quote:

Originally posted by darcnight The new deal is what created the American middle class. And a strong and healthy middle class is the backbone of a strong and stable economy.

Remember the phrase "10% of the population own 90% of the money? (paraphrased)" How is it that a healthy middle class can drive the economy.

quote:

Originally posted by darcnight simply put: Canada's system > US system...one only needs to look at the fact that leading cause for personal bankruptcy in the US...ARE HEALTH CARE COSTS.

You clearly havent ever been in an emergency room in Canada, or had a relative who's needed surgery, or a friend needing cancer treatment. Three things of which i have experienced first hand, and can firmly say that our health care system is trash. Why does Jack Layton go to a private hospital in the states if our medicare is so good?

At least in the states, if i want health care i can get it right now if i pay for it.


Anyways.. we'll discuss healthcare someother time.

___________________
fb.
soundcloud.
residentadvisor.
release.

quote:

Originally posted by SniFFleS Yes regulation could have stopped the credit crisis, but there would have been no sub prime mortgage problem in the first place if it wasn't for Greenspan having the rates low for so long and then raising them.

Low interest rates didn't cause the subprime mess. It was the lenders, who have total control over the terms of the agreement and the rates they charge.

quote:

Originally posted by darcnight quite the opposite. the depression lasted long because the government did NOTHING. stopped spending when it should have,etc,etc... where do you guys come up with this stuff? the REASON the credit crisis and everything else is happening is because of a LACK OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION. That's exactly why the Canadian banks and housing arent imploding the way the US is. because we stayed regulated...even when our banks were whining about how over regulated we are...its what saved us. Regulation controls greed. One of the proposed fixes for all that's going wrong stateside is MORE REGULATION.

wow, Your version of the history is even more biased than the myth. The Myth says the government did little or not enough. The person who told you the government did nothing didn't have a slightest clue. In fact hoover tried many things which all failed, and when Roosevelt came he did a lot more under the new deal and spent a lot of money compare to the size of the economy at the time, those were all big failures too. But you think the depression would have been much longer if the government didn't do anything? Maybe 20 years? Nobody likes to answer this question because the recession that was due in the 1929 was much smaller than what we are going through now and yet with all the government spending it lasted 10 years. So by that standards the current recession should really take over 20 or most likely 30 years if the government were to do nothing!?

As for the regulation, the world isn't black & white, let me explain why you are so misinformed. You simply think all the regulations are "GOOD" so more regulation is better. But unfortunately things don't work like that in the real world. There are good regulations and bad regulations, so arguing we need more regulation is premature and it's a thing of media to exaggerate. If you had a friend in the wallstreet he would tell you that there are tons of regulations or some say they are even over regulated. It's not the regulation that solves our problems, the free market will regulate itself when needed, the bad regulation is what got us into this mess NOT the LACK of REGULATION. You cannot regulate greed. Greed is part of the free market which exists and it always will. You cannot regulate greed unless you go fully after it which in that case you will only do more harm than good. Wallstreet is not to be blamed for the current financial crisis. I know average person like myself doesn't like bankers and wallstreet in general but they really aren't to be blamed, I'll explain why. Think about everybody who bought an overpriced house in the past years speculating that the prices will always go up. Think about people who bought houses which they knew they couldn't afford but they thought the house will appreciate so much that at the end it would still be worth it. The prices of houses cannot possibly go up at that rate forever, so when you pay for an overpriced house you are speculating just like when a stock market investor buys a stock %20 up of its recent lows speculating it will go up another %20 in the coming months or years. We are all responsible for our own financial actions, so yes we are held responsible when we ignore the risks we take. The risk home buyers took by buying overpriced houses thinking the prices will always go up is no different than the bad loans wallstreet made, but these are the consequences of the problem not the the problem itself, lets play a little analogy game.

Imagine there is a birthday party of a teen boy and all his friends from his school and an adult relative bring a bottle of Absolute Vodka for the boys and leaves. Although one of the mothers is present at the party to have an oversight she spends most of her time reading books and doesn't pay much attention to the kids thinking the boys are just having normal fun. At some point during the party the kids will drink the alcohol knowing what it is and the day after all the parents are extremely angry at what happened so who do you blame? The kids who knew it was alcohol but drank it anyway? The mother who was supposed to look after the kids but spent most of her time reading? or the idiot who brought the Vodka to the party in the first place?

It was the government of the united states that kept the interest rates so low for so long to fight the dot com and 9/11 recessions. It was the government who created Fanny and Freddi and promoted their business model and sent the wrong signal to the market. It was the government distorting the market all along and caused this giant mess not the free market, so government cannot possibly solve our problem by doing more of the same. I know some people think of bankers running wild when they hear the term free market, but that's wrong. Free market is me you and everybody else including the bankers which can regulate itself when needed. You cannot control greed for the same reason as why Santa Clause doesn't exist.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Low interest rates didn't cause the subprime mess. It was the lenders, who have total control over the terms of the agreement and the rates they charge.

NO, most mortgages are variable which will fluctuate with Fed's lending rate.

