Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

The thing I'm most bummed about is that Ron/Rand/benjy was right all along.

(About the Fed. Not about racism/racism/coercive violence in a world of scarcity.)

Not at all. Rand/Ron's problem's are mostly economic. Misunderstanding inflation, money supply, etc etc. Also, they're ire is mostly aimed at the Federal Reserve Board and thusly Bernanke or would now be Yellen.

Everything they've said about them still continues to be wrong. Federal Reserve monetary policy still eludes them and nothing in these articles change that. Even their fed audits is directed towards monetary policy, not regulation.

These articles deal with the problem of regulation by the Fed which has been a problem and largely is a problem of our actual government. Banks and gov't are in bed with one another. You could probably fill out an entire NFL roster (not team, league) with high gov't positions crossovers from Goldman-Sachs alone.

That's the thing, your "solution" will result in the exact opposite of its intentions, just like every single time before. Especially with a central bank. You can't have one without it being captured.

You can write regulations until your nose bleeds, kill off smaller banks who can't comply as the bigger banks gobble up their assets, while personnel shift between the banks, the Fed and the Treasury to ensure that those regulations don't apply to the biggest banks. All while the central bank destroys wealth of the lower classes to keep the bubble inflated. And the next generation will come along knowing they'll avoid your mistakes because this time they're going to set up walls of regulations.

The solution is simple. No big banks allowed. Regulate the size of the banks and regulate them heavily. No smaller banks would be eaten up. Banks would have to be far more risk averse, too.

Central bank doesn't do shit to the wealth of the middle class, for the most part. Our gov't is to blame for that.

 

[benjipwns]

Your entire philosophy negates human history (and empirical reality), and perpetually can say "told you so" because any human interaction and attempt at organization is wrong, unless its the fanciful world of everyone consenting continually (though none of them besides the communist types transfer this to property).

How can something negate human history and empirical reality while at the same time accepting that we live in that "fanciful" world as evidenced by well, human history and the empirical reality of the millions of times it happens every single day among billions of actors.

But don't worry, I'm sure you can prevent capture next time by having multiple central banks and sticking two of them in Missouri, that'll keep Wall Street physically at bay.

 

[East Lake]

That's the thing, your "solution" will result in the exact opposite of its intentions, just like every single time before. Especially with a central bank. You can't have one without it being captured.

You can write regulations until your nose bleeds, kill off smaller banks who can't comply as the bigger banks gobble up their assets, while personnel shift between the banks, the Fed and the Treasury to ensure that those regulations don't apply to the biggest banks. All while the central bank destroys wealth of the lower classes to keep the bubble inflated. And the next generation will come along knowing they'll avoid your mistakes because this time they're going to set up walls of regulations.

So it sounds like humans are both naturally violent and greedy, and no fed policy has ever worked. Certainly bodes well for life without a state.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

How can something negate human history and empirical reality while at the same time accepting that we live in that "fanciful" world as evidenced by well, human history and the empirical reality of the millions of times it happens every single day among billions of actors.

Becuase it doesn't do such a thing?

It cherry picks examples (if you use capture and pretend you actually care about rich people controlling the economy enough maybe you'll convince someone!) and ignores that actual problems liberal are trying to solve. Like making things better for actual people. Anybody who says the lower classes are worse off now with the fed than the time before the fed is insane and ignoring reality. The fed has two mandates, none of what your complaining about have anything to do with them.

I'd rather have a debate about polictics with a nazi than a libertarian tbh, say what you will about national socialism at least its an governing philosophy.

Spoiler

that was a big lebowski and not a serious statement

 

[Black Mamba]

smh, "tenets of national socialism," dude...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

smh, "tenets of national socialism," dude...

now I can't edit it back in :-(

 

[benjipwns]

The solution is simple. No big banks allowed. Regulate the size of the banks and regulate them heavily. No smaller banks would be eaten up. Banks would have to be far more risk averse, too.

This is the problem government wants to fix, and central banks are one of the methods they utilize to do it.

