A sexy populist rant for the lefties, but not really sure what he wants Greenspan as the Fed Chair to do about it. The things Sanders is ranting about are related to legislative policy, regulation, and distribution of wealth from the upper echelons to broader society.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
A sexy populist rant for the lefties, but not really sure what he wants Greenspan as the Fed Chair to do about it. The things Sanders is ranting about are related to legislative policy, regulation, and distribution of wealth from the upper echelons to broader society.
And a really, really embarrassing video from a prescient communist who was a lot more clever on economics than the those who knee jerk mouth breathe right wing econ, and then continue to insist Sanders knows nothing about economics, and then fallback on the tired right wing propaganda of regulations, wealth redistribution blah blah blah .
Nice article debunking Trump's argument about expanding the GOP.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...2016-polling-turnout-early-voting-data-213897
In a nutshell, his so called new voters are voters who are new to the primary process but are largely reliable Republican voters in the general. Something that won't necessarily help him in November.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...2016-polling-turnout-early-voting-data-213897
In a nutshell, his so called new voters are voters who are new to the primary process but are largely reliable Republican voters in the general. Something that won't necessarily help him in November.
And a really, really embarrassing video from a prescient communist who was a lot more clever on economics than the those who knee jerk mouth breathe right wing econ, and then continue to insist Sanders knows nothing about economics.
Criticizing economic stats can be done by anyone intelligent enough to do a google search. Its prescribing viable solutions that Sanders falls short on. And note that I said viable, not pie in the sky ideas you or I think should happen, but policies that are actually implementable in today's bifurcated political climate.
So where were all the right wing guys in the build up to 2008? Right wing econ groupie Greenspan was so confident, like all of them, right to the very end.
And then ran like bitches for wealth redistribution from the people to save them.
And then ran like bitches for wealth redistribution from the people to save them.
What precisely should Greenspan have done in the lead up to 2008 ? A vast majority of the problems related to deregulation are legislative.
Listened to Sanders!!!! Stop making excuses for these guys. They almost ruined our economy, and without the wealth redistribution you continue to parrot, who knows to what depths the US economy would´ve fallen
Hiding behind Sanders won't work since Bernie isn't here to discuss his comments. What do you think Greenspan should've done that would've 100% averted the recession ?
I interpreted that video not as a 'what you're doing is wrong' but more 'the message you're spreading is wrong', so from Bernie's point of view it wasn't a 'your actions can stop X Y or Z' but 'your words are supporting an ideology which is detrimental to Americans'. And as Fed Chair he thinks Greenspan's words of support carry a lot of weight?
So while Greenspan isn't the sole reason the recession happened (of course not!), he didn't have to support the ideologies/policies that caused it, even if his actions couldn't have done anything by themselves not supporting it may have changed public perception/shone a light on issues.
I fear I've worded this rather badly but I've a constitutional law exam this week and my brain is fried
I do think there's merit in criticizing someone for their words, even if their particular role can't change what they're talking about.
So while Greenspan isn't the sole reason the recession happened (of course not!), he didn't have to support the ideologies/policies that caused it, even if his actions couldn't have done anything by themselves not supporting it may have changed public perception/shone a light on issues.
I fear I've worded this rather badly but I've a constitutional law exam this week and my brain is fried
I do think there's merit in criticizing someone for their words, even if their particular role can't change what they're talking about.
He obviously does think that as does Elizabeth Warren when she skewered Janet Yellen in another video. What is problematic about the videos is that they are little more than political theater and don't really address the problem, which is deregulation, which needs to be addressed legislatively and not through yelling at the Fed in front of cameras.
I saw that Yellen one, yeah. What are your thoughts on Warren?
I understand what you're saying but I do think you can criticize someone for supporting policies that you see as harmful, even if they're not the one implementing them. Obviously though that on its own isn't enough, and it's a bit intellectually incomplete for anyone to bleat about how 'this is wrong' and not to offer an alternative. That said, I don't begrudge anyone saying 'this doesn't sit right with me, but I'm not sure what alternative I'd prefer' (life doesn't have to be absolutes) as long as they aren't too morally superior in doing so.
