|
joepinetree posted:https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/obama-foreclosure-crisis-wealth-inequality to be clear, nobody is accusing Obama of causing the 2008 financial crisis that Obama's response to the financial crisis was, explicitly, "we will force the poor to cover the rich's gambling debts" had it some pretty profound consequences for the people he promised hope and change.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
I remember there was a passage in one of Obama's books where he said he admitted that he hung around the wealthy too much as a senator and got too enamored with their worldview. Can't find it via google, but it was a stunning admission.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Love watching people be surprised Richard Spencer isn't banned from Twitter when he clearly isn't banned because he understands liberals and can play their game. All he has to do is be Liberal Polite and he's covered because the Twitter ban wave was never about nazism or the alt-right, it was about breaking the special rules you have to play by to be a good boy who should be debated in the marketplace of ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't think so: I'm not trying to say "that the task is hard is proved by Obama, who is competent, failing at it". I am saying, if something seems easy to you (and it is my impression this is what people are saying itt- that it would have been easy to be much more leftist than Obama was!), and a seemingly competent person fails at it, then you should consider if maybe you were wrong and it actually was hard. You can also reconsider if your assessment of the person was wrong, but I think you should definitely consider the first option. Okay? It's elementary to find plenty of examples of policies entirely within Obama's control either because they're explicitly within the purview of the executive or because the 2009-2010 Democratic Congress passed legislation that left them within his discretion, where he chose to side with the wealthy against the American people or chose to conduct illegal surveillance on us or chose to murder a bunch of foreigners. I can document specific examples if you don't know about this stuff. Since he chose to do these things when the decision was entirely up to him without needing permission from anybody, it is reasonable to conclude that in other areas even where consensus from his party was required, that actions which were similar to actions he took unilaterally were probably also close to what he wanted to do even if the party still had to agree. That is a more consistent conclusion than assuming he's a neoliberal and warmonger only when acting unilaterally, but everywhere else he secretly had noble social democratic goals which were foiled by the Deep State Shadow Government which forced him to do...uh... exactly the same stuff he was doing anyway when they weren't forcing him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The People's Policy Project (one of the few actually leftist think tanks) just released a new well researched report on the topic that's stoking conversation: http://peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Foreclosed.pdf joepinetree posted:https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/obama-foreclosure-crisis-wealth-inequality Thanks, these links helped a lot. And yeah, okay, I completely get that now. At the time bailing out the banks made a certain amount of sense to my little just-out-of-college centrist brain ("but what if the economy can't handle the banks dying???"), but looking back, yeah, that policy left the hosed-over homeowners high and dry and more hosed over. Those links helped put it into perspective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
I mean, from a macroeconomic structural sense, bailing out the banks was necessary to prevent the entire system from collapsing. What wasn't necessary is not prosecuting the crimes of the banks that led to the crash, heavily regulating their behavior, or making the average American pay for it via sleight of hand rather than the rich upper class that was responsible. It's not that we shouldn't have prevented the banking system from failing, at least in my opinion, it's that heads should've rolled (figuratively, but some would accept literally) as punishment for causing the crash. And obviously, we should've bailed homeowners out as well, using the money of rich people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, from a macroeconomic structural sense, bailing out the banks was necessary to prevent the entire system from collapsing. My question (and I believe this was echoed by Jon Stewart during his Daily Show tenure) is this, though: Why couldn't that bailout have been funneled through the people? If you were going to be giving these banks money, why not just pay off people's mortgages for them? Or just outright buy homes and give them to people, free of charge? The bank gets the money either way, but one way wipes out a massive chunk of consumer debt and would free up a ton of consumer money to go straight into the economy! I'm sure the answer probably boils down to "A lot of rich people rely on that massive chunk of consumer debt and don't want it wiped out."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:My question (and I believe this was echoed by Jon Stewart during his Daily Show tenure) is this, though: I mean, you could've done this. I'm not being specific on how the system ought to have been stabilized, because I don't feel confident in my knowledge of the system to say how that should've been done. I just know that "not stabilizing the system" would likely have caused even more damage to the wealth of the vast majority of people, as opposed to stabilizing the system and making rich people pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:My question (and I believe this was echoed by Jon Stewart during his Daily Show tenure) is this, though:  Moral hazardSee, if you don’t cripplingly punish people for the mistakes others make, then they’ll just keep making those mistakes and they should have known all along not to buy those houses and and and Basically the same assholes that get loving livid over the idea of taking a loan or other debt even when it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Basically the same assholes that get loving livid over the idea of poor people taking a loan or other debt even when it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Fixed that for ya.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Fixed that for ya. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Basically the same assholes that get loving livid over the idea of poor people Cerebral Bore posted:Fixed that for ya. Tightened it up for ya.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:
