I watched that video of Joseph Salerno and had to stop when he calls the Community Reinvestment Act "affirmitve action." This guy doesn't even understand what that act did.Blind Sight said:My sources are Joseph Salerno, an expert in monetary theory and banking, and Dr. Thomas Woods, historian and Austrian economist. Woods is widely accepted as an expert in both fields, has had several books make the New York Times bestseller list, and actively welcomes debate with his points (if you're that interested you can check out his youtube channel TomWoodsTV or his forum on the Von Muses Institute website). Most of these are examples from his book Rollback, where he deals with historical myths such as the decrease in spending= unemployment spike you mentioned. However, my housing points mainly come from Salerno, as Woods argues that the bigger problem in the American economy is the Federal Reserve.AkaDad said:I wasn't going to comment, but when I read this I had to. You are seriously misinformed. In the late 90's, Republicans repealed the Glass-Steagall act, which deregulated the financial industry. That is what caused the recession, not government intervention.Blind Sight said:You do realize that one of the primary factors for the 2007 financial crash was the housing bubble burst? That was directly the result of government intervention (mostly thanks to Clinton's housing plans in the 90s) which created artificial demand. Government intervention into the economy, I will remind you, is traditionally a belief held by the centre or left. Also, the Great Depression was actually accelerated by government programs that attempted to halt it. Go look at unemployment rates in the 30s and you'll notice massive spikes whenever FDR created more New Deal social programs. In contrast, the depression that occurred in the 20s resulted in no excess government spending, in fact, the American government actually decreased spending, and the economy recovered within a year. I'm not even a conservative, I'm just pointing out how completely biased and selective your use of history is.Imperator-Zor said:I must agree with Bob, awesome video.
Yes, free us from "Serfdom" by bringing back actual Serfdom, nobility, rigidly defined class structres, church and state linked together, supression of any idea that might come up to challenge the status quo regardless of its legitimacy and all that. Oh the Irony.Aurini said:The devil was the first whig, and he's been winning for 500 years
Besides, your ideology came about in the early 1800s cenutry and had its massive failures. Mass famines in India, widespread poverty and horrible instability. The US had numerous finacial crashes due to lack of regulation over the course of the 19th century. The Great Depression was just the worst because of the rise of the cash economy (A larger precentage of people were using money more frequently, farmers before the Industrial Revolution usually had little money but could generally feed themselves and often could barter for things they could not make at home, once cities emerge people need to buy food and once industrial manufacturing begins stores no longer accept jars of jam as payment). Now, Banks and Finance have been deregulatd and the result, recession. Canada and the rest of the world's banks did not try to pull such scams because they were better monitored and kept on a shorter leash.
Zor
The repeal of provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. This repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007-2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms.
Those unemployment spikes under FDR happened when government cut back on spending, the opposite of what you're claiming. I don't know where you get your information from, but you should stop getting it from that source.
Boosting aggregate demand within the housing sector created opportunities for mal-investment. Keynesian policies were one of the main driving forces behind the recession. There's a reason that Austrian economists in the late 90s and early 2000s were predicting a financial crash before anyone else.
If I may ask, what are your sources?
EDIT: If you have JSTOR, I'll gladly link you to the articles written by Salerno and Woods I got my points from.
Well my whole reason for asking that question is that it's all well and good to talk about idealized forms of responsible government, it is another thing entirely to have an actual solution to the problem. It's a common fallacy I find, people want to argue for new ways of governing but can't find a way to create the necessary infrastructure for it to exist.ecoho said:why not? god forbid people would actually have to work for the office not have it work for them. now i have no clue how to answer your last question but let me give it a go. get rid of politicians i dont know about you but id rather not have people there who want to be there id rather have the guy who gets the job done and leaves.
Banks were charging qualified minorities higher rates than white people and the CRA said you can't do that anymore. You had to charge the same rates to everyone. That's not affirmative action. I can't take this guy seriously and neither should you.
I get my info from many sources. Paul Krugman is an economist you should read. He gets it right more than most economists.