2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

[MTF]

To imply that Bernie Sanders with his 30 years in congress doesn´t understand what banks do is beyond arrogance, but then again, you also seem to think what we need now is another Henry Kissinger. He saw very clearly what was going on in banking throughout the Bush years, hence his ongoing war with Alan Greenspan, wall street´s messiah. We all know how that went. He has earned his right to be listened to, as he has been on the right side of the top economic, foreign policy, moral and environmental issues over his long political career. I think the biggest "hard on" he has is to root out corrupt practices and the national and worldwide risks associated with this corruption and the whole too big to fail structure of wall street.

I'm going off what you presented as evidence of his calling out the crisis, and what I caught was him being wrong about a recent event at the time. First is that he characterized LTCM as one man, specifically John Meriwether. LTCM had 16 partners, and nearly 200 employees. Characterizing it as one man is intended to make the actions of the banks lending to the fund as much more absurd -- who would lend billions to one man?. What LTCM was and why it got so much capital, was that it was the largest and most prestigious hedge fund at the time. Doesn't seem smart in retrospect, we can sit here and say we wouldn't have done it, but who knows?

Also, the Fed didn't bail out LTCM in this instance, they brought the banks together so that they would organize the bailout. The banks were bailing themselves out, they were on the hook if LTCM just went under. The difference was whether they would fight each other in the courts over scraps or coordinate. John Meriwether, not that anyone needs to shed any tears for him, lost most of what he'd made so far in his career (he was a bit of a legend to that point), and never again managed any significant amount of money that anyone knows of. He probably still leads a comfortable life, and he was to blame for his downfall, which is why no one needs to feel bad for him. But this wasn't like '08 where some of the CEOs kept their jobs at the helms of their banks. LTCM partners were mostly done.

You think Wall Street has a too big to fail problem? LTCM had 16 banks as its lenders, US and non-US. There was nothing that told them all to lend to LTCM, they just all chose to do so. Does breaking them up further solve that, like Sanders proposes? In the Savings and loans crisis in the 80s more than 1,000 thrifts went under due to bad lending. There is no silver bullet for this problem, at times a lot of people will make the same bad financial decisions and it'll always have costs later. They will especially make the bad decision more often if the incentives are distorted, which is what the government is a master of doing when it tries to direct the economy this or that way.

 

[Raoul]

Some top economists are not impressed with Bernie's economic numbers.....

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/dem-economists-hit-bernie-sanders-231300467.html


"We have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy. When Republicans have proposed large tax cuts for the wealthy and asserted that those tax cuts would pay for themselves, for example, we have shown that the economic facts do not support these fantastical claims….

We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders's economic plan--claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.

As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party's best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic."

 

[Ubik]

Some top economists are not impressed with Bernie's economic numbers.....

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/dem-economists-hit-bernie-sanders-231300467.html


"We have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy. When Republicans have proposed large tax cuts for the wealthy and asserted that those tax cuts would pay for themselves, for example, we have shown that the economic facts do not support these fantastical claims….

We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders's economic plan--claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.

As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party's best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic."

Obviously in the tank for Shillary.

 

[Red Dreams]

shocked...

 

[MTF]

shocked...

Is this supposed to be in the matchday thread?

 

[Red Dreams]

Is this supposed to be in the matchday thread?

nah...I expected us getting our arses handed to us

 

[entropy]

He isn't going to implode. People have been predicting his implosion for 6 months now.

The only way he loses is if two of Bush, Rubio and Kasich drop out and coalesce the vote.

I don't think people cared 6 months ago. As the elections draw near I wont be surprised if people can see him for what he really is.

 

[Red Dreams]

Trump v Sanders should be fun.

 

[Neutral]

Wow. Wow wow wow. Who is in charge of his campaign, Inept Satan?

hehe....

 

[unchanged_lineup]

hehe....

Is that real? I don't get what the Cruz person is trying to say

 

[entropy]

That, yes. But I was talking about the hard on to nail the 'billionaires' and the bankers, without seeming to understand what they actually do. The policy it seems to lead to are restrictions and more restrictions on certain types of activity, without realizing that they're relevant to the functioning of the financial system, and the restrictions will make the whole thing very costly and slow. It might also forbid certain types of institutions from having certain types or risks, but leading to the risks getting concentrated elsewhere and there still being a different type of crash down the line. You know that risk doesn't dissapear, it just changes hands.

Nobody is stopping them from taking risks. Just stopping it from having adverse affects on our economy.

 

[mu77]

Rachel Maddow on the recent Hillary/Bernie NV poll

hmm. 2008 all over again. "how are we losing to that guy"

 

[Member 5225]

Love how the Pope is wading in re: Trump's wall.
The Pope: the guy that lives in The Vatican....surrounded by, err walls!

 

[MTF]

Nobody is stopping them from taking risks. Just stopping it from having adverse affects on our economy.

That's a magic trick you'll struggle to pull-off. If there are investments there is risk. If there is risk there can be losses. If the losses are large enough, in any institution or group of institutions that are relevant, that is an issue that will affect people and the economy to some degree.

 

[Nobby style]

Trump confusing himself with Sanders.

 

[entropy]

That's a magic trick you'll struggle to pull-off. If there are investments there is risk. If there is risk there can be losses. If the losses are large enough, in any institution or group of institutions that are relevant, that is an issue that will affect people and the economy to some degree.

Which is why it is a good idea to break up the big banks. Forget banking, any industry which is dominated by few and large corporations is going to face this problem. The economy cannot be held ransom by them. Show me one country whose economy is so heavily dependent on just their banking sector? You'll be surprised how normal it is for banks to take risks without having to cause so much collateral damage.

 

[PedroMendez]

That's a magic trick you'll struggle to pull-off. If there are investments there is risk. If there is risk there can be losses. If the losses are large enough, in any institution or group of institutions that are relevant, that is an issue that will affect people and the economy to some degree.

Usually it should just affect people, who invest and those people should know the risk. In our current system, that is sadly not the case, because the government decided to intervene in the first place. Now everyone is blaming "capitalism" for every bubble and every feck-up and justify further interventions, which make things usually worse.

 

[Ubik]

What's this "nuclear option"? Can filibusters be overruled on court nominations?

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

 

[MTF]

Which is why it is a good idea to break up the big banks. Forget banking, any industry which is dominated by few and large corporations is going to face this problem. The economy cannot be held ransom by them. Show me one country whose economy is so heavily dependent on just their banking sector? You'll be surprised how normal it is for banks to take risks without having to cause so much collateral damage.

I've pointed out that they weren't very concentrated before, but literally more than 30 institutions through the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Switzerland, and others, all made the same foolish investments in MBSs and their derivatives. And I referred to the Savings and Loans crisis in the 80s to show that even when pulverization reaches the thousands, there can still be mass losses.

You can cut-up and regulate the banks and investment banks, and that makes it unlikely that the next crisis will start there. What I'm saying is that it will probably happen anyways, just somewhere else. Then in hindsight everyone will complain about how foolish it was.

 

[entropy]

I've pointed out that they weren't very concentrated before, but literally more than 30 institutions through the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Switzerland, and others, all made the same foolish investments in MBSs and their derivatives. And I referred to the Savings and Loans crisis in the 80s to show that even when pulverization reaches the thousands, there can still be mass losses.

You can cut-up and regulate the banks and investment banks, and that makes it unlikely that the next crisis will start there. What I'm saying is that it will probably happen anyways, just somewhere else. Then in hindsight everyone will complain about how foolish it was.

How is that an efficient way of problem-solving though? Just leave issues unaddressed and allow ourselves to get roundly fecked every few years.

 

[Ubik]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Not sure how I've gone so long without hearing about this. I'm guessing it isn't used much because it's a bit dodgy?

 

[rednev]

This obsession with identities and box ticking is getting out of hand.

 

[MTF]

How is that an efficient way of problem-solving though? Just leave issues unaddressed and allow ourselves to get roundly fecked every few years.

Not advocating no trying to solve. Just saying that we should be aware of the limits of government's ability to solve the issue, or that it can deliver an architecture that is fail-proof. Sanders says we need to break up the banks and tax stock and derivatives trades, and 'go after the bankers'. I don't think that'll solve the problem.

And because I've seen left-leaning governments at work, they're masters in creating the kinds of distortions that lead to issues down the line. The whole push to getting more people into mortgages and houses was one of these , and Republicans are far from off the hook here. So its not entirely about left and right. Its about when government thinks they can bend the financial system and the economy to provide more of a certain thing, and that it won't imbalance the system.

Sanders would very clearly add to one type of risk: fiscal. Single-payer healthcare, free college, that'll cost money. But he's going to tax to make up, sure. But if the taxes don't yield as much? If they yield enough today, but we hit a downturn 10 years down the line and tax receipts are down 10%? The government will still be on the hook for all the healthcare and college tuitions, and it'll be as hard to cut spending on those as it is on Social Security. But the revenues might not be there.

You want to talk about risk? What happened in 2008 was downright scary, and we need to keep working to decrease the likelihood of a repeat. But nothing is as traumatic for a country as its government becoming insolvent. The US has more leeway in that sense than any other country in the globe, but do you want to risk finding out how far it goes?

 

[MTF]

This obsession with identities and box ticking is getting out of hand.

Was going to say the same. This is a Supreme Court Justice we're talking about, he/she can be from another planet for all I care. Or the most privileged, white, male, wealthy by inheritance of a slaveowning family, person ever. All that matters is their legal mind, which we analyze by looking at prior rulings and writings.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Not sure how I've gone so long without hearing about this. I'm guessing it isn't used much because it's a bit dodgy?

It's a can of worms, generally speaking. Besides the dodgy constitutional aspect, there's the obvious fact that neither party want it to become the norms, which undermine filibuster and weaken their position when in the minority.

I'm not sure how they can nuke a SCOTUS nomination through though, the language states that 'with advise and consent from the Senate', so if they do nuke it the GOP will bring the matter to the Court itself, which is kind of ironic.

 

[Red Dreams]

Elections have consequences.

Every president should be able to nominate his or her choice. Instead of obstructing, the Republicans need to win an election and then their president can nominate his choice.

 

[Ubik]

Was going to say the same. This is a Supreme Court Justice we're talking about, he/she can be from another planet for all I care. Or the most privileged, white, male, wealthy by inheritance of a slaveowning family, person ever. All that matters is their legal mind, which we analyze by looking at prior rulings and writings.

Would be great if it was that simple. As it is, you have to get these nominations through the most hostile congress in living memory whilst also keeping your base happy.

It's a can of worms, generally speaking. Besides the dodgy constitutional aspect, there's the obvious fact that neither party want it to become the norms, which undermine filibuster and weaken their position when in the minority.

I'm not sure how they can nuke a SCOTUS nomination through though, the language states that 'with advise and consent from the Senate', so if they do nuke it the GOP will bring the matter to the Court itself, which is kind of ironic.

I'm guessing it would be akin to what happened in 2013 (from what I gleaned from your link at least), where they legislated that filibustering can't be done for court appointments except in the case of the Supreme Court? So I guess they'd just that the "except" part away? I say "just"! Yeah it looks like mostly in the past it's been used as a genuine nuclear option, aka a threat rather than an action. Would be an interesting episode...

 

[entropy]

Not advocating no trying to solve. Just saying that we should be aware of the limits of government's ability to solve the issue, or that it can deliver an architecture that is fail-proof. Sanders says we need to break up the banks and tax stock and derivatives trades, and 'go after the bankers'. I don't think that'll solve the problem.

And because I've seen left-leaning governments at work, they're masters in creating the kinds of distortions that lead to issues down the line. The whole push to getting more people into mortgages and houses was one of these , and Republicans are far from off the hook here. So its not entirely about left and right. Its about when government thinks they can bend the financial system and the economy to provide more of a certain thing, and that it won't imbalance the system.

Sanders would very clearly add to one type of risk: fiscal. Single-payer healthcare, free college, that'll cost money. But he's going to tax to make up, sure. But if the taxes don't yield as much? If they yield enough today, but we hit a downturn 10 years down the line and tax receipts are down 10%? The government will still be on the hook for all the healthcare and college tuitions, and it'll be as hard to cut spending on those as it is on Social Security. But the revenues might not be there.

You want to talk about risk? What happened in 2008 was downright scary, and we need to keep working to decrease the likelihood of a repeat. But nothing is as traumatic for a country as its government becoming insolvent. The US has more leeway in that sense than any other country in the globe, but do you want to risk finding out how far it goes?

Anyone who thinks a new govt is magically going to change the economy is just dreaming. Of course govt has limitations but it still has a big role to play in driving the economy in the right direction. My question to you is, Can you please show me one candidate who is capable of addressing the issue at hand. Someone who you think is well placed & well informed about reforms related to the banking sector.

 

[Revan]

Not sure how I've gone so long without hearing about this. I'm guessing it isn't used much because it's a bit dodgy?

It hasn't been used that much, and for a long time it was required 60 senators to use it (not just 51), which made it very difficult to use.

Nuking a SCOTUS nomination would be extremely interesting though, considering that Republicans would send it to court. And there are just 8 justices, 4 of them in the conservative block, which very likely will result with a draw there. No idea what happens in cases when the result is 4-4.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

It hasn't been used that much, and for a long time it was required 60 senators to use it (not just 51), which made it very difficult to use.

Nuking a SCOTUS nomination would be extremely interesting though, considering that Republicans would send it to court. And there are just 8 justices, 4 of them in the conservative block, which very likely will result with a draw there. No idea what happens in cases when the result is 4-4.

All the Dems need to do is make sure they win in November. The longer this episode drags on the worse the GOP will look.

 

[Raoul]

All the Dems need to do is make sure they win in November. The longer this episode drags on the worse the GOP will look.

The home run scenario would involve Obama getting his nomination through, then a Dem winning the Gen election in November and going on to replace Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer. That would leave things 6-3, with all the Dem learning ones relatively young.

 

[Revan]

The home run scenario would involve Obama getting his nomination through, then a Dem winning the Gen election in November and going on to replace Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer. That would leave things 6-3, with all the Dem learning ones relatively young.

Does that matter, if Democrats win the presidency and the senate? They'll just replace Scalia with a new judge and then replace the other oldies when they retire/die.

 

[Ubik]

The home run scenario would involve Obama getting his nomination through, then a Dem winning the Gen election in November and going on to replace Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer. That would leave things 6-3, with all the Dem learning ones relatively young.

That also shows how close things are to getting real awful should the GOP gain the White House and block this appointment for long enough. Roberts could be on the liberal wing come the end of it.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

One thing that I think will work very heavily against Sanders in the general should he get there is his proclaimation that his SCOTUS pick must pledge to overturn Citizen United. The GOP can hit him hard for politicising the Court and I think it will turn off a fair few of independents.

 

[Raoul]

Does that matter, if Democrats win the presidency and the senate? They'll just replace Scalia with a new judge and then replace the other oldies when they retire/die.

Except that they probably won't win the Presidency and the Senate.

 

[Ubik]

One thing that I think will work very heavily against Sanders in the general should he get there is his proclaimation that his SCOTUS pick must pledge to overturn Citizen United. The GOP can hit him hard for politicising the Court and I think it will turn off a fair few of independents.

In fairness, I think Hillary's pledged the same.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

In fairness, I think Hillary's pledged the same.

I left her out because that is the least of her problems against the GOP , although, she's reported to say that with fundraisers, whereas Bernie went on national television to say it. Ready footage for attack ads.

 

[Ubik]

I left her out because that is the least of her problems against the GOP , although, she's reported to say that with fundraisers, whereas Bernie went on national television to say it. Ready footage for attack ads.

The thought of GOP attack ads for Sanders is giving me a migraine.

On the subject of Citizens United, I'm guessing it'll be coming up a lot surrounding Obama's nominee, given that that'll actually be the swing vote on any potential overturning.

 

[Eriku]

Not advocating no trying to solve. Just saying that we should be aware of the limits of government's ability to solve the issue, or that it can deliver an architecture that is fail-proof. Sanders says we need to break up the banks and tax stock and derivatives trades, and 'go after the bankers'. I don't think that'll solve the problem.

And because I've seen left-leaning governments at work, they're masters in creating the kinds of distortions that lead to issues down the line. The whole push to getting more people into mortgages and houses was one of these , and Republicans are far from off the hook here. So its not entirely about left and right. Its about when government thinks they can bend the financial system and the economy to provide more of a certain thing, and that it won't imbalance the system.

Sanders would very clearly add to one type of risk: fiscal. Single-payer healthcare, free college, that'll cost money. But he's going to tax to make up, sure. But if the taxes don't yield as much? If they yield enough today, but we hit a downturn 10 years down the line and tax receipts are down 10%? The government will still be on the hook for all the healthcare and college tuitions, and it'll be as hard to cut spending on those as it is on Social Security. But the revenues might not be there.

You want to talk about risk? What happened in 2008 was downright scary, and we need to keep working to decrease the likelihood of a repeat. But nothing is as traumatic for a country as its government becoming insolvent. The US has more leeway in that sense than any other country in the globe, but do you want to risk finding out how far it goes?

Believe it or not, it saves money to not imprison the largest amount of prisoners of any country, to keep people as tax-payers, to not have them go bankrupt over medical issues, and to drive down extortionate prices and overheads through the pharmaceutical industry and the current goings in the medical system in the US. Parents not wrecking themselves with 2-3 underpaid jobs would help them be there for their kids as they're developing, too.

Bernie represents a much needed direction change (provided his whole movement outside of the presidential election succeeds, but any rate he'll still not be as destructive as any other candidate runing) which would have positive cascade effects. I'm not sure how anybody could consider business as usual a good idea for the US, and no other candidate would address a more signicant change of course.