• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AIG sells $39.3 billion in assets to NY Fed's fund

You are quite correct. That started to put pressure on a serious run on our financial system (and all international integrated systems for that matter).

this inspired paulson to come up with tarp. another factor was negative interest rates on short term commercial paper/loans. bernanke and paulson saved the world.
 
You are quite correct. That started to put pressure on a serious run on our financial system (and all international integrated systems for that matter).

WRONG!

I would explain to you, how wrong, but you are not worth the effort.:doh
 
"political economy"

There you go folks, feel free to point and laugh, if you dare!:shock:

If you have nothing productive to say, i'd advise you move along as you are dragging your own thread in the dirt....

Unless you are particularly ignorant in regards to political economy:roll:
 
If you have nothing productive to say, i'd advise you move along as you are dragging your own thread in the dirt....

Unless you are particularly ignorant in regards to political economy:roll:

Enlighten me, where is this "political economy" exactly?:confused:
 
WRONG!

I would explain to you, how wrong, but you are not worth the effort.:doh

All you will do is either make **** up, attack me, or run off on a tangent. I challenge you to "explain". It will give me some pleasure to illustrate the holes you will dig yourself in.
 
Enlighten me, where is this "political economy" exactly?:confused:

Lets keep it simple:
Political Economy can be generally defined as a study drawing upon branches of economics, politics and law aiming to explain clearly the existing relations between different countries of the world. The area of research combines economics and different related fields of study. Political Economy endeavors to understand the policies, both domestic and international, adopted by governments all over the world.

source
 
the money tarp paid aig actually benefitted goldman sachs. goldman sachs just gave themselves huge bonuses. but some repubs like to beat up on welfare moms.
 
the money tarp paid aig actually benefitted goldman sachs. goldman sachs just gave themselves huge bonuses. but some repubs like to beat up on welfare moms.

Well, to be fair, not all offices in goldman recieved bonuses. Only those who actually earn (not the idiots who leveraged swaps 40:1).
 
Lets keep it simple:

source

It is not simple, it never has been, it is quite complex, but you forgot to add the rest of your article..........

" The term can thus be used to analyze how countries are managed in a system where both economic and political factors are at work. Political Economy was the original term for studying the various acts of production, buying and selling and their relations with the laws, customs and governance. It was meant to study the conditions under which production was organized in the new-born capitalist states. In a way, it could be named as branch of social science dealing with the production and distribution of goods and services and their management.
Political Economy assumed the definition of the study of economies of polities or nation states in the 18th century. Gradually, the concept of the Physiocrats’ that land was the source of all wealth was superimposed by the labour theory of value supported by John Locke, Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Notably, Political Economy incorporates liberal, realist, Marxian and constructivist theories from political science. Starting from the 19th century, “economics” or the study of the economy replicated the term “political economy”.'
 
Well, to be fair, not all offices in goldman recieved bonuses. Only those who actually earn (not the idiots who leveraged swaps 40:1).

is that right? i don't know. i'll guess i'll have take your word on it. but without tarp i don't think goldman sachs would exist.
 
Well, to be fair, not all offices in goldman recieved bonuses. Only those who actually earn (not the idiots who leveraged swaps 40:1).

who at goldman allowed them to do the leveraged swaps?
 
some repubs defend corporate welfare recipients and make excuses for them.
 
Let us examine this Adam Smith, shall we......well, as my confused friend has said, let's keep it simple....

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

Subjects, really, and this man calls himself a libertarian, are you a subject?:confused:
 
this inspired paulson to come up with tarp. another factor was negative interest rates on short term commercial paper/loans. bernanke and paulson saved the world.

They are doing, "God's work" after all......:roll:
 
They are doing, "God's work" after all......:roll:

luckily, bush and congress believed paulson and bernanke.....otherwise you would be selling apples on a street corner and you would be one of the better off ones on your block.
 
It is not simple, it never has been, it is quite complex, but you forgot to add the rest of your article..........

