This is such bullshit. You know that during WW2 people planted "victory gardens" so they would have something to eat? All sorts of shit was rationed.
After WW2 it was a lot easier to find a job in the US since there were 418,500 more job openings compared to before the war.
And of course the war on terror has been great for our economy, except for the fact that spending money on war is the single worst way money can be spent. You spend money on things designed to destroy goods and resources -- what do you think will happen? You end up with no money and fewer resources.
I wasn't talking about the time during the war. It's the results of what it starts that matters.
It's pretty simple. War creates demand for more goods. Demand for more goods creates demand for labor. Demand for labor creates jobs and that means more income for people. People with more income means they can consume more goods (homes, education, investment, cars, etc.) increasing demand in other sectors. That's how war fuels the economy. I'm not saying it's right or good, but war makes economies move. It was the demand for supplies and weapons to fight the Nazis that pulled America out of the great depression. Yes, there was rationing and sacrifice required from the people at home, but it initiated a chain of events that lead to the most prosperous period of the 20th century.
Now that doesn't seem to benefit mankind now does it?
Because they put themselves in that situation, you think they deserve the money? I guess you could say that about anybody, but teachers are educating our future.
I'm not arguing that they deserve more money than teachers - unless there was a US Department of Football then you can actually argue that NFL players are overpayed. But maybe you're right, the government should step in and bust up the players union and set maximum wage laws.
He was describing a tactic, meaning it's used intentionally, called "starving the beast". Where for no reason other than to destroy something, they maliciously damage it to the point where it's not working, then point to it not working as reason to terminally kill it. The things being government programs and departments.
That's straight out of x-files dude.
Now, if the argument was that they have a list of priorities, and their buddies in the military industrial complex come first, while the little-person is dead last, then it would make sense. Like I said, that's greed, and that's (in my personal opinion) what government is all about. But maliciously destroying Social Security or the Department of Education for the sole reason of destroying those things to hurt the little-person, is just being paranoid.
It seems like it's an X-file until you suss-out their incentives.
It's not just for the sole purpose of destroying it, it's to get rid of an entire department of government that was using tax dollars. One less mouth to feed means less taxes and we all know who the savings will be passed on to. Government programs cost money that the rich don't want to pay for because they have no need for government programs, they're rich. They can buy all they need to be smart, healthy, and successful. So they get their cronies to starve it and when it starts to fail from lack of funds, they blame the program itself. Once the program is gone, they can claim that they're paying too much and get the taxes lowered yet again while depriving the least of us the infrastructure we desperately need.
When republicans demand a smaller government they are demanding a cheaper government that their buddies don't have to pay so much for. "Big government" is just a sideways way to say, "More government than we want to pay for". They don't need those programs, they're rich!
The question you should always ask when politicians call for downsizing of the government in their battle against "Big government" is what their incentives are and who it benefits. The answer will almost invariably be the rich people who don't need those government programs. They try to convince us it's for the little people when it's actually the exact opposite.
Oh look at this graph. Clearly having 2 nukes dropped on your major cities is a surefire recipe for economic success!
"War creates jobs" falls into the "stupidest shit you can imagine" category. It has no basis in fact. If it did, then why is our economy weak? We have been at war for over a decade and spend more money on war now then ever before.
After WW2, the US was able to leverage the fact that they were the only industrialized country left standing with a functioning economy to make the USD the world's reserve currency, and then they used that to extract value from European markets.
When financial systems collapse, like with the great depression, they usually last 10-15 years. The reality is that the start of WW2 probably delayed the recovery of the US economy.
(P.S. re:graph. After WW2 Japan adopted a constitution that made going to war illegal)
What put America on a boom after WW2 was having manufacturing that wasn't in shambles after almost all of the major industrial centers of the world had been reduced to rubble.
Q: What where they bombing, blowing up, attacking and defending?
A: Factories and infrastructure.
Q: Who didn't get bombed or blown up?
A: You need stuff? Well that part of the world that wasn't a battle ground is more than happy to help you get back on your feet... for a fee of course.
America went to work and helped rebuild a lot of the infrastructure in Europe and in Japan which lead to Germany and Japan having huge industrial booms once they got up and running. Bush got it wrong when he was selling the Iraq war, a war doesn't stimulate the economy, not in a meaningful long view kind of way it helps destroy it. Rebuilding after a war is always good for the economy, just like the rebuilding that happens after natural disasters, good for the economy but again not in a meaningful long view way.
Making weapons and ammunition is always money down the tubes. You create something of high value just so it can be destroyed, spent, eaten or maintained.
Spending on science and education not the military.
The US rode the re-industrial boom until the late 60's-70's. What also helped drive that boom was the huge focused boost on scientific endeavors. It boosted education, it boosted high paying jobs it boosted manufacturing and it drove many of the technological advancements we use today. The war effort did kick start many of the advancements but they where a drain during the war. It wasn't until after the war and how they where developed and used in the private sector that lead to the actual meaningful advancements that had positive economic effects.
