This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL @ your question "Do you have a degree in economics?" Yes, the mutual admiration society of predominantly leftist academia is the only qualifier. Ever heard of the term autodidact, or did your indoctrinators not think that was a particularly useful piece of information?
haha, Ron Paul a "big name" in Austrian economics? What about Roger Garrison, Joe Salerno, Lawrence White, Hans Hoppe, Huerta de Soto? Obviously, the author of this video has no actual knowledge about modern developments in economics.
As a neutral, it seems that this video does not represent the austrian school at all, i have never heard an austrian saying: increase supply to solve all economic, or even any economic problems. And the austrians refute the idea that governments should interfere in economics, so clearly they are not going to get work in state funded universities and this is also why austrian economics not taught there...and the namecalling in this vid just makes the austrians sound more professional and adult.
Seems to me your education has gotten in the way of your common sense. You can spout numbers and complex theories and bore anyone to sleep. But the truth is rather simple and easily verified with history. Socrates was the wisest in all Greece because he knew he knew nothing. Intelligence: Not because you think you know everything without questioning, but rather because you question everything you think you know.
These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.Ron Paul in the House Financial Services Committee, September 10, 2003
...the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions...Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss.
So because you were taught by keynesian economists which is the norm today and Ron Paul wasn't your superior? Peter Schiff predictated the housing bubble in 06. There's nothing wrong with the idea of an economy where individuals are free from coercion and able to sell their labour at a price of their choosing. Government is a massive ineffecient system that cannot be left to solve poverty. You don't understand Austrian economics and your clearly just mad that these individuals mocked your work.
@TheMatthias111 A) In fact, on policy and political issues, there was also a clear split in the early Austrian school. Some were Classical liberals; others were what we would now call progressive liberals or even sympathetic to Fabian socialism, including the following:
Nouriel Roubini, Dean Baker, and Paul Krugman are real economists who are credited with actually predicting the crisis and its cause. And as far as the hack Schiff is concerned, And even a broken clock is right twice a day. Schiff was making predictions for years before the economy actually collapsed, like a evangelist constantly predicts the end of the world, someday millions of years in the future, even one of those might get it right.
@Rundstedt1 Austrian economists, like Roger Garrison, Frank Shostak, Robert Murphy, or in Europe: Guido Hulsmann and Huerta De Soto, actually predicted the crisis much earlier and with a sound economic theory, than these hacks of the Keynesian extraction. Krugman actually ordained a housing bubble in 2001, to "save us from depression". It's laughable how you're trying to give credit to people who have no grasp of basic economics.
He also said the dollar would go to zero and that Europe would be 'decoupled' in 'his' crisis and not affected. He is only like a poor astrologer, and then when something turns out to be vaguely as he portended years later, he jumps in to gain credit that isn't deserved.
@Rundstedt1 you obviously have no idea how real economic predicting works. It is not and cannot be quantitative, because economic data are ever-changing and based on human choices and human action. I recommend you read a treatise called "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises so you can learn the proper methodology behind economic reasoning.
And let us also not forget that the FED itself was run by the Libertarian Ayn Rand cultist Alan Greenspan. It is Libertarian policies itself that allowed the excess at the FED and the deregulatory measures that allowed the crisis to transpire.
@Rundstedt1 The mortage crisis I feel was due to the govt intervention in which they guaranteed mortages. Naturally this insurance was the catalyst for the greed and reckless abandoment that followed. The artificially low interest rate set by the fed also forced banks to ensure profits from new derivatives as bonds didn't return enough. I don't think free markets are perfect. Just better then keynesian merely because govt lacks the ability to curb spending and save in times of boom.
I cannot really carry out an argument as some lovely freedom loving libertarian is going around attacking channels with a Bot that marks all of a person's comments as spam. Within a couple of hours at most this too will probably be marked. I feel that this is just a waste of time.
@Rundstedt1 That's unfortunate about the spamming bot honestly. I respect your opinion and your entitled to it as your clearly more read on this then I am as it's a new hobby of mine and I've just begun reading into the work of friedman. Would it have been plausible to rather then bailout the banks, buy them out by gov't when their on the edge of bankrupcy for pennies on the dollar then resell them to more capable individuals? The idea of private risk and the public payin the bill is wrong to me
Anyway, and just quickly, the rate was set by the FED as the market demanded and as the private bankers that run the FED wished, the gov't has nothing to do with setting the interest rates. And again the FED has been run by the Libertarian Alan Greenspan during the set up to the crisis.
And "ensure profits" what a joke, the banks were raking it in the unregulated atmosphere from the derivatives.
@Rundstedt1 What you said seems like total crazy talk to me. Let me get this strait, the FED set the market rate. That is great how this works. In fact I am going to call my bank and explain this philosophy. I will tell them " I wish to have my mortgage rate reduced because that is what the market is telling me". After that I may print some money off in my garage and pay off my loan. Being the FED sure is nice. Hell I may have qualification the be the FED chair with this understanding.
@Rundstedt1 When they think what the market demands is 1% in 2001 then we should get it right, like Krugman said. The FED was never intended to have the power they have now. Fannie and Freddie are private? That is laughable when the government owns the common stock. If Greenspan was a true free market economist he would not support setting rates at "so called market values" based on a belief. The belief you are talking about is Keynesian economics right? Beliefs don't always=reality in markets.
@cskipp Again Fannie and Freddie have long been privatized and the gov't held no voting stock. And if they did there would be a record of how the gov't voted. Where is that? And Again, as I've shown through the Gilded Age references, the 'free-market' fosters monopolies. Remember what Mary Elizabeth Lease said in my post? Monopoly is a feature of laissez faire. And regardless, the FED acted as the private bankers wished, and as they felt the market demanded and set the interest rates accordingly
@Rundstedt1 it is obvious that your set in your ways and really can't even begin to question those beliefs. Once again you still can't see the irony of how you see the fed setting rates as a free market, but you obviously have it figured out. Regulation eventually becomes over regulation but you will always see it as not enough and continue to chase your tale down a hole. Then when it blows up it is the markets fault. Hard to look in the mirror for me but impossible for you. No reply needed
The blind one here was you, somehow lack of regulation and the deregualtion that has been happening since Reagan becomes 'over-regulation'. Then you try and say when the market causes a meltdown it's not the markets fault. Typically Libertarian, you require flawlessness as the only valid standard to judge government: the 'free-market,' being imaginary, cannot be fairly be judged to have flaws. Libertarianism is based on an a priori fantasy that has always resulted in crisis and crash
@Rundstedt1 1)The belief that under anarcho-capitalism there would be no recessions is a sheer delusion: capitalists cannot escape Knightian uncertainty: there is no way to ensure that their capital goods investments will yield a profit and mesh with consumers' consumption decisions. Both Knightian uncertainty and subjective expectations destroy any reliable, long term stability of investment.
@Arjozof Eine schwere Wirtschaftskrise auf der ganzen Welt. Immer neue Maschinen sind aufgestellt worden. Immer mehr Rohstoffe bringen die Landwirtschaft und der Bergbau hervor. Aber die neuen Maschinen stehen still. Aber die Rohstoffe bleiben ungenutzt. 150 Millionen Arbeiter und Angestellte lässt die Welt feiern. Millionen Menschen starben, Millionen Mütter können ihre Kinder nicht sättigen.nicht mit dem Notwendigsten versorgen, und dennoch lässt die Welt die Arbeiter feiern.
@Arjozof Darum wenden sie Millionen und aber Millionen auf,Gewalthaufen zu organisieren und zu bewaffnen,die darbenden grollenden Massen gewaltsam niederwerfen und niederhalten sollen.Die Furcht reichen vor der grollenden Armut krepierten Libertariasmus.Kapitalisten wollen ihre Profite,die Wirtschaftskrise senkt,auf Kosten der Arbeiter und Angestellten,wieder vergrößern.Wer soll den Kapitalisten helfen die Sozialisten niederzuringen?Gegen diesen unmenschlichen Plan kämpft Sozialisten
@Rundstedt1 2)Even under a system where fractional reserve banking is abolished, there could still be asset bubbles or severe malinvestments. E.g.,foreign money could flood into a country via the capital account and cause asset bubbles,when they collapse,would lead to debt deflationary spirals-presence of secondary financial asset markets and secondary real asset markets allows the diversion of income money streams from aggregate supply from the purchasing of final goods and services
@Rundstedt1 at least 5 regulatory agencies regulate US financial market for several decades: FED, SEC, OCC, FTC, and state regulators. How is it not over-regulated? How is it "deregulated"? You obviously don't know what you are talking about, probably because you never even worked at finance and have no grasp of its realities.
@Rundstedt1 usually those with blind spots accuse others of being blind. I do have to apologize. Had I known the size of your ego up front the get go I would have stroked you and reaffirmed your intelligence to get you to open up some instead of feeding your need to be an expert on...well....everything. Anyway it was fun.
@Rundstedt1 government nominees Fed chairman - government dictates Fed policy indirectly. There is also the Federal Reserve charter, which requires Fed to follow Keynesian policy of maintaining full employment and Fisherian heresy of "price stability". This can only lead to disaster, as you can't have a cake and eat it too, while trying to guess the correct rate of interest by a bunch of economic overseers with no grasp on the real market phenomena whatsoever (Fed board, please)
And while no sane economist would let the banks fail as they were about to, even the current Chair is no Keynesian and Keynesianism has nothing to do with the bailouts. "In reality, Bernanke is following a monetarist depression-prevention model laid out by Nobel laureate and libertarian patron saint Milton Friedman. The Fed chairman has invoked the late economist in support of lowering interest rates to zero and bailing out banks" - Reason Magazine
So if you are looking for culprits, look to your 'free-market' and its pundits.
The FHA guaranteed loans were not the problem, the problem was the Subprime loans that the banks developed and pushed on their own accord. And the banks needed no 'insurance' to make all the bad bets they did, those were not insured. Derivatives and Credit default Swaps that are the real culprits were and are totally unregulated.
@Rundstedt1 why do you think banks made risky loans? Are you sure you know what you are talking about. Did you think we had a true free market when the bubble was created. This guy with a piece of paper that says he is an economic major. He was also probably saying we had a strong economy in 2006. Schiff and Paul predicted this fall more than 10 years ago. I guess he thinks he is the intellectual or maybe he should have attended another school.
