/sci/ - Science & Math

>blaming banks
>not Washington

I see no math or science OP.

>>3908702
I blame Washington for not regulating the banks.

buying gold is the best form of protest

>>3908702
Wait, washington TOLD the banks to package shitty securities that they knew would fail and sell them to clints that trusted them at their word that they were sound investments?

ITS ALL COMING TOGETHER

it's just getting so ridiculous, though
i'd prefer complete corporate control to the shit even the most coherent of those idiots advocate

>>3908710
>economics

>>3908842
think, man, what made the bad loans packaged in the securities so shitty?

>>3908844

A free market economy based on Gold would be a based God's dream come true...cuz that means alchemy is true...and we can do whatever the fuck we want...

>Corporations are fucking stupid - gamble with fuck loads of money and then lose it all and wonder where they went wrong
>Government fucking stupid doesnt regulate this shit
>People fucking stupid for electing morons into government that just jack off their friends in the corporations and then complain and bitch when this shit blows up in their face

tl;dr i blame you americans, you are all so fucking dumb

>>3908849

predatory lending

>>3908860

DONT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN SHOWN ON CNN/FOX/MSNBC.

>>3908860

>giving poor people the chance to have mortgage and expensive liberal arts degrees
>bad

>>3908842

Don't forget: the ratings agencies that rated those securities triple-A were paid by ... the banks themselves.

How much is my unbiased and wholly objective opinion worth to you? One million? Two million? Fifty million?

And it's all legal, too, buddy.

>>3908881
>DONT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN WITH ANY CHANCE TO WIN
>HECK, JUST DON'T VOTE
ftfy

>>3908882
ooh, don't forget about artificially low interest rates encouraging retarded lending!

>>3908890

vote your hopes not your fears man, go ahead just continue to vote for the same people who have been fucking you in the ass for as long as you can remember

>>3908892

>artificially low

>doesn't understand how global economies work and that high savings in china depressed interest rates everywhere

they don't teach you this in econ 101
maybe next year you'll learn about it

>>3908892
You might have a point if the banks were lending at all. They aren't.

>>3908892
If the market works, the government and the Fed can't do anything about it. The Fed's tools would be amazingly, retardedly weak, and the government can't compel banks to make loans.

So by suggesting that this is Fed-caused, or government-caused, or both, you are admitting, flat out, that the market doesn't work. But if the market doesn't work, that's exactly why we need the government involved.

>>3908900
>thinks low interest rates don't encourage lending

>>3908900

>>Thinks there is one reason the economy failed.
>>2011
>>constanza.tiff

>>3908901
credit is frozen due to the nature of the current financial markets at the moment; in addition the interest rates before the crash were already relatively low

>>3908903
you seem to be confusing "the market works the most efficiently/ideally" there with "the fed/government does not function" there. interesting, considering it was not the topic of discussion whatsoever

>>3908905

>implying the fed could've changed this given the dynamics of the world economies...

>>3908908

there were multiple causes to the crisis, you should do your research instead of making strawmen

More capital for some means less capital for others.

The job of the government is to keep poor people just happy enough so that they don't complain.

>>3908894
or you could vote for a real change this time

>>3908927

What?

What if I make some capital. Then some has more capital and another person has the same amount they had prior.

>>3908928

austrian economics voodoo
nope.

free markets my ass

>>3908928
Just because I want change doesn't mean I want someone to dismantle the entire country.

>>3908920
>doesn't know the fed controls the federal funds rate nor the implications thereof

what, do you think i'm just on some rant about the federal reserve or whatever because big gubment is scary?
open your eyes, man

>>3908935
you've been lied to, and the world will soon come crashing down on your shoulders if you don't wake up

>>3908952

I'll humor you by giving you the excuse you're clearly looking for to rant about the Fed.

Explain for us plebes why the big, bad, ugly Fed is so bad.

Is strawman Liberty?

>>3908960
Cause they gave trillions of dollars to foreign banks

>>3908963

Maybe. They both post pics of some random black guy in all their posts.

>>3908966

...to prop them up so they wouldn't drag the world economy down into the gutter with them.

What else?

>>3908967
There's some anon who rallies on and on against the Fed, thinks that banking is a "cabal" and run by the Illuminati (though he won't come out and say it directly, he wants you to read his conspiracy book), that might be strawman without a trip.

>>3908928

>thinks letting banks do whatever they want is the answer

holy shit man, do you not realize why we are here in the first place?

Even though Wall Street are the people who did the deeds and bribed politicians in the first place, the real blame lies with Washington. It's because of bottomed out tax rates on the rich and newly introduced "loopholes" in bills that the rich were able to get richer while everyone else got poorer.