We didn't need a war to bring about those advancements either...
Wernher Von Braun is a good example of this. He later went onto head up the US rocket program but before that he ran the German V2 rocket program. Without the war he would have gone on to do great things with peaceful rockets. Thankfully for the US he fell into their lap and went on to form the backbone of the US rocket program.
Cold war spending bankrupted Russia.
On the other side, it almost did in the US too. US cold war spending played a major hand in dealing the hand that the US is now trying to figure out how to play. It set the stage and put a lot of people in power that really like seeing those big contracts handed out. The last time the military greed was beaten back it caused us to drastically cut back, it almost balance the budget and kicked off an economic boom (the 90's). Then some idiot went and started two more wars and cranked the war spending back up to never before seen levels, and look at where we are now...
I'm pretty sure if you tracked war spending you would see extremely hard times when military spending is up and prosperity when that money goes to other things like education and science. Putting your money in education and science also has the added effect of showing the rest of the world that you aren't a bunch of warmongering slack jaws. It fosters cooperation (ISS), breaks down barriers and solves common human problems (advancements in farming techniques, beating back diseases bla bla bla).
You can foster xenophobic hate and shun science as the devils toy. You can try and try to invent new financial schemes to fund the creation and destruction of property. Or you can put your money into good science that solves problems and makes life better while also creating value and growing wealth.
Here is a pretty simple example.
4.1 trillion spent over 10 years on the war on terror, what do we have to show for it?
20 billion over 30 years spent on the shuttle program, what do we have to show for it?
Which was the better investment?
He was describing a tactic, meaning it's used intentionally, called "starving the beast". Where for no reason other than to destroy something, they maliciously damage it to the point where it's not working, then point to it not working as reason to terminally kill it. The things being government programs and departments.
That's straight out of x-files dude.
Now, if the argument was that they have a list of priorities, and their buddies in the military industrial complex come first, while the little-person is dead last, then it would make sense. Like I said, that's greed, and that's (in my personal opinion) what government is all about. But maliciously destroying Social Security or the Department of Education for the sole reason of destroying those things to hurt the little-person, is just being paranoid.
Ah, okay. I understand, and I see both of your opinions.
I also think of it like this as well:
Your vehicle isn't running right and you take it to a mechanic. Unfortunately for you, you can't diagnose the problem.
They start giving you a laundry list of things that need to get done, you think about it and get the items listed fixed.
Job complete, you drive around for awhile and something else goes wrong. You take the vehicle back to the shop and another laundry list shows up. You start getting a bit suspicious and wonder if they might be damaging your vehicle more in order for you to return, making you a repeat customer.
Little do you know, they are damaging your car to make you a repeat customer.
Now I haven't had this happen to me in a rather long while, but this has happened to myself in the past. How I found out was from another mechanic.
So things like damaging good parts does happen. And if it can happen with small issues to one person, it can happen to larger issues that affect many.
The goal of the mechanic was to get repeat customers. If someone was to damage Social Security or Education to kill it, I'm sure there could be many benefits to someone or groups of someone.
"Someone will always make money off of others misfortunes." - quoted from "someone" I'm sure...I made a funny.
Oh look at this graph. Clearly having 2 nukes dropped on your major cities is a surefire recipe for economic success!
"War creates jobs" falls into the "stupidest shit you can imagine" category. It has no basis in fact. If it did, then why is our economy weak? We have been at war for over a decade and spend more money on war now then ever before.
After WW2, the US was able to leverage the fact that they were the only industrialized country left standing with a functioning economy to make the USD the world's reserve currency, and then they used that to extract value from European markets.
When financial systems collapse, like with the great depression, they usually last 10-15 years. The reality is that the start of WW2 probably delayed the recovery of the US economy.
(P.S. re:graph. After WW2 Japan adopted a constitution that made going to war illegal)
Of course Japan when into a boom, America took it over! We rebuilt their country and became allies.
If it was because America was the only nation with industry still standing, why did western Europe do so well on that chart with an almost identical trend?
If it was because America was the only nation with industry still standing, why did western Europe do so well on that chart with an almost identical trend?
Yeah, that is a decent question. It is similar but less. I suspect that it was mostly from putting into use production technology to make consumer goods that had been previously not existed or was wasted building bombs during WW1 & WW2.
If you want to read more about how famously dumb the idea of war making jobs is you should check this out:
why did western Europe do so well on that chart with an almost identical trend?
Yeah, that is a decent question. It is similar but less.
At the end of World War 2 the major western european countries tied their coal and steel production industries together by signing treaties. This made it essentially economically impossible for them to go to war with eachother again.
Japan might have written war out right in their constitution but western europe did it by anchoring their most important war production resources together.
Yeah, that is a decent question. It is similar but less. I suspect that it was mostly from putting into use production technology to make consumer goods that had been previously not existed or was wasted building bombs during WW1 & WW2.
If you want to read more about how famously dumb the idea of war making jobs is you should check this out:
[edit]damn, Bibendum beat me to it while I was typing this out.