All markets are created and will seek out regulation. A black market starts as a "free-market" but it is quickly taken over by the underworld and therefore regulated, or it is legitimized and regulated by the government. So it is not a case of IF the market is regulated, but by and for whom. Deregulation actually just pushes the regulation of the market onto the largest, most powerful of the producers (the corporations) by default.
@Rundste The Gilded age was only a 30 year period, and yet still was able to be the fastest economic growth in US history, with real wages, wealth, GDP. If there was not a major influx of new US citizens at that time imagine what wages could have been. I agree that worker conditions, competition and legal representation may have not been the best at that time but it never was given a real opportunity to work out those social issues in really a little less than 30 years.
"The problem is that the laissez faire minus the crony capitalism has never happened anywhere on Earth that I am aware of. Someone clue me in? Laissez faire capitalism is always, or nearly always, crony capitalism. The state is the only thing to throw the criminals in jail, and laissez faire gets rid of the state. The checks and balances in Milton’s model do not exist because the state is gutted, deregulated and corrupted by money." Robert Lindsay
@Rundstedt1 Could not agree with you more on Crony Capitalism. The only way you fix that is limiting Government power. Give government more power allows more crony capitalism. If Alan Greenspan is a libertarian then it was only socially not economically. Dropping the rates to 1%(not a free market the FED is a monopoly) was also strongly supported by you hero Paul Krugman in 2001. I will give you that the CRA was not the only reason for the bust but mostly keynsian economics within the FED.
Sorry but Greenspan was a full-fledged 'free-market' fundie. And I'd say that Greenspan has better credentials as a libertarian than you. After all, what did you deregulate?
"But perhaps Greenspan's most important contribution has been as the policymaker who, through the power of his office, the force of his intellect and the cunning of his behind-the-scenes maneuvering, engineered the wholesale deregulation of the U.S. banking and financial system.
@Rundstedt1 Sorry I ment preferred stock. How do you not see the irony when you say greenspan is a full fledged free market guy when he is setting rates to stimulate the economy in the biggest monopoly in the world. The fact that the government allows the FED to control monetary policy crazy. It does not sound like a free market to me. When you say bankers set the rate you are talking about influencing demand. Isn't that what the Keynesian philosophy is based on?
@Sylvania technically the FED does not print money,the treasury does that. BUT the fed create money and contracts money and use electronic reserve balances. So in that way I would say yes. Why?
@Sylvania it is almost the same thing. All I am trying to say is that the FED has legally been able to violate every antitrust law there is, but some how all of this regulation has empowered the FED. It is a monopoly of macro economics. The FED, regardless of who the chair is is still contributing to false interest rates that the FED and its wisdom fixes. To say the FED SETS free market rates is an oxymoron.
@Rundstedt1 Your argument about Greenspan to me seems very strange. What some people say they believe and what they do can be very different.The free market can not be unilaterally determined by a hand full of big wigs at a table.How does a free market get the blame from Greenspan who influenced the market in the most Keynesian way. While he claimed to be a Free market guy or libertarian capitalist it is ironic because he sat at the controls pulling the keynesian yoke while he stalled the plane.
And all you're doing is demonstrating the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Again, Greenspan called himself a Libertarian, the major publications called him a Libertarian, and he deregulated and gutted the regulatory enforcement at the FED, I'd say his credentials as a Libertarian are greater than yours: after all, what have YOU deregulated?
Greenspan calls himself a libertarian. He talks about that and the time he spent with Ayn Rand in his autobiography, she invited him to her parties and he spoke at her funeral. The 'Economist' and many publications refer to him as a libertarian. By his actions at the Fed deregulating, he acts like a libertarian.
@Rundstedt1 you did avoid the question and a true libertarian would not support the idea of the FED. Krugman and the publication support the status quo. Try challenging yourself to see past the magazines and so called experts and other publications that only support the system you have been taught. Or keep drinking whatever coolaid you have been drinking. I would love to be a rock star but no matter what anyone says I am not....unfortunately. Well I guess perception is reality right?
Yup you demonstrate the perfect definition of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, and the typical Libertarian denial of reality and academic sources, and then accusing the other of 'drinking kool-aid ' while ignoring their own glaring delusion.
@Rundstedt1 Well done sir. When someone wants to question your ideas call them a Scotsman. Truth be told I am not an absolute on free markets. In fact I have been arguing your side of this debate with another free market expert. I actually enjoy putting myself in the other persons shoes and in a way arguing with my own personal beliefs. The problem I continue to find with so many is that when so stuck in you own beliefs is becomes very hard to actually see the other side of the coin.
@Rundstedt1 I am aware of the PBS report your talked about it briefly spoke about the hipocrasy of a libertarian being in control of a highly regulatory organization. While I agree allot of what was said in that report. I can still say what would have happened if the FED would not have interviened in pressuring Wall Street to help LTCM? I think we all know that when bankers say systemic risk exists they follow that by holding out their hand. My teenager does something very similar every weekend
@cskipper65 If LTCM would have failed then it would have been a red flag to all financial bankers of the risk with these derivatives. Instead the FED put down the net so that every one could become a trappese artist with no risk. Would early regulation have helped. Sure. But it would continue to allow many bad decision makers to remain in power by bailing them out. To me its like letting a petifile be an elementary school teacher. Bad Analogy I know!
@cskipper65 If LTCM would have failed in a less intervention way by the FED then we would have been in a bad way but would not have continued making the mistakes we made by shifting it to the Real Estate market. I think your idea could have prevented some of this but a market free of the FED may have come to the same conclusion without the more intervention down the line form the BUSH & OBAMA administration of continuing to stimulate (regulation) with lower interest rates amplifying the problem.
@cskipper65 How does the FED putting pressure on the market to bail out LTCM consider deregulation? Maybe it isnt deregulation in this case but instead interventionism from the FED that allowed this to continue and become worse. The biggest thing I have found is that many like yourself say is its the Philosophy of the FED or regulation that is the problem (keynesian, libertarian etc). Maybe it is the philosophy that the FED should exist to this extent is the problem. Can you agree with that?
You again seem have no idea about what is meant by the term. You expect perfection from your so called 'free-market' advocates. You expect them to magically make the 'free-market' appear.
And when one gets in a position of power where they can act to push matters in the direction of a so called 'free-market,' but they can't instantly intact all libertarian fantasies, and they generally cause a disaster as 'free-market' garbage always does, Libertarians will then try and disavow that person and say well' he's no "true libertarian". I've seen done not only to Greenspan but also to Milton Friedman and von Hayek for the disaster of their 'free-market' dictatorship in Chile
No actually it was the continuing non-intervention by the FED that allowed it to get worse. Even with this happening, the FED still refused to intervene and regulate derivatives.
A central bank is needed in a modern capitalist nation. Before we had the Fed, the Bank of England acted a default central bank for our large capitalist interests, but this just made us subservient to UK monetary policy, the problem isn't the FED itself, it's that its run by capitalists, and even worse, 'free-market' capitalists like Greenspan, and not the people.
And good grief, you do realize that before the FED, the sort of crisis we had was MORE common? That the constant crisis was one of the reasons for the FEDs formation.
So don't you think there should have been some regulation at that point to prevent speculative abuse? You do know that the bail-out wasn't a public bail out don't you? It was just organized through a regional branch of the FED, but bailed out as an investment though private institutions. And there was still obviously risk as it didn't turn out to be a great deal for any involved, it just prevented a worse situation. And yet again, regulation should certainly had been put in then right?
Well Long-Term Capital Management was a Hedge fund that was itself was unregulated and that itself was behind the reason that it failed; showing the need for regulation to PREVENT these occurrences and abuses in the first place! And as the Frontline episode points out, Greenspan refused to accept regulations feeling that the 'free-market' would prevail and the market remained unregulated. Even that PBS report confirms that Greenspan is a 'free-market' ideologue.
And again the systemic risk was a function of deregulatory atmosphere itself. And whether I would agree with it being bailed out at that junction is pointless to this, (I actually usually don't agree with bail outs, that is NOT a socialist position) as the fund had paid back the bailout and been liquidated long before '08. But it should have been a sign to regulate these speculative funds. That was the warning that was really missed.
@Rundstedt1 If LTCM would have failed then it would have been a red flag to all financial bankers of the risk with these derivatives. Instead the FED put down the net so that every one could become a trappese artist with no risk. Would early regulation have helped. Sure. But it would continue to allow many bad decision makers to remain in power by bailing them out. To me its like letting a rapist be an elementary school teacher. Bad Analogy I know!
@Rundstedt1 If LTCM would have failed in a less intervention way by the FED then we would have been in a bad way but would not have continued making the mistakes we made by shifting it to the Real Estate market. I think your idea could have prevented some of this but a market free of the FED may have come to the same conclusion without the more intervention down the line form the BUSH & OBAMA administration of continuing to stimulate (regulation) with lower interest rates amplifying the problem
You can't say that. It was the unregulated atmosphere that allowed it to occur in the first place, there is no indication that the banks not involved with the LTCM specific scam wouldn't have just continued in their other risky actions. And as there might have been some even worse fallout from LTCM, they might have been inclined to make even riskier actions to make up for any perceived shortfalls, making the later crisis even worse.
Your 'moral hazard' scenario doesn't mean that the derivatives wouldn't have happened, that the bundling of mortgages wouldn't have happened, that the private rating agencies wouldn't have been over-rating the bonds and that there wouldn't have been the unregulated massive speculation. And once again, neither the executive nor the legislative nor any part of the gov't has anything to do with setting the interest rates as you continue to suggest that is all done by private bankers.
@Rundstedt1 How does the FED putting pressure on the market to bail out LTCM consider deregulation? Maybe it isnt deregulation in this case but instead interventionism from the FED that allowed this to continue and become worse. The biggest thing I have found is that many like yourself say is its the Philosophy of the FED or regulation that is the problem (keynesian, libertarian etc). Maybe it is the philosophy that the FED should exist to this extent is the problem. Can you agree with that?
To deny that Greenspan is a libertarian is a perfect example of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" Just because he didn't have a magic wand and couldn't instantly enact every unrealistic libertarian fantasy does not mean he isn't a libertarian. He calls himself one, others call him one, and he acts like one, ergo he is one
"I have long since decided to engage in efforts to advance free-market capitalism as an insider rather than as a critical pamphleteer." - Alan Greenspan in his autobiography
-
And you obviously don't even know what Keynesianism is and are just throwing out the term meaninglessly in relation to Greenspan. Fact is all of your 'free-market' ideologues interfere with the market to their own ends, again proving that there is no such thing as a 'free-market'
And like Greenspan other Libertarian 'free-market' pundits act the same way as Greenspan, for instance, Hayek also acted to manipulated the market. He gave direct help to the Chilean dictator Pinochet in setting up the 'free-market' dictatorship there.
Polanyi’s famous rebuke to Hayek was proven in Chile, “[The] lassiez-faire economy was the product of deliberate State action...lassiez-faire was planned.”. In order to plan for the free market, they had to overthrow democracy, which had definitively moved against the free-market in that era. What occurred in Chile was an authentic 'counter-revolution' and like all revolutions it requires violence - "Perspectivos" 2/05/10
"Like Friedman, Hayek glimpsed in Pinochet the avatar of true freedom, who would rule as a dictator only for a "transitional period," only as long as needed to reverse decades of state regulation. "My personal preference," he told a Chilean interviewer, "leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." - "Hayekian dictatorship" Greg Grandin
It's just inconvenient for you that the CEOs and Bankers like Alan Greenspan are Libertarians and 'free-market' ideologues. Libertarianism is the basis of plutocracy where an unregulated market makes the wealthy and corporations the rule supreme, and these elites know it. History has shown that the laissez fare social Darwinism like there was in the Gilded, age only leads to concentrations of wealth and monopoly. Libertarianism is rule by money not by the people.
You can't get around it no matter how hard you try, Greenspan is a libertarian. He calls himself one, economics journals refer to him as a libertarian, and he's acted as a Libertarian gutting all he could of he regulatory structure of the FED. So in reference to your analogy: yes; when you hang with rock stars, the rolling stone calls you a rock star, and you play rock music and are known for that, you are a rock star, but Greenspan is a Libertarian.
Once installed at the Fed, Greenspan immediately began pushing Congress to repeal the Depression-era law that prevented banks from competing with investment banks in underwriting stocks and bonds. When Congress dallied, he used the Fed's supervisory authority to allow banks to circumvent the law and usher in the era of the megabank."
The Laissez-Fairest of Them All, by Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post:
@Truncated all I am trying to say is that the FED has legally been able to violate every antitrust law there is, but some how all of this regulation has empowered the FED. It is a monopoly of macro economics. The FED, regardless of who the chair is is still contributing to false interest rates that the FED and its wisdom fixes. To say the FED SETS free market rates is an oxymoron.
"In its twilight days, the Reagan administration was determined to further fertilize the seeds of deregulation and Greenspan’s Ayn Rand-inspired “objectivist,” free-market philosophies would be the perfect embodiment of the deregulatory movement."
“How Deregulation Eviscerated the Banking Sector Safety Net and Spawned the U.S. Financial Crisis” By Shah Gilani - The Money Map Report
And so it was during the laissez faire times of the Gilded Age, the unrestrained captialism bred crony capitalism as it does now. And it was and is called the Gilded Age for a reason, there was only a surface coating of wealth, the rest mainly lived in abject poverty without assistance and little hope. Children were impressed to work, and the average worker was forced to labor 12-16 hours a day, no overtime, no sicktime, no breaks and little workplace safety and for starvation wages
"While the rich wore diamonds, many wore rags. In 1890, 11 million of the nation's 12 million families earned less than $1200 per year; of this group, the average annual income was $380, well below the poverty line. Rural Americans and new immigrants crowded into urban areas. Tenements spread across city landscapes, teeming with crime and filth. Americans had sewing machines, phonographs, skyscrapers, and even electric lights, yet most people labored in the shadow of poverty.
To those who worked in Carnegie's mills and in the nation's factories and sweatshops, the lives of the millionaires seemed immodest indeed. An economist in 1879 noted "a widespread feeling of unrest and brooding revolution." Violent strikes and riots wracked the nation through the turn of the century. The middle class whispered fearfully of "carnivals of revenge."" - PBS
"The industrialization of the country, [During the Gilded Age] which brought so much wealth to so few, left most of the rest struggling to get by as wage laborers, working for someone else in the factory or on the farm. And wealth influenced and co-opted the government at all levels, through unregulated campaign contributions, vote buying, and similar machinations" - Katie Bacon,"The Dark Side of the Gilded Age" "The Alantic"
"Government for the people, a despairing Rutherford B. Hayes noted in his diary, was supplanted in the Gilded Age by "government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation... Maximalist government for the corporations and minimalist government for the people—that was the rule in the age of betrayal." [The Gilded Age] Jack Beatty, "The Age of Betrayal"
"Everyone was seeking a way out, something wholly new to replace the rancor and incipient violence of Gilded Age capitalism. The Knights of Labor, the Populist Party, the antitrust movement, the cooperative movements of town and country, the nationwide eight-hour day uprisings of 1886 that culminated in the infamy of the Haymarket hangings, all expressed a deep yearning to abolish the prevailing industrial order." Steve Fraser, "The Gilded Age, past and present" "Salon"
So just like now, the laissez Faire of the Gilded Age resulted in Crony capitalism.
"Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, for the people and by the people, but a government for Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master...Let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us thus far beware." - Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
@Rundstedt1 Well said!As Vanderbilt said, "What do I care about the law? Hain't I got the power?" As Matthew Josephson puts it,in his classic The Robber Barons- " The effect was to put a monopoly lock on the large number of wealth creating technologies that appeared at the time and to become as the ancient barons-of-the-crags - who, by force of arms, instead of corporate combinations, monopolized strategic valley roads or mountain passed through which commerce flowed".
@zsylvana "For example Rockefeller's switch from being the largest to the only oil refiner came in secret agreements with the Erie,Pennsylvania,New York Central railroad pools whereby he and refiners invited to join the Standard Oil Trust (they received half the real value of their assets)had freight rates reduced by 50% whereas competing refiners had their rates increased by 100% with half of this being paid straight back to Standard Oil by the railroads"-it´s Freemarket in practice
@zsylvana "Within three months his remaining 25 competitors surrendered to him and he fixed all U.S. oil sales at a new high price.
The opportunities were vast and the modern restraints of anti-monopoly law, social legislation, taxation,judicial/editorial independence were feeble or non-existent." The wrecking of the legal and political system is captured for example in Jack Londons "The Iron Heel"
So it is because of the very same 'free-market' principles that have been pushed on us that it becomes a 'corporate' market. A 'free-market' will naturally become a 'corporate market'. Monopolies are fostered during periods of deregulation, the record of history bears this out. It was during the Gilded Age, a historically recognized period of laissez faire gov't that fostered some of the greatest monopolies until the present great wave of deregulation.
@Rundstedt1 I am glad you at least want to disagree with some reasonable arguments unlike others. The odd thing we mostly want the same end results. For me less Government means less influence by corporations. Your feeling is more government means less power Corporations. To me regulation of government and FED is what would have prevented Fannie and Freddi(Gov. reg)to buy up and insure high risk loans from Banks decreasing risk while increasing profits. Why wouldn't banks want to play that game.
@Rundstedt1 What if you could loan me $100 at 10% interest and the government told you they will insure you that you will get your money back no matter what or buy the paper from you for a small profit. You would probably do it with out even checking my credit. Its like going to a casino and gambling with the house's money. Now, if I knew I was using my money I might just go to the buffet and maybe put $10 on black. HAHA! The point is they had no free market penalty. Like.....going broke!
The banks came up with the sub-prime mortgages and' lair loans' and started pushing them all by themselves. The CRA program as specifically for 'conforming loans' and forbade the sub-primes.
@Rundstedt1 You should reevaluate the influence Government had on the CRA and UDA. Clinton I think unintentionally was giving the Corporations the keys to the car. Low FED rates put fuel in the tank. We both want the same things but more power to the Government seems to me more opportunity for Corporations to influence politicians to give them the upper hand.
Charlatans like Shiff will often make predictions of doom. And even a broken clock is right twice a day. Schiff was making predictions for years before the economy actually collapsed, like an evangelist constantly predicts the end of the world, someday millions of years in the future, even one of those might get it right.
Schiff also said the dollar would go to zero and that Europe would be 'decoupled' in 'his' crisis and not affected. He is only like a poor astrologer, and then when something turns out to be vaguely as he portended years later, he jumps in to gain credit that isn't deserved. Your horoscope has more validity than what Schiff tries to claim.
@Rundstedt1 Some of that is correct, but if you listen to Ron Paul address congress in 2001 he is on the money about a Real Estate bubble. Not because of anything except looked at the economic principle. Right now the geniuses in congress want to spend us out of a recession. Not to say it wont end anyway (prolonged) but would you buy a new home if you had a credit card you couldn't pay for? Were is the understanding in that.Less Government means less powerful idiots (Corp. FED. Gov.)
And let us also not forget that the FED itself was run by the Libertarian Ayn Rand cultist Alan Greenspan. It is Libertarian policies itself that allowed the excess at the FED and the deregulatory measures that allowed the crisis to transpire in the first place.
@Rundstedt1 I am not sure were you get your information of libertarians. I have been in the the Real Estate business and watched the way regulations and false free markets have influence the bubble. Try looking Clintons influence on the "Urban Development Act" in conection with Fannie and Freddie. Then look at the false market of low interest rates(the FED) put in place 2001. Free money(FED) + high risk loans with low risk to the investor(UDA)=INFLATION OF HOMES.Libertarians want to regulate GOV
@Rundstedt1 UDA and CRA. Sorry I left out that regulation as well. If I think of any other regulations that contributed then I will follow up. We should be regulating the Government and the FED.
If you are trying to blame the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) you are totally wrong. first of all the CRA loans had a comparable rate of default to any other properly instituted mortgage. To qualify for a CRA loan the client had to meet requirements designed to show that they could meet its obligations. The sub-prime loans were NOT part of the CRA program but were put into being by the private sector well before Freddie and Fannie even got into the game.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two private companies that had started as government agencies, have been the particular subject of vilification. As has been the government program called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which encourages banks to lend to underserved communities.
Had it not been for these efforts as lending to the poor, so the argument goes, all would have been well. This litany of defenses is, for the most part, sheer nonsense. AIG's almost $200 billion bailout (that's a big amount by any account) was based on derivatives (credit default swaps) - banks gambling with other banks. The banks didn't need any push for egalitarian housing to engage in excessive risk taking.