The lenders would have never came up with those obscene lending practices if the rates were not low for so long.

The lenders are stupid too yes, but they obviously couldn't predict the Feds retarded monetary policy.

The point being, there would have been no bubble if the government and fed did not interfere in the 2002 recession. There should have been a more natural, longer recession in 2002 after the tech bubble.

quote:

Originally posted by SniFFleS NO, most mortgages are variable which will fluctuate with Fed's lending rate. The lenders would have never came up with those obscene lending practices if the rates were not low for so long. The lenders are stupid too yes, but they obviously couldn't predict the Feds retarded monetary policy. The point being, there would have been no bubble if the government and fed did not interfere in the 2002 recession. There should have been a more natural, longer recession in 2002 after the tech bubble.

You CANNOT blame the government interest rate for bank lending policies. That is ridiculous. Lenders have absolute free will when deciding whether to offer fixed or variable. Low interest rates are nothing new.

When it comes down to giving a loan or not, that is not done by the US government. The buck stops with the lenders.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper You CANNOT blame the government interest rate for bank lending policies. That is ridiculous. Lenders have absolute free will when deciding whether to offer fixed or variable. Low interest rates are nothing new.

Well, that's not quite true. I blame about 80% of it on the lenders, but certain "anti-discrimination" policies at the fed level made it very difficult for them to turn down credit risks. As interest rates continued to fall, this would have become a more and more significant problem.

Don't start with how I always defend corporate America and all that - like I said, I blame almost all of it on the financials, but certain aspects of the lending policies were a factor. People are just reluctant to mention them for fear of being labeled, shall we say, prejudiced.

Eventually the bubble would have burst anyway, but without that factor it could have taken another 3-5 years for it to happen, maybe more.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by SniFFleS The new deal came out in 1932 , the great depression lasted until 1939 and ended because of Hitler. The new deal pretty much just got the government involved in everything. Roosevelt also increased tariffs, which is a horrible move. He pretty much tried to keep prices high when the depression was trying to bring prices back down to reasonable levels, he kept interfering and invoked price controls. That's why it lasted so long, the recession was the cure for the overinflated market/economy of before the crash. It's actually similar to what we see now, if Obama wants to keep prices high and stop home prices from falling then this recession is going to last a long time.

Um, Hoover the republican raised tariffs, not roosevelt.

as for your guv example above, it's greatly accurate...if the guv did regulate more, there would be less drugs, if the gov did regulate more, there would be less crooked banks and financial institutions that rip ppl off of their life savings and ultimately harm the larger economy.
Hell, even the subprime mortgage crisis was a result of poor legislation, it only makes sense that you dont sell ppl stuff they cant afford...but thats what happened...and that practice is called: predatory lending.
No matter how you cut it, as long as there are ppl who want to make a buck, you will never have a truly "free market"...because there will always be people willing to skirt / break rules, collude,etc...to make more than the next guy.
The problem is human greed, the solution...laws and regulations to level the playing field.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Well, that's not quite true. I blame about 80% of it on the lenders, but certain "anti-discrimination" policies at the fed level made it very difficult for them to turn down credit risks. As interest rates continued to fall, this would have become a more and more significant problem. Don't start with how I always defend corporate America and all that - like I said, I blame almost all of it on the financials, but certain aspects of the lending policies were a factor. People are just reluctant to mention them for fear of being labeled, shall we say, prejudiced. Eventually the bubble would have burst anyway, but without that factor it could have taken another 3-5 years for it to happen, maybe more.

oh please. "anti discriminatory" practices were just a guise for predatory lending.
true, america has a vast web of systemic racism and unfair lending practices...but you dont solve it by saying "lend them all money"...you solve it by making sure that whoever is applying has the means to pay it, regardless of the colour of their skin...or their zip code.

quote:

