Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Austrian vs Keynesian Schools of Economics

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 7:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Mises and Hayek predicted the Great Crash of 1929, Keynes lost a ton of money.

Again, people who followed Austrian economics, like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff, predicted the crash in 2008.

Austrian economics is also the only logically consistent school.
President of DDO
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 7:45:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Comparing adherents of a particular school does not compare the schools in it of themselves.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 7:49:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/31/2011 7:45:06 PM, rarugged wrote:
Comparing adherents of a particular school does not compare the schools in it of themselves.

It kinda does
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 11:20:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wikipedia lists a few economists that predicted the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Michael Hudson -Post-Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Steve Keen - Post Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nouriel Roubini - New Keynesian economics

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Robert J. Shiller - New Keynesian economics

Also its noted that Paul Krugman, a Neo-Keynesian economist predicted the crash.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 3:14:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/31/2011 11:20:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Wikipedia lists a few economists that predicted the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Michael Hudson -Post-Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Steve Keen - Post Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nouriel Roubini - New Keynesian economics


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Robert J. Shiller - New Keynesian economics

Also its noted that Paul Krugman, a Neo-Keynesian economist predicted the crash.

Krugman didn't predict the crash... He actually called for the inflation of the housing market...

Krugman basically makes awful predictions, but then twists his own previous words to make himself seem right
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 4:22:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 3:14:29 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/31/2011 11:20:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Wikipedia lists a few economists that predicted the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Michael Hudson -Post-Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Steve Keen - Post Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nouriel Roubini - New Keynesian economics


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Robert J. Shiller - New Keynesian economics

Also its noted that Paul Krugman, a Neo-Keynesian economist predicted the crash.

Krugman didn't predict the crash... He actually called for the inflation of the housing market...


The two aren't mutually exclusive :p. I can murder someone and predict his/her death :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 7:15:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/1/2011 4:22:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/1/2011 3:14:29 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/31/2011 11:20:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Wikipedia lists a few economists that predicted the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Michael Hudson -Post-Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Steve Keen - Post Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nouriel Roubini - New Keynesian economics


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Robert J. Shiller - New Keynesian economics

Also its noted that Paul Krugman, a Neo-Keynesian economist predicted the crash.

Krugman didn't predict the crash... He actually called for the inflation of the housing market...


The two aren't mutually exclusive :p. I can murder someone and predict his/her death :p.

Ya, bu Krugmandidnt do that
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 9:48:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/2/2011 7:15:30 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/1/2011 4:22:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/1/2011 3:14:29 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/31/2011 11:20:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Wikipedia lists a few economists that predicted the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Michael Hudson -Post-Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Steve Keen - Post Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nouriel Roubini - New Keynesian economics


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Robert J. Shiller - New Keynesian economics

Also its noted that Paul Krugman, a Neo-Keynesian economist predicted the crash.

Krugman didn't predict the crash... He actually called for the inflation of the housing market...


The two aren't mutually exclusive :p. I can murder someone and predict his/her death :p.

Ya, bu Krugmandidnt do that

Look at upload date: Sept 10, 2006. NO WAY!
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2011 10:39:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/2/2011 9:48:14 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/2/2011 7:15:30 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/1/2011 4:22:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/1/2011 3:14:29 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/31/2011 11:20:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Wikipedia lists a few economists that predicted the crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Michael Hudson -Post-Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Steve Keen - Post Keynesian economist

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nouriel Roubini - New Keynesian economics


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Robert J. Shiller - New Keynesian economics

Also its noted that Paul Krugman, a Neo-Keynesian economist predicted the crash.

Krugman didn't predict the crash... He actually called for the inflation of the housing market...


The two aren't mutually exclusive :p. I can murder someone and predict his/her death :p.

Ya, bu Krugmandidnt do that



Look at upload date: Sept 10, 2006. NO WAY!

Here's Ron Paul in 2002, much more specific, accurate, and 4 years earlier than Krugman's more general prediction.

Another Austrian, Peter Schiff, actually made bets on it and was more specific than Krugman:

Now, once you look at Schiff and Paul, you can see that Krugman's predictions weren't that great... They were fairly general...

