|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
The thing about it is that it isn't even good quid pro quo. It is trading the top investigative position in the country for an obscure doj posting.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 20 2020 23:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 23:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? Pensioners and Wall Street, mostly. Last time the latter got a bailout, though, so maybe this time it’s better to provide it to the former instead. Kinda sad how the massive wealth redistribution and systemic destruction of minority and small businesses is barely even background noise at this point. Neither party has a plan to avoid catastrophe, they both just have plans on how to cynically exploit it for their political and personal advantage.
The only thing remarkable about this whole situation is how little controversy there is in it. This same sort of fuckery was widely debated in 2008 and executed with great reluctance on the part of the voting populace that could perceive they were being screwed over, but went along with it because they were told, "it's this or Great Depression v2." Today, no one in the government even bothers to ask - they have to save the corporations, no ifs, ands, or buts.
To the extent that it wasn't already true, the theme of the 21st century is "building government consensus against the will of the people." The things that actually matter have already been negotiated away - all major parties agree. So let's fight vigorously over the things that don't matter.
|
On June 20 2020 23:40 Nevuk wrote:
The thing about it is that it isn't even good quid pro quo. It is trading the top investigative position in the country for an obscure doj posting.
Well that’s a mixed bag, the US Atty for SDNY is indeed one of if not the most prominent federal prosecutors, but head of civil division historically feeds into a host of other very prestigious jobs, like Solicitor General or federal circuit judge. It’s also a position of control given that basically every major piece of federal civil litigation comes across the head of civil division’s desk at one point or another.
But yeah, under this administration, the prestigious top DoJ roles ain’t so prestigious given the micro managing and ideological bent of those in charge.
|
On June 20 2020 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? I might be wrong but it looks to me that LegalLord is advocating going full Great Depression next time. That's not a good idea, and it didn't end well.
Please. Now you have mass unemployment and steady or rising prices. That's even worse than the great depression. At least you got stuff on sale if you had the money.
|
On June 20 2020 23:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 23:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? Pensioners and Wall Street, mostly. Last time the latter got a bailout, though, so maybe this time it’s better to provide it to the former instead. Kinda sad how the massive wealth redistribution and systemic destruction of minority and small businesses is barely even background noise at this point. Neither party has a plan to avoid catastrophe, they both just have plans on how to cynically exploit it for their political and personal advantage. The only thing remarkable about this whole situation is how little controversy there is in it. This same sort of fuckery was widely debated in 2008 and executed with great reluctance on the part of the voting populace that could perceive they were being screwed over, but went along with it because they were told, "it's this or Great Depression v2." Today, no one in the government even bothers to ask - they have to save the corporations, no ifs, ands, or buts. To the extent that it wasn't already true, the theme of the 21st century is "building government consensus against the will of the people." The things that actually matter have already been negotiated away - all major parties agree. So let's fight vigorously over the things that don't matter.
So much that. It's only going to get worse leading up to November with the two morons we have leading the parties. I have to admit I chuckled when people started suggesting Harris for VP. Democrats picking a cop as VP is so bad a choice I don't think they can help but do it.
|
On June 20 2020 23:51 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? I might be wrong but it looks to me that LegalLord is advocating going full Great Depression next time. That's not a good idea, and it didn't end well. Please. Now you have mass unemployment and steady or rising prices. That's even worse than the great depression. At least you got stuff on sale if you had the money.
I think you need to read a bit from people who experienced it about what it was like to live during the Great Depression to appreciate the sheer devastation of laissez-faire policies in times of economic crisis. People were literally dying of hunger and the political result was the second world war.
