Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Stock Market

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 12:00:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dow Jones recently hit a Record High.
We headed for a correction? Or as long as uncle Ben keeps pumping money into the system you think the sky is the limit?
Also what do you think is fueling the massive market gains, lack of a strong alternative?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 12:12:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
every-time in the last 13 years when its been record high it managed to crash again. I don't think there's been a big enough increase in real GDP growth and economic improvement to justify the rising stock market, and its mainly due to quantiative easing and low interests rates in the bank which won't last forever.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 1:32:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you think the catalyst will be for the next market downturn?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 2:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:32:49 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What do you think the catalyst will be for the next market downturn?

I think the Tokyo stock market is a good indicator of where america is going, since we're kind of in the lost decade that Japan faced:

http://www.tse.or.jp...

Just a bunch of up and down trends without really moving anywhere. The Tokyo stock has never been as high as it was since the 1989.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 3:27:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't see any reason why the stock market is rising. Besides the quantitative easing and again the low interest rates. There is a lack of real economic growth in our society.

I think that the market is sometime going to correct, within the next couple months. Though I have no idea when, and I will probably be wrong. I still have a few good companies though that I am looking to invest in.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 5:21:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean if you have money, where else you going to put it? Nothing else is offering as good a return.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 5:58:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So if you guys happen to see this, what kind of companies do you guys invest in? I like buying shares from small firms, so they have a large potential for growth.

And if they fail, it is not devastating for me.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:55:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is always how I imagine the stock market

Can make a lot of money if you just know when to jump ship.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 7:28:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, I think the stock market is high because of expansionary policy after the 2008-2009 recession. In the long run the stock market will grow like it always does. There may be a correction along the way, but I don't think it is worth speculating about.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:19:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know if anyone already said it in this thread, but the DJIA is an index of only 30 price-weighted stocks. It's not an overall economic indicator. When making an inductive argument that historical highs or 52-week highs in indexes is the prelude to a market correction, the strength of the argument improves with the number of quality examples. I think a market correction will occur within the next year. Record those words so that you can either publicly humiliate or publicly laud either my prognosticaticating failure or success.

Look at the charts!
S&P: http://tinyurl.com... -52 week high, approaching record on Monday
Dow: http://tinyurl.com... -Historical High
NASDAQ: http://tinyurl.com... -Higher than pre-recession peak
NYSE: http://tinyurl.com... -11% below historical high
Amex: http://tinyurl.com... -Approaching historical high
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:30:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The image is kinda small, but it's readable...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com...

Recession Start Dates....................Recession End Dates

April 1960(II)....................February 1961 (I)
December 1969(IV)....................November 1970 (IV)
November 1973(IV)....................March 1975 (I)
January 1980(I)....................July 1980 (III)
July 1981(III)....................November 1982 (IV)
July 1990(III)....................March 1991(I)
March 2001(I)....................November 2001 (IV)
December 2007 (IV)....................June 2009 (II)

What does the income of the rich do during a recession? It increases...WILDLY.

Rich people LOVE recessions. Whenever possible, they try to create them, because if there is one thing which is certain, it's that a recession will shift wealth from the have-nots to the haves.

Welcome to the "Free Market" you all love so much. You think Government power is bad, wait until you get a load of what happens with power concentrated amongst the private sector. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

This isn't quantitative easing. It's not anything that's been mentioned. This is the result of a bunch of rich people who have way too much wealth and nothing to do with it, so they are gambling (which is why you see these massive dips after the markets reach highs).

It's so simple that it's right in front of y'all's faces and you can't see the forest for the trees because you're waiting for the same thing to save you which is causing your destruction.

It's seriously retarded.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:33:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:30:16 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

That's a really good debate subject.

I'd like to see "The rich have a vested interest in recessions"
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:56:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:33:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:30:16 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

That's a really good debate subject.

I'd like to see "The rich have a vested interest in recessions"

I don't think there's a debate to be had...