Nor did the massive overinvestment in commercial real estate have anything to do with government homeownership policy. Nor did the repeated instances of bad lending around the world from which the banks have had to be repeatedly rescued. Moreover, default rates on the CRA lending were actually comparable to other areas of lending - showing that such lending, if done well, does not pose greater risks. (CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than other mortgages)
The most telling point though is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's mandate was for "conforming loans," loans to the middle class. The banks jumped into subprime mortgages -- an area where, at the time, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were not making loans -- Without any incentives from the government. ... Later on, years after the private sector had invented the toxic mortgages, the PRIVATIZED and UNDER-REGULATED Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decided that they too should enjoy the fun.
Their executives thought, Why couldn't they enjoy bonuses akin to others in the industry? Ironically, in doing so, they helped save the private sector from some of its own folly: Had they not bought them, the problems in the private sector would have been far worse, though by buying so many securities, they may have also helped fuel the bubble. Joseph E. Stiglitz, "Freefall" p10-11
"CRA has been in existence since 1977; plus, it only applies to depository institutions (regular banks). Meanwhile, we had a subprime bubble that mostly took place after 2002, with most of the loans made by institutions that weren't subject to the CRA. That's why everyone who's looked at this honestly says that the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the crisis." -
"The attempt to blame it all on the CRA is just an attempt at blame-shifting -- an attempt to make liberals and nonwhite people the villains of a story that is actually about runaway financial institutions and the free-market ideologues who refused to regulate them." Paul Krugman, "Washington Post"
It was the unregulated private mortgage companies that issued the toxic loans, NOT Freddie and Fannie. Companies like HSBC and GMAC. Freddie and Fannie only fell prey to the mortgage securities market, which was de-regulated, and those mortgage agencies. You maliciously try to blame the victims; the people that were taken advantage of, and there are a plethora of examples where the loan 'officers' took advantage of people.
You just show that you are a troll and can only repeat the easily debunked garbage that your corporate run 'think tanks' spew. NO responsible source blames Freddie or Fannie for the Mortgage scams. The toxic mortgages were issued by other totally private mortgage companies as I said, NOT Freddie and Fannie, and the CRA program had a lower default rate than even standard mortgages.
@Rundstedt1 Claims that CRA wasn’t subprime is misleading. It would be more accurate to say that 90% of CRA lending wasn’t classified as subprime.CRA lenders, along with Fannie & Freddie commonly classified CRA loans as “subprime” only if they had high fees, high rates, or low initial payments with adjustable interest rates. But approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who had 97% loans, or had low credit that indicated high risk.
@Rundstedt1 Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” the chances are they defaulted. You put money like that into market and you inflate the entire industry.People sell and move up into the next price point and so on and so on. It was not a major problem in 1977 but as these regulations in the late 90s forced more on the market the more toxic and the more greed came of other types of loans and a false sense of security in values.Statistics are misleading when using incorrect numbers
@Rundstedt1 "Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a life time." Someone talking about human nature or something..... Just trying to keep up with your quotes.
@Rundstedt1 Had Fannie Freddie and the CRA accounted for the loans at low rates to borrowers regardless of credit who knows what the subprime% are. So the numbers you and Paul are talking about aren't even close to being accurate. Why would Paul not point that out? Maybe because he wants to save the world and give everyone a fish. Lost economic principles on what risk is does not make those numbers valid.
@Rundstedt1 specifically then. What deregulation are you referring to that directly caused the real estate bubble? And then tell me when we had this free market that is responsible for this. We have not had a free market for 70± years. Do you consider setting low rates by fed regulation or deregulation? Dont Keynesians consider the fed, treasury dept.the tools they need to regulate markets? I don't need a history lesson for you to answer these questions. Scotsman?
Please watch "The Warning" by PBS, the bubble was a result of a conjunction of various measures. And again there is NO SUCH thing as a 'free-market,' just one that is more of less laissez faire, since when is Keynesian about regulating markets? Perhaps you should know what Keynes really meant before you go on.
@Rundstedt1 Greenspan was not an Objectivist, and his policies were far removed even from Milton Friedman's "monetary rule" for the Fed. You are attacking a straw man.
@bapyou By having oppurtunities you can be payed a fair price for you labour under free market principles. You act as though it's impossible for anyone to move between proletariat and bourgeoisie. If the workers are really so truly exploited they are free to combine their wealth, borrow money and start their own means of production in the industry. And of course you have some choice in what you get paid, they can't force you to stay in a job that your unsatisified with.
You're a complete, thoughtless buffoon. The workers "pool" their wealth? You mean the wealth they've created for their bosses? True control of the wealth of society is not possible for workers; only a revolution which eradicates the ruling class can redistribute wealth.
Capitalism is a failing system. The pigs of wealth have their days numbered. The economy should serve the people, not the people serve the economy. If you're one of the pigs, I have no sympathy for you.
@bapyou All I am saying is that it is truly that the workers are being exploited, then it is logical to say there must be profits there. Then competition will arise if it truly so profitable. The workers could pool their meager savings or borrow the money. Competition is the best way to ensure equality. If you lack the ability to have a level headed conversation or the ability to see how wealth is created and distributed you should keep your opinions to yourself.
Libertarians do not want to do away with intellectualism and make everyone the same. That concept is also not some kind of "fascism". What it is, is Marxism. Guess they don't basic world history in New Jersey.
I'm very sorry but you, my good sir, have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry that you used your hard-earned money to pay for a degree (which you seem to hold as the golden standard for knowledge) that has brought you nothing. Argument from perceived authority does not lift the burden of proof from your shoulders. Please try to use logic and factual evidence in your next video regarding something you are so highly trained in.
I have checked them out and they're the only ones that seem to have any clue as to what's going on. 9 minute video that has said nothing with no evidence. Was torturous.
Wrong on so many levels (anti-intellectuals, professors at colleges, active austrian economists, ...). Youtube comments don't allow for longer explanations, but Mr. radiohogan, please come visit reddit(dot)com /r/ austrian_economics
Sorry dude, but this is total logic fail. Any idea or theory can only be "discredited" based on the scientific evidence supporting it relative to other theories. The number of people that agree with a theory has no bearing on its truth. I could just as easily have used your logic to say that the theory of evolution has been discredited because a majority of Americans disagree with it
Next time you use the term "discredited" in your title, make sure you provide actual evidence discrediting it
In all the "prestistigiuos" land there are only two Austrian economists teaching at universities. This is the one big argument this brilliant intellectual with a community college degree puts forth that is suppose to close the case on the Austrian school. Does it surprise him that free market economists prefer to work in the free market? Publishing books, doing podcasts, doing radio, speaking at libertarian events etc. I think two is too many. Get out of the university system.
I also find it interesting that radiohogan feels that the ideas of Austrians are invalid since he says there are virtualy none who have an actual economics degree. He then lionizes John Maynard Keynes, who himself NEVER HAD A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS. I do not see where he even had any sort of advanced degree at all. What is that about?
You know, I did a little googling and ended up with alot more than two professors who advocate the Austrian school. As to the Ivy league schools....I did a thorough search of all Catholic universities and didn't find one Professor that advocated Protestantism. Protestantism must then be obviously discredited....
radiohogan. you cite that the Austrians and Supply siders want to grow out of recession by providing goods to those without disposible income to buy. You seem to be constructing a false delimma in doing so: Not even during the great depression was there a majority of the populous completely without disposible income, even among the working class.
Okay, so your critisism of Austrian Economics in this video start with two guys who you (correctly) state aren't economicists? That's a fairly pointless appeal to nothing.
In America, I've worked supporting derivative/equities.. markets, and It's not an economy either!
I've supported traders, whose job was moving money and/or gambling - they make millions and don't produce anything; I don't produce anything and so on. Government is big, inefficient, and sucks trillions out of economy; the biggest industry is the internet/housing. what export do we have? what the * are we eating then?
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL @ your question "Do you have a degree in economics?" Yes, the mutual admiration society of predominantly leftist academia is the only qualifier. Ever heard of the term autodidact, or did your indoctrinators not think that was a particularly useful piece of information?
satrekker 6 days ago
Comment removed
PaleoAthletics 6 days ago
Comment removed
Issues714 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
haha, Ron Paul a "big name" in Austrian economics? What about Roger Garrison, Joe Salerno, Lawrence White, Hans Hoppe, Huerta de Soto? Obviously, the author of this video has no actual knowledge about modern developments in economics.
Arjozof 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a neutral, it seems that this video does not represent the austrian school at all, i have never heard an austrian saying: increase supply to solve all economic, or even any economic problems. And the austrians refute the idea that governments should interfere in economics, so clearly they are not going to get work in state funded universities and this is also why austrian economics not taught there...and the namecalling in this vid just makes the austrians sound more professional and adult.
sidvidkid 3 weeks ago
youtube.
com/watch?v=dto8QpeRDxs&feature=related
PaleoAthletics 1 month ago
The FED is a scam. Read the Creature From Jekyll Island by Edward Griffin.
PaleoAthletics 1 month ago
Seems to me your education has gotten in the way of your common sense. You can spout numbers and complex theories and bore anyone to sleep. But the truth is rather simple and easily verified with history. Socrates was the wisest in all Greece because he knew he knew nothing. Intelligence: Not because you think you know everything without questioning, but rather because you question everything you think you know.
PaleoAthletics 1 month ago
These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.Ron Paul in the House Financial Services Committee, September 10, 2003
PaleoAthletics 1 month ago
...the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions...Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss.
PaleoAthletics 1 month ago
So because you were taught by keynesian economists which is the norm today and Ron Paul wasn't your superior? Peter Schiff predictated the housing bubble in 06. There's nothing wrong with the idea of an economy where individuals are free from coercion and able to sell their labour at a price of their choosing. Government is a massive ineffecient system that cannot be left to solve poverty. You don't understand Austrian economics and your clearly just mad that these individuals mocked your work.
