Coffeehouse Thread

124 posts

Political Bing

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , Proton2 wrote

    U.S. slips out of top 10 most prosperous countries, while Canada stays at No. 6 natpo.st/SPL5DF

    Is that the Canuck version of the Daily Mail?

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    , ScanIAm wrote

    *snip*

    Is that the Canuck version of the Daily Mail?

     

    It's ranked 38th in North America, keep in mind Canada has 1 / 10 th the population of USA.

    http://www.4imn.com/topNorth-America/

     

    I am not familiar with the Daily Mail. I like the Telegraph , especially this writer :

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , ScanIAm wrote

    Perhaps we should return to unregulated healthcare, food production, and get rid of traffic laws while we are at it.

    YES, YES, YES!

    I'm sorry, but you are just wrong, here.  The banking industry has proven repeatedly that it cannot function ethically without regulations and oversight.

    Why not? Because of some bad banks, all banks should be treated equally bad? Guilty until proven innocent and then still being treated as guilty? That doesn't sound right.

    And you think government has a better track record then banks? Curious,..

    Where does this trust in government come from? They are the same people,.

    Well, there you go.  You point out how to do it and then immediately start wiggling out of the definition.  I'm not going to do busywork for you because you've proven repeatedly that you don't listen to anything anyone says and you are a troll.

    Stick and stones,...

    And you've proven my previous point.  I told you exactly how I knew G-S would have made the crisis less damaging and you ignored it.

    I understand your argument on the how, I just asked you by how much?

    If you can claim it would have done less damage, this should be an easy question, as you have obviously already done the research.

    No bank out there was forced to loan money to people who weren't qualified.  They did so because they knew they could sell the loan off and keep the fees involved in processing those loans. 

    Yes they were. The CRA was specifically designed for this purpose. A certain percentage of your securities has to be backed by loans to people that do not make a lot of money. This started a run on these types of loans and created a bubble, that burst. This is well documented, it's just not the political correct version that you get served in the media. Government good! Wallstreet bad!

    There is no, I repeat NO evidence that banks were forced to give loans to people who weren't qualified.

    Repeating that myth doesn't make it true.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

    The law is not evidence enough?

    You think Freddie and Fannie wanted to go out of business? That their CEO's wanted to give up their jobs willingly? That they set out to screw their fellow banks and the entire world, on purpose, for money? And that somehow more regulations is going to create a healthy system?

    You think that's air you are breathing?

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    But obviously we need to stop this trend of deregulation!

    Generic Forum Image

    source;

    http://regdata.mercatus.org/query/graph/titles/general/all

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    But obviously we need to stop this trend of deregulation!

    Finally, regardless that I take you out of context, we agree.

    Maddus you're an anarchist ~ the OCD variety. Glad you're over there. Wink

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    I'm fully in favor of a police, military and a court system.

    Like I've stated a gazillion times.

    Yet you don't want them to have any laws to enforce and suggest that as such we'd never know the outcome if such laws were on the books anyway.

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

    *snip*

    Yet you don't want them to have any laws to enforce and suggest that as such we'd never know the outcome if such laws were on the books anyway.

    But they would be armed and do Maddus' bidding... surely that fixes everything.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    YES, YES, YES!

    You are just being silly, now.  The idea that we should roll the dice on healthcare, food or traffic safety is just rediculous.

    Why not? Because of some bad banks, all banks should be treated equally bad? Guilty until proven innocent and then still being treated as guilty? That doesn't sound right.

    The alternative is what we just had and the result is what just occured in the early to mid 2000s.  The only reason you are still arguing this is a good thing is that you've backed yourself into a corner and have no way to get out of the argument.

     

    And you think government has a better track record then banks? Curious,..

    Where does this trust in government come from? They are the same people,.

    The population can vote for (and therefor out) their government.  They cannot vote out business critters who cheat. 

    Stick and stones,...

    Stop trolling. 

    I understand your argument on the how, I just asked you by how much?

    If you can claim it would have done less damage, this should be an easy question, as you have obviously already done the research.

    You have your answer.  If you wish to ignore it in favor of 'how much' then you can continue to argue with yourself on that.  I won't argue the color of the sky with a blind man.

    Yes they were. The CRA was specifically designed for this purpose. A certain percentage of your securities has to be backed by loans to people that do not make a lot of money. This started a run on these types of loans and created a bubble, that burst. This is well documented, it's just not the political correct version that you get served in the media. Government good! Wallstreet bad!

    *snip*

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

    The law is not evidence enough?

    You think Freddie and Fannie wanted to go out of business? That their CEO's wanted to give up their jobs willingly? That they set out to screw their fellow banks and the entire world, on purpose, for money? And that somehow more regulations is going to create a healthy system?

    You think that's air you are breathing?

    I don't know if english is your first, second, or third language, but when you get around to fully comprehending it, go back and actually read what the CRA does and show me where it said that banks were forced to give bad loans to unqualified applicants.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    But obviously we need to stop this trend of deregulation!

    Generic Forum Image

    source;

    http://regdata.mercatus.org/query/graph/titles/general/all

    From the 'methodologies' section on that site:

    "It is constructed by searching for a set of phrases that may indicate that the CFR title is targeting a specific industry"

    Honestly, it's a f*cking word count.

    Go away, troll.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , ScanIAm wrote

    You are just being silly, now.  The idea that we should roll the dice on healthcare, food or traffic safety is just rediculous.

    I'm being drop dead serious.

    Healthcare costs in Holland are through the roof! There is no incentive to make healthcare cheaper, because there is no competition. Competition can only exist in a free market.

    Food subsidies is keeping Africa poor.

    I do agree with traffic laws, but I've seen crossings in India that made me think twice about the absolute necessity.

    The alternative is what we just had and the result is what just occured in the early to mid 2000s.  The only reason you are still arguing this is a good thing is that you've backed yourself into a corner and have no way to get out of the argument.

    You confuse cause and effect. The cause is the regulation, the effect is a crisis. I'm not saying without regulations there will be no crisis, they will be just more manageable.

    The population can vote for (and therefor out) their government.  They cannot vote out business critters who cheat. 

    Yes you can, you can stop buying their products. You get to vote with each dollar you spend! I'll guarantee you they will shape up faster then any politician. We are stuck with those for the entire term.

    Stop trolling. 

    Stick and stones.

    You have your answer.  If you wish to ignore it in favor of 'how much' then you can continue to argue with yourself on that.  I won't argue the color of the sky with a blind man.

    If you cannot provide a number, you cannot argue the principle. Either back it up with data or stop using the fallacy. Sure some things wouldn't be legal under SG, but that wouldn't mean that the entire crisis would be averted, even less damaging. The damages now just landed in a different place, you can argue that it's not fair, but not that the crisis would be less damaging.

    I don't know if english is your first, second, or third language, but when you get around to fully comprehending it, go back and actually read what the CRA does and show me where it said that banks were forced to give bad loans to unqualified applicants.

    Again, sticks and stones.

  • User profile image
    Proton2
  • User profile image
    Bass

    Looks like Mr. President is going to be a two termer.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    I do agree with traffic laws, but I've seen crossings in India that made me think twice about the absolute necessity.

    Wait, you're using India as an example of why we shouldn't have traffic laws? A country that is notorious for its extremely dangerous driving conditions?

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Yeah, too bad it's bunk, and the authors of the article knew it was bunk, because they published the same article based on the same data back in January and the Met Office debunked it back then too.

    Here's what the Met Office (who released the charts that this article is drawing erroneous conclusions from) has to say about it (including a conversation with the author of the article from before the article was published): http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

    And here's the original rebuttal from back in January: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

  • User profile image
    cbae

    Ohio just called. Obama wins.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    , Sven Groot wrote

    *snip*

    Yeah, too bad it's bunk, and the authors of the article knew it was bunk, because they published the same article based on the same data back in January and the Met Office debunked it back then too.

    Here's what the Met Office (who released the charts that this article is drawing erroneous conclusions from) has to say about it (including a conversation with the author of the article from before the article was published): http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

    And here's the original rebuttal from back in January: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

    The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: 'We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.'

     

    See the full article with Q&A here

    ----------

    Update and confirmation of 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago' aka 'the pause'

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/21/update-and-confirmation-of-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    , Proton2 wrote

    *snip*

    The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: 'We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.'

    Way to take that out of context.

     

    See the full article with Q&A here

    ----------

    Update and confirmation of 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago' aka 'the pause'

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/21/update-and-confirmation-of-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

    So another Daily Mail article, and an article from a known climate change denier site that has a long history of not properly checking their sources. Got any scientific source? Of course you don't.

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    @Proton2: Wait, is this an attempt to draw attention away from Obama winning?

    Herbie

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.