Same thing with the tech bubble right, when you say the “govt meddling created our current problems” you are referring to Fiscal and Monetary policy, the government was stimulating the economy without those stimulants you wouldn’t have had the economic prosperity that lead up to the GFC. The government did however, not tell banks to throw due diligence, LVR, and proper risk management out the window, that was the shareholders of the companies demanding super returns. That was the CEOs wanting $50m bonuses, that was the rich getting richer and stepping on the poor to do it.
That’s simply not true. We had no prosperity during the housing bubble. It was an illusion and a good portion of that phony wealth dissipated once interest rates rose and the same thing will happen again.
Also, the fastest period of economic growth occurred prior to the federal government meddling in our economy, and the real growth that we had was significantly larger than the illusion of wealth that we had during the Housing Bubble and Tech Bubble.
Stimulus IS THE PROBLEM, not the solution. We have already sowed the same seeds that lead to the housing collapse.
Also, the government did tell banks to throw due diligence and risk management out the window. For one, the government guarantees bank deposits… What is a bank going to do if it knows it will get bailed out when it makes mistakes?
There were a variety of different programs. The federal government used tax payer dollars to pay for low income family’s down payments for one… Do you think a family that can’t afford a down payment should get money from the Federal Government so they can buy a large house? The government created so many moral hazards, it’s unbelievable.
Through government entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, officials encouraged extending mortgages to people with little or no credit. They targeted private banks with discrimination lawsuits if they didn’t lend to enough minorities or people with low incomes. Housing prices skyrocketed as people with no down payment or shaky salaries suddenly were able to buy homes.
Then the bubble burst.
Re-inflating the bubble - NYPOST.com
Heck, Obama is trying to recreate the housing bubble by encouraging policies that try to force banks to loan to people that can’t afford large homes, in the name of “Fairness”. Apparently it is discrimination to not give a mortgage to a low income family that clearly won’t be able to repay the loans. There are “affordable housing” mandates aimed at getting Fannie and Freddie to take on even higher-risk borrowers. Through the Federal Housing Administration, houses are being offered to some low-income subprime buyers with minimal down payment and heavy subsidies.
As if the last fiasco wasn’t enough.
Also, look at student loans. The federal government guarantees loans that creditors give to students. There is no risk. Why worry if the person will pay you back when the government guarantees the loans? THAT’S THE WHOLE REASON THE GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES LOANS. TO ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO BUY HOUSES AND MORE STUDENTS TO GO IN TO DEBT FOR COLLEGE.
The government didn’t used to guarantee loans. And you know what… Banks were more stringent in the loan process. Why would you give somebody a loan if you knew they couldn’t pay you back?
Certain things are one size fits all. Civil rights come to mind. When we’re talking about how to treat human beings, does it not seem that the Federal government gets it right a more often. There are some things that are pretty basic ideas that all of the US will catch up with as a part of progress, but for people to be denied rights until then does not seem fair. Things like Civil Rights, Women’s rights, same gender relationship rights, keeping religion out of the public schools, whether mentioned in the Constitution or not, are things which are evident in the human experience. I’d agree that when it comes to things like legalizing drugs such as marijuana, this is something that the masses are reasonably affected by, so legalizing pot is not a slam dunk. But discrimination is an obvious evil that is still alive in various forms, and should not be something that one should have to move out of a state to escape from.
As mentioned above, aren’t certain major services socialized? We agree that everyone should have the basic right to have a fire in their home put out whether or not one can afford it, or receive police protection from criminals, receive mail, go to a libarary etc, whether or not one can afford it. This is self evident. Why are education and health care conceptually different?
Tonight I read the second amendment, and although on a personal level I would love to see gun ownership banned in the US, I also recognize that some people enjoy owning guns and truly do have noble intent when it comes to their ownership, so my prejudice should not be the law. But if a gun enthusiast out there could explain why guns should not be controlled including background checks, proficiency requirements that could include licensing. Why is this a bad thing? Forget about the cost, I mean conceptually acquiring and owning guns could be easy or difficult. Why not make sure that only folks who are reasonably safe are able to easily acquire a gun.
Ok lets break down your post 
You going to have to point out the Government intervention that happened prior to the GFC? Because if you’r referring to Monetary policy/Fiscal policy, we have a different discussion on our hands.
Again, happened after the GFC (caused by the banks not the Government). The Government was forced into a position to guarantee bank deposits because it couldn’t allow a “run” on the banks. The multiplier effect and the reverse of it, is basic compounding of funds in economics and leads to economic growth.
“A banking panic or bank panic is a financial crisis that occurs when many banks suffer runs at the same time, as people suddenly try to convert their threatened deposits into cash or try to get out of their domestic banking system altogether. A systemic banking crisis is one where all or almost all of the banking capital in a country is wiped out. The resulting chain of bankruptcies can cause a long economic recession as domestic businesses and consumers are starved of capital as the domestic banking system shuts down.[3] Much of the Great Depression’s economic damage was caused directly by bank runs.The cost of cleaning up a systemic banking crisis can be huge, with fiscal costs averaging 13% of GDP and economic output losses averaging 20% of GDP for important crises from 1970 to 2007.”
The use of the housing sector is basic fiscal policy and has been going on for generations, new homes = construction = jobs = materials = jobs etc. Grants a given on the basis that the person uses it to purchase a home, cash isn’t handed out randomly. Offering home owner grants to stimulate an economy doesn’t equal to banks lowering their risk tolerance. That’s just taking advantage of government incentives and not good business practice.
Please refer/link to these mandates, love to read them. The credit crunch has made most banks refuse to lend to even borrowers with good credit and a regular income. I don’t believe the Obama administration has encouraged risky bank practices but happy to be proven wrong. Besides the amount of regulation that is already in place kind negates that.
Ok, we have unemployed people or people on such a low income they can’t afford to pay for an education. And your response is what? Tough luck, you play the hand your dealt, poor stays poor and all is right in the world. People don’t study to jump on welfare they study to better themselves and get a better job or to start a new business etc. Once they start earning, they have to pay back the loans.
You’re complaining a lot about Government practices but what’s plan? What do you suggest?
Very opinionated article full of quotes and references to his embellished right wing opinion, however there weren’t any quotes or references to enacted law or the President… funny
The gun issue has been argued time and time again in this thread. I know you were around when I posted the info on Australia. People here seemed to have ignored it entirely.
http://forums.babypips.com/melting-pot/42909-political-opinion-114.html#post482626
If somebody does go through it, could you please tell me how 40% of homicides are classified under other/unknown.
[QUOTE=“Hogarste;485847”]
Certain things are one size fits all. Civil rights come to mind. When we’re talking about how to treat human beings, does it not seem that the Federal government gets it right a more often. There are some things that are pretty basic ideas that all of the US will catch up with as a part of progress, but for people to be denied rights until then does not seem fair. Things like Civil Rights, Women’s rights, same gender relationship rights, keeping religion out of the public schools, whether mentioned in the Constitution or not, are things which are evident in the human experience. I’d agree that when it comes to things like legalizing drugs such as marijuana, this is something that the masses are reasonably affected by, so legalizing pot is not a slam dunk. But discrimination is an obvious evil that is still alive in various forms, and should not be something that one should have to move out of a state to escape from.
As mentioned above, aren’t certain major services socialized? We agree that everyone should have the basic right to have a fire in their home put out whether or not one can afford it, or receive police protection from criminals, receive mail, go to a libarary etc, whether or not one can afford it. This is self evident. Why are education and health care conceptually different?
Tonight I read the second amendment, and although on a personal level I would love to see gun ownership banned in the US, I also recognize that some people enjoy owning guns and truly do have noble intent when it comes to their ownership, so my prejudice should not be the law. But if a gun enthusiast out there could explain why guns should not be controlled including background checks, proficiency requirements that could include licensing. Why is this a bad thing? Forget about the cost, I mean conceptually acquiring and owning guns could be easy or difficult. Why not make sure that only folks who are reasonably safe are able to easily acquire a gun.[/QUOTE]
Yes some are. Take slavery for example. That was a pretty big deal right? Did the Federal government just pass a law to ban it? No. They amended the constitution to give them the power to ban it. Same for women’s sufferage. They had to amend the constitution to allow women to vote, they didn’t just arbitrarily pass a law.
Get where I’m going at? If people want the federal government to have a new power or to be able to ban or regulate something, the govt needs to pass an amendment.
Don’t like scary guns? Fine. But before politicians try to ram an arbitrary law that turns me into a criminal or gives the government more power, they would need an amendment. Things like assault weapons bans are unconstitutional.
The rest is left to the states. Period.
As for things like pot, the government arbitrarily banned them. They had no constitutional authority to do it… That’s the problem.
What is the point of arguing about this stuff on the internet? Any peoples here actually picketing in front of the White House/Congress, or even writing letters to their elected representative? And even if you were, does anyone care?