From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

The broad facts of income inequality over the past six decades are easily summarized:

The years from the end of World War II into the 1970s were ones of substantial economic growth and broadly shared prosperity.
Incomes grew rapidly and at roughly the same rate up and down the income ladder, roughly doubling in inflation-adjusted terms between the late 1940s and early 1970s.
The income gap between those high up the income ladder and those on the middle and lower rungs " while substantial " did not change much during this period.

Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened.
Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly.
The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the "Roaring Twenties").
Wealth (the value of a household"s property and financial assets net of the value of its debts) is much more highly concentrated than income, although the wealth data do not show a dramatic increase in concentration at the very top the way the income data do.


http://www.cbpp.org...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:58:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:56:37 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
I don't think there's a debate to be had...

Your confidence should be all the more reason to instigate.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:02:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:58:57 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:56:37 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
I don't think there's a debate to be had...

Your confidence should be all the more reason to instigate.

Like my decimation of my opponents in my debates has mattered. People believe that which they want to believe, and they will rebel against the facts when those facts disturb those beliefs.

You're a rare bird, freedo. I dig it, but I hardly expect it from more than a fleeting handful of folks, and hardly any of them are to be found here.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:50:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:30:16 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Rich people LOVE recessions. Whenever possible, they try to create them, because if there is one thing which is certain, it's that a recession will shift wealth from the have-nots to the haves.

Welcome to the "Free Market" you all love so much. You think Government power is bad, wait until you get a load of what happens with power concentrated amongst the private sector. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

How do the rich create recessions today?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 1:30:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:50:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:30:16 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Rich people LOVE recessions. Whenever possible, they try to create them, because if there is one thing which is certain, it's that a recession will shift wealth from the have-nots to the haves.

Welcome to the "Free Market" you all love so much. You think Government power is bad, wait until you get a load of what happens with power concentrated amongst the private sector. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

How do the rich create recessions today?

Well, right after an event like, let's say a mortgage bubble bursting, a few hedge managers might, oh...I don't know, collude with JP Morgan Chase to sink Bear Sterns and WaMu, thus sinking the country into a financial crisis which brings about a recession.

The price of oil has an inverse relationship to GDP growth. NEXT TIME AROUND (watch for something to happen in Europe which "causes" the next hit to the economy), since they are now doing with oil what they were doing with mortgages previously (oil backed securities as opposed to mortgage backed securities...complete with credit default swaps and everything...you'd think they could at least get a little creative with their criminal activity, but bankers aren't the smartest bunch...luckily for them, neither are financial analysts or the public), they'll force the price of oil past the point where GDP growth is possible, and POW - we will truly have had a lost decade and income parity will suffer further.

The funny thing is, this is gonna eventually be to these people's detriment, but they don't care. They're short-sighted, criminal douchebags.

And we all allow them to run rough shot over us in the name of "The Free Market".

This "Free" Market seems to be a little more expensive than what we bargained for.

BUT - based on the dream of someday becoming one of these @ssholes, free market advocates espouse its virtues...with conjecture and obfuscation.

Congrats - you support the thing you claim to fight against with all your might.

How does it feel as you're doing it?

(just curious)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:52:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You didn't explain how they created the housing bubble--you simply said some hedge funds colluded with banks, a claim which you did not justify. Have you heard of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the Federal Reserve? Do you think they had an influence on the housing bubble, since the government goal was to expand the housing sector by any means necessary? Are there any regulations on banks, hedge funds, and mutual funds? If so, how strong are they relative to other industries (Hint: The financial services sector is the most regulated industry in the US).

In your view, what are the criteria of a free market?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:56:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:33:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:30:16 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

That's a really good debate subject.
I'd like to see "The rich have a vested interest in recessions"

That's an easy debate to win. Malcom thinks that the free market (US is the 19th most economically free country in the world, among a list of countries that only reach to 89% economically free) is the cause of these intense recessions. I think that the cause is government intervention, because it has an observable, logical negative influence on the economy.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:57:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 5:58:40 PM, Contra wrote:
So if you guys happen to see this, what kind of companies do you guys invest in? I like buying shares from small firms, so they have a large potential for growth.

