|
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 |
On June 21 2020 00:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Right, probably. I'll take your word I guess.
Considering the world has stopped for four months and whole sectors of the economy have grinded to a complete halt, and considering we have the worst leadership in american history, I would say that we are doing extremely well. You asked me five years ago what would happen if something like that happened - and under the presidency of Donald fucking Trump - and I would have expected people to be starving, homelessness for millions of people crowding new townships (that's what happened during the great depreesion btw, they were called Hoovervilles), and so on and so forth.
I don't see a single period in human history where such a monstrous shock as this pandemic could have been as smooth. And again, I know it's a fucking nightmare in itself. But it shows economies and institutions - helped of course by government responses, partly guided by experiences such as the Great Depression - as remarkably resilient.
|
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red.
|
On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red.
I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash.
If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly.
I think that between us, the one who doesn't care about people is you. I am talking about a complete economic collapse that last time resulted in people literally starving, millions of homeless ending up in thousand of new township across the country, and you are locked into your little narrow marxist narrative that the government is just helping the banks because they are sold to the capitalists.
Just like you don't care about, say, the Dreamers and the horrifying consequences of the potential end of the DACA, all but certain if Trump gets reelected, because who cares about the lesser evil (you know who? I'll tell you : the dreamers).
So let's not get there.
|
On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. I think that between us, the one who doesn't care about people is you. I am talking about a complete economic collapse that last time resulted in people literally starving, millions of homeless ending up in thousand of new township across the country, and you are locked into your little narrow marxist narrative that the government is just helping the banks because they are sold to the capitalists. Just like you don't care about, say, the Dreamers and the horrifying consequences of the potential end of the DACA act, all but certain if Trump gets reelected, because who cares about the lesser evil (you know who? I'll tell you : the dreamers). So let's not get there.
I think it is entirely possible for 2 different philosophies to have the same end goal and simply disagree on the best method of getting there. My experiences talking with both of you has shown me you both care deeply for the world and just have wildly different impressions of how to get there. And that's the beauty of TL, we're all able to chat about it ^____^
|
On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly.
What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences.
You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol.
|
On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol.
See, it's just as accusing people of not caring for the people, which as you see, I can serve you just as well, now it's about me being ignorant of history to which I can answer that maybe you should yourself open a history book, or a book of macroeconomy and wonder why no government in its right mind has let a 1929 scenario ever happen again (let me guess, it's because in fact they are sold to the banks), and so on.
See the problem with your condescension, and those little phrases about being here to educate people or removing beams from our eyes, and so on and so forth is that people can do the same to you.
As for your analogy, since that would be the subject, I hardly see how letting the whole economy crash completely is giving alcohol to someone with a hangover. Seems to me that the goal of a government in an economic crisis is to, you know, not let the economy crash completely and help it recovering.
|
On June 21 2020 01:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol. See, it's just as accusing people of not caring for the people, which as you see, I can serve you just as well, now it's about me being ignorant of history to which I can answer that maybe you should yourself open a history book, or a book of macroeconomy and wonder why no government in its right mind has let a 1929 scenario ever happen again (let me guess, it's because in fact they are sold to the banks), and so on. See the problem with your condescension, and those little phrases about being here to educate people or removing beams from our eyes, and so on and so forth : people can do the same.
I've noticed people try to turn my arguments around on me and I think most people have noticed that doesn't work (outside those that still try), because they typically require creating a strawman position of mine to make them ostensibly work. It's taken a while but it's only a handful of people that fall for that still.
In this case that I'm arguing for unmitigated collapse ala 1929 rather than a methodical unwinding of our economic system is better than repeating what got us here.
EDIT: As for your analogy, since that would be the subject, I hardly see how letting the whole economy crash completely is giving alcohol to someone with a hangover. Seems to me that the goal of a government in an economic crisis is to, you know, not let the economy crash completely and help it recovering.
Helpful that you put it in there explicitly to make my point.
|
On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol.
“Hair of the dog” is certainly always relevant in these conversations. But I’d be a little surprised if your perspective here is actually that similar to LL’s?
|
On June 21 2020 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 01:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol. See, it's just as accusing people of not caring for the people, which as you see, I can serve you just as well, now it's about me being ignorant of history to which I can answer that maybe you should yourself open a history book, or a book of macroeconomy and wonder why no government in its right mind has let a 1929 scenario ever happen again (let me guess, it's because in fact they are sold to the banks), and so on. See the problem with your condescension, and those little phrases about being here to educate people or removing beams from our eyes, and so on and so forth : people can do the same. I've noticed people try to turn my arguments around on me and I think most people have noticed that doesn't work (outside those that still try), because they typically require creating a strawman position of mine to make them ostensibly work. It's taken a while but it's only a handful of people that fall for that still. In this case that I'm arguing for unmitigated collapse ala 1929 rather than a methodical unwinding of our economic system is better than repeating what got us here. EDIT: Show nested quote +As for your analogy, since that would be the subject, I hardly see how letting the whole economy crash completely is giving alcohol to someone with a hangover. Seems to me that the goal of a government in an economic crisis is to, you know, not let the economy crash completely and help it recovering.
