Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[LA RAM FAN]

Da,you didnt answer my question.have you seen that video THE OBAMA DECEPTION which in there actually talks about our last GREAT president JFK?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.

It was the only time the Russians took America seriously. If Goldwater had won back in '64 the Cold War wouldn't have carried on past the early '70s, and your disappointment with the failure of the USSR might have ebbed by now.

So, Joe, are you beating the streets of south Chicago saving black teenagers from each other? And how is your pursuit of livestock coming along?

Wow, dude, frankly, it's white people like you that make the rest of us look ignorant.

Good thing you are hiding in a iron curtain shithole where no one will straighten you out...

you can sure say that again,his way of trying to refute facts and prove people wrong that reagan wasnt a mass murderer is just laugh.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

JoeB, Genuine Russian Communist and Reagan Hater

Reagan wrecked the middle class, ran us into perpetual debt, and funded Jihadis who are now making our lives miserable.

He did more damage to this country than the Russians ever did.

And I voted for that senile old idiot twice.

Did you cast an absentee ballot from Moscow?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[

The Russians got tired of maintaining this empire...

LOL

What a tool!

You must be on the Rdean Koch Brothers "Paying Progressive to look like total fucking morons" payroll

Of course they did.

You see, an Empire might be cool if you are living in the Kremlin, but it really isn't that cool if you are just working at the plant in Leningrad punching a clock.

Calling the fall of the USSR a failure of Communism is every bit as idiotic as calling the fall of the British Empire a failure of Capitalism.

We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!

Fucking tool

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan defeated the USSR so badly the only play he left them was to take over the Democrat Party

Yup. Ronald Reagan was totally responsible for the fact that all these non-Russian people decided they had enough of the Russians.

Oh, no, wait. He wasn't. In fact, no one in his administration predicted the breakup of the USSR.

Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.

yep,you're making way too mush sense for crusader retard to comeprehend.

Sure, HW, sure. The clock punchers in Leningrad told Gorby to Tear down the Berlin Wall

 

[polarbear]

[

The Russians got tired of maintaining this empire...

LOL

What a tool!

You must be on the Rdean Koch Brothers "Paying Progressive to look like total fucking morons" payroll

Of course they did.

You see, an Empire might be cool if you are living in the Kremlin, but it really isn't that cool if you are just working at the plant in Leningrad punching a clock.

Calling the fall of the USSR a failure of Communism is every bit as idiotic as calling the fall of the British Empire a failure of Capitalism.

If it wasn`t a failure (of communism) what was it then?
This thread started out claiming the cold war came to an end because :

Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA

What the hell are you and this "Dante" smoking?
The entire Soviet block collapsed because it was in a state of terminal economic stagnation which Gorbachev tried to fix with his "Perestroika".
At the same time there was massive dissent in all non-Russian states of the USSR because everybody was fed up with communism.
It began with Estonia demanding autonomy and was followed by the rest of the Baltic states. From there anti-totalitarian protests spread into the trans Caucasus region into Azerbaijan and erupted into violent confrontations with Russia proper...a conflict which still persists today under Putin`s pseudo democracy.
Communist rule by central planning was dealt the death blow when Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Byelorussia, and the Central Asian republics also began revolting.
None of that had sweet f- all to do with Reagan acting like a libtard as your pal claims, the entire communist block imploded because everybody who was locked in behind the "iron curtain" was fed up with communism.

Reagan`s increased military spending hastened the economic collapse of the USSR because they tried to compete and ran out of Rubles.

I was in Germany when the "Wall" came down. If communism were as great as you say it is, why did millions of East Germans pour across the border ?...within hours after the "Stasi" stopped manning their machine gun towers and stopped gunning down people who tried to flee communism.

Assholes like you and your pal who know communism only in the abstract should be sent to one of these "rehabilitation" forced labor Gulags where the Soviets imprisoned the dissenters they did not bother to execute.

This would not be happening if Reagan were the current POTUS:
Canadian Air Force intercepts Russian bombers over Atlantic | World | RIA Novosti

Canadian Air Force intercepts Russian bombers over Atlantic

Canadian F-18 pilots took to the air from the Bagotville Air Force Base in Quebec after identifying two Russsian Tu-95 Bears in the country's buffer zone on Wednesday.