And if they fail, it is not devastating for me.

I prefer the company with real growing potential but price still lagged, don't care mush about the size though. If it is good the price will going to rise any way, if it fall, no matter how small it is they still going to be devastated (I saw a stock price a dollar that go down to a penny). I once purchased stock of the company that produce solar energy, the debt is more than 100 percent of their asset, no dividend, but solar energy is relatively new, and have vast potential in my country (energy is imported). I made almost 100 percent profit from that stock alone.

Actually, most of people in this discussion is right: recession is the best time to invest your money in to stock. If I can (and I am now looking for a way too), I will invest my money in Greece companies, especially the one that do market with non-US, non-EU customers, lovely.

Not only the rich who will going to exploit it though, good investor will, he will make profit in recession or in boom.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 6:21:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:52:56 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You didn't explain how they created the housing bubble--

You didn't ask about the housing bubble. You asked about the recession. The housing bubble bursting didn't cause the recession and only accounts for about $150 billion of the $700 billion in bailout money.

Maybe this is where our signals got crossed. No one who has examined the 2007 recession in any serious way believes that it was caused by the mortgage bubble bursting. That was just the cover needed to cause the real damage which plunged the economy into negative growth.

Read up on it and get back to me, OK?

you simply said some hedge funds colluded with banks, a claim which you did not justify. Have you heard of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the Federal Reserve? Do you think they had an influence on the housing bubble, since the government goal was to expand the housing sector by any means necessary?

The financial deregulation that Clinton started, and Bush finished, meant that things like underwriting standards for home loans, went out the window (my back up - it was my first job out of college, and I could have had my friends come in for the free money if I had less scruples), and since they were also allowed to combine with investment banks as well as insurance companies, they had everything they needed to control this racket until the racket imploded on itself.

This had nothing to do with the government, other than the government forgetting what its job was.

Are there any regulations on banks, hedge funds, and mutual funds? If so, how strong are they relative to other industries (Hint: The financial services sector is the most regulated industry in the US).

30,000 people at the SEC got caught watching porn when Madoff was doing his thing, and it took an independent reporter who wasn't a "business reporter" to figure out that nothing he was saying about his investment enterprise (pyramid scheme) made any sense.

Financial services used to be regulated. That's when they kinda worked. Once the regulations were killed or enforcement was defunded, they became meaningless.

AND

We still haven't fixed the problem.

In your view, what are the criteria of a free market?

The criteria are whatever the market dictates them to be.

This is what you seem to be missing with your "magical free market". The Free Market doesn't care what your rights are, and it certainly doesn't care what you think they are. If it can make a buck by taking them away, it will take them away.

The fact that you think the "Free Market" cares what you believe the rules of its existence should be is stupid to the point that I'm beginning to wonder if you sometimes forget to breathe.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 6:34:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:56:47 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:33:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:30:16 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

That's a really good debate subject.
I'd like to see "The rich have a vested interest in recessions"

That's an easy debate to win. Malcom thinks that the free market (US is the 19th most economically free country in the world, among a list of countries that only reach to 89% economically free) is the cause of these intense recessions. I think that the cause is government intervention, because it has an observable, logical negative influence on the economy.

You also believe that the housing bubble bursting was the cause of the 2007 recession, which it demonstrably wasn't.

Your logic is flawed because you don't take all factors into account, and you also have no experience in either the public or the private sector.

You're a kid who thinks what he's read in theoretical books that already leaned toward what he wanted to believe are true, because he wanted them to be true and that's easier than doing what I've spent the last 5 years doing - reading every foundational document/book in Western Society (bible, constitution, etc), followed up by reading as many authors that I generally disagree with as I possibly could, and then comparing their conclusions to the foundational documents I've read, as well as the conclusions of authors I generally agreed with before this period of questioning everything I thought I knew.

