JustinW

Questionposter, You've obviously never met my mother-in-law

Essay, That makes sense. My reason for arguing the point that stubbornly with iNow was because of my belief that government involvement is usually a negative factor in the growth of an economy. Also the fact that an economic model cannot be accurately tested unless that model provides for governmental manipulation. Which our current free market model, by intent, didn't origionally allow for other than taxation and foreign policy. I noticed you had mentioned that you agreed that government let this happen but didn't say if you thought it was either their action or inaction. This too is where I had a difference with iNow. I believe that they not only let it happen but actually fed its progression. That is the reason for my attention on the tweaks in a given year. I figure with their actions combined that it is obvious that government fed the problem instead of tried to solve it. Heck, it was them who said that there was no problem.

A little thought provoking. I know that every major civilization has had it's down fall, but to happen to one as advanced as ours would essentially take total destruction. It's hard to imagine that a difference in ideology and personal prejudice could lead to the distruction of the majority of the world. Do you see that happening or could our civilizations downfall be more subtle? And another question, after reading that is; was there ever, throughout history, an advanced civilization that would have been considered a secular one? I don't ever recall hearing of one that didn't have some sort of religious ideology. Also I believe you're correct about a certain amount of prejudice. It's a normal human attribute. A good one too, looked at from a certain point of view. Our prejudices may help us in certain ways in interacting with others that would be harmful had we not had the ability to think that way. So I can see the points from the good and bad sides of prejudices. Something to think about.

How many czars do we have now? I keep losing track. But I do concede to this because it probably just seems bigger to me with all of the hysteria and I haven't looked at the actual number of government employees. Though it does seem like a lot even if it is less than previous administrations.

I guess not, and I fear we may have been off topic for awhile even though it was closely related.I will concede to you that you probably have a good point in saying that the private market had it's part to play. But I remain unmoved considering the actions of multiple government agencies and feel they had their part to play as well. I also remain adament that either it wouldn't have been as bad, or might have been averted altogether had the government not been involved. As you may recall this is how this whole debate got started in the first place. This is what I've said all along about the difficulty of testing an economic theory. You might as well not even try unless that theory takes into account any possible authoritative manipulations. Do you not agree that the government has been BIG and BAD over the last decade or more? It seems as though the bigger it gets the badder it gets also. (i know badder is not a word)

I think that there is alot that you say that could be logically argued against, but 1 thing that keeps popping up that I don't agree with at all is the above line. Not all things that are trapped by gravity accelerate. If this was the case orbits wouldn't be as steady as we see them. The way you word it is a mix between someone dropping an object from a heigth and a vacuum cleaner sucking dirt off of a floor. If something is dropped from a height, it would at some point reach a terminal velocity which would never reach a speed more than the SOL. Secondly the vacuum theory would be observed as an uneven expansion with one part of the universe expanding faster than the other part, and also all in the same direction. For your theory to hold water you would need to explain why these things aren't observed in such a way. Another reason to argue against a blackhole at the center of the universe is that there are no signs of mass being ejected. Mass would be flung outward because of the escape trajectory caused by gravitational orbit. With a blackhole so big as to affect the entire universe in such a way, you would think that we would have observed some of these escaped masses even in our limited view of observation.

Good point. I was thinking something along the lines of a mass calling on Congress.

I understand the point that wiki is trying to make, but is it really going to accomplish anything more than prolonging one's ignorance for a day? Will it serve as a point to be taken seriously by those who can vote down this new absurd law? Do those elites in Washington even use wiki? And if not, how the point reach those law makers in a way that they will take seriously? I'm all for the voting down of this law but I feel that other options would be more effective, although I don't know what they would be right off hand.

I'm not ignoring it. The link you gave, along with graph, actually explained the reason the rest of the world felt an impact. It was express in that link along with what I had stated previously that it was a result of the Federal Reserve's actions. Probably because the banks that were forced to buy the CRA mortgage securities wouldn't have done so in the first place, but since were forced to do so, stayed at the minimal amount of risk that would still qualify for CRA acceptance. It's funny you should mention fannie, since most of the CRA backed securities were securitized by freddie. Also I never said that private companies didn't follow the same path that fannie and freddie did. But my origional point in including fannie and freddie was to establish that, YES, government was involved and partly responsible for the instability of that crisis. Even with a lot of private investment into subsidised loan bundleing, they were still investing through GSE's with an assurance of backing from the US treasury.(wich they got) Even your links have stated that the crisis here and abroad started with the actions of the Federal Reserve through monetary expansion and the reduction of interest rates. I believe that has shown to be direct link between government action and instability in markets.

The expansion of the universe has no effect on gravity forces which is connected with movement in galaxies. Other forces are much stronger than the subtle force that drives the expansion. It is just that the force that drives expansion is working on the universe as a whole in places where the stronger forces are not present. It has also been explained to me as the space expanding is expanding at an equal rate throughout. I'm not an expert so I'm sure others can offer a more in depth explanation than I can.

Or, by that definition, always existed and always will.

I'm starting to feel more and more sorry for the dog.

