Hillary Clinton

"

ampdecay написал:

Bill Clinton's Administration also repealed the Glass-Steagull act and anyone who's up to date with banking and the crisis of 2006 knows how that ended up.

Here's House and Senate voting to repeal. It was primarily a Republican bill, with a Republican sponsor (Gramm, R-TX) and encountered extremely partisan voting in the Senate. Primary responsibility falls on the Republican party.

You're right though that Clinton's failure to use his power of veto (again) was a mistake. It's doubtful an override would have passed the Senate if veto was used, so Clinton's mistake was impactful. That's one of maybe a handful of mistakes, in otherwise a very solid, economically conservative veto record.

Really, though, basic civics knowledge should tell you that, no matter their hot air and silly promises, Presidents do not pass legislation; they only have the opportunity to strike legislation down. Obamacare my ass; Pelosicare would be more appropriate.

"

Raycheetah написал:

Nice to know I can post something with multiple points of analysis, offer some speculation, and can expect the usual suspect keyboard warriors to reply with some glib, BS throwaway one-liner (noted in the post of someone whose posts contain orders of magnitude more substance). It reassures me that ignoring those folks is the correct course. =^[.]^=

You are not ignoring me if you answer to me, ;) Also, that guy is a gold medal gymnast. Calling that dellusion analysis is pathetic.

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

During Bill Clinton's time as president, the government balanced the budget and slashed more spending than the other presidents of the past 40 years combined. A Democrat is the leading example of government conservatism on economic issues in our generation.

That's the reason I say your country needs a proper center right party (think the CDU in Germany) rather than a bunch of extremists. It could actually have stuff done.

"

ampdecay написал:

Bill Clinton's Administration also repealed the Glass-Steagull act and anyone who's up to date with banking and the crisis of 2006 knows how that ended up.

So top lels

Glass Steagall repeal didn't cause the Great Recession, it doesn't have any relationship with that at all. There is a movie exploring those subjects (the Big Short I think) that talks about that in detail, the causes are extremely complex.

I blame Sanders for popularizing that bullshit. He is BAD at economics.

"

NeroNoah написал:

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

During Bill Clinton's time as president, the government balanced the budget and slashed more spending than the other presidents of the past 40 years combined. A Democrat is the leading example of government conservatism on economic issues in our generation.

That's the reason I say your country needs a proper center right party (think the CDU in Germany) rather than a bunch of extremists. It could actually have stuff done.

If there were a proper center media, and proper center academia, I might be inclined to give it a try. Currently, with academics advocating scorched earth liberalism and media that feels it is their duty to twist the truth so that conservatives can't win - the only thing that would happen with a more centered party is the destruction of the right and complete dominance of the left - which would then throttle and exterminate the centered party.

"

ampdecay написал:

Bill Clinton's Administration also repealed the Glass-Steagull act and anyone who's up to date with banking and the crisis of 2006 knows how that ended up.

So top lels

"

NeroNoah написал:

Glass Steagall repeal didn't cause the Great Recession

As a sole factor - no, it didn't. As part of the overall legislative mindset of loosening the reins on banks, investments and credit lending, it absolutely was a factor. You weren't there for it, or you would never have forgotten the lesson.

The mindset was the financial opposite of Kobayashi Maru. It was the CAN'T LOSE scenario.

Dot coms - can't lose. (Flipping domain names alone could net you some serious dollars. I could have bought a very nice home in cash for the offers on some of the domains I own.)

Houses - Buy 'em and flip 'em. Spend 10-20,000 on new cabinets and granite counter tops and some new floors, and sell the same house for 50,000 more. Real Estate was guaranteed to make money.

Stocks and the banks were tied in with all of this economic adventurism. It is the ONLY reason Bill Clinton's "economy" fared so well. Like any other closed system, each part fed off of the other.

If you wanted to start a company - banks would help you "correct" your application so that you could get a business loan. You must have put down an annual income of $56,000 by mistake, when you really have $256,000 annualy. Don't worry, we won't be asking for verification"

The stocks and banking went up so predictably (Essentially vaporware growth)that the US Government seriously considered moving many government programs and funds to stock based systems. They simply couldn't fail.

When the government loosens the rules on anything financially related, there will be a LOT of action. When it is part of an overall decline in regulation, the impact can be tremendous.

"

NeroNoah написал:

There is a movie exploring those subjects (the Big Short I think) that talks about that in detail, the causes are extremely complex.

They aren't complex at all. A lack of oversight and restrictions on the financial systems allowed incredible abuse.