Man, I'll have to read that when I'm not so sleepy to fully understand that gibberish. After skimming through it for a bit though, it seems to be a bunch of if then statements that could be interpreted in different ways.
Keeping it simple for myself:
Rock thrower was hired by the glazier: Free rock, minus $1 for encouragement
Glazier fixes window: gets paid $5, lets say minus $2 in supplies. Profit of $3.
Glazier gives rock thrower more free rocks: Glazier is making a huge profit from everyone at everyone's expense. Glazier doesn't care about shoes the shop keeper needed.
That's not even to say, if a bomb maker owned a construction company. Destroy, rebuild = make bank suckas!
excerpt-
"Today is the Occupy Our Homes National Day of Action to Stop and Reverse Foreclosures. Actions are taking place in over twenty-five cities around America, as the Occupy movement joins with homeowners and people fighting for a place to live. Our system has been serving Wall Street, big banks, and the one percent. Clearly this has not worked. We are the 99% and we are reclaiming our homes."
until we see the day when he actually does anything substantial it will all be just words and no action.
from the looks of it, nothing will happen anytime soon because of election and most likely people will get duped to vote for him again expecting change but returning with pennies and dimes.
If you've ever thought that a president truly stood by their words, within the past 50 years or so, then I feel sorry for you. They're just words to stay in a position of power and money.
I haven't read the link but I did listen to his speech. He gave a good talk and hit a lot of good points. I'm just wondering where the guy that gave the speech has been and if he'll be around afterward.
Too bad he is powerless to act on anything he brought up and even if he could, he wouldn't.
In regards to the Nation Defense Authorization Act, here's McCain's thought on being able to call any American citizen a terrorist, an enemy of war, and send them away indefinitely without trial.
Also, if you have any thoughts on Obama vetoing the NDAA, here's an interesting video about his thoughts of detaining people without trial from earlier this year.
By the way, the revisions he proposed were denied (voted no), of course. I think the President looks at it on the 8th (tomorrow). Don't hold your breath.
That's horrible, and he's exactly right.
So I'm guessing the NDAA will be for people that protest? They'll be labeled as terrorists to our country and be held in indefinite detention guaranteed.
We can support other countries that rally up against their oppressors but we don't stand behind our own citizens when they voice their opinions. Pathetic.
^George Orwell has to be chuckling right now... it's like they're Preserving our freedoms till the world is ready for us to use them. I mean, if that's not orwellian i DON'T know what it is.
Also, if you have any thoughts on Obama vetoing the NDAA, here's an interesting video about his thoughts of detaining people without trial from earlier this year.
Aye, it didn't sound to me like he said we shouldn't insure banks. In fact it seemed like he was adamant that insured investments are the norm to guarantee only private losses for the bank. He also said he was against approving fake low interest loans.
He has some good points. There does need to be some reform in Washington, the lobbyist do need to be run out of town. Then his over arching message of "less regulation, the problem is only in Washington, wall st is doing nothing wrong", is totally false. The money comes from wall st, they are the ones with the agenda to push they are the ones pursuing the tax breaks and bailouts. Wall St buys puppets to write laws it likes. If regulations where an issue they could easily change that, like they do with the tax code.
I would really like to hear specifics examples about which regulations are hurting "small business" and why. When I talk to small business owners (all 3 of them, a coffee shop, a consultant and an accountant) they are more worried about customers not showing up or spending less when they do. ALL of them say that destroying the EPA wouldn't help their business or bring more customers in. The deregulation card is just something oil and coal are playing so they can rake in even more money, screw that. Everyone likes clean air and water and not having years shaved off their life thanks to a dirty environment.
If a bunch of rich fuckers love dirty air so much why don't they move to Bejing or Mexico City. If bringing back jobs means abusing workers and the environment like they can do in other countries then forget it, we would be better off farming our own food and battering with chickens feet.
I don't know what crack head they talked to that got everyone thinking the movement was anti capitalist. The majority of people in America aren't anti capitalist, people like the majority of corporations that don't have their dick up Washington's ass. They want capitalism to function like it did for many years before it was deregulated and broke the system. When people talk about more regulation its really about restoring regulations back to a time when things where fair and rich people where still rich but they didn't get that way by rewriting the rule book in their favor.
There are some very lazy rich people who would rather make their money the easy way by screwing people over. You can make good money and not be a total douche bag. There are a few in the 1% that don't make their money that way so I do agree that it isn't fair to lump them all together, but it doesn't fit nicely on protest sign.
I think his discussion clears up misconceptions about the movement that are fabricated by the right and he also clarifies some misguided ideologies about wall street and it's role in the economic turmoil.
The whole 1% is a played out catch phrase and he does a decent job of clarifying the problems and addressing the misunderstandings.
He addressed the lobbying and political fundraising involvement too. It was nice to see some of the protestors come around and share his sentiments.
