It's disturbing that Bernie Sanders is actually receiving support for the Presidency

[crazed_hoosier2]

Isn't Sanders really railing against Hillary for being in the pocket of Wall Street and the Big Banks while proposing stuff to prove the extremes he would go as compared to the lap dog Hillary or the Chuck Shumers of the world?

After watching Wall Street and the banking industry ward off serious reforms following the financial crisis, I wouldn't worry about the proposals of Sanders or any other Democrat if I were Crazed or mjvcaj.

I'm not worried about them, really. I think they have about as much chance of becoming actual policy as Trump's "promise" to have all illegals deported within two years. Even if he's elected that won't happen.

I just thought this was an opportune time to point out how disjointed from reality Sen. Sanders is -- as if the disparity in those respective interest rates is some kind of unjust preference, policy, or evidence of greedy bankers, etc.

I am, though, generally worried about how many people seem to sympathize with the sentiment without apparently even considering why it might be the case and why it might make sense.

For instance, it was not an injustice that, pre-1999 or so, many people were unable to finance the houses they wanted to buy. But it would be easy to convince a crowd of disaffected people that it was.

 

[Zizkov]

Who said anything about interest rates? We are talking about making riskier loans. Interest rates are only a component of lending. Apparently you skimmed over these:

The Fed must also make sure that financial institutions are investing in the productive economy by providing affordable loans to small businesses and consumers.

Third, as a condition of receiving financial assistance from the Fed, large banks must commit to increasing lending to creditworthy small businesses and consumers, reducing credit card interest rates and fees, and providing help to underwater and struggling homeowners.

The problem is, you have taken a tweet and made it into a referendum on the naivety of a candidate, that most likely knows worlds more then you do about any of the issues surrounding the needs of a president.

You have taken this tweet in a vacuum to show that he has no idea how the various interest rates are determined.

Now, either you are intentionally taking a single tweet and attempting to discredit a candidate you don't/like or agree with, knowing it doesn't represent the whole story. Or you are ignorant about the candidate as a whole and therefore don't understand the point he is making.

If you have followed the Sanders campaign at all, you would know that he advocates for free education, whether you agree or not is immaterial. He is simply making a point that it is ludicrous that people can get a house mortgage at a much lower rate then an educational load because he believes in the value of education.

It has nothing to do with the lack of understanding of the risk/reward of the various loans.

You may disagree with his ideas, but you are either intentionally or ignorantly misrepresenting what he is saying.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The problem is, you have taken a tweet and made it into a referendum on the naivety of a candidate, that most likely knows worlds more then you do about any of the issues surrounding the needs of a president.

You have taken this tweet in a vacuum to show that he has no idea how the various interest rates are determined.

Now, either you are intentionally taking a single tweet and attempting to discredit a candidate you don't/like or agree with, knowing it doesn't represent the whole story. Or you are ignorant about the candidate as a whole and therefore don't understand the point he is making.

If you have followed the Sanders campaign at all, you would know that he advocates for free education, whether you agree or not is immaterial. He is simply making a point that it is ludicrous that people can get a house mortgage at a much lower rate then an educational load because he believes in the value of education.

It has nothing to do with the lack of understanding of the risk/reward of the various loans.

You may disagree with his ideas, but you are either intentionally or ignorantly misrepresenting what he is saying.

Well, first, there's no such thing as a "free" education. There's no such thing as "free" anything. What he's advocating is that new taxes be levied to pay for all college tuitions. It's a bad idea on many levels. But let's set that far-fetched policy proposal aside for the moment, because it wasn't even referenced in his tweet.

His tweet simply compared interest rates for student loans vs. mortgages and lamented that the former is higher than the latter. And it said what it said -- as such, it can only be evaluated on what it said. I guess I don't blame his supporters for wanting to change the subject -- being that what he tweeted went to 11 on the stupidmeter.

If Sanders really does understand the reason that student loans tend to have higher interest rates than mortgages, then he's practicing classic populist demagoguery. I suspect that he actually doesn't understand it -- he just sees it as an unjust malady of the machine he's raging against....and that, in the more just world of his vision, all social goods (like education, housing, healthcare, etc.) are not only not overpriced, they're all paid for by the benevolent government.

To my ears, complaining that an unsecured loan is more expensive than a secured loan is like complaining that fat people have to buy bigger clothes -- clearly the spoils of "thin privilege" in this godforsaken country, or something.

Anyway, assuming you do understand why this is the way it is, don't take it out on those of us taunting Sanders for putting his naïveté out on display for all the world to see. Instead, ask him what in the hell he was thinking. Saying that he only had 140 characters is really not much of an excuse.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Who can look at that ginormous spike and conclude it must have been government making banks loan money to poor people?