Helpful that you put it in there explicitly to make my point.
Because you think your arguments about me not knowing history or being gullible, or me only caring about spreadsheets are substantiated? The good joke. You are making as much a strawman of my positions as I'm making one of yours to return you the favour.
But you miss the point. It's not your arguments that people turn aroud, it's your attitude. And of course you can only answer that your argumentation is superior (against all evidence btw), so that's ok. Which is, you know, symptomatic if I may say.
Well, again, I don't think it's a good idea to repeat 1929 and its aftermath, and I think it's considerably worse than what got us here. But the lesser of two evil is not on the table, I remember, even if the evil in 1929 ended up being Hitler in Europe, and unspeakable poverty in the US.
Yeah, I'm not helping you make your point, that doesn't make any sense, but let's not discuss that further, that analogy was not substantiated whatsoever to start with.
|
On June 21 2020 01:50 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol. ...I’d be a little surprised if your perspective here is actually that similar to LL’s?
Pretty sure LL, Simberto, and myself all come at it from different political bends with different prescriptions, what we all recognized is the blatant absurdity of what Biff is suggesting.
|
On June 21 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol. ...I’d be a little surprised if your perspective here is actually that similar to LL’s? Pretty sure LL, Simberto, and myself all come at it from different political bends with different prescriptions, what we all recognized is the blatant absurdity of what Biff is suggesting.
You are really unbearable, GH. You have provided exactly 0 content to counter my arguments except unsubstantiated analogies and cheap attacks and you just make those unsufferably arrogant little snears without even addressing me directly. It's about as pleasant to discuss with you than to pull a tooth.
I'm done here. This is just a loss of time.
|
An unmitigated collapse for mainstreet and a slow and methodical unwinding of the financial sector.
Not so much because its the best option but more so because thats how things work and also because the slow collapse can not really be prevented anymore.
The whole financial sector,all the loans and investments,the allocation of resources,it was all done and valued with a continuous growthpath in mind. A growthpath that is now of the table.
"This is just a loss of time."
Well you are right with that lol,a conclusion i came to long ago.
GH is just trying to push an agenda which he is not open about at all. He is not a socialist.
Everything he writes and argues is with this agenda in mind. Its not about real arguing,its about trying to convince people of things that will help that agenda and when there is good counter arguments you will get ignored.
Not that it matters,the amount of people participating in those one sided discussions on this forum can be counted on 1 or 2 hands at most.
|
On June 21 2020 02:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol. ...I’d be a little surprised if your perspective here is actually that similar to LL’s? Pretty sure LL, Simberto, and myself all come at it from different political bends with different prescriptions, what we all recognized is the blatant absurdity of what Biff is suggesting. You are really unbearable, GH. You have provided exactly 0 content to counter my arguments except unsubstantiated analogies and cheap attacks and you just make those unsufferably arrogant little snears without even addressing me directly. It's about as pleasant to discuss with you than to pull a tooth. I'm done here. This is just a loss of time.
I mean I wasn't even talking to you until you chimed in with:
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.
So maybe you should have kept that comment to yourself if you were going to get all huffy about it?
|
On June 21 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol. ...I’d be a little surprised if your perspective here is actually that similar to LL’s? Pretty sure LL, Simberto, and myself all come at it from different political bends with different prescriptions, what we all recognized is the blatant absurdity of what Biff is suggesting.
Yeah, that’s a great way to put it. We have our fair share of political disagreement but are all able to call out an obviously ridiculous position when we see it.
|
On June 21 2020 02:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol. ...I’d be a little surprised if your perspective here is actually that similar to LL’s? Pretty sure LL, Simberto, and myself all come at it from different political bends with different prescriptions, what we all recognized is the blatant absurdity of what Biff is suggesting. Yeah, that’s a great way to put it. We have our fair share of political disagreement but are all able to call out an obviously ridiculous position when we see it.
Maybe you should explain what's ridiculous about it with ideas and data instead of just repeating it's ridiculous. It's what every government on the planet is doing, I think the burden of proof that it's ridiculous is on you. What is so infuriating about this discussion is that you are proposing something rather extraordinary (letting, you know, the whole economy crash down like a house of cards), and your only way to defend that idea is to say that it's ridiculous to object to it. Or be an asshole in the case of our friend and go the alley of accusing me of not knowing history or strawmaning me into caring only about spreadsheets without, again, substantiating anything at all.
So explain me one second: you want the banks and big corporations to crash and you object the government preventing that. They will take the rest of our extremely intertwinned economy with them.
