@qwertypoiu4321 Had you spent 10 seconds of research, you'd realize how unbelievably stupid that is. From 02-07, for the first time since creation, the GSEs *LOST* marketshare - from 50% to 35%. You're suggesting that GSEs that had existed for 60 years without any collapses somehow caused a major collapse during the exact same period that their influence *diminished* and that the simultaneous brand new bank deregulations was just an amazing coincidence. Embarrassing.
There were no 'new bank deregulations'. GLB just shifted the regulating powers from GS to the Federal Reserve as the main regulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies(which is exactly the same as Obama's 'Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation: Rebuilding Financial Supervision and Regulation').
The CFMA just reaffirmed the authority and jurisdiction of the CFTC to investigate, regulate and close down firms. And Bush had exactely ZERO deregulations.
Unsolicited coercion caused the economic contraction, not the LACK of coercion, which there never WAS any lack of.
@qwertypoiu4321 Please do us all a favor and go read about this on a reputable website instead of just parroting some nonsense from a radio/TV/blog source. First of all, GLB single-handedly created "too big to fail" by repealing the single-sector-banking regulation in Glass-Steagall. Secondly, there were about FIVE major bank deregulation bills past from 1980-2007, during which we begin to have small collapses, which we hadn't had since 1939, culminating in 2007. I doubt it's coincidence.
Too big to fail does not exist. The Socialist Congress/Fed/Treasury bailing out of banks was 'justified' by screaming the 'too big to fail' myth.
"by repealing the single-sector-banking regulation in Glass-Steagall."
If this were a problem, why were the banks that failed(Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers) still single-sector banks, and why did the non-single-sector banks(J.P. Morgan) do just fine?
"there were about FIVE major bank deregulation bills past from 1980-2007,"
There were ZERO 'major'--or minor--deregulation bills between 1980-2007. DIDMCA just expanded the power of the socialist US National Bank, and FORCED all banks to abide by their rules. G-SGA was a response to the 21+% interest rates, deregulating nothing in relation to the current contraction. GLB just shifted the regulating powers from GS to the Federal Reserve as the main
regulator. And the CFMA just reaffirmed the authority and jurisdiction of the CFTC to investigate, regulate and close down firms.
ZERO.
Maybe you can try to explain how the current economic contraction happened because of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, or some other irrelated fantasy; but the economic contraction was definitely was not caused by any financial 'deregulation', there was none.
@qwertypoiu4321 Putting emotional cult-word characterizations on these bills doesn't change the fact that the bills allowed banks to engage in previously prohibited activities, which, by definition, is deregulation. GLB, like I *already* explained to you, allowed banks to merge with companies they previously could not. That is the definition of deregulation, complaining won't change that.
"GLB, like I *already* explained to you, allowed banks to merge with companies they previously could not."
GLB allowed something that was already happening, which was the merging of COMMERCIAL and INVESTMENT banks; not ANY company, but BANKING companies. If this is what you are having nightmares about, why do Bear and Lehman--whom were NOT merged with ANY depository institutions--embody the banking crisis?
You are just trying to divert attention from the Coercive State.
@qwertypoiu4321 Again, actually reading something about this would save you a lot of embarrassment. Bear, Lehman, AIG, and JP were *all* multi-sector banks. In addition, no rational human being on earth would say JP "did just fine" in 2007. And, on a childishly obvious note, the success/failure of a bank had nothing to do with it's size or sectors - but rather it's exposure to SPM. TBTF has nothing to do with the cause of banks failure, rather it concerns the consequences of a failure.
Deregulation did drive prices down in the airline industry. A 1996 Government Accountability Office report found that the average fare per passenger mile was about 9% lower in 1994 than in 1979. Between 1976 and 1990 the paid fare had declined approximately 30% in inflation-adjusted terms.
Private companies in a free society can't take a thing by force. They can only offer up goods and services you can choose to purchase or not. Governments on the other hand do EVERYTHING by force!