Originally posted by spolitta wow, Your version of the history is even more biased than the myth. The Myth says the government did little or not enough. The person who told you the government did nothing didn't have a slightest clue. In fact hoover tried many things which all failed, and when Roosevelt came he did a lot more under the new deal and spent a lot of money compare to the size of the economy at the time, those were all big failures too. But you think the depression would have been much longer if the government didn't do anything? Maybe 20 years? Nobody likes to answer this question because the recession that was due in the 1929 was much smaller than what we are going through now and yet with all the government spending it lasted 10 years. So by that standards the current recession should really take over 20 or most likely 30 years if the government were to do nothing!? As for the regulation, the world isn't black & white, let me explain why you are so misinformed. You simply think all the regulations are "GOOD" so more regulation is better. But unfortunately things don't work like that in the real world. There are good regulations and bad regulations, so arguing we need more regulation is premature and it's a thing of media to exaggerate. If you had a friend in the wallstreet he would tell you that there are tons of regulations or some say they are even over regulated. It's not the regulation that solves our problems, the free market will regulate itself when needed, the bad regulation is what got us into this mess NOT the LACK of REGULATION. You cannot regulate greed. Greed is part of the free market which exists and it always will. You cannot regulate greed unless you go fully after it which in that case you will only do more harm than good. Wallstreet is not to be blamed for the current financial crisis. I know average person like myself doesn't like bankers and wallstreet in general but they really aren't to be blamed, I'll explain why. Think about everybody who bought an overpriced house in the past years speculating that the prices will always go up. Think about people who bought houses which they knew they couldn't afford but they thought the house will appreciate so much that at the end it would still be worth it. The prices of houses cannot possibly go up at that rate forever, so when you pay for an overpriced house you are speculating just like when a stock market investor buys a stock %20 up of its recent lows speculating it will go up another %20 in the coming months or years. We are all responsible for our own financial actions, so yes we are held responsible when we ignore the risks we take. The risk home buyers took by buying overpriced houses thinking the prices will always go up is no different than the bad loans wallstreet made, but these are the consequences of the problem not the the problem itself, lets play a little analogy game. Imagine there is a birthday party of a teen boy and all his friends from his school and an adult relative bring a bottle of Absolute Vodka for the boys and leaves. Although one of the mothers is present at the party to have an oversight she spends most of her time reading books and doesn't pay much attention to the kids thinking the boys are just having normal fun. At some point during the party the kids will drink the alcohol knowing what it is and the day after all the parents are extremely angry at what happened so who do you blame? The kids who knew it was alcohol but drank it anyway? The mother who was supposed to look after the kids but spent most of her time reading? or the idiot who brought the Vodka to the party in the first place? It was the government of the united states that kept the interest rates so low for so long to fight the dot com and 9/11 recessions. It was the government who created Fanny and Freddi and promoted their business model and sent the wrong signal to the market. It was the government distorting the market all along and caused this giant mess not the free market, so government cannot possibly solve our problem by doing more of the same. I know some people think of bankers running wild when they hear the term free market, but that's wrong. Free market is me you and everybody else including the bankers which can regulate itself when needed. You cannot control greed for the same reason as why Santa Clause doesn't exist.

Uh...you took the arguement from NO regulation...which is what REAGAN did in the 80's...to good versus bad regulation.

I'm all for good regulation. the current crisis is a result of next to NO REGULATION on the misguided belief that the "market" will correct itself...well, we're in the middle of one hell of a "correction" that could have been avoided had they stuck with GOOD REGULATION.

And yes...you CAN control greed, by having laws...sort of like in everyday society...ppl dont run around robbing banks everyday because they know they'll go to jail for it...your arguement makes no sense.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I like how you've already set it up in your mind such that he can't possibly fail of his own volition. If he doesn't live up to the hype, it'll be the fault of the corporations and power brokers, and would obviously have nothing to do with him making promises he can't possibly keep, for example, or having near-zero experience with economic and social policy, or just making poor choices in office.

Way to make shit up.

I never said he'll fail; just that he'll be more of the same. People have such high expectations of him to make the world better that it's ridiculous. There won't be any drastic changes (which are sometimes required to move forward) because drastic changes mean that certain people will have to give something up. That won't happen. And him living up to the hype has nothing to do with corporations but with the people creating the hype. The bar is set so high for him that it's damn near impossible for him meet it.

As for those last 3 points: every President in every country does that and so will Barack. I don't recall saying anywhere in my post that he wouldn't.

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood Remember the phrase "10% of the population own 90% of the money? (paraphrased)" How is it that a healthy middle class can drive the economy. You clearly havent ever been in an emergency room in Canada, or had a relative who's needed surgery, or a friend needing cancer treatment. Three things of which i have experienced first hand, and can firmly say that our health care system is trash. Why does Jack Layton go to a private hospital in the states if our medicare is so good? At least in the states, if i want health care i can get it right now if i pay for it. Anyways.. we'll discuss healthcare someother time.

That's pretty funny.

I actually spent most of december in the hospital...2 weeks in Cardiac ICU, with 24/7 monitoring because of my risk of sudden cardiac death.

I recieved amazing care, prompt treatment, because my condition is / was fatal...and am still receiving care and probably will be for a long, long, time...

I can say without a doubt, if I was in the states, I'd be dead...or up to my eyeballs in debt.

Is our healthcare system perfect? no. but the alternative is worse. much worse.

I'm all for private treatments if it takes less burden off the system and you can afford it...

but health care should never be beholden to profits of shareholders, like it is in the US, where you get things like HMO's refusing to pay for treatments and visitations, much like insurance companies, who make it harder for you to receive the care you need...because IT HURTS THEIR BOTTOM LINE.

No system is perfect, but ours is so much better if you're not made of money.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper You CANNOT blame the government interest rate for bank lending policies. That is ridiculous. Lenders have absolute free will when deciding whether to offer fixed or variable. Low interest rates are nothing new. When it comes down to giving a loan or not, that is not done by the US government. The buck stops with the lenders.

So your saying that lenders created this bubble and that if rates were at normal levels the same thing would have happen?

Rates were low, people took mortgages, rates went up people could not afford them anymore. Its really that simple! Why were rates low? Bush wanted to get re-elected and avoid a major recession in 02.