|
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 20 2013 20:04 Rassy wrote:
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.
not only is this a politics thread, but it is a US politics thread, which makes it even less understandable.
|
On April 20 2013 20:04 Rassy wrote:
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.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/the-unnatural-rate-hypothesis/
Also, yes, the Fed is currently remitting a lot of money to the Treasury, but the effect of Fed's activity to the overall debt of the US is small.
|
On April 20 2013 19:20 paralleluniverse wrote: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.
Oh man, I used to take R-R as respected academics.. Reading DeLong and Matthew O'Brien (quoted in DeLong's post) it really feels like their actual interest is in furthering republican policy aims.
I don't particularly want to get into a debate on how the economics profession plays politics in the USA, but, god, they should at least make a token effort at maintaining academic distance. Power corrupts.. and this maybe the finest case example in a while.
edit: You could regard it as an object lesson to the economics profession on how to play politics in the USA, or how not to.
|
On April 20 2013 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 20:04 Rassy wrote:
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. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/the-unnatural-rate-hypothesis/Also, yes, the Fed is currently remitting a lot of money to the Treasury, but the effect of Fed's activity to the overall debt of the US is small.
Calculations about US debt are meaningless in the short run for a lot of reasons though. The bottom line for the whole R-R debacle is that their argument was made out to be convincing for the sake of political convenience, not because it actually had substance to it.
Detecting (a slight) correlation between high debt and low growth in a historical data analysis is entirely meaningless next to having a powerful descriptive model telling you how the economy works.
Trivia:
It's actually unbelievable how badly a lot of reputable people were taken for a loop by an unusual approach to thinking about public debt. My own professor defended austerity policy publicly, basing his argument largely on R-R's work(to his defense, I applaud the historical perspectives he often explored in context).. and he wasn't the only one around who gave R-R great significance, even though advocating austerity flew in the face of everything standard macroeconomics would suggest policy should be.
|
A GOP Bill To End the War on Pot
Few ideas have more support from voters and less from national politicians than legalizing marijuana. While major polls now show that most Americans back the concept, the president and leaders in Congress won't touch the issue except to laugh it off.
Like pothead soccer dads in the sitcom Weeds, however, some of the biggest backers of legalization are turning up where you'd least expect them. Take, for example, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who last week introduced a bill designed to prevent the feds from arresting pot growers and tokers in states where the drug is legal. "This approach is consistent with responsible, constitutional, and conservative governance," the 13-term Congressman from California's ultraconservative Orange County told me.
Until recently, Republicans who supported ending pot prohibition were about as common as unicorns. There were US Rep. Ron Paul, and, well, some prominent former Republicans such as New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo. After ditching her Alaska Governor job for a Fox News gig a few years ago, Sarah Palin finally stuck her neck out: "If somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm," she said on Fox's Freedom Watch in 2010, "then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in, and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society."
Back then that was crazy talk. Now it's mainstream enough that Rohrabacher's new marijuana bill has already attracted two other Republican co-sponsors: Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Don Young of Alaska.
Rohrabacher got turned on to marijuana activism about 10 years ago, when he had to spoon feed his dying mother because she'd lost her appetite. He learned that medical marijuana might help her eat. "My interest has evolved from there," he says.
Source
|
Haha, prepare for an endless number of "I learned about medical marijuana through a family member, there's no way I've ever touched the stuff, I swear."
|
More Pot
As Washington lawmakers struggle to find ways to balance the national budget, a significant source of revenue may be burning away right before their eyes.
The federal legalization of marijuana would offer a large new revenue stream, according to research from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
"We don’t know the size of the marijuana market right now, and we certainly don’t know what would happen to the price and the demand for marijuana under different levels of legalization," Carl Davis, senior analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy told The Huffington Post. "But we do know that legalization would lead to a positive revenue impact on the income and sales tax side."
According to a 2010 study from Cato, legalizing marijuana would generate $8.7 billion in federal and state tax revenue annually.
The researchers assumed that legalized marijuana would be taxed similarly to alcohol and tobacco and that the income earned by pot producers would be subject to standard income and sales tax.
Taxes aren't the only source of revenue that would come from legalizing weed, according to the study. State and local governments also stand to save billions of dollars that they currently spend regulating marijuana use.
Washington and Colorado, both states that have legalized the use of marijuana recreationally, will serve as litmus tests to measure the possible fiscal impact of marijuana legalization on a national level. The state of Washington estimates it will generate as much as $1.9 billion in additional revenue in five years due to the legalization of marijuana.
Source
|
On April 20 2013 20:42 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 20:04 Rassy wrote:
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. not only is this a politics thread, but it is a US politics thread, which makes it even less understandable.