There is a lot more going on than just that.
Aubrey Grebenshikov, second secretary of the Russian Embassy in Ottawa, says that Canadian and Russian militaries used to be able to work out such “misunderstandings”
Putin even seems determined to test spots along the vast North American Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which stretches out 200 miles, or 321 kilometres, beyond Canadian and U.S. continental borders.

U.S. jets intercepted Russian long-range bombers off Alaska and California this month, just the latest in an increasing number of confrontations off the Pacific coast.
UKRAINE-CRISIS/PUTIN

Vladimir Putin's provocations in Ukraine, including the annexation of Crimea, have angered Western leaders. (Maxim Shemetov/Reuters)
CBC Canada today:

What startled Washington was the brazenness of the flights and their growing numbers since the Ukraine crisis broke. The latest Alaskan challenge involved four bombers plus two aerial refueling tankers. Two of the bombers later flew west to within 130 kilometres of northern California.


With the passing of the Cold War, the probes disappeared for many years. But now under Putin and what appears to be the beginning of a Chill War, their reemergence means a lot of extra headaches and workload for U.S. and Canadian pilots.
A sustained campaign of Russian harassment, if it comes to that, will compel our air force to fully employ the four Forward Operation Location (FOL) sites set up as interception mini-bases in Yellowknife, Iqaluit, Inuvik and Rankin Inlet
What is worrisome for those trying to predict Russian behaviour is that problems may not end with flights. Russia has been significantly increasing both civilian and military resources within its Arctic region, from nuclear icebreakers to 80 naval ships, and is now adding mobile missiles.
According to Jane's Defence Weekly, the Russians are testing short-range Pantsir-S1 missiles in the far north for use against aircraft, helicopters, cruise missiles, even drones

No way would the Russians dare to pull these stunts within sight of USAF-base Thule/Greenland, the Alaska coast and within 130 klicks of California while Reagan was CIC instead of Obama.
Obama has "drawn lines in the sand" and defined so called "red lines" which nobody takes serious. The centrifuges in Iran keep churning out U 235 while Putin has Europe in a headlock. JFK would spin in his grave if he would be aware what`s been going on since Obama became President.
He and his entire entourage are the laughing stock of the rest of the West:
http://ml.spiegel.de/article.do?id=890184

Obamas Limousine falsch betankt
Das Biest hat sich verschluckt

Wegen einer peinlichen Panne muss US-Präsident Barack Obama bei einem Staatsbesuch in Israel auf seine gepanzerte Limousine verzichten. Die eine Millionen Dollar teure Staatskarosse wurde zwar extra eingeflogen - aber in Jerusalem falsch betankt.


Jerusalem - Man nennt ihn "das Biest". Der Cadillac, in dem Barack Obama chauffiert wird, ist mit jedem erdenklichen Hochsicherheits-Schnickschnack ausgerüstet. Unter anderem ist der Wagen gegen Angriffe mit biochemischen Waffen gerüstet und verfügt über ein System zur unabhängigen Sauerstoffversorgung der Insassen.
Statt mit Diesel war der Eine-Millionen-Dollar-Wagen mit Benzin betankt worden.
Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass Obama auf einem Staatsbesuch liegen bleibt. Schon 2011 hatte er auf einer Auslandsreise Pech mit einem seiner Wagen. Ein Ersatzfahrzeug setzte damals beim Verlassen der US-Botschaft in Irland auf einer Bodenwelle auf und saß fest.

Translation:
"Obama`s beast" is what Israelis call Obama`s Limo. It`s got every security nick-nack currently availabe, including it`s own oxygen supply in case of a biological weapon attack but has no defense against stupidity.
Obama`s entourage fueled up his million $ Diesel engine Cadillac with gas and trashed it.
Before that incident they hit the ditch in Ireland and Obama had to be picked up in another replacement limo.
Romney hit the nail on the head when he said to Obama "you sure know how to pick losers"

 

[JoeB131]

We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!

Fucking tool

Same could be said about Capitalism. Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.

Everything fails eventually.

Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try. That's why Communisim is bad.

The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones. You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.

I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.

Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better. Good.

Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag. Bad.

So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?

 

[gipper]

We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!

Fucking tool

Same could be said about Capitalism. Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.

Everything fails eventually.

Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try. That's why Communisim is bad.

The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones. You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.

I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.

Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better. Good.

Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag. Bad.

So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?

There you go again...blaming capitalism, when the fault clearly lays with the very thing you love...big government.

When one blames something that is not at fault, while ignoring the true culprit and then believing the true culprit is not only blameless, but can actually be the solution, that makes one a sucker.

 

[regent]

We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!

Fucking tool

Same could be said about Capitalism. Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.

Everything fails eventually.

Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try. That's why Communisim is bad.

The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones. You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.

I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.

Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better. Good.

Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag. Bad.

So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?

There you go again...blaming capitalism, when the fault clearly lays with the very thing you love...big government.

When one blames something that is not at fault, while ignoring the true culprit and then believing the true culprit is not only blameless, but can actually be the solution, that makes one a sucker.

If only we could go back to small government again; a time when most Americans were simple farmers and land was dirt cheap. It was that damn industrial revolution that changed America, it even changed where people lived and taught them to depend on a job in an industrial city.
We have an economic depression today and people, go hungry. I say bring back the farm and we won't need big government, it's that simple. Of course we have to make land dirt-cheap again, and maybe change our goal to forty acres and a mule, not computers and air planes?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Same could be said about Capitalism. Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.

Comrade Joeb, while you are uneducated, and know nothing of economics, politics, or history, you are a loyal drone to the party.

However, your stupidy betrays you again. For recessions or depressions to be a "failure" of capitalism, they would have to be unique to the capitalist markets?

Are they, Comrade?

Well of course you don't know, you wouldn't grasp the concept of the business cycle if you were bitch-slapped by the invisible hand.

However your GLORIOUS Soviet Union had far more frequent economic troughs than we in the decadent West have had.

If you were not stupid, and you weren't a Communist (but I repeat myself) I would explain to you that 2007 was the market working exactly as it should - the success of Capitalism. Without the dog-fucking by Bush and Obama, the correction would have achieved exactly what it needed to, the removal of corrupt looters from the market.

But no worries, Obama was there to save the looters by handing them a trillion dollars taken from the Bourgeoisie (the middle class.)

Everything fails eventually.

ROFL

Entropy doesn't affect theories, moron.

Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try. That's why Communisim is bad.

Is that right?

The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones. You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.

I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.

Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better. Good.

Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag. Bad.

So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?

I'm afraid that you are a drooling simpleton who spouts idiocy that you glean from hate sites, while you lack any actual knowledge.

You advocate for Communism here, but have you ever read "Capital?" Or "The Communist Manifesto?" Or "Man, Economy, and State?" Or "A Monetary History of the United States."

No, you've read DailyKOS and ThinkProgess, and think this somehow qualifies you to spout your idiocy.

 

[Dad2three]

Same could be said about Capitalism. Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.

Comrade Joeb, while you are uneducated, and know nothing of economics, politics, or history, you are a loyal drone to the party.

However, your stupidy betrays you again. For recessions or depressions to be a "failure" of capitalism, they would have to be unique to the capitalist markets?

Are they, Comrade?

Well of course you don't know, you wouldn't grasp the concept of the business cycle if you were bitch-slapped by the invisible hand.

However your GLORIOUS Soviet Union had far more frequent economic troughs than we in the decadent West have had.

If you were not stupid, and you weren't a Communist (but I repeat myself) I would explain to you that 2007 was the market working exactly as it should - the success of Capitalism. Without the dog-fucking by Bush and Obama, the correction would have achieved exactly what it needed to, the removal of corrupt looters from the market.

But no worries, Obama was there to save the looters by handing them a trillion dollars taken from the Bourgeoisie (the middle class.)

Everything fails eventually.

ROFL

Entropy doesn't affect theories, moron.

Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try. That's why Communisim is bad.

Is that right?

The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones. You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.

I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.

Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better. Good.

Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag. Bad.

So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?

I'm afraid that you are a drooling simpleton who spouts idiocy that you glean from hate sites, while you lack any actual knowledge.

You advocate for Communism here, but have you ever read "Capital?" Or "The Communist Manifesto?" Or "Man, Economy, and State?" Or "A Monetary History of the United States."

No, you've read DailyKOS and ThinkProgess, and think this somehow qualifies you to spout your idiocy.

Let 'capitalism' work as libertarians wish? lol

Panic of 1796–97
Panic of 1819
Panic of 1825
Panic of 1826
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1866
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1884
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1896

Banking panics in the United States

1792
1796–97
1819
1825
1837
1847
1857
1866
1873
1884
1890 (Baring crisis)
1893
1896
1901
1907
1910-11
1929
2007-08




Category:Economic disasters in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail.

Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Panic of 1837 was a financial crisis in the United States that touched off a major recession that lasted until the mid-1840s. Profits, prices and wages went down while unemployment went up. P

Panic of 1837 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let 'capitalism' work as libertarians wish? lol

If your handlers will put Ritalin in your banana to calm you down and reduce your shit flinging for a moment, I will attempt to converse with you.

Panic of 1796–97
Panic of 1819
Panic of 1825
Panic of 1826
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1866
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1884
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1896

These were the result of what? What was the result of them?

Again you fling shit and think it has some bearing on the conversation. I know, your goal is to distract through your antics, not to make a cogent point.

Still, you bring up bank panics from the 19th century as if they are some sort of impeachment to market driven systems. Naturally you fail to explain why your trainers had you post them.

Let's actually look at the bullshit you post, shall we?

First, there was no actual "panic" of 1796, your trainers decided to "pad" things - leftists lie, since facts are the enemy of the left.

Panic of 1819

The Second Bank of the United States issued huge amounts of paper currency to stimulate the economy - some fucktarded fool got the notion that deficit spending would stimulate economic growth and create revenue returns in excess of government expenditures.

Now you are monkey, you lack the wits of a man, thus you cannot grasp facts or reality - but FAR from the "Libertarians" supporting this idiocy, they spoke against it.

{As early as 1814, Thomas Jefferson warned, "We are to be ruined by paper, as we were formerly by the old Continental paper." Two years later, he asserted that "we are under a bank bubble" that would soon burst.}

Panic of 1819: The First Major U.S. Depression - The Globalist

Ooops, not quite the tale you're trying to fabricate, is it?

The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail.

Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I assume you think this makes some sort of point?

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

ROFL

Yes, because the regulated banks of 1926 were so "Laissez Faire."

You should at least attempt to learn what words mean before you bandy them about, monkey boi

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!

Fucking tool

Same could be said about Capitalism. Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.

Everything fails eventually.

Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try. That's why Communisim is bad.

The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones. You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.

I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.

Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better. Good.

Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag. Bad.

So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?

1928 the Fed Strangles the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply

2008 the Federal government entities Freddie and Fannie were the binary black holes at the epicenter of the mortgage meltdown, demanding they be fed all the subprime paper they could devour.

 

[Dad2three]

Let 'capitalism' work as libertarians wish? lol

If your handlers will put Ritalin in your banana to calm you down and reduce your shit flinging for a moment, I will attempt to converse with you.

Panic of 1796–97
Panic of 1819
Panic of 1825
Panic of 1826
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1866
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1884
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1896

These were the result of what? What was the result of them?

Again you fling shit and think it has some bearing on the conversation. I know, your goal is to distract through your antics, not to make a cogent point.

Still, you bring up bank panics from the 19th century as if they are some sort of impeachment to market driven systems. Naturally you fail to explain why your trainers had you post them.

Let's actually look at the bullshit you post, shall we?

First, there was no actual "panic" of 1796, your trainers decided to "pad" things - leftists lie, since facts are the enemy of the left.

Panic of 1819

The Second Bank of the United States issued huge amounts of paper currency to stimulate the economy - some fucktarded fool got the notion that deficit spending would stimulate economic growth and create revenue returns in excess of government expenditures.

Now you are monkey, you lack the wits of a man, thus you cannot grasp facts or reality - but FAR from the "Libertarians" supporting this idiocy, they spoke against it.

{As early as 1814, Thomas Jefferson warned, "We are to be ruined by paper, as we were formerly by the old Continental paper." Two years later, he asserted that "we are under a bank bubble" that would soon burst.}

Panic of 1819: The First Major U.S. Depression - The Globalist

Ooops, not quite the tale you're trying to fabricate, is it?

The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail.

Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I assume you think this makes some sort of point?

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

ROFL

Yes, because the regulated banks of 1926 were so "Laissez Faire."

You should at least attempt to learn what words mean before you bandy them about, monkey boi

Got it, you'll stick to right wing myths, distortions and lies

Laizze affaire? WHERE ? WHEN?

Now YES, the NATIONAL BANK the US created in 1913 hasn't slowed down the libertarians crashing the economy totally, but yes, it's slowed it down. Weird how when the 'market forces' are left to their own, as 1826, 1929 AND 2008 crash shows, the markets do HORRIBLE for the majority of people

MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES IS ALL YOU HAVE

Weird you can't point to ONE successful state/nation to EVER use libertarian economic policy successfully!

Jefferson the guy who wanted to 'share the wealth' and have the rich carry the tax burden, was libertarian? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Let 'capitalism' work as libertarians wish? lol

If your handlers will put Ritalin in your banana to calm you down and reduce your shit flinging for a moment, I will attempt to converse with you.

Panic of 1796–97
Panic of 1819
Panic of 1825
Panic of 1826
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1866
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1884
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1896

These were the result of what? What was the result of them?

Again you fling shit and think it has some bearing on the conversation. I know, your goal is to distract through your antics, not to make a cogent point.

Still, you bring up bank panics from the 19th century as if they are some sort of impeachment to market driven systems. Naturally you fail to explain why your trainers had you post them.

Let's actually look at the bullshit you post, shall we?

First, there was no actual "panic" of 1796, your trainers decided to "pad" things - leftists lie, since facts are the enemy of the left.

Panic of 1819

The Second Bank of the United States issued huge amounts of paper currency to stimulate the economy - some fucktarded fool got the notion that deficit spending would stimulate economic growth and create revenue returns in excess of government expenditures.

Now you are monkey, you lack the wits of a man, thus you cannot grasp facts or reality - but FAR from the "Libertarians" supporting this idiocy, they spoke against it.

{As early as 1814, Thomas Jefferson warned, "We are to be ruined by paper, as we were formerly by the old Continental paper." Two years later, he asserted that "we are under a bank bubble" that would soon burst.}

Panic of 1819: The First Major U.S. Depression - The Globalist

Ooops, not quite the tale you're trying to fabricate, is it?

The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail.

Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I assume you think this makes some sort of point?

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

ROFL

Yes, because the regulated banks of 1926 were so "Laissez Faire."

You should at least attempt to learn what words mean before you bandy them about, monkey boi

Panic of 1796–97

The Panic of 1796–1797 was a series of downturns in Atlantic credit markets that led to broader commercial downturns in both Britain and the United States. In the U.S., problems first emerged when a land speculation bubble burst in 1796. The crisis deepened when the Bank of England suspended specie payments on February 25, 1797 under the Bank Restriction Act of 1797. The Bank's directors feared insolvency when English account holders, who were nervous about a possible French invasion, began withdrawing their deposits. In combination with the unfolding collapse of the U.S. real estate market, the Bank of England's action had disflationary repercussions in the financial and commercial markets of the coastal United States and the Caribbean at the start of the 19th century.

By 1800, the crisis had resulted in the collapse of many prominent merchant firms in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and the imprisonment of many American debtors. The latter included the famed financier of the revolution Robert Morris and his partner James Greenleaf who had invested in backcountry land.

Panic of 1796?97 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!

Fucking tool

Same could be said about Capitalism. Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.

Everything fails eventually.

Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try. That's why Communisim is bad.

The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones. You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.

I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.

Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better. Good.

Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag. Bad.

So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?

1928 the Fed Straggles the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply

2008 the Federal government entities Freddie and Fannie were the binary black holes at the epicenter of the mortgage meltdown, demanding they be fed all the subprime paper they could devour.

MORE right wing garbage, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you


The Money Supply and Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Before and During the Great Depression Years

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depmon.htm


1/3rdc huh? lol

US Money Supply M2 (USCB) 1925-1939 - US Stuck on Stupid




Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs.


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture




No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)

1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom

2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis


4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


MY FAV

Bill Black went through what AEI said about the GSEs during the 2000s and it is the same thing — that they were blocking subprime loans from being made. In the words of Peter Wallison in 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”


Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture




Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC



I'M SHOCKED YOU DIDN'T BLAME BARNEY OR CLINTON

 

[Dad2three]

We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!

Fucking tool

Same could be said about Capitalism. Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.

Everything fails eventually.

Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try. That's why Communisim is bad.

The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones. You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.

I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.

Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better. Good.

Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag. Bad.

So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?

1928 the Fed Straggles the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply

2008 the Federal government entities Freddie and Fannie were the binary black holes at the epicenter of the mortgage meltdown, demanding they be fed all the subprime paper they could devour.

Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.



The basic structure of the adjustable-rate mortgages that lenders used to grow the subprime market was premised on continued house appreciation. Once the housing bubble peaked subprime ARM loans suddenly became extremely prone to default.

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf



GOV'T HUH?


Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis


The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed


Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress

 

[Uncensored2008]

Got it, you'll stick to right wing myths, distortions and lies

Laizze affaire? WHERE ? WHEN?

Now YES, the NATIONAL BANK the US created in 1913 hasn't slowed down the libertarians crashing the economy totally, but yes, it's slowed it down. Weird how when the 'market forces' are left to their own, as 1826, 1929 AND 2008 crash shows, the markets do HORRIBLE for the majority of people

MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES IS ALL YOU HAVE

Weird you can't point to ONE successful state/nation to EVER use libertarian economic policy successfully!

Jefferson the guy who wanted to 'share the wealth' and have the rich carry the tax burden, was libertarian? lol

Ah but monkey boi, you made the claim that banks were "laissez faire" in 1926, after they were already under the thumb of the Federal Reserve system.

This is why I laugh at you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Panic of 1796–97

The Panic of 1796–1797 was a series of downturns in Atlantic credit markets that led to broader commercial downturns in both Britain and the United States. In the U.S., problems first emerged when a land speculation bubble burst in 1796. The crisis deepened when the Bank of England suspended specie payments on February 25, 1797 under the Bank Restriction Act of 1797. The Bank's directors feared insolvency when English account holders, who were nervous about a possible French invasion, began withdrawing their deposits. In combination with the unfolding collapse of the U.S. real estate market, the Bank of England's action had disflationary repercussions in the financial and commercial markets of the coastal United States and the Caribbean at the start of the 19th century.

By 1800, the crisis had resulted in the collapse of many prominent merchant firms in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and the imprisonment of many American debtors. The latter included the famed financier of the revolution Robert Morris and his partner James Greenleaf who had invested in backcountry land.

Panic of 1796?97 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the, there was no such panic in the American economy, it was the managed economies of the European monarchies that suffered the downturn,,,




You're too easy.

 

[Dad2three]

got it, you'll stick to right wing myths, distortions and lies

laizze affaire? Where ? When?

Now yes, the national bank the us created in 1913 hasn't slowed down the libertarians crashing the economy totally, but yes, it's slowed it down. Weird how when the 'market forces' are left to their own, as 1826, 1929 and 2008 crash shows, the markets do horrible for the majority of people

myths and fairy tales is all you have

weird you can't point to one successful state/nation to ever use libertarian economic policy successfully!

Jefferson the guy who wanted to 'share the wealth' and have the rich carry the tax burden, was libertarian? Lol

ah but monkey boi, you made the claim that banks were "laissez faire" in 1926, after they were already under the thumb of the federal reserve system.

This is why i laugh at you.

lol, 1826 bozo