I don't think government "made" them do any such thing. I think government created the incentives for them to do it. In fact, I don't merely think this, it's all right there in the 1999 NYT piece. Actually, I'd venture to guess the retail banks were all on board with this, so long as they didn't have to carry these newfangled loans on their own books. So long as they could pass them off to somebody else, why would they care? The enhanced risk was almost immediately somebody else's worry.

It's astounding that the financial sector's rapacious greed could nearly bring down the global economy, and the conservative takeaway is that we should do less to help poor people.

Er, what I'm saying is that we shouldn't do stupid things to help poor people (or any other people, for that matter). Tinkering with the risk models of multi-trillion dollar credit markets in order to expand home ownership was a stupid thing -- and we know for a fact that there were people who were calling it such at the time it was done. There's a difference between not doing anything to help poor people and not doing stupid things to help poor people.

Statements like the one from Sen. Sanders made in his blockheaded tweet shows just how much some people have avoided this obvious lesson.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, first, there's no such thing as a "free" education. There's no such thing as "free" anything. What he's advocating is that new taxes be levied to pay for all college tuitions. It's a bad idea on many levels. But let's set that far-fetched policy proposal aside for the moment, because it wasn't even referenced in his tweet.

His tweet simply compared interest rates for student loans vs. mortgages and lamented that the former is higher than the latter. And it said what it said -- as such, it can only be evaluated on what it said. I guess I don't blame his supporters for wanting to change the subject -- being that what he tweeted went to 11 on the stupidmeter.

If Sanders really does understand the reason that student loans tend to have higher interest rates than mortgages, then he's practicing classic populist demagoguery. I suspect that he actually doesn't understand it -- he just sees it as an unjust malady of the machine he's raging against....and that, in the more just world of his vision, all social goods (like education, housing, healthcare, etc.) are not only not overpriced, they're all paid for by the benevolent government.

To my ears, complaining that an unsecured loan is more expensive than a secured loan is like complaining that fat people have to buy bigger clothes -- clearly the spoils of "thin privilege" in this godforsaken country, or something.

Anyway, assuming you do understand why this is the way it is, don't take it out on those of us taunting Sanders for putting his naïveté out on display for all the world to see. Instead, ask him what in the hell he was thinking. Saying that he only had 140 characters is really not much of an excuse.

While student loans may be unsecured, they cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. It seems a decent number of people who go bankrupt are angry at their situation and cause damage to the home reducing the value. That sort of thing is not possible with student loans. So while there may be more risk, I would be curious how we can measure how much more risk.

And if it was like the homes involved in bankruptcy during the 2008 crisis that were in my neighborhood, the bank never came close to making back what they were owed. We had a couple sell for far less after bankruptcy. Homes that sold for $125,000 before selling for $75,000 after.

But going back to a question Rock asked, the real estate bubble impacted nations all over the world. How could CRA force Germany into a real estate bubble?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

But going back to a question Rock asked, the real estate bubble impacted nations all over the world. How could CRA force Germany into a real estate bubble?

Well, how could a dot-com fueled stock market bubble inflate prices of stocks that weren't technology companies?

Nobody ever defaulted on a mortgage that was never closed in the first place, Marvin. Most of the mortgages that defaulted should never have been closed. And, please understand, I'm not -- now or ever -- denying the critical role played by financial speculators in all this. What I've long said is that this was the fourth or fifth domino in the chain. In fact, they didn't even get into the reengineered subprime game until a few years after the GSEs did. The credit default swap markets didn't get started until after the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 put them under the purview of the CFTC. Subprime activity had already increased significantly by that time.

Look carefully at the below graphic -- particularly the years 1998 and 1999 as compared to 1994-1997.

A bigger spike came later, yes. But the first big spike in subprime activity predated the advent of Credit Default Swaps (and the post-9/11 Fed aggression, too).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Conservative ideology insists that government must have pressured banks into the risky behavior that blew up the economy because such irresponsible behavior is unpossible in a free market. The problem is that this simply isn't what happened, as study after study has shown:

Did Fannie and Freddie buy high-risk mortgage-backed securities? Yes. But they did not buy enough of them to be blamed for the mortgage crisis. Highly respected analysts who have looked at these data..including the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission majority, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and virtually all academics, including the University of North Carolina, Glaeser et al at Harvard, and the St. Louis Federal Reserve [also here], have all rejected the Wallison/Pinto argument that federal affordable housing policies were responsible for the proliferation of actual high-risk mortgages over the past decade.
​

(To those studies I'd add this one, this one, this one, and this one, all done by analysts working at the Federal Reserve.)

It is very well understood -- except by conservative ideologues -- what caused the financial crisis. It had nothing to do with the US government pressuring banks to lend money to poor people. Banks made crazy loans here and elsewhere because the Giant Pool of Money's demand for mortgage-backed securities couldn't be satisfied with legitimate mortgages. Originators could sell obviously absurd loans to securitizers, who dumped them into investment trusts that compliant ratings agencies labeled AAA. Since everyone expected housing prices to keep rising forever, there was no apparent downside, so lending standards went to hell. Those seeking government villains should look to those who deregulated trading in commodities futures and in particular to these smug assholes.

Wait. Is this for real? Are people actually blaming the government for the recession?

 

[Rockfish1]

I don't think government "made" them do any such thing. I think government created the incentives for them to do it. In fact, I don't merely think this, it's all right there in the 1999 NYT piece. Actually, I'd venture to guess the retail banks were all on board with this, so long as they didn't have to carry these newfangled loans on their own books. So long as they could pass them off to somebody else, why would they care? The enhanced risk was almost immediately somebody else's worry.

A 1999 news report can't possibly explain how the 2008 financial crisis happened. In contrast, the intensive efforts to discover what did cause the financial crisis can explain it. As I've demonstrated, the extensive literature that resulted from those intensive efforts unambiguously establishes that government housing policies had nothing to do with it. Those policies may be ill-conceived on their own merits, but they had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Your contrary claim is based on nothing but your own blinding ideological certitude.

Apparently without glimpsing its significance, however, you lurch into the truth with this:

So long as they could pass them off to somebody else, why would they care? The enhanced risk was almost immediately somebody else's worry.
​

Yes. This is exactly the state of affairs that the private mortgage and securities markets created.

Back in the olden days banks lent money to people they knew, and they counted on those people to pay it back. But then banks started reselling their mortgages to others, taking those obligations off their books. Then those buying the mortgages figured out how to pool them into huge trusts that could be securitized and sold off in tranches, rated AAA by compliant ratings agencies. Then people figured out how to create even more esoteric securities -- credit default swaps -- that bet against the pooled mortgage funds. And banks like Goldman Sachs started creating mortgage funds to bet against. (Understand that this is like buying insurance policies on other people's houses that you expect to burn down.) Now add the Giant Pool of Money that needed someplace to go. This created a huge demand for mortgage bullshit -- not from the government or from poor people, but from Wall Street.

In the crazy real world that I just described, nobody cared whether individual mortgages would ever be paid off, so nobody cared about lending standards. That's how we got no income no asset loans. Not because government pressured bankers into making vast fortunes doing irresponsible shit, but because bankers realized that they could make vast fortunes doing irresponsible shit.

Your conviction that the government shouldn't help poor people buy homes may or may not be correct as a matter of policy. But your conviction that those policies caused the financial crisis is an absurd fantasy. It ought to be embarrassing that you don't see this.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Just an observation from me while reading through this. It appears to me what those on the right are arguing is that things are rosy and headed in the right direction and want to concentrate on is that part of the overall trend/picture that supports the argument they want to make. Yet at the same time ignoring the long term trend shown for over a decade plus from my forays on links and my own searches as I look into things people have stated here.

What it does is it reminds of what climate change deniers do/did to support their take because they can point to a small "step" in the trend that supports what they want to try to maintain while ignoring the longer term picture.

"why since 2012 we've been heading int he right direction...blah blah blah..". how about from 2000, 1990? Then you'd have a real point.

 

[mike41703]

"why since 2012 we've been heading int he right direction...blah blah blah..". how about from 2000, 1990? Then you'd have a real point.

Well, since you asked so nicely I will help you out.

Using 1990(and Rock's same chart), we're still headed in the right direction.

Now, I assume the goalposts will move since according to your above quote "I have a real point". And that just can't happen, right?!

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Ok, but...

 

[mike41703]

As I predicted, you're a goalpost moving moron.

This chart goes through 2012. As already stated earlier in my crayon session with Rockfish, the years since 2012 have trended upward. Looking at a small sample size and making dramatic predictions is dumb.

Edit-goes thru 2010 but that's irrelevant.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

As I predicted, you're a goalpost moving moron.

This chart goes through 2012. As already stated earlier in my crayon session with Rockfish, the years since 2012 have trended upward. Looking at a small sample size and making dramatic predictions is dumb.

Edit-goes thru 2010 but that's irrelevant.

How is median income relevant to what's actually being debated here (and everywhere) right now? The real debate revolves around whether or not income growth is reasonably distributed among all income levels, not whether or not it's actually growing. This graph means nothing.

 

[mjvcaj]

How is median income relevant to what's actually being debated here (and everywhere) right now? The real debate revolves around whether or not income growth is reasonably distributed among all income levels, not whether or not it's actually growing. This graph means nothing.

Because the rhetoric has been that median incomes are not rising for the middle class. That is why the median is relevant.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Because the rhetoric has been that median incomes are not rising for the middle class. That is why the median is relevant.

And do we know if that chart includes government benefits? If so, that accounts for that median rise, not wages. Everything I Google that specifies wages indicates there has been tremendous separation between the top 1% and everyone else with everyone else stagnating.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Because the rhetoric has been that median incomes are not rising for the middle class. That is why the median is relevant.

I don't think that's what we're talking about. Even if it is, it's unlikely the median income and the median middl class income are the same (because of how median and middle class are both generally defined). I thought we were talking about income and wealth growth class disparity. That graph means nothing to that question.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

And do we know if that chart includes government benefits? If so, that accounts for that median rise, not wages. Everything I Google that specifies wages indicates there has been tremendous separation between the top 1% and everyone else with everyone else stagnating.

How much of this is explained by what share of a person's true income is subsumed by benefits? I certainly can't speak for every employer, but I can tell you that the cost of benefits in our CBA today is almost 40% of what goes on the check. That percentage has risen consistently over the years -- I can remember when it was less than 20%.

A lot of that, of course, can be chalked up to the cost of healthcare. But no small part of it is for retirement benefits as well. I bet if you looked at a chart of Employment Cost Index over that same period, it would've risen substantially.

Granted, I've long made it clear that I think it's meaningless to look at wealth/income gaps in relative terms. What really matters to people -- or, at least, should -- is their standard of living as measured against a reasonable expectation of the value of their labor -- and whether that is improving or not. Measuring it in relative terms (particularly in relation to rich people rather than peers) is likely to always be an exercise in frustration -- mostly because people who earn less tend to direct higher percentages of their income to consumption than people who earn more. Plus, prices of things change (look, for instance, how much less we spend on food today than we did 50 years ago -- or look how much more affordable it is to fly today than it was in the past).

 

[mike41703]

How is median income relevant to what's actually being debated here (and everywhere) right now? The real debate revolves around whether or not income growth is reasonably distributed among all income levels, not whether or not it's actually growing. This graph means nothing.

Because it was a chart Rock linked to show that people hurt during the Great Recession were screwed(and likely never to recover). My point was that that was a gross overreaction. The graph you questioned is to show that focusing on a small sample is silly to do and based on history will go up again(as we are already seeing).

I don't have the time to really respond now as all I have is my phone.

The graph certainly doesn't mean nothing. I don't even know how you can claim that. It's incredibly straight forward.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Because it was a chart Rock linked to show that people hurt during the Great Recession were screwed(and likely never to recover). My point was that that was a gross overreaction. The graph you questioned is to show that focusing on a small sample is silly to do and based on history will go up again(as we are already seeing).

I don't have the time to really respond now as all I have is my phone.

The graph certainly doesn't mean nothing. I don't even know how you can claim that. It's incredibly straight forward.

Doesn't it depend on the people? I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I know several people forced into early retirement. They were old enough that it was very hard to find a new company. I am sure they are set back far from where they expected.

 

[mike41703]

Doesn't it depend on the people? I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I know several people forced into early retirement. They were old enough that it was very hard to find a new company. I am sure they are set back far from where they expected.

I don't doubt that out of the dozens of millions of people in the labor force that some got screwed by this locally significant dip in the economy and the timing of it was certain to doom some's plans. But this isn't new. People got screwed by the .com bubble, the 87 crash and so on. Each one of those events claimed victims.

Most recovered though. Most will also recover from the Great Recession in a similar manner. I know comparing events that are decades and generations apart are never truly apples to apples.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Because it was a chart Rock linked to show that people hurt during the Great Recession were screwed(and likely never to recover). My point was that that was a gross overreaction. The graph you questioned is to show that focusing on a small sample is silly to do and based on history will go up again(as we are already seeing).

I don't have the time to really respond now as all I have is my phone.

The graph certainly doesn't mean nothing. I don't even know how you can claim that. It's incredibly straight forward.

I'm sorry, but that's all over the place and adds up to nothing.

Rock's comment regarding median income was very specific: it hasn't recovered from the point it was before the recession.

But that leaves two big problems:

1. You're making a nonsense criticism about sample size, when Rock was referring to median income. That's...well, nonsensical. I don't even know how to respond to that other than to say that it doesn't make any sense.

2. The primary topic of discussion on this over the past, I dunno, months? years? forever? hasn't been about median income - that was really just an aside about measurements - but about growth disparity. To focus on this one minor branch of the discussion to the exclusion of the main point is just more avoidance.

 

[mike41703]

I'm sorry, but that's all over the place and adds up to nothing.

Rock's comment regarding median income was very specific: it hasn't recovered from the point it was before the recession.

But that leaves two big problems:

1. You're making a nonsense criticism about sample size, when Rock was referring to median income. That's...well, nonsensical. I don't even know how to respond to that other than to say that it doesn't make any sense.

2. The primary topic of discussion on this over the past, I dunno, months? years? forever? hasn't been about median income - that was really just an aside about measurements - but about growth disparity. To focus on this one minor branch of the discussion to the exclusion of the main point is just more avoidance.

1. Because his median income comment was based on a short time frame. I don't know how to explain any clearer to you that that is a ridiculous way to base the future on. Period. That's all I'm arguing. It's not nonsensical if you read what I'm actually criticizing.

2. Your problem is you assume I'm arguing something I'm not. I haven't been here for years and have probably missed many of the arguments I think you think I haven't, for some reason.

I criticized, minorly I thought, a simple statement Rock made. It has evolved into something quite ridiculous.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Everyone talks about the GOP's ridiculous field, and rightfully so. But, too few talk about Sanders' nutty rants, unsubstantiated claims and severe misunderstanding of how things work in this country.

NYT graciously allowed for what I consider one of the worst Op-Eds I have ever read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/bernie-sanders-to-rein-in-wall-street-fix-the-fed.html

I have decided to dissect some of Sanders' statements. If only someone could debate him on these points.

To rein in Wall Street, we should begin by reforming the Federal Reserve, which oversees financial institutions and which uses monetary policy to maintain price stability and full employment.

Notice only the latter two are part of the Fed's mandate.

The recent decision by the Fed to raise interest rates is the latest example of the rigged economic system.
Big bankers and their supporters in Congress have been telling us for years that runaway inflation is just around the corner.

Who specifically is he referring to? Is he confusing Big Bankers with @IU1 and his cult following of ZeroHedge and Peter Schiff?

What went wrong at the Fed? The chief executives of some of the largest banks in America are allowed to serve on its boards. During the Wall Street crisis of 2007, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, served on the New York Fed’s board of directors while his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Next year, four of the 12 presidents at the regional Federal Reserve Banks will be former executives from one firm: Goldman Sachs.

Who understands the financial sector better than those working in the financial sector? Does he understand what a BOD even is?

Board members should be nominated by the president and chosen by the Senate. Banking industry executives must no longer be allowed to serve on the Fed’s boards and to handpick its members and staff.

So, Sanders wants to politicize one of the few independent institutions left in this country? To this I just laugh.Talk about self-serving. He is advocating for more corruption, he just doesn't know it. Perhaps he needs to be reminded how well the SCOTUS nomination procedures work. I'm sure he is a huge fan of Scalia and Thomas and feels they were rightly appointed.

Moreover, it makes you wonder who he would appoint to oversee such a complex area of the economy. We all know how effective lifetime public officials are (see the incompetence of the SEC).

The Fed must also make sure that financial institutions are investing in the productive economy by providing affordable loans to small businesses and consumers that create good jobs.

WTF? Is this a serious statement? Does he remember what the role of the Fed is as previously stated at the top of his own bloggish editorial?

1) He is essentially advocating for the Government to mandate how private institutions lend money. How very communist of him. Perhaps he never read all of the stories of failure with the SBA, USDA, etc.

2) Providing affordable loans to riskier businesses goes against the risk-taking that he proposes in this publication! It goes against Dodd-Frank, the pile of legal restrictions and regulations that Sanders supported.

How? First, we should prohibit commercial banks from gambling with the bank deposits of the American people

Um... the Volcker Rule, part of the D-F bill Bernie voted for, is already in effect. On top of that Basel requirements are more stringent.

Second, the Fed must stop providing incentives for banks to keep money out of the economy. Since 2008, the Fed has been paying financial institutions interest on excess reserves parked at the central bank — reserves that have grown to an unprecedented $2.4 trillion.

What? Does he understand what excess capital requirements means? This is part of the regulation that Bernie voted for.

Third, as a condition of receiving financial assistance from the Fed, large banks must commit to increasing lending to creditworthy small businesses and consumers, reducing credit card interest rates and fees, and providing help to underwater and struggling homeowners.

What the hell is wrong with this guy? This is exactly the type of lending that caused the financial recession and the type of behavior that Bernie himself is ridiculing. Now he wants the banks to make risky loans to those that shouldn't be allowed to get credit? Just makes you wonder if he has an IQ above 100.

We also need transparency. Too much of the Fed’s business is conducted in secret, known only to the bankers on its various boards and committees. Full and unredacted transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee must be released to the public within six months, not five years, which is the custom now.

Unless I am missing something, FOMC minutes are provided within weeks after the meetings, not 5 years. Did he even bother to check these? Don't even answer that question.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm

We must reinstate Glass-Steagall and break up the too-big-to-fail financial institutions that threaten our economy.

So would he repeal D-F since there are substantial amounts of overlap? Also, did someone inform Bernie that Bear and Lehman were investment banks only and G-S would have had zero impact on their failure?

In sum, it's pretty sad that this guy has so much support and that the ignorant American public and media (thanks NYT) doesn't even bother to fact check the rhetoric they want to hear. Just goes to show you that it isn't just the far right that has nutjobs and endangers the country.

while i don't agree with all that Bernie says, that has to be the most misinformed and analytically nonsensical post, even for you.

to touch on a few things,

A), sounds like you would endorse putting Michael C as head of the organized crime fighting commission, while he still heads the Corleone family and has to deal with all the other "families" as well, and who will eventually leave the govt commission and go back to only being a crime boss and dealing with other crime bosses from that position, because who knows more about organized crime than MC.

LMAO at there sheer magnitude of ignorance and total absence of basic common sense in that line of thinking.

B), if you want transparency at the Fed, start with transparency in govt, and transparency elsewhere. (even some non govt entities that need it), will follow.

C), yes, govt needs input on bank lending.

while we might agree that's a flawed system, it's just not as flawed as them having no input, and leaving the entire future of the nation at the whim of a few monolithic financial entities who's only directive is max short term self serving interests, even when those interests directly conflict with the best interests of the nation, get even more monolithic, and when said self serving interests can better be served by manipulating markets, than by simply providing goods and services in a competitive market..

D), credit card interest rates, (not to mention fees), would never be anywhere near where they are in a truly competitive market, and border on or are usury relative to the rate the banks are getting funds at.

most consumer credit and a huge portion of small business credit is credit cards, and the absurd rates and fees and penalties that only a monopolistic or a collusive system would ever support, are a gigantic drag on consumers and on small business from both sides.

really, dude, how blind and/or misguided are you?

like i said, don't agree with BS on everything, but he grasps the single most important fact, which is govt can't serve 2 masters, and the one they are now serving is not not the citizenry outside of the very select few.

out of time for now, will continue later.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm sorry, but that's all over the place and adds up to nothing.

Rock's comment regarding median income was very specific: it hasn't recovered from the point it was before the recession.

But that leaves two big problems:

1. You're making a nonsense criticism about sample size, when Rock was referring to median income. That's...well, nonsensical. I don't even know how to respond to that other than to say that it doesn't make any sense.

2. The primary topic of discussion on this over the past, I dunno, months? years? forever? hasn't been about median income - that was really just an aside about measurements - but about growth disparity. To focus on this one minor branch of the discussion to the exclusion of the main point is just more avoidance.

You shouldn't be too smug goat

You defended the graph of the bottom 90% compared with the to 1% of ACCUMULATED INCOME INCREASE using the metric a percentage increase. As I have pointed out numerous times over the months and years income inequality has been a topic of discussion, that way of measuring the relative positions of income and thus inequality is pretty worthless. There are many reasons for this as I have pointed out. Chief among those is that the actual per capita level of top income can go down, but if there are more people earning the top incomes, the aggregate would increase, thus giving a false positive of top income increasing. In otherwods that method of measurement counts upward mobility as increasing income inequality. Upward mobility is what we are striving for, right?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

You shouldn't be too smug goat

You defended the graph of the bottom 90% compared with the to 1% of ACCUMULATED INCOME INCREASE using the metric a percentage increase. As I have pointed out numerous times over the months and years income inequality has been a topic of discussion, that way of measuring the relative positions of income and thus inequality is pretty worthless. There are many reasons for this as I have pointed out. Chief among those is that the actual per capita level of top income can go down, but if there are more people earning the top incomes, the aggregate would increase, thus giving a false positive of top income increasing. In otherwods that method of measurement counts upward mobility as increasing income inequality. Upward mobility is what we are striving for, right?

you do realize that that what you're saying is mathematically total and complete gibberish.

because what you're arguing is supposedly, according to you, based in math principles, but totally nonsensical from a math perspective, i just don't know where to begin.

i'm guessing math wasn't your strong point in school.

for a start, try to learn the mathematical relationship between "per capita" and top 1%. (or .01% or whatever).

once you've grasped that, (which you're currently light years from), try and go from there.

once you do grasp said relationship, (which i doubt you ever will), you'll realize what you're saying is mathematically non nonsensical, and has no basis in the actual math what so ever.

whomever is pulling your strings, is giving you very bad direction.

like i said, stick to the law and politics.

 

[Rockfish1]

The problem is, you have taken a tweet and made it into a referendum on the naivety of a candidate, that most likely knows worlds more then you do about any of the issues surrounding the needs of a president.

You have taken this tweet in a vacuum to show that he has no idea how the various interest rates are determined.

Now, either you are intentionally taking a single tweet and attempting to discredit a candidate you don't/like or agree with, knowing it doesn't represent the whole story. Or you are ignorant about the candidate as a whole and therefore don't understand the point he is making.

If you have followed the Sanders campaign at all, you would know that he advocates for free education, whether you agree or not is immaterial. He is simply making a point that it is ludicrous that people can get a house mortgage at a much lower rate then an educational load because he believes in the value of education.

It has nothing to do with the lack of understanding of the risk/reward of the various loans.

You may disagree with his ideas, but you are either intentionally or ignorantly misrepresenting what he is saying.

This is what passes for discourse among modern Republicans. Fortunately for the rest of the world, we're the only ones burdened by such a predominantly crazy party. It's hard to know what to do with these people, who have so tenuous a connection to objective reality.

 

[iuwclurker1]

This is what passes for discourse among modern Republicans. Fortunately for the rest of the world, we're the only ones burdened by such a predominantly crazy party. It's hard to know what to do with these people, who have so tenuous a connection to objective reality.

Untethered Ideology

 

[CO. Hoosier]

you do realize that that what you're saying is mathematically total and complete gibberish.

because what you're arguing is supposedly, according to you, based in math principles, but totally nonsensical from a math perspective, i just don't know where to begin.

i'm guessing math wasn't your strong point in school.

for a start, try to learn the mathematical relationship between "per capita" and top 1%. (or .01% or whatever).

once you've grasped that, (which you're currently light years from), try and go from there.

once you do grasp said relationship, (which i doubt you ever will), you'll realize what you're saying is mathematically non nonsensical, and has no basis in the actual math what so ever.

whomever is pulling your strings, is giving you very bad direction.

like i said, stick to the law and politics.

Let me use crayons for you

We have an economy of 100 people. 99 people make a total of $100,000 and 1 person makes $1,000.000. In year two, 98 people make a total of $100.000 and 2 people make 999,999 each. In the first year the bottom 99% make 9% of income. In year 2 the bottom 98% make only 5% of total income. According to the graph you defend, income inequality nearly doubled but the real difference actually shrunk. The difference is income mobility, which is a good thing, right?

 

[iuwclurker1]

Let me use crayons for you

We have an economy of 100 people. 99 people make a total of $100,000 and 1 person makes $1,000.000. In year two, 98 people make a total of $100.000 and 2 people make 999,999 each. In the first year the bottom 99% make 9% of income. In year 2 the bottom 98% make only 5% of total income. According to the graph you defend, income inequality nearly doubled but the real difference actually shrunk. The difference is income mobility, which is a good thing, right?

Cute. 91% inflation in the second year? GDP(?) of $1.1M suddenly turns into $2.1M? Let me guess. Microlending at its best? The CO.H mint must have shot into overdrive printing all those coorsbacks.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Cute. 91% inflation in the second year? GDP(?) of $1.1M suddenly turns into $2.1M? Let me guess. Microlending at its best? The CO.H mint must have shot into overdrive printing all those coorsbacks.

Huh?

I posted a simple hypothetical example having sifted out extraneous factors to make a simple mathematical point that the previous poster denied.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Huh?

I posted a simple hypothetical example having sifted out extraneous factors to make a simple mathematical point that the previous poster denied.

1 + 1 = 4

There you have it. My simple mathematical point that proves...uh...wait...seems my equation came from an alternative reality. Never mind, let's just define that as an extraneous factor and sift it out.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

1 + 1 = 4

There you have it. My simple mathematical point that proves...uh...wait...seems my equation came from an alternative reality. Never mind, let's just define that as an extraneous factor and sift it out.

There is a way to respond to my point

But you don't recognize it. If you hit it, we could have an interesting discussion about what inequality really means.

 

[mjvcaj]

I don't think that's what we're talking about. Even if it is, it's unlikely the median income and the median middl class income are the same (because of how median and middle class are both generally defined). I thought we were talking about income and wealth growth class disparity. That graph means nothing to that question.

This is a basic concept. Middle class should be defined around a median.

 

[mjvcaj]

And do we know if that chart includes government benefits? If so, that accounts for that median rise, not wages. Everything I Google that specifies wages indicates there has been tremendous separation between the top 1% and everyone else with everyone else stagnating.