@TimeWarp66 Your lack of even basic human thought is depressing. First, the airline industry is extremely regulated even today - have you heard of this little thing called the FAA? Second, the airlines are the second worst functioning industry in the US next to automakers - don't hold them as model. Third, I'm not sure what "deregulation" you're referring to, but the hypothesis that "if removing some regulation is good, then removing all regulation is great" is beyond stupid. Go fly Air Somalia.
Listing the actual facts seems to be to much for you. You can't dispute the statistics I listed, you simply dismiss my points, you haven't disputed ANYTHING I said other than sighting the FAA(which should be abolished) as an example of airline regulation.
2nd worst functioning industry? Says who? The little voice coming out of your ass?
Somalia is not an example of a free market. Markets require rule of law. The closest real world example is Hong Kong.
"Private companies in a free society can't take a thing by force". Try reading some history. Preferably anything regarding business practices before the 20th century. Private companies most certainly did take things by force. They employed private militias, they used dirty tactics to indebt their work forces (The company store, for example) and they were fans of such charming habits as locking employees inside dangerous sweatshops. Let's also not forget the wonderful debtor's prisons.
I love how all you big government types always categorize "workers" as helpless children in capable of knowing what's in their own best interest. Forcibly locking someone in a room was the exception not the rule. And obviously that brakes the no force/fraud rule of the free market. Only governments are legally allowed and expected to use force.
"private militias" bullying workers to join their ranks? You mean UNIONS??
@TimeWarp66, by "private militias" I mean just that, armed groups that were loyal to corporations. You really SHOULD try reading some early 19th century history, particularly regarding the trusts in the united states. (Tip: The pinkertons were often a favorite of corporate enforcement). I'm also highly amused that I'm apparently a "big government type" because I disagree with you that private companies don't use force.
Can you name me any de-regulation by Bush? He signed SOX, but that was a major piece of regulation. Clinton signed a bi-partisan partial repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999. Outside of that, Bush 41, 43, and Clinton all did far more regulating than de-regulating.
I see Freakonomics on your shelf. I've read that one. Still waiting to get to Superfreakonomics. Liberals got angry at the latter and conservatives at the former. Any thoughts on their climate change discussion?
Yes, the Austrian Business Cycle Theory is the theory that you can trick people into accepting policies that will cause starvation-inducing economic collapses every 10 years as long as you give those policies a quasi-academic title like "Austrian Business Cycle Theory" becuase people are stupid and will eagerly parrot phrases they vaguely understand if it makes them feel important in their otherwise meaningless lives.
The popularity of this theory is proportional to the time since the last starvation period and inversely proportional to how many people around you are currently starving.
There is no business cycle theory that stands up to empirical evidence. As I see it, people that promote one are usually blinded by a school of thought. Anyone who figures it out is in for a future nobel prize.
the way to build an economy is allow/encourage people to save and don't allow over-leveraged investments. over-leverage is/was the cause of busted economies. just like the great depression and today's depression. people and businesses signed into over-leveraged investments that could never be realistically repaid.
like returning to the dark ages is a natural cycle lol.. bad monetary policy is just that bad.. too big to fail and bail outs don't help the issue. a person that can't pay the interest of a debt is bankrupt. same as a person is a country. the country is bankrupt.. simple as that. a country doesn't have to be bankrupt. Many countries are able to balance their budgets or at least have them in a realistic window but the US is forever bankrupt until that final collapse that's coming.
Youre looking at the wrong objective function in the optimization. In terms of profit maximization for private equity, and expansion of the global control of the oil money cartel, this has been a tremendous success, albeit at the expense of the priviledged american middle class. But feudalism is the natural state of human financial political organization. we r returning to normal.
Its natural in the sense that it is the historical norm , for thousands of years and in pre-history presumably, a preistely class surrounded by security enforcers possessed all the wealth, with the remainder in servitude. China, the favorite nation of the un wto is an example today.
I'll say this though, it was once the historical norm that people believed that the earth was the center of the universe.
As society progresses, and scientific thinking becomes more prevalent, I think that people will begin to see that these institutions are merely projections of parental authority, and recognize the emergent nature of societal structure.