Some of these points go toward proving my own, that government opened the door in the first place. And other points here, like the first one, have already shown that government mandated these types of low capital and liquidity business practices through the GSE's. I would say that there was a difference in goals between the state and federal levels where banking is concerned. The fed had an unsustainable goal of providing housing to low income people and at a state level we didn't see those kinds of mandates. Another thing that bothers me about the above paragraph is that it mentions that mortgage companies and other firms outside of the purview of bank regulation exploited that lack of clear accountability. For some reason GSE's come to mind again along with CRA securities that were necessary for some of these company's future growth. Although I don't think this is exactly the case, wouldn't these two little lines here prove my point about government involvement having a negative effect on the economy? And also go back to what I said before about them having to regulate themselves? I haven't been trying to explain the global crisis. I've been laying down acts of government manipulation that opened doors for the crisis to happen in the first place and the link and graph you have given states the same. If you recall one of my above posts explained what the Federal Reserve did that started the whole thing. My other mentions of mandates, CRA's sharpened teeth, and the FHA's lowered requirements were just "icing on the cake" so to speak. It all boils down to government action promoting the instability.

If he is a troll, he ain't that good at it. Nice joke John.

I do believe they also have a stronger lung capacity on average also.

How do you disagree with things that are public knowledge, like the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply at the same time as it lowered the interest rates of federal funds to under the rate of inflation and kept them that way for years. How did that not play a big role in manipulating the economy on both the financial market as well as the housing market? How do you disagree that the FHA lowering it's rate of downpayments caused the rate of faulty loans to increase dramatically? How do you disagree that the Community Reinvestment Act had a direct reflection on banks having to buy up securities to gain a better CRA rating just to further their companies growth? Because you know they darn sure couldn't do it without a good rating. How do disagree that HUD gave government sponsored lending a set mandate? How do disagree that none of this had an effect on the economy? It is undeniable that these things occured. What was the government to do except regulate itself. They were the ones that provided a path to instability in the first place starting with the Federal Reserves actions. Which inturn not only affected the housing and financial markets but also the construction market as well. Alot of plants building construction equipment had to close their doors at that time. I know, because I lost my job at the time. I say the whole ordeal wouldn't have transpired without the government's opening of the doorway, then further mandating it's continuity. You come back and say that my reply equalls to nothing but "nuh uh", but I've replyed with facts as to how the government's actions precipitated an instability. I don't see how you can disagree at this point. And if you do recall it was brought to the attention of Congress in 2003. Also I don't see how you can say that it was the lack of regulation when there was no dismanteling of regulations prior to the crisis, and in fact there was an increase in regulations throughout the 90s, mandates and Federal Reserve actions in the early 2000s that fed the housing and financial crisis.

I've heard a little bit about this debate but not much. It seems as though the only reason to not support gay marriage is because of religion. Is there any other reasons why someone would be apposed to it? The only half way legitimate reason for arguing against it, that I could see, is the fact that a marriage by discription is generally a religious ceremony. For someone's religion that doesn't support it would have a legitimate arguement (though most of their religions preach forgiveness and not judging others). So I can see where that arguement may not hold water as much as they would have people believe. I was just wondering your thoughts on whys and why nots. Personally I haven't really seen a good even reason not support gay marriage. I can't see it affecting anyone negatively.

Good point.

You may think so, but the thing I left out of that was that fannie and freddie found that they were actually making money off of these quotas and met these quotas every year up to 2008. With 52% of there overall loans going to borrowers that would before be considered noncreditworthy, I don't see how you cannot see the problem. Fannie and freddie may just be two banks that were working in this manner but they are among the largest. And 52% of all loans is an enormous amount risk that was directly mandated by the government. I didn't. I lay the blame directly at the feet of our government. Which fannie and freddie are just one of the tools that were used. The government fed the housing bubble by dropping the interest rates for federal funds. And the government fed the crash through high risk mandates and senate comittee meatings denying that we had a problem just because they had good friends like Rahm Emanuel sitting on the board of directors. I also find it amussing that you keep throwing out private label graphs. It shows in 2006 that the private label just shot through the roof. Do you know why? Fannie and freddie started to let investor invest in these companies with a gaurantee of backing by the treasury. If you don't believe me just look what Obama did for all of those private investors. Treasury footed the bill for that as well. It's weird that a private investor usually gets his hind end reemed if the company he invested in fails, but not these investors. That's funny, again I mention the mandates. Not to mention the FHA wanting to get competitive with the private sector by lowering their downpayment rate to 3% creating a higher rate of default. This hear kind of says something without saying very much at all. So it did destort the market. . .but that wasn't the problem.(sarcasm) I'm still quite clear that these policies and mandates by government distorted the housing and financial markets creating the path for recession. Whether you want to say it was directly fannie and freddie or not, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that all of this still proves my point that government involvement in this case had a negative effect.