The demise of one of the world's largest bank at the time - Washington Mutual and the behind the scenes actions of government regulators and JP Morgan Chase - was the tipping point. The hometown paper of WAMU - the Seattle Times - had an excellent journalistic series explaining in detail, just how it all tied in.

History isn't limited to things with active URLs. If a person's reading doesn't include some actual physical books, they are walking through life with one eye and no ears. Even if you don't have access to a library, try reading scanned books. Distilled, cogent, first hand perspectives are worth the time to find.

The ratio of noise to insight is only going to get far worse, and the people in the future who can't figure out how to get around the information hurdles might as well be illiterate.

"

DalaiLama написал:

If there were a proper center media, and proper center academia, I might be inclined to give it a try. Currently, with academics advocating scorched earth liberalism and media that feels it is their duty to twist the truth so that conservatives can't win - the only thing that would happen with a more centered party is the destruction of the right and complete dominance of the left - which would then throttle and exterminate the centered party.

Well, your conservatives earned all that. Crying bias and not trying to change is not going to make things better. Being a science denier is a great way to be kicked out of academia, contribute and no one is going to kick you out (see economics, you can see a sizable right wing influence and it's easier to find moderates). Your last conclussion is wild speculation and it sounds more like an excuse to not allow change/complacency. You don't need centrist media, just right wing media that is not full of shit (think of Fox News or Breitbart). Saying the left is out to get right wing people feels a lot like projection.

"

DalaiLama написал:

As a sole factor - no, it didn't. As part of the overall legislative mindset of loosening the reins on banks, investments and credit lending, it absolutely was a factor. You weren't there for it, or you would never have forgotten the lesson.

That particular repeal is no factor (or so the economists at reddit have insisted to me many times). Deregulation has part of the blame sure, but not in this instance.

"

DalaiLama написал:

They aren't complex at all.

Well, the people from what I read about this disagree (and a lot of articles too). Reading about the subject I think it's complex (things like the CDO and all that).

"

DalaiLama написал:

History isn't limited to things with active URLs. If a person's reading doesn't include some actual physical books, they are walking through life with one eye and no ears. Even if you don't have access to a library, try reading scanned books. Distilled, cogent, first hand perspectives are worth the time to find.

The ratio of noise to insight is only going to get far worse, and the people in the future who can't figure out how to get around the information hurdles might as well be illiterate.

That's pointlessly condescending. I read books, just not history ones. And economics is more important in this situation than history.

"

NeroNoah написал:

Well, your conservatives earned all that. Crying bias and not trying to change

The bias goes back further than the current polarization. I would argue that the polarization is largely due to that bias.

"

NeroNoah написал:

That particular repeal is no factor (or so the economists at reddit have insisted to me many times). Deregulation has part of the blame sure, but not in this instance.

Which of those economists correctly predicted the bubble and collapse? Economists are like fortune tellers, except their special powers to visualize things extend to both the past and the future.

It was a factor, just not the sole one.

"

DalaiLama написал:

They aren't complex at all.

"

NeroNoah написал:

Well, the people from what I read about this disagree (and a lot of articles too). Reading about the subject I think it's complex (things like the CDO and all that).

The collapse was a domino effect, brought about by a false economy, made possible by loose financial oversight and governance.

September 11th was really the only complicating factor.

The scrambling to avoid the collapse was complex, but that was just groups trying to dodge the financial consequences and minimize the losses.

"

DalaiLama написал:

History isn't limited to things with active URLs. If a person's reading doesn't include some actual physical books, they are walking through life with one eye and no ears. Even if you don't have access to a library, try reading scanned books. Distilled, cogent, first hand perspectives are worth the time to find.

The ratio of noise to insight is only going to get far worse, and the people in the future who can't figure out how to get around the information hurdles might as well be illiterate.

"

NeroNoah написал:

That's pointlessly condescending. I read books, just not history ones.

It wasn't meant to be condescending. (see the end of the post for an explanation) I respect your opinion.

History books are not very exciting things. The only thing I like less then reading them is reading biographies. When you read a first hand account of something that happened and then later see hundreds of articles that can't possibly be true, it helps you eliminate a lot of online sources as worthless. Some that used to be reputable, are no longer worth even clicking on.

"

NeroNoah написал:

And economics is more important in this situation than history.

