Go back
Our grandkids will hate us...

Our grandkids will hate us...

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1
I don't know how much you know about interest rates but the decision to keep rates at (practically) 0% for over a decade was free money for those who could take advantage of it. As for the initial bailouts as it was banks giving themselves (free) money through the government (Hank Paulson was 'representing' the 'people' when he gave his former employer billions of (free) money) as for the 'strings' I'm sure they were minimal and we're almost certainly tax deductible 🤔😁

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@beardmusic said
@AverageJoe1
I don't know how much you know about interest rates but the decision to keep rates at (practically) 0% for over a decade was free money for those who could take advantage of it. As for the initial bailouts as it was banks giving themselves (free) money through the government (Hank Paulson was 'representing' the 'people' when he gave his former employer billio ...[text shortened]... money) as for the 'strings' I'm sure they were minimal and we're almost certainly tax deductible 🤔😁
You’re mixing three different things. Loans, bailouts, and monetary policy. C’mon man, not as bad as marauder’s confusion, but this is really a totally unthought post on the forum., you make extremely general a reference to Money that is doled out by the government. Can you type all of that and not think that it’s a little bit over simplified. Allow me to write you back shortly as I am tied up, but I had to say this.

Ps: How much I know? I used to teach this stuff.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1
Look forward to it. I know how interest rates work via 'market operations' and have studied economics and history. I appreciate that I have simplified to a certain extent but that can be useful especially if complexity only muddies the water and obscures the blatant abuse of power ..

My main point of interest is why you don't see these actions as a socialistic abuse of power and free markets as I certainly do...

Vote Up
Vote Down

@beardmusic said
@AverageJoe1
Look forward to it. I know how interest rates work via 'market operations' and have studied economics and history. I appreciate that I have simplified to a certain extent but that can be useful especially if complexity only muddies the water and obscures the blatant abuse of power ..

My main point of interest is why you don't see these actions as a socialistic abuse of power and free markets as I certainly do...
First, , near-zero interest rates weren’t “free money.” Borrowers still had to repay the principal and interest. Cheap credit is not the same as the government handing someone cash.
Second, most of the bank bailout money wasn’t a gift. Much of it was provided through loans or capital investments that were repaid, and the Treasury ultimately recovered more than it disbursed through the main bank rescue programs. Do you evn know about the rescue programs? Taxpayers did not simply write banks a blank check.
Third, ,if your claim is that the govt gives corporations free money, then show an example where a corporation received billions with no obligation to repay it, no equity stake, no conditions, and no expectation of return. You act truly like is totally free. Low interest rates and emergency lending don’t meet that definition. Posts like this require a lot of work on my part!!! Did you just see that marauder considers the illegal aliens invasion to not qualify to the definition of invade????? And as is his normal penchant, he goes into WHY (‘new life ‘ thing) and ignores the gist of Webster. Geez.
If you want to argue that the government sometimes intervenes too much in financial markets, that’s a fair policy debate. I think they do too!! But that’s a different claim from saying it gives corporations “free money.”

5 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1
I honestly have to question your understanding of interest rates, with 0% interest what were they paying back????? You might want to check your info here. It was basically free money... I also love the quaint notion-propaganda- that the bailouts were 'good' for the economy, if that's the case why don't we do it every year??? Then the economy could really boom 🤔🤣
Secondly, as I said, none of this has anything to do with 'free market's and is essentially socialism which was my main point. I am well aware of the rescue programs and what they entailed hence my question, why aren't you complaining here about socialistic intervention in the 'free' market...
The savings and loan bailouts of the 1990s we're also 'free money' if you needed another example although this 'only' cost US taxpayers about half a trillion - a bargain compared to 2007-2008...

Vote Up
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1 said
First, , near-zero interest rates weren’t “free money.” Borrowers still had to repay the principal and interest. Cheap credit is not the same as the government handing someone cash.
Second, most of the bank bailout money wasn’t a gift. Much of it was provided through loans or capital investments that were repaid, and the Treasury ultimately recovered more than it disburs ...[text shortened]... . I think they do too!! But that’s a different claim from saying it gives corporations “free money.”
Who are you and what have you done with our AJ?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@beardmusic said
@AverageJoe1
I honestly have to question your understanding of interest rates, with 0% interest what were they paying back????? You might want to check your info here. It was basically free money... I also love the quaint notion-propaganda- that the bailouts were 'good' for the economy, if that's the case why don't we do it every year??? Then the economy could really boom ...[text shortened]... le although this 'only' cost US taxpayers about half a trillion - a bargain compared to 2007-2008...
You’re mixing up three different things.