Collins, great post. Holt, wonderful video again. Sadly, the "powers that be" are busy dividing and conquering us americans on issues that are virtually in-consequential. All the while, our economics continue to work against our favor with us not noticing the continued trends. Thanks for the research and video.
The only "powers that be" are the Bible and the Constitution. The Bible was written by Jesus Christ around the time that founded America, as plate tectonics has proven. He then lent a hand to the Book of the Amendments, which Thomas Jefferson Christ co-wrote, and Penguin Books published. Then, the Constitution was written by Jesus Christ III, George Washington Christ and Dick Cheney Halliburton Christ. The Constitution does not mention evolution or health care, and thus both are illegal.
Your assertions are not just scientifically provable, they are mathematically axiomatic.
Those who disagree are blinded by the shining light and magnificence of eternal science and math that is modern finance. They, in their mentally derenged state can not comprehend the true genius and beauty that is our economy. Halleluia.
May God and his army of Republicans, corporate accountants, and lawyers strike down the jesus haters with great vengeance and furious anger.
Evolution is not in the Constitution. It is therefore unconstitutional, and it is unconstitutional to teach this heretical nonsense. Evolution is only a "theory" - anyone who teaches it should be imprisoned.
Unemployment is not in the constitution either, therefore it too is unconstitutional marxist pseudo-science. Such people have simply failed to streamline themselves in order to adapt to the informaiton age. They need to be more efficient and resourcefull: they can start by eating less.
Those who refuse to find jobs should be outsourced to third world countries where they can be put to productive use.
Alternatively, the unemployed could be hired as contract soildiers by the governement who are paid by body count. Of course such soildiers will need to pay out of pocket for any unneccessary amputations, as such expenses seriously hurt Wall Street's bottom line.
What's funny is, the American economy is one giant Madoff ponzi scheme. We keep borrowing money from the Fed, China, ect, and they pay off that debt, not with money generated through taxing of American production, but through more borrowing from the Fed, China, and other countries.
Madoff ran his corrupt business model by take money from investors, write up false profitable returns, get more investors due to lies, and pay back original investors with the money from the new ones.
Speculation allows for the accurate valuation of an investment.
No one would disagree a railroad that just received a contract for 50% more land is worth more than it was before the contract. But how much more? Is this land rural? How badly does it need a railroad. People bid on how they think the railroad will fair & by overbidding they misallocate their capital resources thus causing them to lose money
Speculation simply causes bad investments to become toxic faster than natural.
That point is that where the people selling this investment overstate its potential value. This happens all the time. And this is what creates stock bubbles. The bubble is the margin by which the market price exceeds the real value, i.e. the earning power of an asset. Toxic bonds like the subprime bonds would never have even existed without the deliberate lying that enabled their creation and sale in the first place.
alright so get rid of the unnecessary regulation (i know that we need some) and let the mostly free market work (there is to much regulation) END THE FED
brilliant! you did forget that the patient dies and is resurrected... again and again.
Until we remove the fed and actually create money based on tangible goods that is not created out of fair, this is like a perpetual death... just exponentially getting faster and faster for the cycles...
holy freaking awesome this video is great!! i LOVE learning about all the wonkish inter workings of domestic issues. nerdy i know, (ezra klein is my main healthcare wonk source) :) video added to my favorites!
What causes the banks, particularly the smaller ones, to fail?
Pressure to conform to the standards of larger banks. When they can't, large banks fail (and should be allowed to) but in this case, socialism for the rich takes charge.
The Federal Reserve kicks in to SAVE large bank failures.
This sounds crazy, but God would I have loved to live in a place or time where bartering occured. a direct exchange of goods where worth is indicative to the needs of the purchaser, using another form of goods as payment.
are economy is like a boulder on a toothpick, we're artificially printing money, to buy products from companies on artificial financial stilts from the government, while using a dollar that has nothing whatsoever to back it. our economy is a total farce, frankly I think this can't be blamed on capitalism, or any other form of economy. The blame is on materialism, the government, and mostly us for not doing anything about it. I would say me but im 15
Since the 50s or 60s, homeownership in America has ALWAYS been about 60% or more. You'd think that would be enough, but Bush and the Democrats were still bitching. Andrew Cuomo had HUD sue banks to make them give way too many of what he called "affirmative action loans." He even admitted "were it not for our action", the banks would NEVER have made all those risky loans.