Economics is theoretical. History is ontological. Most economists are not at the helm of a company with thousands of employees or billions of dollars in assets. They aren't usually creating new enterprises or forging new fields of business. They are watching it from afar. Historians are looking at it with the vision of hindsight, and in the cases of some books, were actually there. The converse is that economist are expected to try and predict the future, while historians are under no such burden. It isn't fair, but the difficulty was known to all entering the field.

........

The downside is that books, by the nature of the writing and publishing process are usually dated, and cover material that may no longer be relevant. They aren't cheap either, and unless you know what you will be getting beforehand, it is tough to know what is worth spending the time to read.

I suggest finding a good university library if you can, find a relevant section on a subject and just browse the books in that section.

If and when, the powers that be start to realize the information that is actually contained in there that they don't want people knowing - they will find a way to get those books yanked and the space committed to something more modern.

The problem is that they don't have a way to efficiently dig through the information.

You can find all sorts of stuff that would be classified online, being openly discussed and reviewed by people who were involved with it at the time.

Nuclear policy, armaments and near miss nuclear wars are one such topic.

If you don't have access to a good library, you can sometimes get your local library to borrow the book from a larger library. It takes awhile though.

I'm not saying this to make any aspersions whatsoever. I am taking the time to mention this because I think you genuinely care about issues and take the time to learn more and think about them.

Even something as archaic as a set of Encyclopedia Britannica prior to World War II can be illuminating. Reading what experts thought back then, versus what we know and think now can give you a new way of looking at things. It isn't that they weren't knowledgeable or thoughtful compared to current thinkers either.

Ontology without epistemology is an exercise in deception.

"

DalaiLama написал:

The bias goes back further than the current polarization. I would argue that the polarization is largely due to that bias.

And I would disagree and I would call it avoiding responsabilities. The left is not responsible for the right, you cannot excuse extremism in one side blaming the other.

"

DalaiLama написал:

Which of those economists correctly predicted the bubble and collapse? Economists are like fortune tellers, except their special powers to visualize things extend to both the past and the future.

It was a factor, just not the sole one.

This is something I found today, but I read similar stuff weekly. Stop underestimating scientists (even those who work in those so called "soft sciences"), it makes you sound like an anti intelectual. Economists saw problems before the crisis, at least a subset of them. Many of them are sick of hearing people using that same argument to dismiss them later on ideological grounds.

"

DalaiLama написал:

The collapse was a domino effect, brought about by a false economy, made possible by loose financial oversight and governance.

September 11th was really the only complicating factor.

The scrambling to avoid the collapse was complex, but that was just groups trying to dodge the financial consequences and minimize the losses.

That's an incomplete image of what happened. If it was just that it wouldn't have been that bad.

Real and false economies are just buzzwords.

"

DalaiLama написал:

History books are not very exciting things. The only thing I like less then reading them is reading biographies. When you read a first hand account of something that happened and then later see hundreds of articles that can't possibly be true, it helps you eliminate a lot of online sources as worthless. Some that used to be reputable, are no longer worth even clicking on.

There are only good sources and bad sources. Be a book, an article or whatever doesn't really change the content. Many books in my library are just crap, by the way, so I'm not sure the emphasis on books is justified.

"

NeroNoah написал:

"

DalaiLama написал:

The bias goes back further than the current polarization. I would argue that the polarization is largely due to that bias.

And I would disagree and I would call it avoiding responsabilities. The left is not responsible for the right

Reporting or educating accurately has very little to do with avoiding responsibilities. If an 8.2 Earthquake happens in Tokyo, and ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN report the Earthquake as a 9.6, then that is a bias.

When educators teach that the Earthquake would only have been an 8.2 if we had only elected Hillary, but now was a 9.6 because Trump insulted the Earth's mantle, it is a bias.

That misinformation bias, going back several decades is what I am talking about, and it has polarized 2-3 generations of citizens.

That bias was almost non existent 40 years ago.

People mistrust the media and "experts" because many of them remember living through the events that the media falsely characterizes now.

It would be like CNN talking about how Path of Exile used to be a console game, but because of Trump they lost their fan support and had to flee from California to New Zealand and make their game free to play.

The people relying on bogus media wouldn't know any better. The people who had been playing Path of Exile would.

The lack of civility and "extreme" take no prisoner positions the two sides seem to take partially devolved from the state of mind where lying for a good cause was deemed acceptable.

That does not mean that BOTH sides don't participate in that deception effort currently. I am talking about the modern historical origins of it.

When you can step in a lab and do an experiment and verify that a source of information is not being honest, is when you learn to view all data skeptically. Sometimes it really stinks, because you need trustworthy information to make a good decision NOW. It may be better to make a decision that wait for conclusive evidence. Other times you find out in hindsight that no decision or action taken would have been better because of the erroneous information you had. You live and you try to learn and get better.