Nobody likes to bail out big corporations and banks. But what we know is that if you let them collapse, they take the rest of the economy with them.
|
On June 20 2020 23:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? Pensioners and Wall Street, mostly. Last time the latter got a bailout, though, so maybe this time it’s better to provide it to the former instead. Kinda sad how the massive wealth redistribution and systemic destruction of minority and small businesses is barely even background noise at this point. Neither party has a plan to avoid catastrophe, they both just have plans on how to cynically exploit it for their political and personal advantage. The only thing remarkable about this whole situation is how little controversy there is in it. This same sort of fuckery was widely debated in 2008 and executed with great reluctance on the part of the voting populace that could perceive they were being screwed over, but went along with it because they were told, "it's this or Great Depression v2." Today, no one in the government even bothers to ask - they have to save the corporations, no ifs, ands, or buts. To the extent that it wasn't already true, the theme of the 21st century is "building government consensus against the will of the people." The things that actually matter have already been negotiated away - all major parties agree. So let's fight vigorously over the things that don't matter. So much that. It's only going to get worse leading up to November with the two morons we have leading the parties. I have to admit I chuckled when people started suggesting Harris for VP. Democrats picking a cop as VP is so bad a choice I don't think they can help but do it.
Either everybody in government affairs all around the world is fucking stupid and totally corrupt OR you guys just don't understand why governments make the choices they make.
I like you and everything, but I'll go for the second option. If no one ever let the whole finantial system crash, it might be that they know a thing or two you don't about what happens next when you do that.
My two cents.
|
On June 20 2020 23:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 23:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? Pensioners and Wall Street, mostly. Last time the latter got a bailout, though, so maybe this time it’s better to provide it to the former instead. Kinda sad how the massive wealth redistribution and systemic destruction of minority and small businesses is barely even background noise at this point. Neither party has a plan to avoid catastrophe, they both just have plans on how to cynically exploit it for their political and personal advantage. The only thing remarkable about this whole situation is how little controversy there is in it. This same sort of fuckery was widely debated in 2008 and executed with great reluctance on the part of the voting populace that could perceive they were being screwed over, but went along with it because they were told, "it's this or Great Depression v2." Today, no one in the government even bothers to ask - they have to save the corporations, no ifs, ands, or buts. To the extent that it wasn't already true, the theme of the 21st century is "building government consensus against the will of the people." The things that actually matter have already been negotiated away - all major parties agree. So let's fight vigorously over the things that don't matter. So much that. It's only going to get worse leading up to November with the two morons we have leading the parties. I have to admit I chuckled when people started suggesting Harris for VP. Democrats picking a cop as VP is so bad a choice I don't think they can help but do it. Either everybody in government affairs all around the world is fucking stupid and totally corrupt OR you guys just don't understand why governments make the choices they make. I like you and everything, but I'll go for the second option. If no one ever let the whole finantial system crash, it might be that they know a thing or two you don't about what happens next when you do that. My two cents.
Or they don't want to find out the hard way and risk destroying the country to have their answer.
|
On June 20 2020 23:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 23:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? Pensioners and Wall Street, mostly. Last time the latter got a bailout, though, so maybe this time it’s better to provide it to the former instead. Kinda sad how the massive wealth redistribution and systemic destruction of minority and small businesses is barely even background noise at this point. Neither party has a plan to avoid catastrophe, they both just have plans on how to cynically exploit it for their political and personal advantage. The only thing remarkable about this whole situation is how little controversy there is in it. This same sort of fuckery was widely debated in 2008 and executed with great reluctance on the part of the voting populace that could perceive they were being screwed over, but went along with it because they were told, "it's this or Great Depression v2." Today, no one in the government even bothers to ask - they have to save the corporations, no ifs, ands, or buts. To the extent that it wasn't already true, the theme of the 21st century is "building government consensus against the will of the people." The things that actually matter have already been negotiated away - all major parties agree. So let's fight vigorously over the things that don't matter. So much that. It's only going to get worse leading up to November with the two morons we have leading the parties. I have to admit I chuckled when people started suggesting Harris for VP. Democrats picking a cop as VP is so bad a choice I don't think they can help but do it. Either everybody in government affairs all around the world is fucking stupid and totally corrupt OR you guys just don't understand why governments make the choices they make. I like you and everything, but I'll go for the second option. If no one ever let the whole finantial system crash, it might be that they know a thing or two you don't about what happens next when you do that. My two cents.
