|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 April 19 2013 03:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 03:42 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2013 03:27 Adreme wrote:On April 19 2013 03:22 Sermokala wrote:On April 19 2013 03:08 farvacola wrote:
That you can posit "NRA won and Obama lost" as a reason to move on from gun control seems like a perfect reason for us to dwell on the topic. Why? There won't be any more gun control in the US for another decade probably, the NRA is stronger then ever before, and Obama has nothing to show for months and months of the start of his second term in office. The story's really over at this point about gun control in the US there really isn't a reason to talk about it more. Do you have anything new to talk about? On April 19 2013 03:19 NovaTheFeared wrote:
"Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"
Seems straightforward enough to me. This isn't a vague question like "do you think we should strengthen background checks?" which could simply highlight ignorance that we already do background checks on most gun sales. The question is should we do a background check on ALL GUN BUYERS. And the answer is overwhelmingly yes. Special interests won the day over 90% of the country on this one. All the more reason to support campaign finance reform. Asking someone if they're for background checks for all gun buyers is the same as saying "do you want the deficit to be closed?" or "do you want america to prosper in the next 100 years?" The only way that a universal background check would work is if it was a national program. The only way it would stop any crime is if it was a national gun registry. There was never presented what in any capacity the person questioned what the background check would be and how it would be enforced. Thats why the poll is complete bullshit. I think it is rather disturbing that in a country where we vote in our representatives 90% of people wanting something still cant create any action on the issue. I don't care about who "won" or "lost" because those are dumb terms that actually dilute the issue in and of itself and that's should we be cutting off the ways that criminals are getting guns by extending background checks and increasing penalty for straw purchases? Extending background checks in what way, compared to how they are already being enforced? Statistically equal parts of gun crime are using firearms obtained illegally and from straw purchases. Bureau of Justice Statistics say that it is a whopping 11+ years between a straw purchase of a gun and its use in a crime. So it is even plausible to say that stiffer penalties on straw purchases would have any noticeable effect when these criminals wait 11 years after purchase before using their gun in a crime? (bjs.gov facts here and before). The NRA is a collection of citizens putting their combined might of opinion and money into a single entity, challenging a president and Congress sympathetic towards increased gun control. A win here is nothing more than a triumph of those in favor of gun rights in a political debate. It's not something to sob about, or hand-wring about the decline in debate on an issue. To be fair gun companies play into a lot of the strength on an national stage. The people in the NRA and those that support the NRA use their influence on all kinds of gun companies to force them to support the NRA and give them the financial and political power that you see able to fight down any opposition to them and come out stronger for it.
Gun manufacturers donating money to help the cause, particularly when a vocal lobby attacks gun ownership and sales, is to be expected. I don't know if there's a second lobbying group in Congress for them to express their voice other than the NRA. It simultaneously was not only through corporate lobbyists but also ordinary, concerned gun owners worried that Sandy Hook backlash would consume their rights. It was the union of all these spread interests (even non-gun owners concerned about the slow erosion of constitutional rights) that made Harry Reid withdraw the bill. A lot of those Senators facing reelection in red-leaning states don't want that on their record, no matter what aggregate public opinion is at this moment. A big win for gun rights with Reid pulling the bill. His promise to bring it back, Biden saying executive actions are under consideration, and Pelosi calling it "inevitable" means the battle rages on. First, a national registry for pressure-cookers perhaps?
|
On April 19 2013 05:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:48 kwizach wrote:On April 19 2013 04:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 21:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 18 2013 21:34 ahswtini wrote:
According to the same source as where they pull the "40% of gun sales do not go through a background check", only about 16% in reality actually bought or traded a gun without a background check. Department of Justice survey of convicts found that only 1.7% of crime guns were sourced from gun shows/flea markets. You're changing the subject. You're wrong on the facts, so now you're accusing people of changing the subject. The 40% statistic is entirely inaccurate. Get over it. How is he wrong on the facts exactly? The other poster was changing the subject instead of answering him, so he rightly pointed that out. 40% of gun sales are NOT done without a background check.