First, near-zero interest rates weren’t “free money.” Borrowers still had to repay the principal and interest. Yes cheap credit. Nature of enomy of the moment. You would not have agreed, I assume. Sue wouldn’t have either.
Second, most of the bank bailout money wasn’t a gift. Much of it was fromm loans or capital investments that were repaid, and the Treasury ultimately recovered MORE than it disbursed through the main bank rescue programs!!!. We didn’t just give blank checks

Third, if your claim is that the government gives corps free money, then just show me an example where a corp received billlions with no obligation to repay it, no equity stake, no conditions, and no expectation of any return. Low interest rates and emergency lending don’t meet that definition, I think I said this before.
Being a staunch conservative ,,,,, wanting the government only to do what it is supposed to do nothing else, I think the government sometimes intervenes too much in financial markets. But even when tgovt stick their nose in it, it not give free money.

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1
It was free because there was 0% interest!!! Why is that so hard to figure? And it DID cost taxpayers because the money wasn't 'paid back' but ADDED to the national debt that more than doubled to accommodate the bailouts from (approx 9 trillion in 2007 to over 20 trillion by 2017- we will soon be on double that in a couple of years!!!).
When interest rates are low the Fed buys government debt from banks providing liquidity, when they are high the Fed sells debt to banks to cool the economy. This is called market operations and is basically how interest rates and the amount of money in the economy is set. Post-2007 this system was butchered to prevent mass bankruptcy, the bailouts caused irreparable damage through inflation that we are still trying to deal with. I'm afraid that it's you that's muddled here...

Vote Up
Vote Down

@beardmusic said
@AverageJoe1
It was free because there was 0% interest!!! Why is that so hard to figure? And it DID cost taxpayers because the money wasn't 'paid back' but ADDED to the national debt that more than doubled to accommodate the bailouts. I'm afraid that it's you that's muddled here...
No, I’m listening. You’re saying payback was minimal if anything at all And debt Hobbsdoubled, etc. etc.
Find some simple proof of that prove me wrong. I always met when I’m wrong.

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1
I've just given you the proof, why did the debt double????

And like I said if it was such a great idea why don't we bail them out every year? 🤣

Vote Up
Vote Down

@beardmusic said
@AverageJoe1
I've just given you the proof, why did the debt double????

And like I said if it was such a great idea why don't we bail them out every year? 🤣
OK, tell us when the debt never doubled. I cannot believe you want all of us know nothings to get involved in discussing the national debt.

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1
I said at the beginning, it took over 200 YEARS to add 1 trillion to the National Debt, Reagan (the fiscal hawk) added 2 trillion in 8 years and since then it has been rapidly increasing. According to Google it now takes 200 DAYS not 200 YEARS (!!!!) to add 1 trillion to the national debt. This is the root of our current inflationary crisis...

Vote Up
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1 said
OK, tell us when the debt never doubled. I cannot believe you want all of us know nothings to get involved in discussing the national debt.
Youll remember how bad the debt situation is but not until a Democrat is president again.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@beardmusic said
@AverageJoe1
I said at the beginning, it took over 200 YEARS to add 1 trillion to the National Debt, Reagan (the fiscal hawk) added 2 trillion in 8 years and since then it has been rapidly increasing. According to Google it now takes 200 DAYS not 200 YEARS (!!!!) to add 1 trillion to the national debt. This is the root of our current inflationary crisis...
OK, I'll stay with you. Please read. The debt is at an sustainable pace. But it didn't explode because of one president or one political philosophy. Further, I am more about talking of practical policy rather than partisan blame as do you and the other hyenas.
I can tell you now the solution is to reform entitlement programs, control, discretionary, spending, encourage economic growth for God sake, and making Congress live within any long-term budget. So simple just like a family at the kitchen table.
Remember that a lot of the inflation was caused by pandemic, spending supply chain and disruptions energy prices and monetary policy, Not onerson or one party's fault. Just cool it with blame. If you had funded the loser college tutiioons, I woujdl be saying now to go get it the. hell back, and also all the money we put into USAID, etc.
So stop speniding so much money, government, all of you. em and repub alike.
It is a complex problem, we might as well get Sonhouse's opnion, wont make any difference. And We have to advorcate fiscal responsbility.
Hey, I know a great thinker that can do that. Mamdani, the NYC mayor. Let us get his ideas and watch it all settle down. Call Marauder, I think they are on first name basis.

Or do you think we could just get money of the rich. Have you ever noticed that when I often say,'You want Other Peoples Stuff', that none of you ever have once denied it????/. brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@AverageJoe1
There's no 'party problem' here as it's a joint effort, I'm not interested in blaming an individual party. On this issue they are essentially identical, namely MORE DEBT. And I'm afraid you are wrong it IS due to a political philosophy (Neo-Liberalism). As I keep saying - and you keep ignoring for some reason - this is a (relatively) recent development. I will try to explain once more and try to let this sink in: it took 200 years to add 1 trillion dollars to the National Debt now it takes 200 days - this is not 'normal' and it certainly isn't 'sustainable' it was started by Reagan and all of his successors have carried it on...