Corrupt would imply the point for these big capitalist corporations isn't to gain monopolistic power and dominate politics to the point of being "too big to fail" and then exploiting it for maximum profitability and power.
It seems abundantly clear to me which of us doesn't understand why governments make the decisions they do.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 20 2020 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 23:51 Vivax wrote:On June 20 2020 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? I might be wrong but it looks to me that LegalLord is advocating going full Great Depression next time. That's not a good idea, and it didn't end well. Please. Now you have mass unemployment and steady or rising prices. That's even worse than the great depression. At least you got stuff on sale if you had the money. I think you need to read a bit from people who experienced it about what it was like to live during the Great Depression to appreciate the sheer devastation of laissez-faire policies in times of economic crisis. People were literally dying of hunger and the political result was the second world war. Nobody likes to bail out big corporations and banks. But what we know is that if you let them collapse, they take the rest of the economy with them.
You would be forgiven for making this argument in 2008, when this was first tried on a large scale. But you have to be both gullible and short-sighted to rehash the 2008 talking points just over a decade later when we see how it all plays out. Yes, blowing a bigger bubble to bail out the corporations and financial system does bury the widespread decline for a while. It looks like the end result is a decade of anemic "recovery" followed by a system that needs an even bigger bailout than last time just to stay afloat. At least in the wake of the Great Depression, some actual meaningful fixes to the system were made, instead of just a decade-long money pump that leaves the economy fragile enough to be on the verge of Depression v2 just one business cycle later.
Your follow-up argument about "obviously the governments know what their doing" in the following post is also laughable. Yes, perhaps they do know what they're doing: they're serving the interests of the people who put them in power - the wealthy donor class, above all else.
|
On June 21 2020 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 23:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? Pensioners and Wall Street, mostly. Last time the latter got a bailout, though, so maybe this time it’s better to provide it to the former instead. Kinda sad how the massive wealth redistribution and systemic destruction of minority and small businesses is barely even background noise at this point. Neither party has a plan to avoid catastrophe, they both just have plans on how to cynically exploit it for their political and personal advantage. The only thing remarkable about this whole situation is how little controversy there is in it. This same sort of fuckery was widely debated in 2008 and executed with great reluctance on the part of the voting populace that could perceive they were being screwed over, but went along with it because they were told, "it's this or Great Depression v2." Today, no one in the government even bothers to ask - they have to save the corporations, no ifs, ands, or buts. To the extent that it wasn't already true, the theme of the 21st century is "building government consensus against the will of the people." The things that actually matter have already been negotiated away - all major parties agree. So let's fight vigorously over the things that don't matter. So much that. It's only going to get worse leading up to November with the two morons we have leading the parties. I have to admit I chuckled when people started suggesting Harris for VP. Democrats picking a cop as VP is so bad a choice I don't think they can help but do it. Either everybody in government affairs all around the world is fucking stupid and totally corrupt OR you guys just don't understand why governments make the choices they make. I like you and everything, but I'll go for the second option. If no one ever let the whole finantial system crash, it might be that they know a thing or two you don't about what happens next when you do that. My two cents. Corrupt would imply the point for these big capitalist corporations isn't to gain monopolistic power and dominate politics to the point of being "too big to fail" and then exploiting it for maximum profitability and power. It seems abundantly clear to me which of us doesn't understand why governments make the decisions they do.
Oh I know it's all the difference between us: you think governments are totally sold to big corporations and that they don't care at all about the interest of the people, and that there would be very, very simple answers if only they sided with the good side.
I think that political affairs are extremely complicated and nuanced, and that very often, for a vast array of reasons, governments don't have that much of a choice. And that what looks like small differences in policies makes, actually, a big difference in the life of people.
Where I am sad for you is that one day you will get your guy (whoever that is) in power, and, surprise!, he won't be able to do any of the easy fixes to everything you will have been expecting. That's exactly what happens every time a far left party wins in Europe. Syriza, Podemos, you name it. They get in power, realize that actually, there is a lot they absolutely can't do without horrifying consequences and their voters get super pissed off. Which is a shame, because I still think Syriza is the best party in Greece and Podemos in Spain.
|
On June 21 2020 00:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:51 Vivax wrote:On June 20 2020 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? I might be wrong but it looks to me that LegalLord is advocating going full Great Depression next time. That's not a good idea, and it didn't end well. Please. Now you have mass unemployment and steady or rising prices. That's even worse than the great depression. At least you got stuff on sale if you had the money. I think you need to read a bit from people who experienced it about what it was like to live during the Great Depression to appreciate the sheer devastation of laissez-faire policies in times of economic crisis. People were literally dying of hunger and the political result was the second world war. Nobody likes to bail out big corporations and banks. But what we know is that if you let them collapse, they take the rest of the economy with them. You would be forgiven for making this argument in 2008, when this was first tried on a large scale. But you have to be both gullible and short-sighted to rehash the 2008 talking points just over a decade later when we see how it all plays out. Yes, blowing a bigger bubble to bail out the corporations and financial system does bury the widespread decline for a while. It looks like the end result is a decade of anemic "recovery" followed by a system that needs an even bigger bailout than last time just to stay afloat. At least in the wake of the Great Depression, some actual meaningful fixes to the system were made, instead of just a decade-long money pump that leaves the economy fragile enough to be on the verge of Depression v2 just one business cycle later. Your follow-up argument about "obviously the governments know what their doing" in the following post is also laughable. Yes, perhaps they do know what they're doing: they're serving the interests of the people who put them in power - the wealthy donor class, above all else.
In terms of its impact on the population, the suffering of the people it provoked and its political consequences, the 2008 is a fucking joke compared to the Great Depression. And I am not minimizing the desaster it's been, it's just you have no idea what the generation that lived the crisis of the 1920s and early 1930s went through.
|
On June 21 2020 00:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? Pensioners and Wall Street, mostly. Last time the latter got a bailout, though, so maybe this time it’s better to provide it to the former instead. Kinda sad how the massive wealth redistribution and systemic destruction of minority and small businesses is barely even background noise at this point. Neither party has a plan to avoid catastrophe, they both just have plans on how to cynically exploit it for their political and personal advantage. The only thing remarkable about this whole situation is how little controversy there is in it. This same sort of fuckery was widely debated in 2008 and executed with great reluctance on the part of the voting populace that could perceive they were being screwed over, but went along with it because they were told, "it's this or Great Depression v2." Today, no one in the government even bothers to ask - they have to save the corporations, no ifs, ands, or buts. To the extent that it wasn't already true, the theme of the 21st century is "building government consensus against the will of the people." The things that actually matter have already been negotiated away - all major parties agree. So let's fight vigorously over the things that don't matter. So much that. It's only going to get worse leading up to November with the two morons we have leading the parties. I have to admit I chuckled when people started suggesting Harris for VP. Democrats picking a cop as VP is so bad a choice I don't think they can help but do it. Either everybody in government affairs all around the world is fucking stupid and totally corrupt OR you guys just don't understand why governments make the choices they make. I like you and everything, but I'll go for the second option. If no one ever let the whole finantial system crash, it might be that they know a thing or two you don't about what happens next when you do that. My two cents. Corrupt would imply the point for these big capitalist corporations isn't to gain monopolistic power and dominate politics to the point of being "too big to fail" and then exploiting it for maximum profitability and power. It seems abundantly clear to me which of us doesn't understand why governments make the decisions they do. Oh I know it's all the difference between us: you think governments are totally sold to big corporations and that they don't care at all about the interest of the people, and that there would be very, very simple answers if only they sided with the good side.
you clearly don't.
I think that political affairs are extremely complicated and nuanced, and that very often, for a vast array of reasons, governments don't have that much of a choice. And that what looks like small differences in policies makes, actually, a big difference in the life of people.
I think that too.