What we REALLY need is the following:
- Put tax rates back to where they were in the 40s (ie wealthiest 1% pay 90% income tax)
- Close loopholes
- Implement laws that prevent individuals from donating more than $10,000 total to any political causes in a given year (thus ensuring that just because you have a net worth of $5 billion doesn't mean you get a voice louder than the entire low or middle class in the political process)
- Implement laws that make it illegal for any business or corporation to contribute money to any politically affiliated organization or cause (ie just put the Tillman Act back in place)
- Increase the punishments for corruption charges to government seizure of all property and assets, along with a hefty jail sentence and mandatory community service twice as long as the jail sentence. The whole idea here is rather than a politician just having to worry about jail time when they get caught with corruption, they have to worry about losing everything they already have before accepting the bribe as well as spending a good chunk of the remainder of their lives doing forced work for society.
- Require extensive audits of all politicians during every tax year to ensure they aren't getting yachts and large sums of money as "gifts"

>>3908960
i'm most likely leaving soon, so no time to have a lengthy discussion
but since you asked, have some audit

>>3908963
no, liberty is an idiot. i'm just a friend passing through

>>3908983
god damn, wrong pic

>>3908969
>too big to fail lololol
and you people claim you oppose the banks

>>3908969
You guys don't realize the implications
This means that banks are immune to the free market
We might as well stop the charade and give them a crown already.

>>3908988

Don't leave until you explain this to everyone here.

-banks are going under without a bailout and will kill the world economy with it because of their own fucking mistakes

Either we bail them out or we let the economy fail.

How's that hard to rationalize?

>>3908980
oh shit son, you just implied something negative about ron paul! Do you have any idea the shitstorm thats about to start? RUN, SAVE YOURSELF!

>>3908996

Why would the whole economy "fail" if these banks went out of business?

>>3908996
>Either we bail them out or we let the economy fail
the problem here is you believe these are the only two possible outcomes

>>3908994

No. We bailed the banks out, now we leverage every fucking ounce of political power to rip the life out of them.

We bailed them out out of necessity. Now that they don't have a gun to the head of the economy, we rape the fuck out of them. BofA wants to charge debit fees? Shut them the fuck down (they said they "have a right to make a profit").

Banks aren't lending? SHut them the fuck down and give the money to community banks that will loan.

Why is this shit so hard for you to understand?

>>3908586
From that article
>“The more resources we give to small institutions, the more they’ll be able to provide conveniences like free A.T.M.’s and streamlined online banking so they can compete with the larger banks,” said Hannah Appel, 33, a postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University
This reminds me of that episode of South Park about Wal-mart where everyone goes to the smaller store and it ends up growing and becoming the next Wal-Mart.

>>3909005
think you can take it from here? i wasn't really planning on hanging around

>>3909001
too later, kneegrow

>>3909005
Banks pretty much control all the money. A few big banks go under and suddenly you see a few dozen trillion dollars vaporize overnight and the entire economy along with it.

Remember the Great Depression? That's what happened back then. Banks lost big in the stock market, folded, and everyone lost their life savings.

>>3909010
>>3909005

Those weren't the only possible outcomes? Explain.

Congress seemed to think so. Economists around the world seemed to think so.

Explain.

>>3909012
Just want to make sure. You do realize we made money off bailing out the banks right?

>>3909005
As "/sci/'s resident economist" you should realize that as bad as things are now with no lending, think about how bad it would be if those banks had failed completely and they didn't lend shit at all.
Change your name for fucks sake.

>>3909027
>As "/sci/'s resident economist" you should realize that as bad as things are now with no lending
Should be
>As "/sci/'s resident economist" you should realize that as bad as things are now with little lending

>>3909021

Off of some loans yes, but we still have trillions of dollars floating around out there with almost no chance of recouping it all.

>>3909005
they each have around 30k employees who make above average salaries, the unemployment rate would be hit hard and then consumption would fall even more...

but thats nothing compared to millions of people completely defaulting on mortgages, losing insurance and investments

for every mortgage made 3 insurance policies were taken out as CDOs, those insurance policies were used to back up various investments and tranches that were used to sell as stocks/derivatives by businesses and firms

it would be a chain reaction, the banks would fail, the insurance companies would fail, the businesses who secured loans that were financed with derivatives would fail, everyone would fail

life would end

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/business/in-private-conversation-wall-street-is-more-critical-of-p
rotesters.html?src=me&ref=general

"“Who do you think pays the taxes?” said one longtime money manager. “Financial services are one of the last things we do in this country and do it well. Let’s embrace it. If you want to keep having jobs outsourced, keep attacking financial services. This is just disgruntled people.”
U mad OWS?

>>3909017

Yeah sure thing bro.

>>3909019

>Banks pretty much control all the money. A few big banks go under and suddenly you see a few dozen trillion dollars vaporize overnight and the entire economy along with it.

This is like saying that is McDonalds went out of business hamburgers would just vaporize out of existence.

This is what I suspect would happen if a bank went out of business:

They would sell the company at a unideal price, sacrificing their autonomy bringing about no changes to their customers as their accounts would be untouched.

But I dont really know. Thats just what I suspect. On top of that the FDIC promises that your money in your account wont disappear. Thats also the original purpose of the Fed.

>Remember the Great Depression? That's what happened back then. Banks lost big in the stock market, folded, and everyone lost their life savings.

No, the great depression didnt have anything to do with the stock market. I think it had everything to do with the money supply and the federal reserve.

>>3908994
Unfortunately this is because our corrupt politicians didn't make one of the terms of the bailout "the federal government now owns 100% of your company".

