Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-14-2012, 01:31 AM   #46
joe
College superstar
 
joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,661
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MavsSuperFan
The problem with your ideas of weening us off social welfare, is that a fully capitalist economy without any social safety nets has been tried before.

It resulted in people making pennies a day working them selves 16 hours doing backbreaking labor. It was just 1 step above slavery. Child labor was also common place.

2nd Edit: this meant that under this system these people had almost no shot at improving their lives. This is the reason for welfare programs to give everyone a shot. so that you arent so poor that you have zero chance of improving your circumstances.

The fact that people were poor in the economies you are talking about was not because they lacked welfare, It was because the capital equipment and production levels were still developing. Those people were poor because the number of aggregate consumer goods was much less than the number of people. The only way to fix that problem is to increase the amount of capital equipment and the amount of consumer goods, to the point that we have so many televisions, so many computers, so much food, that the prices come down. That is how you end poverty. There is no short cut.

What those people needed was more STUFF, and higher wages. Well, how do wages rise? Wages rise as capital equipment improves. For instance, imagine life without tractors. You've got 50 guys out there plowing a field with their bare hands. You can't afford to pay these guys much, because they simply just can't produce that much for you with their bare hands. But then the tractor comes along, and now one guy can do the work of 50. Thanks to the tractor, this worker has become much more productive, and the business can now afford to pay him more. His wage rises, and the amount of goods in the economy increases, lowering the price of food in the economy as a whole. As more tractors are built, there will be more food, and the prices will come down even more. Eventually it reaches a point where food becomes so cheap, you don't even need to farm anymore. You can go down to the local grocer and just buy some.. paid for with the money you earn operating a forklift at the local factory.

Meanwhile, instead of having 50 workers plowing a field, you only need to hire one, and that frees up 49 other people to do something else in the economy. Their labor is freed up to be hired by other businesses, which will only add more production and value to the economy. Before the tractor, these workers were all sucked into the farming business. But thanks to the tractor, they can be put to better use somewhere else.

What would happen if you added our version welfare to those developing economies? It wouldn't work. Why? There was simply not enough wealth available to support an entitlement system. The problem wasn't that the rich were hoarding all of the tv's and computers and money, the problem was that those things didn't exist. Even if you took all the money from all the rich people in those days, and divided it evenly among the poor.. they would still be poor. The money and wealth was just not there yet.

Not only would our current welfare system not have helped those people, it would have stagnated the growth of those economies tremendously, maybe even crippled them. In such an undeveloped economy, it's hard enough to afford the capital equipment, pay your workers, and still turn a profit. If we applied the taxes and regulations that we have today on those economies, they probably couldn't have even got off the ground. We'd still be living in the 19th century.

Last edited by joe : 11-14-2012 at 05:21 AM.
joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 02:27 AM   #47
joe
College superstar
 
joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,661
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jailblazers7
"It must be the govts fault because the market failed"

^thats an extremely lazy point of view. Govt played a role in the crisis w/o a doubt but bankers, rating agencies, and mortgage originators share plenty of the blame.

What? That's not what I'm saying at all. It's not that it "must" be the governments fault, it IS the governments fault. The behavior we seen from the banking sector was a result of government manipulation of the markets. Did the bankers act crazy? Did they screw over poor people? Yes- and you would have done the exact same thing in their shoes. The government was pushing the banks to act a certain way and they did. If the government starts handing out a million dollars to anyone who wears a Yankee hat, don't be surprised when everyone starts wearing Yankees hats. And if the government starts pushing banks to give out unpayable mortgage loans, don't be surprised when that's what they do. When the federal reserve is pumping money into the banking system and promising to bail them out, don't be surprised when they take risks.

Not only did the government cause the housing bubble, but that was the fricken plan all along. To ease the pain of the tech crash, the federal reserve created a new bubble in housing. Paul Krugman has an article where he talked about that in the early 2000's.

Or are we supposed to believe that every bank in the economy just coincidentally (and simultaneously) decided to hand out mortgage loans to poor people who had no hope of paying them back? Yeah, that makes more sense. Because banks just naturally like to give out $100,000 to people who earn $30,000 a year and live check to check. That's how you become successful in a free, deregulated market, which of course is exactly what we had. Kind of like if you want to become rich in life, lend money to your Uncle who has no job. That's how people manage their finances absent government regulation.

The federal reserve didn't pump the banks full of cash, the government didn't guarantee loan repayment, the government didn't make a concerted effort to keep housing prices above market level. I made that stuff up. And if I didn't, it doesn't matter. The banks are just greedy and they just need to be more regulated, and stuff.

Last edited by joe : 11-14-2012 at 05:24 AM.
joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 02:54 AM   #48
InspiredLebowski
Roy Hibbert Super Star
 
InspiredLebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birthplace of basketball
Posts: 25,802
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

I just want to know how "conservatives" can support "smaller government" on such a grand scale, but still be so intolerant on social issues. I'm not trying to bait with that, I genuinely don't get the logic. Gay marriage, drug war, abortion, that's all big government intervention. But they're major wedge issues for them, for the GOP at least. I just don't see the ideological consistency other than just placating the base.

People ARE gay, we all agree with that right? It's not a "disorder," the majority of the right's not that far gone are they? So support gay marriage. I think any political faction would agree that a married househould is good for society and endorses strong social values.

War on drugs is obvious and only exists because it's a gigantic money maker for private prisons and local police forces (towns of under 10k have SWAT teams, why?). I think the grassroots of both sides agree on that. So hey, common ground, let's end that shit.

Abortion terrible. No one likes it, not a person on earth is "pro-abortion." I wish adoption were far and away option A for unwanted pregnancies. But stop pretending you think it's murder. If it's "murder" why don't you endorse sentencing the mothers to death row? Because deep down inside you know it's not. And stop pretending that bringing an unwanted child into an unstable home is a good thing, unless you're cool with increasing the poverty rate more than it already is.

The logic just doesn't seem consistent in anyway.
InspiredLebowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 06:15 AM   #49
joe
College superstar
 
joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,661
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

If you told me as a kid that the Nazi's were ELECTED into office, it would confuse me. How could anyone vote for such disgusting people? Now I understand that politics transforms voters into disgusting people. It activates the mob mentality, the follower mentality within people. People are too afraid to question authority, too afraid to trust their own intuition about the world. They want to fit in. It's easier to vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney than to realize that the whole damn thing is crooked. That takes real pain on your part. It means you have to stand up against the mob and tell them they're wrong. It means you might be the one they lynch when things get out of control.

Or maybe you just don't want to be laughed at by the majority, for speaking out against beliefs that they hold to be absolute truths. What do you know? That many people can't be wrong, right?

When it comes down to it, most people just have no principles. They have no ingrained sense of right and wrong. To them, "right" is what others believe is right, and "wrong" is what others believe is wrong. But the funny thing about that is, occasionally everyone will tell you it's right to kill a jew.
joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 06:35 AM   #50
miller-time
NBA sixth man of the year
 
miller-time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,933
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe
The fact that people were poor in the economies you are talking about was not because they lacked welfare, It was because the capital equipment and production levels were still developing.

So first world companies using sweat shops is what then?
miller-time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 10:28 AM   #51
Jailblazers7
will-to-bigness
 
Jailblazers7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 23,291
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe
What? That's not what I'm saying at all. It's not that it "must" be the governments fault, it IS the governments fault. The behavior we seen from the banking sector was a result of government manipulation of the markets. Did the bankers act crazy? Did they screw over poor people? Yes- and you would have done the exact same thing in their shoes. The government was pushing the banks to act a certain way and they did. If the government starts handing out a million dollars to anyone who wears a Yankee hat, don't be surprised when everyone starts wearing Yankees hats. And if the government starts pushing banks to give out unpayable mortgage loans, don't be surprised when that's what they do. When the federal reserve is pumping money into the banking system and promising to bail them out, don't be surprised when they take risks.

Not only did the government cause the housing bubble, but that was the fricken plan all along. To ease the pain of the tech crash, the federal reserve created a new bubble in housing. Paul Krugman has an article where he talked about that in the early 2000's.

Or are we supposed to believe that every bank in the economy just coincidentally (and simultaneously) decided to hand out mortgage loans to poor people who had no hope of paying them back? Yeah, that makes more sense. Because banks just naturally like to give out $100,000 to people who earn $30,000 a year and live check to check. That's how you become successful in a free, deregulated market, which of course is exactly what we had. Kind of like if you want to become rich in life, lend money to your Uncle who has no job. That's how people manage their finances absent government regulation.

The federal reserve didn't pump the banks full of cash, the government didn't guarantee loan repayment, the government didn't make a concerted effort to keep housing prices above market level. I made that stuff up. And if I didn't, it doesn't matter. The banks are just greedy and they just need to be more regulated, and stuff.

Will comment later tonight. I am by no means saying the government didn't play a big role in the erosion of loan standards but I'm also saying that investment companies and rating agencies played a significant role in the crisis.
Jailblazers7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 02:45 PM   #52
Bucket_Nakedz
Buckle up
 
Bucket_Nakedz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,776
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

oh good, you guys are getting along.
Bucket_Nakedz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 03:36 PM   #53
Math2
Local High School Star
 
Math2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,145
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMan
One of the rightwingers biggest complaints is the "why should I pay for that poor bum's healthcare costs" and it's really lame. I could turn that around and say, why should I pay into the US' military with my tax money? I don't agree with what they are doing in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are killing innocent civilians in my name, WTF is that?

The point being, we don't get to choose what we want to pay into or not in a society where everyone should kick in a little for the benefit of everyone. That's how I look at it. I hate cops, never called 911 (I can take care of myself) and yet my tax dollars pays their salary. That's the hard right mindset. I don't agree with it therefore I won't pay into it.

Why should you pay for your own safety? That's a hard one...
Math2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 03:41 PM   #54
Droid101
NBA Superstar
 
Droid101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,804
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Math2
Why should you pay for your own safety? That's a hard one...
Yeah, you're totally right. If we cut 10% of the military budget, Russia will invade and we'll all be made communists and Barry HUSSEIN Soetero Zero-bama will shake hands with Putin and it will start 1,000 years of darkness.

This is what Republicans actually believe.
Droid101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 03:42 PM   #55
Math2
Local High School Star
 
Math2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,145
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Droid101
Yeah, you're totally right. If we cut 10% of the military budget, Russia will invade and we'll all be made communists and Obama will shake hands with Putin and it will start 1,000 years of darkness.

This is what Republicans actually believe.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't cut some of it, I'm saying that you are completely stupid if you think that the military is a waste of money as a whole, and shouldn't be funded at all.
Math2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 03:47 PM   #56
Jailblazers7
will-to-bigness
 
Jailblazers7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 23,291
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe
What? That's not what I'm saying at all. It's not that it "must" be the governments fault, it IS the governments fault. The behavior we seen from the banking sector was a result of government manipulation of the markets. Did the bankers act crazy? Did they screw over poor people? Yes- and you would have done the exact same thing in their shoes. The government was pushing the banks to act a certain way and they did. If the government starts handing out a million dollars to anyone who wears a Yankee hat, don't be surprised when everyone starts wearing Yankees hats. And if the government starts pushing banks to give out unpayable mortgage loans, don't be surprised when that's what they do. When the federal reserve is pumping money into the banking system and promising to bail them out, don't be surprised when they take risks.

Not only did the government cause the housing bubble, but that was the fricken plan all along. To ease the pain of the tech crash, the federal reserve created a new bubble in housing. Paul Krugman has an article where he talked about that in the early 2000's.

Or are we supposed to believe that every bank in the economy just coincidentally (and simultaneously) decided to hand out mortgage loans to poor people who had no hope of paying them back? Yeah, that makes more sense. Because banks just naturally like to give out $100,000 to people who earn $30,000 a year and live check to check. That's how you become successful in a free, deregulated market, which of course is exactly what we had. Kind of like if you want to become rich in life, lend money to your Uncle who has no job. That's how people manage their finances absent government regulation.

The federal reserve didn't pump the banks full of cash, the government didn't guarantee loan repayment, the government didn't make a concerted effort to keep housing prices above market level. I made that stuff up. And if I didn't, it doesn't matter. The banks are just greedy and they just need to be more regulated, and stuff.


One of the reasons that the bubble got so big and caused such a massive disruption to our financial system is because of the way it was traded as an asset and not due to loan standards (not saying it didn't play a huge role tho).

Investment banks were trading these CDOs made of of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and were sketchy at best about what was actually in the CDOs and the type of risk they carried. The CDOs were essentially piles of garbage, groups of MBS's that were worthless because of the underlying loans. However, these assets were rates AAA by rating agencies becuase they didn't know wtf they were or how to rate them (and Wall Street went to great pains in order to influence them to rate them AAA).

So the largest investment business on Wall Street was built on shared ignorance. It was a trillion dollar industry that kept growing and feeding itself because of irrational and ignorant behavior on the part of investment banks and traders. If these assets were valued correctly, then the explosion of MBS would have never happened. The system wouldn't have been demanding a massive supply of subprime loans to make into the MBS.

That is why people want to see regulation of the financial industry. Financial engineering and innovation of new securities happen at such a fast rate that banks become leveraged with assets that are poorly understood and evaluated. A lot of this occurs because of the profit-seeking motive and hyper-competition in the financial industry.

The core problem is that the big banks that make up the cornerstones of that industry are publicly traded. The incentives within one of these firms are so skewed because there is no disincentive to taking excessive risks. A CEO will nearly bankrupt a firm and get a $10 million check on his way out of office. And I understand that is one reason why people are pissed about the bailout of the financial system.

There was much more going on than giving out bad loans (which the govt no doubt deserves blame for). The crisis was complex and blame is deserved by banks, rating agencies, and the govt.
Jailblazers7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 03:48 PM   #57
Droid101
NBA Superstar
 
Droid101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,804
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jailblazers7
One of the reasons that the bubble got so big and caused such a massive disruption to our financial system is because of the way it was traded as an asset and not due to loan standards (not saying it didn't play a huge role tho).

Investment banks were trading these CDOs made of of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and were sketchy at best about what was actually in the CDOs and the type of risk they carried. The CDOs were essentially piles of garbage, groups of MBS's that were worthless because of the underlying loans. However, these assets were rates AAA by rating agencies becuase they didn't know wtf they were or how to rate them (and Wall Street went to great pains in order to influence them to rate them AAA).

So the largest investment business on Wall Street was built on shared ignorance. It was a trillion dollar industry that kept growing and feeding itself because of irrational and ignorant behavior on the part of investment banks and traders. If these assets were valued correctly, then the explosion of MBS would have never happened. The system wouldn't have been demanding a massive supply of subprime loans to make into the MBS.

That is why people want to see regulation of the financial industry. Financial engineering and innovation of new securities happen at such a fast rate that banks become leveraged with assets that are poorly understood and evaluated. A lot of this occurs because of the profit-seeking motive and hyper-competition in the financial industry.

The core problem is that the big banks that make up the cornerstones of that industry are publicly traded. The incentives within one of these firms are so skewed because there is no disincentive to taking excessive risks. A CEO will nearly bankrupt a firm and get a $10 million check on his way out of office. And I understand that is one reason why people are pissed about the bailout of the financial system.

There was much more going on than giving out bad loans (which the govt no doubt deserves blame for). The crisis was complex and blame is deserved by banks, rating agencies, and the govt.
You explained it way better than I did.

And, for anyone who missed it (including you Jail), watch this movie. It is all about what Jailblazer just explained and will help you understand the state of things.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film

Droid101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 05:31 PM   #58
joe
College superstar
 
joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,661
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miller-time
So first world companies using sweat shops is what then?

I don't know why companies employ the use of sweatshops over there, but if they could truly afford to pay workers more, a competitor would already be filling that gap.

For instance, imagine if Nike was over there paying workers 10 cents an hour, in crappy workplace conditions. If Nike was truly capable of paying these workers more, you open the door for Reebok to open a competing facility. They increase wages, and all of the labor would flood towards Reebok.

For whatever reason, which I admit I do not know, it is not financially feasible to do that right now. Is there not enough worldwide demand for Nike's products outside of America to warrant higher wages? Are these governments restricting wages in some way, or artificially reducing competition? Or is this just one stage in the natural order of a developing economy? I can't say. But I do know that if the market economy is allowed to function, we will over time see things like sweatshops being eliminated, just like they were in America and Europe. Because as the workers production increases, they will be able to demand higher wages on the open market, and the businesses that don't adapt will lose that labor to their competitors.
joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 05:40 PM   #59
joe
College superstar
 
joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,661
Default Re: Hey you! Yeah, you, conservative person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jailblazers7
One of the reasons that the bubble got so big and caused such a massive disruption to our financial system is because of the way it was traded as an asset and not due to loan standards (not saying it didn't play a huge role tho).

Investment banks were trading these CDOs made of of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and were sketchy at best about what was actually in the CDOs and the type of risk they carried. The CDOs were essentially piles of garbage, groups of MBS's that were worthless because of the underlying loans. However, these assets were rates AAA by rating agencies becuase they didn't know wtf they were or how to rate them (and Wall Street went to great pains in order to influence them to rate them AAA).

So the largest investment business on Wall Street was built on shared ignorance. It was a trillion dollar industry that kept growing and feeding itself because of irrational and ignorant behavior on the part of investment banks and traders. If these assets were valued correctly, then the explosion of MBS would have never happened. The system wouldn't have been demanding a massive supply of subprime loans to make into the MBS.

That is why people want to see regulation of the financial industry. Financial engineering and innovation of new securities happen at such a fast rate that banks become leveraged with assets that are poorly understood and evaluated. A lot of this occurs because of the profit-seeking motive and hyper-competition in the financial industry.

The core problem is that the big banks that make up the cornerstones of that industry are publicly traded. The incentives within one of these firms are so skewed because there is no disincentive to taking excessive risks. A CEO will nearly bankrupt a firm and get a $10 million check on his way out of office. And I understand that is one reason why people are pissed about the bailout of the financial system.

There was much more going on than giving out bad loans (which the govt no doubt deserves blame for). The crisis was complex and blame is deserved by banks, rating agencies, and the govt.

Your entire post misses the point man. You don't dig deep enough. You talk about these banks "just didn't realize" how risky the loans were. They just didn't understand that they weren't worthy of a triple A rating. They took excessive risk on the stock market. "Shared ignorance."

Whyyyy.. Oh whyyyyy... did that happen??????

The federal reserve pushing down interest rates made the loans look less risky! Fannie and Freddie loan guarantees took away their fear! Cheap credit provided by the Fed gave them money to speculate with! They shared their ignorance about the risk because the government took away the risk. If this was all occurring on the free market there would have been no 0% interest rates, there would have been no government guarantees, there would have been no *wink wink I'll bail you outs* from the Fed!

Of course the rating agencies rated them as AAA, they had no idea what was going on either. They just seen real estate prices skyrocketing and thought it was real, just like everyone else. Including the government regulators, who had NO IDEA what was happening, and still have no idea what happened, so how the hell is more regulations going to solve it??? They didn't even see it coming the first time!
joe is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:33 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy