demagogue on 22/3/2010 at 19:08
While we're on the tangent, an (
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22lighthizer.html?th&emc=th) op/ed guy in the NYTimes today (the one railing against the Doha Round) mentioned that China's currency manipulation played a part in the mortgage crisis (fueling the bubble), but I really didn't follow it at all. But the guy clearly had an axe to grind so I didn't know how far to trust him. (Something about undervalued imports somehow fueling risky real estate investment? I guess because no one wants to invest in domestic [export] goods so a disproportionate amount goes into real estate, combined with consumers feeling a little bolder b/c artificially-engineered cheaper goods give them a little more cash?) I guess it's not really that important; just a "?" I had when I read that.
Edit: For the record, I'm still rooting for the Doha Round -- distributive benefits of free trade & all that jazz -- but always want to know the state of play. I guess my attitude ties in with the Health Care issue... The "socialism" bogey-man is a pretty silly strawman. The "consensus" position across the spectrum by now is for econ liberalism, and no one is pushing communism (or even anti-anti Communism anymore like some did in the 70s-80s) with a straight face. But liberalism works best when the gains get distributed down the chain to everybody. It's not very helpful for the job market to be more open if more people are too sick to work or don't have that security, and even worse if it's certain social groups (the poor) that are vulnerable, insecure, and categorically prejudiced. I have a similar feeling with being pro-free trade, pro-climate change regl, pro-immigration, all these big, cross-cutting issues. They aren't trying to undo economic liberalization; they're trying to make sure it's really opening up for everyone and not leaving entire groups/States out of the loop.
Fragony on 22/3/2010 at 20:06
Here's the thing that you're missing. These derivatives were NOT based on mortgages obtained due to the CRA. They just weren't. Most of the loans made under the CRA have to qualify for fannie mae and freddie mac protection
Yeah and that kinda went wrong. Great fun dancing on clouds.
You're not even speaking English
No that deserves a price. 'You're not even speaking English', yeah very elegantski.
Al_B on 22/3/2010 at 20:54
Quote Posted by Fragony
No that deserves a price.
Do you mean "prize"? Otherwise I bid £2.54
Aerothorn on 22/3/2010 at 21:05
WTF people.
Admittedly my fault for the late-night post, but how can you discuss this for 3 pages and NOT mention the massive deficit reduction. When was the last time the federal government passed massive legislation that SAVED money? I think it's pretty historic for that alone. Not that anyone seemed to pay attention to this part (a lot of people seemed to assume that the "cost" of the bill = an equal increase in deficit, without factoring in massive savings that came out of gutting the fiscally irresponsible, Republican-backed Medicare Part D).
I'm not arguing that said reduction would justify any bill, but it seems intellectually dishonest to debate its pros and cons without factoring this in. This was one of the huge problems with the Iraq War - people would argue over its moral justification without ever stopping to factor in the cost - if they thought the war was a good idea, they just supported it.
Apologies for poorly written post, brain kind of fried right now (jet lag wooo)
Al_B on 22/3/2010 at 21:39
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
The one thing I've noticed when talking to Americans is that they are terrified of their own government.
Sorry for dragging this up from page 1, Aero, but this sums up my experience too. It doesn't matter how much money this will save - it appears to go against the grain with many American's views on their culture and being told by central government how they should manage healthcare is an anathema. I'm not saying that it's wrong - America is probably one of the few first world countries without some form of government organised healthcare.
karmaKGB on 22/3/2010 at 21:53
Aerothorn, probably because some people still don't seem to understand what is actually in the bill vs. not in the bill *cough* Fragony *cough*. So we've been mostly going on and on debunking wild claims made by one person or another; this essentially sums up the state of the debate in America over the last year or so. Actually, yeah, that's pretty much how most political arguments go around here these days.
Sigh.
CCCToad on 22/3/2010 at 22:18
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
WTF people.
Admittedly my fault for the late-night post, but how can you discuss this for 3 pages and NOT mention the massive deficit reduction. When was the last time the federal government passed massive legislation that SAVED money? I think it's pretty historic for that alone. Not that anyone seemed to pay attention to this part (a lot of people seemed to assume that the "cost" of the bill = an equal increase in deficit, without factoring in massive savings that came out of gutting the fiscally irresponsible, Republican-backed Medicare Part D).
Source? Last I heard was that the cost of new entitlements are expected to be substantially higher than the savings and tax increases in the bill, so I'm eager to see the counterpoint.
SD on 22/3/2010 at 22:24
The CBO says $138bn off the deficit over the first decade, $1.2tn over the second.
BUT THEY WOULD SAY THAT THE FILTHY COMMIES :mad:
Rug Burn Junky on 22/3/2010 at 23:14
Quote Posted by BEAR
When you see that old machine get moving, you really have to respect their organization. Yeah, they just say 1 or 2 things over and over and over but they do it like pros.