TheMatthias111 1 month ago
@TheMatthias111 A) In fact, on policy and political issues, there was also a clear split in the early Austrian school. Some were Classical liberals; others were what we would now call progressive liberals or even sympathetic to Fabian socialism, including the following:
zsylvana 1 month ago
@TheMatthias111 B) including the following:
(1) Eugen von Philippovich, a leader of Austrian social liberalism and Fabian socialist;
(2) Friedrich von Wieser, sympathetic to Fabian socialism;
(3) the early Hayek, sympathetic to Wieser's mild Fabian socialism, and
(4) Richard von Strigl, who was, according to Hayek, “if anything, a socialist” (Nobel Prize-Winning Economist: Friedrich A. von Hayek, pp. 54–56).
zsylvana 1 month ago
@TheMatthias111 (1/2)
Nouriel Roubini, Dean Baker, and Paul Krugman are real economists who are credited with actually predicting the crisis and its cause. And as far as the hack Schiff is concerned, And even a broken clock is right twice a day. Schiff was making predictions for years before the economy actually collapsed, like a evangelist constantly predicts the end of the world, someday millions of years in the future, even one of those might get it right.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 Austrian economists, like Roger Garrison, Frank Shostak, Robert Murphy, or in Europe: Guido Hulsmann and Huerta De Soto, actually predicted the crisis much earlier and with a sound economic theory, than these hacks of the Keynesian extraction. Krugman actually ordained a housing bubble in 2001, to "save us from depression". It's laughable how you're trying to give credit to people who have no grasp of basic economics.
Arjozof 1 week ago
@TheMatthias111 (2/2)
He also said the dollar would go to zero and that Europe would be 'decoupled' in 'his' crisis and not affected. He is only like a poor astrologer, and then when something turns out to be vaguely as he portended years later, he jumps in to gain credit that isn't deserved.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 you obviously have no idea how real economic predicting works. It is not and cannot be quantitative, because economic data are ever-changing and based on human choices and human action. I recommend you read a treatise called "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises so you can learn the proper methodology behind economic reasoning.
Arjozof 1 week ago
@TheMatthias111 (3/2)
And let us also not forget that the FED itself was run by the Libertarian Ayn Rand cultist Alan Greenspan. It is Libertarian policies itself that allowed the excess at the FED and the deregulatory measures that allowed the crisis to transpire.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 The mortage crisis I feel was due to the govt intervention in which they guaranteed mortages. Naturally this insurance was the catalyst for the greed and reckless abandoment that followed. The artificially low interest rate set by the fed also forced banks to ensure profits from new derivatives as bonds didn't return enough. I don't think free markets are perfect. Just better then keynesian merely because govt lacks the ability to curb spending and save in times of boom.
TheMatthias111 1 month ago
@TheMatthias111 (1/4)
I cannot really carry out an argument as some lovely freedom loving libertarian is going around attacking channels with a Bot that marks all of a person's comments as spam. Within a couple of hours at most this too will probably be marked. I feel that this is just a waste of time.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 That's unfortunate about the spamming bot honestly. I respect your opinion and your entitled to it as your clearly more read on this then I am as it's a new hobby of mine and I've just begun reading into the work of friedman. Would it have been plausible to rather then bailout the banks, buy them out by gov't when their on the edge of bankrupcy for pennies on the dollar then resell them to more capable individuals? The idea of private risk and the public payin the bill is wrong to me
TheMatthias111 1 month ago
@TheMatthias111 (2/4)
Anyway, and just quickly, the rate was set by the FED as the market demanded and as the private bankers that run the FED wished, the gov't has nothing to do with setting the interest rates. And again the FED has been run by the Libertarian Alan Greenspan during the set up to the crisis.
And "ensure profits" what a joke, the banks were raking it in the unregulated atmosphere from the derivatives.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 What you said seems like total crazy talk to me. Let me get this strait, the FED set the market rate. That is great how this works. In fact I am going to call my bank and explain this philosophy. I will tell them " I wish to have my mortgage rate reduced because that is what the market is telling me". After that I may print some money off in my garage and pay off my loan. Being the FED sure is nice. Hell I may have qualification the be the FED chair with this understanding.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 Gov't does NOT set the rate, the private bankers that sit on the board of the FED set the rate at what they believe the market demands.
And again, it was the 'free-market' libertarian Alan Greenspan that ran the FED
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 When they think what the market demands is 1% in 2001 then we should get it right, like Krugman said. The FED was never intended to have the power they have now. Fannie and Freddie are private? That is laughable when the government owns the common stock. If Greenspan was a true free market economist he would not support setting rates at "so called market values" based on a belief. The belief you are talking about is Keynesian economics right? Beliefs don't always=reality in markets.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipp Again Fannie and Freddie have long been privatized and the gov't held no voting stock. And if they did there would be a record of how the gov't voted. Where is that? And Again, as I've shown through the Gilded Age references, the 'free-market' fosters monopolies. Remember what Mary Elizabeth Lease said in my post? Monopoly is a feature of laissez faire. And regardless, the FED acted as the private bankers wished, and as they felt the market demanded and set the interest rates accordingly
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 it is obvious that your set in your ways and really can't even begin to question those beliefs. Once again you still can't see the irony of how you see the fed setting rates as a free market, but you obviously have it figured out. Regulation eventually becomes over regulation but you will always see it as not enough and continue to chase your tale down a hole. Then when it blows up it is the markets fault. Hard to look in the mirror for me but impossible for you. No reply needed
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65
The blind one here was you, somehow lack of regulation and the deregualtion that has been happening since Reagan becomes 'over-regulation'. Then you try and say when the market causes a meltdown it's not the markets fault. Typically Libertarian, you require flawlessness as the only valid standard to judge government: the 'free-market,' being imaginary, cannot be fairly be judged to have flaws. Libertarianism is based on an a priori fantasy that has always resulted in crisis and crash
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago 24
@Rundstedt1 1)The belief that under anarcho-capitalism there would be no recessions is a sheer delusion: capitalists cannot escape Knightian uncertainty: there is no way to ensure that their capital goods investments will yield a profit and mesh with consumers' consumption decisions. Both Knightian uncertainty and subjective expectations destroy any reliable, long term stability of investment.
zsylvana 3 weeks ago 7
@zsylvana it wouldn't be an economy-wide recession
Arjozof 1 week ago
@Arjozof Eine schwere Wirtschaftskrise auf der ganzen Welt. Immer neue Maschinen sind aufgestellt worden. Immer mehr Rohstoffe bringen die Landwirtschaft und der Bergbau hervor. Aber die neuen Maschinen stehen still. Aber die Rohstoffe bleiben ungenutzt. 150 Millionen Arbeiter und Angestellte lässt die Welt feiern. Millionen Menschen starben, Millionen Mütter können ihre Kinder nicht sättigen.nicht mit dem Notwendigsten versorgen, und dennoch lässt die Welt die Arbeiter feiern.
zsylvana 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@zsylvana this is crisis in the Austrian (credit bubble induced) sense.
Arjozof 1 week ago
@Arjozof Darum wenden sie Millionen und aber Millionen auf,Gewalthaufen zu organisieren und zu bewaffnen,die darbenden grollenden Massen gewaltsam niederwerfen und niederhalten sollen.Die Furcht reichen vor der grollenden Armut krepierten Libertariasmus.Kapitalisten wollen ihre Profite,die Wirtschaftskrise senkt,auf Kosten der Arbeiter und Angestellten,wieder vergrößern.Wer soll den Kapitalisten helfen die Sozialisten niederzuringen?Gegen diesen unmenschlichen Plan kämpft Sozialisten
zsylvana 1 week ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@zsylvana and you wanted to say what? cut the Deutsch and speak civilized language.
Arjozof 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 2)Even under a system where fractional reserve banking is abolished, there could still be asset bubbles or severe malinvestments. E.g.,foreign money could flood into a country via the capital account and cause asset bubbles,when they collapse,would lead to debt deflationary spirals-presence of secondary financial asset markets and secondary real asset markets allows the diversion of income money streams from aggregate supply from the purchasing of final goods and services
zsylvana 3 weeks ago 26
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 at least 5 regulatory agencies regulate US financial market for several decades: FED, SEC, OCC, FTC, and state regulators. How is it not over-regulated? How is it "deregulated"? You obviously don't know what you are talking about, probably because you never even worked at finance and have no grasp of its realities.
Arjozof 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 usually those with blind spots accuse others of being blind. I do have to apologize. Had I known the size of your ego up front the get go I would have stroked you and reaffirmed your intelligence to get you to open up some instead of feeding your need to be an expert on...well....everything. Anyway it was fun.
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 government nominees Fed chairman - government dictates Fed policy indirectly. There is also the Federal Reserve charter, which requires Fed to follow Keynesian policy of maintaining full employment and Fisherian heresy of "price stability". This can only lead to disaster, as you can't have a cake and eat it too, while trying to guess the correct rate of interest by a bunch of economic overseers with no grasp on the real market phenomena whatsoever (Fed board, please)
Arjozof 1 week ago
@TheMatthias111 (3/4)
And while no sane economist would let the banks fail as they were about to, even the current Chair is no Keynesian and Keynesianism has nothing to do with the bailouts. "In reality, Bernanke is following a monetarist depression-prevention model laid out by Nobel laureate and libertarian patron saint Milton Friedman. The Fed chairman has invoked the late economist in support of lowering interest rates to zero and bailing out banks" - Reason Magazine
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@TheMatthias111 (4/4)
So if you are looking for culprits, look to your 'free-market' and its pundits.
The FHA guaranteed loans were not the problem, the problem was the Subprime loans that the banks developed and pushed on their own accord. And the banks needed no 'insurance' to make all the bad bets they did, those were not insured. Derivatives and Credit default Swaps that are the real culprits were and are totally unregulated.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 why do you think banks made risky loans? Are you sure you know what you are talking about. Did you think we had a true free market when the bubble was created. This guy with a piece of paper that says he is an economic major. He was also probably saying we had a strong economy in 2006. Schiff and Paul predicted this fall more than 10 years ago. I guess he thinks he is the intellectual or maybe he should have attended another school.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (1/5)
There is NO SUCH THING as a 'free-market'
All markets are created and will seek out regulation. A black market starts as a "free-market" but it is quickly taken over by the underworld and therefore regulated, or it is legitimized and regulated by the government. So it is not a case of IF the market is regulated, but by and for whom. Deregulation actually just pushes the regulation of the market onto the largest, most powerful of the producers (the corporations) by default.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundste The Gilded age was only a 30 year period, and yet still was able to be the fastest economic growth in US history, with real wages, wealth, GDP. If there was not a major influx of new US citizens at that time imagine what wages could have been. I agree that worker conditions, competition and legal representation may have not been the best at that time but it never was given a real opportunity to work out those social issues in really a little less than 30 years.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (1/7)
"The problem is that the laissez faire minus the crony capitalism has never happened anywhere on Earth that I am aware of. Someone clue me in? Laissez faire capitalism is always, or nearly always, crony capitalism. The state is the only thing to throw the criminals in jail, and laissez faire gets rid of the state. The checks and balances in Milton’s model do not exist because the state is gutted, deregulated and corrupted by money." Robert Lindsay
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 Could not agree with you more on Crony Capitalism. The only way you fix that is limiting Government power. Give government more power allows more crony capitalism. If Alan Greenspan is a libertarian then it was only socially not economically. Dropping the rates to 1%(not a free market the FED is a monopoly) was also strongly supported by you hero Paul Krugman in 2001. I will give you that the CRA was not the only reason for the bust but mostly keynsian economics within the FED.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (1/3)
Sorry but Greenspan was a full-fledged 'free-market' fundie. And I'd say that Greenspan has better credentials as a libertarian than you. After all, what did you deregulate?