We could have had that bailout money paid back in full with interest if that had been one of the terms. We could have also force fair banking policies and removed all the upper management with no pensions or severance and then replaced them with elected or appointed officials.

Seriously, all we did was just give them the fucking money, when in reality we should have said "look, we HAVE to bail you out because you hold the world economy by the balls, but it's still game over for you assholes. As far as we're concerned, we just purchased the entirety of your company and it belongs to us now".

>>3909035
>Financial services are one of the last things we do in this country and do it well.
Add another reason to the long list of why this country sucks.

>>3909033
We've been living a depression you fool.
Banks want you to think otherwise.

>>3909038
Let me google that for you.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/greatdepression/tp/greatdepression.htm
>#1. Stock market crash

>>3909020

Congress doesnt know shit. And Ive never heard of an economist who thought it made sense to bail out the banks.

>>3909027

There is an equilbirium of lending yeah? I cant say more or less is good or bad. You could say that we need banks to lend to get out of the recession. But thats a seperate issue from whether or not some banks go out of business as lending wont end since some banks went out of business.

With that said it could be true that there arent enough banks in the US, and that since the its a bit of an oligarchy of banks we are suffering since when that oligarchy collectively fails its harder for the industry to pick up the pieces. That could be true, but even then that wouldnt justify bailing them out. It would just mean we need to suffer for our mistakes in policy.

>>3909020
>Congress seemed to think so. Economists around the world seemed to think so
oh really? can you explain why, please?

>>3909012
yes, that's how the bailouts worked, right?

>>3909019
you do realize the great depression was the direct result of the bubble created in the 20's by the expansion of the money supply, which created a boom driven primarily by credit (much like the housing boom)? and this was the work of the federal reserve?
after such a crash, the affected financial institutions should be liquidized, not bailed out

>>3909047
Yet Ben Bernake pressured the treasury to bail them out.
Its just further proof that the federal reserve is a banking cartel.
Socialism for them, capitalism for you.

>>3909033

Alright new question, why should anyone care about the unemployment rate?

Im not being critical, its an open ended question.

Besides that Ill accept that, it would be bad for people and businesses if a lot of banks went out of business. Maybe, or maybe not that makes them worth bailing out, as bailing out comes with its own costs and benefits.

>life would end

Dear lord...

>>3909057
>why should anyone care about the unemployment rate?
I refuse to believe you don't know why it's important. No one is that dumb.

>>3909049
Great Depression Wiki
In relation to the 1929 downturn, historians emphasize structural factors like major bank failures and the stock market crash. In contrast, economists (such as Barry Eichengreen, Milton Friedman and Peter Temin) point to monetary factors such as actions by the US Federal Reserve that contracted the money supply, as well as Britain's decision to return to the Gold Standard at pre–World War I parities (US$4.86:£1).
>bank failure
>contracted money supply
Like the exact opposite of what you and resident are saying though its true, it was caused by the Fed.

>>3909046

I think thats wrong. And I dont think its mutually exclusive with that I said.

The article says that the stock market crashed prior to the great depression and thus caused it. Thats not totally informing. Often where I live dust storms preceed rain storms, that doesnt suggest one causes the other. But it does suggest that they are related, likewise the economy and the stock market are connected.

What I said was that the fed is responsible and the money supply was fucked up. The fed can fuck things up and consequently create a bubble which can form anywhere and perhaps every where. When people realize that all this growth and investment is artificial the economy AND the stock market crashes. Or what can happen is the fed can shrink the money supply in a way that people suddenly stop investing. And then the stock market crashes.

MIC CHECK!

>>3909080
MIC CHECK!

>>3909059

My thoughts are this:

Unemployment suggests that people arent getting jobs they want. And those individuals are better off having jobs. And there is perhaps a socially ideal amount of employment. So in that regard, yes, a certain amount of employment/unemployment is good. And I recognize that we are better off when we are closer to that amount.

However, that doesnt mean that because some random metric publicized in the media and managed by the government is lower we are better. Agencies can fuck with this number all the time.

There is the classic example that if we just paid people to dig ditches, it counts as a job, and does nothing good for anyone. Unemployment went down... does that mean anything good happened? No.

So thats why I ask. I hate it when people just yammer about unemployment. Who cares? Attach the problems of employment to something concrete before hand.

>>3908586
Another great victory for morons and moron kind!

Guys, hang on, let's be clear about the facts otherwise we're only doing harm with these discussions.

Bailing out the banks was not a ploy in some banking conspiracy - it was an economic necessity. If the banks had been allowed to fail, we would have suffered an economic MELTDOWN. It wouldn't have been a depression and it sure as hell wouldn't be what we have now.

So the banks had to be bailed out. Shit happens. We're still obligated to give the murderer medical treatment before we try him/her and jail him/her. That's crucial to the stability of our ethical system, as bailing out the banks was crucial to the stability of our economic system.

Now let's have the debate. The financial system is horribly corrupt, hedonistic and manipulative. It needs drastic reform. I think the "occupy" movements are an extremely positive step toward change, because given enough time something will solidify out of it that will create real change.