The dollar is worth so much less than it was in the 19th Century nowadays. Sure, the economy has grown, but it would seem not quite enough to deal with this devaluation. Btw, the recession of 1920-21 was pretty fucking bad, but there was no silly 'stimulus', no extra regulations and no increased taxes. And we got out of it shortly! Not t omention the housing crisis was part and parcel a result of bad gov't regulation and intervention, what with this everyone-homeownership pipe dream.
The Federal Reserve isn't exactly a good thing, either, though. They've created a vicious cycle with all the money supply and interest rate manipulation. The economy grows, we have high inflation, and then they decide to raise rates to fight the inflation. Inflation goes down eventually, and then they figure "Well, we can afford to lower rates", and this spurs more growth. Eventually, though, all that interest rate manipulation, from what I've seen, is a big contributor to the recessions.
The Fed has to do things to spur problems that THEY in part created, and it goes on and on and on. The current boom-bust cycle as we know it since the 1910s was essentially created by the Fed. That's the consequence of central banks: Hindering real growth from what it could've been. Sure, this hindering DOES keep things like panics from happening, but think of how much more prosperous we would've been without central banking by now. Central banks lead to plunder all throughout history, too.
Industry DOES NOT matter to economic growth! Why do you guys on the Left keep buying into this uneconomic nonsense? Few economists endorse protectionism or "fair trade." Even Paul Krugman, as Keynesian as he is, is a big supporter of free trade! The economy doesn't give a damn what industries grow it. It doesn't discriminate. A service economy where jobs require more skill, education and intelligence, rather than just being able to get by with a HS education, is crucial to advancement.
First, you're conflating pro-production with pro-tariffs - they're not necessarily the same.
Second, all service jobs trace back to production. It's called "third order" becuase it comes after mining and then manufacturing. No production means no service. We only have a "service economy" becuase we're printing money and getting basically no-cost imports from China. That won't last.
Education is crucial, but we need ENGINEERING and SCIENCE education, not bullshit MBA education.
Our economy has great exports! We're one of the largest porn exporters in the world. Where would the world be without viewing the juicy hot ladies we have in America?
I am only 2:32 into this, & I already totally wanna fuck this dude. Who IS he?!
LittleDesertFlower78 1 year ago
The US Federal State caused the economic contraction by coercion(violent regulation and inflation).
Fannie/Freddie/The Fed/HUD/CRA/State coercion caused the economic contraction, not Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Had you spent 10 seconds of research, you'd realize how unbelievably stupid that is. From 02-07, for the first time since creation, the GSEs *LOST* marketshare - from 50% to 35%. You're suggesting that GSEs that had existed for 60 years without any collapses somehow caused a major collapse during the exact same period that their influence *diminished* and that the simultaneous brand new bank deregulations was just an amazing coincidence. Embarrassing.
Newsish 1 year ago
"brand new bank deregulations"
There were no 'new bank deregulations'. GLB just shifted the regulating powers from GS to the Federal Reserve as the main regulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies(which is exactly the same as Obama's 'Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation: Rebuilding Financial Supervision and Regulation').
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
The CFMA just reaffirmed the authority and jurisdiction of the CFTC to investigate, regulate and close down firms. And Bush had exactely ZERO deregulations.
Unsolicited coercion caused the economic contraction, not the LACK of coercion, which there never WAS any lack of.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Please do us all a favor and go read about this on a reputable website instead of just parroting some nonsense from a radio/TV/blog source. First of all, GLB single-handedly created "too big to fail" by repealing the single-sector-banking regulation in Glass-Steagall. Secondly, there were about FIVE major bank deregulation bills past from 1980-2007, during which we begin to have small collapses, which we hadn't had since 1939, culminating in 2007. I doubt it's coincidence.
Newsish 1 year ago
@Newsish
"GLB single-handedly created "too big to fail""
Too big to fail does not exist. The Socialist Congress/Fed/Treasury bailing out of banks was 'justified' by screaming the 'too big to fail' myth.