Also, (as someone who voted Sanders) I got a laugh out of this, reminds me of one of my friends very well
:He is addressing the problem. Please stop pawning it off as political theater and McCarthyism. It sounds like the facile bitterness of someone reticent to admit an enemy was right. As Charlie said, he was addressing Greenspan´s ideology and the spread of his Randian, free market, deregulated policies that were bad for American (and absolutely spot on. Admit it! Swallow the bitter pill.) Who better to address and to expose than right wing ideologue hero and mentor, Greenspan, in an attempt to change the mind of the right wing legislators of the Bush regime who thought it was good policy to lower taxes during two wars and deregulate the financial industry to such an extent . . . and of course eventually socialize the losses of their short, greed-sighted economic ideology.
You perfectly illustrate the problem with the right wing ideologues that make it so difficult to change legislation. Instead of giving Sanders his due, you continue to mimic each other calling him a commie, a know nothing on the economy that is a McCarthyite who selfishly and foolishly creates political theater, and will always start up with the same tired wealth redistribution rhetoric.
This is the 2nd time you've mentioned McCarthyism. Not sure what that is about. It is however clearly political theater as those sort of angry rants almost never result in policy changes and are generally little more than half thought out attempts at firing up the ranter's political base. We once again digress to the basic fact that Fed speakers are being used to talk about problems that are only fixable through legislation.
The fed greatly interfered in the markets with their monetary policy. If the 08/09 crash was just about bad legislation, they should have stayed out of it. Obviously that is not what they believed. For starters it would be nice if they´d actually explain their goals and how they plan to achieve those goals. They should explain on what models they base their assumptions and what tools they are allowed to use. In reality the central banks are highly politicized have massive impact on almost all markets and the entire economy. So yes, they should be scrutinized by politicians and the media.
Sadly they are unwilling to outline even their basics guidelines; for quite good reasons: Their “models” don´t work particularly well in the last ten years. Hence they make stuff up on their way and they´d risk to look like fools if they actually had to explain their decisions. That would be okay, if they had a great track-record in solving problems. We are all willing to trust “experts” blindly, if they get their stuff done. But again, they don´t. Those highly paid economist are pretty shit in predicting economic developments. I don´t even blame them for that, because it is quite difficult, but they are a horde of overly bullish overly confident blinkered specialist, who live in their own bubble and refuse to consider other viewpoints.
I don´t agree with Sanders view at all, but his views about the issue are very relevant so criticizing him for articulating his views on the subject is just stupid.
Sadly they are unwilling to outline even their basics guidelines; for quite good reasons: Their “models” don´t work particularly well in the last ten years. Hence they make stuff up on their way and they´d risk to look like fools if they actually had to explain their decisions. That would be okay, if they had a great track-record in solving problems. We are all willing to trust “experts” blindly, if they get their stuff done. But again, they don´t. Those highly paid economist are pretty shit in predicting economic developments. I don´t even blame them for that, because it is quite difficult, but they are a horde of overly bullish overly confident blinkered specialist, who live in their own bubble and refuse to consider other viewpoints.
I don´t agree with Sanders view at all, but his views about the issue are very relevant so criticizing him for articulating his views on the subject is just stupid.
I know this might sound exactly like something from Fox News, but of course it´s more than obvious who´s insight this is.
And by the way, please answer this for once, who is robbing Peter to pay Paul for the inauditable Pentagon, all of our outrageous military industrial complex, the massive incarceration, bailouts, and all of the billions of corporate welfare?
What is it with you guys that it´s only socially beneficial programs that are wealth redistribution and robbing Peter to pay Paul?????
Right wing Econ propaganda 101
Ahh ok, forgot about that bit. It does have a touch of Joe M to it come to think of it.
Look, I agree with what Bernie is saying - we need more intelligent safeguards in the system to prevent what happened from happening again. I just don't see how ranting at Alan Greenspan advances that argument, when for the 19th time, the problems are related to laws that need to be enacted by Congress and signed by the President. Therefore yelling at Greenspan or Yellen on national TV does nothing other than highlight the problem against someone who doesn't have the power to remedy it.
My god!!! I never thought I´d hear this from you. Credit where credit is due! But again, at that time, who better to rant at than Greenspan to maybe get all his lackeys´attention in congress???
I would also ask you to answer this, as I never seem to get an answer from you righties - I added this on in my last post but you didn´t see it.
Why is it always wealth redistribution and robbing Peter to pay Paul when it´s socially and business beneficial investments like free college etc . . . but why is it never robbing Peter to pay Paul and wealth redistribution to get your hands in the tax payers´ pocket to pay for the inauditable Pentagon, the massive out of control military industrial complex, multiple wars, the drug war, the record breaking mass incarceration, bailouts and all the billions of corporate welfare????
I wish a righty would answer that for once. Anyone?
They do have the power to not actively support it though.
The Fed chairmen are basically data crunchers who analyze macro economics and make relatively short term monetary policy decisions based on leading and lagging economic indicators. They are not a substitute for actual legislation that needs to be drafted and discussed in Congress and ratified by Presidential signature. Therein lies the true heart of the problem, in that, we have a bifurcated government who aren't able to pass meaningful legislation. Once that is fixed by way of one party controlling the legislative and executive branches, simultaneously over a 6 or more year period, I think you'll see more movement on changing the rules.
Yeah I would agree with all that.
Last edited:
Alan Greenspan was wayyyyyyy more than the simple data cruncher macro economics analyst. That is a very, very ingenious description of Alan Greenspan that needs no further explanation.
It also highlights the perceptual illusion that central bankers are somehow expected to compensate for the incompetence of legislators.
Yeah, the 6 pack and 2 pack in the EMU showed the need to give the ECB power before they could use power.
Saying all this I still think Sanders has/had the right to raise the issues he did, to someone defending the policies at fault, whether that man or woman has the power to implement change themselves.
Greenspan was rightly criticized in my view. It's not like Bernie is saying 'you caused this', saying 'you let the people down by defending this' I think is fair enough.
The alternative is to say "you can only make criticisms that are going to actually change something" and that's not a road I would want to go down.
The heart of the problem though is deregulation, and more broadly the paralysis of the legislative process.
Nobby, what's your point and what are you advocating for?
I thought Bernie ranting at Greenspan's wife the other day was far more interesting.
"Don't moan to me about Hillary's problems".4:45 to 6:30
central bankers themselves hold this view and act accordingly.
That description would make sense, if central bankers had predefined (by the legislator) goals and tools to achieve those goals. In reality central bankers themselves have huge influence on both things. They might hide behind the technocratic image of neutrality and objectivity, but those decisions are political. The consequence is, that they become political actors themselves and they should be treated accordingly.
The decisions are no more political those of say...Supreme Court justices. Everyone is a human with political views, but the problem is with a political system that can't pass meaningful legislation to deal with problems.
Defending Sanders and his economics from his right wing detractors. It´s not rocket science if you go back and actually read the last few posts. Fair game in a 2016 presidential elections thread, no?
Funny how Bernie is always 'ranting'.
That's what happens when you yell all the time.
And what problem do you have with it?
@Sir Matt
I've read numerous threads from caucus-goers (and avoided the violent threads) and the "voice vote only" rule was new, approved in closed doors among a pro-Hillary committee, and the Hillary caucus-goers were told in advance to vote for it --- via voice vote. They also started the counting at 9/930 (different sources) but it was supposed to be at 10. They then refused recounts or to go through the 64 (56+8) people one-by-one.
The way it was set up, all for 2-3 delegates, makes me think they were looking for a reaction -- and got it.
And new national polls repeat the message that has been repeated for 8 months now: Bernie double digits, Hillary slipping into the margin of error.
I've read numerous threads from caucus-goers (and avoided the violent threads) and the "voice vote only" rule was new, approved in closed doors among a pro-Hillary committee, and the Hillary caucus-goers were told in advance to vote for it --- via voice vote. They also started the counting at 9/930 (different sources) but it was supposed to be at 10. They then refused recounts or to go through the 64 (56+8) people one-by-one.
The way it was set up, all for 2-3 delegates, makes me think they were looking for a reaction -- and got it.
And new national polls repeat the message that has been repeated for 8 months now: Bernie double digits, Hillary slipping into the margin of error.
I guess "ranting" somehow makes him wrong in some people´s mind.
Just another weak argument and effort to prompt a reaction from others.
Its his style - if you agree with what he's saying its probably soothing. If you disagree, are indifferent, or feel there are holes in his arguments, they come across as rants.
Let's be honest, it's not really his responsibility to take care of Hillary's campaign regarding attacks from Trump. He's entitled to put his best foot forward.
It's like saying United and Liverpool are 3 points behind Leicester with 2 games to play. United shouldn't be obliged to just roll over against Leicester in the second last game, to give them a better chance of stopping Liverpool.
If you're in it to win it you're entitled to go for it, it's nobody's fault but Hillary's that she hasn't quite shook him off yet (even if it's pretty certain she'll win).
Actually I admire it, even if it's a bit naive. I certainly prefer it to what you see with the GOP, of 12 guys on stage saying how horrendous the other 11 are until one by one they drop out and preach their love for the last man standing as the one to protect 'American values'. Not quite to the same extent with Trump because he's an outlier, but in 2012 Romney's opponents in the primaries were suddenly proclaiming him as the last chance to overturn Obama's socialist commie republik.
Now I get that that's how party politics works and you have to fight fire with fire and unite against it (otherwise the Dems would be constantly infighting and the GOP would march to victory all the time, though I think the opposite way around was expected this year until Sanders' rise: it was looking like Hillary's procession v a broken GOP) but those partisan politics are for me a big part of the legislative paralysis that's really damaging America.
But anyway, why should Bernie care that someone he's going up against his fighting on 2 fronts? I think that was really an idiotic question to ask if I'm honest. The closest thing to a justification would be 'him stepping out of her way would make it easier for her to fight the big bad Donald' but that makes no sense as A) he believes the figures that show him to be the best candidate to do that and B) he sees her as part of the problems he sees in America anyway.
I'd hardly call that a 'rant' by the way (I only watched the time slot you mentioned so maybe the rest is different) and I think it's quite disingenuous of someone to say it is.
It's like saying United and Liverpool are 3 points behind Leicester with 2 games to play. United shouldn't be obliged to just roll over against Leicester in the second last game, to give them a better chance of stopping Liverpool.
If you're in it to win it you're entitled to go for it, it's nobody's fault but Hillary's that she hasn't quite shook him off yet (even if it's pretty certain she'll win).
Actually I admire it, even if it's a bit naive. I certainly prefer it to what you see with the GOP, of 12 guys on stage saying how horrendous the other 11 are until one by one they drop out and preach their love for the last man standing as the one to protect 'American values'. Not quite to the same extent with Trump because he's an outlier, but in 2012 Romney's opponents in the primaries were suddenly proclaiming him as the last chance to overturn Obama's socialist commie republik.
Now I get that that's how party politics works and you have to fight fire with fire and unite against it (otherwise the Dems would be constantly infighting and the GOP would march to victory all the time, though I think the opposite way around was expected this year until Sanders' rise: it was looking like Hillary's procession v a broken GOP) but those partisan politics are for me a big part of the legislative paralysis that's really damaging America.
But anyway, why should Bernie care that someone he's going up against his fighting on 2 fronts? I think that was really an idiotic question to ask if I'm honest. The closest thing to a justification would be 'him stepping out of her way would make it easier for her to fight the big bad Donald' but that makes no sense as A) he believes the figures that show him to be the best candidate to do that and B) he sees her as part of the problems he sees in America anyway.
I'd hardly call that a 'rant' by the way (I only watched the time slot you mentioned so maybe the rest is different) and I think it's quite disingenuous of someone to say it is.
Supreme court justices have a specific mandate and have to follow a specific process. Furthermore they are obviously extremely important political players, who have massive influence on the course of the country.
Central bankers have huge influence on their own mandate and don´t follow any predefined process. I could agree with the argument, that the president and the Senate are ultimately responsible for the decisions of the FED, because they appoint the FRB and could define the mandate of the FED. Still regardless of accountability, discussing the policy of the FED is absolutely necessary and in the current situation they do a lot more than just “crunching numbers”. They are also fairly open about their expanding role/mandate so I am not even sure what we are arguing about.
Central bankers have huge influence on their own mandate and don´t follow any predefined process. I could agree with the argument, that the president and the Senate are ultimately responsible for the decisions of the FED, because they appoint the FRB and could define the mandate of the FED. Still regardless of accountability, discussing the policy of the FED is absolutely necessary and in the current situation they do a lot more than just “crunching numbers”. They are also fairly open about their expanding role/mandate so I am not even sure what we are arguing about.
So is then saying 'this is a rant, that is a rant' so absolutely not projecting your own subjective views as an objective truth?
- Status