Unfortunately it's easier to rally people under the trivial ideals of "tax the rich, stop the greed" and I think it's interesting to see someone like him address what he feels the real problems.
In the end I think he is on the side of the movement but having a significant economic and financial background he can clarify things better.
I'm not sure how you reduced 54 pages of discussion, and constant highlighting of the very specific things that caused the global collapse to a very myopic idea of "tax the rich, stop the greed" but if you really think that's the entire premise of the movement, then you are intentionally ignoring everything, and I don't know what to tell you.
agreed.
i was gonna write a full reply to fuse but why bother if he is not reading hehe.
he will just ask you to take the chip off your shoulder
anyways, if Peter Schiff was right about government being the main problem then wouldn't the government be making the most profit from all the shenanigans ?
always follow the money trail
government didnt make trillions of dollars
wall street made trillions of dollars and used the government to extract that money from the tax payers.
i will give you this though, i dont believe capitalism is our problem. our problem is plain and simple greed+corruption and those who exploited the system getting away with it without any prosecution.
And you don't need to make assumptions or put words into my mouth. Don't turn it into a yelling match.
I was referencing people he was engaging in conversation.
You are just ready to pounce ! You are not reading the posts thoroughly and just looking for a reason to loudly voice yourself.
Let me clarify, it was nice to see him dispel the right-wing propaganda that this is an anti-capitalist movement because you can see the people in the crowd actually paying attention and listening to his observations, because in the end they agree on many things.
What you are doing right now is what I see time and time again. You are skimming through, looking for something you can quote so you can go on another rant. Turn it down a little, I am not disagreeing with you and am not out to get you.
MM: delicious chip! and yes, that appears to be Exactly what he is saying that is wrong with the system. He's just fighting to explain the fundamentals of ideal capitalism. I don't think he argues that the government involvement is due to greed but rather near sightedness and incompetence. At least, that's his take on it. Flawed maybe, but it made me think.
His main defense is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were securitizing any assets that came their way. That wouldn't have been a problem, if the banks weren't intentionally giving people with low income exploding interest rates so they could bet they would foreclose, which, by the way, is fraud.
You've got this precisely backwards, it's the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was securitizing anything that incentivized the bad behavior on the banks part. The ONLY reason a bank has to avoid making a loan to a risky borrower is the fear that the borrower is not going be able to pay it back. But when you can securitize debt and just resell it through the derivatives market and insure it by people like AIG, you're shifting the risk away from yourself, so there's no reason to bother caring whether or not the loan is going to be repaid. Infact it becomes much more profitable to just give out the riskiest highest interest loans to everyone you can.
So it's more accurate to say the only reason bad loans were a problem is because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were securitizing any assets that came their way.
His great idea is that we shouldn't be insuring banks, even though we only insure banks to prevent runs on them. The only reason we have so many regulations on banks, is because we had this same exact situation during the depression before we had rules like Glass Steagall.
AFAIK We don't insure banks we insure depositors money. Admittedly I didn't watch the whole thing but that didn't seem to be his idea either, the point he was making was that instead of trying to put in stricter regulations (which in this case is to say, literally any regulation at all), we should just make it our policy to never bail anyone out.
He's using the most basic free market theory of self interest: If a someone knows they can't and won't get bailed out, they won't engage in risky practice. If they know they're going to be bailed out in the event of a failure, they're more likely to engage in risky practice because again, just like in the above scenario, the risk has been transfered away from them!
The big flaw in his argument is that while this is a great principle, it doesn't actually work in this situation because in an unregulated (or poorly regulated) financial market it's easy to create a problem so big that the government cannot simply ignore it when it blows up. So in reality the *ONLY* way to fix this is through proper regulation. Deregulation won't solve shit because every financial institution knows that if it poses a big enough risk to the global economy, governments will have no choice but to bail it out.
The big flaw in his argument is that while this is a great principle, it doesn't actually work in this situation because in an unregulated (or poorly regulated) financial market it's easy to create a problem so big that the government cannot simply ignore it when it blows up. So in reality the *ONLY* way to fix this is through proper regulation. Deregulation won't solve shit because every financial institution knows that if it poses a big enough risk to the global economy, governments will have no choice but to bail it out.
Securities traders like a volatile market. You can't make as big a profit off a market that steadily grows. You want one that's crashing one moment and booming the next. Because there's a bigger price difference between the two.
So with that in mind it doesn't matter to the big financial firms if the stock market crashes. As long as they can adequately predict it. They'll still make loads of money. Even if their company goes out of business they'll still have loads of money and resources. Since the bonuses involved are larger than most peoples retirement funds will ever be.
So financial firms are always going to be in favor of deregulation. It makes the market more volatile, more profitable. So, while they'll certainly try to get bailed out, they don't really have to depend on being bailed out. Especially since many will assume that they're not going to be the ones to lose.
If Fannie and Freddie are such dominating market forces that they dictate how every other mortgage lender is going to behave, why aren't the banks following Fannie and Freddie in allowing home owners to write down the principle of the loans to better reflect where the prices of homes actually are now and therefor stave off foreclosure while boosting the economy?
Obama pushed it through for Fannie and Freddie, they're doing it now, the government is cleaning up its balance sheet and fixing the problem while doing right by home owners who haven't walked. Why is it that suddenly banks can turn a deaf ear and a blind eye? If Fannie and Freddie had the power to twist their arms so much that they had no choice why aren't they playing along?
It's not really profitable to make high interest rate loans with the intent of them defaulting if you can't sell them.
That's entirely my point...
You're leaving out the part where banks go to ratings agencies and bribe them into rating their assets AAA so they could be sold in the first place. If they're not rated well, no one's going to touch them. Also, the banks weren't just selling to Fmae and Fmac, they were selling to overseas investors as well.
Tell me, would there be a financial collapse if Fmae and Fmac securitized everything, and the banks didn't make bad loans on purpose, then got them rated AAA?
No but then you're leaning on the morality of a banker which is a seriously stupid premise.
MBS generally always have high ratings because of the fact that there is collateral and they're bundled to average risk. Fannie and Freddie's securities were rated AAA primarily because they guaranteed them. No doubt the ratings agencies should have done a better job but Fannie and Freddie were the gatekeepers here.
Also can you link me to a source on this bribery? All I've read about is gross incompetence in measuring the risk of bundled securities in general.
On the reverse, would a financial collapse have happened if the banks got their bad mortgages rated AAA, and Fmae/Fmac didn't securitize them?
The financial collapse is more than just the subprime mortgage crisis but if no MBS issuer had securitized these loans, the subprime mortgage crisis probably wouldn't have happened because banks would have had no market to sell their shit loans to and therefor no reason to make bad loans in the first place because they'd retain all the risk. If only Fannie and Freddie in particular hadn't securitized them, I don't know... they weren't the only MBS issuer but they were certainly the biggest and worst offendor because they guaranteed their loans which gave them artificially high ratings.
Furthermore because of those guarantees, Fannie and Freddie took up the vast majority of the bailout funds. A problem they wouldn't have if they hadn't lowered their underwriting standards to buy all this garbage.
I'm not denying that banks played a big role but Fannie and Freddie are largely what made this whole thing possible.
I give the keys to my adult son of 25 years old, he uses it to run over his girlfriend, and returns the car to me with her body in the trunk. Somehow, it's entirely my fault because the car is mine.
Here's a far more apt analogy: Your son is a sociopath, you tell him you'll pay him 1 dollar for every cat he brings home. But they have to be alive. Then after a while you tell him you'll accept dead cats too, and not only that but you'll pay him twice as much for the dead cats. Whos fault is it that your son begins killing cats?
Ganemi and Bibendum, can you guys start running for office? Same goes for you Mark.
I'd rather vote for either one of you guys as this coming election is all one big joke.
I've only heard nonsense and confusion coming from the parties at large.
The only people that "get it", are people that aren't supported by big money and can't afford to campaign.
Replies
I wasn't talking about the time during the war. It's the results of what it starts that matters.
It's pretty simple. War creates demand for more goods. Demand for more goods creates demand for labor. Demand for labor creates jobs and that means more income for people. People with more income means they can consume more goods (homes, education, investment, cars, etc.) increasing demand in other sectors. That's how war fuels the economy. I'm not saying it's right or good, but war makes economies move. It was the demand for supplies and weapons to fight the Nazis that pulled America out of the great depression. Yes, there was rationing and sacrifice required from the people at home, but it initiated a chain of events that lead to the most prosperous period of the 20th century.
I'm not arguing that they deserve more money than teachers - unless there was a US Department of Football then you can actually argue that NFL players are overpayed. But maybe you're right, the government should step in and bust up the players union and set maximum wage laws.
It seems like it's an X-file until you suss-out their incentives.
It's not just for the sole purpose of destroying it, it's to get rid of an entire department of government that was using tax dollars. One less mouth to feed means less taxes and we all know who the savings will be passed on to. Government programs cost money that the rich don't want to pay for because they have no need for government programs, they're rich. They can buy all they need to be smart, healthy, and successful. So they get their cronies to starve it and when it starts to fail from lack of funds, they blame the program itself. Once the program is gone, they can claim that they're paying too much and get the taxes lowered yet again while depriving the least of us the infrastructure we desperately need.
When republicans demand a smaller government they are demanding a cheaper government that their buddies don't have to pay so much for. "Big government" is just a sideways way to say, "More government than we want to pay for". They don't need those programs, they're rich!
The question you should always ask when politicians call for downsizing of the government in their battle against "Big government" is what their incentives are and who it benefits. The answer will almost invariably be the rich people who don't need those government programs. They try to convince us it's for the little people when it's actually the exact opposite.
Oh look at this graph. Clearly having 2 nukes dropped on your major cities is a surefire recipe for economic success!
"War creates jobs" falls into the "stupidest shit you can imagine" category. It has no basis in fact. If it did, then why is our economy weak? We have been at war for over a decade and spend more money on war now then ever before.
