Just thought I would post
-
Wanted to see a thread start from someone else besides CSS.
-
Wanted to see a thread start from someone else besides CSS.
I bet this means you're trying to hijack the patriot movement, too.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I bet this means you're trying to hijack the patriot movement, too.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Nope just wanted to see a different name. Remember that is how the USA gets presidents.
-
Nope just wanted to see a different name. Remember that is how the USA gets presidents.
-
I think Robin Williams said it best... "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. So when this country re-elected George W. Bush, the rest of the world went 'What the #%*(&@#?'"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I think Robin Williams said it best... "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. So when this country re-elected George W. Bush, the rest of the world went 'What the #%*(&@#?'"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
lol well said. Yeah, just like stimulus. When it didn't work the first time, shame on you. When we decided to do it a second and third time, shame on me, or us... whatever. lol
Yeah... Though I think the BIG stimulus was kind of a "We don't have any better solutions, but we have to do SOMETHING, and we have to do it QUICK"... Now Obama wants to split up the big guys... The street is seriously pissed, but I'm wondering if that might be a good solution, or at least a good preventative measure.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Yeah... Though I think the BIG stimulus was kind of a "We don't have any better solutions, but we have to do SOMETHING, and we have to do it QUICK"... Now Obama wants to split up the big guys... The street is seriously pissed, but I'm wondering if that might be a good solution, or at least a good preventative measure.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
The thing with any of these stimuluses is that, it won't last. what they have to do, to get to the heart of the matter, is raise the interest rates at the Fed to get things back to "normal". Though it would cause a bust, it will get the economy back to normal, and have us consume less, and produce more. that's all it's about. we need jobs. and that's how you do it... force the private sector to produce.
-
The thing with any of these stimuluses is that, it won't last. what they have to do, to get to the heart of the matter, is raise the interest rates at the Fed to get things back to "normal". Though it would cause a bust, it will get the economy back to normal, and have us consume less, and produce more. that's all it's about. we need jobs. and that's how you do it... force the private sector to produce.
josda1000 wrote:
Though it would cause a bust
That's the issue, though. If it crashes again before they fix the underlying issue (The "too big to fail" problem), then the entire economy could basically be wiped out. I don't know if you caught the latest speech, but his plan now is to split up the big firms by making it illegal for an investment bank to run a proprietary fund. In layman's terms, that means that either you're trading YOUR money, OR you're trading your clients' money. Not both. The ability to combine the two gives the big firms more power over the little guys, and encourages consolidation. I don't know the exact dates, but from what I've gathered, this enforced separation was actually done right after the Great Depression, but the law was repealed (Or expired or something) later on (70s or 80s, maybe?). Once they get the economy to the point that it can survive the collapse of a few of these big guys, then maybe they'll be able to implement a more "painful" solution. Raising interest rates, though... I don't see how that would help right now. I'm a little out of it this morning (Been nuts here at the office), but if I can get part of my brain working for a moment, that would: 1) Reduce lending, and hence make companies less likely to make growth expenditures (Make it harder for a small business to take out a loan to expand) 2) Make it harder for people to get car loans, mortgages, etc 3) Encourage people to take money OUT of the market and save it I don't see how that would create jobs. Raising interest rates generally shrinks the economy (And is done when approaching the "boom" phase)... LOWERING interest rates stimulates the economy, but they can't exactly do that now. Honestly, I think they should raise taxes across the board, temporarily, to pay off the bloody debt. But they can't do that either, until the economy has recovered. EDIT: Actually gonna post a new thread on this... I want to see what people think.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
josda1000 wrote:
Though it would cause a bust
That's the issue, though. If it crashes again before they fix the underlying issue (The "too big to fail" problem), then the entire economy could basically be wiped out. I don't know if you caught the latest speech, but his plan now is to split up the big firms by making it illegal for an investment bank to run a proprietary fund. In layman's terms, that means that either you're trading YOUR money, OR you're trading your clients' money. Not both. The ability to combine the two gives the big firms more power over the little guys, and encourages consolidation. I don't know the exact dates, but from what I've gathered, this enforced separation was actually done right after the Great Depression, but the law was repealed (Or expired or something) later on (70s or 80s, maybe?). Once they get the economy to the point that it can survive the collapse of a few of these big guys, then maybe they'll be able to implement a more "painful" solution. Raising interest rates, though... I don't see how that would help right now. I'm a little out of it this morning (Been nuts here at the office), but if I can get part of my brain working for a moment, that would: 1) Reduce lending, and hence make companies less likely to make growth expenditures (Make it harder for a small business to take out a loan to expand) 2) Make it harder for people to get car loans, mortgages, etc 3) Encourage people to take money OUT of the market and save it I don't see how that would create jobs. Raising interest rates generally shrinks the economy (And is done when approaching the "boom" phase)... LOWERING interest rates stimulates the economy, but they can't exactly do that now. Honestly, I think they should raise taxes across the board, temporarily, to pay off the bloody debt. But they can't do that either, until the economy has recovered. EDIT: Actually gonna post a new thread on this... I want to see what people think.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I really don't want to debate all of this again... but here's my one response. I can't leave this hanging.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If it crashes again before they fix the underlying issue (The "too big to fail" problem), then the entire economy could basically be wiped out.
Not at all. It would wipe out all of the "too big" banks, and would leave the little banks who were actually lending in a practical way the whole time. The whole point is, the interest rates being too low made the lending practices too lax. So when the banks made loans without thinking, because they thought they would get bailed out by the government (as portrayed a year and a half ago), they just continue their stupid practices. The little banks, neighborhood banks, still were doing the right thing. They don't need the stimulus. So if they raise interest rates, the big banks will have to of course smarten up, while the little banks will have to do absolutely nothing, because they're already lending correctly. Again, the underlying problem is precisely the interest rates, not the "too big to fail" problem... the too big to fail issue was caused by the interest rate lowering.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't know if you caught the latest speech, but his plan now is to split up the big firms by making it illegal for an investment bank to run a proprietary fund. In layman's terms, that means that either you're trading YOUR money, OR you're trading your clients' money. Not both.
This won't change anything. So their spending will be cut in half... while we as people are still in debt up our ass. Disallowing banks to spend does not necessarily effect us. Plus, you said debt was good. So... allow banks to spend and loan as they will. The point is to not bail them out, because that's just inconsistent with a free society. Nevermind the "moral hazard/too big to fail" issue.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The ability to combine the two gives the big firms more power over the little guys, and encourages consolidation. I don't know the exact dates, but from what I've gathered, this enforced separation was actually done right after the Great Depression, but the law was repealed (Or expired or something) later on (70s or 80s, maybe?).
Banks, even in this society, again should be able to do as they please and see fit. If they want to consolidate, they should. If they want to
-
I really don't want to debate all of this again... but here's my one response. I can't leave this hanging.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If it crashes again before they fix the underlying issue (The "too big to fail" problem), then the entire economy could basically be wiped out.
Not at all. It would wipe out all of the "too big" banks, and would leave the little banks who were actually lending in a practical way the whole time. The whole point is, the interest rates being too low made the lending practices too lax. So when the banks made loans without thinking, because they thought they would get bailed out by the government (as portrayed a year and a half ago), they just continue their stupid practices. The little banks, neighborhood banks, still were doing the right thing. They don't need the stimulus. So if they raise interest rates, the big banks will have to of course smarten up, while the little banks will have to do absolutely nothing, because they're already lending correctly. Again, the underlying problem is precisely the interest rates, not the "too big to fail" problem... the too big to fail issue was caused by the interest rate lowering.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't know if you caught the latest speech, but his plan now is to split up the big firms by making it illegal for an investment bank to run a proprietary fund. In layman's terms, that means that either you're trading YOUR money, OR you're trading your clients' money. Not both.
This won't change anything. So their spending will be cut in half... while we as people are still in debt up our ass. Disallowing banks to spend does not necessarily effect us. Plus, you said debt was good. So... allow banks to spend and loan as they will. The point is to not bail them out, because that's just inconsistent with a free society. Nevermind the "moral hazard/too big to fail" issue.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The ability to combine the two gives the big firms more power over the little guys, and encourages consolidation. I don't know the exact dates, but from what I've gathered, this enforced separation was actually done right after the Great Depression, but the law was repealed (Or expired or something) later on (70s or 80s, maybe?).
Banks, even in this society, again should be able to do as they please and see fit. If they want to consolidate, they should. If they want to
josda1000 wrote:
It would wipe out all of the "too big" banks, and would leave the little banks who were actually lending in a practical way the whole time.
Agreed. But think of the millions and millions of people and companies that are heavily invested in those big banks. It would be a domino effect, with huge repercussions.
josda1000 wrote:
the too big to fail issue was caused by the interest rate lowering.
Not really... The banks were already consolidating. If you check out my new thread above, I think the repeal of that act in '99 was what prompted them to become so huge.
josda1000 wrote:
Banks, even in this society, again should be able to do as they please and see fit. If they want to consolidate, they should.
Except when they use FDIC-insured, Fed-backed money to boost their proprietary business, they're basically forcing the government to backstop them. The idea would be that EITHER they can have the protections offered by the Fed/FDIC, OR they can trade on the market, but not both.
josda1000 wrote:
You hit the nail on the head. What's wrong with any of these issues? I don't see a problem. But we've been over this before. You're against saving. You're against good, fair and honest business practices.
Not saying those are bad things. I'm just saying they would lead to the economy tightening, when RIGHT NOW we want it to grow to counteract the crash. You do make some good points, but the question is whether the economy can handle that right now.
josda1000 wrote:
Yes. Raising interest rates does shrink it. And no, it won't create jobs... not quickly anyway. It takes time for the effects to finally drain itself. The point is, the longer we keep the interest rates too low, the worse the effects will be when you finally raise them. Lowering does stimulate the economy... but notice the effects it had. We're at around .25% right now... can't get any lower. So the point is, you have to necessarily raise them, feel the devastating effects of it and what the Federal Reserve actually does, and then you'll have a boom after when you lower them again. These phases are temporary, and wouldn't be as detrimental if we got rid of you're beloved central bank.
I agree partially. Yeah, the low rates are k