I was merely pointing out that your argument of
everybody in government affairs all around the world is fucking stupid and totally corrupt OR you guys just don't understand why governments make the choices they make.
is silly. If for no other reason than it ignores that the open goal of capitalist enterprise is to try to amass maximum profits.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 21 2020 00:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 00:06 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:51 Vivax wrote:On June 20 2020 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? I might be wrong but it looks to me that LegalLord is advocating going full Great Depression next time. That's not a good idea, and it didn't end well. Please. Now you have mass unemployment and steady or rising prices. That's even worse than the great depression. At least you got stuff on sale if you had the money. I think you need to read a bit from people who experienced it about what it was like to live during the Great Depression to appreciate the sheer devastation of laissez-faire policies in times of economic crisis. People were literally dying of hunger and the political result was the second world war. Nobody likes to bail out big corporations and banks. But what we know is that if you let them collapse, they take the rest of the economy with them. You would be forgiven for making this argument in 2008, when this was first tried on a large scale. But you have to be both gullible and short-sighted to rehash the 2008 talking points just over a decade later when we see how it all plays out. Yes, blowing a bigger bubble to bail out the corporations and financial system does bury the widespread decline for a while. It looks like the end result is a decade of anemic "recovery" followed by a system that needs an even bigger bailout than last time just to stay afloat. At least in the wake of the Great Depression, some actual meaningful fixes to the system were made, instead of just a decade-long money pump that leaves the economy fragile enough to be on the verge of Depression v2 just one business cycle later. Your follow-up argument about "obviously the governments know what their doing" in the following post is also laughable. Yes, perhaps they do know what they're doing: they're serving the interests of the people who put them in power - the wealthy donor class, above all else. In terms of its impact on the population, the suffering of the people it provoked and its political consequences, the 2008 is a fucking joke compared to the Great Depression. And I am not minimizing the desaster it's been, it's just you have no idea what the generation that lived the crisis of the 1920s and early 1930s went through.
What a fantastic way to miss the point.
You’re right, 2008 wasn’t too bad - it was merely a slow burn into terminal decline. But yet, here we are 12 years later, and once again the story is “bailout or depression.” Isn’t it weird how all that bailout did little more than stall - and exacerbate - the very depression that was to be prevented, rather than to meaningfully unwind the circumstances that led to its existence? Almost as if the original “bailout or depression” argument was just fake news...
|
On June 21 2020 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 00:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2020 23:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer.
The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things.
Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? Pensioners and Wall Street, mostly. Last time the latter got a bailout, though, so maybe this time it’s better to provide it to the former instead. Kinda sad how the massive wealth redistribution and systemic destruction of minority and small businesses is barely even background noise at this point. Neither party has a plan to avoid catastrophe, they both just have plans on how to cynically exploit it for their political and personal advantage. The only thing remarkable about this whole situation is how little controversy there is in it. This same sort of fuckery was widely debated in 2008 and executed with great reluctance on the part of the voting populace that could perceive they were being screwed over, but went along with it because they were told, "it's this or Great Depression v2." Today, no one in the government even bothers to ask - they have to save the corporations, no ifs, ands, or buts. To the extent that it wasn't already true, the theme of the 21st century is "building government consensus against the will of the people." The things that actually matter have already been negotiated away - all major parties agree. So let's fight vigorously over the things that don't matter. So much that. It's only going to get worse leading up to November with the two morons we have leading the parties. I have to admit I chuckled when people started suggesting Harris for VP. Democrats picking a cop as VP is so bad a choice I don't think they can help but do it. Either everybody in government affairs all around the world is fucking stupid and totally corrupt OR you guys just don't understand why governments make the choices they make. I like you and everything, but I'll go for the second option. If no one ever let the whole finantial system crash, it might be that they know a thing or two you don't about what happens next when you do that. My two cents. Corrupt would imply the point for these big capitalist corporations isn't to gain monopolistic power and dominate politics to the point of being "too big to fail" and then exploiting it for maximum profitability and power. It seems abundantly clear to me which of us doesn't understand why governments make the decisions they do. Oh I know it's all the difference between us: you think governments are totally sold to big corporations and that they don't care at all about the interest of the people, and that there would be very, very simple answers if only they sided with the good side. you clearly don't. Show nested quote +I think that political affairs are extremely complicated and nuanced, and that very often, for a vast array of reasons, governments don't have that much of a choice. And that what looks like small differences in policies makes, actually, a big difference in the life of people. I think that too. I was merely pointing out that your argument of Show nested quote +everybody in government affairs all around the world is fucking stupid and totally corrupt OR you guys just don't understand why governments make the choices they make.
is silly. If for no other reason than it ignores that the open goal of capitalist enterprise is to try to amass maximum profits.