After WW2, the US was able to leverage the fact that they were the only industrialized country left standing with a functioning economy to make the USD the world's reserve currency, and then they used that to extract value from European markets.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system)
When financial systems collapse, like with the great depression, they usually last 10-15 years. The reality is that the start of WW2 probably delayed the recovery of the US economy.
(P.S. re:graph. After WW2 Japan adopted a constitution that made going to war illegal)
No, ur just a moran what hates the bible!
Q: What where they bombing, blowing up, attacking and defending?
A: Factories and infrastructure.
Q: Who didn't get bombed or blown up?
A: You need stuff? Well that part of the world that wasn't a battle ground is more than happy to help you get back on your feet... for a fee of course.
America went to work and helped rebuild a lot of the infrastructure in Europe and in Japan which lead to Germany and Japan having huge industrial booms once they got up and running. Bush got it wrong when he was selling the Iraq war, a war doesn't stimulate the economy, not in a meaningful long view kind of way it helps destroy it. Rebuilding after a war is always good for the economy, just like the rebuilding that happens after natural disasters, good for the economy but again not in a meaningful long view way.
Making weapons and ammunition is always money down the tubes. You create something of high value just so it can be destroyed, spent, eaten or maintained.
Spending on science and education not the military.
The US rode the re-industrial boom until the late 60's-70's. What also helped drive that boom was the huge focused boost on scientific endeavors. It boosted education, it boosted high paying jobs it boosted manufacturing and it drove many of the technological advancements we use today. The war effort did kick start many of the advancements but they where a drain during the war. It wasn't until after the war and how they where developed and used in the private sector that lead to the actual meaningful advancements that had positive economic effects.
We didn't need a war to bring about those advancements either...
Wernher Von Braun is a good example of this. He later went onto head up the US rocket program but before that he ran the German V2 rocket program. Without the war he would have gone on to do great things with peaceful rockets. Thankfully for the US he fell into their lap and went on to form the backbone of the US rocket program.
Cold war spending bankrupted Russia.
On the other side, it almost did in the US too. US cold war spending played a major hand in dealing the hand that the US is now trying to figure out how to play. It set the stage and put a lot of people in power that really like seeing those big contracts handed out. The last time the military greed was beaten back it caused us to drastically cut back, it almost balance the budget and kicked off an economic boom (the 90's). Then some idiot went and started two more wars and cranked the war spending back up to never before seen levels, and look at where we are now...
I'm pretty sure if you tracked war spending you would see extremely hard times when military spending is up and prosperity when that money goes to other things like education and science. Putting your money in education and science also has the added effect of showing the rest of the world that you aren't a bunch of warmongering slack jaws. It fosters cooperation (ISS), breaks down barriers and solves common human problems (advancements in farming techniques, beating back diseases bla bla bla).
You can foster xenophobic hate and shun science as the devils toy. You can try and try to invent new financial schemes to fund the creation and destruction of property. Or you can put your money into good science that solves problems and makes life better while also creating value and growing wealth.
Here is a pretty simple example.
4.1 trillion spent over 10 years on the war on terror, what do we have to show for it?
20 billion over 30 years spent on the shuttle program, what do we have to show for it?
Which was the better investment?
Ah, okay. I understand, and I see both of your opinions.
I also think of it like this as well:
Your vehicle isn't running right and you take it to a mechanic. Unfortunately for you, you can't diagnose the problem.
They start giving you a laundry list of things that need to get done, you think about it and get the items listed fixed.
Job complete, you drive around for awhile and something else goes wrong. You take the vehicle back to the shop and another laundry list shows up. You start getting a bit suspicious and wonder if they might be damaging your vehicle more in order for you to return, making you a repeat customer.
Little do you know, they are damaging your car to make you a repeat customer.
Now I haven't had this happen to me in a rather long while, but this has happened to myself in the past. How I found out was from another mechanic.
So things like damaging good parts does happen. And if it can happen with small issues to one person, it can happen to larger issues that affect many.
The goal of the mechanic was to get repeat customers. If someone was to damage Social Security or Education to kill it, I'm sure there could be many benefits to someone or groups of someone.
"Someone will always make money off of others misfortunes." - quoted from "someone" I'm sure...I made a funny.
Of course Japan when into a boom, America took it over! We rebuilt their country and became allies.
If it was because America was the only nation with industry still standing, why did western Europe do so well on that chart with an almost identical trend?
Yeah, that is a decent question. It is similar but less. I suspect that it was mostly from putting into use production technology to make consumer goods that had been previously not existed or was wasted building bombs during WW1 & WW2.
If you want to read more about how famously dumb the idea of war making jobs is you should check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
[edit]damn, Bibendum beat me to it while I was typing this out.
what is relevant is that war is very profitable to the corrupt players of 1% many of whom control banks, oil companies and defense contractors.