"But perhaps Greenspan's most important contribution has been as the policymaker who, through the power of his office, the force of his intellect and the cunning of his behind-the-scenes maneuvering, engineered the wholesale deregulation of the U.S. banking and financial system.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 Sorry I ment preferred stock. How do you not see the irony when you say greenspan is a full fledged free market guy when he is setting rates to stimulate the economy in the biggest monopoly in the world. The fact that the government allows the FED to control monetary policy crazy. It does not sound like a free market to me. When you say bankers set the rate you are talking about influencing demand. Isn't that what the Keynesian philosophy is based on?
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 So??Do you think that the Fed print to much,money?
zsylvana 1 month ago
@Sylvania technically the FED does not print money,the treasury does that. BUT the fed create money and contracts money and use electronic reserve balances. So in that way I would say yes. Why?
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 Yes i know.Should check if you understand how the system works.The treasury print the money but the Fed determine the money base.
zsylvana 1 month ago
@Sylvania it is almost the same thing. All I am trying to say is that the FED has legally been able to violate every antitrust law there is, but some how all of this regulation has empowered the FED. It is a monopoly of macro economics. The FED, regardless of who the chair is is still contributing to false interest rates that the FED and its wisdom fixes. To say the FED SETS free market rates is an oxymoron.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 Your argument about Greenspan to me seems very strange. What some people say they believe and what they do can be very different.The free market can not be unilaterally determined by a hand full of big wigs at a table.How does a free market get the blame from Greenspan who influenced the market in the most Keynesian way. While he claimed to be a Free market guy or libertarian capitalist it is ironic because he sat at the controls pulling the keynesian yoke while he stalled the plane.
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (1/8)
And all you're doing is demonstrating the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Again, Greenspan called himself a Libertarian, the major publications called him a Libertarian, and he deregulated and gutted the regulatory enforcement at the FED, I'd say his credentials as a Libertarian are greater than yours: after all, what have YOU deregulated?
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (2/8)
Greenspan calls himself a libertarian. He talks about that and the time he spent with Ayn Rand in his autobiography, she invited him to her parties and he spoke at her funeral. The 'Economist' and many publications refer to him as a libertarian. By his actions at the Fed deregulating, he acts like a libertarian.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 you did avoid the question and a true libertarian would not support the idea of the FED. Krugman and the publication support the status quo. Try challenging yourself to see past the magazines and so called experts and other publications that only support the system you have been taught. Or keep drinking whatever coolaid you have been drinking. I would love to be a rock star but no matter what anyone says I am not....unfortunately. Well I guess perception is reality right?
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65
Yup you demonstrate the perfect definition of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, and the typical Libertarian denial of reality and academic sources, and then accusing the other of 'drinking kool-aid ' while ignoring their own glaring delusion.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 Well done sir. When someone wants to question your ideas call them a Scotsman. Truth be told I am not an absolute on free markets. In fact I have been arguing your side of this debate with another free market expert. I actually enjoy putting myself in the other persons shoes and in a way arguing with my own personal beliefs. The problem I continue to find with so many is that when so stuck in you own beliefs is becomes very hard to actually see the other side of the coin.
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65
Well first off it's obvious that you still don't know what the no true Scotsman fallacy is.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 I am aware of the PBS report your talked about it briefly spoke about the hipocrasy of a libertarian being in control of a highly regulatory organization. While I agree allot of what was said in that report. I can still say what would have happened if the FED would not have interviened in pressuring Wall Street to help LTCM? I think we all know that when bankers say systemic risk exists they follow that by holding out their hand. My teenager does something very similar every weekend
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 If LTCM would have failed then it would have been a red flag to all financial bankers of the risk with these derivatives. Instead the FED put down the net so that every one could become a trappese artist with no risk. Would early regulation have helped. Sure. But it would continue to allow many bad decision makers to remain in power by bailing them out. To me its like letting a petifile be an elementary school teacher. Bad Analogy I know!
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 If LTCM would have failed in a less intervention way by the FED then we would have been in a bad way but would not have continued making the mistakes we made by shifting it to the Real Estate market. I think your idea could have prevented some of this but a market free of the FED may have come to the same conclusion without the more intervention down the line form the BUSH & OBAMA administration of continuing to stimulate (regulation) with lower interest rates amplifying the problem.
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 How does the FED putting pressure on the market to bail out LTCM consider deregulation? Maybe it isnt deregulation in this case but instead interventionism from the FED that allowed this to continue and become worse. The biggest thing I have found is that many like yourself say is its the Philosophy of the FED or regulation that is the problem (keynesian, libertarian etc). Maybe it is the philosophy that the FED should exist to this extent is the problem. Can you agree with that?
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 Maybe a Scotsman is someone just playing Devils Advocate. Not sure if I would use such a term and not sure many would either.
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (1/2)
You again seem have no idea about what is meant by the term. You expect perfection from your so called 'free-market' advocates. You expect them to magically make the 'free-market' appear.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@csk (2/2)
And when one gets in a position of power where they can act to push matters in the direction of a so called 'free-market,' but they can't instantly intact all libertarian fantasies, and they generally cause a disaster as 'free-market' garbage always does, Libertarians will then try and disavow that person and say well' he's no "true libertarian". I've seen done not only to Greenspan but also to Milton Friedman and von Hayek for the disaster of their 'free-market' dictatorship in Chile
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (1/2)
No actually it was the continuing non-intervention by the FED that allowed it to get worse. Even with this happening, the FED still refused to intervene and regulate derivatives.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (2/2)
A central bank is needed in a modern capitalist nation. Before we had the Fed, the Bank of England acted a default central bank for our large capitalist interests, but this just made us subservient to UK monetary policy, the problem isn't the FED itself, it's that its run by capitalists, and even worse, 'free-market' capitalists like Greenspan, and not the people.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65
And good grief, you do realize that before the FED, the sort of crisis we had was MORE common? That the constant crisis was one of the reasons for the FEDs formation.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper
So don't you think there should have been some regulation at that point to prevent speculative abuse? You do know that the bail-out wasn't a public bail out don't you? It was just organized through a regional branch of the FED, but bailed out as an investment though private institutions. And there was still obviously risk as it didn't turn out to be a great deal for any involved, it just prevented a worse situation. And yet again, regulation should certainly had been put in then right?
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (1/2)
Well Long-Term Capital Management was a Hedge fund that was itself was unregulated and that itself was behind the reason that it failed; showing the need for regulation to PREVENT these occurrences and abuses in the first place! And as the Frontline episode points out, Greenspan refused to accept regulations feeling that the 'free-market' would prevail and the market remained unregulated. Even that PBS report confirms that Greenspan is a 'free-market' ideologue.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (2/2)
And again the systemic risk was a function of deregulatory atmosphere itself. And whether I would agree with it being bailed out at that junction is pointless to this, (I actually usually don't agree with bail outs, that is NOT a socialist position) as the fund had paid back the bailout and been liquidated long before '08. But it should have been a sign to regulate these speculative funds. That was the warning that was really missed.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 If LTCM would have failed then it would have been a red flag to all financial bankers of the risk with these derivatives. Instead the FED put down the net so that every one could become a trappese artist with no risk. Would early regulation have helped. Sure. But it would continue to allow many bad decision makers to remain in power by bailing them out. To me its like letting a rapist be an elementary school teacher. Bad Analogy I know!
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 If LTCM would have failed in a less intervention way by the FED then we would have been in a bad way but would not have continued making the mistakes we made by shifting it to the Real Estate market. I think your idea could have prevented some of this but a market free of the FED may have come to the same conclusion without the more intervention down the line form the BUSH & OBAMA administration of continuing to stimulate (regulation) with lower interest rates amplifying the problem
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (1/2)
You can't say that. It was the unregulated atmosphere that allowed it to occur in the first place, there is no indication that the banks not involved with the LTCM specific scam wouldn't have just continued in their other risky actions. And as there might have been some even worse fallout from LTCM, they might have been inclined to make even riskier actions to make up for any perceived shortfalls, making the later crisis even worse.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskippe (2/2)
Your 'moral hazard' scenario doesn't mean that the derivatives wouldn't have happened, that the bundling of mortgages wouldn't have happened, that the private rating agencies wouldn't have been over-rating the bonds and that there wouldn't have been the unregulated massive speculation. And once again, neither the executive nor the legislative nor any part of the gov't has anything to do with setting the interest rates as you continue to suggest that is all done by private bankers.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 How does the FED putting pressure on the market to bail out LTCM consider deregulation? Maybe it isnt deregulation in this case but instead interventionism from the FED that allowed this to continue and become worse. The biggest thing I have found is that many like yourself say is its the Philosophy of the FED or regulation that is the problem (keynesian, libertarian etc). Maybe it is the philosophy that the FED should exist to this extent is the problem. Can you agree with that?
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 Maybe a Scotsman is someone just playing Devils Advocate. Not sure if I would use such a term and not sure many would either.
