Ewection 2012

[Ham701]

Basically.

[Zupponn]

Economic trends have little to do with the government.

I think you are absolutely wrong and especially and very specifically in this case. The housing bubble and derivatives crash are both the direct result of deregulation of the financial markets spearheaded by the politician-Revolution congress. Clinton signed it into law, so we can't really blame it on one party as much as I'd prefer to, but Bush and Greenspan really put the pedal to the floor on the deregulation process once they got behind the wheel.

The fact is, those regulations were put in place because of exactly this type of finance-system meltdown. Once they were removed, everyone knew this would be the result eventually (Moody's Analytics in particular was never quiet about this fact), but that they'd be able to make huge paper gains in the meantime before the bubble burst. This particular economic trend and its results were quite consciously chosen by the government.

Maybe the regulations might have been able to prevent the crash, we will never know. I personally feel that a recession was going to happen anyway because there were too many people spending and not enough saving. It just so happened that the housing market was the perfect place for it. Just as back during the Great Depression, the balance of spenders to savers was too lopsided, so the economy tanked. This time there were too many spenders and that time there were too many savers. The random whims of people are unknown even to the best and brightest economists, therefore rendering the economy an unpredictable place that sometimes just says "Fuck you" to everyone who thought that they figured it out. Because of this unpredictability, I feel that the government really has little say in how the economy works.

[Silverdream]

Economic trends have little to do with the government.

I think you are absolutely wrong and especially and very specifically in this case. The housing bubble and derivatives crash are both the direct result of deregulation of the financial markets spearheaded by the politician-Revolution congress. Clinton signed it into law, so we can't really blame it on one party as much as I'd prefer to, but Bush and Greenspan really put the pedal to the floor on the deregulation process once they got behind the wheel.

The fact is, those regulations were put in place because of exactly this type of finance-system meltdown. Once they were removed, everyone knew this would be the result eventually (Moody's Analytics in particular was never quiet about this fact), but that they'd be able to make huge paper gains in the meantime before the bubble burst. This particular economic trend and its results were quite consciously chosen by the government.

Maybe the regulations might have been able to prevent the crash, we will never know. I personally feel that a recession was going to happen anyway because there were too many people spending and not enough saving. It just so happened that the housing market was the perfect place for it. Just as back during the Great Depression, the balance of spenders to savers was too lopsided, so the economy tanked. This time there were too many spenders and that time there were too many savers. The random whims of people are unknown even to the best and brightest economists, therefore rendering the economy an unpredictable place that sometimes just says "Fuck you" to everyone who thought that they figured it out. Because of this unpredictability, I feel that the government really has little say in how the economy works.

But the thing is, if the economy is in a recession, it's the government's right to help turn it around. The great depression was so bad because there were no social programs for the jobless and homeless and no one with a right mind wanted to listen to John Maynard Keynes.

[Zupponn]

But the thing is, if the economy is in a recession, it's the government's right to help turn it around. The great depression was so bad because there were no social programs for the jobless and homeless and no one with a right mind wanted to listen to John Maynard Keynes.

The Great Depression wasn't solved by government programs, it was solved by World War II.

[stubby]

Maybe the regulations might have been able to prevent the crash, we will never know. I personally feel that a recession was going to happen anyway because there were too many people spending and not enough saving.

People can over- or under-spend as much as they want, but that just affects the consumer economy. This was a crash of the global financial system, the recession is just a tiny side effect. It's like meteors are destroying the northern hemisphere and you're complaining because your house is on fire. There's a bigger picture here.

[Hoboman]

The Great Depression wasn't solved by government programs, it was solved by World War II.

[501stCadians]

I have a question: Why do Stupid Americans think they can lower the deficit, fund a war, fund social programs, and have their taxes lowered at the same time?

Fix'd
See, you answered your own question

Haha. A similar thing happened in Canada, when Harper came into power we had a surplus, now we have a defect, and he's slashing alot of jobs for no reason.

[Silverdream]

But the thing is, if the economy is in a recession, it's the government's right to help turn it around. The great depression was so bad because there were no social programs for the jobless and homeless and no one with a right mind wanted to listen to John Maynard Keynes.

The Great Depression wasn't solved by government programs, it was solved by World War II.

Not in Japan and Germany.

[Zupponn]

Maybe the regulations might have been able to prevent the crash, we will never know. I personally feel that a recession was going to happen anyway because there were too many people spending and not enough saving.

People can over- or under-spend as much as they want, but that just affects the consumer economy. This was a crash of the global financial system, the recession is just a tiny side effect. It's like meteors are destroying the northern hemisphere and you're complaining because your house is on fire. There's a bigger picture here.

OK. I guess you're right.

So would a repealing of the Bush tax cuts help or hurt our current situation economically?

[*CRAZYHORSE*]

This was a crash of the global financial system, the recession is just a tiny side effect.

But doesn't this happen like every 15 years or so.

[OneEye589]

So would a repealing of the Bush tax cuts help or hurt our current situation economically?

Well, any amount will help, but those large tax cuts specifically are money being taken out of the government's pocket. Being able to get money off on your taxes and basically having the government give you money because you own your own jet (Obama's favorite) is kind of ridiculous. It's more ridiculous to complain about actually having to pay the money you should have been paying in the first place.

[stubby]

This was a crash of the global financial system, the recession is just a tiny side effect.

But doesn't this happen like every 15 years or so.

Right, which means this is a different kind of recession than the kind that go with the ebb and flow of the consumer economy. Financial crashes happen every couple centuries rather than every couple decades; normally it's 10-20 years before the financial system can repair itself enough to support the economy again. History is against Obama or any other president having much luck against it once the system has already broken down. And we still haven't seen whether the derivatives market is going to crash on top of that.

So would a repealing of the Bush tax cuts help or hurt our current situation economically?

The idea behind the Bush tax cuts was to put more money into the hands of "job creators," which means corporations and the people who own them, so that they'd have the money to hire people. But, partly as a consequence of financial system instability, companies right now are sitting on larger cash reserves than at almost any point in history. Their problem isn't that they don't have enough money, it's that there's not enough consumer demand to support the creation of new business. For the way the American economy is set up (and I'm not real happy about this either), consumer appetite is the only real "job creator," and the consumer class doesn't have any money to consume with right now.

Even in the best of times, the CBO calculates that each extra dollar put into the pockets of the beneficiaries of the Bush cuts add about seventeen cents to the economy, because mostly they just sit on them. Each dollar sent out to the poor and middle classes (in the forms of that $600 check Bush sent each of us a couple years ago, for instance) adds from $1.20-$1.80, because people behind on their bills will immediately spend that money, and the person they give it to will probably also immediately spend that money.

[Nitewatchman]

What happened to the rule that the Brikwars forum was not for anything serious ever?

[501stCadians]

What happened to the rule that the Brikwars forum was not for anything serious ever?

We had to cut it to afford the Bush tax cuts.

[Zupponn]

consumer appetite is the only real "job creator,"

I think this is what I was trying to say earlier, but failed at it.