AND, according to trickle down economics it is suppose to trickle down from the ass cheeks of 1% to the tongues of the 99%
At the end of World War 2 the major western european countries tied their coal and steel production industries together by signing treaties. This made it essentially economically impossible for them to go to war with eachother again.
Japan might have written war out right in their constitution but western europe did it by anchoring their most important war production resources together.
Same result either way.
Man, I'll have to read that when I'm not so sleepy to fully understand that gibberish. After skimming through it for a bit though, it seems to be a bunch of if then statements that could be interpreted in different ways.
Keeping it simple for myself:
Rock thrower was hired by the glazier: Free rock, minus $1 for encouragement
Glazier fixes window: gets paid $5, lets say minus $2 in supplies. Profit of $3.
Glazier gives rock thrower more free rocks: Glazier is making a huge profit from everyone at everyone's expense. Glazier doesn't care about shoes the shop keeper needed.
That's not even to say, if a bomb maker owned a construction company. Destroy, rebuild = make bank suckas!
Agreed.
I mean, they've only got 80 years of good living, so why not rape the masses and sit around fat and happy for those 80 years.
http://occupyourhomes.org/blog/2011/dec/6/national-day-action-stop-and-reverse-foreclosures/
excerpt-
"Today is the Occupy Our Homes National Day of Action to Stop and Reverse Foreclosures. Actions are taking place in over twenty-five cities around America, as the Occupy movement joins with homeowners and people fighting for a place to live. Our system has been serving Wall Street, big banks, and the one percent. Clearly this has not worked. We are the 99% and we are reclaiming our homes."
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/07/the_evolution_of_a_populist/singleton/
Seems kind of lame to me...
saw this coming.
until we see the day when he actually does anything substantial it will all be just words and no action.
from the looks of it, nothing will happen anytime soon because of election and most likely people will get duped to vote for him again expecting change but returning with pennies and dimes.
Too bad he is powerless to act on anything he brought up and even if he could, he wouldn't.
http://youtu.be/5LmPrET0XnE?t=2m30s
[ame="
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iD1T61oTrR8#!
By the way, the revisions he proposed were denied (voted no), of course. I think the President looks at it on the 8th (tomorrow). Don't hold your breath.
In other news, Family Guy writer gets beaten and arrested at Occupy LA and writes about it:
http://myoccupylaarrest.blogspot.com/?mid=5490
That's horrible, and he's exactly right.
So I'm guessing the NDAA will be for people that protest? They'll be labeled as terrorists to our country and be held in indefinite detention guaranteed.
We can support other countries that rally up against their oppressors but we don't stand behind our own citizens when they voice their opinions. Pathetic.
[ame="
[ame="
I would really like to hear specifics examples about which regulations are hurting "small business" and why. When I talk to small business owners (all 3 of them, a coffee shop, a consultant and an accountant) they are more worried about customers not showing up or spending less when they do. ALL of them say that destroying the EPA wouldn't help their business or bring more customers in. The deregulation card is just something oil and coal are playing so they can rake in even more money, screw that. Everyone likes clean air and water and not having years shaved off their life thanks to a dirty environment.
If a bunch of rich fuckers love dirty air so much why don't they move to Bejing or Mexico City. If bringing back jobs means abusing workers and the environment like they can do in other countries then forget it, we would be better off farming our own food and battering with chickens feet.
I don't know what crack head they talked to that got everyone thinking the movement was anti capitalist. The majority of people in America aren't anti capitalist, people like the majority of corporations that don't have their dick up Washington's ass. They want capitalism to function like it did for many years before it was deregulated and broke the system. When people talk about more regulation its really about restoring regulations back to a time when things where fair and rich people where still rich but they didn't get that way by rewriting the rule book in their favor.
There are some very lazy rich people who would rather make their money the easy way by screwing people over. You can make good money and not be a total douche bag. There are a few in the 1% that don't make their money that way so I do agree that it isn't fair to lump them all together, but it doesn't fit nicely on protest sign.
I think his discussion clears up misconceptions about the movement that are fabricated by the right and he also clarifies some misguided ideologies about wall street and it's role in the economic turmoil.
The whole 1% is a played out catch phrase and he does a decent job of clarifying the problems and addressing the misunderstandings.
He addressed the lobbying and political fundraising involvement too. It was nice to see some of the protestors come around and share his sentiments.
Unfortunately it's easier to rally people under the trivial ideals of "tax the rich, stop the greed" and I think it's interesting to see someone like him address what he feels the real problems.
In the end I think he is on the side of the movement but having a significant economic and financial background he can clarify things better.
agreed.
i was gonna write a full reply to fuse but why bother if he is not reading hehe.
he will just ask you to take the chip off your shoulder
anyways, if Peter Schiff was right about government being the main problem then wouldn't the government be making the most profit from all the shenanigans ?
always follow the money trail
government didnt make trillions of dollars
wall street made trillions of dollars and used the government to extract that money from the tax payers.
i will give you this though, i dont believe capitalism is our problem. our problem is plain and simple greed+corruption and those who exploited the system getting away with it without any prosecution.
And you don't need to make assumptions or put words into my mouth. Don't turn it into a yelling match.
I was referencing people he was engaging in conversation.
You are just ready to pounce ! You are not reading the posts thoroughly and just looking for a reason to loudly voice yourself.
Let me clarify, it was nice to see him dispel the right-wing propaganda that this is an anti-capitalist movement because you can see the people in the crowd actually paying attention and listening to his observations, because in the end they agree on many things.
What you are doing right now is what I see time and time again. You are skimming through, looking for something you can quote so you can go on another rant. Turn it down a little, I am not disagreeing with you and am not out to get you.
MM: delicious chip! and yes, that appears to be Exactly what he is saying that is wrong with the system. He's just fighting to explain the fundamentals of ideal capitalism. I don't think he argues that the government involvement is due to greed but rather near sightedness and incompetence. At least, that's his take on it. Flawed maybe, but it made me think.
Alright mate I am sorry you found my statements absurd. Being honest, not trolling.
I just found his statements interesting and his arguements with the protestors thought-provoking.
So it's more accurate to say the only reason bad loans were a problem is because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were securitizing any assets that came their way.
AFAIK We don't insure banks we insure depositors money. Admittedly I didn't watch the whole thing but that didn't seem to be his idea either, the point he was making was that instead of trying to put in stricter regulations (which in this case is to say, literally any regulation at all), we should just make it our policy to never bail anyone out.
He's using the most basic free market theory of self interest: If a someone knows they can't and won't get bailed out, they won't engage in risky practice. If they know they're going to be bailed out in the event of a failure, they're more likely to engage in risky practice because again, just like in the above scenario, the risk has been transfered away from them!
The big flaw in his argument is that while this is a great principle, it doesn't actually work in this situation because in an unregulated (or poorly regulated) financial market it's easy to create a problem so big that the government cannot simply ignore it when it blows up. So in reality the *ONLY* way to fix this is through proper regulation. Deregulation won't solve shit because every financial institution knows that if it poses a big enough risk to the global economy, governments will have no choice but to bail it out.
[ame="
Securities traders like a volatile market. You can't make as big a profit off a market that steadily grows. You want one that's crashing one moment and booming the next. Because there's a bigger price difference between the two.
So with that in mind it doesn't matter to the big financial firms if the stock market crashes. As long as they can adequately predict it. They'll still make loads of money. Even if their company goes out of business they'll still have loads of money and resources. Since the bonuses involved are larger than most peoples retirement funds will ever be.
So financial firms are always going to be in favor of deregulation. It makes the market more volatile, more profitable. So, while they'll certainly try to get bailed out, they don't really have to depend on being bailed out. Especially since many will assume that they're not going to be the ones to lose.
Obama pushed it through for Fannie and Freddie, they're doing it now, the government is cleaning up its balance sheet and fixing the problem while doing right by home owners who haven't walked. Why is it that suddenly banks can turn a deaf ear and a blind eye? If Fannie and Freddie had the power to twist their arms so much that they had no choice why aren't they playing along?
Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC
[ame="
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/breaking-ows-occupies-movie-set-replica-itself-real
At one point, the police hold the fake zuchotti and a protester screams out "what's your demands?!"
Also, sign this http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
No but then you're leaning on the morality of a banker which is a seriously stupid premise.
MBS generally always have high ratings because of the fact that there is collateral and they're bundled to average risk. Fannie and Freddie's securities were rated AAA primarily because they guaranteed them. No doubt the ratings agencies should have done a better job but Fannie and Freddie were the gatekeepers here.
Also can you link me to a source on this bribery? All I've read about is gross incompetence in measuring the risk of bundled securities in general.
The financial collapse is more than just the subprime mortgage crisis but if no MBS issuer had securitized these loans, the subprime mortgage crisis probably wouldn't have happened because banks would have had no market to sell their shit loans to and therefor no reason to make bad loans in the first place because they'd retain all the risk. If only Fannie and Freddie in particular hadn't securitized them, I don't know... they weren't the only MBS issuer but they were certainly the biggest and worst offendor because they guaranteed their loans which gave them artificially high ratings.
Furthermore because of those guarantees, Fannie and Freddie took up the vast majority of the bailout funds. A problem they wouldn't have if they hadn't lowered their underwriting standards to buy all this garbage.
I'm not denying that banks played a big role but Fannie and Freddie are largely what made this whole thing possible.
Here's a far more apt analogy: Your son is a sociopath, you tell him you'll pay him 1 dollar for every cat he brings home. But they have to be alive. Then after a while you tell him you'll accept dead cats too, and not only that but you'll pay him twice as much for the dead cats. Whos fault is it that your son begins killing cats?
I'd rather vote for either one of you guys as this coming election is all one big joke.
I've only heard nonsense and confusion coming from the parties at large.
The only people that "get it", are people that aren't supported by big money and can't afford to campaign.
That's an old broadcast believed to be the catalyst for OWS.