Cynthia Tucker writes Dumbest Article Ever

#301
#301
Ed12111 said:
All your arguments come from a Randian type philosophy this is obviously not in the mainstream. Your whole bit about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is an attempt to shift the housing bubble onto Democrats and most laughably Barnie Frank. As I told you earlier, this idea is only perpetuated by the likes of Beck.
Click to expand...

False.
 
#302
#302
Ed12111 said:
All your arguments come from a Randian type philosophy this is obviously not in the mainstream. Your whole bit about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is an attempt to shift the housing bubble onto Democrats and most laughably Barnie Frank. As I told you earlier, this idea is only perpetuated by the likes of Beck.
Click to expand...

For the third time at least I am not trying to shift the housing bubble onto Democrats. I am pointing out how policy actions they took/favored and/or blocked contributed.

Further I've repeatedly acknowledged that Republican policies/actions also played a role.

The recession was not Econ 101. If it were, there would be complete agreement among economists as to the causes and likely the solutions. That is clearly not the case. There is still considerable debate on the exact mechanisms and relative effect. What I'm more sure of though is that the actions of F and F had more direct impact on the recession than did the Bush tax cuts.
 
#303
#303
volinbham said:
If anyone bothered to search they would find me arguing why pure Libertarianism will not work.

Likewise they could assess that I am not in fact a libertarian although I've been accused of that along with being a tard, someone that hates old people, a hillbilly and a Beck follower (all of which are false).

I guess that's what passes as rational argument though.
Click to expand...

I dislike college football, but I watch it every week. I'm sorry, but the views you've been espousing on this thread are pure libertarianism. Also, enough with the persecution complex. You've been giving more condescending remarks than you've been getting. I just haven't whined every time.
 
#305
#305
Ed12111 said:
I dislike college football, but I watch it every week. I'm sorry, but the views you've been espousing on this thread are pure libertarianism. Also, enough with the persecution complex. You've been giving more condescending remarks than you've been getting. I just haven't whined every time.
Click to expand...


Which views? Suggesting F&F had something to do with the RE bubble? Questioning how tax cuts caused a recession? I don't see how either is particularly tied to any political philosophy.
 
#306
#306
Ed12111 said:
Please list some non hardcore conservatives/libertarians who ever bring up the whole Fannie thing.
Click to expand...

I could care less about Glenn Beck and his opinions. We may agree, but I would never know. I don't rely on his opinion when it comes to mine.
 
#307
#307
Frank, in his most detailed explanation to date about his actions, said in an interview he missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders. He said he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders’ mission of providing affordable housing.
Click to expand...
“I was late in seeing it, no question,’’ Frank said about the lenders’ descent into insolvency.
Click to expand...
something like this?
 
Last edited:
#308
#308
volinbham said:
For the third time at least I am not trying to shift the housing bubble onto Democrats. I am pointing out how policy actions they took/favored and/or blocked contributed.

Further I've repeatedly acknowledged that Republican policies/actions also played a role.

The recession was not Econ 101. If it were, there would be complete agreement among economists as to the causes and likely the solutions. That is clearly not the case. There is still considerable debate on the exact mechanisms and relative effect. What I'm more sure of though is that the actions of F and F had more direct impact on the recession than did the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Well, then you're not going to budge on this issue so we might as well drop it. Hopefully I'll see you on another thread under more amicable conditions.
 
#309
#309
utvolpj said:
something like this?
Click to expand...


I've made the point that in the grand scheme of things that issue is not 1/50 as important as other issues(particularly CDO's). You're arguing against something I am not arguing. Also, I am willing to bet you got those off of a very conservative website.
 
#311
#311
#314
#314
volinbham said:
a quick Google search yielded this - there are plenty more

NYU Stern Economist and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Expert Lawrence White to Address Housing Finance Reform Today at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland | Business Wire
Click to expand...

Those are both conservative authors peddling a book, but it doesn't really matter as(for the 345th time) I am not arguing that Fannie and Freddie weren't a bit too lax. I am arguing that it was not the cause of the recession. Look up the numbers on foreclosures(total doesn't even have to do with Fannie and Freddie) and you will see that the numbers are not anything close to bring down an economy of our size.
 
#315
#315
BeecherVol said:
Kinda was wondering the same.

Quotes are a little different than opinion pieces.
Click to expand...

The quotes come from opinion pieces which use them to shape people's opinion on the idea that the government through Fannie and Freddie are largely responsible for the recession. So yes, it is always important to know where quotes come from, and what narrative they are being used to push.
 
#316
#316
Ed12111 said:
Those are both conservative authors peddling a book, but it doesn't really matter as(for the 345th time) I am not arguing that Fannie and Freddie weren't a bit too lax. I am arguing that it was not the cause of the recession. Look up the numbers on foreclosures(total doesn't even have to do with Fannie and Freddie) and you will see that the numbers are not anything close to bring down an economy of our size.
Click to expand...

What F and F did do is distort the market for loans and the risk associated with home lending thus incentivizing the housing rise - when the inevitable slowdown began, the fiscal unsoundness of F and F became apparent and was critical in the financial meltdown. By buying so many loans including subprime mortgages (where the problem started) and then selling mortgage securities they both incentivized much of the housing bubble and got caught out due to lax rules, oversight and greed.

I can't believe I have to keep repeating this but I'm am not claiming F and F caused the recession. I am saying they played a key role (among other factors). Further I'm saying their role was more critical than the tax cuts. Unless I've read your statements wrong, you are claiming F and F had no causal impact on the recession.
 
#317
#317
volinbham said:
What F and F did do is distort the market for loans and the risk associated with home lending thus incentivizing the housing rise - when the inevitable slowdown began, the fiscal unsoundness of F and F became apparent and was critical in the financial meltdown. By buying so many loans including subprime mortgages (where the problem started) and then selling mortgage securities they both incentivized much of the housing bubble and got caught out due to lax rules, oversight and greed.

I can't believe I have to keep repeating this but I'm am not claiming F and F caused the recession. I am saying they played a key role (among other factors). Further I'm saying their role was more critical than the tax cuts. Unless I've read your statements wrong, you are claiming F and F had no causal impact on the recession.
Click to expand...

You are reading my statements wrong then. I am not saying they had no causal impact on the recession. I'm(and I keep repeating this too) claiming that the impact of of F&F is minimal compared to other things namely the deregulation of wall street. Just as you keep claiming lowered taxes were not the main factor in the recession(which I agreed with) I'm saying the same in regards to F&F. My problem with the F&F people is that they like to bring that up and neglect the much bigger issues(I think this thread has proved that) My big problem with the continual tax cuts for the top 5% over the years is more due to the rising income inequality and increasing federal deficit.
 
#318
#318
Ed12111 said:
The quotes come from opinion pieces which use them to shape people's opinion on the idea that the government through Fannie and Freddie are largely responsible for the recession. So yes, it is always important to know where quotes come from, and what narrative they are being used to push.
Click to expand...

Short of "misquoting", their "narrative" means nothing in regards to what he actually said.
 
#319
#319
volinbham said:
I can't believe I have to keep repeating this but I'm am not claiming F and F caused the recession. I am saying they played a key role (among other factors). Further I'm saying their role was more critical than the tax cuts. Unless I've read your statements wrong, you are claiming F and F had no causal impact on the recession.
Click to expand...

Of course you have to. When the argument went from "I know economics, you guys don't" to "it's me the economics genius arguing economics and everyone else is arguing political philosophy", this thing was done. You and I clearly don't know enough economics to understand that the drastic shift of wealth in this country has made capital less available and thus less efficient. Forget that taxation is about incomes rather than wealth. Forget that incomes are about near term revenue and that middle class wealth is built over a lifetime, a few years did the trick and ran the economy into the ground.

Add in a little VolBurgers, who wouldn't know a GDP equation from a 4th grade inequality lesson and you've got closure.
 
#320
#320
Ed12111 said:
You don't think the government can ever do anything worthwhile? Social security
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol said:
Of course you have to. When the argument went from "I know economics, you guys don't" to "it's me the economics genius arguing economics and everyone else is arguing political philosophy", this thing was done. You and I clearly don't know enough economics to understand that the drastic shift of wealth in this country has made capital less available and thus less efficient. Forget that taxation is about incomes rather than wealth. Forget that incomes are about near term revenue and that middle class wealth is built over a lifetime, a few years did the trick and ran the economy into the ground.

Add in a little VolBurgers, who wouldn't know a GDP equation from a 4th grade inequality lesson and you've got closure.
Click to expand...

.
 
#321
#321
Ed12111 said:
All your arguments come from a Randian type philosophy this is obviously not in the mainstream. Your whole bit about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is an attempt to shift the housing bubble onto Democrats and most laughably Barnie Frank. As I told you earlier, this idea is only perpetuated by the likes of Beck.
Click to expand...

are you seriously arguing fannie and freddie lowering the lending standards didn't have a major effect on the housing downturn?
 
#322
#322
Ed12111 said:
I've made the point that in the grand scheme of things that issue is not 1/50 as important as other issues(particularly CDO's). You're arguing against something I am not arguing. Also, I am willing to bet you got those off of a very conservative website.
Click to expand...

why do you think the CDO's collapsed in 09 rather than say in 1992? You don't think the lowering of lending standards had anything to do with it? you do realize that the forclosures started and the economy tanked BEFORE the cdo's blew up right? that they blew up because the underlying collateral, the actual mortgages in the portfolios, started defaulting in record numbers? do you even know what a CDO is?
 
#323
#323
droski said:
why do you think the CDO's collapsed in 09 rather than say in 1992? You don't think the lowering of lending standards had anything to do with it? you do realize that the forclosures started and the economy tanked BEFORE the cdo's blew up right? that they blew up because the underlying collateral, the actual mortgages in the portfolios, started defaulting in record numbers? do you even know what a CDO is?
Click to expand...

clearly the CDO is an invention that can exist only in a world without regulations. Those outlaw capitalists did away with all the laws so they could rape and pillage. Having billions in CDOs on their own books was just incidental to the process and only broke a couple of them. Had we kept the CDS laws that we had on the books, the ones that the dastardly Republicans removed, there would never have been any CDOs and the mortgage market would be killing it in the substandard market. I mean killing it. Well, assuming that we didn't give tax cuts to the high earners, because their inefficient capital kept unqualified borrowers from being able to pay their notes. You just don't seem to understand finance very well.
 
#324
#324
BigPapaVol said:
Add in a little VolBurgers, who wouldn't know a GDP equation from a 4th grade inequality lesson and you've got closure.
Click to expand...
Believe what you want big boy. I gave up arguing with libertarians a long time ago. Your entire premise is based on a pipe dream.

Continue on.
 
#325
#325
droski said:
why do you think the CDO's collapsed in 09 rather than say in 1992? You don't think the lowering of lending standards had anything to do with it? you do realize that the forclosures started and the economy tanked BEFORE the cdo's blew up right? that they blew up because the underlying collateral, the actual mortgages in the portfolios, started defaulting in record numbers? do you even know what a CDO is?
Click to expand...


lol. You think all the CDO's had proper underlying collateral. The CDO's were built on a house of cards they were always going to blow up. The increase in defaults on subprimes were just the thing to start them a tumbling. It was crazy easy money for wall street and there was no proper regulation(my actual argument 15 pages ago). You aren't familiar with the subject, so I think you better just let it rest.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top