Without saying that my position is ridiculous or anything, can you explain to me how that is a good idea and how that's gonne help, and how that's a better idea than injecting liquidities to not let everything go down in flames like dominos.
|
On June 21 2020 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 02:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol. ...I’d be a little surprised if your perspective here is actually that similar to LL’s? Pretty sure LL, Simberto, and myself all come at it from different political bends with different prescriptions, what we all recognized is the blatant absurdity of what Biff is suggesting. Yeah, that’s a great way to put it. We have our fair share of political disagreement but are all able to call out an obviously ridiculous position when we see it. Maybe you should explain what's ridiculous about it with ideas and data instead of just repeating it's ridiculous. It's what every government on the planet is doing, I think the burden of proof that it's ridiculous is on you.
Only thing I'll say is that slavery was ridiculous, but the world was doing it for a long time. It is possible for terrible policies to become common, as we are always learning and improving. We may be at a point where certain policies are blatantly shitty and just not at the point where we have fixed them yet.
|
On June 21 2020 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 02:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol. ...I’d be a little surprised if your perspective here is actually that similar to LL’s? Pretty sure LL, Simberto, and myself all come at it from different political bends with different prescriptions, what we all recognized is the blatant absurdity of what Biff is suggesting. Yeah, that’s a great way to put it. We have our fair share of political disagreement but are all able to call out an obviously ridiculous position when we see it. Maybe you should explain what's ridiculous about it with ideas and data instead of just repeating it's ridiculous. It's what every government on the planet is doing, I think the burden of proof that it's ridiculous is on you. Only thing I'll say is that slavery was ridiculous, but the world was doing it for a long time. It is possible for terrible policies to become common, as we are always learning and improving. We may be at a point where certain policies are blatantly shitty and just not at the point where we have fixed them yet.
There are some parallels between calls for police reform and financial sector reform and the depravity (and their roots in slavery in the US for that matter) that is endemic within both but it feels like even being mentioned by me poisons any chance for fruitful connections to be made.
|
On June 21 2020 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 02:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On June 21 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 21 2020 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Besides buying a bit too much of Trump's "the economy was amazing before the pandemic" propaganda, the "resilience" Biff sees isn't the houseless camps/8-hour+ bread and unemployment lines I am. He's looking at how transferring trillions to banks has kept the spreadsheets from going full red. I'm looking at preventing houseless camps and litteral starvation by not letting the economy crash. If you wanna accuse me of caring more about the banks and spreadsheets than people, be nice and address me directly. What LL, Simberto, and I were pointing out is that your prescription for "preventing houseless camps and starvation" requires a combination of gullibility and historical ignorance for how it, best case, leads us back here in short order with increasingly devastating consequences. You're basically arguing to nurse a hangover with more alcohol. ...I’d be a little surprised if your perspective here is actually that similar to LL’s? Pretty sure LL, Simberto, and myself all come at it from different political bends with different prescriptions, what we all recognized is the blatant absurdity of what Biff is suggesting. Yeah, that’s a great way to put it. We have our fair share of political disagreement but are all able to call out an obviously ridiculous position when we see it. Maybe you should explain what's ridiculous about it with ideas and data instead of just repeating it's ridiculous. It's what every government on the planet is doing, I think the burden of proof that it's ridiculous is on you. Only thing I'll say is that slavery was ridiculous, but the world was doing it for a long time. It is possible for terrible policies to become common, as we are always learning and improving. We may be at a point where certain policies are blatantly shitty and just not at the point where we have fixed them yet.
I don't know, maybe it's me, but I find the idea of letting the crisis just take down everything a bit counter intuitive. I mean, I'm open to all ideas, but that's not precisely slavery. It's the whole economy crashing.
It kinds of deserve some explanation.
|
The issue with the 2008 bailout was that literally only one person went to jail for the rampant fraud and crime, and not enough of them got permanently banned from finance. Every head of every bank should've been treated like Jacob Wohl has been.
Also, quick update - judge ruled Bolton can publish his book.
|
On June 21 2020 02:27 Nevuk wrote:
The issue with the 2008 bailout was that literally only one person went to jail for the rampant fraud and crime, and not enough of them got permanently banned from finance. Every head of every bank should've been treated like Jacob Wohl has been.
Also, quick update - judge ruled Bolton can publish his book.
I have to agree with that. Then again, the sad thing in 2008 is that what a lot of those people were doing was legal. Horribly unethical but legal. That's where Dodd Frank has really been important; the kind of clowneries that bankers were doing in the early 2000s are not possible anymore without, this time, ending in jail. But it's a long, long, long way before the financial sector is regulated enough. And many republicans are actually calling to dismantle Dodd Frank completely and go back to the old times. It's kind of a miracle that both DF and the ACA survived four years of Trump administration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