>>3909061
look at the time frames, you idiot. the monetarist criticism is aimed towards the fed's inaction during the crises as the artificially inflated money supply was rapidly deflating, versus the fed, you know, actually creating said bubble previously during the 20's
god damn you are dense

>>3909080
>>3909084
The

>>3909057
>why should anyone care about the unemployment rate?

Because it means something to people who aren't super-rich?
If you're a worker its harder for you to get a job.
If you're an owner, your sales will go down because less people are consuming....this is pretty obvious, unless you're trying to be cheeky and I don't get it.


>bailing out comes with costs

so far a lot of banks are paying back their loans and with dividends...

but there was a lot of shady lending that isn't accounted for, to foreign banks in the trillions, no? that could be a different matter

>>3909090
Co-Opt

>>3909089

It could be argued that by bailing out banks you are just putting off the inevitable. As in, a depression will happen regardless, you are just going to make the collapse even worse when it does come.

>>3909089
I insist
We are in a depression!

>>3909090
>>3909097
Has

>>3909090
>>3909097
>>3909103
Begun

>>3909094

>If you're an owner, your sales will go down because less people are consuming....this is pretty obvious, unless you're trying to be cheeky and I don't get it.

This is true and is a very good point. But things can happen to make employment go down without an affect to consumption.

Like an increase in full time versus part time employment. Or, a shift if gender roles, like more women entering the work force.

>but there was a lot of shady lending that isn't accounted for, to foreign banks in the trillions, no? that could be a different matter

I dont think this is suspicious. Its a global recession because the economies of the whole world are related. Banks lend money to each other, and sometimes those banks are within one country, and sometimes they are across borders. Its not necassarily a big deal.

>>3909101
What does "depression" mean?

>>3909083
>feds creating the bubble in the 20's
citation needed. not trying to be a smart ass but I have never heard this. I had always heard it was based purely on speculation. You're right though, I was wrong about the timeline.

ahaha. I was in the Melbourne CBD and the protest consisted of about a couple dozen dancing and singing hippies. Australia is such a lazy, out of it country

>>3909114
It means everyone is fighting from getting their homes foreclose, getting crap wages and struggling to find a freaking job

>>3909122
this should detail that view nicely, along with several other things
http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

>>3909129
quantify it, you nigger

>>3909112
>Like an increase in full time versus part time employment. Or, a shift if gender roles,

We're talking about a collapse of the financial sector, assets being liquidated, everything defaults, jobs cut left and right, which would have a chain reaction into other sectors which would lead to real-physical no bullshit unemployment...

>>3909147
I would if they stopped fudging the data
The unemployment rate is definitely higher than 9.1%

>>3909139

>2011
>still reads Mises
>doesn't care that austrian economics has no empirical support of any kind

>doesn't care that free-markets have never operated in any country

>>3909150

Yeah, and I wont deny that its a bad thing.

>>3909154
you asked for a citation. the austrian business cycle explains both the depression and our current recession

>>3909165
>austrian business cycle
>austrian

>>3909169
>i refuse to read the link provider and consider any evidence because it has the word "austrian" in it, and that makes me upset because i think austrians are stupid and evil

stay classy

>>3909165
He wasn't the guy who asked for the citation. I am.
Multiple people do post under anonymous you know.

>>3909165

austrian lol

economicsprofessorslaughing.jpg

get out. /b/ is <-- way

>>3909176
>implying Austrians aren't evil

Wait, did resident and stawman completely side-step the most crucial argument against their idiotic claims?

What would have happened if the banks had not been bailed out? Why did economists around the world almost unanimously support the claim that it would have caused a global depression?

Everything is just bluster unless you can answer that question.

>>3909179
ok, fair enough. he replied to my post, and i assumed it was you, mr. anonymous

>>3909181
see
>>3909176


>>3909186
oh lawdy, the trolling i could do here

i see no math here

>>3909192

ive read austrians, i know their schemes, nothing has changed

they still don't look at data, they still don't reason properly

arm chair philosophy at its worst. get out

>>3909198

austrians dont believe in math, numbers, and data... what do you expect? science? no

>>3909176
>>3909169
>>3909165
>>3909122

Ill answer this too. Although I think I should admit there are multiple plausible explanations for the cause of the great depression. For instance, Keynes would just say that every now and then investors get funny and that bubbles naturally form. I think there is some amount of truth to that.

But to explain how the fed and the money supply are responsible I need to explain them. Its ideal that the money supply grows at a rate similar to the growth of the whole economy. Right now the fed controls the money supply, and also, the fed has no capacity to know how much to control the money supply. Naturally they over or under supply.

What happens when they over supply inflation occurs, or bubbles form. When bubbles form people might not realize that the money they are using doesnt actually represent value in the economy. And so there becomes a collective realization among investors that causes them to suddenly stop investing and pull out of the market.

I dont want to say the idea is definitely 100% true. And its not 100% accepted among economists. The federal reserve is just an easy target to complain about, because you could attribute every problem ever in some way to them.

A lot of these austrian libertarian milton friedman type people will argue that the fed inappropriately increased interest rates, which will decrease the money supply relative to the growth in the economy prior to the great depression.

