Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Dec 2016, 2:59 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
And, "deregulated?" Bull. It was barely regulated. Something would have to be "regulated" BEFORE it could be "deregulated." We were very much more of a libertarian society then.

Barely regulated before or after FDR.

Here's what FDR did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act

Here's what caused the financial collapse in 2008. It starts with repealing much of FDR's work.

In the case of the US, we can point to a number of important acts of financial deregulation that were the direct causes of the crisis:
(1) Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (1999)
In the US, the Glass-Steagall Act, initially created in the wake of the Stock Market Crash of 1929, prohibited banks from both accepting deposits and underwriting securities. This led to segregation of investment banks from commercial banks. Glass-Steagall was effectively repealed for many large financial institutions by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.
Joseph Stigliz has argued that

“The most important consequence of the repeal of Glass-Steagall was indirect—it lay in the way repeal changed an entire culture. Commercial banks are not supposed to be high-risk ventures; they are supposed to manage other people’s money very conservatively. It is with this understanding that the government agrees to pick up the tab should they fail. Investment banks, on the other hand, have traditionally managed rich people’s money—people who can take bigger risks in order to get bigger returns” (Stiglitz 2009).

Deposit insurance does make sense when it protects a commercial banking sector prevented from making highly speculative and risky investments.

(2) Hiding Liabilities on Off-Balance Sheet Accounting
Banks used off-balance sheet operations called special purpose entities (SPEs) or special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to take on toxic asset-backed securities. This allowed banks to escape even the weak regulation of Basel I and II. It is estimated that the top 4 U.S. depository banks put around $5.2 trillion into SIVs.

(3) Commodities Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), 2000
This exempted financial derivatives, including credit default swaps, from regulation.

(4) The SEC’s Voluntary Regulation Regime for Investment Banks, 2004-2008
The SEC's Consolidated Supervised Entity (CSE) regime was introduced in 2004. It allowed investment banks to engage in their own net capital requirements in accordance with the standards of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. It was voluntarily administered, and the result was that investment banks pushed borrowing ratios to as high as 40 to 1, as in the case of Merrill Lynch.
One major confirmation of the effectiveness of financial regulation is the state of Canada’s banking system. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world. The US system was ranked at number 40, and Germany and Britain ranked 39 and 44. Canada’s banks required no direct government bailouts.

Some commentators blame Basel I and II as a major cause of the financial collapse.
But if Basel I and II led inevitably to asset bubbles and financial collapse, then why has this not occurred in Canada?

The answer is fairly simple: Canada, unlike many other Western countries, still has tight and effective banking regulation.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogs ... in-of.html


Hey pally, Hoover was BEFORE FDR. Any post-Hoover regulation is not pertinent to what Hoover did.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Dec 2016, 3:04 pm

rickyp wrote:tom
You want to complain about percentage increase and that could be fair but how can you claim Obama increasing 68% ON TOP of Bush's 101% is in any way acceptable?

The reasons for the deficit make it acceptable.
Investment spending to prime the economy, and relief of the financial institutions that was necessary to forestall another Great Depression. And it worked.


Please. Anyone can spend trillions and show a little something. He took a flat-lining economy and put it into a coma. How much "credit" does he deserve for that?

Bush, had he continued with tax rates that he inherited would have wiped out the deifict and begun eliminating accumulated debt.


Not true. But, who cares?

You want to paint Obama as some tight-fisted fiscal genius. However, he was anything but. He cut very little until the stupid "compromise" (that no one liked) passed.

His record as a Debt-fighter is a joke. On deficits, he's only "good" if you look at his first year as "normal." In truth, he presided over more borrowing than any POTUS ever. By far.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 03 Jan 2017, 9:20 pm

Fate:

The "real" scourge of the Earth is Israel. I'm sick of it and I don't really care what you or any other Israel-(disliking) person thinks.


What the hell are you talking about? I never said this. Do some yoga. You sound like you've lost your damn mind...

Case in point....