AFTER THAT, I began charting any possible data I could, as long as no one else had done it, just to see if what was being reported currently was accurate (did you know 7% of the terrorist acts in this country are committed by Jews, and only 6% are committed by Arabs/Persians each year? Of course you don't. You didn't chart that FBI crime data...I did.).

You are a child who believes that his "common sense" can explain things that he doesn't understand, or even know how to understand, including the cause of the recession.

You wanna debate? Please, set it up. You will get crushed like the mental ant no one has made you realize that you are yet.

I mean, you'll win in the voting, but your argument will get wadded up and flushed, because it's sh!tty and thin, and completely lacking in buoyancy.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 9:57:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 12:00:53 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Dow Jones recently hit a Record High.
We headed for a correction? Or as long as uncle Ben keeps pumping money into the system you think the sky is the limit?
Also what do you think is fueling the massive market gains, lack of a strong alternative?

1) Corporations are healthy, the US economy is not.
2) Uncle Ben makes great rice.
4) It is acknowledgement that the Fed's policies are strongly inflationary, the main question is when this inflation will take root.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 10:00:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:56:47 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:33:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:30:16 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

That's a really good debate subject.
I'd like to see "The rich have a vested interest in recessions"

That's an easy debate to win. Malcom thinks that the free market (US is the 19th most economically free country in the world, among a list of countries that only reach to 89% economically free) is the cause of these intense recessions. I think that the cause is government intervention, because it has an observable, logical negative influence on the economy.

The sheer amount of propagandistic vitriol from WSA I find disturbing. I also love how he is able to pinpoint exactly how "free" a market is, just like how he was able to pinpoint the precise optimal tax rate under the Laffer curve. He truly believes that economics is a natural science with immutable laws, and that human rationality is somehow "perfect".

Define "free market".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 10:07:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 9:52:56 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You didn't explain how they created the housing bubble--you simply said some hedge funds colluded with banks, a claim which you did not justify. Have you heard of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the Federal Reserve? Do you think they had an influence on the housing bubble, since the government goal was to expand the housing sector by any means necessary? Are there any regulations on banks, hedge funds, and mutual funds? If so, how strong are they relative to other industries (Hint: The financial services sector is the most regulated industry in the US).

In your view, what are the criteria of a free market?

1) The housing bubble was a "free market" creation. Underlying demand is what stimulated that bubble. Sure, the Fed helped, but one or two percentage rates on a mortgage are not responsible for 2008. That was largely demand-driven. Wall Street had an insatiable hunger for yield, and banks no longer held onto mortgages they originated. Wall Street was left holding the bag of sh!t in 2008, and was able to coerce Capitol Hill to give it trillions upon trillions in corporate welfare, meaning they passed that bag of sh!t onto the rest of America.

2) As I answered you before, the existence of money is "regulation". You would advocate a system in which there is no government intervention whatsoever, which is ridiculous and absurd on so many levels as to almost not warrant a comment. I am only commenting to you because you are actually serious in your viewpoints, which I find extremely disturbing.

Without money, markets would become "free", but much less efficient than they are today. Just think about that the next time you advocate the absurd notion that freedom within itself is a limitless, intrinsic benefit.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 12:15:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think you can blame the housing bubble entirely on the free market, sure there had to be demand, but the government was actively pushing subprime lending. You can argue to what degree but you can't argue that morons like Barney Frank chairing the house financial services committee helped facilitate the housing crisis.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 1:22:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 12:15:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I don't think you can blame the housing bubble entirely on the free market, sure there had to be demand, but the government was actively pushing subprime lending. You can argue to what degree but you can't argue that morons like Barney Frank chairing the house financial services committee helped facilitate the housing crisis.



While the government helped cause the bubble, I think the majority of the blame goes to the free market. When you have a system where banks that lend to people with minimal checks, then can sell these loans to a third parties, it creates moral hazard. Furthermore the independent ratings agencies fvcked up and did not rate securities correctly (perhaps because their clients were these big banks and they wanted their clients to be happy). I think the bankers fvcked up the most.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 2:46:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 1:22:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 3/13/2013 12:15:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I don't think you can blame the housing bubble entirely on the free market, sure there had to be demand, but the government was actively pushing subprime lending. You can argue to what degree but you can't argue that morons like Barney Frank chairing the house financial services committee helped facilitate the housing crisis.