 

[Black Mamba]

This is the problem government wants to fix, and central banks are one of the methods they utilize to do it.

No, they don't. There is nothing in the regulatory scheme that really tells them to make the banks smaller.

This is because congress and the white house is just as much in tandem with the banks as anyone else. Gov't literally has no interest in fixing the size of the banks. People might want that, but our gov't doesn't give too shits.

I'm talking a hard cap. That can be done. We don't.

 

[JesseEwiak]

That's the thing, your "solution" will result in the exact opposite of its intentions, just like every single time before. Especially with a central bank. You can't have one without it being captured.

You can write regulations until your nose bleeds, kill off smaller banks who can't comply as the bigger banks gobble up their assets, while personnel shift between the banks, the Fed and the Treasury to ensure that those regulations don't apply to the biggest banks. All while the central bank destroys wealth of the lower classes to keep the bubble inflated. And the next generation will come along knowing they'll avoid your mistakes because this time they're going to set up walls of regulations.

Well, actually, it worked pretty well for fifty years. Weird how problems popped up again directly after somebody who hated government regulation got back in power for the first time since the 20's.

 

[East Lake]

It looks like the free market has fixed itself once again. Nothing to worry about.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), the top adviser on corporate takeovers, is changing its conflict-of-interest policy to bar investment bankers from trading individual stocks and bonds, a person with direct knowledge of the matter said.

Employees at the New York-based firm were notified today of the change, which takes effect immediately, said the person, who requested anonymity because the matter isn’t public. They also aren’t allowed to invest in activist or event-driven hedge funds, the person said. Previously, bankers needed approval before they could invest in individual stocks.

The change comes on the same day that a former Federal Reserve Bank of New York examiner’s recordings of her ex-colleagues’ dealings with Goldman Sachs were featured in reports by public radio and ProPublica. The former examiner, Carmen Segarra, sued the New York Fed last year, alleging that she was fired in 2012 because she refused to change her finding that Goldman Sachs didn’t have a conflict-of-interest policy. Her case was dismissed in April and she’s appealing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...d-to-prohibit-bankers-from-buying-stocks.html

 

[Black Mamba]

Great numbers for the future of the current GOP.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Maybe one day we'll have a more leftist democratic party

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Great numbers for the future of the current GOP.

Future Democrats.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Future Democrats.

Future leftward shift for GOP on certain issues.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Which means Democrats will just get more liberal!

 

[benjipwns]

Well, actually, it worked pretty well for fifty years. Weird how problems popped up again directly after somebody who hated government regulation got back in power for the first time since the 20's.

Weird how real serious problems popped up over a decade before Reagan was elected when two Presidents trashed sound finance and inaugurated the constant use of the Fed for political purposes. Including the second default in a 50 year period and the beginning of a extended burst of bubble after bubble increasing inequality and the power of elite and distant institutions. (This is not to gloss over Reagan's failed Keynesian policies.)

No, they don't. There is nothing in the regulatory scheme that really tells them to make the banks smaller.

This is because congress and the white house is just as much in tandem with the banks as anyone else.

I think you misread me.

if you use capture and pretend you actually care about rich people controlling the economy

The fact that you choose to cast aspersions on my character so often says a lot.

and ignores that actual problems liberal are trying to solve. Like making things better for actual people.

"Problems" and "better" are subjective. You're saying nothing unique here. Replace liberals with progressives or socialists or communists or conservatives and the claim is as valid.

I won't mention the fact that it's possible to focus on more than one thing at a time, whether others with interests tied to something think that thing is an actual problem or not.

Anybody who says the lower classes are worse off now with the fed than the time before the fed is insane and ignoring reality. The fed has two mandates, none of what your complaining about have anything to do with them.

Using people being better off now compared to 1912 is about as useful as me saying people are better off now than during the First Bank of the United States's charter.

 

[thepotatoman]

Future leftward shift for GOP on certain issues.

