You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they want to move production overseas to exploit cheap labor, they should face steep tariffs and lose any tax breaks or government subsidies like these:

I agree, Washington state should stop giving Boeing so much money. Seize their assets instead!

 

[jc456]

If they want to move production overseas to exploit cheap labor, they should face steep tariffs and lose any tax breaks or government subsidies like these:

Isn't this what Trump actually did and demofks lost their shit? Which is it?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Isn't this what Trump actually did and demofks lost their shit? Which is it?

He didn't do that at all. He never penalized big-money capitalists for closing factories and moving them abroad, or doing anything against their workers.

Politically I'm a socially conservative socialist, not a liberal Dem or "woke progressive".

 

[jc456]

He didn't do that at all. He never penalized big-money capitalists for closing factories and moving them abroad, or doing anything against their workers.

Politically I'm a socially conservative socialist, not a liberal Dem or "woke progressive".

he put tariff's on products from countries they moved to. How is that that he didn't do it?

 

[TruthNotBS]

I agree, Washington state should stop giving Boeing so much money. Seize their assets instead!

Not necessary, at the moment. Maybe in the future when automation and AI take over production and tens of millions of Americans are out of work, but for now, we can keep markets, provided they're well regulated. If the big money capitalists grow a conscience and think and behave like American patriots, who care about their country and the workers they employ, then I don't have an issue with providing them with subsidies.

I want to help them stay in business, produce better products and services, and of course, create and maintain good-paying jobs. To the extent that we can continue with a market capitalist economy, I don't have anything against my government helping capitalists stay in business, and creating good jobs and products.

However, eventually capitalism becomes obsolete due to advanced automation and AI, and that's when we must, by necessity, begin transitioning our economy to a marketless, fully automated, more democratically run, rationally planned system of production, i.e. democratic council-socialism.

 

[jc456]

Not necessary, at the moment. Maybe in the future when automation and AI take over production and tens of millions of Americans are out of work, but for now, we can keep markets, provided they're well regulated. If the big money capitalists grow a conscience and think and behave like American patriots, who care about their country and the workers they employ, then I don't have an issue with providing them with subsidies.

I want to help them stay in business, produce better products and services, and of course, create and maintain good-paying jobs. To the extent that we can continue with a market capitalist economy, I don't have anything against my government helping capitalists stay in business, and creating good jobs and products.

However, eventually capitalism becomes obsolete due to advanced automation and AI, and that's when we must, by necessity, begin transitioning our economy to a marketless, fully automated, more democratically run, rationally planned system of production, i.e. democratic council-socialism.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I'm not against "socialism for the rich", provided that there's socialism for the working class as well. If the wealthy big-money capitalists are receiving services from the government, so can the working class. It's not one socioeconomic class receiving assistance form the government and workers are left to themselves. That's not how it works.

Eventually, out of necessity, we will have to transition out of profit-driven market capitalism, to fully automated, non-profit, more democratic and socialist (publicly owned and operated) mass production. Anyone can connect the dots by studying economics and advanced automation and AI. If you research these two subjects, you'll logically come to the same conclusion, unless you're for feudalism. I prefer democratic council-socialism to techno-feudalism.

 

[TruthNotBS]

he put tariff's on products from countries they moved to. How is that that he didn't do it?

He didn't impose tariffs on nearly enough of the products being imported, nor penalized specific corporations. He stays away from holding the feet to the fire, of members of his own socioeconomic class. And forget about labor unions, he hates them. He doesn't really want to empower the working class.

 

[jc456]

He didn't impose tariffs on nearly enough of the products being imported, nor penalized specific corporations. He stays away from holding the feet to the fire, of members of his own socioeconomic class. And forget about labor unions, he hates them. He doesn't really want to empower the working class.

he chose products he wanted to bring back jobs in specific markets to start with. Yet demofks stood in his way all the way. demofks don't like your idea. Trump did and you hate him. odd.

 

[TruthNotBS]

First off, your sarcastic remark about banks only investing in "safe ventures, like single-family homes" ignores the real problem: the reckless bundling of risky subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them as safe investments.

The problem was the bad loans, not that some of them were bundled.
Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented a single bad mortgage from being created. And that was the crisis. Too many people who couldn't make the payment getting mortgages on homes they couldn't afford.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall enabled banks to take on these risks without sufficient oversight, which directly contributed to the financial meltdown.


You're wrong. The risk was the mortgage. Banks that didn't securitize a thing lost billions. Lehman and Bear Stearns would have still failed under Glass-Steagall. Non-bank firms like Countrywide could still have securitized mortgages under Glass-Steagall.
Washington Mutual, the 6th largest bank in the US, didn't securitize their subprime mortgages and they failed. Biggest bank failure in history, not an MBS in sight. Still allowed under Glass-Steagall.

When the housing market collapsed, those securities plummeted in value, leading to massive losses across the board. The crisis wasn’t just about bad mortgages, it was about how those mortgages were turned into ticking time bombs through securitization.


Bad loans lost big money. As stand-alone mortgages and as MBS.
Bad loans which were allowed under Glass-Steagall.


Regarding the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), yes, they were involved, but they were far from the main culprits. They did purchase subprime mortgages,


How much did they purchase?


the idea that a single regulation, the GSE mandates, was responsible for the crisis is misleading.


Did Jeff say that? He's such a jerk.


Blaming GSEs alone

You're funny. Nobody blamed the GSEs alone.

including the deregulation that allowed private banks to act recklessly.

You're hilarious! Which regulation, that you feel existed before the crisis, was removed to allow banks to suddenly start making these bad loans?
If anything, new regulations, partially due to the CRA, forced banks to make more bad loans to poor credit risks and in minority areas.
Clowns like Obama got their start forcing banks to make more subprime loans.

Finally, the truth is that under socialism, where banking is nationalized and not driven by profit, these kinds of crises can be prevented.

It worked for student loans. The government took over and only safe loans were made to good students for useful degrees. Not a single loan defaulted.
Socialist banking is wonderful!

Really, you're hilarious.
You should write for SNL.

Todd, it's clear that your sarcasm is a cover for the fact that you don’t really have a solid understanding of what caused the 2008 financial crisis. You keep insisting that the problem was simply bad loans, but that’s an oversimplification. Yes, bad loans were part of the issue, but they were a symptom, not the root cause. The real problem was how those bad loans were bundled into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sold off as safe investments, which spread the risk across the entire financial system. This was made possible by the deregulation, including the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed banks to take on these risks without sufficient oversight. So, if Glass-Steagall wasn't a factor, then please enlighten us: What do you think caused the recession? And how would you have avoided it?

As for your snide remarks about socialist banking, let's set the record straight. In a socialist society, education is a right, not something you have to go into debt for. So the idea that the government would be handing out loans for education is absurd. But let’s talk about how socialist banking would actually work in a system that still has markets. In such a society, banks wouldn't be driven by the profit motive; instead, their primary goal would be to serve the needs of the people. Loans would be made to support productive activities that benefit society, like starting businesses, buying homes, or improving infrastructure. The focus would be on long-term stability and sustainability, not on short-term profits.

In a fully socialist society without markets, the need for loans would be drastically reduced because essential services like education, housing, and healthcare would be guaranteed for all. There wouldn’t be a need for people to take on debt just to get by. The banking system would be designed to support collective goals, not individual greed. So, yes, socialist banking is indeed far superior to the speculative, predatory practices of private banks in a capitalist system. You might think you're being clever with your jokes, but all you’re really doing is exposing your ignorance about how a fair and just economic system could actually work.

 

[jc456]

Todd, it's clear that your sarcasm is a cover for the fact that you don’t really have a solid understanding of what caused the 2008 financial crisis. You keep insisting that the problem was simply bad loans, but that’s an oversimplification. Yes, bad loans were part of the issue, but they were a symptom, not the root cause.

Me thinks you don't know what root cause is. this is the root cause, it started it and Todd was fking spot on

The problem was the bad loans, not that some of them were bundled.
Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented a single bad mortgage from being created. And that was the crisis. Too many people who couldn't make the payment getting mortgages on homes they couldn't afford.

The real problem was how those bad loans

correct, the root cause.

You might think you're being clever

He's pointing to the facts. It's you trying to justify and change it. That is the joke

 

[TruthNotBS]

he chose products he wanted to bring back jobs in specific markets to start with. Yet demofks stood in his way all the way. demofks don't like your idea. Trump did and you hate him. odd.

None of them like my ideas, because I'm a socialist (i.e. American Council-Socialism - ACS). Both the Republicans and Democrats serve the same vested interests, they have the same masters. I'm a left-winger when it comes to economics (I'm however a social conservative, so I do have that in common with many Republicans), and I'm not a "woke" liberal, who pretends to be pro-labor while likewise passing laws that hurt American workers.

American Council socialists are patriots and nationalists. We want what's best for America, hence placing God, Family, and Country before profits.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Me thinks you don't know what root cause is. this is the root cause, it started it and Todd was fking spot on

The problem was the bad loans, not that some of them were bundled.
Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented a single bad mortgage from being created. And that was the crisis. Too many people who couldn't make the payment getting mortgages on homes they couldn't afford.

correct, the root cause.

He's pointing to the facts. It's you trying to justify and change it. That is the joke

JC456, it’s pretty clear you’re missing the point entirely. You and Todd keep parroting the idea that bad loans were the root cause of the 2008 financial crisis, but that’s a gross oversimplification that ignores the systemic issues at play. Bad loans didn’t just appear out of nowhere, they were the result of a deregulated financial system that encouraged reckless behavior. The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial banks to dive into risky investment banking activities, bundling these bad loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them off as safe investments. This turned a manageable issue with subprime loans into a full-blown financial crisis.

Claiming that bad loans were the root cause while ignoring how they were packaged, sold, and spread throughout the global financial system is like saying the problem with a house fire was just the match, not the gasoline-soaked furniture. Glass-Steagall would have helped prevent the crisis by keeping commercial banking activities separate from risky investment practices, limiting the scale at which these bad loans could destabilize the entire economy. So, no, Todd wasn’t “spot on”, he’s conveniently ignoring the role that deregulation and greed played in turning a housing bubble into a global financial meltdown.

And let’s not pretend that sarcasm and oversimplifications are substitutes for understanding complex economic realities. The crisis wasn’t just about people getting mortgages they couldn’t afford; it was about how those mortgages were leveraged, repackaged, and sold throughout the financial system, creating a ticking time bomb. If you can’t see that, then maybe it’s time to take a step back and really think about what caused one of the worst economic disasters in modern history.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not necessary, at the moment. Maybe in the future when automation and AI take over production and tens of millions of Americans are out of work, but for now, we can keep markets, provided they're well regulated. If the big money capitalists grow a conscience and think and behave like American patriots, who care about their country and the workers they employ, then I don't have an issue with providing them with subsidies.

I want to help them stay in business, produce better products and services, and of course, create and maintain good-paying jobs. To the extent that we can continue with a market capitalist economy, I don't have anything against my government helping capitalists stay in business, and creating good jobs and products.

However, eventually capitalism becomes obsolete due to advanced automation and AI, and that's when we must, by necessity, begin transitioning our economy to a marketless, fully automated, more democratically run, rationally planned system of production, i.e. democratic council-socialism.

I want to help them stay in business, produce better products and services, and of course, create and maintain good-paying jobs.

Apparently so does Washington state. That must be why they handed them billions in taxpayer dollars.

 

[jc456]

JC456, it’s pretty clear you’re missing the point entirely. You and Todd keep parroting the idea that bad loans were the root cause of the 2008 financial crisis,

says the guy who doesn't understand what the term root cause actually means. It's truly clear and is what factually occurred.

but that’s a gross oversimplification that ignores the systemic issues at play. Bad loans didn’t just appear out of nowhere, they were the result of a deregulated financial system that encouraged reckless behavior. The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial banks to dive into risky investment banking activities, bundling these bad loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them off as safe investments. This turned a manageable issue with subprime loans into a full-blown financial crisis.

Claiming that bad loans were the root cause

It's what the term root cause is. What created the demise. The fact bad loans existed created the issue. Perpetuation is a symptom of the root cause-bad loans. You aren't educated enough to understand. You're ahead of your skis.

while ignoring how they were packaged, sold,

means absolutely nothing.

Todd wasn’t “spot on”,

the fk he wasn't. HE WAS SPOT FKING ON!!!!

he’s conveniently ignoring the role that deregulation and greed played in turning a housing bubble into a global financial meltdown.

Did that impact bad loans?

And let’s not pretend that sarcasm and oversimplifications are substitutes for understanding complex economic realities. The crisis wasn’t just about people getting mortgages they couldn’t afford; it was about how those mortgages were leveraged, repackaged, and sold throughout the financial system, creating a ticking time bomb.

Hilarious. You know not what you're talking about.

If you can’t see that, then maybe it’s time to take a step back and really think about what caused one of the worst economic disasters in modern history.

I think you should get an actual education.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I want to help them stay in business, produce better products and services, and of course, create and maintain good-paying jobs.

Apparently so does Washington state. That must be why they handed them billions in taxpayer dollars.

If that company serves the public well and creates good jobs, I'm not against our taxes helping out corporations. What I'm against are capitalists who just care about their bottom lines and don't care about their workers.

 

[jc456]

If that company serves the public well and creates good jobs, I'm not against our taxes helping out corporations. What I'm against are capitalists who just care about their bottom lines and don't care about their workers.

 

[TruthNotBS]

What are you saying with your emoji? Elaborate if you can.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, it's clear that your sarcasm is a cover for the fact that you don’t really have a solid understanding of what caused the 2008 financial crisis. You keep insisting that the problem was simply bad loans, but that’s an oversimplification. Yes, bad loans were part of the issue, but they were a symptom, not the root cause. The real problem was how those bad loans were bundled into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sold off as safe investments, which spread the risk across the entire financial system. This was made possible by the deregulation, including the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed banks to take on these risks without sufficient oversight. So, if Glass-Steagall wasn't a factor, then please enlighten us: What do you think caused the recession? And how would you have avoided it?

As for your snide remarks about socialist banking, let's set the record straight. In a socialist society, education is a right, not something you have to go into debt for. So the idea that the government would be handing out loans for education is absurd. But let’s talk about how socialist banking would actually work in a system that still has markets. In such a society, banks wouldn't be driven by the profit motive; instead, their primary goal would be to serve the needs of the people. Loans would be made to support productive activities that benefit society, like starting businesses, buying homes, or improving infrastructure. The focus would be on long-term stability and sustainability, not on short-term profits.

In a fully socialist society without markets, the need for loans would be drastically reduced because essential services like education, housing, and healthcare would be guaranteed for all. There wouldn’t be a need for people to take on debt just to get by. The banking system would be designed to support collective goals, not individual greed. So, yes, socialist banking is indeed far superior to the speculative, predatory practices of private banks in a capitalist system. You might think you're being clever with your jokes, but all you’re really doing is exposing your ignorance about how a fair and just economic system could actually work.

Todd, it's clear that your sarcasm is a cover for the fact that you don’t really have a solid understanding of what caused the 2008 financial crisis.

My sarcasm is to mock your ignorance about the crisis.

You keep insisting that the problem was simply bad loans,

Obviously good loans didn't cause the problem.

The real problem was how those bad loans were bundled into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sold off as safe investments,

Nope. MBS may have made the problem spread further or faster, but a bad mortgage losing $100,000 in value loses $100,000 whether sitting on the balance sheet of
Iowa First National bank or sitting in an MBS owned by Iowa State Teacher Pension Fund.

This was made possible by the deregulation, including the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed banks to take on these risks without sufficient oversight.

Nope. Glass-Steagall wouldn't prevent the bad mortgage, wouldn't prevent the bank from selling it to Fannie, Freddie or Countrywide Financial and being made into a crappy MBS.

What do you think caused the recession? And how would you have avoided it?

Economies are cyclical. Something new starts to make money, people pile in, excesses occur, losses start to happen, people run for the exits. It's human nature. Anything you try to do to stop the rise or the fall is probably more expensive than the loss you would avoid.

That being said, the government's good intention of helping poor credits risks buy homes they couldn't afford was a stupid idea. It contributed to rising home prices; people jumped on the bandwagon.

Normally there would be a limited demand for the crappy mortgage paper, but the government pressured banks to create it, CRA etc. Banks aren't stupid, they saw they could sell to Fannie, Freddie, Bear Stearns, Lehman, Goldman, Countrywide, so they did.
Instead of holding crappy paper they sold it to people who wanted higher yields or who could turn it into MBS.

Nationwide housing prices had never fallen before, so this crappy MBS must be safe.
Create some more. Poor risks were getting homes with Bush's HUD mandate for Fannie and Freddie to buy 30% subprime loans, so Clinton hiked it to 40%, 42%, 50%.

That seemed to work, so Bush hiked it to 52% then 56%. What could go wrong? DURR.

As for your snide remarks about socialist banking, let's set the record straight. In a socialist society, education is a right, not something you have to go into debt for.

Bla bla bla.
Obama socialized student loans. He fucked up. It put people deep in debt for degrees they never finished or for degrees with little market value. Great job, moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The crisis wasn’t just about people getting mortgages they couldn’t afford; it was about how those mortgages were leveraged, repackaged, and sold throughout the financial system, creating a ticking time bomb.

Nope. Banks wrote a giant pile of crap.

Splitting the crap up into 1000 piles wasn't the problem, the problem was the crap.

If they had kept the crap on their own spreadsheets, there would still be a huge problem.