Yes, and what a democratic government does in a capitalist society is to balance multiple interests : different categories of people, different sectors of the economy, and so on, and those interests are interlocked in extremely complex ways. And yeah, sometimes, actually, the interests of big companies and banks are actually also the interests of the people and society as a whole. For example, in a major economic crisis, that banks don't crash is both the interest of big corporations and banks, and the interest of society as a whole and the people.
But of course if you understand everything through a narrow marxist lense in which there is the people versusthe Capitalist than awe the government, it's kinda hard to understand anything that is happening, right?
|
On June 21 2020 00:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 00:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 00:06 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:51 Vivax wrote:On June 20 2020 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? I might be wrong but it looks to me that LegalLord is advocating going full Great Depression next time. That's not a good idea, and it didn't end well. Please. Now you have mass unemployment and steady or rising prices. That's even worse than the great depression. At least you got stuff on sale if you had the money. I think you need to read a bit from people who experienced it about what it was like to live during the Great Depression to appreciate the sheer devastation of laissez-faire policies in times of economic crisis. People were literally dying of hunger and the political result was the second world war. Nobody likes to bail out big corporations and banks. But what we know is that if you let them collapse, they take the rest of the economy with them. You would be forgiven for making this argument in 2008, when this was first tried on a large scale. But you have to be both gullible and short-sighted to rehash the 2008 talking points just over a decade later when we see how it all plays out. Yes, blowing a bigger bubble to bail out the corporations and financial system does bury the widespread decline for a while. It looks like the end result is a decade of anemic "recovery" followed by a system that needs an even bigger bailout than last time just to stay afloat. At least in the wake of the Great Depression, some actual meaningful fixes to the system were made, instead of just a decade-long money pump that leaves the economy fragile enough to be on the verge of Depression v2 just one business cycle later. Your follow-up argument about "obviously the governments know what their doing" in the following post is also laughable. Yes, perhaps they do know what they're doing: they're serving the interests of the people who put them in power - the wealthy donor class, above all else. In terms of its impact on the population, the suffering of the people it provoked and its political consequences, the 2008 is a fucking joke compared to the Great Depression. And I am not minimizing the desaster it's been, it's just you have no idea what the generation that lived the crisis of the 1920s and early 1930s went through. What a fantastic way to miss the point. You’re right, 2008 wasn’t too bad - it was merely a slow burn into terminal decline. But yet, here we are 12 years later, and once again the story is “bailout or depression.” Isn’t it weird how all that bailout did little more than stall - and exacerbate - the very depression that was to be prevented, rather than to meaningfully unwind the circumstances that led to its existence? Almost as if the original “bailout or depression” argument was just fake news...
"Slow burnout into terminal decline". Oh, ok. I must have missed that, yeah.
And right now we are in a pandemic. Which has nothing to do with the 2008 crisis.