Does that mean they are good at what they do and dont cause problems? No.

>>3909201
>durr they dumb

well, you could look at that link provided, which has claimed the depression was caused by the fed's expansion of the money supply, look at it's reasoning, and refute it
but i guess that's expecting a little much of /sci/

>>3909181
Yeah because Keynesian economics are working so well

>>3909190

>Why did economists around the world almost unanimously support the claim that it would have caused a global depression?

Citation?

I dont believe that at all. Ive heard some of my professors say it shouldnt have happened.

Also, I want to distance myself a bit from strawman. Hes cool, and we can often have the same thoughts on certain issues. But I am not the super austrian guy he seems to be. I have disagreed and argued with him before.

>>3909213
i would go further insofar as to say no economic model is completely correct 100% of the time, simply because of the nature of the field

A German news poll done by the ARD:

http://umfrage.tagesschau.de/umfrage/poll_dbdata.php?oid=occupy102

>Do you agree with the protesters worldwide that criticize the influence of banks on corporations on the government?

>Yes: 90%
>No: 4%

This is what happens if you have news that are actually news and not right wing corporate propaganda followed by Mountain Dew and beer commercials.

Even Ben Bernanke, chairman of the federal reserve agrees that the protesters have a valid point and their concerns are reasonable and were foreseeable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVXEYoo46ZY

What reasons do you see to defend a branch of society you don't even belong to or profit from? They deliberately fuck you in the ass for decades and yet you fucking defend them under the pretense of disapproving of what... socialism?

If this mindset of the public does not change even when things get even worse, I'm sorry to say that your country is doomed.

>>3909224
indeed, the issue of taxation comes to mind

but i think we can agree that most people in this thread are pretty economically ignorant

>>3909215
>>3909213

It's funny how much mileage you idiots can get out of your arguments without addressing reality.

Giant banks fail == global depression.

Simple and clear.

The foundation of your arguments is that you'd rather the economy experience a dramatic and cleansing depression, rather than a slow death.

You're nihilists at heart (or too clueless to realize that's what you're espousing).

>>3909243
>Giant banks fail == global depression
PROVE IT YOU GOD DAMN NIGGERJEWFAGGOT BANKER ENABLER

>>3909227

Your video is really funny, because starts off with a conversation with Bernanke and Sanders.

Its like, Bernanke might be responsible you know. Maybe he fucked up. So is he going to admit to that when Sanders is like

"It was the greedy bankers fault right? Tell me its the bankers!"

"Er... yes... its all their fault... definitely not my fault"

>>3909227
>Do you agree with the protesters worldwide that criticize the influence of banks on corporations on the government?
Sorry but what quote in that video makes you think that Bernanke thinks that corporations have too much influence on the government? It just kind of seems like he's trying to place all the blame on Wall Street to take some heat off the government for failing as well. Curious to your interpretation.

>>3909224

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=what+happens+if+we+don%27t+bail+out+the+banks&hl=en&cl
ient=firefox-a&hs=gSy&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&sa=X&ei=IVqaTtumGoTgiALD68n
CDg&ved=0CAkQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A9%2F1%2F2008%2Ccd_max%3A&tbm=

Just read the headlines if you'd rather not read the articles.

We should replace the federal reserve with a super computer

>>3909243

>Giant banks fail == global depression.

Well, it could be true. Actually, I heard once that a depression is defined as a 10% drop in GDP. IN which case we were almost at the point regardless of the banks failing or not.

I dont think we should automatically believe that if the banks fail that entails a "depression"

>The foundation of your arguments is that you'd rather the economy experience a dramatic and cleansing depression, rather than a slow death.

Well if the fed, or, investors, or the government or whoever you want to blame is by policy causing problems. The economy will eventually crash. Investors/government/fed can avoid these problems, through changes in the money supply, or whatever, but they are only delaying the inevitable.

So yeah, sometimes the best thing to do is go into a recessional. I think Paul Volkner, the former head of the Fed, intentionally put the US into a few recessions. They were short, and they only were a few percentage points drop in GDP. And it looks like he did a good job because the time from post WWII to 2000 was a remarkably stable period of time (ignoring the oil shock, which wasnt even that big of a deal)

>>3909253

IT'S LIKE YOU WEREN'T ALIVE JUST FIVE YEARS AGO

Here: >>3909279.

>>3909253

its a priori true you moron, just use austrian reasoning to figure it out

no?

big banks hire hundreds of thousands of employees...they go under employees lose jobs

loans are secured by various industries and sectors, insurance and housing, default on loans -- chain reaction defaults, liquidations and firms going insolvent---

then what happens, consumptions drops dramatically, auto industry hurt even more, etc etc...everywhere

systemic risk go look it up

>>3909224
The problem is that most banks, investment companies, which are also banks but that's beside the point, and insurance companies were underwater at the same time.

It would be fine to allow one to fail IF and ONLY IF, other companies were solvent.

However, since all assets markets are intertwined thanks to risk diversification, a fall in one market can cause falls in other markets, not just in the home country but internationally too.

strawman is really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really

dumb

>>3909279
wow, you should've really actually read those before posting them

but no matter, i'm finally heading out, thank god. was waiting on a text, finally got it

>>3909279

What the...?