And, it is hard to believe that Krugman really understood what was going on as he actually advocated creating the bubble in 2002:

"And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

And, worst of all, Krugman does not at all understand the causes of the crash. In fact, he recently said:

"In the real world, recent events were a devastating refutation of the free-market orthodoxy that has ruled American politics these past three decades. Above all, the long crusade against financial regulation, the successful effort to unravel the prudential rules established after the Great Depression on the grounds that they were unnecessary, ended up demonstrating — at immense cost to the nation — that those rules were necessary, after all. "

To be clear, Krugman actually thinks that the "Free Market" and "Deregulation" are to blame for the 2008 crash. Yes, he is one of those retards...

It is obvious that he has no idea of the role that low interest rates had in the crash, as he advocated low interest rates for years:

http://blog.mises.org...

Or, that Government created Fannie and Freddie had in the mess... or the fact that the government forced banks to loan to high risk borrowers...

You really think he understood the crisis?
President of DDO
DoctorZhiva90
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 7:44:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm personally more aligned with the Austrian school on a lot of issues but it's definitely not perfect. This being said, I think we should look at the failed stimulus, bank bailouts, and Solyndra loan, and realize that Keynesian policies have miserably failed us in this current crisis. I don't know too much about the school as a whole, but from what I've observed it seems to be an ideology that won't help the United States towards recovery.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
1)Austrians told us that massive government deficits would result in hyperinflation. That didn't happen instead the opposite happened.
2)Austrians told us that massive government deficits would cause interest rates (especially T-bills/bonds) to skyrocket. That didn't happen instead the opposite happened.
3)Austrians told us government spending on infrastructure/stimulus would decrease private spending. That didn't happen instead the opposite happened.
4)Austrians told us government budget cuts in a liquidy trap would result in economic growth and higher employment. That didn't happen instead the opposite happened.
5) Austrians also told us that deregulation banking would result in prosperity. Instead we got the biggest recession since the great depression, and the largest housing bubble, and the largest financial crisis ever to occur.
Basically history proves Austrians wrong.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 7:32:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 7:44:41 PM, DoctorZhiva90 wrote:
I'm personally more aligned with the Austrian school on a lot of issues but it's definitely not perfect. This being said, I think we should look at the failed stimulus, bank bailouts, and Solyndra loan, and realize that Keynesian policies have miserably failed us in this current crisis. I don't know too much about the school as a whole, but from what I've observed it seems to be an ideology that won't help the United States towards recovery.

1)The stimulus created 2.5 million permanent jobs, and another 3 million temporary jobs, and kept millions out of poverty. Not only that but over a ten year period the investments made in the stimulus will save the economy 3 times more money that the total cost of the stimulus. That's not a failure.
2)The bank bailouts saved over 5 million jobs, and are expected to make the government money. That's not a failure.
3)The Solyndra loan won't result in any taxpayer loses because the government gets Solyndras assets. Not to mention government energy loans have a 40-1 benefit cost ratio, and have far lower default rates then private markets lenders
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 6:09:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM, Willoweed wrote:
1)Austrians told us that massive government deficits would result in hyperinflation. That didn't happen instead the opposite happened.

Some Austrians predicted this... most didn't... Most just predicted another artificial boom

Keynesians predicted deflation, and yet we stilll have inflation now

2)Austrians told us that massive government deficits would cause interest rates (especially T-bills/bonds) to skyrocket. That didn't happen instead the opposite happened.

Nope, Austrians never said this... They claimed that the fed artificially holding down interest rates would create a bubble, which would pop... Which is exactly what happened

3)Austrians told us government spending on infrastructure/stimulus would decrease private spending. That didn't happen instead the opposite happened.

Proof?

And, austrians didn't say this either...

They said that spending would lead to another artificial boom and malinvestment

4)Austrians told us government budget cuts in a liquidy trap would result in economic growth and higher employment. That didn't happen instead the opposite happened.

No, Austrians said that we need to let the economy readjust and let all the malinvestments be taken care...

This means short term hardship and long term growth

And, even though Austrians didnt say this, budget cuts probablt would enhance growth by increasing confidence... and, keynesians said these large deficits would help the economy... taht didnt happen?

5) Austrians also told us that deregulation banking would result in prosperity. Instead we got the biggest recession since the great depression, and the largest housing bubble, and the largest financial crisis ever to occur.

