• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rand Paul 2010

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
If the Libertarians are going to save us they better get their asses in gear. It looks to me like people will figure out they hate themselves sooner than we'll have a viable Libertarian party.
 
If the Libertarians are going to save us they better get their asses in gear. It looks to me like people will figure out they hate themselves sooner than we'll have a viable Libertarian party.
That would be tragic for the Libertarian Party. A society full of self-loathers wouldn't have any Libertarians in it at all!
 
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2009/0909.cfm


Simply put, the US has slack rules on getting loans. It was completely legal to lend money to people when you know they can't possibly pay it back. The US put emphasis on insuring the mortgage. Groups like Freddie Mac are a part of this problem.
1) give a loan to someone with a high loan to value ratio (lend them 100% the cost of the house)
2) give the loan at interest rates that are expected to rise
3) wait for the person to stop making payments for whatever reason
4) insurance monay pays the rest

Of course that's just the housing bubble.

While the deregulation was irresponsible due to other factors (fractional reserve banking, FDIC), low interest rates were the primary cause of this entire mess.
 
If the Libertarians are going to save us they better get their asses in gear. It looks to me like people will figure out they hate themselves sooner than we'll have a viable Libertarian party.

The only one standing in your way is you. 🙂
 
Not to dampen the spirit here, but Paul has dropped 7 points the last few months in his primary battle. Still in the lead but needs to stabilize things over the next few months.

GOP&



From Real Clear Politics





--
 
Not to dampen the spirit here, but Paul has dropped 7 points the last few months in his primary battle. Still in the lead but needs to stabilize things over the next few months.

GOP&

All the more reason for everyone reading this to send him $20 😉

The neocons have been pouring millions into his opponent's campaign over the past few months. The fact that he is still up is pretty shocking, and I think a good a testimony to p!ssed off voters are with the status quo.
 
Good god not this shit again. I'm waiting for spamflood of 9/11 and FED conspiracy threads by loony, vocal minority.
 
While the deregulation was irresponsible due to other factors (fractional reserve banking, FDIC), low interest rates were the primary cause of this entire mess.

You do realize he posted an econ paper showing statistical evidence of his argument and you're talking out of your ass, right?

The guy that he quoted made the same, unsubstantiated argument.




What do you do when empirics disagree with your dogma?

US vs Canada, housing prices and interest rates:


Housing price index:
_cfimg1542549887050803192.PNG


Central Bank target rates:
_cfimg5730634877892175956.PNG


Benchmark mortgage rates:
_cfimg-1187529927234114954.PNG


Bah can't pull the pics of of the article. Just read the thing.,
 
Last edited:
Why you talking about the Bush era like that?
There are plenty of people who spit on the legacies of both Presidents Bush and Obama equally as reckless deficit loving corporate oligarchic statists who have greatly diminished the personal liberty of every American.
 
Why you talking about the Bush era like that?

Ah yes, the Emocrats "bu..bu...bu...BUSH!" chant.

For the record, I have stated many times on these very forums that the Bush years were a travesty on many levels. I have vocally, and repeatedly, stated my utter contempt for the war in Iraq and how what was a legitimate effort (Afghanistan) suffered as a result. I have stated on these forums that the spending was inexcusable and needs to be reigned in and I don't care if it is Bush, Obama, or Mickey Mouse sitting in the White House. It needs to stop, and stop now.

Bush has not been president since January 20, 2009. Meanwhile, YOUR hero has chosen to continue many of the exact same policies you decry, while at the same time, outspending Bush. My point earlier, about the expanding nature of federal government intrusion was not only accurate, but undeniable. Bush expanded it. Yes. Obama is expanding it more. Yes. Neither was/is right.
 
There are plenty of people who spit on the legacies of both Presidents Bush and Obama equally as reckless deficit loving corporate oligarchic statists who have greatly diminished the personal liberty of every American.

And I am one of them. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
You do realize he posted an econ paper showing statistical evidence of his argument and you're talking out of your ass, right?

The guy that he quoted made the same, unsubstantiated argument.




What do you do when empirics disagree with your dogma?

US vs Canada, housing prices and interest rates:


Housing price index:
_cfimg1542549887050803192.PNG


Central Bank target rates:
_cfimg5730634877892175956.PNG


Benchmark mortgage rates:
_cfimg-1187529927234114954.PNG


Bah can't pull the pics of of the article. Just read the thing.,

I think we've already been through this...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2052075
 

Err where is the relevant part?

Your argument is that low interest rates caused the speculation and crash. Our next door neighbor had the same interest rates and they have not experienced crazy speculation or crash.

I would guess that the low rates didn't help, but real world data points to a completely different cause.

Also the fact the speculation was more pronounced in certain areas more than others would suggest that interest rates were not the main driver. (primate rate is the same in cali as in texas)
 
Last edited:
Err where is the relevant part?

Your argument is that low interest rates caused the speculation and crash. Our next door neighbor had the same interest rates and they have not experienced crazy speculation or crash.

I would guess that the low rates didn't help, but real world data points to a completely different cause.

Also the fact the speculation was more pronounced in certain areas more than others would suggest that interest rates were not the main driver. (primate rate is the same in cali as in texas)

It's not a long thread. Just look for Vic's posts.
 
^ Yeah, that'd be funny if I weren't always right about you, though. It's just boring making fun of you now.
 
You want to see an era of anarchy and tribulation followed by a reactionary swing to statism?

Fail.

I'd like to see true fiscal conservatives oust every member of Congress, regardless of the incumbent's party.

This.

I'd happily see Libertarians replace every Democrat and Republican in Congress.

And this.

Didn't this just happen? Conservatives wanted de-regulation. It happened. Anarchy. People elect "the most liberal candidate ever" (I don't know if that's true, Obama seems the same as all the other dems)

No, that's not what happened.

Why you talking about the Bush era like that?

Bush, Obama, they're much the same thing.
 
It's not a long thread. Just look for Vic's posts.

Come on man, 4 pages and then one blurb about historical interest rates being higher in the past than what they are now. That still doesn't explain why Canada didn't experience the same speculation.
 
Back
Top