This is just a google search of articles titled "What would happen if didnt bail out the banks?"

How does that suggest that economist unanimously think the bail out was a good thing?

>>3909299

>However, since all assets markets are intertwined thanks to risk diversification, a fall in one market can cause falls in other markets, not just in the home country but internationally too.

"yes but don't you understand that is just a jewish keynesian conspiracy propogated by the Fed? "
-Ron Paul

>>3909291

That 10% resulted even after bailing out the banks, so imagine what would have happened had we not bailed them out. Why is it so hard to recognize the inevitability of a depression.

And I'm fine with allowing a depression to cleans the glaring fraud and corruption in our economy/ political systems, AS LONG AS you enforce the social safety-nets for the poor; guarantee the viability of the middle class; allow the super rich to experience the brunt of the pain they helped to cause.

Deal?

>>3909306
the funny thing is, most of those links actually don't support the bailouts
but no matter

>>3909303
no u

>>3909299
so, by that logic, why "bailout" the banks if they were the root cause of the crisis? why not bail out the effected industries after letting the banks go underwater?

>>3909306
>>3909305

Not too hard to find the Wall Street Journal, Business Weekly, Forbs articles in that search.

Why so quick to give up?

>>3909320
Because banks provide credit which is the lifeblood of business.

>>3908853
>mediocre major he knows is barely marketable
>complains about being out of job

i think there's a strange sense of entitlement here

>>3909341
so now banks are immune from their bad business decisions?

>>3909320

Confirmed for economics freshman at shit-tier school.

Move along people.

>>3909314
Except that after the banks bailed out everyone owed money to them!

>>3909349
No, but on the other hand they're too important to lose.

The pros of bailing them out outweighed the cons, barely.

>>3909320
>why not bail out the effected industries after letting the banks go underwater?

Ahhh, so refreshing when an idiot outs himself.

It's the same reason the government doesn't just give blank checks to everyone in the US to spur the economy. For every dollar a bank loans out, it doubles in the economy. That's why banks are a necessary evil.

The real question is how do we brake the knees of those banks and make them subjects to the American people, not the other way around.

>>3909314

Wait, I do think economic suffering is inevitable. Thats part of why I am arguing that a bail out is pointless.

>AS LONG AS you enforce the social safety-nets for the poor; guarantee the viability of the middle class; allow the super rich to experience the brunt of the pain they helped to cause.

Im open the idea that we should take care of the poor, and that relative to the rich we should make sure the poor are taken care of. But I cant agree with what you are saying. Its too absolute.

>>3909352

Yeah, the bailout itself wasn't the problem; its implementation was. We should have shackled every penny we used in the bailout to huge concessions. The government should have taken over the banks we bailed out and sold off their assets to smaller banks (many smaller banks).

We should have ensured leverage over the banks. Congress fucked up (again).

>>3909334

So what if they are in that search?

>>3909364
The problem with that was the very nature of Mortgage Backed Securities.

Imagined trying to backtrace every piece in an Utorrent file to its respective computer. And now imagine having millions of files.

To this day, nobody knows who the fuck owns what.

>>3909359

We're making progress. I knew we weren't really so far apart.

How would you take care of the poor? By cutting social program spending the way republicans are calling for?

How would we ensure the people that caused the problem suffer most of the pain of a bad economy? By cutting their taxes more?

See, republicans are all for doing the opposite of what you're saying we should do, yet I bet that's who you vote for.

>>3909357
>implying i actually advocate that
hell no. i was just taking that poster's logic to it's furthest conclusion

/sci/ why do you so gleefully forsake your clarity? Why do you concern yourself with the adipose tissue of a post industrial organism? Though the austrians gain followers they are ever an anachronism, when columbus needed ships it was fractional reserves that built his bridge into the future and allowed the inheritors of the enlightenment to take their little candles to the dark corners of the earth. There will always be more opportunity than capital, however preposterous the sums may grow. Do you really imagine that gold coins can buy a ladder to the heavens? Do you think you are the same as these creatures /sci/? Every year the NSF has manufactured at least twice as many phds as it could employ since its inception. Even before we knew her name, the red queen smiled on her chosen people. Forms arise, some endure. Whatever the fate of these the great work will continue. Isn't there something you should be reading?

>>3909359

they might have been able to "bail out" the people when the recession hit instead of pre-emptively bailing out the banks and having a recession come anyway

injecting capital into small businesses, giving loans out to people, investing in more infrastructure, etc

but we don't really know how bad the global crash would have been....could have been WW3 bad who knows

Fuck, can't we just go back to the pre- 1920's Andrew Jackson's free of fed banking, gold and silver standard. No ones fooling no-one. Community banks with -GOVERNMENT- controlled money. And if any motherfucker tries to sneak some federal reserve plot we skin his ass alive and put his head on a stake.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/why-tarp-was----and-is_b_158999.html
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/what-did-tarp-accomplish/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/financial_markets_0

All this talk about the Great Depression, I'm surprised it didn't come up that most people agree the Fed not reacting in a similar way is what made the Depression so bad and last so long.

To assert the opinion of "most economist" for or against TARP is just about impossible but.

>>3909367

I figured you naturally gravitate to those sources since they're much more credible and back up what I said about the bailouts.

That was intended as my proof.

>>3909381

But we kind of know who benefited most from what they did, right? Tax their asses. Tax them like they stole your money (which they did).

>>3909386
good lord, can you do anything except appeal to emotions, nigger?
i can start spamming some ron paul doomsday stuff; it has essentially the same content as that post

>>3909384

I think everything you are saying is a very much us versus them attitude. As if we are in court sueing them for damages.

In reality I dont think anyone is owed economic prosperity. The conditions the poor are living in, or were living in, they werent entitled to. In that regard, I dont believe they deserve some objectively defined welfare to make them exactly as well off as they were "before all those evil rich guys robbed them."

I dont think that implies we shouldnt take care of the unfortunate. As in, welfare benefits, unemployment, health care. I think people should have those things. I think that resonates a spirit of community to. In that people take care of each other.

Thats what I think.

>>3909393

no because the economy didn't work without the fed back then
bubbles still happened
bank runs
etc

>>3909385

Fine, then under your proposals we should have allowed the banks to crash, correct? And the current recession would have, what, doubled or tripled in severity? Sure, the end result would have been a better-functioning economy, but what of all those people that would have suffered the most from the depression: the poor and middle class?

>>3909403

The wall street journal is just a magazine. Its, like what pop sci would be to a journal of medicine.

Is economics science/math? It's a social *science* so more akin to philosophy or sociology, right?

>>3909423

>sociology

DO NOT WANT

>>3908586

>>3909413

So it's every man for himself? The rules of this land are written by and for the rich. There's no denying that. They lobby Congress for bills; they finance every elected person's campaign for office; they write the tax code full of loopholes.

So who protects the poor and middle class? Or are you in favor of another civil war?

>>3909423
Almost all schools subscribe to the scientific method, but its precision is nowhere near that of other sciences due to the massive interaction of different variables and imperfect input data.

Its definitely harder than sociology but softer than other sciences.

But now its moving closer and closer to them.

>>3909423

depends on the school of economics, modern economics is quite quantitative and empirical, basically a soft science

austrian economics and pre 19th century economics are basically philosophy

OWS-fags are just stupid cunts who made poor choices.

>>3909442

Maybe so, but whether by accident or direct intent they're fighting against a corrupted system that needs to change radically. How about you cut them some slack?

>>3909433

>So it's every man for himself?

No I dont think that. I think we are social creatures who care about the well being of each other.

>So who protects the poor and middle class? Or are you in favor of another civil war?

I always thought the the "lower class" and "middle class" were just dumb terms. How are they defined? What practical use to these terms have?

I always thought the "lower class" (or at least the word) only existed to scare people into being happy with what they have.

Maybe its bad that rich people dont share their wealth. But that would be true regardless of the relative size of these "classes."

Fair rules are only possible when politicians are not bought by rich people
Politicians are only not bought by rich people when they have no control over the economic sphere
Fair rules are only possible where we set them up and leave them, not where politicians can meddle
Regulation must be inherent in the system, not in the hands of regulators

>>3909458
actually, I agree with this

>>3909423
sociology creeps me out
It sounds like something the CIA would be interested in.

>>3909452

It might differ from the norm, but the way I use those terms is based on the impact they have on the political system they have to live under (money == power) and how susceptible they are to a bad economy (money == autonomy).

So the poor are obviously in need of social support (charities or government welfare), and the middle class is in need of aid for their later years (Medicare, SS, suppression of cost-of-living).

The rich in my mind are people making 500k a year. The super rich are people making 5 mil a year.

Then again, not all rich/super rich people are responsible for what happend to the economy (eg, Warren Buffet).

So if push came to shove, my clear delineations would not work, but just for general conversation I think they're good enough.

Juden here,

how does it feel to be controlled?

>>3908829
I blame you for not regulating washington.

>this is fun

This seems like a good place to paste this. I love NDT
The question, “If I were President I’d…” implies that if you swap out one leader, put in another, then all will be well with America—as though our leaders are the cause of all ailments.

That must be why we’ve created a tradition of rampant attacks on our politicians. Are they too conservative for you? Too liberal? Too religious? Too atheist? Too gay? Too anti-gay? Too rich? Too dumb? Too smart? Too ethnic? Too philanderous? Curious behavior, given that we elect 88% of Congress every two years.

A second tradition-in-progress is the expectation that everyone else in our culturally pluralistic land should hold exactly your own outlook, on all issues.

When you’re scientifically literate, the world looks different to you. It’s a particular way of questioning what you see and hear. When empowered by this state of mind, objective realities matter. These are the truths of the world that exist outside of whatever your belief system tells you.

One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters. As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
To re-emphasize
>One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters

>>3909481

No, money is like, the opposite of autonomy. Humans use money because we are not autonomy creatures. I think, its a partially true stereotype that the super wealthy have maneged to network and make connections with many different people, and different kinds of people. They are the least autonomous because they depend on each other for support. Versus, a poor guy who works in a machine shop and over all very handy is incredibly self sufficient.