This is a whopper... Austrians were actually the best predictors of the crisis, they understood that overexpansion of credit was the problem... not the deregulation fairy

Basically history proves Austrians wrong.

Only if you dont know history
President of DDO
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 7:56:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM, Willoweed wrote:

5) Austrians also told us that deregulation banking would result in prosperity. Instead we got the biggest recession since the great depression, and the largest housing bubble, and the largest financial crisis ever to occur.


This is a whopper... Austrians were actually the best predictors of the crisis, they understood that overexpansion of credit was the problem... not the deregulation fairy

Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
But that's not the deregulation that caused the bubble and the crisis; it was deregulation that made it so financial could package, pull apart, put insurance on and sell of loans.
Canada kept those regulations and did not experience a crisis; also there's been credit expansions for the past 60 years and yet not one bubble or crisis occurred, yet less then 10 years after we deregulate the financial industry a bubble and a crisis occurs.
So basically you're wrong.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 8:26:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
Ironic that you don't realize the only reason the banks were lending that much is because they were being lent incredible amounts cheaply. That's not "Deregulation," that's subsidy, which is a type of regulation.

it was deregulation that made it so financial could package, pull apart, put insurance on and sell of loans.
There is no logical reason for this to cause a contraction.
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
11/18/2011 8:30:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/2/2011 10:39:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
It is obvious that he has no idea of the role that low interest rates had in the crash, as he advocated low interest rates for years:
Interest rates had nothing to do with the bubble. There have been lower interest rates for 60 years and no bubbles; there were low interest rates in Canada and and no bubble or crash occurred there. But these are facts and those are irrelevant to you.

At 11/2/2011 10:39:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
http://blog.mises.org...


Or, that Government created Fannie and Freddie had in the mess... or the fact that the government forced banks to loan to high risk borrowers...

During the height of the bubble Fannie and Freddie were not issuing the types of loans that caused the crisis; they were actually subject to government regulations which barred them from making some of the loans that caused the crisis.

And the government didn't force banks to loan to high risk borrowers. The government forced certain banks to provide black people with the same type of loans they provided white people (i realize you do not realize the difference). Ironically the types of loans that banks were giving black people (loans that the government forced them to not give) were the type of loans that caused the crisis.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 8:32:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 7:56:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM, Willoweed wrote:

5) Austrians also told us that deregulation banking would result in prosperity. Instead we got the biggest recession since the great depression, and the largest housing bubble, and the largest financial crisis ever to occur.


This is a whopper... Austrians were actually the best predictors of the crisis, they understood that overexpansion of credit was the problem... not the deregulation fairy

Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
But that's not the deregulation that caused the bubble and the crisis; it was deregulation that made it so financial could package, pull apart, put insurance on and sell of loans.
Canada kept those regulations and did not experience a crisis; also there's been credit expansions for the past 60 years and yet not one bubble or crisis occurred, yet less then 10 years after we deregulate the financial industry a bubble and a crisis occurs.
So basically you're wrong.

Deregulation wasn't the issue. The issue was the government providing incentives for risky loans. Without the government, banks would be liable for any bad loans that they make, but when the government offers to buy them above market prices, more of them are created.
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
11/18/2011 8:33:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM, Willoweed wrote:
4)Austrians told us government budget cuts in a liquidy trap would result in economic growth and higher employment. That didn't happen instead the opposite happened.

You're right, it was opposite. We didn't have budget cuts, and employment was higher than it otherwise would have been.
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
11/18/2011 8:35:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 7:32:46 AM, Willoweed wrote:
1)The stimulus created 2.5 million permanent jobs, and another 3 million temporary jobs, and kept millions out of poverty. Not only that but over a ten year period the investments made in the stimulus will save the economy 3 times more money that the total cost of the stimulus. That's not a failure.

Where do you even get those numbers?

2)The bank bailouts saved over 5 million jobs, and are expected to make the government money. That's not a failure.

Where do you get those numbers?

