>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner. Straw man arguments FTW!


Oh for Christ's sake. Make an actual argument then, and stop throwing out baseless, meaningless comments.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner. Nobody is talking about it? Not true. Nobody from the current Administration probably, but to say the housing bubble and manipulation of interest rates had nothing to do with the current recession is absolute nonsense.

First, "manipulated interest rates" is meaningless nonsense. If you mean the Fed setting short-term interest rates through open market operations, apparently depressions have been permanent since it started doing that in 1913. No? Well, maybe before that they must have never happened. No, actually they did, and with far greater frequency than 2 per century.

Second, of course the housing bubble has to do with the current recession, but what's absolute nonsense is the idea that the housing bubble of the 2000s was caused by long standing housing subsidies is absurd. Just look at the price of housing and un-subsidized commercial real estate on a single chart. Hey, those look like they both turned into bubbles!

>> ^blankfist:
Also, you show me the invisible hand of market. I've not seen a free market in the US in my lifetime and neither have you. Corporate charters and the "lender of last resort" central banking system are not representative of open markets.


And this is the real nonsense behind all of your beliefs. By this logic, you should also conclude that you can't blame liberalism for anything that goes wrong now or in the past, because we've never brought our ideal system into play in America, so you don't know what life under liberalism would really be like.

>> ^blankfist:

It can't be the fault of the banks AND the bad policies of the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve? Then, you sir, lose. Good day.


Sure it can, it just wasn't any of the specific things you listed, which is why "nobody" is talking about them.

Mostly the problem was that the SEC and the FRB weren't enforcing the regulations they were tasked with regulating, because the highly-ideological political appointees at the top of both believed that the invisible hand of the market would lead banks to regulate themselves.

Alan Greenspan admitted later that he was wrong to think that.

>> ^NetRunner:

Revisionist history would be declaring that the economic crisis was caused by interest rates, housing subsidies, or "propping up" the housing industry, and not about a bunch of greedy banks building themselves a de facto ponzi scheme.

You know why you don't? Because a) nothing about this crisis disproves anything about New Keynesian economics, and b) because apparently you consider criticism about how regulators didn't enforce the laws on the books to not be criticism.


It can't be the fault of the banks AND the bad policies of the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve? Then, you sir, lose. Good day.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm probably the only person here that smells insidious propaganda.


What part of the White House press release description gave you such omniscient powers?

>> ^GDGD:

That sounds distinctly like Kal Penn narrating.
/edit
Oh, this was released by the Gov. it probably really is him.


I knew this voice sounded like some celebrity, but I couldn't put my finger on who it was. It almost certainly is Kal Penn.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm NOT defending the banks, but this smacks of revisionist history, because no one is talking about manipulated interest rates, housing subsidies, and propping up the housing industry influenced the bubble inflation and bursting.

Revisionist history would be declaring that the economic crisis was caused by interest rates, housing subsidies, or "propping up" the housing industry, and not about a bunch of greedy banks building themselves a de facto ponzi scheme.

>> ^blankfist:
This is what scares me about Obama. Because he's president now, he is incapable of making any substantial critique of the government's failings in our economy. Sure, he may point the finger at Bush, which is an easy target, but never do you hear anyone from his administration discuss the failures of the Federal Reserve's egregious financial dick-fingering and the Keynesian model altogether.


You know why you don't? Because a) nothing about this crisis disproves anything about New Keynesian economics, and b) because apparently you consider criticism about how regulators didn't enforce the laws on the books to not be criticism.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm probably the only person here that smells insidious propaganda. Especially since in this propaganda piece the blame only falls on the banks.
I'm NOT defending the banks, but this smacks of revisionist history, because no one is talking about manipulated interest rates, housing subsidies, and propping up the housing industry influenced the bubble inflation and bursting.
This is what scares me about Obama. Because he's president now, he is incapable of making any substantial critique of the government's failings in our economy. Sure, he may point the finger at Bush, which is an easy target, but never do you hear anyone from his administration discuss the failures of the Federal Reserve's egregious financial dick-fingering and the Keynesian model altogether.

Somebody's been reading wikipedia

Here's their Top 10 Things You May Not Know About the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

BTW, the campaign e-mail I got related to this was addressed as being from Joe Biden, and had the subject line "Another Big Deal".

Nice touch, that.

>> ^blankfist:

By the way, Democrats are making a huge mistake by constantly grouping Libertarians in with Republicans and labeling them nutjobs or fringe. They supported you guys when Bush was in office.
I think the Democrats burned a bridge with a strong ally. Purely speculation, but I think future elections will see another shift in power from Dem to Repub.


Really? Right back at ya, pal. Democrats could be a strong ally for libertarians on a wide swath of issues, but instead you're constantly calling us Nazis. It's idiotic.

I'm happy if you guys can take over the Republican party, because there's more of a consensus between Libertarians and progressives on social issues than there are between Republicans and progressives, but there's not really been much evidence that you are out there helping pull the Democratic party or public opinion left on issues like the war on terror, the war on drugs, Patriot, DADT, ENDA, gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc.

Mostly your "outreach" on those topics is to say to Democrats "hey, you should vote Libertarian, because unlike those fascist Democrats, we really care about those issues!"

Oh wait, I forgot, ENDA is Employee Non-Discrimination Act which tells private companies how they should run their businesses, so you aren't with us on that one. Or health care. Or Wall Street Reform. Or Cap & Trade. Or Net Neutrality. Or the Free Choice Act.

Relax, everything will be fine. Do you have your towel?

That Wall Street Reform bill was a ringer eh?

What can Obama do about those by himself? He could go after the Democratic caucus a little more than he has been. I don't think I'm the only one who noticed that Obama's rhetorical prowess (or his willingness to use it) has substantially diminished since the election.

Regarding the oil gusher - he could've NOT allowed for the expansion of offshore oil drilling in the first place (remember that?). I know it wouldn't have prevented the current fiasco, but it would have shown some backbone. He could have appointed someone competent (and not an oil industry stooge) to oversee the issuing of drilling and safety permits (I know you know about those).

Your are right - Congress is where most of the substantive issues of the day are dealt with. But Obama has such enormous political capital that he could use to sway them on many issues, but chooses to play it safe for fear of losing the 2012 election. That's no way to lead.

I like the guy too. But I like him alot less since hearing about many of the things he has done (and more importantly, hasn't done) since taking office.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Throbbin:
Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).
What can Obama do about any of those by himself, particularly the "ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER"?
Much as I like the guy, it's not as if he can just swim down there and pinch off the pipe, superman-style.
That's really a list of things you're mad at Congress for failing to act on.
Hopefully your list will get one item shorter tomorrow -- they're holding a cloture vote on the Wall Street Reform package tomorrow (and all signs point to it passing with ease).

>> ^Throbbin:

Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).

What can Obama do about any of those by himself, particularly the "ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER"?

Much as I like the guy, it's not as if he can just swim down there and pinch off the pipe, superman-style.

That's really a list of things you're mad at Congress for failing to act on.

Hopefully your list will get one item shorter tomorrow -- they're holding a cloture vote on the Wall Street Reform package tomorrow (and all signs point to it passing with ease).