Sorry, but for anyone who actually likes the US, GWB had more leadership, sense, and humility in his left pinkie than Obama has in his entire body.


More leadership? More sense? Are you kidding me?

There are now 500,000 or so dead Iraqis because of your leader's "leadership." Illegally, immorally and illicitly invading another man country under the pretense of so called weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable. NO ONE gets to make that kind of mistake when all of the world's intelligence is at your finger tips. NO ONE gets to ignore a reputable man such as Hans Blix who repeatedly told your idiot president there was nothing there. NO ONE gets to make that mistake Fate ever! And, God forbid you do make such a mistake, you own up to it like a F ing man and correct it.

And lets not forget those parents and loved ones out there of the over 4,486 dead US soldiers who died for nothing. NOTHING! For sand Fate. For F ing sand. They came home in body bags, having accomplished nothing. And it wasn't their fault. They were placed in harms way by your "sensible leader."

More sense? There are monkeys with more sense.

We had Saddam contained. He was hamstrung and going nowhere fast and you know it. We shut down his airspace, we shut down his banks, we virtually shut down the entire country. That history could have been written quite differently had your "sensible leader" not thrown a hissy fit over the fact that someone with a rag on his head had to pay for 9/11. Twisted and sadomasachistic patriotism. What an embarrassing time to have been an American.

And don't try to set up a some tired smokescreen to protect your "sensible leader" by pointing a finger at the Democrats for going along with his insanity. They were idiots too who followed your stupid president. They have blood on their hands and always will but none of them are nearly as much to blame as President George W. Bush. Bush and his goons saw to it that anyone who wasn't on board with their war were "anti troops." That narrative worked. It even worked with the criminal. She bought it hook line and sinker as well.

Guess what Fate, it didn't work with everyone. There were a few who set aside political expediency to speak truth to power. There were a few who were sensible. A few who were true leaders. In fact, I remember a younger Senator from Illinois who called it for what it was, bullshit.

Hundreds of thousands of people dead, millions more suffering. Your "sensible leader" tore a hole in the middle east. He destabilized an entire region. He solved nothing by his war. His legacy will be tarnished forever. I'll tell you what he did succeed at Fate. He succeeded in creating at least one or two generations of people (or more) who seethe with hatred for the US and all things western. As well they should.

The man couldn't even form a sentence. But I guess his "strategiry" was enough to impress you?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jan 2017, 10:26 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:There are now 500,000 or so dead Iraqis because of your leader's "leadership." Illegally, immorally and illicitly invading another man country under the pretense of so called weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable.


Wow. So much disinformation, so I decided to discredit the most disingenuous portion of your text and let you prove me wrong.

The invasion of Iraq was not illegal.

Let me repeat that: the invasion of Iraq was not illegal.

At the end of the Gulf War, there was a "ceasefire." Iraq agreed to a number of conditions in order that Saddam would remain in power and Iraq would not be invaded. It violated those terms repeatedly.

That alone constitutes a casus belli.

Now, prove me wrong.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Jan 2017, 10:56 am

It was illegal. Article 39 of Chapter 7 of the UN charter mandates that the Security Council has to determine whether war is justified or not. That was not done. This is why Kofi Annam declared it an illegal war. The charter also allows for immediate self-defense which was not applicable. You cannot justify a war based on violation of UN resolutions passed in 1991 and then ignore the requirement that the Security Council has to give its blessing for going to war. The justification based on having WMD was found to be unjustified (there weren't any); of course, that would not be justified anyway because that would not be for immediate self-defense or approved by the UN. The scope of the invasion--regime change--was also illegal given that to enforce the resolutions did not require regime change. QED.