Looks like the real point here is to be “right” and stroke the ego. It is hard for a man to come to terms with his true place in the world: just a nameless cog in the great machine that is society/government. Then drink some beer and talk dirty about some celebrities they’ll never get. Watch some sports and go pump some iron at the gym. Yeah, you’re real men alright :50:
Comparing countries with other countries with different cultures and backgrounds is like comparing chalk and cheese. Australians may seem very similar to the US, in a number of ways but we are very different in many others. Australians also consume way more alcohol than Americans. Its in our culture to drink, and its also a big issue in Australia. I don’t need to read all the articles/links/data you contributed (well researched btw, kudos) to tell you most of the violent crime in Australia happens in pubs and bars or is directly correlated to the consumption of alcohol.
Aaron, you said you weren’t returning but here you are again. So sad mate.
P.S. were not arguing, we’re debating different opinions and facts. So far I’ve really enjoyed Jollygreenfello’s opinions, you as always come in aggressive with little or no value to add.
Alright, you’re havin’ a good time, I can buy that. But what is the goal? Besides wasting time and stroking the ego by siding with people who have your opinions and attack people with opposing opinions. It’s so stupid, why do you do it?
Names Kent btw, why you call me Aaron?
Thank you, that has been the argument all along. That post was in response to somebody who posted a video arguing for gun control in America based on Australia.
Assault rate did go up quite a bit after the weapons ban, and remained. I don’t think it’s because people started drinking more.
In same years our assault rate has been dropping.
[QUOTE=“newstrader830;485859”]What is the point of arguing about this stuff on the internet? Any peoples here actually picketing in front of the White House/Congress, or even writing letters to their elected representative? And even if you were, does anyone care?
Looks like the real point here is to be “right” and stroke the ego. It is hard for a man to come to terms with his true place in the world: just a nameless cog in the great machine that is society/government. Then drink some beer and talk dirty about some celebrities they’ll never get. Watch some sports and go pump some iron at the gym. Yeah, you’re real men alright :50:[/QUOTE]
The drive to be “right” is what separates the traders from those who merely trade for a few weeks or months and move on to something else . If this quality is not strong in an individual, that individual is going to make a lousy trader… The by product of this trait is that they can’t stand others expressing differing opinions because that means theirs is wrong… So in order to be right, we argue. Plus… It can be mentally stimulating depending who you are arguing with.
Hmmm I don’t think they’re arguing to improve their competitiveness in the markets. I see your point though, and it does answer my question actually so you’ve given me what I thought I wouldn’t receive. But in the market, you are receiving reward for being right, called money. In arguing about politics you are receiving nothing as a reward, right or wrong. It’s not like Prez Obama/Congress is watching this thread to see what to do about the gun/economy issues, haha. You see my point?
[QUOTE=“newstrader830;485871”]
Hmmm I don’t think they’re arguing to improve their competitiveness in the markets. I see your point though, and it does answer my question actually so you’ve given me what I thought I wouldn’t receive. But in the market, you are receiving reward for being right, called money. In arguing about politics you are receiving nothing as a reward, right or wrong. It’s not like Prez Obama/Congress is watching this thread to see what to do about the gun/economy issues, haha. You see my point?[/QUOTE]
The reward is merely “being right” … I would hypothesize it stimulates the same positive chemical response in the brain as winning a trade would.
Okay you missed my point. In the market there is a judge, and it is called price. If price hits your target you were right, go ahead and get high onyour chemicals. But in arguing politics etc. there is no judge… the real judge which is governemt officials is not present here. You only decide you’re right based on your opinion… which you could assume before you even typed your first word if you wanted to. Do you see my point… now?
[QUOTE=“newstrader830;485875”]
Okay you missed my point. In the market there is a judge, and it is called price. If price hits your target you were right, go ahead and get high onyour chemicals. But in arguing politics etc. there is no judge… the real judge which is governemt officials is not present here. You only decide you’re right based on your opinion… which you could assume before you even typed your first word if you wanted to. Do you see my point… now?[/QUOTE]
The judge is more often then not going to be the poster himself… If he feels he has created a logical argument and proved the other guy the fool, he gets his sense of “being right”.
No I don’t think so, but I don’t think people started hitting each other more because they couldn’t shoot them either. The passion for guns in Australia was never that strong when compared to America. If the assault rate went up after, it was because of other factors, not linked to gun control.
New generations, changes to immigration, employment, etc to name a few, not suggesting any of these were the cause but I wouldn’t draw a direct link to the gun ban.
I see you’re point, since your profitable how about a trade journal starting Monday?
Is that not the definition of “stroking the ego” then? hahaha
Please refer to my first post where I state that quite explicitly. If everyone would just kindly admit they are here to get high on themselves and their own deluded opinions, that’d be great, and I could be on my way!