Wealth inequality

[TerraPrime]

:laugh: I'm sure you'll be glad to know that as of today, 44 million people are getting food stamps.

And you think that without the series of bailouts, this number would now be looking better?

[MinDonner]

For TM and myself, you can't separate the issue of radically unstable income equality with massive government intervention into the markets. The latter essentially reinforced, exacerbated and indeed legally and socially normalized the former.

What the fucking fuck? The relaxing of regulations in order to allow the banks to do whatever the fuck they wanted is one of the major causes of the economic crisis. Government intervention is the only thing preventing the Mailed Fist of the Free Market having us all melted down and sold off for spare parts. :tantrum:

Do you KNOW how much effort it takes to stop the "free" market from screwing over both itself and the rest of us? OK, I am happy to admit that much of this intervention was misguided or belated or just plain wrong, but that doesn't take away the fact that this shit is necessary.

[The Progressive]

Errrr, let's not?

Why not? It works.

I'm beginning to see how the far left would merge into the far right, lol.

[Swordfish]

Fair enough. It just reads as tricksy. There is clearly an "if" coming that was truncated, but if it's that confusing, I'll take your word for it and wait for the explanation.

I'm trying to have a low stress week.

Looks like you picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.....

[Lord Mord]

TM,

Anyone who did not call for the aforementioned upward redistribution of wealth has but has called for it's reverse has been able to say so for several pages now. None have stepped forward.

Well, I think the standard is not terribly useful, but as far as it goes I'd have to say it's not technically wrong.

I merely point out the hypocrisy of demanding downward wealth distribution (especially while alluding to CATASTROPHE if it doesn't happen) directly after demanding its opposite (and predicting CATASTROPHE if it doesn't happen).

Okay, I think I see your point, but isn't there also such a thing as what's right for the moment?

It's sort of like how in general it's a good idea to jog so many miniutes a day, but when you have bronchitis it's time for immediate and prolonged bedrest. Then, once the infection is past, time to get back on the track.

Does suddenly taking to bed mean all your "we gotta exercise and get the heart pumping" blubbering a load of crap? Hardly. OTOH, is it a good idea to suck in a whole lot of open, cold air and work out your lungs when you're a harisbreadth from full-blown pneumonia? Sounds fucking stupid to me.

And then, once you've recovered from pneumonia, do you then say, "Whoo! This bedrest felt pretty good ... Who wants to bother jogging again?". You can, of course, if you could give a shit about heart disease or longevity.

[Swordfish]

TM,

Well, I think the standard is not terribly useful, but as far as it goes I'd have to say it's not technically wrong.

Okay, I think I see your point, but isn't there also such a thing as what's right for the moment?

It's sort of like how in general it's a good idea to jog so many miniutes a day, but when you have bronchitis it's time for immediate and prolonged bedrest. Then, once the infection is past, time to get back on the track.

Does suddenly taking to bed mean all your "we gotta exercise and get the heart pumping" blubbering a load of crap? Hardly. OTOH, is it a good idea to suck in a whole lot of open, cold air and work out your lungs when you're a harisbreadth from full-blown pneumonia? Sounds fucking stupid to me.

And then, once you've recovered from pneumonia, do you then say, "Whoo! This bedrest felt pretty good ... Who wants to bother jogging again?". You can, of course, if you could give a shit about heart disease or longevity.

Of course, that is exactly what the federal government has a history of doing.

'We can't jog NOW, I mean, THINK ABOUT THE <insert emotional appeal>!!'.

I've been around a few decades and I have yet to see them actually get off their ass and strap on the running shoes, so i see no reason to believe that that will ever happen.

[Insert Edit]

What the fucking fuck? The relaxing of regulations in order to allow the banks to do whatever the fuck they wanted is one of the major causes of the economic crisis. Government intervention is the only thing preventing the Mailed Fist of the Free Market having us all melted down and sold off for spare parts. :tantrum:

Do you KNOW how much effort it takes to stop the "free" market from screwing over both itself and the rest of us? OK, I am happy to admit that much of this intervention was misguided or belated or just plain wrong, but that doesn't take away the fact that this shit is necessary.

Yep. Canadian banks are in GREAT shape compared to US banks. The difference was the amount of regulation on Canadian banks.

[Lord O' Bones]

Looks like you picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.....

True that.

Or pterodactyls, if I'm honest.

[TerraPrime]

I guess we'll never know, will we?

Of course we wont, until the Jews invent the time-travel machine that we know they would invent. What, you think Einstein's theory of relativity was a coincidence?

But that's not the question, really. I was asking you what you think would have happened if we had not done the bail out. Would the middle class, or the majority of the U.S. citizens, be in better shape?

However by continuing a transfer of wealth to perpetuity, you've made sure that we'll have another crisis very soon.

I am opposed to the reverse wealth redistribution, and I'd like to see the Democrats get more serious about this. So, you're preaching to the choir here.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yep. Canadian banks are in GREAT shape compared to US banks. The difference was the amount of regulation on Canadian banks.

There also is a huge difference between how housing is financed in Canada v. the U.S..

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I would like to point out to everyone talking about the oligarchy in the United States and American politicians owned by Wall Street, that from 1980 to 2005, the emdian income of full time workers in Canada has increased by $53. http://www.marginalrevolution.com/

[Iskaral Pust]

Now I feel like I have to defend the Fed. The anarchists (left and right) always draw me in.

The Fed has indeed gifted money to the banks through low interest rates in order to indirectly recapitalize them after Congress refused to do so directly. At the same time, the Fed has also transferred a huge amount of wealth to debtors (poor people, mortgage holders, etc) from savers. Monetary easing is Robin Hood in action, but the evil Sheriff of Nottingham gets a cut. Monetary easing also transfers wealth from old to young (inflation eroding accrued wealth), which is a nice side effect too since the housing bubble was a massive transfer from young to old in the first place.

We have a huge fiscal fuck-up. The current Fed is trying to apply a monetary tourniquet while we wait for some sort of responsible fiscal resolution. It's a very good thing that tourniquet has been available. The current Fed also had to deal with the repercussions of the prior Fed. When the lender of last resort allows the banks to go on a debt binge, then they have to pony up and offer a tourniquet before the economy bleeds out.

Everyone who wanted a "do nothing" solution is misinformed or a naive anarchist. Collapsing the pie for everyone is not a reasonable response to your outrage that some people have cornered an unfair share of the pie.

TARP should have demanded a much higher return on emergency funds. Just look at the terms Buffet got from Goldman. But shockingly, Hank Paulson wasn't a very motivated bargainer. Yet again, the taxpayer never has a chance when bargaining with special interests, whether public sector unions or big oil or Wall St.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Now I feel like I have to defend the Fed. The anarchists (left and right) always draw me in.

The Fed has indeed gifted money to the banks through low interest rates in order to indirectly recapitalize them after Congress refused to do so directly. At the same time, the Fed has also transferred a huge amount of wealth to debtors (poor people, mortgage holders, etc) from savers. Monetary easing is Robin Hood in action, but the evil Sheriff of Nottingham gets a cut. Monetary easing also transfers wealth from old to young (inflation eroding accrued wealth), which is a nice side effect too since the housing bubble was a massive transfer from young to old in the first place.

We have a huge fiscal fuck-up. The current Fed is trying to apply a monetary tourniquet while we wait for some sort of responsible fiscal resolution. It's a very good thing that tourniquet has been available. The current Fed also had to deal with the repercussions of the prior Fed. When the lender of last resort allows the banks to go on a debt binge, then they have to pony up and offer a tourniquet before the economy bleeds out.

Everyone who wanted a "do nothing" solution is misinformed or a naive anarchist. Collapsing the pie for everyone is not a reasonable response to your outrage that some people have cornered an unfair share of the pie.

TARP should have demanded a much higher return on emergency funds. Just look at the terms Buffet got from Goldman. But shockingly, Hank Paulson wasn't a very motivated bargainer. Yet again, the taxpayer never has a chance when bargaining with special interests, whether public sector unions or big oil or Wall St.