"by repealing the single-sector-banking regulation in Glass-Steagall."
If this were a problem, why were the banks that failed(Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers) still single-sector banks, and why did the non-single-sector banks(J.P. Morgan) do just fine?
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"there were about FIVE major bank deregulation bills past from 1980-2007,"
There were ZERO 'major'--or minor--deregulation bills between 1980-2007. DIDMCA just expanded the power of the socialist US National Bank, and FORCED all banks to abide by their rules. G-SGA was a response to the 21+% interest rates, deregulating nothing in relation to the current contraction. GLB just shifted the regulating powers from GS to the Federal Reserve as the main
.....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
regulator. And the CFMA just reaffirmed the authority and jurisdiction of the CFTC to investigate, regulate and close down firms.
ZERO.
Maybe you can try to explain how the current economic contraction happened because of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, or some other irrelated fantasy; but the economic contraction was definitely was not caused by any financial 'deregulation', there was none.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Putting emotional cult-word characterizations on these bills doesn't change the fact that the bills allowed banks to engage in previously prohibited activities, which, by definition, is deregulation. GLB, like I *already* explained to you, allowed banks to merge with companies they previously could not. That is the definition of deregulation, complaining won't change that.
Newsish 1 year ago
"GLB, like I *already* explained to you, allowed banks to merge with companies they previously could not."
GLB allowed something that was already happening, which was the merging of COMMERCIAL and INVESTMENT banks; not ANY company, but BANKING companies. If this is what you are having nightmares about, why do Bear and Lehman--whom were NOT merged with ANY depository institutions--embody the banking crisis?
You are just trying to divert attention from the Coercive State.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Again, actually reading something about this would save you a lot of embarrassment. Bear, Lehman, AIG, and JP were *all* multi-sector banks. In addition, no rational human being on earth would say JP "did just fine" in 2007. And, on a childishly obvious note, the success/failure of a bank had nothing to do with it's size or sectors - but rather it's exposure to SPM. TBTF has nothing to do with the cause of banks failure, rather it concerns the consequences of a failure.
Newsish 1 year ago
Deregulation did drive prices down in the airline industry. A 1996 Government Accountability Office report found that the average fare per passenger mile was about 9% lower in 1994 than in 1979. Between 1976 and 1990 the paid fare had declined approximately 30% in inflation-adjusted terms.
Private companies in a free society can't take a thing by force. They can only offer up goods and services you can choose to purchase or not. Governments on the other hand do EVERYTHING by force!
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 Your lack of even basic human thought is depressing. First, the airline industry is extremely regulated even today - have you heard of this little thing called the FAA? Second, the airlines are the second worst functioning industry in the US next to automakers - don't hold them as model. Third, I'm not sure what "deregulation" you're referring to, but the hypothesis that "if removing some regulation is good, then removing all regulation is great" is beyond stupid. Go fly Air Somalia.
Newsish 1 year ago
Basic human thought?
Listing the actual facts seems to be to much for you. You can't dispute the statistics I listed, you simply dismiss my points, you haven't disputed ANYTHING I said other than sighting the FAA(which should be abolished) as an example of airline regulation.
2nd worst functioning industry? Says who? The little voice coming out of your ass?
Somalia is not an example of a free market. Markets require rule of law. The closest real world example is Hong Kong.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
"Private companies in a free society can't take a thing by force". Try reading some history. Preferably anything regarding business practices before the 20th century. Private companies most certainly did take things by force. They employed private militias, they used dirty tactics to indebt their work forces (The company store, for example) and they were fans of such charming habits as locking employees inside dangerous sweatshops. Let's also not forget the wonderful debtor's prisons.
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
@NoAntecessor
I love how all you big government types always categorize "workers" as helpless children in capable of knowing what's in their own best interest. Forcibly locking someone in a room was the exception not the rule. And obviously that brakes the no force/fraud rule of the free market. Only governments are legally allowed and expected to use force.
"private militias" bullying workers to join their ranks? You mean UNIONS??