While the government helped cause the bubble, I think the majority of the blame goes to the free market. When you have a system where banks that lend to people with minimal checks, then can sell these loans to a third parties, it creates moral hazard. Furthermore the independent ratings agencies fvcked up and did not rate securities correctly (perhaps because their clients were these big banks and they wanted their clients to be happy). I think the bankers fvcked up the most.

The government helped fuel the bubble and the moral hazard they create when they bail out banks accounts for the rest of the bubble. The bankers knew they had washington in their pockets so what do they care? Call the bankers whatever you want, they're untouchable and they know it. Like the bankers toasting the occupy people in New York a while back, call them whatever you want, they don't lose a second of sleep.

Go after the scumbag politicians that get a cut and turn a blind eye. They're like dirty cops, sure the criminal is to blame but by god the dirty cop getting paid taxpayer money to catch the criminal is running protection for him and has the public convinced he's doing his job.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 4:48:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 2:46:28 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/13/2013 1:22:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 3/13/2013 12:15:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I don't think you can blame the housing bubble entirely on the free market, sure there had to be demand, but the government was actively pushing subprime lending. You can argue to what degree but you can't argue that morons like Barney Frank chairing the house financial services committee helped facilitate the housing crisis.

While the government helped cause the bubble, I think the majority of the blame goes to the free market. When you have a system where banks that lend to people with minimal checks, then can sell these loans to a third parties, it creates moral hazard. Furthermore the independent ratings agencies fvcked up and did not rate securities correctly (perhaps because their clients were these big banks and they wanted their clients to be happy). I think the bankers fvcked up the most.

The government helped fuel the bubble and the moral hazard they create when they bail out banks accounts for the rest of the bubble. The bankers knew they had washington in their pockets so what do they care? Call the bankers whatever you want, they're untouchable and they know it. Like the bankers toasting the occupy people in New York a while back, call them whatever you want, they don't lose a second of sleep.

Go after the scumbag politicians that get a cut and turn a blind eye. They're like dirty cops, sure the criminal is to blame but by god the dirty cop getting paid taxpayer money to catch the criminal is running protection for him and has the public convinced he's doing his job.

So, if I could quickly summarize here - Mafia good. Law enforcement bad.

Does that about do it?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 6:30:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 4:48:01 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/13/2013 2:46:28 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/13/2013 1:22:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 3/13/2013 12:15:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I don't think you can blame the housing bubble entirely on the free market, sure there had to be demand, but the government was actively pushing subprime lending. You can argue to what degree but you can't argue that morons like Barney Frank chairing the house financial services committee helped facilitate the housing crisis.

While the government helped cause the bubble, I think the majority of the blame goes to the free market. When you have a system where banks that lend to people with minimal checks, then can sell these loans to a third parties, it creates moral hazard. Furthermore the independent ratings agencies fvcked up and did not rate securities correctly (perhaps because their clients were these big banks and they wanted their clients to be happy). I think the bankers fvcked up the most.

The government helped fuel the bubble and the moral hazard they create when they bail out banks accounts for the rest of the bubble. The bankers knew they had washington in their pockets so what do they care? Call the bankers whatever you want, they're untouchable and they know it. Like the bankers toasting the occupy people in New York a while back, call them whatever you want, they don't lose a second of sleep.

Go after the scumbag politicians that get a cut and turn a blind eye. They're like dirty cops, sure the criminal is to blame but by god the dirty cop getting paid taxpayer money to catch the criminal is running protection for him and has the public convinced he's doing his job.

So, if I could quickly summarize here - Mafia good. Law enforcement bad.

Does that about do it?

Ya that's exactly what I said, spot on.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler