noam chomsky vs milton friedman

[bripat9643]

Only a conservative is enough of a moron to forget that the lake is fed by a stream, and it's raining, then proclaim the lake is lower.

dear, perhaps a pool is easier for you. Taxing and spending is like draining and filling. Get it now? Politicans tricked you and you fell for it. They want to spend on welfare not to stimulate the economy. All they need is perfect fools like you to buy into the pure ignorance.

If you're going to make an analogy, you need to use one that people understand. What is the "stream" in his analogy supposed to represent? How about the rain?

 

[bripat9643]

I asked, because highways create opportunities for wealth and job creation..

dear everyone wants roads. So what??

So, infrastructure spent for with government funding has created opportunities for wealth creation. No movement of people and goods, smaller economy.

Even if that were true, 95% of the budget is spent on providing sustenance for ticks on the ass of society. It doesn't create wealth. It consumes wealth.

 

[bripat9643]

. So, they don't want recessions, even while they are voting for policies that help to create them.

So then why so afriad to name a Republican policy that creates recessions. What does your fear teach you?

I've already pointed to Republican obstruction of economic recovery to end recessions. I'll also point out that deregulation caused the last three recessions. Deregulation is a conservative approach I politics, that promises economic growth, but lowered economic growth in the median and long terms.

You seem to love "pointing out" things that aren't true. Deregulation never caused a recession in the history of recessions. The libturd claim that banking was "deregulated" is too absurd for words. There are something like 180 government agencies regulating banks.

 

[Shanty]

Only a conservative is enough of a moron to forget that the lake is fed by a stream, and it's raining, then proclaim the lake is lower.

dear, perhaps a pool is easier for you. Taxing and spending is like draining and filling. Get it now? Politicans tricked you and you fell for it. They want to spend on welfare not to stimulate the economy. All they need is perfect fools like you to buy into the pure ignorance.

If you're going to make an analogy, you need to use one that people understand. What is the "stream" in his analogy supposed to represent? How about the rain?

Poor Princess Baiamonte... LOL

 

[Shanty]

I asked, because highways create opportunities for wealth and job creation..

dear everyone wants roads. So what??

So, infrastructure spent for with government funding has created opportunities for wealth creation. No movement of people and goods, smaller economy.

Even if that were true, 95% of the budget is spent on providing sustenance for ticks on the ass of society. It doesn't create wealth. It consumes wealth.

Not really. Look at regulations. Most of them are common sense approaches that keep the economy from losing billions and trillions of dollars from the economy. In the case of the housing bubble, we saw lenders take advantage of deregulated, and unregulated aspects of the mortgage markets. Then saw large salaries and bonuses for the executives of the lending companies that weren't commensurate with the longer term performance of the loans they made.
https://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v105/n3/1205/LR105n3Tung.pdf

 

[Shanty]

. So, they don't want recessions, even while they are voting for policies that help to create them.

So then why so afriad to name a Republican policy that creates recessions. What does your fear teach you?

I've already pointed to Republican obstruction of economic recovery to end recessions. I'll also point out that deregulation caused the last three recessions. Deregulation is a conservative approach I politics, that promises economic growth, but lowered economic growth in the median and long terms.

You seem to love "pointing out" things that aren't true. Deregulation never caused a recession in the history of recessions. The libturd claim that banking was "deregulated" is too absurd for words. There are something like 180 government agencies regulating banks.

First, the teeth were taken out of regulators with just a few changes to law, including Glass-Steagall repeal, and the wall between commercial and investment banking being taken down. The deregulation that caused the problems was also in rules on how capital could cross national borders.
Is the Federal Reserve breeding the next financial crisis vox

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, including Glass-Steagall repeal,

if that had anything to do with housing crisis please say exactly what
or admit you have no idea what you're talking about, as usual!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The deregulation that caused the problems was also in rules on how capital could cross national borders.

what rules exactly you lying liberal fool!! USSR had tons of rules and regulations, and 10% our standard of living!! What does that teach the liberal?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. In the case of the housing bubble, we saw lenders take advantage of deregulated, and unregulated aspects of the mortgage markets

no dear we saw the Fed printing money to stimulate the housing economy and almost cause a depression. Then we saw Fanny Freddie buying and/or guaranteeing the mortgages so more and more could be created. Lib commie regulation caused the crisis!
You lack the IQ to know about that let alone why it was not the proximate cause. You are liberal!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I asked, because highways create opportunities for wealth and job creation..

dear everyone wants roads. So what??