3)The Solyndra loan won't result in any taxpayer loses because the government gets Solyndras assets. Not to mention government energy loans have a 40-1 benefit cost ratio, and have far lower default rates then private markets lenders

What? The loan was set up so that private investors would get to make their claims before tax payers do. Essentially, we are going to lose out. By a lot. Where do you get the 40:1 ratio from?
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
11/18/2011 9:27:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 8:26:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
Ironic that you don't realize the only reason the banks were lending that much is because they were being lent incredible amounts cheaply. That's not "Deregulation," that's subsidy, which is a type of regulation.
So according to you banks should be lending that much right now given that they have the same low rates from the FED yet that isn't happening.
Banks only made crappy loans that were risky because deregulation allowed them to hide the risk and sell off those loans.


it was deregulation that made it so financial could package, pull apart, put insurance on and sell of loans.
There is no logical reason for this to cause a contraction.

ROTF so according to you the things that resulted in crappy loans being made have no logical reason to result in crappy loans being made. Seriously...
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 9:29:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 8:32:46 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:56:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM, Willoweed wrote:

5) Austrians also told us that deregulation banking would result in prosperity. Instead we got the biggest recession since the great depression, and the largest housing bubble, and the largest financial crisis ever to occur.


This is a whopper... Austrians were actually the best predictors of the crisis, they understood that overexpansion of credit was the problem... not the deregulation fairy

Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
But that's not the deregulation that caused the bubble and the crisis; it was deregulation that made it so financial could package, pull apart, put insurance on and sell of loans.
Canada kept those regulations and did not experience a crisis; also there's been credit expansions for the past 60 years and yet not one bubble or crisis occurred, yet less then 10 years after we deregulate the financial industry a bubble and a crisis occurs.
So basically you're wrong.

Deregulation wasn't the issue. The issue was the government providing incentives for risky loans. Without the government, banks would be liable for any bad loans that they make, but when the government offers to buy them above market prices, more of them are created.
Except for the fact that the government wasn't providing incentives for risky loans, Name one government program that provided incentives for the risky loans that caused the crisis.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 9:30:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:29:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:32:46 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:56:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM, Willoweed wrote:

5) Austrians also told us that deregulation banking would result in prosperity. Instead we got the biggest recession since the great depression, and the largest housing bubble, and the largest financial crisis ever to occur.


This is a whopper... Austrians were actually the best predictors of the crisis, they understood that overexpansion of credit was the problem... not the deregulation fairy

Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
But that's not the deregulation that caused the bubble and the crisis; it was deregulation that made it so financial could package, pull apart, put insurance on and sell of loans.
Canada kept those regulations and did not experience a crisis; also there's been credit expansions for the past 60 years and yet not one bubble or crisis occurred, yet less then 10 years after we deregulate the financial industry a bubble and a crisis occurs.
So basically you're wrong.

Deregulation wasn't the issue. The issue was the government providing incentives for risky loans. Without the government, banks would be liable for any bad loans that they make, but when the government offers to buy them above market prices, more of them are created.
Except for the fact that the government wasn't providing incentives for risky loans, Name one government program that provided incentives for the risky loans that caused the crisis.

Freddie and fannie Mac and the Federal Reserve System.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 9:32:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:27:01 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:26:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
Ironic that you don't realize the only reason the banks were lending that much is because they were being lent incredible amounts cheaply. That's not "Deregulation," that's subsidy, which is a type of regulation.
So according to you banks should be lending that much right now given that they have the same low rates from the FED yet that isn't happening.
Banks haven't recovered from the last cycle. If when they do recover the FED continues those rates, it will happen again.

ROTF so according to you the things that resulted in crappy loans being made have no logical reason to result in crappy loans being made.
There is no reason for you to believe that it is those things, not something else, that resulted in what happened. History is not a controlled experiment.
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
11/18/2011 9:35:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 8:35:30 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:32:46 AM, Willoweed wrote:
1)The stimulus created 2.5 million permanent jobs, and another 3 million temporary jobs, and kept millions out of poverty. Not only that but over a ten year period the investments made in the stimulus will save the economy 3 times more money that the total cost of the stimulus. That's not a failure.

Where do you even get those numbers?
The CBO you know the organization whose job is to determine the effects of said legislation. Articles about the CBO are abundant if you have trouble finding more please tell me and Ill try to post what you're trying to find.
http://cnsnews.com...

2)The bank bailouts saved over 5 million jobs, and are expected to make the government money. That's not a failure.

Where do you get those numbers?
From Zandi a conservative economist.
http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com...

Also the government is expected to gain money from bank bailouts
http://thehill.com...

3)The Solyndra loan won't result in any taxpayer loses because the government gets Solyndras assets. Not to mention government energy loans have a 40-1 benefit cost ratio, and have far lower default rates then private markets lenders

What? The loan was set up so that private investors would get to make their claims before tax payers do. Essentially, we are going to lose out. By a lot. Where do you get the 40:1 ratio from?
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 9:36:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:30:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:29:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:32:46 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:56:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM, Willoweed wrote:

5) Austrians also told us that deregulation banking would result in prosperity. Instead we got the biggest recession since the great depression, and the largest housing bubble, and the largest financial crisis ever to occur.


This is a whopper... Austrians were actually the best predictors of the crisis, they understood that overexpansion of credit was the problem... not the deregulation fairy

Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
But that's not the deregulation that caused the bubble and the crisis; it was deregulation that made it so financial could package, pull apart, put insurance on and sell of loans.
Canada kept those regulations and did not experience a crisis; also there's been credit expansions for the past 60 years and yet not one bubble or crisis occurred, yet less then 10 years after we deregulate the financial industry a bubble and a crisis occurs.
So basically you're wrong.

Deregulation wasn't the issue. The issue was the government providing incentives for risky loans. Without the government, banks would be liable for any bad loans that they make, but when the government offers to buy them above market prices, more of them are created.
Except for the fact that the government wasn't providing incentives for risky loans, Name one government program that provided incentives for the risky loans that caused the crisis.

Freddie and Fannie Mac and the Federal Reserve System.
Except for the fact that Freddie and Fannie were not participating in the loans that caused this crisis. Try again.
http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 9:51:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:35:18 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:35:30 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:32:46 AM, Willoweed wrote:
1)The stimulus created 2.5 million permanent jobs, and another 3 million temporary jobs, and kept millions out of poverty. Not only that but over a ten year period the investments made in the stimulus will save the economy 3 times more money that the total cost of the stimulus. That's not a failure.

Where do you even get those numbers?
The CBO you know the organization whose job is to determine the effects of said legislation. Articles about the CBO are abundant if you have trouble finding more please tell me and Ill try to post what you're trying to find.
http://cnsnews.com...

Try reading your source again. It says they ESTIMATE that it created OR SAVED 1.3 to 3.5 million jobs. The CBO must accept all inputs given to them, so their data is often skewed in favor of whoever asked for it. Nowhere does it give anywhere near the 5.5 million jobs that you claim it created.

2)The bank bailouts saved over 5 million jobs, and are expected to make the government money. That's not a failure.

Where do you get those numbers?
From Zandi a conservative economist.
http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com...

Also the government is expected to gain money from bank bailouts
http://thehill.com...

The claim that there were profits does not account for the effects that the TARP had on the rest of the economy. Those resources could have been better spent on other things.

3)The Solyndra loan won't result in any taxpayer loses because the government gets Solyndras assets. Not to mention government energy loans have a 40-1 benefit cost ratio, and have far lower default rates then private markets lenders

What? The loan was set up so that private investors would get to make their claims before tax payers do. Essentially, we are going to lose out. By a lot. Where do you get the 40:1 ratio from?
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...

I still don't see a 40:1 ratio.
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
11/18/2011 9:55:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:36:50 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:30:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:29:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:32:46 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:56:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM, Willoweed wrote:

5) Austrians also told us that deregulation banking would result in prosperity. Instead we got the biggest recession since the great depression, and the largest housing bubble, and the largest financial crisis ever to occur.


This is a whopper... Austrians were actually the best predictors of the crisis, they understood that overexpansion of credit was the problem... not the deregulation fairy

Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
But that's not the deregulation that caused the bubble and the crisis; it was deregulation that made it so financial could package, pull apart, put insurance on and sell of loans.
Canada kept those regulations and did not experience a crisis; also there's been credit expansions for the past 60 years and yet not one bubble or crisis occurred, yet less then 10 years after we deregulate the financial industry a bubble and a crisis occurs.
So basically you're wrong.

