Jump to content

Starkiller

Members
  • Content Count

    23,432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    58

Everything posted by Starkiller

  1. Bullshit. The same people who “don’t give a shit about Russia” spent 8 years claiming Obama was born in Kenya and shouldn’t be allowed to be president. Now they don’t care about a president possibly in cahoots with an unfriendly foreign government?
  2. Pretty much. The fact that Tux is declaring victory despite the fact that no one has even read the report yet is a sure sign of that.
  3. Yes, the conservative fiscal ideology changed Fannie and Freddie and turned them into part of the problem.
  4. Hell, Fannie Mae had been around since the New Deal. And their goal, which they managed successfully for decades, was to make mortgages easier. They weren’t profit driven up until the era of the housing bubble. It was corporate greed that ruined them. The Fed generally has done the right thing when it comes to setting rates based on economic conditions and predictions. Their biggest failure since Nixon's political manipulation has been Greenspan’s libertarian philosophy driving them.
  5. I don’t think Reagan blowing up the budget was connected to the Fed having to account for unemployment. Nor did it lead to the repeal of Glass Steagal, IMO. These were all just part of the modern bullshit Reaganomics conservative ideology.
  6. The main problem was that “bank A” wasn’t even usually a bank, nor was “bank B”. The market was being driven by small mortgage companies. They made loans left and right knowing they were going to get paid for them and not have to worry about the long term implications. Then those loans were sold off to a bank who turned around and packed those loans (like a sausage factory) and sold them off as public investments, again with the banks carting no inherent risk. The real problem, in the end, was the massive demand to buy these mortgage-based investment vehicles. Buying them inflated the bubble. Banks and other financial institutions saw huge profits, so they wanted it to continue, so they kept buying more and more even though they should have known they were structurally unsafe. Then, when the bubble burst, they became toxic assets that destroyed the capital of any financial institution that had them on the books. That led to the banks not having capital to lend anymore and the economy staggering to a halt when credit markets dried up. And without a government bailout, banks would have failed left and right like they did during the Depression.
  7. Obama spent 8 years in office avoiding publicly blaming Bush for anything...
  8. Under Carter it was a combination stagflation, driven largely by Nixon’s economic mismanagement, the painful (and successful) attempt to fix stagflation with high interest rates, and an OPEC oil embargo.
  9. No it wasn't. It was about the banks having a shitload of “toxic assets” on their books because they heavily invested into a financial bubble and then the bubble burst.
  10. Yeah, Trump did nothing significantly different from Obama and the territorial ISIS was already shrinking significantly before Trump even got into office. Anyway, the real problem (for us here) isn’t the part of ISIS that held territory. The real problem is the ISIS that promotes terrorism online. I feel like they are only loosely related to the caliphate and there are basically 2 entirely different ISISes. Even after the last of ISIS has been rounded up in Syria, their online wing (perhaps under a different name?) will continue to be a problem.
  11. The debt level wasn’t the driver of the Great Recession. In 2008 it was the housing bubble, combined with banks being unwilling to renegotiate mortgages, plus the insane impact of the derivatives market. All that caused a massive collapse in banking capital. The economy is overwhelmingly dependent on the ease of credit. When banks stop lending money or loans are exceedingly expensive, the economy struggles. Millions of people losing their most valuable possession and jobs, the collapse of the home building/sales industry, people spending less money, etc created a vicious cycle with all that. But all of this was largely a product of the banks collapsing. Another banking collapse is not a serious risk at this point. The next recession is likely a fairly shallow one based on current conditions. But one is coming.
  12. The next recession won’t be nearly as bad as the Great Recession. There’s no reason to freak out about the next recession. There is no reason to root for a recession, either. There is always another one coming. There’s a good chance one will happen in the next handful of years because we have had such a long period of growth since Obama first took office but recently it was uniquely inflated by the short term influx of corporate capital from overseas due to Trump's corporate tax cut. Probably, IMO, it will be before the next election.
  13. Hott, I corrected your typo for you...
  14. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/22/trump-north-korea-sanctions-remove-1232586 President Donald Trump on Friday declared he would unwind new sanctions on North Korea that his administration rolled out just a day before, announcing the remarkable reversal in a tweet. “It was announced today by the U.S. Treasury that additional large scale Sanctions would be added to those already existing Sanctions on North Korea,” he wrote. “I have today ordered the withdrawal of those additional Sanctions!” In a follow-up statement explaining the reversal, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, "President Trump likes Chairman Kim and he doesn’t think these sanctions will be necessary." Trump appeared to be referring to an announcement on Thursday in which Treasury said it was sanctioning two China-based shipping companies accused of helping North Korea evade existing economic sanctions. The president on Friday did not explain the reason for reversing his administration’s policy, which Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement Thursday were aimed at “making it explicitly clear that shipping companies employing deceptive tactics to mask illicit trade with North Korea expose themselves to great risk.”
  15. The Marine Corps is a well known part of the Deep State... /Q
  16. Maybe we'd just like our vote to count for something without having to move to Florida or Ohio...
  17. And unlike A Song of Ice and Fire, there is a new Expanse novel being released next week...
  18. This from the guy who can’t even begin to explain how the DNC stole a democratic election from Bernie yet keeps claiming it as a fact...
  19. Of course the DNC decided Clinton was going to be the nominee. It was a pretty easy prediction to make. And they were right, not because they made her the nominee but because they accurately predicted that the voters were going to choose her... which they inevitably did. It was closer than expected, but it was not close. And if you want to blame the voters for picking Hillary, go right ahead. But it was the Democratic voters who picked her, not the DNC. They didn’t try to convince anyone to vote for her badmouth Bernie during the primary. And if Bernie had somehow won, the DNC would have supported Bernie. And Hillary's people inside the DNC would have been Bernie's people instead. There’s no grand conspiracy. Bernie just lost. And his most extreme fans were sore losers about it.
  20. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/trump-free-speech-college-1286517 The order, however, essentially reinforces what schools are already supposed to be doing by formally requiring colleges to agree to promote free inquiry in order to get billions of dollars in federal research funding. The order directs 12 federal agencies that fund university research to add language to existing agreements that colleges have to sign to get the money. Public universities will have to vow to uphold the First Amendment — something they already must do — and private universities will have to promise to uphold their own "stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech," essentially setting their own rules. It will be up to the agencies to enforce the agreements, as they already do. Still the move, and the president's rhetoric surrounding it, raised alarms for some civil liberties groups and conservatives — including at least one Republican lawmaker — who expressed concerns about federal overreach. "I don’t want to see Congress or the president or the department of anything creating speech codes to define what you can say on campus," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who chairs the Senate HELP Committee, said in a statement. "The U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech. Federal courts define and enforce it. The Department of Justice can weigh in. Conservatives don’t like it when judges try to write laws, and conservatives should not like it when legislators and agencies try to rewrite the Constitution.”
×
×
  • Create New...