Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Holy ****, you are one ******* stupid person.

I'm dumb?

Let's look at your story, with a little added explanation:

People had mortgages they couldn't afford. When the mortgages reset past the intro rate, those people couldn't keep paying the mortgage. So they cut back on spending, or sold their house at a loss, or lost it to foreclosure. The short sales and foreclosures had ripple effects in real estate, construction, & finance. More people lost jobs so more people had to cut back on spending. Businesses that sell things to people who work in construction, real estate, and finance (ALL BUSINESSES) saw a reduction in demand and laid off workers, so those people had to cut back on spending.

So what caused the recession? Sure, people borrowing beyond what they could afford lit the fuse, but the real problem was the massive shrinking demand for all products and services.

Why don't you tell me where I'm wrong, tec?

You're wrong because you're insisting that the crash of the economy was caused by people not spending.

The crash of the economy was caused by the burst of the mortgage market bubble, which caused a domino effect of financial failures which ended with the crash of the economy.  True, people stopped spending along the way as the dominos started falling as they were personally affected.  But it is just plain stupid to assert that the crash of the economy was triggered by people not spending.

It's cause --> effect, not effect --> cause, dumbass.

The real estate bubble is what lit the fuse.

But if you were going to wave a magic wand and fix the economy, you wouldn't do it by blowing up the real estate bubble again, you'd do it by increasing demand.

The problem with the economy is the lack of demand. That's true even if the lack of demand was caused by a burst real estate bubble.

Posted by examinerebb on 3/4/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/4/2013 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Wasn't the massive shrinking demand for all products and services a symptom of the real problem, and not the real problem itself?

I think the shrinking demand was the problem. That's why the economy went to ****.

Sure, you can say the housing bubble caused demand to shrink, but the lack of demand is what needs to be fixed to get the economy moving again.

Sorry, took a break to get some work done.

Isn't that a lot like taking aspirin to fix a broken leg?  As in "I'm in pain.  Sure, my broken leg is causing the pain, but the pain is what needs to be addressed."

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:59:00 PM (view original):
I know you don't understand this stuff, mike, so I'll try to be clear. But don't blame me if you don't understand it again.

Our economy is slow.
The fed govt is running a deficit.
The fed govt is paying $85 for a $4 hammer. That's wasteful. That money could and should be put to use in a better way and it would be better if they bought one $4 hammer and put the rest towards infrastructure or medicare or defense.
But if the alternative to buying that $85 hammer is that they don't spend the $85 dollars at all, it's better if they buy the hammer.

Posted by deathinahole on 3/4/2013 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:59:00 PM (view original):
I know you don't understand this stuff, mike, so I'll try to be clear. But don't blame me if you don't understand it again.

Our economy is slow.
The fed govt is running a deficit.
The fed govt is paying $85 for a $4 hammer. That's wasteful. That money could and should be put to use in a better way and it would be better if they bought one $4 hammer and put the rest towards infrastructure or medicare or defense.
But if the alternative to buying that $85 hammer is that they don't spend the $85 dollars at all, it's better if they buy the hammer.

I'm sure the American taxpayer appreciates your diligence in spending their tax dollars wisely.

Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/4/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):
The Community Reinvestment Act was part of the trigger.  It forced (and incented) banks to give loans to subprime borrowers that they couldn't pay off, because, well, they're ******* SUBPRIME BORROWERS, and don't have the brain cells necessary to manage their funds. 

So they default, lose their homes, and immediately start sucking at the govt teat.  Since they're poor money managers, they welcome the nanny state, and like sitting at home watching Oprah and Springer, eating CheezyPoofs, and basically using tax dollars to subsidize their inactivity.  Since they can only afford the essentials (cell phone, cable tv/DVR, fast food, and alcohol), they're not buying "luxury items" and aren't creating jobs with their purchases (like a new house would).

THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN.  Making more government-dependent money wasters, and making the workers and wage-earners pay for them.

Not true at all.

The CRA was passed in 1977. 50% of subprime loans were made by banks not subject to federal supervision. Another 30% were made by affiliates not subject to supervision or examination. CRA loans carried lower rates than subprime loans and were less likely to end up in mortgage backed securities.

Look at the revisions made during the Clinton administration.  Don't just read the top paragraph.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):
Well, it kind of does matter.  Because what you say you believe goes to your credibility.  And if you're going to claim that (effect --> cause), then you reached a new personal low in credibility.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 3:00:00 PM (view original):
6 of one.

It doesn't matter why they stopped spending, the fact that they stopped spending is why the economy is slow now.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):
Well, it kind of does matter.  Because what you say you believe goes to your credibility.  And if you're going to claim that (effect --> cause), then you reached a new personal low in credibility.

What???

Demand collapsed because of the mortgage crisis.

How would you suggest we deal with the economy, other than addressing the lack of demand?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):
That is exactly what caused the recession.

People stopped spending. What do you think caused the recession?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:59:00 PM (view original):
I know you don't understand this stuff, mike, so I'll try to be clear. But don't blame me if you don't understand it again.

Our economy is slow.
The fed govt is running a deficit.
The fed govt is paying $85 for a $4 hammer. That's wasteful. That money could and should be put to use in a better way and it would be better if they bought one $4 hammer and put the rest towards infrastructure or medicare or defense.
But if the alternative to buying that $85 hammer is that they don't spend the $85 dollars at all, it's better if they buy the hammer.

Since the "solution" is to spend, why doesn't the govt lease all vacant buildings?

Or give businesses 10% of last year's revenue for further investment?

Or simply write each American a 10K check for spending?

Surely all of the above is a better solution than overpaying for a hammer, right?

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2013 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 12:18:00 PM (view original):
That is exactly what caused the recession.

People stopped spending. What do you think caused the recession?

This is what you worded poorly.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2013 2:59:00 PM (view original):
I know you don't understand this stuff, mike, so I'll try to be clear. But don't blame me if you don't understand it again.

Our economy is slow.
The fed govt is running a deficit.
The fed govt is paying $85 for a $4 hammer. That's wasteful. That money could and should be put to use in a better way and it would be better if they bought one $4 hammer and put the rest towards infrastructure or medicare or defense.
But if the alternative to buying that $85 hammer is that they don't spend the $85 dollars at all, it's better if they buy the hammer.

Since the "solution" is to spend, why doesn't the govt lease all vacant buildings?

Or give businesses 10% of last year's revenue for further investment?

Or simply write each American a 10K check for spending?

Surely all of the above is a better solution than overpaying for a hammer, right?