Greenspan on 60 Minutes - I call BS - Page 5

Copernicus · #41 09-15-2007, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Greenspan's book evidently tells it like it is:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/14/213112/337

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, a leftie hate sites spin of a leftie reporters spin of a book. I'll wait to read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

hate site hate site hate site hate site liberal hate hate hate hate

Dude, that talking point expired last month with Bill O after the Kos convention. Seriously, I could go back and find the term "hate site" and "liberal hate" in a dozen of your post and other righties, just after Bill O made it his cause. Get with it, you guys have "moved on" (heh) to deporting citizens for free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may find it in others' posts, you won't find it in mine. In fact afair the only time I mentioned it I denied it was a hate site. I've read a lot more of it since then, and its undeniably an accurate description, and they don't even try and camoflouge it like the Huffington Post.

Zygote · #42 09-15-2007, 04:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]

to me there is a diference between a bailout (i.e. saving thos who made poor investments) vs. "managing the economy" which would be attempting to increase consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't we already gone over the cons of artificially increasing consumption? Apparently you still support this. The part i dont understand is why.

[ QUOTE ]

a bailout would be a LARGE drop in the fed funds rate (i.e. one that is above that needed given the current/likely future path of the economy).

[/ QUOTE ]

my answer is pretty much the same as the last quote. you are saying artificially increasing consumption is a good thing?

you also dont talk about inflation at all. do you discount the effect on this end of things?

[ QUOTE ]

a .25 bp drop could arguably be justified right now:

- retail sales ex autos fell
- jobs contracted by 4k for the first time in 5 years
- consumer sentiment has been weak

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are definitely saying someone needs a bailout, no?

You're at least saying we need to rob future resources to give handouts to heed certain people's special interests.

Zygote · #43 09-15-2007, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

yes they can imo. see my above post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Even if you stop further abuse, this is the equivalent of not lowering the rate to begin with. So far as you allow the rate cut to work you are saying a portion will go to refueling the bubble.

[ QUOTE ]

just a measure of what i think would be larger than necessary given current real economic conditions. i agree a purging of bad (mostly from mortgages and their realated securities etc.) is a great thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

why is the purging of artificially high consumer spending and related industries not a good thing?

[ QUOTE ]

yes i did/do. i assume you didn't/don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you're saying these aren't bailouts?

you assume correctly btw, surprise [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]!

Copernicus · #44 09-15-2007, 04:15 PM

I'll let Dcifr respond, but I don't think your response has a single accurate interpretation of what he said.

It certainly doesnt accurately describe my response, which was essentially identical to his.

DcifrThs · #45 09-15-2007, 04:23 PM

wow zygote. why do you want to bring up the fed vs. no fed discussion again?

i'm talking about reality. we are in a centrally managed economy.

the fed has to make a decision. i'm discussing the pros/cons of it. pretty straightforward.

so why don't you deal with the issues i was discussing.

or are you calling a "bailout" absolutely any move by the fed? maybe its existance is "wrong" maybe its existance isn't "wrong." but either way, it exists, and it has to make decisions given data. so go reread my post and respond to the things i discussed without talking about the pros/cons of the fed's existance. if you want to do that again just post again in the original thread in which we had it...

'cause i think that is very glib if you just take any mention of a "bailout" to mean the existance of the fed.

Barron

anatta · #46 09-15-2007, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Greenspan's book evidently tells it like it is:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/14/213112/337

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, a leftie hate sites spin of a leftie reporters spin of a book. I'll wait to read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

hate site hate site hate site hate site liberal hate hate hate hate

Dude, that talking point expired last month with Bill O after the Kos convention. Seriously, I could go back and find the term "hate site" and "liberal hate" in a dozen of your post and other righties, just after Bill O made it his cause. Get with it, you guys have "moved on" (heh) to deporting citizens for free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may find it in others' posts, you won't find it in mine. In fact afair the only time I mentioned it I denied it was a hate site. I've read a lot more of it since then, and its undeniably an accurate description, and they don't even try and camoflouge it like the Huffington Post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am interested to hear what you think of as hate, you might be right. I don't think you will take me up on it, but you could go there right now, and there are dozens of post on the front page, and dozens of rec'd post, dealing with elections and Iraq, I don't see any thing I would call "hate" but maybe I"m a thick skinned lawyer and poker player, perhaps not as sensitive as you.

Zygote · #47 09-15-2007, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]

wow zygote. why do you want to bring up the fed vs. no fed discussion again?

[/ QUOTE ]

because you said artificially increasing consumption is an appropriate action in terms of the best interest of the overall economy.

[ QUOTE ]

i'm talking about reality. we are in a centrally managed economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? We're also in an age of executive branch, conventionally accepted abuses. This doesn't mean i cant advise the executive branch to avoid these breeches.

[ QUOTE ]

so why don't you deal with the issues i was discussing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said people wont learn if the right consequences arent in place. I am disputing the fed action of either lowering rates or injecting cash because of a lack of investor confidence as not allowing for right the consequences to occur.

[ QUOTE ]

or are you calling a "bailout" absolutely any move by the fed?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the fed raised rates and refused to inject cash then their actions wouldnt be bailouts.

[ QUOTE ]
but either way, it exists, and it has to make decisions given data.

[/ QUOTE ]

given data is US dollar is ready for collapse. The markets were inflated for a reason, the must be allowed to deflate without bailouts. Otherwise, you are just propping the problem further and the negativity will only be felt at a later time.

[ QUOTE ]

'cause i think that is very glib if you just take any mention of a "bailout" to mean the existance of the fed.

[/ QUOTE ]

didnt say that. The fed could concentrate a tad on monetary stability, for example.

DcifrThs · #48 09-15-2007, 04:40 PM

let me rephrase: within the confines of "given the existance of the fed" what is your opinion on the best action coming up?

i.e. no rate drop, 25 bp, 50bp etc.?

and do you get the distinction of my definition of bailout vs. no bailout?

i'm not talking about "bailing out" the economy (which i guess you could term it if you want). i'm talking about "bailing out" those who made aggressive in mortgage backed investments without fully researching their implications/true risks/relying on ratings agencies (that last one is debateable and obviously important)

Barron

Copernicus · #49 09-15-2007, 04:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Greenspan's book evidently tells it like it is:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/14/213112/337

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, a leftie hate sites spin of a leftie reporters spin of a book. I'll wait to read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

hate site hate site hate site hate site liberal hate hate hate hate

Dude, that talking point expired last month with Bill O after the Kos convention. Seriously, I could go back and find the term "hate site" and "liberal hate" in a dozen of your post and other righties, just after Bill O made it his cause. Get with it, you guys have "moved on" (heh) to deporting citizens for free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may find it in others' posts, you won't find it in mine. In fact afair the only time I mentioned it I denied it was a hate site. I've read a lot more of it since then, and its undeniably an accurate description, and they don't even try and camoflouge it like the Huffington Post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am interested to hear what you think of as hate, you might be right. I don't think you will take me up on it, but you could go there right now, and there are dozens of post on the front page, and dozens of rec'd post, dealing with elections and Iraq, I don't see any thing I would call "hate" but maybe I"m a thick skinned lawyer and poker player, perhaps not as sensitive as you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take you up on it tonight, but I have to head into the office soon. My threshold of "hate" may well be lower than yours. In the context of a political blog I would put the threshold of hate at "venomous ad hominen attacks, sometimes but not always accompanied by wishes of ill fortune to befall the subject of the attack and/or their supporters". (And by no means do I think that there aren't right wing hate blogs as well, though I don't know of any that rise to the level of financing and influence that moveon and dailykos have.)

Eg. the moveon ad in the times falls clearly under "hate" imo, due to its impugning the character and integriy of Petraeus without foundation.

The RG response, on the other hand, calls Shrillary out based on very specific actions, non-actions and statements on her part.

anatta · #50 09-15-2007, 05:16 PM

Its tough for an ad to provide "foundation" in limited space. Underneath the catchy Betrayus (lol using Shrillary habitually and in same post), was "cooking the books" subtitle. Making the point that the statistics used by him are in dispute, as are his loyalties (to Bush over the truth), given his consistently wrong assessments of progress in Iraq...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lz-PxpPG...Farchive%2Ehtml

And of course there's Petraeus' Boss...

U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.