I think the mods should also have at least recommended also discussing it in the "The European Debt Crisis and the Euro" thread. Sovereign debt and austerity are much bigger issues in Europe and so this latest criticism of RR should be at least as relevant.
|
On April 20 2013 14:38 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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.
Yeah hopefully 
Whether it develops into a bubble we'll just have to wait and see.
|
On April 21 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 14:38 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2013 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Yeah hopefully Whether it develops into a bubble we'll just have to wait and see.
It doesn't take a genius to know there's going to be another bubble of some sort. I mean what else would happen?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/73teh6D.jpg)
In a real sense there are many fewer "lessons learned" than after, say, the S&L collapse, since this recession has been a resounding success for a select few who have also been assured they enjoy total and unconditional immunity from economic collapse or criminal prosecution.
|
On April 21 2013 05:09 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2013 14:38 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2013 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Yeah hopefully Whether it develops into a bubble we'll just have to wait and see. It doesn't take a genius to know there's going to be another bubble of some sort. I mean what else would happen? In a real sense there are many fewer "lessons learned" than after, say, the S&L collapse, since this recession has been a resounding success for a select few who have also been assured they enjoy total and unconditional immunity from economic collapse or criminal prosecution.
Lessons are learned in a sense, mainly with the people involved in those firms. Even if they were bailed out, there is no guarantee of that next time or guarantee that they won't be the sacrificial lamb. They'll likely remain cautious for the foreseeable future. The issue comes from new executives and firms. It doesn't take long for that to happen, and the drive to stay competitive will push actors to take risks they aren't forbidden from taking.
|
On April 20 2013 08:27 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 08:24 Stratos_speAr wrote: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?
No, it's not literally exponential, but it is so much higher than any of our peers (country-wise) that it's incredibly embarrassing.
Is it a fair characterization? Slightly harsh, but yes. Gun owners want guns because they want the freedom to as they wish (an ideological argument) and they want to use them for self-defense (a practical argument, but one that doesn't exactly pan out empirically). Gun control advocates want gun control based entirely on the empirical evidence of a (relatively) massive amount of gun violence and mass shootings.
Which side is more ideological again?
|
United States24676 Posts
On April 21 2013 10:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 08:27 micronesia wrote:On April 20 2013 08:24 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? No, it's not literally exponential, but it is so much higher than any of our peers (country-wise) that it's incredibly embarrassing. Is it a fair characterization? Slightly harsh, but yes. Gun owners want guns because they want the freedom to as they wish (an ideological argument) and they want to use them for self-defense (a practical argument, but one that doesn't exactly pan out empirically). Gun control advocates want gun control based entirely on the empirical evidence of a (relatively) massive amount of gun violence and mass shootings. Which side is more ideological again?
So you stand behind the claim that "I should be able to have a gun because I SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THINGS! GOVERNMENT IS BAD!" is a fair characterization of gun owners as a whole? How is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously?
I don't think you understand 'gun owners' at all. Listening to the few extremist nutbags who get the most attention doesn't mean you understand gun owners.
|
On April 21 2013 12:36 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 10:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 20 2013 08:27 micronesia wrote:On April 20 2013 08:24 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? No, it's not literally exponential, but it is so much higher than any of our peers (country-wise) that it's incredibly embarrassing. Is it a fair characterization? Slightly harsh, but yes. Gun owners want guns because they want the freedom to as they wish (an ideological argument) and they want to use them for self-defense (a practical argument, but one that doesn't exactly pan out empirically). Gun control advocates want gun control based entirely on the empirical evidence of a (relatively) massive amount of gun violence and mass shootings. Which side is more ideological again? So you stand behind the claim that "I should be able to have a gun because I SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THINGS! GOVERNMENT IS BAD!" is a fair characterization of gun owners as a whole? How is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously? I don't think you understand 'gun owners' at all. Listening to the few extremist nutbags who get the most attention doesn't mean you understand gun owners.
I'm a gun owner and I think his recent post portrays us quite fairly. Granted, I'm not particularly attached to my shotgun, so maybe I'm not a TRUE gun owner. And the issue here isn't people like me, but those "nutbags" that oppose even the most common sense legislation.
|
On April 21 2013 12:36 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 10:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 20 2013 08:27 micronesia wrote:On April 20 2013 08:24 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? No, it's not literally exponential, but it is so much higher than any of our peers (country-wise) that it's incredibly embarrassing. Is it a fair characterization? Slightly harsh, but yes. Gun owners want guns because they want the freedom to as they wish (an ideological argument) and they want to use them for self-defense (a practical argument, but one that doesn't exactly pan out empirically). Gun control advocates want gun control based entirely on the empirical evidence of a (relatively) massive amount of gun violence and mass shootings. Which side is more ideological again? So you stand behind the claim that "I should be able to have a gun because I SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THINGS! GOVERNMENT IS BAD!" is a fair characterization of gun owners as a whole? How is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously? I don't think you understand 'gun owners' at all. Listening to the few extremist nutbags who get the most attention doesn't mean you understand gun owners.
