Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,995
- 776
- 126
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: Phokus
When you have free market advocates dictating how much regulation we can have in the financial markets, we have disasters like the one we have now.
If you can manage, trying not thinking in such absolute terms. It will open up a world of options for you.
When you say "free market advocates", you're describing an entire spectrum of people, not just free market purists.
When you get there, let me know and we'll continue.
scoob said he would err on 'too little' regulation vs. 'too much' and you agreed with him.
Between 'too little' and 'too much', guess which one we had in the USA?
Have you looked at the economy under 'too much'? Many economists believe FDR dragged the GD on years beyond it's natural duration due to the amount of regulation and nationalization. So it's easy for you to sit there, isolate a moment in time, and use it to make a huge, generalized case against free markets.
And i posted a link to canada, that socialist country you free marketers love to deride. They're ranked as having the soundest banking system by the world economic forum (US was ranked 40th) and have shielded themselves much better against the subprime mess than we have. Obama praised their banking system, which probably means we'll never adopt any of their policies because you free market fundamentalists will scream 'socialism' and obstruct any chance of change.
There you go, working in absolutes so you can pigeon hole everyone to make an argument .
The informed are wary of regulation for a reason, because we've learned from it:
UCLA Economists Determine FDR Prolonged GD by 7 Years
Cliffs notes for the above, interpreted by businessandmedia.org
There's oodles more out there on the subject, but my point is that there's reason to not dive in head first. Several of us have already told you that we're not opposed to regulation, we just want to be careful with it and not overstep bounds. I know that makes it really hard for you to level charges of 'obstructionism' and accuse us of being fundamentalists, so it's much easier for you to lump us all into one 'extreme' category.
Like I said, quit thinking in such absolutes. It's handicapping you. Teclis and others have made great points, and not at the exclusion of regulation. Unfortunately, those points appear to be lost on you .
That article is hilarioius, especially considering between 1933 and 1940, we saw some of the highest sustained growth rates in GDP in this country:
http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html
Considering economists are so bad at even predicting current day recessions, i really don't put much grain of salt into a study that doesn't even get it's facts right.
Respond to me and i'll show you WHY the study is terrible (the numbers are beyond unrealistic)
LMFAO
There are dozens of studies, books, and articles written on the subject, but since materials composed by highly regarded economists aren't good enough for you - your own personal feelings on the matter are certainly more reliable - then I think you and I are through. Those stupid Nobel Laureats... you should edumacate them on Phokinomiks and set the record straight! On a totally unrelated note, I wonder what MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING DOES TO GDP?! :laugh:
They don't call you the new dmcowen for nothing, do they :laugh: .
These are the same economists who scratch their head when they believe trickle down economics benefits everyone, yet recent explosion in economic growth has led to stagnant middle class wages but an explosion in the top percentile of wages. These are the same economists who scratch their head when deregulation leads us to economic disaster in the financial markets (only 1 or 2 economists in the country warned us about the subprime lending). These are the same economists who can't predict recessions acurately.
But let me post it for you again:
The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement.
Here's the difference between you and i. You dig up articles on the 'net without even looking at what they're saying and present it as some sort of 'proof' of your position, i actually go behind the numbers and make you look stupid (and believe me, you are incredibly stupid).