" The term can thus be used to analyze how countries are managed in a system where both economic and political factors are at work. Political Economy was the original term for studying the various acts of production, buying and selling and their relations with the laws, customs and governance. It was meant to study the conditions under which production was organized in the new-born capitalist states. In a way, it could be named as branch of social science dealing with the production and distribution of goods and services and their management.
Political Economy assumed the definition of the study of economies of polities or nation states in the 18th century. Gradually, the concept of the Physiocrats’ that land was the source of all wealth was superimposed by the labour theory of value supported by John Locke, Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Notably, Political Economy incorporates liberal, realist, Marxian and constructivist theories from political science. Starting from the 19th century, “economics” or the study of the economy replicated the term “political economy”.'

Ummm.... Again what is your point?
 
Let us examine this Adam Smith, shall we......well, as my confused friend has said, let's keep it simple....

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

Subjects, really, and this man calls himself a libertarian, are you a subject?:confused:

I am a libertarian in every sense of the way. Because i do not fall for the same old anarcho capitalist fear mongering, you think you can question my leaning? What does Adam Smith have to do with this?
 
Ummm.... Again what is your point?

The point is, you are obviously a young student, who is being taught that freedom means chains, that libertarianism means you direct the "subjects" as to what is in their best interest. You also seem to believe that the monetary system is sound, and that this ponzi scheme will never reach a painful end, am I about right so far?

Are you a young student, let us start here?:confused:
 
luckily, bush and congress believed paulson and bernanke.....otherwise you would be selling apples on a street corner and you would be one of the better off ones on your block.

I have pears as well......:roll:
People whose livelyhood was insulated from this depression will never really get it....:roll:
Lots of people are out of work, & those jobs are not coming back.....;)
Of course the GUBMINT will grow, as it always does, until the private sector can no longer pay for it....
Oh wait, we have already been there for quite some time & now it is poised to come to it's inexorable conclusion.....
Maybe the Mayas were on to something after all.....
 
Last edited:
I am a libertarian in every sense of the way. Because i do not fall for the same old anarcho capitalist fear mongering, you think you can question my leaning? What does Adam Smith have to do with this?

You brought him up, remember, "political economy"?:2wave:
 
The point is, you are obviously a young student, who is being taught that freedom means chains, that libertarianism means you direct the "subjects" as to what is in their best interest. You also seem to believe that the monetary system is sound, and that this ponzi scheme will never reach a painful end, am I about right so far?

Are you a young student, let us start here?:confused:

First and foremost, what i do in my personal life has nothing to do with this debate; your interest and desire to bring it up equals a red herring.

So before you start putting words in my mouth such as "freedom means chains", take a step back and consider this: your behavior in this thread proves that you really do not have the slightest clue about how the economy works. If you did, you would not view the $100 trillion number with great significance.
 
You brought him up, remember, "political economy"?:2wave:

I was just trying to give you a general explanation due to the fact that you were unaware of the term. You brought up Adam Smith....
 
First and foremost, what i do in my personal life has nothing to do with this debate; your interest and desire to bring it up equals a red herring.

So before you start putting words in my mouth such as "freedom means chains", take a step back and consider this: your behavior in this thread proves that you really do not have the slightest clue about how the economy works. If you did, you would not view the $100 trillion number with great significance.

Aww man, you kids today are truly sheep, this makes me sad, it really does.:(

I don't understand economics, all while you parrot the line that "100 trillion dollars doesn't matter" I feel for the next generation, you have a rude awakening coming soon, very soon!:shock:

That said, I guess my assumption was correct, you are being taught all the wrong things, first it was government schooling, now the cancer has spread to unversity......again, this is sad, I am not happy to report this, honestly, I am devastated!:shock:
 
Aww man, you kids today are truly sheep, this makes me sad, it really does.:(

I don't understand economics, all while you parrot the line that "100 trillion dollars doesn't matter" I feel for the next generation, you have a rude awakening coming soon, very soon!:shock:

That said, I guess my assumption was correct, you are being taught all the wrong things, first it was government schooling, now the cancer has spread to unversity......again, this is sad, I am not happy to report this, honestly, I am devastated!:shock:

Jackboot,

I was studying Austrian theory (of which you seem to draw many of your opinions from) 6 years ago. Guess what??? It is not applicable to the real world. Everyone from Ron Paul to Peter Schiff were claiming that this crisis would result in inflation following the first wave of defaults.

The exact opposite came to pass.

I advise you to either make a point, or move along. Your personal attacks only devalue your reputation.
 
Back
Top Bottom