On the other hand, gun control policy isn't really dictated by the majority of gun owners so much as it is by a few extremist nutbags, so when it comes to politics it is kind of germane.
|
On April 21 2013 05:09 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2013 14:38 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2013 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Yeah hopefully Whether it develops into a bubble we'll just have to wait and see. It doesn't take a genius to know there's going to be another bubble of some sort. I mean what else would happen? In a real sense there are many fewer "lessons learned" than after, say, the S&L collapse, since this recession has been a resounding success for a select few who have also been assured they enjoy total and unconditional immunity from economic collapse or criminal prosecution.
Well, to an extent, yes (I find myself agreeing with you more and more Hunter....). At some point the private sector will get carried away and "investment" and "demand" will fly into "bubble" territory. Kudos (or, if you prefer, a fuck ton of cash) to you if you can figure out when that line is crossed.
On April 21 2013 08:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 05:09 HunterX11 wrote:On April 21 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2013 14:38 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2013 12:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. Yeah hopefully Whether it develops into a bubble we'll just have to wait and see. It doesn't take a genius to know there's going to be another bubble of some sort. I mean what else would happen? In a real sense there are many fewer "lessons learned" than after, say, the S&L collapse, since this recession has been a resounding success for a select few who have also been assured they enjoy total and unconditional immunity from economic collapse or criminal prosecution. Lessons are learned in a sense, mainly with the people involved in those firms. Even if they were bailed out, there is no guarantee of that next time or guarantee that they won't be the sacrificial lamb. They'll likely remain cautious for the foreseeable future. The issue comes from new executives and firms. It doesn't take long for that to happen, and the drive to stay competitive will push actors to take risks they aren't forbidden from taking.
Yes, and if they're right their risk should be rewarded (and taxes paid). If wrong than they should feel the pain (though social safety nets should still support them if need be).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't think some of the incentive problems (short horizon executive compensation in finance, revolving door) and market structure problems (complex, leveraged internecine trading of dubiously rated assets) are fixed. but the next cataclysmic event will be pretty far down the road. if it is not, then it would be triggered from outside of the u.s.
|
On April 21 2013 14:00 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think some of the incentive problems (short horizon executive compensation in finance, revolving door) and market structure problems (complex, leveraged internecine trading of dubiously rated assets) are fixed. but the next cataclysmic event will be pretty far down the road. if it is not, then it would be triggered from outside of the u.s.
Largely agreed. You have a solution? Hell I'll gladly take a solution just for the short term-ism... if you've got one.
|
On April 21 2013 12:36 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 10:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 20 2013 08:27 micronesia wrote:On April 20 2013 08:24 Stratos_speAr wrote: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? No, it's not literally exponential, but it is so much higher than any of our peers (country-wise) that it's incredibly embarrassing. Is it a fair characterization? Slightly harsh, but yes. Gun owners want guns because they want the freedom to as they wish (an ideological argument) and they want to use them for self-defense (a practical argument, but one that doesn't exactly pan out empirically). Gun control advocates want gun control based entirely on the empirical evidence of a (relatively) massive amount of gun violence and mass shootings. Which side is more ideological again? So you stand behind the claim that "I should be able to have a gun because I SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THINGS! GOVERNMENT IS BAD!" is a fair characterization of gun owners as a whole? How is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously? I don't think you understand 'gun owners' at all. Listening to the few extremist nutbags who get the most attention doesn't mean you understand gun owners.
Well put, and this doesn't just apply to gun owners, this also applies to people who just support other peoples right to own a gun (like myself). The argument that "I should be able to have things" doesn't even matter because the burden of proof is not on us to keep the things we already own. The burden of proof is on you to show why you can "take things" from us. A couple lunatic shootings a year is not enough evidence and it doesn't even prove that gun control would prevent the end result of a gun shooting (large numbers of people dying). Many times the killings are senseless and done to innocent people that were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can you say taking away the gun would stop them from, say, driving a truck through a crowd of people? Maybe they wouldn't kill anyone if you took guns away...maybe they would kill more people, it's just a non-argument because you can't prove either outcome.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
problem is, the issue is not about banning guns altogether (except in the case of d.c. which the scotus already struck down the way they word the ban), it's regulating what kind of guns and how you can carry them in public etc. those are practical problems for society to solve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
47448
1730
1367
EPT