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66, by "private militias" I mean just that, armed groups that were loyal to corporations. You really SHOULD try reading some early 19th century history, particularly regarding the trusts in the united states. (Tip: The pinkertons were often a favorite of corporate enforcement). I'm also highly amused that I'm apparently a "big government type" because I disagree with you that private companies don't use force.
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
Can you name me any de-regulation by Bush? He signed SOX, but that was a major piece of regulation. Clinton signed a bi-partisan partial repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999. Outside of that, Bush 41, 43, and Clinton all did far more regulating than de-regulating.
I see Freakonomics on your shelf. I've read that one. Still waiting to get to Superfreakonomics. Liberals got angry at the latter and conservatives at the former. Any thoughts on their climate change discussion?
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
You're right Newish. An economy bases on bullshit. Where movie stars and brain dead athletes have all the money.
zinnington 2 years ago
Are you familiar with Austrian Business Cycle Theory?
gunsandbullhorns 2 years ago
Yes, the Austrian Business Cycle Theory is the theory that you can trick people into accepting policies that will cause starvation-inducing economic collapses every 10 years as long as you give those policies a quasi-academic title like "Austrian Business Cycle Theory" becuase people are stupid and will eagerly parrot phrases they vaguely understand if it makes them feel important in their otherwise meaningless lives.
Newsish 2 years ago
The popularity of this theory is proportional to the time since the last starvation period and inversely proportional to how many people around you are currently starving.
Newsish 2 years ago
There is no business cycle theory that stands up to empirical evidence. As I see it, people that promote one are usually blinded by a school of thought. Anyone who figures it out is in for a future nobel prize.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
the way to build an economy is allow/encourage people to save and don't allow over-leveraged investments. over-leverage is/was the cause of busted economies. just like the great depression and today's depression. people and businesses signed into over-leveraged investments that could never be realistically repaid.
x11115 2 years ago
like returning to the dark ages is a natural cycle lol.. bad monetary policy is just that bad.. too big to fail and bail outs don't help the issue. a person that can't pay the interest of a debt is bankrupt. same as a person is a country. the country is bankrupt.. simple as that. a country doesn't have to be bankrupt. Many countries are able to balance their budgets or at least have them in a realistic window but the US is forever bankrupt until that final collapse that's coming.
x11115 2 years ago
Youre looking at the wrong objective function in the optimization. In terms of profit maximization for private equity, and expansion of the global control of the oil money cartel, this has been a tremendous success, albeit at the expense of the priviledged american middle class. But feudalism is the natural state of human financial political organization. we r returning to normal.
abdighazi 2 years ago
Can you please provide an argument as to why feudalism is the "natural" state of economic order? Frankly I'm dubious.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
Its natural in the sense that it is the historical norm , for thousands of years and in pre-history presumably, a preistely class surrounded by security enforcers possessed all the wealth, with the remainder in servitude. China, the favorite nation of the un wto is an example today.
abdighazi 2 years ago
Ah, that makes sense.
I'll say this though, it was once the historical norm that people believed that the earth was the center of the universe.
As society progresses, and scientific thinking becomes more prevalent, I think that people will begin to see that these institutions are merely projections of parental authority, and recognize the emergent nature of societal structure.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
xD hilariously true
jok3st4 2 years ago
Collins, great post. Holt, wonderful video again. Sadly, the "powers that be" are busy dividing and conquering us americans on issues that are virtually in-consequential. All the while, our economics continue to work against our favor with us not noticing the continued trends. Thanks for the research and video.
themankap111 2 years ago
The only "powers that be" are the Bible and the Constitution. The Bible was written by Jesus Christ around the time that founded America, as plate tectonics has proven. He then lent a hand to the Book of the Amendments, which Thomas Jefferson Christ co-wrote, and Penguin Books published. Then, the Constitution was written by Jesus Christ III, George Washington Christ and Dick Cheney Halliburton Christ. The Constitution does not mention evolution or health care, and thus both are illegal.
HomleandSecurity 2 years ago 2
Your assertions are not just scientifically provable, they are mathematically axiomatic.