And that is relevant to their exchange how?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a large part of the gun issue is not about guns themselves. the basic situation is that defenders of gun rights do so with a rather inflexible and ideological approach. no one is trying to ban guns or change an lifestyle, and i don't think that should be done except in large cities and such. regulation concerns born out of practical problems, such as restricting gun access to bad people, didn't come from people crusading against guns. their motivation comes from a process of problems solving in society.
if gun rights advocates are less ideological and inflexible about the issue, i don't see what's there to even discuss except policy details.
|
On April 19 2013 07:26 oneofthem wrote:
a large part of the gun issue is not about guns themselves. the basic situation is that defenders of gun rights do so with a rather inflexible and ideological approach. no one is trying to ban guns or change an lifestyle, and i don't think that should be done except in large cities and such. regulation concerns born out of practical problems, such as restricting gun access to bad people, didn't come from people crusading against guns. their motivation comes from a process of problems solving in society.
if gun rights advocates are less ideological and inflexible about the issue, i don't see what's there to even discuss except policy details.
I would argue that the gun control advocates are much more ideological and inflexible about anything then gun rights advocates. Gun control advocates are the people who want to ban "assault weapons" on purely cosmetic and fear based reasons. Gun control advocates all have this sickening idea that one day they'll be able to take away the guns of everyone and we'll be better off somehow. Gun control advocates are the ones that bring up the parents who lost their kid to a mass shooting to every little event they can to shame and guilt people into supporting their side.
I really don't understand where you get that gun rights advocates are the ones that are inflexible and more ideological.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if we are talking about assault weapons ban, it'll take a very absolute idea of gun rights to say it's a referendum on gun rights without qualification. that you guys frame the issue as "gun rights" is about as fair as saying a bakery is for starving kids because they charge money for the bread, so protest for bread rights.
|
On April 19 2013 07:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:26 oneofthem wrote:
a large part of the gun issue is not about guns themselves. the basic situation is that defenders of gun rights do so with a rather inflexible and ideological approach. no one is trying to ban guns or change an lifestyle, and i don't think that should be done except in large cities and such. regulation concerns born out of practical problems, such as restricting gun access to bad people, didn't come from people crusading against guns. their motivation comes from a process of problems solving in society.
if gun rights advocates are less ideological and inflexible about the issue, i don't see what's there to even discuss except policy details. I would argue that the gun control advocates are much more ideological and inflexible about anything then gun rights advocates. Gun control advocates are the people who want to ban "assault weapons" on purely cosmetic and fear based reasons. Gun control advocates all have this sickening idea that one day they'll be able to take away the guns of everyone and we'll be better off somehow. Gun control advocates are the ones that bring up the parents who lost their kid to a mass shooting to every little event they can to shame and guilt people into supporting their side. I really don't understand where you get that gun rights advocates are the ones that are inflexible and more ideological.
Really?
First of all, don't tell me what I think. At no point have I ever advocated for a ban on all guns or anything that extreme. That is of course the first thing gun advocates hear anytime the phrase "gun control" comes up, but that's not because that's what that phrase means. It's just what they translate it to in their tiny, paranoid minds. "They're coming for our guns!"
You're painting all gun control advocates as people coming for your guns when that is simply not the case. Many, many people, including gun owners, want some minor common sense practices in place to reduce gun violence. Background checks and waiting periods are the easiest and least controversial way to do this, and are supported by the vast majority of Americans. Is that "inflexible and ideological?"
|
On April 19 2013 07:45 TrickyGilligan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 19 2013 07:26 oneofthem wrote:
a large part of the gun issue is not about guns themselves. the basic situation is that defenders of gun rights do so with a rather inflexible and ideological approach. no one is trying to ban guns or change an lifestyle, and i don't think that should be done except in large cities and such. regulation concerns born out of practical problems, such as restricting gun access to bad people, didn't come from people crusading against guns. their motivation comes from a process of problems solving in society.
