Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

The Era of Deregulation

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 3:19:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
How can anybody seriously consider the period from Reagan to the present the "Era of Deregulation". Like, seriously, what empirical data are they basing it on? The number of pages of regulations has over doubled since Reagan was in office. Is there some sort of misinformation that's been going on? When is over 70,000 pages of regulations considered 'not enough' regulations?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 6:41:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 3:19:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
How can anybody seriously consider the period from Reagan to the present the "Era of Deregulation". Like, seriously, what empirical data are they basing it on? The number of pages of regulations has over doubled since Reagan was in office. Is there some sort of misinformation that's been going on? When is over 70,000 pages of regulations considered 'not enough' regulations?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

Because the hard cold slap in the face to America is that regulations were always the brainchild of the elite puppetmasters of the Congress to quash competition in a way that would make Rockefeller shudder. Do you really think the controlled media would do anything other than hide this from the public?
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 7:42:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 3:19:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
How can anybody seriously consider the period from Reagan to the present the "Era of Deregulation". Like, seriously, what empirical data are they basing it on? The number of pages of regulations has over doubled since Reagan was in office. Is there some sort of misinformation that's been going on? When is over 70,000 pages of regulations considered 'not enough' regulations?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
Because since the 1980's several sectors have been deregulated, in fact a lot of sectors have been deregulated.
1)Airlines/trucking were deregulated. From available data I believe deregulations on these sectors were successful.
2)Savings-and-loans and thrifts were deregulated in the early 1980's. This is partly responsible for the Saving and loan crisis of the early 90's which cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
3)Utilities such as water and energy suppliers in some states and cities were deregulated; as a result areas that deregulated saw their costs increase to 30% more than regulated areas.
4)In the late 90's/early 00's we deregulated the financial sector and as a result we had the housing bubble and financial crisis.
5)In the 90's we deregulated and defunded food safety laws, as a result the number of people contaminated by food has increased by near 300%.
6)In the 90's/00's we deregulated commodity futures. And as a result speculation has caused commodity bubbles and has increased commodity prices.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:40:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 7:42:02 AM, Willoweed wrote:
At 10/26/2011 3:19:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
How can anybody seriously consider the period from Reagan to the present the "Era of Deregulation". Like, seriously, what empirical data are they basing it on? The number of pages of regulations has over doubled since Reagan was in office. Is there some sort of misinformation that's been going on? When is over 70,000 pages of regulations considered 'not enough' regulations?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
Because since the 1980's several sectors have been deregulated, in fact a lot of sectors have been deregulated.
1)Airlines/trucking were deregulated. From available data I believe deregulations on these sectors were successful.
Go to an airport and talk with the government officials you'll find there about how deregulated it is.

2)Savings-and-loans and thrifts were deregulated in the early 1980's. This is partly responsible for the Saving and loan crisis of the early 90's which cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Do you have any evidence of causation, or deregulation?

3)Utilities such as water and energy suppliers in some states and cities were deregulated; as a result areas that deregulated saw their costs increase to 30% more than regulated areas.
See 2.

4)In the late 90's/early 00's we deregulated the financial sector and as a result we had the housing bubble and financial crisis.
See 2. Go talk with the federal reserve or the crafters of the CRA about how deregulated finance is.

5)In the 90's we deregulated and defunded food safety laws, as a result the number of people contaminated by food has increased by near 300%.
See 2.

6)In the 90's/00's we deregulated commodity futures. And as a result speculation has caused commodity bubbles and has increased commodity prices.
See 2.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:45:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is just Republican Propaganda.

What most people ignorant of American politics think when it comes to the two parties is that one party is for freedom, while the other is for taking away freedom.

No, it is very obvious by looking at their policies that one party is for taking away one set of freedoms, and the other is for taking away another set.

Both parties would ultimately lead to a specific type of undesirable regime if everything was done their way.

You can call what I'm saying a baseless assertion, but if you can't look at the policies of both parties and see how I'm coming to this conclusion, no amount of me explaining is going to get it through to you.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:41:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 12:40:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:42:02 AM, Willoweed wrote:
At 10/26/2011 3:19:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
How can anybody seriously consider the period from Reagan to the present the "Era of Deregulation". Like, seriously, what empirical data are they basing it on? The number of pages of regulations has over doubled since Reagan was in office. Is there some sort of misinformation that's been going on? When is over 70,000 pages of regulations considered 'not enough' regulations?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
Because since the 1980's several sectors have been deregulated, in fact a lot of sectors have been deregulated.
1)Airlines/trucking were deregulated. From available data I believe deregulation on these sectors were successful.
Go to an airport and talk with the government officials you'll find there about how deregulated it is.

The Airline deregulation act that made it so private airlines chose their own routes, and prices was in fact deregulation.
Also the government officials at the airports are not regulation of airlines its regulation of airport safety.

2)Savings-and-loans and thrifts were deregulated in the early 1980's. This is partly responsible for the Saving and loan crisis of the early 90's which cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Do you have any evidence of causation, or deregulation?
In 1982 they deregulated/removed reserve requirements, and interest rate ceilings, and allowed thrifts access to new investments. All leading to the eventual S&L crisis.
http://www.worldcat.org...

At 11/18/2011 12:40:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
3)Utilities such as water and energy suppliers in some states and cities were deregulated; as a result areas that deregulated saw their costs increase to 30% more than regulated areas.
See 2.
Places that deregulated/privatized water/energy utilities saw their costs increase up to 30% higher then those that did not deregulate
http://www.usatoday.com...
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org...
At 11/18/2011 12:40:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
4)In the late 90's/early 00's we deregulated the financial sector and as a result we had the housing bubble and financial crisis.
See 2. Go talk with the federal reserve or the crafters of the CRA about how deregulated finance is.
The packaging, pulling apart, selling off, and creating insurance for loans which caused the crisis was illegal for financial entities to do until deregulation. A perfect example is Canada who didn't suffer a crises because they left those regulations intact.
Have you ever read the CRA? If you did you would realize that all the act did was make it so bankers couldn't discriminate. Meaning if you blame the CRA for the crisis it means you think giving people bad loans because of the color of there skin was what caused the crisis.
On Another note the CRA didn't apply to the financial entities that participated in the things that caused the crises; in fact the reason the banks subjected to the CRA were not the major players in the crisis is because the CRA restricted the use of subprime loans and other instruments that caused the crisis.

At 11/18/2011 12:40:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
5)In the 90's we deregulated and defunded food safety laws, as a result the number of people contaminated by food has increased by near 300%.
See 2.
Deregulation/funding of food safety laws have caused contaminated food to increase by 300%
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
http://www.makeourfoodsafe.org...

At 11/18/2011 12:40:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
6)In the 90's/00's we deregulated commodity futures. And as a result speculation has caused commodity bubbles and has increased commodity prices.
See 2.
Deregulation of commodity futures resulted in commodity bubbles and higher prices
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 2:04:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Speaking of regulations

"Neil Gregory, who is a deputy director at the World Bank for indicators, and he said he too didn't see a direct, or indirect, correlation between regulations and jobs. He said some regulations do make it harder for companies to grow, but others like those that support small business lending are essential to creating jobs"

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 2:51:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 2:04:46 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Speaking of regulations

"Neil Gregory, who is a deputy director at the World Bank for indicators, and he said he too didn't see a direct, or indirect, correlation between regulations and jobs. He said some regulations do make it harder for companies to grow, but others like those that support small business lending are essential to creating jobs"

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com...

In republican/conservatives they want to eliminate all regulations even ones that save money lives, and improve the economy. Most the GOP 2012 candidates all have advocated eliminating all regulations, making them and their supports insanely stupid. They're to stupid to realize that some regulations are good
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 8:21:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 1:41:29 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 12:40:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:42:02 AM, Willoweed wrote:
At 10/26/2011 3:19:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
How can anybody seriously consider the period from Reagan to the present the "Era of Deregulation". Like, seriously, what empirical data are they basing it on? The number of pages of regulations has over doubled since Reagan was in office. Is there some sort of misinformation that's been going on? When is over 70,000 pages of regulations considered 'not enough' regulations?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
Because since the 1980's several sectors have been deregulated, in fact a lot of sectors have been deregulated.
1)Airlines/trucking were deregulated. From available data I believe deregulation on these sectors were successful.
Go to an airport and talk with the government officials you'll find there about how deregulated it is.

The Airline deregulation act that made it so private airlines chose their own routes, and prices was in fact deregulation.
Depends on the sense of the word.

Also the government officials at the airports are not regulation of airlines its regulation of airport safety.
Which businesses occupy airports again?


2)Savings-and-loans and thrifts were deregulated in the early 1980's. This is partly responsible for the Saving and loan crisis of the early 90's which cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Do you have any evidence of causation, or deregulation?
In 1982 they deregulated/removed reserve requirements, and interest rate ceilings, and allowed thrifts access to new investments. All leading to the eventual S&L crisis.
That's an assertion of causation, not an argument of causation, and insufficient to prove deregulation in the sense that advocates actually advocate it (getting rid of all regulation other than courts holding people liable for their actions).

Places that deregulated/privatized water/energy utilities saw their costs increase up to 30% higher then those that did not deregulate
Correlation does not equal causation, in case you didn't gather my point earlier, btw.

. A perfect example is Canada who didn't suffer a crises because they left those regulations intact.
Correlation does not equal causation.

Have you ever read the CRA? If you did you would realize that all the act did was make it so bankers couldn't discriminate
That's a regulation.
Meaning if you blame the CRA for the crisis it means you think giving people bad loans because of the color of there skin was what caused the crisis.
False, the CRA did not merely prohibit discrimination directly based skin color, it (partially) prohibited discriminations that had a disparate racial impact, totally different. Don't want to loan for a certain neighborhood because property values won't stay up there? Disparate impact. Don't want to loan to people with bad credit? Disparate impact.

On Another note the CRA didn't apply to the financial entities that participated in the things that caused the crises; in fact the reason the banks subjected to the CRA were not the major players in the crisis is because the CRA restricted the use of subprime loans and other instruments that caused the crisis.
The CRA effectively mandated subprime loans. The whole grievance leading to the CRA was an insufficient number of subprime loans.

I reiterate, correlation is not causation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 8:23:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Notably, by focusing on my criticism of the CRA to play the race card, you left out the more important problem, Federal Reserve policy being cocyclical. Expand credit that much beyond the market and it will contract when stuff goes bad.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 12:16:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 8:21:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2011 1:41:29 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 12:40:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:42:02 AM, Willoweed wrote:
At 10/26/2011 3:19:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
How can anybody seriously consider the period from Reagan to the present the "Era of Deregulation". Like, seriously, what empirical data are they basing it on? The number of pages of regulations has over doubled since Reagan was in office. Is there some sort of misinformation that's been going on? When is over 70,000 pages of regulations considered 'not enough' regulations?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
Because since the 1980's several sectors have been deregulated, in fact a lot of sectors have been deregulated.
1)Airlines/trucking were deregulated. From available data I believe deregulation on these sectors were successful.
Go to an airport and talk with the government officials you'll find there about how deregulated it is.

The Airline deregulation act that made it so private airlines chose their own routes, and prices was in fact deregulation.
Depends on the sense of the word.

Also the government officials at the airports are not regulation of airlines its regulation of airport safety.
Which businesses occupy airports again?
There is a difference between airports and airlines trying to claim they are the same is absurd.


2)Savings-and-loans and thrifts were deregulated in the early 1980's. This is partly responsible for the Saving and loan crisis of the early 90's which cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Do you have any evidence of causation, or deregulation?
In 1982 they deregulated/removed reserve requirements, and interest rate ceilings, and allowed thrifts access to new investments. All leading to the eventual S&L crisis.
That's an assertion of causation, not an argument of causation, and insufficient to prove deregulation in the sense that advocates actually advocate it (getting rid of all regulation other than courts holding people liable for their actions).
If those regulations had stayed in place the saving and loans crisis would of never happened. Do you not understand what the Saving and loans crisis was about, and the actions taking by thrifts that resulted in their failures? Those actions would of never happened if those regulations were kept intact.




Places that deregulated/privatized water/energy utilities saw their costs increase up to 30% higher then those that did not deregulate
Correlation does not equal causation, in case you didn't gather my point earlier, btw.
LOL. States and cities that deregulated their utilities saw higher cost increases then states and cities that didn't. The analysis takes into account different cost before those cities and states deregulated, and it also spans 20 years.
Just because the facts and evidence prove you wrong doesn't mean you're right.



. A perfect example is Canada who didn't suffer a crises because they left those regulations intact.
Correlation does not equal causation.

The only reason Canada didn't suffer a crisis is because they kept regulations that made it impossible for the types of loans that caused the crisis to be made. This isn't correlation it is a direct result of policies.
I see what the problem is; you don't know what correlation or causation mean.
correlation
1.
mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.: Studies find a positive correlation between severity of illness and nutritional status of the patients. Synonyms: similarity, correspondence, matching; parallelism, equivalence; interdependence, interrelationship, interconnection.
2.
Statistics . the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.
cau•sa•tion
1.
the action of causing or producing.
2.
the relation of cause to effect; causality.
3.
anything that produces an effect; cause.

Have you ever read the CRA? If you did you would realize that all the act did was make it so bankers couldn't discriminate
That's a regulation.
Yes a regulation that didn't do a single thing to cause the crisis. In fact the banks subject to the CRA regulation were less involved in the loans that caused the crisis because the types of loans that banks gave minorities just for being minorities were the exact type of loans that caused the crisis. If the CRA had regulated all banks then the crisis might of never happened, and would have been less severe.

Meaning if you blame the CRA for the crisis it means you think giving people bad loans because of the color of there skin was what caused the crisis.
False, the CRA did not merely prohibit discrimination directly based skin color, it (partially) prohibited discriminations that had a disparate racial impact, totally different. Don't want to loan for a certain neighborhood because property values won't stay up there? Disparate impact. Don't want to loan to people with bad credit? Disparate impact.
The CRA made it so you couldn't give blacks with similar economic status as a white person a different loan just because they were blacks.
How you can honesty sit there and tell me that allowing banks to be racists would of stopped the crisis is absurd.



On Another note the CRA didn't apply to the financial entities that participated in the things that caused the crises; in fact the reason the banks subjected to the CRA were not the major players in the crisis is because the CRA restricted the use of subprime loans and other instruments that caused the crisis.
The CRA effectively mandated subprime loans. The whole grievance leading to the CRA was an insufficient number of subprime loans.

I reiterate, correlation is not causation.
Asgain go read the definitions of correlation and causation because you do not understand what those words mean.

Resolved: The CRA didn't contribute in anyway whats o ever to the crisis and in fact helped lessen its severity. The cause of the crisis was deregulation.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 12:19:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 8:23:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Notably, by focusing on my criticism of the CRA to play the race card, you left out the more important problem, Federal Reserve policy being cocyclical. Expand credit that much beyond the market and it will contract when stuff goes bad.
Quoting you saying that the reason the crisis happen is because banks couldn't be racists isn't playing the race card its quoting you.
Quoting you saying that the reason the crisis happen is because banks couldn't be racists isn't playing the race card its quoting you.
The Federal Reserve had nothing to do with the crises, noted by the fact that all you can say is "the federal reserve cause the crises" and when asked to supply any evidence to it you simply respond with "they caused it"
Again there have been low interest rates for 60 years without crises. There were low rates in Canada and they didn't experience a crisis. These facts that you ignore make your statement a lie.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 12:41:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Canda went from a GDP of $45,000 per capita to $39,500 per capita. In fact, If you look at the data, Canada was impacted more by the financial crisis then the United States.

http://www.google.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 12:50:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Places that deregulated/privatized water/energy utilities saw their costs increase up to 30% higher then those that did not deregulate

Correlation does not equal causation, in case you didn't gather my point earlier, btw.

Good point Ragnar... places where the community DEMANDED deregualtion are places with shortages and brownouts, people were actaully happy to pay the 30% increase in de-regulated utilities, rather than go without.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 1:19:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.star-telegram.com...

http://www.mxenergy.com...

http://www.electricchoice.com...

http://deregulatedelectricitynow.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

Generally, deregulation didn't help at first, and may have hurt, but more recently it has been very good.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 1:25:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It should also be noted that Canada has more economic freedoms then the United States:

http://www.heritage.org...

So this could explain why Canada has lower unemployment then the US despite having suffered a bigger financial blow.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 1:37:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 12:19:53 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:23:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Notably, by focusing on my criticism of the CRA to play the race card, you left out the more important problem, Federal Reserve policy being cocyclical. Expand credit that much beyond the market and it will contract when stuff goes bad.
Quoting you saying that the reason the crisis happen is because banks couldn't be racists isn't playing the race card its quoting you.
Racism and disparate impact are different things.

The Federal Reserve had nothing to do with the crises, noted by the fact that all you can say is "the federal reserve cause the crises" and when asked to supply any evidence to it you simply respond with "they caused it"
They expanded credit, it had to contract, Mr. Straw man.

Again there have been low interest rates for 60 years without crises.
That's unsustainable.

There were low rates in Canada and they didn't experience a crisis.
If so, that's unsustainable.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 1:38:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And your bit about "me not understanding what correlation and causation are" is complete and utter bull. The only arguments you've had for any of your declared causal phenomena are correlational.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 5:40:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 12:41:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Canda went from a GDP of $45,000 per capita to $39,500 per capita. In fact, If you look at the data, Canada was impacted more by the financial crisis then the United States.


http://www.google.com...

ROTFL are you serious? You do realize that financial crisis and recession are two different things. Canada didn't have a financial crisis or bubble, but they still had a recession. LOL this site is comedic gold.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 6:01:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 1:25:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It should also be noted that Canada has more economic freedoms then the United States:

http://www.heritage.org...

So this could explain why Canada has lower unemployment then the US despite having suffered a bigger financial blow.