Deregulation wasn't the issue. The issue was the government providing incentives for risky loans. Without the government, banks would be liable for any bad loans that they make, but when the government offers to buy them above market prices, more of them are created.
Except for the fact that the government wasn't providing incentives for risky loans, Name one government program that provided incentives for the risky loans that caused the crisis.

Freddie and Fannie Mac and the Federal Reserve System.
Except for the fact that Freddie and Fannie were not participating in the loans that caused this crisis. Try again.
http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Your sources say that Freddie and Fannie did contribute, but not that much. The rest came from the Federal Reserve, which you failed to address.
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
11/18/2011 11:49:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:55:03 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:36:50 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:30:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:29:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:32:46 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:56:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM, Willoweed wrote:

5) Austrians also told us that deregulation banking would result in prosperity. Instead we got the biggest recession since the great depression, and the largest housing bubble, and the largest financial crisis ever to occur.


This is a whopper... Austrians were actually the best predictors of the crisis, they understood that overexpansion of credit was the problem... not the deregulation fairy

Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
But that's not the deregulation that caused the bubble and the crisis; it was deregulation that made it so financial could package, pull apart, put insurance on and sell of loans.
Canada kept those regulations and did not experience a crisis; also there's been credit expansions for the past 60 years and yet not one bubble or crisis occurred, yet less then 10 years after we deregulate the financial industry a bubble and a crisis occurs.
So basically you're wrong.

Deregulation wasn't the issue. The issue was the government providing incentives for risky loans. Without the government, banks would be liable for any bad loans that they make, but when the government offers to buy them above market prices, more of them are created.
Except for the fact that the government wasn't providing incentives for risky loans, Name one government program that provided incentives for the risky loans that caused the crisis.

Freddie and Fannie Mac and the Federal Reserve System.
Except for the fact that Freddie and Fannie were not participating in the loans that caused this crisis. Try again.
http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Your sources say that Freddie and Fannie did contribute, but not that much. The rest came from the Federal Reserve, which you failed to address.

The Federal reserve doesn't make the loans that caused the crisis meaning it is impossible for them to account for almost all the loans that caused the crisis. Are you even trying?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 11:58:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 11:49:25 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:55:03 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:36:50 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:30:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:29:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 8:32:46 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:56:20 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 6:09:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/18/2011 7:27:34 AM, Willoweed wrote:

5) Austrians also told us that deregulation banking would result in prosperity. Instead we got the biggest recession since the great depression, and the largest housing bubble, and the largest financial crisis ever to occur.


This is a whopper... Austrians were actually the best predictors of the crisis, they understood that overexpansion of credit was the problem... not the deregulation fairy

Ironic that you don't realize that the only reason people could borrow credit on real estate was due to deregulation that occurred in the 80's.
But that's not the deregulation that caused the bubble and the crisis; it was deregulation that made it so financial could package, pull apart, put insurance on and sell of loans.
Canada kept those regulations and did not experience a crisis; also there's been credit expansions for the past 60 years and yet not one bubble or crisis occurred, yet less then 10 years after we deregulate the financial industry a bubble and a crisis occurs.
So basically you're wrong.

Deregulation wasn't the issue. The issue was the government providing incentives for risky loans. Without the government, banks would be liable for any bad loans that they make, but when the government offers to buy them above market prices, more of them are created.
Except for the fact that the government wasn't providing incentives for risky loans, Name one government program that provided incentives for the risky loans that caused the crisis.

Freddie and Fannie Mac and the Federal Reserve System.
Except for the fact that Freddie and Fannie were not participating in the loans that caused this crisis. Try again.
http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

Your sources say that Freddie and Fannie did contribute, but not that much. The rest came from the Federal Reserve, which you failed to address.

The Federal reserve doesn't make the loans that caused the crisis meaning it is impossible for them to account for almost all the loans that caused the crisis. Are you even trying?

Federal reserve sets the amount of reserves a bank is allowed to have. The federal reserve sets the federal fund rate, which determines how much banks can lend to one another. The federal reserve sets the discount window which is the "lender" of last resort. How can you not even consider the Fed in the analysis of the financial crisis?

I'm not an Austrian economist btw, but the Fed dropped the ball by setting interest rates low.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...