So, infrastructure spent for with government funding has created opportunities for wealth creation. No movement of people and goods, smaller economy.

Even if that were true, 95% of the budget is spent on providing sustenance for ticks on the ass of society. It doesn't create wealth. It consumes wealth.

yes , a liberal wants to stimulate road building while a conservative want to stimulate innovations.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I asked, because highways create opportunities for wealth and job creation..

dear everyone wants roads. So what??

So, infrastructure spent for with government funding has created opportunities for wealth creation. No movement of people and goods, smaller economy.

Even if that were true, 95% of the budget is spent on providing sustenance for ticks on the ass of society. It doesn't create wealth. It consumes wealth.

yes , a dolt liberal wants to stimulate road building while a conservative wants to stimulate innovations like the kind that got us from the stone age to here.

 

[Shanty]

. In the case of the housing bubble, we saw lenders take advantage of deregulated, and unregulated aspects of the mortgage markets

no dear we saw the Fed printing money to stimulate the housing economy and almost cause a depression. Then we saw Fanny Freddie buying and/or guaranteeing the mortgages so more and more could be created. Lib commie regulation caused the crisis!
You lack the IQ to know about that let alone why it was not the proximate cause. You are liberal!!

Fannie and Freddie didn't guarantee subprime mortgages. Wall Street did by packaging the loans into MBS. Subprime was where the Laissez Faire approach happened, and it all fell apart due to a lack of regulation, or lack of regulators, in banking/finance and on Wall Street. Then the conservatives want to reward the failure by trying to block Dood-Frank and a new Glass-Steagall for the 21st Century.

Typical conservative princesses don't have a fucking clue about the housing crisis that their guys fostered.

 

[Shanty]

I asked, because highways create opportunities for wealth and job creation..

dear everyone wants roads. So what??

So, infrastructure spent for with government funding has created opportunities for wealth creation. No movement of people and goods, smaller economy.

Even if that were true, 95% of the budget is spent on providing sustenance for ticks on the ass of society. It doesn't create wealth. It consumes wealth.

yes , a dolt liberal wants to stimulate road building while a conservative wants to stimulate innovations like the kind that got us from the stone age to here.

Princess Baiamonte is so dumb and disturbed in his mind, he thinks he's talking to someone else when he quotes his own stupidity.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Fannie and Freddie didn't guarantee subprime mortgages..

see why we are positive liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


For instance, as George Mason University economist Russ Roberts explains in his paper “Gambling with Other People’s Money”:

Fannie and Freddie bought 25.2% of the record $272.81 billion in subprime MBS [mortgage-backed securities] sold in the first half of 2006, according to Inside Mortgage Finance Publications, a Bethesda, MD-based publisher that covers the home loan industry.

In 2005, Fannie and Freddie purchased 35.3% of all subprime MBS, the publication estimated. The year before, the two purchased almost 44% of all subprime MBS sold.

In addition, lawmakers in both parties enacted policies directed at increasing home ownership rates, resulting in lower mortgage underwriting standards for Fannie and Freddie. Roberts notes that from 2000 on, Fannie and Freddie bought loans with low FICO scores, loans with very low down payments, and loans with little or no documentation

 

[Shanty]

Fannie and Freddie didn't guarantee subprime mortgages..

see why we are positive liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


For instance, as George Mason University economist Russ Roberts explains in his paper “Gambling with Other People’s Money”:

Fannie and Freddie bought 25.2% of the record $272.81 billion in subprime MBS [mortgage-backed securities] sold in the first half of 2006, according to Inside Mortgage Finance Publications, a Bethesda, MD-based publisher that covers the home loan industry.