It's farcical really and a blot on our reputation that the US was ever involved in something like this. Least we can do is stop making excuses and try to learn from it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jan 2017, 11:36 am

freeman3 wrote:It was illegal. Article 39 of Chapter 7 of the UN charter mandates that the Security Council has to determine whether war is justified or not. That was not done. This is why Kofi Annam declared it an illegal war. The charter also allows for immediate self-defense which was not applicable. You cannot justify a war based on violation of UN resolutions passed in 1991 and then ignore the requirement that the Security Council has to give its blessing for going to war. The justification based on having WMD was found to be unjustified (there weren't any); of course, that would not be justified anyway because that would not be for immediate self-defense or approved by the UN. The scope of the invasion--regime change--was also illegal given that to enforce the resolutions did not require regime change. QED.

It's farcical really and a blot on our reputation that the US was ever involved in something like this. Least we can do is stop making excuses and try to learn from it.


Well, whatever Kofi says is right, I suppose.

I'm all for learning lessons. I was against it in the first place, but not because it was illegal. Iraq violated the ceasefire over and over again. That is the basis for reinitiating combat.

That's pretty basic.

If one wants to argue legalities and war, it's pretty tough. Was the invasion of Kuwait legal? Was the invasion of Poland legal? Has there ever been a war that started without illegality?

Iraq was not a "new war." It was the continuation and conclusion of one Saddam started.

Now, back to Dag's point: however many died as an indirect result of Bush's actions, more have died as a result of Obama's inaction. Take your pick.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 06 Jan 2017, 10:03 am

Fate:
Now, back to Dag's point: however many died as an indirect result of Bush's actions, more have died as a result of Obama's inaction. Take your pick.


Anachronistic argumentation. Go set up some dominoes and review how they fall. There is no Syria, no Tunisia, no Egypt, no Arab spring unless the US invades and occupies Iraq. The death toll inside Syria has been devastating but is nothing by comparison to Iraq. Nice try.

And by the way, you cherry picked one topic of many and decided to incorrectly focus on the legality of the war. Wrong again.

Most importantly, you claimed GWB was more of a leader, more sensible and more humble than Obama.

You know I will give you your 3rd point. You've said before and I agree that Obama "loves him some him." (perhaps one of the best lines ever delivered in a thread here).

But more of a leader and more sensible? Not even close. Pick anyone else Fate but not GWB.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 06 Jan 2017, 10:19 am

Dag:
There is no Syria, no Tunisia, no Egypt, no Arab spring unless the US invades and occupies Iraq.


Can you expand on that? How did the Iraq war cause the Arab spring?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Jan 2017, 1:42 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Fate:
Now, back to Dag's point: however many died as an indirect result of Bush's actions, more have died as a result of Obama's inaction. Take your pick.


Anachronistic argumentation. Go set up some dominoes and review how they fall. There is no Syria, no Tunisia, no Egypt, no Arab spring unless the US invades and occupies Iraq. The death toll inside Syria has been devastating but is nothing by comparison to Iraq. Nice try.


Immaterial. Obama knew what he was walking into and he botched it. "Bigly."

He's responsible for how the dominoes fell because he pulled us out of Iraq, dismissed ISIS as "JV," and drew a red line that he ran away from. He also set up the Libya debacle.

And by the way, you cherry picked one topic of many and decided to incorrectly focus on the legality of the war. Wrong again.


Not really. It depends. Which is more vital, the rules of war or the UN?

Most importantly, you claimed GWB was more of a leader, more sensible and more humble than Obama.

You know I will give you your 3rd point. You've said before and I agree that Obama "loves him some him." (perhaps one of the best lines ever delivered in a thread here).


Leaders lead. Obama blamed. Obama made excuses. Obama refused to negotiate with Republicans, while being thrilled to give Iran, Cuba, and other American adversaries more than fair deals.

If that's leadership, well, Obama's a leader. In fact, if whining is a quality of leadership, then Obama is the best leader of all-time.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 08 Jan 2017, 4:19 pm

Ray Jay,

The Iraq war, and by that I mean the 2nd Iraq war, caused destabilization in the middle east like we've never seen before. All of the many sectarian factions that existed in "peace" under Sadaam found themselves splintered beyond repair due to the war. Once conquered, these divided factions attempted to fill the vacuum. They are continuing to do so today. And this effort would be virtually impossible without US assistance on some level.