Those who disagree are blinded by the shining light and magnificence of eternal science and math that is modern finance. They, in their mentally derenged state can not comprehend the true genius and beauty that is our economy. Halleluia.
May God and his army of Republicans, corporate accountants, and lawyers strike down the jesus haters with great vengeance and furious anger.
.
cleareyes1984 2 years ago
Evolution is not in the Constitution. It is therefore unconstitutional, and it is unconstitutional to teach this heretical nonsense. Evolution is only a "theory" - anyone who teaches it should be imprisoned.
HomleandSecurity 2 years ago
evolution is a theory that is stronger than gravity.
teaching non christian kids that christanity is the truth in school is unconstritutional however
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
Unemployment is not in the constitution either, therefore it too is unconstitutional marxist pseudo-science. Such people have simply failed to streamline themselves in order to adapt to the informaiton age. They need to be more efficient and resourcefull: they can start by eating less.
Those who refuse to find jobs should be outsourced to third world countries where they can be put to productive use.
cleareyes1984 2 years ago
Alternatively, the unemployed could be hired as contract soildiers by the governement who are paid by body count. Of course such soildiers will need to pay out of pocket for any unneccessary amputations, as such expenses seriously hurt Wall Street's bottom line.
cleareyes1984 2 years ago
Another awesome video series by the Holt-man!
SamtotheSkillz 2 years ago
What's funny is, the American economy is one giant Madoff ponzi scheme. We keep borrowing money from the Fed, China, ect, and they pay off that debt, not with money generated through taxing of American production, but through more borrowing from the Fed, China, and other countries.
Madoff ran his corrupt business model by take money from investors, write up false profitable returns, get more investors due to lies, and pay back original investors with the money from the new ones.
collins1188 2 years ago 2
This man is a good man. Thank you!
santosbl01 2 years ago
Speculation allows for the accurate valuation of an investment.
No one would disagree a railroad that just received a contract for 50% more land is worth more than it was before the contract. But how much more? Is this land rural? How badly does it need a railroad. People bid on how they think the railroad will fair & by overbidding they misallocate their capital resources thus causing them to lose money
Speculation simply causes bad investments to become toxic faster than natural.
BigPurple121 2 years ago
Actually, it only does this up to a point.
That point is that where the people selling this investment overstate its potential value. This happens all the time. And this is what creates stock bubbles. The bubble is the margin by which the market price exceeds the real value, i.e. the earning power of an asset. Toxic bonds like the subprime bonds would never have even existed without the deliberate lying that enabled their creation and sale in the first place.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
A very accurate analysis.
Seleucus84 2 years ago
alright so get rid of the unnecessary regulation (i know that we need some) and let the mostly free market work (there is to much regulation) END THE FED
titanhusker 2 years ago
.....and its brain cancer has a tumor
GretnaBlast 2 years ago
brilliant! you did forget that the patient dies and is resurrected... again and again.
Until we remove the fed and actually create money based on tangible goods that is not created out of fair, this is like a perpetual death... just exponentially getting faster and faster for the cycles...
kudos!
tripnixon 2 years ago
Thank for the vid, Five stars!
UjohnnyG 2 years ago
holy freaking awesome this video is great!! i LOVE learning about all the wonkish inter workings of domestic issues. nerdy i know, (ezra klein is my main healthcare wonk source) :) video added to my favorites!
sisforshayla 2 years ago
ha bisky upload i love you newish i think people agenst health care reform should die since they want people to die
kazooga1234 2 years ago
What causes the banks, particularly the smaller ones, to fail?
Pressure to conform to the standards of larger banks. When they can't, large banks fail (and should be allowed to) but in this case, socialism for the rich takes charge.
The Federal Reserve kicks in to SAVE large bank failures.
katey1dog 2 years ago
Awesome video. Thank you for making it. We need more like this circulating youtube.
superdragoncat 2 years ago
subscribed with 2 accounts to account for shortfall of awesome people that subscribe to awesome people
accuseddevil 2 years ago
Horse your flag 'round t'other way, dude. Blue field on the left as seen by the viewer.