I'm not disagreeing with that point Marvin. Just suggesting that median income is representative of the middle class, by definition.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You haven't "pointed out" anything. Instead you've made baseless claims that the data repudiate, and in support of your erroneous claims you've offered nothing. You've merely added income inequality denial to climate denial and all the other denials of things that upset you. You're a fusty old man who doesn't like what he doesn't like. That's what you've "pointed out."

At least I know the difference between

"data" as singular and "data" as plural. But that is a fusty notion.

 

[iuwclurker1]

There is a way to respond to my point

But you don't recognize it. If you hit it, we could have an interesting discussion about what inequality really means.

Are you sure I don't recognize it?

Are you sure I'm not making fun of you on 42 levels? Do you know who demonstrated that 1+1=4? Do you know that your simple mathematical point gave the best proof of Rock's point possible?

Perhaps you might consider that your ideology-stuffed-belief-system mind will always fail against hard, cold science. Even sophistry can't proof you up against knowledge.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Are you sure I don't recognize it?

Are you sure I'm not making fun of you on 42 levels? Do you know who demonstrated that 1+1=4? Do you know that your simple mathematical point gave the best proof of Rock's point possible?

Perhaps you might consider that your ideology-stuffed-belief-system mind will always fail against hard, cold science. Even sophistry can't proof you up against knowledge.

I have no idea what you point is

My point is income inequality means the delta between the income of individuals. When we aggregate, as we must for analytical purposes, I think per capita income difference is the important difference worth talking about. Rockfish, goat, and maybe you (I can't tell for sure) do not make a per capita analysis. So you would exacerbate the income difference by the number net of people moving into the bigger incomes areas even though per capita income doesn't change. Your graph measures % of change total income as evidence of increasing income differences. Obviously this ignores the numbers of people making those higher incomes in the various brackets. I think the better way is to measure difference per capita changes. You seem to think the aggregate higher earners as a group is the problem. Either way, income inequality is a problem. I just happen to think expressing it as changes in per capita numbers is a more realistic way of looking at it, and thus a better way to deal with it, instead of what the aggregate percent of total income is for the higher earners.

For example. Part of the reason for the income difference is the lack of upward mobility from the lower groups. We can't even think about the lack of mobility if all we are looking at is the percent of the "take" of the upper group and focus on that.

In any event, the difference between the way I see inequality and the way you apparently see it deserves a much more involved discussion and I don't feel like doing that now.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You shouldn't be too smug goat

You defended the graph of the bottom 90% compared with the to 1% of ACCUMULATED INCOME INCREASE using the metric a percentage increase. As I have pointed out numerous times over the months and years income inequality has been a topic of discussion, that way of measuring the relative positions of income and thus inequality is pretty worthless. There are many reasons for this as I have pointed out. Chief among those is that the actual per capita level of top income can go down, but if there are more people earning the top incomes, the aggregate would increase, thus giving a false positive of top income increasing. In otherwods that method of measurement counts upward mobility as increasing income inequality. Upward mobility is what we are striving for, right?

Let me use crayons for you

We have an economy of 100 people. 99 people make a total of $100,000 and 1 person makes $1,000.000. In year two, 98 people make a total of $100.000 and 2 people make 999,999 each. In the first year the bottom 99% make 9% of income. In year 2 the bottom 98% make only 5% of total income. According to the graph you defend, income inequality nearly doubled but the real difference actually shrunk. The difference is income mobility, which is a good thing, right?

All this proves is that you don't understand basic mathematics.

I already explained to you why your statements on this are wrong, using Algebra 101 terms. That you chose to ignore me is your problem.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This is a basic concept. Middle class should be defined around a median.

Yes, but depending on how you define that group, the median of that group may not be the same as the median of the whole economy - and in fact almost certainly won't be, since income distribution doesn't follow a bell curve.

For example, if you define middle class as anyone earning within 50% of the median in either direction, there will be more people below than above, and thus the median of that group will be lower than the overall median, and this disparity will increase as the income gap widens.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

So we've systematically cut the legs out from under the middle classes historical part of the productivity profit over a number of decades, the right continues it's war on unions who have helped ALL labor raise their standard of living and wages, another stab at the livlihood of the middle class. Now they have and are stripping any government benefits they receive, while doing all the opposite for the upper income earners. And all the right here is touting this as good economic sense, take everything away from the part of our nation that made us great and is most responsible for a robust economy for the nation. As corporations have pushed more and more for of a global economy. In themean time we're not fully back and won't return to the levels pre collapse, Europe is even worse off from the reading I've done with regarding their economic woes, our largest trading partner but hey the rich are doing well with their investments and corporations are having record profits so all is right in the world for people in the those numbers games who only want more of same. They have theirs and screw everyone else and they want more and can rig the game to do so and are working on doing just that.

That's what I'm getting from this conversation going on here and the actions of republicans over the years to date.