|
On June 21 2020 00:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 00:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 00:06 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:51 Vivax wrote:On June 20 2020 23:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 20 2020 23:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so. And in your scenario, who gets hurt the worst? I might be wrong but it looks to me that LegalLord is advocating going full Great Depression next time. That's not a good idea, and it didn't end well. Please. Now you have mass unemployment and steady or rising prices. That's even worse than the great depression. At least you got stuff on sale if you had the money. I think you need to read a bit from people who experienced it about what it was like to live during the Great Depression to appreciate the sheer devastation of laissez-faire policies in times of economic crisis. People were literally dying of hunger and the political result was the second world war. Nobody likes to bail out big corporations and banks. But what we know is that if you let them collapse, they take the rest of the economy with them. You would be forgiven for making this argument in 2008, when this was first tried on a large scale. But you have to be both gullible and short-sighted to rehash the 2008 talking points just over a decade later when we see how it all plays out. Yes, blowing a bigger bubble to bail out the corporations and financial system does bury the widespread decline for a while. It looks like the end result is a decade of anemic "recovery" followed by a system that needs an even bigger bailout than last time just to stay afloat. At least in the wake of the Great Depression, some actual meaningful fixes to the system were made, instead of just a decade-long money pump that leaves the economy fragile enough to be on the verge of Depression v2 just one business cycle later. Your follow-up argument about "obviously the governments know what their doing" in the following post is also laughable. Yes, perhaps they do know what they're doing: they're serving the interests of the people who put them in power - the wealthy donor class, above all else. In terms of its impact on the population, the suffering of the people it provoked and its political consequences, the 2008 is a fucking joke compared to the Great Depression. And I am not minimizing the desaster it's been, it's just you have no idea what the generation that lived the crisis of the 1920s and early 1930s went through. What a fantastic way to miss the point. You’re right, 2008 wasn’t too bad - it was merely a slow burn into terminal decline. But yet, here we are 12 years later, and once again the story is “bailout or depression.” Isn’t it weird how all that bailout did little more than stall - and exacerbate - the very depression that was to be prevented, rather than to meaningfully unwind the circumstances that led to its existence? Almost as if the original “bailout or depression” argument was just fake news...
It conveniently frames the insanity of repeating the behavior in the familiar "lesser of two evils" box, so you know how that argument shakes out. Whoever wins 2020, you can bet austerity for the masses and more wealth concentration for the top is on their agenda.
Ironically, ignoring that we know that such concentration of wealth is unsustainable economically and socially and perpetuating (or worse, exacerbating it) ensures a more dramatic and violent collapse when it inevitably comes.
If there wasn't the obvious economic and political stressors we might be able to focus on the fact that looming over that is the predictable global ecological collapse with no serious plan to mitigate, let alone avert it.
|
Yeah, but it seems as if 2008 didn't actually solve anything, either. Because the exact same systemic problem turns up once again right now. The only way i can see anyone bailing out the big banks AGAIN is to nationalize them in the process, and jail all of the criminal assholes who got them into this state.
Or let them fail and use the money you would have used to prevent their failure to help actual people instead.
What isn't an option is to just keep giving them money every time they lose their gambles, while letting them keep the money if they win their gambles. That is just insane and only transfers money from actual people who pay taxes to rich assholes running banks who don't pay taxes anyways.
|
On June 21 2020 00:37 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, but it seems as if 2008 didn't actually solve anything, either. Because the exact same systemic problem turns up once again right now. The only way i can see anyone bailing out the big banks AGAIN is to nationalize them in the process, and jail all of the criminal assholes who got them into this state.
Or let them fail and use the money you would have used to prevent their failure to help actual people instead.
What isn't an option is to just keep giving them money every time they lose their gambles, while letting them keep the money if they win their gambles. That is just insane and only transfers money from actual people who pay taxes to rich assholes running banks who don't pay taxes anyways.
Not really. The american banking system is much, much more resilient and not nearly as toxic as it was in 2008. The economy needs bailing not because everybody in banking has gone apeshit crazy after decades of deregulation, but because of a pandemic nobody could see coming.
One of the greatest achievement of Obama is his banking reform. Of course it's technical and boring and people don't really bother with those technicalities but this kind of reform is what is needed. Having the banking system fail would be an unspeakable catastrophe. It doesn't need to fail, it needs more reforms.
It's not gonna happen with Trump, obviously.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 21 2020 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
"Slow burnout into terminal decline". Oh, ok. I must have missed that, yeah.
Yeah, probably.
On June 21 2020 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
And right now we are in a pandemic. Which has nothing to do with the 2008 crisis.
There's always a couple once-in-a-lifetime shocks per lifetime. Depending on how robust the underlying economy is, it can pass over relatively smoothly or place the entire system on the verge of collapse. Guess which one actually happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