A fair number of fools, in order to justify that ridiculous war, have argued that the vacuum of leadership and the resulting bloodshed inside Iraq, was part of Iraq's birthing pains toward democracy. Condoleeza Rice comes to mind as one such naive fool. There have been many others.

Such a narrative not only justifies what was illegal, immoral and illicit but sets the US up as the great knight in shinning armor sprinkling democracy far and wide in lands pining for it under oppression.

The argument goes that a younger generation of Arabs looked on and saw the regime change in Iraq as possible for their own country. If a sadistic dictator could be ousted there, perhaps it could happen elsewhere. Perhaps it could happen here in my country? Perhaps Egypt could undergo the necessary birth pains of democracy? Perhaps Tunisia as well? And even Syria?

This line of thinking turned out to be false hope. A catastrophic underestimation of not only economics but religion and political scale as well. And the attempts to bring about the Arab Spring have only proven to destabilize the region even more, resulting in more sectarian violence, more bloodshed and more suffering. It was a pipe dream that would never come to fruition. Ironically it greased the skids for the birth of ISIS and a strand of fundamentalism that has reached new heights of evil. And why?

Fate's "sensible leader" GWB and his cabinet of blithering idiots. Someone had to pay for 9/11. And because they all look alike to me, GWB reasoned, we've got to have our pound of flesh and it doesn't matter whose flesh it turns out to be, so long as its THEM.

Here's an article you might find interesting on the topic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/the-arab-spring-started-in-iraq.html

It didn't have to be this way.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 7:08 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Ray Jay,

The Iraq war, and by that I mean the 2nd Iraq war, caused destabilization in the middle east like we've never seen before. All of the many sectarian factions that existed in "peace" under Sadaam found themselves splintered beyond repair due to the war. Once conquered, these divided factions attempted to fill the vacuum. They are continuing to do so today. And this effort would be virtually impossible without US assistance on some level.

A fair number of fools, in order to justify that ridiculous war, have argued that the vacuum of leadership and the resulting bloodshed inside Iraq, was part of Iraq's birthing pains toward democracy. Condoleeza Rice comes to mind as one such naive fool. There have been many others.

Such a narrative not only justifies what was illegal, immoral and illicit but sets the US up as the great knight in shinning armor sprinkling democracy far and wide in lands pining for it under oppression.

The argument goes that a younger generation of Arabs looked on and saw the regime change in Iraq as possible for their own country. If a sadistic dictator could be ousted there, perhaps it could happen elsewhere. Perhaps it could happen here in my country? Perhaps Egypt could undergo the necessary birth pains of democracy? Perhaps Tunisia as well? And even Syria?

This line of thinking turned out to be false hope. A catastrophic underestimation of not only economics but religion and political scale as well. And the attempts to bring about the Arab Spring have only proven to destabilize the region even more, resulting in more sectarian violence, more bloodshed and more suffering. It was a pipe dream that would never come to fruition. Ironically it greased the skids for the birth of ISIS and a strand of fundamentalism that has reached new heights of evil. And why?

Fate's "sensible leader" GWB and his cabinet of blithering idiots. Someone had to pay for 9/11. And because they all look alike to me, GWB reasoned, we've got to have our pound of flesh and it doesn't matter whose flesh it turns out to be, so long as its THEM.

Here's an article you might find interesting on the topic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/the-arab-spring-started-in-iraq.html

It didn't have to be this way.


