Thread: The class warfare argument

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

And





Pretty much. If you noticed, and you quoted me, my first statement was a question. The second was a declarative sentence. You claimed: “So the whole Harvard study shows the jobs being created from low interest rates,” yet nowhere in the Harvard study do the writers ever assert that, their own study, show jobs being created from low interest rates.

And now for a brief interlude, a quote from our sponsor.



O-kay. And back on planet Earth.

You asserted, “So the whole Harvard study shows the jobs being created from low interest rates.” If you want to have an argument over semantics, go some place else. You wrote, “So the whole Harvard study shows the jobs being created from low interest rates.” Well, no. the Harvard study does not show “the jobs being created from low interests rates.” Period.

tashi deleks,

M

Welcome back to earth ... I've tried to explain slowly that low interest rates drive risk and demand for housing loans. However economic studies are not written for 4th graders, as they assume you understand basic economics. If you don't, it's best to not read them as they can be confusing when you don't understand supply and demand.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Risk is more profitable, but lending institutions always seek to minimize their risks. Like the old hedge fund structure of balancing buys with sells, you do it to minimize risk, while maximizing potential profit.



Why do you quote stuff, you clearly don’t understand?

tashi deleks,

M

Did you reply to this post? Nope

Whats the purpose of a repo 105?

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

No, of course not, I never watch the news, it gives me gas. :rolleyes:



Considering your habit of misquoting and mischaracterizing the studies you link to, I’ll need to read the pdf you present before I could comment, considering it is 266 pages, I can’t help from wondering, if you read it all or in part.

sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf

Attachment 12161

That’s nice. I wonder if it is showing what you believe it is. It would take a little while to read a 266 page pdf. I did read the description of your table though, interesting. Quoting: “Table 8 aggregates total dollar transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans but does not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs in
the term over which loans were outstanding. For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month period would appear as $10 billion. As a result, the total transaction amounts shown in table 8 for PDCF are not directly comparable to the total transaction amounts shown for TAF and other programs that made loans for periods longer than overnight.”

So, a PDCF loan would of $10 billion renewed for 30 days, would appear as $300 billion, “although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days.” The PDCF column has the largest amount of loans, with a total of $8,951. How many of those loans are like the example given, smaller loans that were renewed for a period, but listed as totals of the entire renewal period?

One of the purposes of the Fed is to insure as much as possible, that there are no issues of liquidity, which is why the Fed lends to these institutions in the first place. I also must point out that your table 8 is listing borrowing from December 1, 2007 through July 21, 2010. Did you notice that there also appears to be a very small addition mistake in the table.

tashi deleks

M[/QUOTE]

When you catch up with the news and have read it ... I'll explain the parts you don't understand ... particularly the trillion plus in annualized loans.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

The regulations developed and are being developed from Dodd-Frank Reform would be a good start.



And if I scam someone for $100 I would not be given a 25-year prison sentence to serve, like Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom who scammed investors of 100 billion.



Obama Crap Care, “another corporate feeding trough for the wealthy.” Obama Crap Care helps neither the wealthy or the poor and the new regulations being forced on insurers will lead to many insurance companies failing or restructuring so they don‘t have to hold the new reserves levels that will make profitability a little less so.



Neither Obama Crap Care or Obama’s Porkulous Package were “scams” in the legal sense, they were government legislation that were/are plain stupid and have not and will not deliver on their promises.

tashi deleks,

M

So I'm glad we agree we need regulations that limit investor exposure to scam artists, due to the large sums of money involved. I knew you would come around.

Your welcome to view Obamacare and the job stimulus as not delivering on their promises ... I prefer to think of them as a scam on the American people.

Getting in the way of a recovery means not repeating past mistakes. Bubbles will continue as long as we have a large trade deficit. The bubble can only move from item to item. You want commodities boom. Probably monies tied up in reserves would be better then a bubble.

Originally Posted by michael h

So what did the PIIGS have in common?

Fiscal deficits due to government spending more than their tax revenues.

A current account deficit. The same thing that fed housing valuation increases.

This graph shows that countries with current account deficits tended to have rapid home price appreciation. Countries with current account surpluses tended to have slower home price appreciation.

blog.jparsons.net/2011/03/housing-bubble-and-trade-deficit.html

Correlations do not a causal relationship make. Compare housing starts with the money supply found here (specifically M3: http://www.shadowstats.com/charts/mo...e-money-supply Unfortunately the files are just a tiny bit too large to upload.

housing_starts.png

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Fiscal deficits due to government spending more than their tax revenues.





Correlations do not a causal relationship make. Compare housing starts with the money supply found here (specifically M3: http://www.shadowstats.com/charts/mo...e-money-supply Unfortunately the files are just a tiny bit too large to upload.

housing_starts.png

tashi deleks,

M

I've already presented data showing spending and budget deficits show no correlation what so ever. Try again with some data.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I am too lazy, but you can find those stats online surely. Start with FDR and include Ike as he was no conservative. Tax rates on the rich was 91 per cent.

Which no one paid, since they simply put their money in tax free shelters and set their income streams so they would never go above the income level which would trigger a 91 percent rate.

And we created the largest most prosperous middle class in world history.

Yes, in spite of the economic ignorance and regressive tax policies Americans prospered. Thanks to the fact that we were the only combatant of WW II who still had a functioning manufacturing base. An underutilized manufacturing base that was in desperate need of retooling and upgrading both before and after the war. Americans had also done without for not just the war years, but also the Depression years. WW II gave the illusion that America was back to work and expanding, but none of what Americans were producing was anything that was actually a creation of wealth.

But that was a different economic model, from the Democrats no less. So how's the Repub model working out with unsound banks, offshoring, free trade, etc.

Banks are unsound, because they were forced to make unsound loans and to minimize their risks they engaged in derivatives and other questionable financial instruments. You and the rest on the forum have been shown the evidence that proves off shoring is a net benefit for American workers and American consumers. PERIOD. Wherever trade is the freest all parties benefit. This is an established fact, which cannot be denied. PERIOD.

Sure ain't helping to build or substain a middle class,

Up until the Obama recession the middle class was getting smaller, because it was getting wealthier.

and more are in poverty.

\
Yep, and you can thank the Obama administration. The housing collapse and financial market meltdown hurt the rich and the poor, but poverty levels did not really rise until Obama’s ignorant economics were enacted.

But Cons can't see it. Because they don't look.

:rolleyes: The proof of who looks and who sees are in your own posts blind Blue.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by michael h

In reply to: Originally Posted by Mahasattva
Nope, they freely and voluntarily accepted risky loans. To paraphrase Baretta, “If you can’t pay the mortgage don’t buy the home.” Of course, people need to understand that the good times never last and saving for a rain day is always a good idea.

Nope, they freely chose to build homes. Considering the inflated prices of homes (caused to a great degree by absurd land use and zoning regulations), and considering the lowering of lending standards (forced, yes forced, on lending institutions by the House Banking Committee and Justice and organizations like ACORN, and embraced by Home Building Associations), and considering the accounting shenanigans of Freddie and Fannie (with the unstated belief that they would be bailed out by the government -- they were) -- all of the incentives to buy were in place for people to choose to build homes. If the above were not in place, the availability of low interest rate loans would not have created a bubble so huge, nor would the financial markets have been tied to the housing bubble in an attempt to cover the risks.

That would be interesting [sarcasm alert] since the Dodd-Frank Reform Act was not signed into law until July 21,2010. Are you saying that enacting Dodd-Frank magically suspended the laws of physics?

So tell me Mike were all of these housing starts caused by our trade deficit?

Attachment 12130

So these people were not held at gunpoint to build a home. And they had low interest rates to do it with.

You’re kidding?

So how many homes would Bush and Barney Frank have had built with high interest rates?

If lending standards had not been lowered, low interest rates would not have mattered. I remind you, Bush wanted to enact regulations to minimize the potential dangers of what Freddie and Fannie were doing and to tighten up the lending standards that were inflating the housing bubble. Dodd, Frank, and Waters refused to listen and refused to acknowledge the danger to our economy and they threw in the race card to demonize those who wanted to retrain the affordable housing dream.

As I stated before some of the housing starts were from the Bush/Frank contribution and they would not have been built without low interest rates.

If lending standards had not been lowered they would not have been built either. If stupid land use laws and regulations had not been enacted housing prices would not have climbed so high.

There was demand and low interest rates. No guns forcing them to build or accept adjustable rate mortgages.

So, when those people defaulted

No trade deficit ... no low TIPS rate.

No, Mike. The low interest rates where not caused by our trade deficit. China investing in U.S. Treasuries has nothing to do with our trade deficit.

Mike, you have yet to present anything that has changed my mind on what caused the housing market collapse or the financial market meltdown. Sure, everyone “wants” a house (not really), but that does not mean that everyone has the financial wherewithal to actually buy a house. By lowering lending standards demand was artificially increased and it set the stage, along with other factors already mentioned, for a big bubble popping. None of which had anything to do with our trade deficit.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by michael h

In reply to: Originally Posted by Mahasattva
If you reformed those programs (and that is what your own source recommended) it would limit the costs. Also, the habit of the Dems in Congress to constantly extend unemployment benefits has contributed to our high and prolonged unemployment rate. The longer unemployment is given and the more times it is extended incentivized the unemployed to remain unemployed.

Considering the actions of Congress and Obama, they may believe that.

The cost are due to federal programs Mike, which is what your own source asserted.