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (3/8)
To deny that Greenspan is a libertarian is a perfect example of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" Just because he didn't have a magic wand and couldn't instantly enact every unrealistic libertarian fantasy does not mean he isn't a libertarian. He calls himself one, others call him one, and he acts like one, ergo he is one
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (4/8)
"I have long since decided to engage in efforts to advance free-market capitalism as an insider rather than as a critical pamphleteer." - Alan Greenspan in his autobiography
-
And you obviously don't even know what Keynesianism is and are just throwing out the term meaninglessly in relation to Greenspan. Fact is all of your 'free-market' ideologues interfere with the market to their own ends, again proving that there is no such thing as a 'free-market'
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (5/8)
And like Greenspan other Libertarian 'free-market' pundits act the same way as Greenspan, for instance, Hayek also acted to manipulated the market. He gave direct help to the Chilean dictator Pinochet in setting up the 'free-market' dictatorship there.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (6/8)
Polanyi’s famous rebuke to Hayek was proven in Chile, “[The] lassiez-faire economy was the product of deliberate State action...lassiez-faire was planned.”. In order to plan for the free market, they had to overthrow democracy, which had definitively moved against the free-market in that era. What occurred in Chile was an authentic 'counter-revolution' and like all revolutions it requires violence - "Perspectivos" 2/05/10
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (7/8)
"Like Friedman, Hayek glimpsed in Pinochet the avatar of true freedom, who would rule as a dictator only for a "transitional period," only as long as needed to reverse decades of state regulation. "My personal preference," he told a Chilean interviewer, "leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." - "Hayekian dictatorship" Greg Grandin
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (8/8)
It's just inconvenient for you that the CEOs and Bankers like Alan Greenspan are Libertarians and 'free-market' ideologues. Libertarianism is the basis of plutocracy where an unregulated market makes the wealthy and corporations the rule supreme, and these elites know it. History has shown that the laissez fare social Darwinism like there was in the Gilded, age only leads to concentrations of wealth and monopoly. Libertarianism is rule by money not by the people.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 if I play the piano but I like hard rock and hang out with rockstars does that make me a rockstar?
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65
You can't get around it no matter how hard you try, Greenspan is a libertarian. He calls himself one, economics journals refer to him as a libertarian, and he's acted as a Libertarian gutting all he could of he regulatory structure of the FED. So in reference to your analogy: yes; when you hang with rock stars, the rolling stone calls you a rock star, and you play rock music and are known for that, you are a rock star, but Greenspan is a Libertarian.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65 (2/3)
Once installed at the Fed, Greenspan immediately began pushing Congress to repeal the Depression-era law that prevented banks from competing with investment banks in underwriting stocks and bonds. When Congress dallied, he used the Fed's supervisory authority to allow banks to circumvent the law and usher in the era of the megabank."
The Laissez-Fairest of Them All, by Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post:
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Truncated all I am trying to say is that the FED has legally been able to violate every antitrust law there is, but some how all of this regulation has empowered the FED. It is a monopoly of macro economics. The FED, regardless of who the chair is is still contributing to false interest rates that the FED and its wisdom fixes. To say the FED SETS free market rates is an oxymoron.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (3/3)
"In its twilight days, the Reagan administration was determined to further fertilize the seeds of deregulation and Greenspan’s Ayn Rand-inspired “objectivist,” free-market philosophies would be the perfect embodiment of the deregulatory movement."
“How Deregulation Eviscerated the Banking Sector Safety Net and Spawned the U.S. Financial Crisis” By Shah Gilani - The Money Map Report
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskip (2/7)
And so it was during the laissez faire times of the Gilded Age, the unrestrained captialism bred crony capitalism as it does now. And it was and is called the Gilded Age for a reason, there was only a surface coating of wealth, the rest mainly lived in abject poverty without assistance and little hope. Children were impressed to work, and the average worker was forced to labor 12-16 hours a day, no overtime, no sicktime, no breaks and little workplace safety and for starvation wages
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (3/7)
"While the rich wore diamonds, many wore rags. In 1890, 11 million of the nation's 12 million families earned less than $1200 per year; of this group, the average annual income was $380, well below the poverty line. Rural Americans and new immigrants crowded into urban areas. Tenements spread across city landscapes, teeming with crime and filth. Americans had sewing machines, phonographs, skyscrapers, and even electric lights, yet most people labored in the shadow of poverty.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (4/7)
To those who worked in Carnegie's mills and in the nation's factories and sweatshops, the lives of the millionaires seemed immodest indeed. An economist in 1879 noted "a widespread feeling of unrest and brooding revolution." Violent strikes and riots wracked the nation through the turn of the century. The middle class whispered fearfully of "carnivals of revenge."" - PBS
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (5/7)
"The industrialization of the country, [During the Gilded Age] which brought so much wealth to so few, left most of the rest struggling to get by as wage laborers, working for someone else in the factory or on the farm. And wealth influenced and co-opted the government at all levels, through unregulated campaign contributions, vote buying, and similar machinations" - Katie Bacon,"The Dark Side of the Gilded Age" "The Alantic"
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (6/7)
"Government for the people, a despairing Rutherford B. Hayes noted in his diary, was supplanted in the Gilded Age by "government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation... Maximalist government for the corporations and minimalist government for the people—that was the rule in the age of betrayal." [The Gilded Age] Jack Beatty, "The Age of Betrayal"
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (7/7)
"Everyone was seeking a way out, something wholly new to replace the rancor and incipient violence of Gilded Age capitalism. The Knights of Labor, the Populist Party, the antitrust movement, the cooperative movements of town and country, the nationwide eight-hour day uprisings of 1886 that culminated in the infamy of the Haymarket hangings, all expressed a deep yearning to abolish the prevailing industrial order." Steve Fraser, "The Gilded Age, past and present" "Salon"
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (8/7)
So just like now, the laissez Faire of the Gilded Age resulted in Crony capitalism.
"Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, for the people and by the people, but a government for Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master...Let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us thus far beware." - Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 Well said!As Vanderbilt said, "What do I care about the law? Hain't I got the power?" As Matthew Josephson puts it,in his classic The Robber Barons- " The effect was to put a monopoly lock on the large number of wealth creating technologies that appeared at the time and to become as the ancient barons-of-the-crags - who, by force of arms, instead of corporate combinations, monopolized strategic valley roads or mountain passed through which commerce flowed".
zsylvana 1 month ago
@zsylvana "For example Rockefeller's switch from being the largest to the only oil refiner came in secret agreements with the Erie,Pennsylvania,New York Central railroad pools whereby he and refiners invited to join the Standard Oil Trust (they received half the real value of their assets)had freight rates reduced by 50% whereas competing refiners had their rates increased by 100% with half of this being paid straight back to Standard Oil by the railroads"-it´s Freemarket in practice
zsylvana 1 month ago
@zsylvana "Within three months his remaining 25 competitors surrendered to him and he fixed all U.S. oil sales at a new high price.
The opportunities were vast and the modern restraints of anti-monopoly law, social legislation, taxation,judicial/editorial independence were feeble or non-existent." The wrecking of the legal and political system is captured for example in Jack Londons "The Iron Heel"
zsylvana 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (2/5)
So it is because of the very same 'free-market' principles that have been pushed on us that it becomes a 'corporate' market. A 'free-market' will naturally become a 'corporate market'. Monopolies are fostered during periods of deregulation, the record of history bears this out. It was during the Gilded Age, a historically recognized period of laissez faire gov't that fostered some of the greatest monopolies until the present great wave of deregulation.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 I am glad you at least want to disagree with some reasonable arguments unlike others. The odd thing we mostly want the same end results. For me less Government means less influence by corporations. Your feeling is more government means less power Corporations. To me regulation of government and FED is what would have prevented Fannie and Freddi(Gov. reg)to buy up and insure high risk loans from Banks decreasing risk while increasing profits. Why wouldn't banks want to play that game.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 What if you could loan me $100 at 10% interest and the government told you they will insure you that you will get your money back no matter what or buy the paper from you for a small profit. You would probably do it with out even checking my credit. Its like going to a casino and gambling with the house's money. Now, if I knew I was using my money I might just go to the buffet and maybe put $10 on black. HAHA! The point is they had no free market penalty. Like.....going broke!
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (3/5)
The banks came up with the sub-prime mortgages and' lair loans' and started pushing them all by themselves. The CRA program as specifically for 'conforming loans' and forbade the sub-primes.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 You should reevaluate the influence Government had on the CRA and UDA. Clinton I think unintentionally was giving the Corporations the keys to the car. Low FED rates put fuel in the tank. We both want the same things but more power to the Government seems to me more opportunity for Corporations to influence politicians to give them the upper hand.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (3/5)a
Charlatans like Shiff will often make predictions of doom. And even a broken clock is right twice a day. Schiff was making predictions for years before the economy actually collapsed, like an evangelist constantly predicts the end of the world, someday millions of years in the future, even one of those might get it right.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (4/5)
Schiff also said the dollar would go to zero and that Europe would be 'decoupled' in 'his' crisis and not affected. He is only like a poor astrologer, and then when something turns out to be vaguely as he portended years later, he jumps in to gain credit that isn't deserved. Your horoscope has more validity than what Schiff tries to claim.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 Some of that is correct, but if you listen to Ron Paul address congress in 2001 he is on the money about a Real Estate bubble. Not because of anything except looked at the economic principle. Right now the geniuses in congress want to spend us out of a recession. Not to say it wont end anyway (prolonged) but would you buy a new home if you had a credit card you couldn't pay for? Were is the understanding in that.Less Government means less powerful idiots (Corp. FED. Gov.)