Temperamentally, I'm on the side of those who wanted to let the chips fall where they may. The problem for me is that I've got a brother who is a CFO and really understands all this stuff better than I do, but is a huge conservative, and then there is Iskarul. And despite widely different substantive views, those two guys sound identical on this.

Sometimes, you have to know what you don't know, and on this stuff, I don't trust my own internet-acquired "expertise" over that of people who actually know this stuff.

[Shryke]

You don't even need that much expertise. A couple of basic macro-economics classes will do.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You don't even need that much expertise. A couple of basic macro-economics classes will do.

No. All that will do is let you think you don't need much expertise.

[Shryke]

No. All that will do is let you think you don't need much expertise.

No, it will give you enough of the basics to understand what monitary policy is and how the fed works and what they are up to. Along with a familiarity with alot of the basic schools of economic theory.

Most complaints about the Fed or the like seem based on a complete non-understanding of modern macro-economics.

[Jaime L]

Now I feel like I have to defend the Fed. The anarchists (left and right) always draw me in.

The Fed has indeed gifted money to the banks through low interest rates in order to indirectly recapitalize them after Congress refused to do so directly. At the same time, the Fed has also transferred a huge amount of wealth to debtors (poor people, mortgage holders, etc) from savers. Monetary easing is Robin Hood in action, but the evil Sheriff of Nottingham gets a cut. Monetary easing also transfers wealth from old to young (inflation eroding accrued wealth), which is a nice side effect too since the housing bubble was a massive transfer from young to old in the first place.

We have a huge fiscal fuck-up. The current Fed is trying to apply a monetary tourniquet while we wait for some sort of responsible fiscal resolution. It's a very good thing that tourniquet has been available. The current Fed also had to deal with the repercussions of the prior Fed. When the lender of last resort allows the banks to go on a debt binge, then they have to pony up and offer a tourniquet before the economy bleeds out.

Everyone who wanted a "do nothing" solution is misinformed or a naive anarchist. Collapsing the pie for everyone is not a reasonable response to your outrage that some people have cornered an unfair share of the pie.

TARP should have demanded a much higher return on emergency funds. Just look at the terms Buffet got from Goldman. But shockingly, Hank Paulson wasn't a very motivated bargainer. Yet again, the taxpayer never has a chance when bargaining with special interests, whether public sector unions or big oil or Wall St.

This passes the smell test for me. Fits with my vague sense the Fed has saved us back from the edge of a precipice.

ETA: My complaint about the Fed isn't that I'm stupid or misinformed, or that it's part of government. My complaint about the Fed is that Ben Bernanke is the most powerful person in the world right now, and he ain't elected.

It's cynical to say, but these days I'm counting that a point in his favor. Represents the one part of (quasi)government that seems functional and presumably bases its actions in data and research as opposed to gut feelings or what the special interest who got him elected want him to do. I'm a low water mark with my faith in elected officials to even successfully identify a problem let alone takes steps that will help fix it.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It's cynical to say, but these days I'm counting that a point in his favor. Represents the one part of (quasi)government that seems functional and presumably bases its actions in data and research as opposed to gut feelings or what the special interest who got him elected want him to do. I'm a low water mark with my faith in elected officials to even successfully identify a problem let alone takes steps that will help fix it.

So...you're ok with an unelected dictator as long as you feel ok about him?

[Lord Mord]

Swordfish,

Of course, that is exactly what the federal government has a history of doing.

'We can't jog NOW, I mean, THINK ABOUT THE <insert emotional appeal>!!'.

I've been around a few decades and I have yet to see them actually get off their ass and strap on the running shoes, so i see no reason to believe that that will ever happen.

I don't find anything in the above with which I disagree especially. This is just as well since it's beside my point, which was only that it's not hypocritical to advocate what is intended to be a one-time injection upward, even if one's general outlook is that there is too much capital reserved for the top only as it is.

[Swordfish]

Swordfish,

I don't find anything in the above with which I disagree especially. This is just as well since it's beside my point, which was only that it's not hypocritical to advocate what is intended to be a one-time injection upward, even if one's general outlook is that there is too much capital reserved for the top only as it is.

A fair assesment.

I agree with your agreement in the sense that i can find nothing in your post with which to disagree.