This video is otherwise good. These are called toxic assets and they're being digested... s-l-o-w-l-y... like a snake which has just eaten a hippo.
voyeurdug 2 years ago
you are criminally under subbed. Brilliant explanations.
rmac40 2 years ago 2
yeah, i think it's because he's honest about getting his subs. meanwhile guys like HowTheWorldWorks BOUGHT their way into the 10k+ level.
asphyxiafeeling 2 years ago
Obvious Sock Accounts were Obvious.
katey1dog 2 years ago
I'm cool with buying sock accounts, where do I send the check?
Newsish 2 years ago
This sounds crazy, but God would I have loved to live in a place or time where bartering occured. a direct exchange of goods where worth is indicative to the needs of the purchaser, using another form of goods as payment.
rublab1 2 years ago
are economy is like a boulder on a toothpick, we're artificially printing money, to buy products from companies on artificial financial stilts from the government, while using a dollar that has nothing whatsoever to back it. our economy is a total farce, frankly I think this can't be blamed on capitalism, or any other form of economy. The blame is on materialism, the government, and mostly us for not doing anything about it. I would say me but im 15
rublab1 2 years ago
Since the 50s or 60s, homeownership in America has ALWAYS been about 60% or more. You'd think that would be enough, but Bush and the Democrats were still bitching. Andrew Cuomo had HUD sue banks to make them give way too many of what he called "affirmative action loans." He even admitted "were it not for our action", the banks would NEVER have made all those risky loans.
whoo689 2 years ago
The dollar is worth so much less than it was in the 19th Century nowadays. Sure, the economy has grown, but it would seem not quite enough to deal with this devaluation. Btw, the recession of 1920-21 was pretty fucking bad, but there was no silly 'stimulus', no extra regulations and no increased taxes. And we got out of it shortly! Not t omention the housing crisis was part and parcel a result of bad gov't regulation and intervention, what with this everyone-homeownership pipe dream.
whoo689 2 years ago
The Federal Reserve isn't exactly a good thing, either, though. They've created a vicious cycle with all the money supply and interest rate manipulation. The economy grows, we have high inflation, and then they decide to raise rates to fight the inflation. Inflation goes down eventually, and then they figure "Well, we can afford to lower rates", and this spurs more growth. Eventually, though, all that interest rate manipulation, from what I've seen, is a big contributor to the recessions.
whoo689 2 years ago
The Fed has to do things to spur problems that THEY in part created, and it goes on and on and on. The current boom-bust cycle as we know it since the 1910s was essentially created by the Fed. That's the consequence of central banks: Hindering real growth from what it could've been. Sure, this hindering DOES keep things like panics from happening, but think of how much more prosperous we would've been without central banking by now. Central banks lead to plunder all throughout history, too.
whoo689 2 years ago
SPOILER ALERT!
Newsish 2 years ago
Damn, suspenseful ending! Can't wait for the next installment!
atlant80 2 years ago
Industry DOES NOT matter to economic growth! Why do you guys on the Left keep buying into this uneconomic nonsense? Few economists endorse protectionism or "fair trade." Even Paul Krugman, as Keynesian as he is, is a big supporter of free trade! The economy doesn't give a damn what industries grow it. It doesn't discriminate. A service economy where jobs require more skill, education and intelligence, rather than just being able to get by with a HS education, is crucial to advancement.
whoo689 2 years ago
First, you're conflating pro-production with pro-tariffs - they're not necessarily the same.
Second, all service jobs trace back to production. It's called "third order" becuase it comes after mining and then manufacturing. No production means no service. We only have a "service economy" becuase we're printing money and getting basically no-cost imports from China. That won't last.
Education is crucial, but we need ENGINEERING and SCIENCE education, not bullshit MBA education.
Newsish 2 years ago
Don't forget domestic manufacturing. Beyond the collegiate, we need the skilled labor of accredited trade schools.
katey1dog 2 years ago 2
i learn more from u than from my class o_o
djlucario99 2 years ago
Our economy has great exports! We're one of the largest porn exporters in the world. Where would the world be without viewing the juicy hot ladies we have in America?
darkwitchtori 2 years ago
FURST!
atlant80 2 years ago