There is a very strong moral hazard if we allow people to believe the government will protect them from their bad choices, I declare, as I deny a 10 year old child dialysis because my insurance company will make more money if it doesn't pay for the care his parents get through their work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Remember a lot of the "mistakes" that were made by people buying houses were acting with the approval of banks which were supposed to be the experts that told you "no you can not afford this loan" instead of just approving everything, slicing them up and shoving the bits into securities, and then fraudulently mislabeling their overall quality. Blaming the homeowners for the crash is like blaming someone that goes to the doctor and is misdiagnosed that they didn't know better than to not trust that person which society tells you is beyond question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Radish posted:Remember a lot of the "mistakes" that were made by people buying houses were acting with the approval of banks which were supposed to be the experts that told you "no you can not afford this loan" instead of just approving everything, shoving them all into securities, and then fraudulently labeling the. a lot of the "mistakes" were also middle men insurance brokers selling people adjustable rate mortgages but telling them they were fixed rate. it was a scam through and through, and it targeted the poorest and most vulnerable. the fact that it wasn't prosecuted is one of the great injustices of recent times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:Remember a lot of the "mistakes" that were made by people buying houses were acting with the approval of banks which were supposed to be the experts that told you "no you can not afford this loan" instead of just approving everything, slicing them up and shoving the bits into securities, and then fraudulently mislabeling their overall quality. Yeah this. Most everyday people didn't know there were insane incentive structures that pushed lenders to shove as many mortgages out the door as humanly possible, regardless of borrower's abillity to pay them off long term, until it was too late
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:My question (and I believe this was echoed by Jon Stewart during his Daily Show tenure) is this, though: It's not that simple. The problem wasn't that banks didn't have money. It was that everyone knew everyone else was selling poo poo, and so no one was buying anything. So the bailout had to be very specifically targeted in ways that would restore confidence in the market. Once that happened, and things stabilized, then the banks could pay it back. I'm not a finance guy, so I don't know all the different options aside from the bailout that were available at the time that could've provided a similar jumpstart, but I would not be surprised if giving free houses out to people is not among them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I remember there was a passage in one of Obama's books where he said he admitted that he hung around the wealthy too much as a senator and got too enamored with their worldview. Can't find it via google, but it was a stunning admission. Yeah; a big reason why I have the understanding of Democratic politicians that I do is because of my own experiences, which are unfortunately impossible to fully explain/convey to others without them having been there. I spent a lot of time with a bunch of "high finance" folks, and it is extremely easy to let yourself just go with the flow when surrounded by people like that. They're generally very intelligent and enjoyable to be around, and it's easy to externalize the working class as an Other that you can stereotype when most of the people you know and interact with in person are well-off, highly educated, etc. At the time I would see people attacking the finance industry (or the wealthy in general) and think "but those aren't the people I know, so clearly it must be nonsense." I think this is what people like Obama probably privately think, even if they realize they need to say some negative stuff about the wealthy out of political necessity. Harrow posted:Thanks, these links helped a lot. Bailing out the banks in some form wasn't necessarily wrong, but doing so without also punishing a lot of the people in question (or possibly nationalizing the banks or something) was a huge mistake (I mean, it was fully intentional on the part of Obama and other politicians, but you know what I mean). Not to mention the whole "not doing nearly enough to prevent a repeat years later" thing. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah; a big reason why I have the understanding of Democratic politicians that I do is because of my own experiences, which are unfortunately impossible to fully explain/convey to others without them having been there. I spent a lot of time with a bunch of "high finance" folks, and it is extremely easy to let yourself just go with the flow when surrounded by people like that. They're generally very intelligent and enjoyable to be around, and it's easy to externalize the working class as an Other that you can stereotype when most of the people you know and interact with in person are well-off, highly educated, etc. Have you ever questioned the downside of generalizing from experience? Most Democrats, including officials, are not part of the “high finance”.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Have you ever questioned the downside of generalizing from experience? Most Democrats, including officials, are not part of the “high finance”. Have you ever read any other post by Ytala ever? Because like, yeah, he has. Edit- did you read the post you quoted? Did you understand what the words "at the time" convey?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Yronic unwilling to acknowledge the concept of the social elite, news at eleven.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I'm not a finance guy, so I don't know all the different options aside from the bailout that were available at the time that could've provided a similar jumpstart, but I would not be surprised if giving free houses out to people is not among them. giving out free houses and nationalizing the fire sector
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's not that simple. The problem wasn't that banks didn't have money. It was that everyone knew everyone else was selling poo poo, and so no one was buying anything. So the bailout had to be very specifically targeted in ways that would restore confidence in the market. Once that happened, and things stabilized, then the banks could pay it back. I'm not a finance guy, so I don't know all the different options aside from the bailout that were available at the time that could've provided a similar jumpstart, but I would not be surprised if giving free houses out to people is not among them. Good think they go into this in Foreclosed: quote:Instead of incentivizing servicers to do modifications, the Obama administration should have followed and improved the formula of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (holc) of the 1930s, by buying up mortgages in default, and refinancing them with a lower interest rate and with a longer repayment period And that's not even getting into the powers the federal government had over the banks' fraudulent mortgages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Have you ever read any other post by Ytala ever? Because like, yeah, he has. I think it is you who needs to reread. “The understanding I have” suggests he believes his limited experience gives him broad insight. “At the time” seems to harken back to a time when he believed dumb neoliberal things that all those he now labels “liberals” must now naturally believe since he figures he’s been there. That’s why a major genre of ytlaya posts is him just speculating how and why “liberals” writ large take the positions they do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
You dummy he's not generalizing that they work in high finance. He's generalizing that they would have the same reaction to high finance people he did. That's not an unreasonable thing for people to do and you trying to castigate him about it is weird. Comparing what other people do to his lived experience to try to understand their behaviors. What a freak. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
“The cultural attitudes of liberals generally is exactly like people I knew in high finance.” Got it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:“The cultural attitudes of liberals generally is exactly like people I knew in high finance.” Got it. Just lol if you are actually this stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Just lol if you are actually this stupid. did you miss the weeks' worth of trying to rewrite an entire political ideology from scratch based around "no, i'm not owned, you're owned" it was a thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:did you miss the weeks' worth of trying to rewrite an entire political ideology from scratch based around "no, i'm not owned, you're owned" You’re talking about the capitalism derail? You mean like this is a thing? https://www.stirtoaction.com/article/there-is-no-such-thing-as-capitalism Or this? http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/scrap-the-rhetoric-theres-no-such-thing-as-capitalism-a6735506.html Or maybe this? https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=54184 I’m sorry to disappoint all the college sophomores in this thread who just read Das Kapital and really want to talk about it to yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
a comprehensive bibliography of "important evolutions of marxist and postmarxist thought in the 20th and 21st century" 1. capitalism isnt even like, a thing man. the independent (periodical). 2015 2. google suggested some guy named after a wine who spells habit funny by i couldnt really understand this. is there something written by a politician in a magazine i can put here 3. a porno and hulk hammer? idk that dbag at the coffee shop who banged the girl i like at the coffee shop said i should read this but those blenders are like, super loud when theyre making my frapps
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
How can inequality be real when capitalism don't real
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:How can inequality be real when capitalism don't real There is no ethical consumption in Candy Land, where candy communism is mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:There is no ethical consumption in Candy Land, where candy communism is mandatory. This is why Princess Bubblegum lost the election. (that was kinda oddly prescient for 2016; she believed she was the rightful ruler and had no real need to campaign, and was completely taken by surprise when a populace fed up with the status quo and feeling disrespected either stayed home or voted for an obvious con man instead)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
what is a capitalist country today what is a non capitalist country today
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:what is a capitalist country today Do you like, not know what capitalism is? Is this some kind of existential argument?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
what is a patriarchal society today what is a non patriarchal society today checkmate, misandrists
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
I have a dictionary, now let’s put theory into practice: Name me what the countries today which are capitalist and non-capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I have a dictionary, now let’s put theory into practice: There aren’t any meaningfully non-capitalist countries. There are social democracies with heavily regulated capitalism, state capitalist authoritarian countries, crony capitalist countries, etc. What is your point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
I have here in my hand a list of 195 . . . a list of names that were made known to the something awful dot com forums as being members of global capitalism
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:what is a patriarchal society today Easy 1. Alabama 2. Tumblr
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 07:30
|
|