Who knows, maybe even I could be a republican someday depending on how far that shift goes. The goal isn't to kill the GOP, just to kill the GOP as we know it right now.

 

[benjipwns]

Who knows, maybe even I could be a republican someday depending on how far that shift goes. The goal isn't to kill the GOP, just to kill the GOP as we know it right now.

Speaking of the past. Most of you guys would have been Republicans for its first 70 years or so. And Whigs before that.

 

[Black Mamba]

Weird how real serious problems popped up over a decade before Reagan was elected when two Presidents trashed sound finance and inaugurated the constant use of the Fed for political purposes. Including the second default in a 50 year period and the beginning of a extended burst of bubble after bubble increasing inequality and the power of elite and distant institutions. (This is not to gloss over Reagan's failed Keynesian policies.)

sound finance, no. Despite the awful 2008 global depression, we've been far more stable ever since. Recessions and depression were very common prior. We could be doing better but some things were out of our direct control (OPEC) and others were thanks to deregulation (derivatives) or irrational exuberance (stocks and housing prices) -which are often unavoidable regardless of the system.

Please don't tell me you're a gold bug. I don't mind you overall government approach, but don't be a gold bugger.

I think you misread me.

Then explain, please.

Using people being better off now compared to 1912 is about as useful as me saying people are better off now than during the First Bank of the United States's charter.

What he really meant to say is that the median income earner can buy a far greater basket of goods today than they could back in 1912 when comparing it to a comparable basket of goods. That is to say, obviously no one could own a TV back in 1912 so I can see how people saying "we're not really better off now" can have an argument since we have TVs and they don't, but what people have done is found comparable goods for the time period. That is, a median salary worker could own X amount of goods for his time period. If you transported someone from today who earns median income, they could buy more than that X amount of goods in 1912.

edit: If you do respond, I may not. Weekend is upon me and I don't really log into negaf much on the weekend since I'm fairly occupied, so if I'm late or never respond, not ignoring you.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The fact that you choose to cast aspersions on my character so often says a lot.

Its nothing personal, I don't know you. But if one constantly claims to be for something and advocates doing things which make it worse. I think its rather hard not to cast aspersions on their actual beliefs. I find pretty much every libertarian doesn't actively care about rich people having so much power. They just don't like the government.


"Problems" and "better" are subjective. You're saying nothing unique here. Replace liberals with progressives or socialists or communists or conservatives and the claim is as valid.

I won't mention the fact that it's possible to focus on more than one thing at a time, whether others with interests tied to something think that thing is an actual problem or not.

Using people being better off now compared to 1912 is about as useful as me saying people are better off now than during the First Bank of the United States's charter.

You made the statement that the lower classes were being destroyed by the central bank the fact that they've gotten better since its creation kind of negates that. Unless your going to compare time periods since the creation of the bank which all have a constant, the banks existence. kind of hard for that to be the reason for any harm when the positive times were during the Feds existence.

So you have either to compare it to some hypothetical nonexistent world where the Fed never existed or you more rationally argue policy critiques on policy the Fed has created which hurt people, but that's not an argument against Central Banks. Neither supports the statement

All while the central bank destroys wealth of the lower classes

. Their wealth hasn't been destroyed by the Fed.

 

[benjipwns]

sound finance, no. Despite the awful 2008 global depression, we've been far more stable ever since. Recessions and depression were very common prior. We could be doing better but some things were out of our direct control (OPEC) and others were thanks to deregulation (derivatives) or irrational exuberance (stocks and housing prices) -which are often unavoidable regardless of the system.

Recessions and depressions are still regularly common. Especially by the official definition of them. The Fed has done nothing to make this more stable. The bubbles have arguably been larger and lasted longer with the Fed and Treasury backing up select financial institutions who got their dick buried too deep. (Hell, we've defaulted twice!) Counter-cyclical policy is irrational because it's not based on any actual information. (It's fair to mention we haven't even had that as policy. Just single direction policy that just happens to align with political and financial elite interests.)

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that central bank policy played a major role in the recent bubbles due to almost non-existent interest rates, the Greenspan policy of using the stock market as a metric, buying too much of what Milton was selling, the Greenspan Put itself, AND the fact that capture all but ensured there would be a breakwall at some point. (And it had already happened to LTCM.) Which is what happened when Goldman Sachs was facing a hit because the crusty part of AIG was going down and they had bet big on it. (The rest of AIG was not immediately insolvent, nor were anyone else including GE. Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch might have taken huge hits, but it wouldn't have spread into the rest of the economy because nobody else was stupid enough to buy that much of what one arm of AIG had been selling. "Main street" banks by and large stayed far far away from the glorified unbacked hedge funds.)

Its nothing personal, I don't know you. But if one constantly claims to be for something and advocates doing things which make it worse. I think its rather hard not to cast aspersions on their actual beliefs. I find pretty much every libertarian doesn't actively care about rich people having so much power. They just don't like the government.

Except I advocate against the things which make it worse, like creating large financial institutions and giving them government backing and power. Against empowering that which can be captured so as to effectively create monopolies. Manipulating anything based on aggregate metrics. So on and so forth.

Their wealth hasn't been destroyed by the Fed.

Sorry if I gave the impression that it was only the Fed, that's just one of the tools the looters use to drag wealth upward under the auspices of trickle down economics.

 

[zero shift]

Who knew that Americans were so anti-trade?

Great numbers for the future of the current GOP.

That is encouraging, however I would feel much better if it compared other generations at the point of time when they were the age of millennials.

 

[benjipwns]

Who knew that Americans were so anti-trade?

 

[East Lake]

There's not a single Fed regulation that makes sense benji?

 

[benjipwns]

Makes sense for who?

 

[East Lake]

"What" to be more specific. Stability.

 

[benjipwns]

We're going to need "stability" defined first.

 

[East Lake]

Discouraging a bank from engaging in a specific type of reckless behavior.

 

[benjipwns]

Doesn't that assume that the reckless behavior isn't conducive or even key to stability?

 

[East Lake]

See if you can find one you like. Pick any on the list that makes sense.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/reglisting.htm

 

[benjipwns]

Make sense how?

 

[benjipwns]

That's not satire/parody? How am I supposed to interpret that they misspelled shield? That they are just dumb because they didn't get the FAFSA loans to turn into a social justice warrior feminazi?

The Creator speaks:

]drascoll99 -9 points 2 days ago*
Yes, it's a political satire, but also sadly based on the truth of the current Social Justice agenda being pushed by groups like Silverstring Media, DiGRA, Feminist Frequency, Gawker Media such as Kotaku, Vox Media such as Polygon, Adria Richards ala Donglegate, Groups like Freethought blogs and Atheism Plus, Gender Studies via Academia such as Gail Dines anti-pornogray Stop porn culture, Marxist Feminist, WikiMedia, The US goverment with programed like It's On Us and Ban Bossy.
Several years ago Penn and Teller talked about this Social Justice Movement in collages censoring Freedom of speech. Bullshit Season 3, Episode 6 part 1,Part 2
Here is a good rebuttal to the general Myth of Social Justice By Jessica Pacholski
Here F.A. Hayek talks about the economic failures of Social Justice
HereYuri Bezmenov a former KGB oprative talks about how Social justice is used as a psychological warfare subversion tactic to control of western society
Here is Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals how he talks about how to Radicalize a society to force a fallacious appeal to compromise to force a socialist victory.
Here is a video about how the political left destroyed the art world back in the 1930.
A Conspiracy Within Gaming by Sargon of Akkad
A Philippic Against Social Justice in Gaming by Sargon of Akkad
Sue Gardner of Wikimedia wants to apply a Progressive Stack to Wikipidia
You also need to read about the history of Critical theory from the frankfurt school.
Here is the TL;DR Regarding #GamerGate, but be assured the people pushing for this Marxist feminist critique of games are egalitarian socialist.[
If you want to know more check out r/kotakuinaction and r/tumblrinaction and https://8chan.co/gg/ as well as the #GamerGate #NotYourShield on Twitter
Moot for 4chan has even started censoring 4chan (on boards like /v/ and /pol/) and rumors are that the NSA might have had a hand in blackmailing him through the resent leaked celebrity nudes aka "the fappening". However, it is more likely that he is now friends with ant-Capitalist Social Justice advocates.
Edit: a bit better TL;DR
Reddit Mods Shadowbanning anyone who talks about Social Justice Negatively outside of excepted free speech zones.[1],[2]

 

[East Lake]

Alright we can't find anything here so lets try another subject. Pick anything the police do that you'd identify as good for society.

 

[benjipwns]

Channel various avenues of violence against minorities and other members of the underclass into a professional "legal" institution so others don't have to feel like they have to do it themselves. Also invent new ways to "legally" steal from innocents.

Voting serves a similar purpose.

 

[East Lake]

Should we end the police?

 

[pigeon]

My post caused a lot of controversy!

Obviously I was mostly kidding about the Pauls, but regulatory capture is a real problem that I'm not sure I have a great answer to. I don't think "we just need to make the right regulations" is an effective solution -- it's just setting up metrics to game. We know what the rich people are taking advantage of right now and we know how to stop them from taking advantage of that. But that's treating symptoms, not diseases.

The best thing I can suggest is visibility -- maybe we need more public information on Fed decisions and regulatory meetings. If we need cameras on police officers, maybe we need them on SEC agents as well. The business of government is the people's business -- I'd like to see what my people are doing.

Should we end the police?

I think PoliGAF would come down to a recount on this one.

 

[benjipwns]

If we need cameras on police officers, maybe we need them on SEC agents as well. The business of government is the people's business -- I'd like to see what my people are doing.

Are you sure?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/sec-pornography-employees-spent-hours-surfing-porn-sites/story?id=10452544
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/05/31/3-sec-employees-investigated-viewing-porn-job/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091001829.html

 

[East Lake]

Also do we need medicine? A lot of good has come from it but also a lot of bad.

 

[thepotatoman]

My post caused a lot of controversy!

Obviously I was mostly kidding about the Pauls, but regulatory capture is a real problem that I'm not sure I have a great answer to. I don't think "we just need to make the right regulations" is an effective solution -- it's just setting up metrics to game. We know what the rich people are taking advantage of right now and we know how to stop them from taking advantage of that. But that's treating symptoms, not diseases.

The best thing I can suggest is visibility -- maybe we need more public information on Fed decisions and regulatory meetings. If we need cameras on police officers, maybe we need them on SEC agents as well. The business of government is the people's business -- I'd like to see what my people are doing.



I think PoliGAF would come down to a recount on this one.

People got earmarks and pork to mostly go away by forcing their politicians to not do that, we can get revolving door politics to end just by people forcing their politicians to look outside of the industry to find people to put into key government positions. I think that would help a lot.

Similarly with the police, voters could force attorney generals and prosecutors to look inward more often and solve various troubling statistics within the police force that way.

There's hundreds of different ways we could help heal the wound without cutting the arm off, it just takes a voter willingness to care about doing that, and we don't have that right now.

 

[Oblivion]

Okay, admittedly I haven't been following governor races, but who the hell thought it was a good idea to have Martha Coakley run for Mass. gov? She was a horrible candidate when she went up against Scott Brown. Pretty sure people still didn't get over her insulting the Red Socks, or Cubs or whatever the hell Massachusetts baseball team is called.

 

[benjipwns]

People got earmarks and pork to mostly go away by forcing their politicians to not do that

When was this?

we can get revolving door politics to end just by people forcing their politicians to look outside of the industry to find people to put into key government positions.

Where are they going to find the expertise to regulate the industry?

Similarly with the police, voters could force attorney generals and prosecutors to look inward more often and solve various troubling statistics within the police force that way.

Typical liberal soft-on-crime approach.

Okay, admittedly I haven't been following governor races, but who the hell thought it was a good idea to have Martha Coakley run for Mass. gov? She was a horrible candidate when she went up against Scott Brown. Pretty sure people still didn't get over her insulting the Red Socks, or Cubs or whatever the hell Massachusetts baseball team is called.

She got 23% at the convention and 42% in the primary.

She's got the police unions and a number of other strong unions behind her, that's how she originally got the Senate candidacy IIRC. By closing off a bunch of money sources.

 

[Oblivion]

Since you guys were talking about the fed, it did make me curious, why did Alan Greenspan keep interest rates so low? I thought conservative economists generally support high interest rates?

She got 23% at the convention and 42% in the primary.

She's got the police unions and a number of other strong unions behind her, that's how she originally got the Senate candidacy IIRC. By closing off a bunch of money sources.

Well, shit.

 

[HOMEBOY OVER HERE]

the dalai lama should be president

 

[Diablos]

So Wang's model is at a 70% chance of Dems holding it? What was it previously again?

Why is PD banned?

 

[benjipwns]

Since you guys were talking about the fed, it did make me curious, why did Alan Greenspan keep interest rates so low? I thought conservative economists generally support high interest rates?

He bought into Milton Friedman's hypothetical then tied the Fed's performance metrics to the S&P 500.

As Greenspan himself will admit, pretty much nothing he did as Chairman did he ever advocate for prior to becoming it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspan_put

Why is PD banned?

Speaking truth to power.

 

[thepotatoman]

When was this?

Over the last 8 years. I'd find some articles that talk about it, but I'm sure you'd just dismiss it anyway. Just google it and i'm sure you'll find it common knowledge.

Where are they going to find the expertise to regulate the industry?

From academia or within the government.

 

[benjipwns]

Over the last 8 years. I'd find some articles that talk about it, but I'm sure you'd just dismiss it anyway. Just google it and i'm sure you'll find it common knowledge.

I googled it and this was the first result: http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/16/congress-feasts-on-vegan-pork-despite-earmark-ban/

Not that I ever had a problem with earmarks.

From academia or within the government.

Say a sorta new industry like fracking pops up, there's going to be expertise on it in academia and the government to poach?

And when the big oil companies offer a billion dollars a year for that expert to help navigate regulations they wrote?

 

[B-Dubs]

So Wang's model is at a 70% chance of Dems holding it? What was it previously again?

Why is PD banned?

I'm guessing it was his post in the tinder prank thread.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Somebody at Real Time is a Metal Gear fan.

 

[thepotatoman]

Guessing Sam doesn't buy the hype in Colorado. He said the recent polls there and Alaska (which is looking worse for the Dems) are what drove the snapshot to the Rs.

Breaking 50-50, counting Orman as a Dem, seems to be the most likely scenario IMO.

There have been a few good polls for House Dems. Sean Patrick Maloney and Seth Moulton leading in NY-18 and MA-6 respectively, and George Sinner up by 2 in ND-AL which would be a pickup.

I figure I should point out, he just posted a blog post about it, blaming it on the debate.

I didn't really feel anything changed after watching the debate myself, mostly just consisting of both sides calling the other side extreme, which is honestly kind of true in the spectrum of American politics. Gardner did definitely get the upper hand on the silly dumb quips, and he seemed to score some good points when he countered Udall's accusation of Gardner voting to shut down the government and harming the flood relief efforts by complaining that Udall was politicizing a tragedy. Doesn't help that has been a small but decent sized chunk of Udall's campaign thus far.

The shutdown seems fair to bring up to me, but it's probably really out of touch with how average people now perceive the shutdown after a year of forgetting about it.

Good news is that bad debates can be overridden by good debates fairly easily, at least from my experience. Just don't bring up the shutdown and be more ready for Gardner's quipping style, and you're good to fix whatever damage was caused.