the same shit out of a different asshole.
I doubt Republicans will get caught flat footed by a second 'war on women' charade. If Dems try that again I think they'll end up looking like whiners... and I think that's the last thing Hillary would want to look like.
Based on the self-congratulatory diatribes that followed the Hobby Lobby decision, I wouldn't be so sure.
Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
On July 16 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote: Nah, there's no reason why a woman can't win the presidency. However, I strongly suspect that Clinton isn't going to be the first female president. I get the sense that another democrat will win the primary.
You really think Warren will win the primary? I would love that but its hard for me to imagine Clinton losing again or are you saying its gonna be down the road a ways?
Definitely ready to elect a woman president.
Clinton has to be careful with the whole inevitability elephant. But you can pretty much guarantee there will be a woman on the Democratic ticket. Republicans won't be able to help themselves from making chauvinistic asshole comments and getting obliterated on women's issues. By the time the VP debate (where I suspect Warren would be) comes it will be all but a forgone conclusion that Republicans alienated way to many women and minorities to win even if they agreed with many of their policies.
Warren's refusal to even give a kind word to the people begging her to run/raising money for her makes me think Hillary promised her a VP slot and support for a presidential run (mostly gifting her machine more than any personal support [sorry Biden at least you made it to VP]).
The wild card is what Hillary does. If she decided not to run (doesn't want 4-8 years of Republican social maiming and wants to go into grandma mode) and she throws her support behind someone other than Warren they could very well grab the nomination and the White House.
Not sure who Hillary would be grooming for such a position. The closest political pragmatist I can think of is Grimes but she wont be ready after only 2 years in the Senate.
My money is on Hillary and her machine trouncing any challengers and Warren and someone who is more close to Hillary's positions duking it out behind the scenes for a VP slot. I predict the fight will come down to how competitive the republicans are (If Jeb makes it out of the primaries [no one else has a shot in hell]). If it's Jeb than Hillary will have a tough choice between attempting to unite the party (Warren) or picking a more complacent politician who will be more loyal and be able to be the 'friendly old white guy' (Obama's Biden) she can send to the South.
If Warren abandons her positions that cause static for Hillary (and a potential run) she would get the slot for sure but would lose some important credibility. So my actual prediction is that Jeb loses in the Primary to a (Rand) Paul (Ryan) or a total whacko (Bachman type) Hillary picks her Biden and we get 4-8 more years of basically the same shit out of a different asshole.
I doubt Republicans will get caught flat footed by a second 'war on women' charade. If Dems try that again I think they'll end up looking like whiners... and I think that's the last thing Hillary would want to look like.
Based on the self-congratulatory diatribes that followed the Hobby Lobby decision, I wouldn't be so sure.
You think that'll make a big difference? <1% of women will have to spend a few extra bucks to get birth control...
On July 16 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote: Nah, there's no reason why a woman can't win the presidency. However, I strongly suspect that Clinton isn't going to be the first female president. I get the sense that another democrat will win the primary.
You really think Warren will win the primary? I would love that but its hard for me to imagine Clinton losing again or are you saying its gonna be down the road a ways?
Definitely ready to elect a woman president.
Clinton has to be careful with the whole inevitability elephant. But you can pretty much guarantee there will be a woman on the Democratic ticket. Republicans won't be able to help themselves from making chauvinistic asshole comments and getting obliterated on women's issues. By the time the VP debate (where I suspect Warren would be) comes it will be all but a forgone conclusion that Republicans alienated way to many women and minorities to win even if they agreed with many of their policies.
Warren's refusal to even give a kind word to the people begging her to run/raising money for her makes me think Hillary promised her a VP slot and support for a presidential run (mostly gifting her machine more than any personal support [sorry Biden at least you made it to VP]).
The wild card is what Hillary does. If she decided not to run (doesn't want 4-8 years of Republican social maiming and wants to go into grandma mode) and she throws her support behind someone other than Warren they could very well grab the nomination and the White House.
Not sure who Hillary would be grooming for such a position. The closest political pragmatist I can think of is Grimes but she wont be ready after only 2 years in the Senate.
My money is on Hillary and her machine trouncing any challengers and Warren and someone who is more close to Hillary's positions duking it out behind the scenes for a VP slot. I predict the fight will come down to how competitive the republicans are (If Jeb makes it out of the primaries [no one else has a shot in hell]). If it's Jeb than Hillary will have a tough choice between attempting to unite the party (Warren) or picking a more complacent politician who will be more loyal and be able to be the 'friendly old white guy' (Obama's Biden) she can send to the South.
If Warren abandons her positions that cause static for Hillary (and a potential run) she would get the slot for sure but would lose some important credibility. So my actual prediction is that Jeb loses in the Primary to a (Rand) Paul (Ryan) or a total whacko (Bachman type) Hillary picks her Biden and we get 4-8 more years of basically the same shit out of a different asshole.
I doubt Republicans will get caught flat footed by a second 'war on women' charade. If Dems try that again I think they'll end up looking like whiners... and I think that's the last thing Hillary would want to look like.
Based on the self-congratulatory diatribes that followed the Hobby Lobby decision, I wouldn't be so sure.
You think that'll make a big difference? <1% of women will have to spend a few extra bucks to get birth control...
On July 16 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote: Nah, there's no reason why a woman can't win the presidency. However, I strongly suspect that Clinton isn't going to be the first female president. I get the sense that another democrat will win the primary.
You really think Warren will win the primary? I would love that but its hard for me to imagine Clinton losing again or are you saying its gonna be down the road a ways?
Definitely ready to elect a woman president.
Clinton has to be careful with the whole inevitability elephant. But you can pretty much guarantee there will be a woman on the Democratic ticket. Republicans won't be able to help themselves from making chauvinistic asshole comments and getting obliterated on women's issues. By the time the VP debate (where I suspect Warren would be) comes it will be all but a forgone conclusion that Republicans alienated way to many women and minorities to win even if they agreed with many of their policies.
Warren's refusal to even give a kind word to the people begging her to run/raising money for her makes me think Hillary promised her a VP slot and support for a presidential run (mostly gifting her machine more than any personal support [sorry Biden at least you made it to VP]).
The wild card is what Hillary does. If she decided not to run (doesn't want 4-8 years of Republican social maiming and wants to go into grandma mode) and she throws her support behind someone other than Warren they could very well grab the nomination and the White House.
Not sure who Hillary would be grooming for such a position. The closest political pragmatist I can think of is Grimes but she wont be ready after only 2 years in the Senate.
My money is on Hillary and her machine trouncing any challengers and Warren and someone who is more close to Hillary's positions duking it out behind the scenes for a VP slot. I predict the fight will come down to how competitive the republicans are (If Jeb makes it out of the primaries [no one else has a shot in hell]). If it's Jeb than Hillary will have a tough choice between attempting to unite the party (Warren) or picking a more complacent politician who will be more loyal and be able to be the 'friendly old white guy' (Obama's Biden) she can send to the South.
If Warren abandons her positions that cause static for Hillary (and a potential run) she would get the slot for sure but would lose some important credibility. So my actual prediction is that Jeb loses in the Primary to a (Rand) Paul (Ryan) or a total whacko (Bachman type) Hillary picks her Biden and we get 4-8 more years of basically the same shit out of a different asshole.
I doubt Republicans will get caught flat footed by a second 'war on women' charade. If Dems try that again I think they'll end up looking like whiners... and I think that's the last thing Hillary would want to look like.
Based on the self-congratulatory diatribes that followed the Hobby Lobby decision, I wouldn't be so sure.
You think that'll make a big difference? <1% of women will have to spend a few extra bucks to get birth control...
It is not the substance of the issue that'll hold sway as much as the two party's handling of the aftermath. The meat and potatoes of the decision are admittedly quite narrow in impact; how the voting public makes up its mind in regards to the conduct of Republicans and Democrats after the fact is far more important, and there are signs, such as the Republican push to include a religious exemption in Obama's LBGT government contractor protections, that Republicans might very well double down on socially conservative issues when they can least afford to.
On July 16 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote: Nah, there's no reason why a woman can't win the presidency. However, I strongly suspect that Clinton isn't going to be the first female president. I get the sense that another democrat will win the primary.
You really think Warren will win the primary? I would love that but its hard for me to imagine Clinton losing again or are you saying its gonna be down the road a ways?
Definitely ready to elect a woman president.
Clinton has to be careful with the whole inevitability elephant. But you can pretty much guarantee there will be a woman on the Democratic ticket. Republicans won't be able to help themselves from making chauvinistic asshole comments and getting obliterated on women's issues. By the time the VP debate (where I suspect Warren would be) comes it will be all but a forgone conclusion that Republicans alienated way to many women and minorities to win even if they agreed with many of their policies.
Warren's refusal to even give a kind word to the people begging her to run/raising money for her makes me think Hillary promised her a VP slot and support for a presidential run (mostly gifting her machine more than any personal support [sorry Biden at least you made it to VP]).
The wild card is what Hillary does. If she decided not to run (doesn't want 4-8 years of Republican social maiming and wants to go into grandma mode) and she throws her support behind someone other than Warren they could very well grab the nomination and the White House.
