The proof about Keynes at long last

[CrusaderFrank]

"So the Government was assigning an AAA rating to NINA loans."

The government does not assign AAA ratings. Wow. You honestly have no idea what your talking about. I hope this is a learning experience for you.

Google "Implicit guarantee"

 

[cbirch2]

Conservatives just plug their ears and go "nananana i cant hear you" every time someone states facts that they dont like.

Pop Quiz: If fannie and freddies share of the subprime mortgage market was falling the entire time the bubble was growing, how could they have been the cause of the bubble?

One sentence, just one sentence, describe what F/F each do

I already answered that you fool!!!

Fannie and freddie are government sponsered enterprises that purchase mortages or mortgage backed securities from lenders to free up resource and allow for more lending.

UGH!

SEE YOU ******* IDIOT?? Obviously i know that fannie and freddie are GSE's.

The problem is that you think fannie and freddie can set the ratings of assets that they sell, which is wrong

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One sentence, just one sentence, describe what F/F each do

I already answered that you fool!!!

Fannie and freddie are government sponsered enterprises that purchase mortages or mortgage backed securities from lenders to free up resource and allow for more lending.

UGH!

SEE YOU ******* IDIOT?? Obviously i know that fannie and freddie are GSE's.

The problem is that you think fannie and freddie can set the ratings of assets that they sell, which is wrong

Google "Implicit Guarantee"

 

[cbirch2]

Now your just trying to distract from the fact that you thought fannie mae and freddie mac could set the ratings of the assets they sell.

I know what the implicit guarantee is you idiot. Stop telling me to google shit and just talk.

 

[cbirch2]

Want to know the history of the implicit guarantee?

When fannie mae was created it had an explicit guarantee. It was explicitly stated in the contract that the government would take on the losses. When fannie became a private corporation it dropped the explicit guarantee.

Its not fannies fault investors assumed something that did not exist. The key word is "implicit"
​

 

[cbirch2]

You still havent answered my question.

How could Fannie and Freddie be the cause of a bubble when their share of the market decreased as the bubble grew?

 

[cbirch2]

Hopefully ive shut you up for good. Theres no much left to say on your end.

When you realize the federal government partitioned fannie into two companies (the lesser known ginnie mae) specifically for the purpose of having fannie mae issue non-government-backed loans (ginnie still packages government based mortgages), your whole idea of the implicit guarantee is pointless.

Legislation made it clear the securities from fannie and freddie were not backed by the government. Any investors that assumed an implicit guarantee lost out because of their own stupidity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now your just trying to distract from the fact that you thought fannie mae and freddie mac could set the ratings of the assets they sell.

I know what the implicit guarantee is you idiot. Stop telling me to google shit and just talk.

They were de facto AAA credit when they were pulling down the entire US housing market.

What did you think the credit rating agencies rated? It was the implicit guarantee of the USA.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Want to know the history of the implicit guarantee?

When fannie mae was created it had an explicit guarantee. It was explicitly stated in the contract that the government would take on the losses. When fannie became a private corporation it dropped the explicit guarantee.

Its not fannies fault investors assumed something that did not exist. The key word is "implicit"
​

OK, you're a ******* moron and I'm done with this one-sided conversation.

I was offline because I had to get a Fannie forward on a DUS loan. I forgot more about this fucked up business than you'll know in a million lifetimes. You don't know dick about any of it, you just "know" what you Google.

Adios.

 

[cbirch2]

Now your just trying to distract from the fact that you thought fannie mae and freddie mac could set the ratings of the assets they sell.

I know what the implicit guarantee is you idiot. Stop telling me to google shit and just talk.

They were de facto AAA credit when they were pulling down the entire US housing market.

What did you think the credit rating agencies rated? It was the implicit guarantee of the USA.

Will you please stop making things up on the spot an insisting theyre true.

"What did you think the credit rating agencies rated? It was the implicit guarantee of the USA."

Credit agencies rate the quality of the individual loans that comprise securitized mortgages.

They do also rate the creditworthiness of individual countries, but thats something entirely different. When were talking about fannie and freddie, were talking about rating agencies rating securities. They arent rating the US government.

Anyone, including the rating agencies, that thought mortgages backed by fannie and freddie were "de facto AAA" is an idiot. The legislation that authorized those institutions explicitly stated that the securities they sold were not backed by the government. That is why the companies were privatized. Its not fannie and freddies fault that investors assumed something that wasnt there.

You dont know anything.

 

[cbirch2]

Want to know the history of the implicit guarantee?

When fannie mae was created it had an explicit guarantee. It was explicitly stated in the contract that the government would take on the losses. When fannie became a private corporation it dropped the explicit guarantee.

Its not fannies fault investors assumed something that did not exist. The key word is "implicit"
​

OK, you're a ******* moron and I'm done with this one-sided conversation.

I was offline because I had to get a Fannie forward on a DUS loan. I forgot more about this fucked up business than you'll know in a million lifetimes. You don't know dick about any of it, you just "know" what you Google.

Adios.

you cant even respond to the things i say you just cry and say im stupid and that your going to leave. how mature. You know, when i say "US GDP grew 5% in Q1 2009", you could say "sure but the debt grew by a proportional amount and the debt to GDP ratio increased". If you did that, i might take you seriously. but you dont. you just hurl ad hominem attacks and leave threads like a whiny little girl.

and I dont google shit friend. Leave the conversation because you have yet to provide one single stat or fact. jesus christ.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So stimulus doesnt work, and the economy just happened to have a historically powerful rebound right after it was signed and began to slow as it ran out.......

Just a coincidence though....no correlation....

LMAO god anti-keynsians are idiots. Its just like how they said the stimulus would raise interest rates, and instead they dropped. Or how they said bernanke was going to create inflation, when in reality a tripling of the monetary base did nothing because were in a liquidity trap.

Next time you criticize a Nobel laureate in economics, make sure you know very simple facts about economics. lol. noob.

You have absolutely not a hint of a clue how Keynesian stimulus is supposed to work, do you?

Hint: Your graph proves the stimulus failed - but you don't know that and you don't know why I said it.

Krugman is an utter buffoon, an embarrassment to economics.

 

[cbirch2]

So stimulus doesnt work, and the economy just happened to have a historically powerful rebound right after it was signed and began to slow as it ran out.......

Just a coincidence though....no correlation....

LMAO god anti-keynsians are idiots. Its just like how they said the stimulus would raise interest rates, and instead they dropped. Or how they said bernanke was going to create inflation, when in reality a tripling of the monetary base did nothing because were in a liquidity trap.

Next time you criticize a Nobel laureate in economics, make sure you know very simple facts about economics. lol. noob.

You have absolutely not a hint of a clue how Keynesian stimulus is supposed to work, do you?

Hint: Your graph proves the stimulus failed - but you don't know that and you don't know why I said it.

Krugman is an utter buffoon, an embarrassment to economics.

Enlighten me great one.

Are you about to claim that stimulus failed because the "effects" wore off after it ran out? Because youd be wrong. Q3 2011 continued to add jobs after the stimulus and QE2 ran out in the summer. That effectively proves that stimulus spending, through multiplier effects, can grow an economy even after the actual money has finished working its way through the system.


But again, enlighten me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

LMAO that is hardly an admission that stimulus policy in general doesnt work. Nor is it even an admission that the actual stimulus bill failed.

Did you even look at the graphs at all? Here, ill post more for you.

During the time the stimulus money was making its way through the economy the growth in GDP was faster than in 2007. <---- FACT

Amazing.

So it only makes sense that we pump a few trillion a month into the economy, and we can borrow our way to prosperity.

Say sparky, there is a minor aspect of Keynesian economics that you seem to have overlooked ... have you ever heard of a "multiplier," and do you have any idea what significance it has in deficit spending for stimulating the business cycle?

 

[cbirch2]

LMAO that is hardly an admission that stimulus policy in general doesnt work. Nor is it even an admission that the actual stimulus bill failed.

Did you even look at the graphs at all? Here, ill post more for you.

During the time the stimulus money was making its way through the economy the growth in GDP was faster than in 2007. <---- FACT

Amazing.

So it only makes sense that we pump a few trillion a month into the economy, and we can borrow our way to prosperity.

Say sparky, there is a minor aspect of Keynesian economics that you seem to have overlooked ... have you ever heard of a "multiplier," and do you have any idea what significance it has in deficit spending for stimulating the business cycle?

I can tell you the multiplier for infrastructure is 1.44 and for tax cuts .94.

Anything else?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Enlighten me great one.

Are you about to claim that stimulus failed because the "effects" wore off after it ran out?

Yes, I most certainly am.

Because youd be wrong. Q3 2011 continued to add jobs after the stimulus and QE2 ran out in the summer.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, it would be irrelevant as the graph STILL demonstrates a complete and utter lack of multiplier.

It's no great feat to buy a short term recovery, but that isn't what Keynes nor that buffoon Krugman claim that deficit stimulus will accomplish.

That effectively proves that stimulus spending, through multiplier effects, can grow an economy even after the actual money has finished working its way through the system.

Except that there IS NO MULTIPLIER here, you have a one to one correlation.

But again, enlighten me.

Had Keynesian theory worked, the reverberation of the stimulus would have continued after the infusion of cash stopped - it didn't. All Obama did was pump cash into the economy creating an artificial bubble that collapsed the very second the cash ran out.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can tell you the multiplier for infrastructure is 1.44 and for tax cuts .94.

Anything else?

I'd love to see you support either, or provide a rational explanation why there would be a distinction.

Regardless, a 1.44 multiplier is admission the Keynes theory is a failure. Keynes claimed 5 fold, even 3 fold might be worthwhile. 1.44 is complete and utter failure.

 

[cbirch2]

I can tell you the multiplier for infrastructure is 1.44 and for tax cuts .94.

Anything else?

I'd love to see you support either, or provide a rational explanation why there would be a distinction.

Regardless, a 1.44 multiplier is admission the Keynes theory is a failure. Keynes claimed 5 fold, even 3 fold might be worthwhile. 1.44 is complete and utter failure.

Well it depends if you talking about fiscal multipliers or keynesian multipliers that only measure aggregate demand.

 

[cbirch2]

Enlighten me great one.

Are you about to claim that stimulus failed because the "effects" wore off after it ran out?

Yes, I most certainly am.

Because youd be wrong. Q3 2011 continued to add jobs after the stimulus and QE2 ran out in the summer.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, it would be irrelevant as the graph STILL demonstrates a complete and utter lack of multiplier.

It's no great feat to buy a short term recovery, but that isn't what Keynes nor that buffoon Krugman claim that deficit stimulus will accomplish.

That effectively proves that stimulus spending, through multiplier effects, can grow an economy even after the actual money has finished working its way through the system.

Except that there IS NO MULTIPLIER here, you have a one to one correlation.

But again, enlighten me.

Had Keynesian theory worked, the reverberation of the stimulus would have continued after the infusion of cash stopped - it didn't. All Obama did was pump cash into the economy creating an artificial bubble that collapsed the very second the cash ran out.

Well first lets start off with the fact that it was 40% tax cuts as an explanation as to why it wasnt successful. Then lets expand on that and point out that it was $750 legislation aimed to combat what is now estimated to be a $6.8 trillion recession. You do the math.

Your statement that there is no multiplier is based on what?? you claim there isnt one to one correlation, which is just shit you pull out of your ass, but that assumption would have to be based on how much the stimulus lessened the decrease in GDP before it was able to increase GDP. That isnt something you can gauge, so your assertion is pulled from no where.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well it depends if you talking about fiscal multipliers or keynesian multipliers that only measure aggregate demand.

Both depend on the concept that each dollar of stimulus is immediately spent and that the recipient of that dollar turns around and spends it again. Even Keynes acknowledged that this isn't true and sought to tax savings in order to promote spending. BUT Friedman proved that even such a measure is fruitless.

I said that a 1.44 multiplier is an utter failure. Now some might say, "44%" ROI is good. Except that ad Friedman showed, the reality of deficit stimulus is that (in 1968 dollars) 1.68 is used to repay every dollar borrowed, due to the attrition of cash through federal bureaucracy. So the 1.44 is in fact a negative multiplier, contracting the economy by $.24 for each dollar of stimulus. The net effect of the Obama stimulus is to retard the economy. A bounce followed by a crash is the inevitable result of deficit stimulus.

As we tumble into the second dip of our double dip recession, there can be no denying that the stimulus failed, what I point out is that it could do nothing other than fail.