"

DalaiLama написал:

Which of those economists correctly predicted the bubble and collapse? Economists are like fortune tellers, except their special powers to visualize things extend to both the past and the future.

It was a factor, just not the sole one.

"

NeroNoah написал:

This is something I found today, but I read similar stuff weekly. Stop underestimating scientists (even those who work in those so called "soft sciences"), it makes you sound like an anti intelectual. Economists saw problems before the crisis, at least a subset of them. Many of them are sick of hearing people using that same argument to dismiss them later on ideological grounds.

And that article says nothing about their accuracy on the issue we are discussing. Nothing. It talks about trade issues.

Science is not about the scientists. It is about whether the science is repeatable, falsifiable, and predictive. The validity of an experiment doesn't matter if you have 286 Nobel prizes, or you just got your masters degree. Many soft sciences can only do limited experiences and don't have the option of repeating material to falsify.

During lunch today, I was talking with a scientist (a co-worker) about the implications of some of his recent research and he was lamenting how people mistakenly extrapolate research to mean many things that it does not.

The fact that I question results and claims does not mean that I am disparaging a field or science. When someone worships science and unquestionably accepts all the science they hear, they are doing themselves and science a disservice.

You should sit in on a colloquium with 30 scientists and listen to what sounds like bickering and heated disagreement at times, but is really just experts discussing what they know and trying to winnow the wheat from the chaff.

The same level of questioning goes on behind the scenes as does in the public eye. The difference is the specific subject expertise of the people discussing it.

"

DalaiLama написал:

The collapse was a domino effect, brought about by a false economy, made possible by loose financial oversight and governance.

September 11th was really the only complicating factor.

The scrambling to avoid the collapse was complex, but that was just groups trying to dodge the financial consequences and minimize the losses.

"

NeroNoah написал:

That's an incomplete image of what happened. If it was just that it wouldn't have been that bad.

Real and false economies are just buzzwords.

A false economy is one in which the gains are largely based on speculation of further gains, and each subsequent gain is based on the same idea. It is just an economic perpetual engine. It can't last.

As for incomplete image - no, that was the gist of what happened. It would have been as bad without September 11th, but it wouldn't have happened as quickly. There is one seminal event that could have slowed or drastically altered it. I'll leave you to your expert economists to see if you can discover it.

"

DalaiLama написал:

History books are not very exciting things. The only thing I like less then reading them is reading biographies. When you read a first hand account of something that happened and then later see hundreds of articles that can't possibly be true, it helps you eliminate a lot of online sources as worthless. Some that used to be reputable, are no longer worth even clicking on.

"

NeroNoah написал:

There are only good sources and bad sources. Be a book, an article or whatever doesn't really change the content.

That is like saying travel is the same whether by plane or by boat or train - you get from one place to another. There is a vast difference between different formats, and the content they have. Journals and web sites are great for current content and rapid updates. Very few websites have the time or resources to really dig in and analyze and research a subject the way a book can.

Imagine if you or I had six years to research and write a book on how Trump handled the first debate with Hillary, versus having to crank out an article in the next 48 hours.

"

NeroNoah написал:

Many books in my library are just crap, by the way, so I'm not sure the emphasis on books is justified.

Many books, just like music, videos, etc are junk. Just like prospecting for gold, you're going to spend some time before you start seeing a few grains of truth.

War Criminal

"

DalaiLama написал:

The fact that I question results and claims does not mean that I am disparaging a field or science. When someone worships science and unquestionably accepts all the science they hear, they are doing themselves and science a disservice.

You disparaged a whole field calling them fortune tellers. I do work with scientists. I know they are not perfect. I do not accept science unquestionably, that's just your strawman. The point of science is just not prediction alone, and economists were able to predict a lot of stuff that time based on what happened in Japan a few years before anyway, so your point is moot. Economics is not physics, and those guys are working their asses off to be as precise as possible (at least as much as it's possible). They care about methodological issues. Question to you: how precise should be economics for it to be useful? Not all field can be like, let's say, Quantum Electrodynamics on precision.

You are just creating doubt without any good purpose, nor evidence (you don't really make a genuine criticism, just mere strawmen). It's the same points I read frequently about the subject, and it generally goes nowhere.

Crooked Hillary called Bernouts basically basement dwellers. They're already throwing a tendie tantrum on Twitter.