Not sure who Hillary would be grooming for such a position. The closest political pragmatist I can think of is Grimes but she wont be ready after only 2 years in the Senate.
My money is on Hillary and her machine trouncing any challengers and Warren and someone who is more close to Hillary's positions duking it out behind the scenes for a VP slot. I predict the fight will come down to how competitive the republicans are (If Jeb makes it out of the primaries [no one else has a shot in hell]). If it's Jeb than Hillary will have a tough choice between attempting to unite the party (Warren) or picking a more complacent politician who will be more loyal and be able to be the 'friendly old white guy' (Obama's Biden) she can send to the South.
If Warren abandons her positions that cause static for Hillary (and a potential run) she would get the slot for sure but would lose some important credibility. So my actual prediction is that Jeb loses in the Primary to a (Rand) Paul (Ryan) or a total whacko (Bachman type) Hillary picks her Biden and we get 4-8 more years of basically the same shit out of a different asshole.
I doubt Republicans will get caught flat footed by a second 'war on women' charade. If Dems try that again I think they'll end up looking like whiners... and I think that's the last thing Hillary would want to look like.
Based on the self-congratulatory diatribes that followed the Hobby Lobby decision, I wouldn't be so sure.
You think that'll make a big difference? <1% of women will have to spend a few extra bucks to get birth control...
It is not the substance of the issue that'll hold sway as much as the two party's handling of the aftermath. The meat and potatoes of the decision are admittedly quite narrow in impact; how the voting public makes up its mind in regards to the conduct of Republicans and Democrats after the fact is far more important, and there are signs, such as the Republican push to include a religious exemption in Obama's LBGT government contractor protections, that Republicans might very well double down on socially conservative issues when they can least afford to.
I think Dems risk looking like they're just huffing and puffing over nothing while real problems persist. Obama talked about fighting the 'gender pay gap' while the same gap exists within his own staff. Obama was also against Janel Yellen for Fed chair. Ofc that doesn't mean he's sexist, but if Dems want to go down that road it'll come up.
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
I am definitely in the hawkish camp. Bubble hasn't blown up to painful levels yet, but it's time to think about restocking the chamber for when the decline happens.
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return.
On July 16 2014 03:01 Nyxisto wrote: Grenada was especially terrible. It was the exact same thing the Russians are now doing in the Ukraine.
Okay, Grenada was a foolish war, but it's not equivalent to Ukraine. Outline of events:
Ukraine: Peaceful demonstrations against Elected Leader met with force, become violent, leading to legal ouster of said leader. Large neighboring country responds with covert military force, denied to the world community. Large country carves off piece of smaller country's territory, containing 5 million people. Large country continues to support anti-democratic rebels in that country. Result: Smaller country engaged in long term civil war. Larger country gains significant territory at their expense.
Grenada: Legitimate government ousted by populist forces. Those populist forces crack down on dissent, then have internal divisions. A coup is staged by dissident party within populists, who kill several people. Larger country invades, restores democratic governance, leaves. Result: Smaller country is now stable democratic state, larger country loses prestige
It was dumb, illegal, and unnecessary, but it's neither on the same order nor of the same type as the Ukraine situation.
On July 16 2014 10:44 IgnE wrote: You are right, US occupation of Cuba in the early 20th century was more analogous to Ukraine.
You need to provide citations for that; as the parallel isn't that obvious.
Guantanamo is a port that the US military occupies, and which was stolen at gunpoint from Cuba in 1903, despite Cuban efforts to recover it. It's only not obvious if you have no clue how we ended up with a military base in Cuba. At least Russia has something of a claim for Crimea. The US had no such claim in Cuba.
Sure the Grenada comparison isn't perfect, simply because Ukraine is a lot larger, but I still think both have a lot in common. Both blatantly ignored international law, went in under bs pretenses (in both cases allegedly protecting their own citizens) and the motivation was a shift in the countries policies away from Russia/the US.
The important thing about all these US interventions is that they've basically discredited international law and diplomatic problem solving. There is no authority that can enforce international law. The more often it is ignored, the weaker it becomes. And over the last few decades the US certainly is the number one candidate for doing exactly that. You can't just start wars every 5 years and then wonder why Russia is not giving a crap about international relations.
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
I am definitely in the hawkish camp. Bubble hasn't blown up to painful levels yet, but it's time to think about restocking the chamber for when the decline happens.
I hope we're not back hearing how nobody could've expected x, y, and z if and when it gets painful. I don't know if I can stand another round of ass-covering after hearing glib talk out of the "consensus view" of the financial industry.
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return.