if gun rights advocates are less ideological and inflexible about the issue, i don't see what's there to even discuss except policy details. I would argue that the gun control advocates are much more ideological and inflexible about anything then gun rights advocates. Gun control advocates are the people who want to ban "assault weapons" on purely cosmetic and fear based reasons. Gun control advocates all have this sickening idea that one day they'll be able to take away the guns of everyone and we'll be better off somehow. Gun control advocates are the ones that bring up the parents who lost their kid to a mass shooting to every little event they can to shame and guilt people into supporting their side. I really don't understand where you get that gun rights advocates are the ones that are inflexible and more ideological. Really? First of all, don't tell me what I think. At no point have I ever advocated for a ban on all guns or anything that extreme. That is of course the first thing gun advocates hear anytime the phrase "gun control" comes up, but that's not because that's what that phrase means. It's just what they translate it to in their tiny, paranoid minds. "They're coming for our guns!" You're painting all gun control advocates as people coming for your guns when that is simply not the case. Many, many people, including gun owners, want some minor common sense practices in place to reduce gun violence. Background checks and waiting periods are the easiest and least controversial way to do this, and are supported by the vast majority of Americans. Is that "inflexible and ideological?"
I think there is a difference between regular people in favor of more gun control and the elite. People like you are the majority. Some regular people are also ideological and inflexible and jerks, but most of those are the people whose entire lives is politics anyway. They are activists or consultants or spokespeople or Nanny Bloomberg. And at that level when you're so intense about it you are going to be ideological and inflexible and be jerks. It's not like only Democrats do it. I also think that on this issue, though, the pro-gun control side is more shrill and demeaning towards the pro-gun side. And there are ideological, inflexible figures on both sides, but one side (anti-gun) is the one that moralizes then ridicules the other side when they try to moralize back. It's not tens of millions of gun owners who opposed the laws, it was just those dirty extremists and liars who beat it. All rational and reasonable people are on our side. Everyone else is the extreme Other.
It's classic divide and conquer politics. Democrats are trying to use guns as a wedge issue against Republicans. It's foolish and doomed to fail, but that's why they are being such jerks about the whole thing.
|
On April 19 2013 07:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:26 oneofthem wrote:
a large part of the gun issue is not about guns themselves. the basic situation is that defenders of gun rights do so with a rather inflexible and ideological approach. no one is trying to ban guns or change an lifestyle, and i don't think that should be done except in large cities and such. regulation concerns born out of practical problems, such as restricting gun access to bad people, didn't come from people crusading against guns. their motivation comes from a process of problems solving in society.
if gun rights advocates are less ideological and inflexible about the issue, i don't see what's there to even discuss except policy details. I would argue that the gun control advocates are much more ideological and inflexible about anything then gun rights advocates. Gun control advocates are the people who want to ban "assault weapons" on purely cosmetic and fear based reasons. Gun control advocates all have this sickening idea that one day they'll be able to take away the guns of everyone and we'll be better off somehow. Gun control advocates are the ones that bring up the parents who lost their kid to a mass shooting to every little event they can to shame and guilt people into supporting their side. I really don't understand where you get that gun rights advocates are the ones that are inflexible and more ideological.
Because there is an idea with ~90% public support right now and gun rights advocates are scrambling to either change the discussion to punishing the mentally ill or tarnish the 90% figures with things like "People don't REALLY want universal background checks," and "But we already HAVE universal background checks!" Such a big fear of something many, many people agree with and has already proven to be constitutional seems like an inflexible and ideological position to me.
|
Washington Examiner: Obama 'bit off more than he could chew'
The head of the National Rifle Association mocked President Obama's Rose Garden "tantrum" after losing the gun control fight in the Senate, charging Thursday that Obama suffered the worst defeat of his presidency because "he bit off more than he could chew."
David Keene told Secrets that the president and his team misplayed their hand because they don't have a sense of the public's attitude toward gun control. "They just can't gauge the public reaction to what they do because they don't have any sense that the public has feelings different than they do," said Keene.
"He thought and his folks thought that Newtown changed everything. Newtown was a tragedy but that doesn't change people's basic values and feelings," added the NRA president. "What he learned is that he bit off a lot more than he can chew and that you can't just talk your way to a victory. You have to have something that makes some sense and he what he was proposing just didn't make much sense."
The loss devastated the president, who ranted about the NRA's power during his Rose Garden address after Wednesday's vote.
Keene, however, saw it differently. "It was the biggest legislative defeat he suffered but that does not justify the unseemly picture of a president of the United States throwing a public tantrum."
Keene said that many lawmakers who voted against the background check expansion felt that if it passed, gun control advocates would simply return to the issue to chip away more at the Second Amendment, so they decided to "just stop it now."
In a way, Keene signaled that to the sponsors of the Senate compromise, Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. Keene recalled that he took a day off last week to fish for trout on the Missouri River in Montana. "Unfortunately, I took my cellphone with me and my cellphone rings in the midst of my float and it's Joe Manchin, who's talking about how reasonable his idea is. And finally I said, 'Look, I'm in the middle of the Missouri River, I've got a trout on the line. I don't agree, you will have to make your own decisions, and I hung up. You have to keep your priorities straight." source, emphasis mine
One side of the debate, signing off. Maybe this really is the reflection on the hill, the reason why Reid didn't have the votes to pass it in the Democrat-controlled Senate and ended up withdrawing the bill. It would've been a nice issue to pin on the Republican House (Ala "WE had the common-sense background check but Republicans didn't let it through" campaigning in 2014). A reflection on the thought of legislative and regulatory creep, where each grey line moved over doesn't seem all that controversial. Step back after the next 4 laws/executive orders/regulatory agency rulings and together the gun purchase climate is radically different. I think it's an interesting idea that this might be the real reason it went down in defeat.
|
On April 19 2013 14:43 Danglars wrote:Washington Examiner: Obama 'bit off more than he could chew' Show nested quote +The head of the National Rifle Association mocked President Obama's Rose Garden "tantrum" after losing the gun control fight in the Senate, charging Thursday that Obama suffered the worst defeat of his presidency because "he bit off more than he could chew."
David Keene told Secrets that the president and his team misplayed their hand because they don't have a sense of the public's attitude toward gun control. "They just can't gauge the public reaction to what they do because they don't have any sense that the public has feelings different than they do," said Keene.
"He thought and his folks thought that Newtown changed everything. Newtown was a tragedy but that doesn't change people's basic values and feelings," added the NRA president. "What he learned is that he bit off a lot more than he can chew and that you can't just talk your way to a victory. You have to have something that makes some sense and he what he was proposing just didn't make much sense."
The loss devastated the president, who ranted about the NRA's power during his Rose Garden address after Wednesday's vote.
Keene, however, saw it differently. "It was the biggest legislative defeat he suffered but that does not justify the unseemly picture of a president of the United States throwing a public tantrum."
Keene said that many lawmakers who voted against the background check expansion felt that if it passed, gun control advocates would simply return to the issue to chip away more at the Second Amendment, so they decided to "just stop it now."
In a way, Keene signaled that to the sponsors of the Senate compromise, Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. Keene recalled that he took a day off last week to fish for trout on the Missouri River in Montana. "Unfortunately, I took my cellphone with me and my cellphone rings in the midst of my float and it's Joe Manchin, who's talking about how reasonable his idea is. And finally I said, 'Look, I'm in the middle of the Missouri River, I've got a trout on the line. I don't agree, you will have to make your own decisions, and I hung up. You have to keep your priorities straight." source, emphasis mineOne side of the debate, signing off. Maybe this really is the reflection on the hill, the reason why Reid didn't have the votes to pass it in the Democrat-controlled Senate and ended up withdrawing the bill. It would've been a nice issue to pin on the Republican House (Ala "WE had the common-sense background check but Republicans didn't let it through" campaigning in 2014). A reflection on the thought of legislative and regulatory creep, where each grey line moved over doesn't seem all that controversial. Step back after the next 4 laws/executive orders/regulatory agency rulings and together the gun purchase climate is radically different. I think it's an interesting idea that this might be the real reason it went down in defeat.
What an outrageously wrong argument. Obama didn't misjudge public support for background checks. Polls worded in an unbiased way, which I linked a few pages back, show 90% public support. He misjudged the NRA's influence and Republican intransigence.
Let's not forget that these amendments got majority support, but were filibustered by Republicans.
So it's clear that the background checks are what a overwhelming majority of the public want. And it's a proven fact that a majority of the Senate is in support.
|
On April 19 2013 07:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:26 oneofthem wrote:
a large part of the gun issue is not about guns themselves. the basic situation is that defenders of gun rights do so with a rather inflexible and ideological approach. no one is trying to ban guns or change an lifestyle, and i don't think that should be done except in large cities and such. regulation concerns born out of practical problems, such as restricting gun access to bad people, didn't come from people crusading against guns. their motivation comes from a process of problems solving in society.
if gun rights advocates are less ideological and inflexible about the issue, i don't see what's there to even discuss except policy details. I would argue that the gun control advocates are much more ideological and inflexible about anything then gun rights advocates. Gun control advocates are the people who want to ban "assault weapons" on purely cosmetic and fear based reasons. Gun control advocates all have this sickening idea that one day they'll be able to take away the guns of everyone and we'll be better off somehow. Gun control advocates are the ones that bring up the parents who lost their kid to a mass shooting to every little event they can to shame and guilt people into supporting their side. I really don't understand where you get that gun rights advocates are the ones that are inflexible and more ideological.
"I should be able to have a gun because I SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THINGS! GOVERNMENT IS BAD!"
"We should regulate gun access because of the absolutely absurd amount of mass shootings our country has had, the huge gun suicide rate, and the fact that we have exponentially more gun violence than any other developed country!"
Which one is more ideologically driven?
|
United States24676 Posts
On April 20 2013 08:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:34 Sermokala wrote:On April 19 2013 07:26 oneofthem wrote:
a large part of the gun issue is not about guns themselves. the basic situation is that defenders of gun rights do so with a rather inflexible and ideological approach. no one is trying to ban guns or change an lifestyle, and i don't think that should be done except in large cities and such. regulation concerns born out of practical problems, such as restricting gun access to bad people, didn't come from people crusading against guns. their motivation comes from a process of problems solving in society.
if gun rights advocates are less ideological and inflexible about the issue, i don't see what's there to even discuss except policy details. I would argue that the gun control advocates are much more ideological and inflexible about anything then gun rights advocates. Gun control advocates are the people who want to ban "assault weapons" on purely cosmetic and fear based reasons. Gun control advocates all have this sickening idea that one day they'll be able to take away the guns of everyone and we'll be better off somehow. Gun control advocates are the ones that bring up the parents who lost their kid to a mass shooting to every little event they can to shame and guilt people into supporting their side. I really don't understand where you get that gun rights advocates are the ones that are inflexible and more ideological. "I should be able to have a gun because I SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THINGS! GOVERNMENT IS BAD!" "We should regulate gun access because of the absolutely absurd amount of mass shootings our country has had, the huge gun suicide rate, and the fact that we have exponentially more gun violence than any other developed country!" Which one is more ideologically driven?
Do you actually think this is a fair characterization?
Also, can you explain what it means to have exponentially more gun violence than another country?
|
The alchemists of Wall Street are at it again.
The banks that created risky amalgams of mortgages and loans during the boom — the kind that went so wrong during the bust — are busily reviving the same types of investments that many thought were gone for good. Once more, arcane-sounding financial products like collateralized debt obligations are being minted on Wall Street. ...
Banks are turning out some types of structured products as fast or faster than they did before the bottom fell out. So far this year, for instance, banks have issued $33.5 billion in bonds backed by commercial mortgages, slightly more than they did in early 2005, when the real estate market was flying high, according to data from Thomson Reuters.
Link
It's about time.
|
On April 20 2013 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote + The alchemists of Wall Street are at it again.
The banks that created risky amalgams of mortgages and loans during the boom — the kind that went so wrong during the bust — are busily reviving the same types of investments that many thought were gone for good. Once more, arcane-sounding financial products like collateralized debt obligations are being minted on Wall Street. ...
Banks are turning out some types of structured products as fast or faster than they did before the bottom fell out. So far this year, for instance, banks have issued $33.5 billion in bonds backed by commercial mortgages, slightly more than they did in early 2005, when the real estate market was flying high, according to data from Thomson Reuters. LinkIt's about time.
This worries me. Not much has changed to keep banks "honest" since the crash, but there's a gigantic pile of capital looking for a place to go right now. I fear another industry-wide bubble will likely come about in the next 5 years, and it will be blamed on something unrelated.
|
trying to go fear mongering about banks useing the same financial instruments as they did before the crash is silly. They're still going to sell all the products that went into this weeks bombings in boston, and they're going to go and sell bonds based on mortgages.
I doubt even obama would bail out the same banks twice if they get caught with a bomb like this again.
|
On April 20 2013 12:26 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The alchemists of Wall Street are at it again.
The banks that created risky amalgams of mortgages and loans during the boom — the kind that went so wrong during the bust — are busily reviving the same types of investments that many thought were gone for good. Once more, arcane-sounding financial products like collateralized debt obligations are being minted on Wall Street. ...
Banks are turning out some types of structured products as fast or faster than they did before the bottom fell out. So far this year, for instance, banks have issued $33.5 billion in bonds backed by commercial mortgages, slightly more than they did in early 2005, when the real estate market was flying high, according to data from Thomson Reuters. LinkIt's about time. This worries me. Not much has changed to keep banks "honest" since the crash, but there's a gigantic pile of capital looking for a place to go right now. I fear another industry-wide bubble will likely come about in the next 5 years, and it will be blamed on something unrelated.
There's been quite a bit of regulatory reform (Dodd-Frank, et al) and most of the worst mortgage originators were wiped out in the crash (or under new ownership). I'm sure due diligence on structured mortgage products will be stricter for years along with lending standards. Consumer awareness will be heightened for years as well. All in I think it's pretty unlikely that the housing bubble will give way to another housing bubble, the same way that the internet bubble didn't give way to another internet bubble.
Edit: or to put it another way, the fact that your worried is reason to think that you shouldn't be. It's when you think everything is fine that you get the rug pulled out from under your feet.
|
On April 20 2013 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 12:26 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2013 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The alchemists of Wall Street are at it again.
The banks that created risky amalgams of mortgages and loans during the boom — the kind that went so wrong during the bust — are busily reviving the same types of investments that many thought were gone for good. Once more, arcane-sounding financial products like collateralized debt obligations are being minted on Wall Street. ...
Banks are turning out some types of structured products as fast or faster than they did before the bottom fell out. So far this year, for instance, banks have issued $33.5 billion in bonds backed by commercial mortgages, slightly more than they did in early 2005, when the real estate market was flying high, according to data from Thomson Reuters. LinkIt's about time. This worries me. Not much has changed to keep banks "honest" since the crash, but there's a gigantic pile of capital looking for a place to go right now. I fear another industry-wide bubble will likely come about in the next 5 years, and it will be blamed on something unrelated. There's been quite a bit of regulatory reform (Dodd-Frank, et al) and most of the worst mortgage originators were wiped out in the crash (or under new ownership). I'm sure due diligence on structured mortgage products will be stricter for years along with lending standards. Consumer awareness will be heightened for years as well. All in I think it's pretty unlikely that the housing bubble will give way to another housing bubble, the same way that the internet bubble didn't give way to another internet bubble. Edit: or to put it another way, the fact that your worried is reason to think that you shouldn't be. It's when you think everything is fine that you get the rug pulled out from under your feet.
I'm not worried about a housing bubble, but rather some other bubble we haven't seen in awhile. Lessons have been learned with individual loans, but there are other markets that will likely seem resilient or as a "best option" that will absorb the massive amount of savings that are accumulating in some sectors.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, real estate prices have rebounded pretty strongly, and at least in new york area it's a strong buying cycle again. with these bubbles, the expectation of a continued rise in the asset's price is a required element. it doesn't cause the bubble by itself, obviously, but something to look at.
|
Brad DeLong paraphrased: Reinhart-Rogoff write about correlation in their academic work, but when putting on a public face, they imply causation by using their work to support the need for immediate austerity.
|
Its sad that the reinhart thread got closed and that we have to discuss it further here.
The reinhart thread went on about economics and this is a politics thread but o well.
Annyway:calculations about debt are meaningless in the usa since the fed hold such a huge amount of debt and buys more debt every month.
The fed does not have the monney to buy this debt, they simply print it.The usa government effectivly does not have to pay interest on the debt owned to the fed, as nearly all interest they pay on it flows back into the treasury when the fed pays their dividend to the usa government.As a result of this calculations about sustainability of debt, wich merely depends on the interest rate are rather pointless without a good comprehension of what is actually going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