The heritage foundation. ROTFL
The heritage foundation isn't a reliable source. They are a pure propaganda network.
Some of their gold moments include
1)Saying teachers are overpaid because they make more than someone who works at Burger King.
2)Saying that ending Medicare would result in 2% unemployment.
3)Saying that small businesses are effected by the estate tax
4)Saying that trillions in tax cuts would increase revenue
5)Saying that Medicare as lower administrative costs than private insurance
6)Saying that abstinence sex education is better than actual sex education
7)Saying that the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1% are actually tax cuts for poor people.
8)Saying that reconciliation has never been used

If you want misinformation lies and garbage the first place to go is the heritage foundation.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 6:02:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 1:38:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And your bit about "me not understanding what correlation and causation are" is complete and utter bull. The only arguments you've had for any of your declared causal phenomena are correlational.

Don't be mad when its pointed out that you are using terms of which you don't know the definition of..
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 6:11:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 1:37:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/19/2011 12:19:53 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:23:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Notably, by focusing on my criticism of the CRA to play the race card, you left out the more important problem, Federal Reserve policy being cocyclical. Expand credit that much beyond the market and it will contract when stuff goes bad.
Quoting you saying that the reason the crisis happen is because banks couldn't be racists isn't playing the race card its quoting you.
Racism and disparate impact are different things.


The Federal Reserve had nothing to do with the crises, noted by the fact that all you can say is "the federal reserve cause the crises" and when asked to supply any evidence to it you simply respond with "they caused it"
They expanded credit, it had to contract, Mr. Straw man.
We're not talking about expanding credit were talking about the causes of the crises. Of which it is resolved that the FED didn't cause it and deregulation caused it

Again there have been low interest rates for 60 years without crises.
That's unsustainable.
ROTLF. If you have such a short attention span that you can't remember what the topic were talking about is then go back and read it; then you won't make ridiculous remarks like this
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 6:13:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 6:02:55 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/19/2011 1:38:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And your bit about "me not understanding what correlation and causation are" is complete and utter bull. The only arguments you've had for any of your declared causal phenomena are correlational.

Don't be mad when its pointed out that you are using terms of which you don't know the definition of..

The way you are presenting your arguments are along the lines of "A happened, then B happend. Therefore, A caused B." This is fallacious. You have to demonstrate why A caused B, otherwise you only show correlation and not causation.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 6:15:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 6:11:32 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/19/2011 1:37:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/19/2011 12:19:53 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:23:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Notably, by focusing on my criticism of the CRA to play the race card, you left out the more important problem, Federal Reserve policy being cocyclical. Expand credit that much beyond the market and it will contract when stuff goes bad.
Quoting you saying that the reason the crisis happen is because banks couldn't be racists isn't playing the race card its quoting you.
Racism and disparate impact are different things.


The Federal Reserve had nothing to do with the crises, noted by the fact that all you can say is "the federal reserve cause the crises" and when asked to supply any evidence to it you simply respond with "they caused it"
They expanded credit, it had to contract, Mr. Straw man.
We're not talking about expanding credit were talking about the causes of the crises. Of which it is resolved that the FED didn't cause it and deregulation caused it

What is your argument?
That the Federal Reserve did not expand credit?
That expanded credit does not require it to be later contracted?
That credit contraction does not lead to recession?

Choose one so we can more easily explain it to you.

Again there have been low interest rates for 60 years without crises.
That's unsustainable.
ROTLF. If you have such a short attention span that you can't remember what the topic were talking about is then go back and read it; then you won't make ridiculous remarks like this
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 7:47:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 6:15:32 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/19/2011 6:11:32 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/19/2011 1:37:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/19/2011 12:19:53 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:23:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Notably, by focusing on my criticism of the CRA to play the race card, you left out the more important problem, Federal Reserve policy being cocyclical. Expand credit that much beyond the market and it will contract when stuff goes bad.
Quoting you saying that the reason the crisis happen is because banks couldn't be racists isn't playing the race card its quoting you.
Racism and disparate impact are different things.


The Federal Reserve had nothing to do with the crises, noted by the fact that all you can say is "the federal reserve cause the crises" and when asked to supply any evidence to it you simply respond with "they caused it"
They expanded credit, it had to contract, Mr. Straw man.
We're not talking about expanding credit were talking about the causes of the crises. Of which it is resolved that the FED didn't cause it and deregulation caused it

What is your argument?
That the Federal Reserve did not expand credit?
That expanded credit does not require it to be later contracted?
That credit contraction does not lead to recession
I doesn't have an argument. The fact is that the FED did not cause the bubble or the crisis.