So now that you believe this recovery to be wholly unprecedented in modern times, where does the blame lie (and if its in multiple parties, who deserves the larger shares)? The linked 12-minute dialogue does touch on reserve policy strengthening gains in the upper echelons at the cost of growth in broader areas than the stock-owning class.
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
I am definitely in the hawkish camp. Bubble hasn't blown up to painful levels yet, but it's time to think about restocking the chamber for when the decline happens.
I hope we're not back hearing how nobody could've expected x, y, and z if and when it gets painful. I don't know if I can stand another round of ass-covering after hearing glib talk out of the "consensus view" of the financial industry.
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return.
So now that you believe this recovery to be wholly unprecedented in modern times, where does the blame lie (and if its in multiple parties, who deserves the larger shares)? The linked 12-minute dialogue does touch on reserve policy strengthening gains in the upper echelons at the cost of growth in broader areas than the stock-owning class.
What does "wholly unprecedented" mean? I don't think I would go that far.
On July 16 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote: Nah, there's no reason why a woman can't win the presidency. However, I strongly suspect that Clinton isn't going to be the first female president. I get the sense that another democrat will win the primary.
You really think Warren will win the primary? I would love that but its hard for me to imagine Clinton losing again or are you saying its gonna be down the road a ways?
Definitely ready to elect a woman president.
Clinton has to be careful with the whole inevitability elephant. But you can pretty much guarantee there will be a woman on the Democratic ticket. Republicans won't be able to help themselves from making chauvinistic asshole comments and getting obliterated on women's issues. By the time the VP debate (where I suspect Warren would be) comes it will be all but a forgone conclusion that Republicans alienated way to many women and minorities to win even if they agreed with many of their policies.
Warren's refusal to even give a kind word to the people begging her to run/raising money for her makes me think Hillary promised her a VP slot and support for a presidential run (mostly gifting her machine more than any personal support [sorry Biden at least you made it to VP]).
The wild card is what Hillary does. If she decided not to run (doesn't want 4-8 years of Republican social maiming and wants to go into grandma mode) and she throws her support behind someone other than Warren they could very well grab the nomination and the White House.
Not sure who Hillary would be grooming for such a position. The closest political pragmatist I can think of is Grimes but she wont be ready after only 2 years in the Senate.
My money is on Hillary and her machine trouncing any challengers and Warren and someone who is more close to Hillary's positions duking it out behind the scenes for a VP slot. I predict the fight will come down to how competitive the republicans are (If Jeb makes it out of the primaries [no one else has a shot in hell]). If it's Jeb than Hillary will have a tough choice between attempting to unite the party (Warren) or picking a more complacent politician who will be more loyal and be able to be the 'friendly old white guy' (Obama's Biden) she can send to the South.
If Warren abandons her positions that cause static for Hillary (and a potential run) she would get the slot for sure but would lose some important credibility. So my actual prediction is that Jeb loses in the Primary to a (Rand) Paul (Ryan) or a total whacko (Bachman type) Hillary picks her Biden and we get 4-8 more years of basically the same shit out of a different asshole.
I doubt Republicans will get caught flat footed by a second 'war on women' charade. If Dems try that again I think they'll end up looking like whiners... and I think that's the last thing Hillary would want to look like.
Based on the self-congratulatory diatribes that followed the Hobby Lobby decision, I wouldn't be so sure.
You think that'll make a big difference? <1% of women will have to spend a few extra bucks to get birth control...
It is not the substance of the issue that'll hold sway as much as the two party's handling of the aftermath. The meat and potatoes of the decision are admittedly quite narrow in impact; how the voting public makes up its mind in regards to the conduct of Republicans and Democrats after the fact is far more important, and there are signs, such as the Republican push to include a religious exemption in Obama's LBGT government contractor protections, that Republicans might very well double down on socially conservative issues when they can least afford to.
I think Dems risk looking like they're just huffing and puffing over nothing while real problems persist. Obama talked about fighting the 'gender pay gap' while the same gap exists within his own staff. Obama was also against Janel Yellen for Fed chair. Ofc that doesn't mean he's sexist, but if Dems want to go down that road it'll come up.
You would be totally right if there wasn't a woman on the ticket. A man complaining about gender discrimination and getting made fun of for it just doesn't play the same as countless talking heads defending a female presidential nominee's position on those same issues. (especially against the shmucks the repubs plan on running)
Also if you don't think republicans talking about 'Beyonce voters being dependent on the government only because they are not dependent on their husbands' is going to have long term consequences, you are just lying to yourself.
Republicans absolutely will walk blindly into talking about forcing the government to require probes in women's vagina's for abortions and countless other ridiculous republican social conservative quagmires. This is just the first major election that it might cost them some important seats.