The benefits are greater than the costs Mike, as your own studies have shown. The problem is our own and not trade with China or out sourcing or trade deficits. Seeking to enact protectionists policies will cause the unemployment rate to rise and will harm Americans more. We need to focus and fix our problems, not blame others for them.

$32 to $61 benefit, against $52 is not a benefit when it costs millions of jobs.

The $52 loss was caused by U.S. federal programs Mike. AGAIN, the study you sight does not agree with you and does not support what you believe it does. And, AGAIN, our current unemployment rate has absolutely nothing to do with our trade with China or with the practice of out sourcing. Now, go ahead and post another study that does not claim what you will assert it does.

That's why Obama and the pubs battle over retraining costs when exporting jobs. You want a SKorea free trade agreement and they battle over retraining cost of employees having their jobs exported. Why are they at war over it if jobs are not lost?

The evidence that you refuse to acknowledge shows that jobs are not lost due to trade. Obama and the Republicans battle, because that is the environment we are living in today. Obama has not shown any capability of grasping even the simplest economic principles. Kind of like you.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

The $52 loss was caused by U.S. federal programs Mike. AGAIN, the study you sight does not agree with you and does not support what you believe it does. And, AGAIN, our current unemployment rate has absolutely nothing to do with our trade with China or with the practice of out sourcing. Now, go ahead and post another study that does not claim what you will assert it does.



The evidence that you refuse to acknowledge shows that jobs are not lost due to trade. Obama and the Republicans battle, because that is the environment we are living in today. Obama has not shown any capability of grasping even the simplest economic principles. Kind of like you.

tashi deleks,

M

lol they battle to battle. Sounds like us.

$32 to $61 benefit, against $52 is not a benefit when it costs millions of jobs. 1/2 of America is on the dole, A higher percentage (3 times higher) people in America struggle to pay for food then in China. Yet outsourcing and offshoring have nothing to do with it you say? Why? Because you say so? Because you cannot refute data?

Where did the 40 to 50 thousand of closed factories go BTW?

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

You’re kidding?



If lending standards had not been lowered, low interest rates would not have mattered. I remind you, Bush wanted to enact regulations to minimize the potential dangers of what Freddie and Fannie were doing and to tighten up the lending standards that were inflating the housing bubble. Dodd, Frank, and Waters refused to listen and refused to acknowledge the danger to our economy and they threw in the race card to demonize those who wanted to retrain the affordable housing dream.



If lending standards had not been lowered they would not have been built either. If stupid land use laws and regulations had not been enacted housing prices would not have climbed so high.



So, when those people defaulted



No, Mike. The low interest rates where not caused by our trade deficit. China investing in U.S. Treasuries has nothing to do with our trade deficit.

Mike, you have yet to present anything that has changed my mind on what caused the housing market collapse or the financial market meltdown. Sure, everyone “wants” a house (not really), but that does not mean that everyone has the financial wherewithal to actually buy a house. By lowering lending standards demand was artificially increased and it set the stage, along with other factors already mentioned, for a big bubble popping. None of which had anything to do with our trade deficit.

tashi deleks,

M

I've already shown the influence of foreign capital lowering interest rates. Yet once again you did not disprove it ... you just say it isn't that way ... because you said so. Any proof?

Originally Posted by michael h

Originally Posted by Mahasattva
The $52 loss was caused by U.S. federal programs Mike. AGAIN, the study you sight does not agree with you and does not support what you believe it does. And, AGAIN, our current unemployment rate has absolutely nothing to do with our trade with China or with the practice of out sourcing. Now, go ahead and post another study that does not claim what you will assert it does.

The evidence that you refuse to acknowledge shows that jobs are not lost due to trade. Obama and the Republicans battle, because that is the environment we are living in today. Obama has not shown any capability of grasping even the simplest economic principles. Kind of like you.

lol they battle to battle. Sounds like us.

Kind of sort of, but not really.

$32 to $61 benefit, against $52 is not a benefit when it costs millions of jobs.

You have already been shown that trade with China has not costs millions of jobs. The $52 lose is caused by economically unsound and wasteful U.S. federal programs, not trade with China.

1/2 of America is on the dole,

Ah, no. 150 million plus Americans are not on the dole. But I’ll agree that the numbers are higher than they should or need to be. Those who are on the dole should look either to themselves or the incompetent in chef in the White House for the state of the American economy.

A higher percentage (3 times higher) people in America struggle to pay for food then in China.

Provide a link for that claim please, and please don’t waste our time with another source that does not support what you claim it supports.

Yet outsourcing and offshoring have nothing to do with it you say?

Not according to the research I have provided and not even according to the research you provided.

Why? Because you say so? Because you cannot refute data?

Your denials do not magically make the facts disappear.

Where did the 40 to 50 thousand of closed factories go BTW?

Please provide a link that 40,000 to 50,000 factories have closed in the U.S. with actual evidence that shows these alleged closers were caused by trade with China or out sourcing.

tashi deleks,

M