So? I wasn't origionally trying to argue which ideology played the biggest, I was merely suggesting that the governments role in general was at fault for our most recent recession. And maybe for every other recession as well. I would have to do some further reading to justify that last comment though. Somehow I knew you would go with the greed scenario. I won't disagree that they set up their activities in a way that made money, but I disagree that it was done without the help and support of government. There is a reason they are classified as GSE's(government sponsored enterprises)Lets see if I can break this down a little and you can tell me where I'm wrong. In 2001 the Federal Reserve started aggresively expanding the money supply. At the same time they also started lowering the interest rate for federal funding which went from 6.25% to 1.75% just in 2001. For 2.5 years the interest rate on federal funding was lower than the contemporary rate of inflation. In 2004 the Federal Housing Administration lowered it's downpyment requirements to 3% while there were proposals in Congress to further decrease the rate to 0%. Most private lenders required downpayments around 20%. The problem with this was that historically it is shown that a lower down payment rate equals a higher level of default. Another problem surfaced when the Community Reinvestment Act in the ladder 90's gain the authority to deny approvals for mergers or branching of a bank that had a low CRA rating. The information on a CRA rating was given free access to the public which put the banks under the thumb of community watch groups. All the banks had to do to get a bad CRA rating was have a complaint filed against them. This is why alot of banks went into partnership with certain community watch groups to distribute mortgages to low income buyers that would have origionally been considered non credit worthy. Or they could do like alot of others and purchase a "CRA-mortgage backed security" which were secured by, you'll never guess, Freddie Mac. The Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1996 gave Freddie and Fannie a goal of 42% of their mortgage financing to go to low income earners earning below the average median in their area. That goal grew to 50% by the year 2000 and 52% by 2005. By 2005 22% of Fannie and Freddie's loans were made to people who's income was less than 60% of the average median of their area with a downpayment of less than 10%. (tell me where that is financially sound) Did I miss anything? Or was I not correct in assuming that the government played a major part in the downfall of the economy? So this problem may have been an ideological one, but never would ideology have played a part if the government hadn't been involved in the first place.

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the rises and falls of that market would be a direct reflection of the supply and demand of the market itself. I wouldn't say that it would be more balanced in a way as to not affect a great mass of people, and as a matter of fact I think it is that want to balance it that causes so many problems. If it were a true free market economy there would still be failings, but it would be because of the peoples overall influence on demand or the companies inabillity to manage itself. It wouldn't be caused by political interferance due to peoples feelings of not wanting to see people lose their jobs. The market is what it is now and I don't think there will ever be a time of going back. And I'm not sure that we would want to, because of the fact that it does seem so callus to watch people lose their jobs and do nothing about it. I'm just commenting on the model's origional intent and causes of stability/instability compared to the causes and precieved intent of todays market. I also put up the video to show that I was not putting words in anybody's mouth and that there was government involvement. As for Greenspan, he said that he had presumed a company would look out for the well being of it's share holders without intervention. I do as well. That is why I believe that the company made the move it did because someone had given them an incentive to do so. Why would a company make such an unsound decision? For a well established company as they were, it doesn't make any sense. Maybe you can explain why. Do you think that they were just so greedy that they started a ponsi style lending program? Do you think that, with their past reputation, that they were just not knowledgable enough to recognize the error in judgement? What do you think is the underlying reason that the company took the direction it did? I find it hard to believe that they did so without an incentive of some kind. So it is not just solely based on ideology. It also has to do with my natural state of paranoia.

Shawnhcorey, You are also basing this on the assumption that this was the reason babies stopped hanging onto there parents after birth. How do we know if it was the same time frame as when the ancestrial paths split between apes and humans? The babies could have already stopped hanging from there parents before the gradual loss of hair do to other reasons.

This is what we hit on a little earlier in the thread about sexual compatibility with the sugar gene that possibly seperated our evolvement from that of apes you see today. Certain changes of that nature can make the reproduction of one species incompatible with the reproduction of another even though the two may be very closely related. Lets say on the topic of the sugar production. Even though it was the same species, one or more had a defect that the ape's ancestor didn't posess the reproductive ability to cope with, therefore making the two reproductively incompatible. I think this is correct, but I'm not an expert so if I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

Yes, but I'm still undecided as to whether there is something outside the universe. Whether the universe is a closed system or open to outside influences. I'm still trying to find answers to somme questions I've had that should answer that question one way or another.

I think you pretty well touched on the reason for the topic and articulated it better than I could have. I think ultimately it comes down to personal feeling. Everyone is going to feel differently about different things. Personally I feel that these levels of judgement are natural and acceptable. So I don't believe there is a line when we are speaking about a group of people. And when speaking of an individual it can also be tricky to draw a line because everyone will have different thoughts on any issue. I think a better question to ask would be where should somebody draw the line when it comes to speaking out against someones values that seam unethical. For example when you were living in Turkey and if you came across someone abusing their wife, would you be justified in speaking out against them? It is part of their values and custom to act in such ways. Would it be justifiable to show prejudice against such customs? From our view point in the west the answer is a definite yes, but with the othersides view point it would probably be "mind your own business" or "this is the way it is supposed to be". I know as nation we speak out against such things that we feel to be unethical (sometimes). And I've always had this nagging feeling that pulls me in two different directions. I feel, on one hand, that we shouldn't have spoken out because that is just the way it is in that part of the world and who are we to tell them how to live. On the other hand though, I feel that we should speak out more often because if no one were to speakout ever, then nothing will ever change.