All very interesting. However, not proof that toppling Hussein caused the Syrian civil war. What it is really saying is that the Arab country boundaries and leadership were and are illegitimate. They used anti-Zionism, anti-westernism, and anti-colonialism to hide their problems. It was a powder keg and caused by many factors including illegitimate boundaries, tribalism, Sunni vs. Shia, Bush/Obama calls for democracy, a Tunisian vendor setting fire to himself, the strengthening of Iran (which was also caused by Bush/Obama), drought, etc.. The Iraq war was part of the mix, but is not solely or even primarily responsible for the chaos in Syria.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 11:55 am

rayjay
All very interesting. However, not proof that toppling Hussein caused the Syrian civil war. What it is really saying is that the Arab country boundaries and leadership were and are illegitimate. They used anti-Zionism, anti-westernism, and anti-colonialism to hide their problems. It was a powder keg and caused by many factors including illegitimate boundaries, tribalism, Sunni vs. Shia, Bush/Obama calls for democracy, a Tunisian vendor setting fire to himself, the strengthening of Iran (which was also caused by Bush/Obama), drought, etc.. The Iraq war was part of the mix, but is not solely or even primarily responsible for the chaos in Syria.


The "illegitimate borders" were a product of colonialism. The other part was an extractive economy that benefited elites and foreigners, but not so much the citizenry of the nations of the Arab world.
Go back further in time, before the colonialists were Westerners or Turks, and the original Islamic nation was largely a colonial entity in of itself. The Arabs charged non-Muslims in areas they conquered a poll tax and a religious tax. Its one reason they were tolerant of Jews and Christians....they could tax them but not Muslims.
Essentially they conquered a region and lived off the taxes they charged the conquered peoples.
You don't get centuries of this behaviour by the Islamic and tribal elites changed over night. Nor does turning the table on them by the Turks or Westerners for a few hundred years much change the way they look at society. Once back in control they wanted to start charging their rents again. (Feudal society was the same.)

The Arab spring was caused by the failure of the structure of the societies in which the revolutions occurred to respond to the aspirations and needs of the vast majority of poor, working class and middle class people. The invasion of Iraq created what many people in the region saw as an opportunity. For some, democracy was both a goal and a means to an end; social justice.
Problem was that there was also the religionists who wanted to return to the mythic times of Muslim caliphates.... And their message was both simpler, and easier to understand by the uneducated. And easier to achieve, as it relied only upon conquering the land and its people.

Historically it might compare to the period after the French revolution when nations around Europe also revolted in 1830-1848. Except that the European revolutions were largely secular.
And the Middle eastern nations of the Arab Spring fell back onto religion as their model for society.
So these events seems to have largely failed. at least for now.
Solutions that work can't be imposed on the region. They have to solve their own problems. With help. But you can't expect to control the situation completely
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 19 Jan 2017, 12:01 pm

Ray Jay:

All very interesting. However, not proof that toppling Hussein caused the Syrian civil war. What it is really saying is that the Arab country boundaries and leadership were and are illegitimate. They used anti-Zionism, anti-westernism, and anti-colonialism to hide their problems. It was a powder keg and caused by many factors including illegitimate boundaries, tribalism, Sunni vs. Shia, Bush/Obama calls for democracy, a Tunisian vendor setting fire to himself, the strengthening of Iran (which was also caused by Bush/Obama), drought, etc.. The Iraq war was part of the mix, but is not solely or even primarily responsible for the chaos in Syria.


Now it's my turn to ask you to explain.

"What it is really saying..." - define "it"

"They used anti-Zionsim.." define "they"

"It was a powder keg..." define "it"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 19 Jan 2017, 12:11 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:
Now it's my turn to ask you to explain.

"What it is really saying..." - define "it"

"They used anti-Zionsim.." define "they"

"It was a powder keg..." define "it"


In order: It = the article you referenced

They = Arab leadership

It = The Arab world
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 24 Jan 2017, 4:30 pm

Ah, got it. Thanks for clarifying.

You said...

The Iraq war was part of the mix, but is not solely or even primarily responsible for the chaos in Syria.


The Iraq war was one of the first major dominoes to fall. Of course we're talking about a multifaceted series of events. I don't deny that or want to sideline that point. But the connection to the Arab Spring is there and without it, history would have played out very differently and history inside Syria would have played out very differently.