I think when all your wealth is tied up on investments and in the economy, you lose the largest amount relative to what you have (not this is different from income).

Also social security is bad. Im just going to blurt that out.

>>3909493

Made me laugh.

I blame you for not regulating him.

>>3909497
>Also social security is bad. Im just going to blurt that out.
Why?

>>3909497

autonomous creatures***

Note this is different from income***

Oops

>>3909507

Social security is just forced retirement.

It taxes you, and then gives you your money back after you hit a certain age.

There is no reason why people cant manage their own money in this regard. And it doesnt make anyone better off since it just takes money away from people, and then gives it back to them later.

It does nothing but limit your freedom in regards to your own money.

>>3909511
Plus its not maintainable.

>>3909511

>>3909511

except it funds more than just retirement savings:

Federal Old-Age Survivors, and Disability Insurance
Unemployment benefits
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

>>3909517

except it is maintainable and has a surplus....

what isn't maintainable is excessive military spending, useless subsidies and tax relief to billion dollar corporations

republicans are trying to make ppl believe SS isn't viable because its another social program that demands tax revenue...their main goal is no taxes, social programs are the anti-thesis of no-taxes

>>3909517

Yeah, its true. The numbers just arent sustainable. In 20 years social security will be like 30% of GDP

>>3909519

yeah... whatever... No one uses the term "social security" to refer to all that junk.

I think we should take care of people. Needy famous, unemployed, health programs. Thats all good stuff. But thats a huge minority of what social security is.

>>3909527

by famous I meant families.

Oops

>>3909527

but people pay into it...how is it not sustainable

citation for the numbers.

>>3909527


you just need to restructure it so you only get back what you put in....then its always sustainable

right now some people are getting more out than they put in, which is why the payouts aren't sustainable

>>3909535

I need to leave right now. I could give you some data later, but I dont have it front of me right now. A lot of it has to do with the fact that people live significantly longer. Which means the average recipient gets a lot more than they used to.

If one person pays 50% of their wage, for 30 years, they could feasibly live another 30 years after they retire right? That requires a 50% income tax. And compensation to employees is already like 60% of GDP. Which comes out to about... well.. 30% of GDP if you tax half of it.

Its been nice talking to all of you. My email is ccstearn@asu.edu if you guys would like to talk about this moring.

>>3909511

Here's the thing, I actually agree with what you said, but let's look at the alternative solution Bush campaigned on:

Stop taxing people SS and let them reinvest that money to make it grow.

But the rich already know what to do with that money because that's what they're good at, so it will only hurt the poor (who would just use that money to buy food for their families) and middle class who aren't as familiar with their options

I'm not a Democrat because I support what the Dems propose as solutions, I'm a Dem because how utterly unpalatable Republican propositions are.

>>3909548

You bet. Same here.

i'm starting to think that most of these protestors are morons

>>3909535
People pay into it but people are pulling out. They don't put aside your money and you use it. Your money goes into a big pile and everyone who has paid some gets to pull from it. The problem with that is we have the baby boomers going to retire and not enough young people to work and replace them.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/medicare-and-social-security-will-run-out-sooner-than-t
hought/
2024 for Medicare
2036 Social Security
We're talking completely bankruptcy.

>>3909584
complete bankruptcy*
i've smoked too much tonight.

It's like the left wing tea party.

There's quite a few legitimate complaints but they're drowned out by the majority of whiners, most of whom suffer from "white people problems".

>>3909593
eventually the white people problems will trickle down.

>>3908853
Why are people whining about paying off student loans? Or being in debt?

If they like the job they won't have any problem paying it off. They should have tried harder to get more scholarships.

They argue because they are lazy, and why the FUCK does she have to point out that she would like to work in a non-profit feminist organization?

>>3909688
>and why the FUCK does she have to point out that she would like to work in a non-profit feminist organization?

>her face when

>waah im a poor failure who majored in liberal arts so rich people should give me handouts
>liberals

>>3909549

Hey guys Im back, and a bit intoxicated.

Anyway I agree about social security. In chile they had a similar plan where your retirement was invested into a mutual fund. I think its a good idea, but only because long term investments in mutual funds is a good idea. Not because you are forcing people to invest.

>>3909688

>Why are people whining about paying off student loans? Or being in debt?

I am over $100,000 in debt for a chemical engineering degree I was told would land me a job right out of school. It has been 8 months since graduation. I keep getting leads from a recruiter but these companies all want people with 5 years+ experience. And they can demand that because they have the edge in the job market right now. Everyone is desperate for work so they can afford to hire only the cream of the crop for greatly reduced wages and leave the rest of us out to dry.

One has to be very, very out of touch to suggest that it's only liberal arts majors whining about debt who are suffering right now.

>>3910164
>I was told would land me a job right out of school.
>I was told.
>Told.

>>3910164
Are you willing to move or are you a complete faggot?

>>3909729
the best part about being conservative is i don't even have to know the point of anything in order to start baselessly insulting it!