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (5/5)
And let us also not forget that the FED itself was run by the Libertarian Ayn Rand cultist Alan Greenspan. It is Libertarian policies itself that allowed the excess at the FED and the deregulatory measures that allowed the crisis to transpire in the first place.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 I am not sure were you get your information of libertarians. I have been in the the Real Estate business and watched the way regulations and false free markets have influence the bubble. Try looking Clintons influence on the "Urban Development Act" in conection with Fannie and Freddie. Then look at the false market of low interest rates(the FED) put in place 2001. Free money(FED) + high risk loans with low risk to the investor(UDA)=INFLATION OF HOMES.Libertarians want to regulate GOV
cskipper65 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 UDA and CRA. Sorry I left out that regulation as well. If I think of any other regulations that contributed then I will follow up. We should be regulating the Government and the FED.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (1/10)
If you are trying to blame the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) you are totally wrong. first of all the CRA loans had a comparable rate of default to any other properly instituted mortgage. To qualify for a CRA loan the client had to meet requirements designed to show that they could meet its obligations. The sub-prime loans were NOT part of the CRA program but were put into being by the private sector well before Freddie and Fannie even got into the game.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (2/10)
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two private companies that had started as government agencies, have been the particular subject of vilification. As has been the government program called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which encourages banks to lend to underserved communities.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (3/10)
Had it not been for these efforts as lending to the poor, so the argument goes, all would have been well. This litany of defenses is, for the most part, sheer nonsense. AIG's almost $200 billion bailout (that's a big amount by any account) was based on derivatives (credit default swaps) - banks gambling with other banks. The banks didn't need any push for egalitarian housing to engage in excessive risk taking.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (4/10)
Nor did the massive overinvestment in commercial real estate have anything to do with government homeownership policy. Nor did the repeated instances of bad lending around the world from which the banks have had to be repeatedly rescued. Moreover, default rates on the CRA lending were actually comparable to other areas of lending - showing that such lending, if done well, does not pose greater risks. (CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than other mortgages)
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (5/10)
The most telling point though is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's mandate was for "conforming loans," loans to the middle class. The banks jumped into subprime mortgages -- an area where, at the time, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were not making loans -- Without any incentives from the government. ... Later on, years after the private sector had invented the toxic mortgages, the PRIVATIZED and UNDER-REGULATED Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decided that they too should enjoy the fun.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (6/10)
Their executives thought, Why couldn't they enjoy bonuses akin to others in the industry? Ironically, in doing so, they helped save the private sector from some of its own folly: Had they not bought them, the problems in the private sector would have been far worse, though by buying so many securities, they may have also helped fuel the bubble. Joseph E. Stiglitz, "Freefall" p10-11
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (7/10)
"CRA has been in existence since 1977; plus, it only applies to depository institutions (regular banks). Meanwhile, we had a subprime bubble that mostly took place after 2002, with most of the loans made by institutions that weren't subject to the CRA. That's why everyone who's looked at this honestly says that the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the crisis." -
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (8/10)
"The attempt to blame it all on the CRA is just an attempt at blame-shifting -- an attempt to make liberals and nonwhite people the villains of a story that is actually about runaway financial institutions and the free-market ideologues who refused to regulate them." Paul Krugman, "Washington Post"
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 When you quote Paul regardless of his awards, it does give anyone more clout.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (9/10)
It was the unregulated private mortgage companies that issued the toxic loans, NOT Freddie and Fannie. Companies like HSBC and GMAC. Freddie and Fannie only fell prey to the mortgage securities market, which was de-regulated, and those mortgage agencies. You maliciously try to blame the victims; the people that were taken advantage of, and there are a plethora of examples where the loan 'officers' took advantage of people.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@cskipper65 (10/10)
You just show that you are a troll and can only repeat the easily debunked garbage that your corporate run 'think tanks' spew. NO responsible source blames Freddie or Fannie for the Mortgage scams. The toxic mortgages were issued by other totally private mortgage companies as I said, NOT Freddie and Fannie, and the CRA program had a lower default rate than even standard mortgages.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 Claims that CRA wasn’t subprime is misleading. It would be more accurate to say that 90% of CRA lending wasn’t classified as subprime.CRA lenders, along with Fannie & Freddie commonly classified CRA loans as “subprime” only if they had high fees, high rates, or low initial payments with adjustable interest rates. But approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who had 97% loans, or had low credit that indicated high risk.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” the chances are they defaulted. You put money like that into market and you inflate the entire industry.People sell and move up into the next price point and so on and so on. It was not a major problem in 1977 but as these regulations in the late 90s forced more on the market the more toxic and the more greed came of other types of loans and a false sense of security in values.Statistics are misleading when using incorrect numbers
cskipper65 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 "Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a life time." Someone talking about human nature or something..... Just trying to keep up with your quotes.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 Had Fannie Freddie and the CRA accounted for the loans at low rates to borrowers regardless of credit who knows what the subprime% are. So the numbers you and Paul are talking about aren't even close to being accurate. Why would Paul not point that out? Maybe because he wants to save the world and give everyone a fish. Lost economic principles on what risk is does not make those numbers valid.
cskipper65 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 specifically then. What deregulation are you referring to that directly caused the real estate bubble? And then tell me when we had this free market that is responsible for this. We have not had a free market for 70± years. Do you consider setting low rates by fed regulation or deregulation? Dont Keynesians consider the fed, treasury dept.the tools they need to regulate markets? I don't need a history lesson for you to answer these questions. Scotsman?
cskipper65 3 weeks ago
@cskipper65
Please watch "The Warning" by PBS, the bubble was a result of a conjunction of various measures. And again there is NO SUCH thing as a 'free-market,' just one that is more of less laissez faire, since when is Keynesian about regulating markets? Perhaps you should know what Keynes really meant before you go on.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 Greenspan was not an Objectivist, and his policies were far removed even from Milton Friedman's "monetary rule" for the Fed. You are attacking a straw man.
Arjozof 1 week ago
@TheMatthias111 "the idea of an economy where individuals are free from coercion and able to sell their labour at a price of their choosing."
No one ever "chooses" at what price their labor is sold. You're a deluded buffoon.
The first rule taught in all modern-day business schools (the cheerleaders for capitalism): "Pay the workers as little as possible."
Capitalists profit from the labor of others. They live by exploiting. This is the dirty "secret" that Marx exposed.
bapyou 1 month ago
@bapyou By having oppurtunities you can be payed a fair price for you labour under free market principles. You act as though it's impossible for anyone to move between proletariat and bourgeoisie. If the workers are really so truly exploited they are free to combine their wealth, borrow money and start their own means of production in the industry. And of course you have some choice in what you get paid, they can't force you to stay in a job that your unsatisified with.
TheMatthias111 1 month ago
@TheMatthias111
You're a complete, thoughtless buffoon. The workers "pool" their wealth? You mean the wealth they've created for their bosses? True control of the wealth of society is not possible for workers; only a revolution which eradicates the ruling class can redistribute wealth.
Capitalism is a failing system. The pigs of wealth have their days numbered. The economy should serve the people, not the people serve the economy. If you're one of the pigs, I have no sympathy for you.
bapyou 1 month ago
@bapyou All I am saying is that it is truly that the workers are being exploited, then it is logical to say there must be profits there. Then competition will arise if it truly so profitable. The workers could pool their meager savings or borrow the money. Competition is the best way to ensure equality. If you lack the ability to have a level headed conversation or the ability to see how wealth is created and distributed you should keep your opinions to yourself.
TheMatthias111 1 month ago
This is why education needs to remain local and in the hands of locals. To prevent dumbing down on the mass level that it's been done.
TrippingTheTube 1 month ago
haha, bro, ron paul wrote a BOOK on economics, a degree in economics means jack shit! haha
MrGiggity890 1 month ago
ron paul and peter schiff? no, they support it because its a credible school of thought...look up mises dot org if you want more on it
MrGiggity890 1 month ago
Libertarians do not want to do away with intellectualism and make everyone the same. That concept is also not some kind of "fascism". What it is, is Marxism. Guess they don't basic world history in New Jersey.
keywestWTF 1 month ago
so he had never heard of Austrian econ until the Austrians started attacking him? Yeah. Credible.
drootshnoot 1 month ago
I'm very sorry but you, my good sir, have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry that you used your hard-earned money to pay for a degree (which you seem to hold as the golden standard for knowledge) that has brought you nothing. Argument from perceived authority does not lift the burden of proof from your shoulders. Please try to use logic and factual evidence in your next video regarding something you are so highly trained in.
saskijabrontosaurus 1 month ago
Support the candle makers, ban windows!
TrippingTheTube 1 month ago
I have checked them out and they're the only ones that seem to have any clue as to what's going on. 9 minute video that has said nothing with no evidence. Was torturous.
TrippingTheTube 1 month ago
@TrippingTheTube check out guys like tom woods for more info....he's got a ton of videos here on youtube
MrGiggity890 1 month ago
@MrGiggity890 Good advice. I am already subscribed to his youtube channel. His books are great and he's from my home town too! :)
TrippingTheTube 1 month ago
I feel bad for the people you've "taught".
moriendus 2 months ago
Wrong on so many levels (anti-intellectuals, professors at colleges, active austrian economists, ...). Youtube comments don't allow for longer explanations, but Mr. radiohogan, please come visit reddit(dot)com /r/ austrian_economics
myztic123 2 months ago
Sorry dude, but this is total logic fail. Any idea or theory can only be "discredited" based on the scientific evidence supporting it relative to other theories. The number of people that agree with a theory has no bearing on its truth. I could just as easily have used your logic to say that the theory of evolution has been discredited because a majority of Americans disagree with it
Next time you use the term "discredited" in your title, make sure you provide actual evidence discrediting it
dick391 2 months ago
Dumbest video I have seen in a while.
ExoticElectron 2 months ago 3
Is this really what people think Austrian economics is?
insyzygyy 2 months ago
In all the "prestistigiuos" land there are only two Austrian economists teaching at universities. This is the one big argument this brilliant intellectual with a community college degree puts forth that is suppose to close the case on the Austrian school. Does it surprise him that free market economists prefer to work in the free market? Publishing books, doing podcasts, doing radio, speaking at libertarian events etc. I think two is too many. Get out of the university system.
BobGeorgeAU 2 months ago
I also find it interesting that radiohogan feels that the ideas of Austrians are invalid since he says there are virtualy none who have an actual economics degree. He then lionizes John Maynard Keynes, who himself NEVER HAD A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS. I do not see where he even had any sort of advanced degree at all. What is that about?
johnsonfromwisconsin 2 months ago 2
You know, I did a little googling and ended up with alot more than two professors who advocate the Austrian school. As to the Ivy league schools....I did a thorough search of all Catholic universities and didn't find one Professor that advocated Protestantism. Protestantism must then be obviously discredited....
johnsonfromwisconsin 2 months ago
radiohogan. you cite that the Austrians and Supply siders want to grow out of recession by providing goods to those without disposible income to buy. You seem to be constructing a false delimma in doing so: Not even during the great depression was there a majority of the populous completely without disposible income, even among the working class.
johnsonfromwisconsin 2 months ago
Okay, so your critisism of Austrian Economics in this video start with two guys who you (correctly) state aren't economicists? That's a fairly pointless appeal to nothing.
johnsonfromwisconsin 2 months ago
@durhamdf Appeal to Majority much?
NefariousBanana 2 months ago
You should just rename this video "Argumentum ad populum".
NefariousBanana 2 months ago
I came in 90th from russia - not an economy.
In America, I've worked supporting derivative/equities.. markets, and It's not an economy either!
I've supported traders, whose job was moving money and/or gambling - they make millions and don't produce anything; I don't produce anything and so on. Government is big, inefficient, and sucks trillions out of economy; the biggest industry is the internet/housing. what export do we have? what the * are we eating then?
hotjama12 2 months ago
Comment removed
hotjama12 2 months ago
you call it economy!?
hotjama12 2 months ago
Comment removed
hotjama12 2 months ago
Comment removed
hotjama12 2 months ago