It is so utterly repulsive that that's what passes for effectiveness in modern politics. The lessons that the republicans learned from the past decade is not that they need to govern effectively, it's that they can get away with shit for a certain period of time as long as they can say with a straight face that they're right. Lies are simple, the truth is complicated. That's what enables them to do it so effectively, because they can simplify and have a unity of message that is amplified. And, let's be honest, they are targeting less educated, less intelligent segments of society that will fall for their shit more easily.
True story: last year I was at my former job at a major media organization, and Frank Luntz, the republican pollster, was sitting in the lobby. In case you're unaware, he's one of the primary "creative" minds that comes up with the ridiculous republican talking points. As I brewed my tea, I spent a good five minutes debating whether to walk over to him and literally punch him in the face. I thought better of it, but when I left that job less than three weeks later, the first thought that ran through my head was "I should have punched Frank Luntz when I had the chance."
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
WTF people.
Admittedly my fault for the late-night post, but how can you discuss this for 3 pages and NOT mention the massive deficit reduction. When was the last time the federal government passed massive legislation that SAVED money?
I think that part of the problem with that is that most rational people understand this, but most of the tard brigade that would throw around terms like "socialism" in describing the bill don't believe it in the first place. Seriously. Look at Vae. does he inspire any confidence in you regarding rational thought? I thought not. Look at Toad, in spite of the fact that the official estimates say savings, "the last he heard..." says otherwise: because what he listens to isn't reality.
Besides which, economically, the full effect of the bill isn't encapsulated by only federal expenditures. The current insurance system is a drag on the economy, and providing a safety net to the poorest segments of society pays off in spades if they are able to capitalize on that and contribute to society themselves. It makes everyone better off. But that doesn't play with the simpletons who keep thinking that "po' people gonna be cummin for mah stuff," or the opportunistic politicians on the right wing who stoke this misguided anger. So we have to deal with in such ridiculous fashion that this doesn't get heard.
Quote Posted by demagogue
While we're on the tangent, an (
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22lighthizer.html?th&emc=th) op/ed guy in the NYTimes today (the one railing against the Doha Round) mentioned that China's currency manipulation played a part in the mortgage crisis (fueling the bubble), but I really didn't follow it at all. But the guy clearly had an axe to grind so I didn't know how far to trust him. (Something about undervalued imports somehow fueling risky real estate investment? I guess because no one wants to invest in domestic [export] goods so a disproportionate amount goes into real estate, combined with consumers feeling a little bolder b/c artificially-engineered cheaper goods give them a little more cash?) I guess it's not really that important; just a "?" I had when I read that.
We're not really on the tangent, since Fragony is just posting gibberish, so let's just ignore that. It's a little bit more complex than your explanation. The quick and dirty econ 101 explanation: China pegs their currency to ours artificially low, causing their exports to be cheaper in the US. China offsets the dollar peg by buying massive amounts of T-bills. The renminbi then flows into our economy in massive amounts. They have to go somewhere, and it's such an infusion of funds that it has real effect on the economy. It becomes a supply and demand problem - too much capital chasing the same investment opportunities within the US, and contributing to the bubble. I don't personally know to what extent that caused the mortgage crisis, but it's a reasonable argument that I've heard several decent economists make. Even passing judgment on their positions is probably above my pay grade. Anyone else on this board who thinks they know for certain one way or the other is fucking delusional.
All of that said, I tend to agree with you on free trade, but free trade needs to be bi-lateral. China's spending a good amount of time smacking us in the face, and you can only put up with that for so long. Again, respected economists - even ones who normally support free trade - have suggested that certain protectionist measures with respect to China may be necessary. Same caveats as the last paragraph, though I'm sure there are a few people here who would gladly try their hand at making this decision in spite of their ignorance.
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
The Democrats may get slaughtered in the upcoming elections, but hot damn, they actually got something done.
I wouldn't go so far as to say slaughtered, but they're obviously going to lose seats. It's called regression to the mean. They have overwhelming majorities in both houses, which means that they have more seats to lose. But health care reform is not what's going to cause it.
Muzman on 22/3/2010 at 23:48
What do the middle of the roaders make of this stuff?
(
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/)
FDL are pretty far from libertarian ranters (although they might qualify for the older definition). Are those increased costs offset by employers? (they don't seem to think you can say that in there)
It doesn't look that great but it really has to be stage one in the whole process doesn't it (or a small step in stage one). And to think what hue and cry this caused.
(I've noticed it's really hard for foreign types to make sense of this one way or another, or maybe it's just me, but anyway... Here when they do this kind of thing it's a rearrangement of taxes, offsets, medicare funding, switching some services from public to private etc. It took a while to grasp that the feds there are hamstrung because there's almost nothing to rearrange with yet and the current system is so entrenched. It'd be a bumpy ride without massive idealogical opposition.
All this talk of bankrupting the nation and so on; when you think what state Britain was in when they built the NHS I'm all the more impressed.)