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
I am definitely in the hawkish camp. Bubble hasn't blown up to painful levels yet, but it's time to think about restocking the chamber for when the decline happens.
I hope we're not back hearing how nobody could've expected x, y, and z if and when it gets painful. I don't know if I can stand another round of ass-covering after hearing glib talk out of the "consensus view" of the financial industry.
On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return.
So now that you believe this recovery to be wholly unprecedented in modern times, where does the blame lie (and if its in multiple parties, who deserves the larger shares)? The linked 12-minute dialogue does touch on reserve policy strengthening gains in the upper echelons at the cost of growth in broader areas than the stock-owning class.
What does "wholly unprecedented" mean? I don't think I would go that far.
At this point after a depression, every single recovery in the last 50 years has posted better numbers--I don't care which recovery metric you cite. You'd have to go back to World War 2 to find the same change in employment/labor force participation this far down the road. Job creation is the same story (I used BLS numbers on job openings for this). Growth rates are about as abysmal, you can look a little more into the numbers here.
The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. I couldn't find a single other time period this far after the official end of recession with similar change in housing markets. Q2-2009 and now we're talking at Q2-2014? I've been looking through several metrics and haven't found one where 5 years later you might find no recovery, man.
1929? Use of the phrase "wholly unprecedented" juxtaposed your post with the Santelli rant makes it seem like it's totally new because the Fed has been doing what it's been doing over the last 5 years. It's much deeper than that. There are structural problems that can't be fixed by simply letting the market correct and letting the Fed go back to being a "bank" again. But I agree with you man, there is no recovery. Probably within the next year or two the facade will crumble.
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
I am definitely in the hawkish camp. Bubble hasn't blown up to painful levels yet, but it's time to think about restocking the chamber for when the decline happens.
I hope we're not back hearing how nobody could've expected x, y, and z if and when it gets painful. I don't know if I can stand another round of ass-covering after hearing glib talk out of the "consensus view" of the financial industry.
On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return.
So now that you believe this recovery to be wholly unprecedented in modern times, where does the blame lie (and if its in multiple parties, who deserves the larger shares)? The linked 12-minute dialogue does touch on reserve policy strengthening gains in the upper echelons at the cost of growth in broader areas than the stock-owning class.
What does "wholly unprecedented" mean? I don't think I would go that far.
At this point after a depression, every single recovery in the last 50 years has posted better numbers--I don't care which recovery metric you cite. You'd have to go back to World War 2 to find the same change in employment/labor force participation this far down the road. Job creation is the same story (I used BLS numbers on job openings for this). Growth rates are about as abysmal, you can look a little more into the numbers here.
The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. I couldn't find a single other time period this far after the official end of recession with similar change in housing markets. Q2-2009 and now we're talking at Q2-2014? I've been looking through several metrics and haven't found one where 5 years later you might find no recovery, man.
Could there be a more emblematic example of the problem than a 'non-existent' recovery that results in the Dow (and plenty of the rest of the market) hitting all time highs?
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
I am definitely in the hawkish camp. Bubble hasn't blown up to painful levels yet, but it's time to think about restocking the chamber for when the decline happens.
I hope we're not back hearing how nobody could've expected x, y, and z if and when it gets painful. I don't know if I can stand another round of ass-covering after hearing glib talk out of the "consensus view" of the financial industry.
On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:
On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote: Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate.
It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return >>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit .... And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down.
I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role?
I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod.
The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return.
So now that you believe this recovery to be wholly unprecedented in modern times, where does the blame lie (and if its in multiple parties, who deserves the larger shares)? The linked 12-minute dialogue does touch on reserve policy strengthening gains in the upper echelons at the cost of growth in broader areas than the stock-owning class.
What does "wholly unprecedented" mean? I don't think I would go that far.
At this point after a depression, every single recovery in the last 50 years has posted better numbers--I don't care which recovery metric you cite. You'd have to go back to World War 2 to find the same change in employment/labor force participation this far down the road. Job creation is the same story (I used BLS numbers on job openings for this). Growth rates are about as abysmal, you can look a little more into the numbers here.
The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. I couldn't find a single other time period this far after the official end of recession with similar change in housing markets. Q2-2009 and now we're talking at Q2-2014? I've been looking through several metrics and haven't found one where 5 years later you might find no recovery, man.
Could there be a more emblematic example of the problem than a 'non-existent' recovery that results in the Dow (and plenty of the rest of the market) hitting all time highs?
Does the stock market being high give bread on the table of the lower and middle class? I believe the point that Igne is trying to make is that the recovery is almost only effecting the upper class and the rest is left behind in the mud. High stock markets do nothing for them.
EPT