In 2005, Fannie and Freddie purchased 35.3% of all subprime MBS, the publication estimated. The year before, the two purchased almost 44% of all subprime MBS sold.

In addition, lawmakers in both parties enacted policies directed at increasing home ownership rates, resulting in lower mortgage underwriting standards for Fannie and Freddie. Roberts notes that from 2000 on, Fannie and Freddie bought loans with low FICO scores, loans with very low down payments, and loans with little or no documentation

It wasn't subprime. It was a grade below prime. This is why conservatives are so ignorant. They read this stuff without investigating the facts and believe it like the easily led tools they are.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Center for American Progress

Contrary to conservative talking points, the answer is very little. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.

Wall Street firms such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.

In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006. In an ill-fated effort to win back market share, Fannie and Freddie made a few tragic mistakes. Starting in 2006 and 2007—just as the housing bubble was reaching its peak—Fannie and Freddie increased their leverage and began investing in certain subprime securities that credit agencies incorrectly deemed low-risk. Fannie and Freddie also lowered the underwriting standards in their securitization business, purchasing and securitizing so-called Alt-A loans. While Alt-A loans typically went to borrowers with good credit and relatively high income, they required little or no income documentation, opening the door to fraud (which was often perpetrated by the mortgage broker rather than the homebuyer).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. There was no deregulation. That's just flat out a lie.

yes the Fed was more active than ever in printing money to make it possible to buy and bid up prices of homes without which the crisis would have been 100 impossible!! Liberals don't kow what Fed is so cant understand.

Fanny Freddie were created to control entire market to get people into homes free market said they could not afford. This was cause but liberals lack IQ to understand it so alway revert back to their Marxist anti-business roots to cover their pure ignorance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It wasn't subprime.

Fannie and Freddie bought 25.2% of the record $272.81 billion in subprime MBS [mortgage-backed securities] sold in the first half of 2006, according to Inside Mortgage Finance Publications, a Bethesda, MD-based publisher that covers the home loan industry.

In 2005, Fannie and Freddie purchased 35.3% of all subprime MBS

More importantly Fanny Freddie controlled whole market by taking best mortgages and forces worst mortgages on private industry!!

See why we say pure ignorance?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system

why?? Because Fanny Freddie took all the good loans first!!

Moron liberal defeats himself without even knowing it!!

 

[bripat9643]

I asked, because highways create opportunities for wealth and job creation..

dear everyone wants roads. So what??

So, infrastructure spent for with government funding has created opportunities for wealth creation. No movement of people and goods, smaller economy.

Even if that were true, 95% of the budget is spent on providing sustenance for ticks on the ass of society. It doesn't create wealth. It consumes wealth.

Not really. Look at regulations. Most of them are common sense approaches that keep the economy from losing billions and trillions of dollars from the economy. In the case of the housing bubble, we saw lenders take advantage of deregulated, and unregulated aspects of the mortgage markets. Then saw large salaries and bonuses for the executives of the lending companies that weren't commensurate with the longer term performance of the loans they made.
https://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v105/n3/1205/LR105n3Tung.pdf

Even if you could argue that regulations increased the productivity of the economy, which no one can, the cost of enforcing them is only a small fraction of the budget. Most of the budget is spent issuing checks to ticks on the ass of society. That doesn't improve our productivity one iota. In fact it causes drastic decreases in our producitivity.

BTW, government regulations caused the housing bubble. The claim that deregulation caused it is beyond ludicrous.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The claim that deregulation caused it is beyond ludicrous.

The liberal loves to pretend Fed Fanny Freddie FHA SEC Credit Reporting, CRA, VA etc etc were not examples of excessive and thorough regulation!!

"The big event that drove the drove the monetary bubble being created by the Fed into the housing market was a decision made by the Clnton Administration in Sept of 1999, Bill Clinton put teeth into and his political power behind the goal of Fred/ Fan having at least 50% of their loan portfolios in affordable housing( sub prime) loans." John Allison