Page 33 of 44 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 432

Thread: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

  1. #321
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Deregulation was most certainly to blame:
    Not really, unless you referring to regulating the federal reserve with more austerity.

    "The late-2000s financial crisis, also known as the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) or the "Great Recession", is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in numerous evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. It contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars, and a significant decline in economic activity, leading to a severe global economic recession in 2008.[2]
    The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of valuation and liquidity problems in the United States banking system in 2008.[3][4] The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[5][6] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[7] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[8][9][10]
    Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[11] The United States Senate issued the Levin–Coburn Report, which found "that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[12]
    Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[13] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks.[14] In response to the financial crisis, both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration.[15]"

    Late-2000s financial crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I can selectively read wikipedia too:

    "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers... In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

    Lower interest rates encourage borrowing. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[55] This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to combat the perceived risk of deflation.[56]

    A "flood" of funds (capital or liquidity) reached the USA financial markets. Foreign governments supplied funds by purchasing USA Treasury bonds and thus avoided much of the direct impact of the crisis. USA households, on the other hand, used funds borrowed from foreigners to finance consumption or to bid up the prices of housing and financial assets.

    The Fed then raised the Fed funds rate significantly between July 2004 and July 2006.[59] This contributed to an increase in 1-year and 5-year adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) rates, making ARM interest rate resets more expensive for homeowners.[60]

    USA household debt as a percentage of annual disposable personal income was 127% at the end of 2007, versus 77% in 1990.[92]
    In 1981, U.S. private debt was 123% of GDP; by the third quarter of 2008, it was 290%.[93]

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two U.S. Government sponsored enterprises, owned or guaranteed nearly $5 trillion in mortgage obligations at the time they were placed into conservatorship by the U.S. government in September 2008.[95][96]

    Moral hazard: Uncle Sam as sugar daddy - Outside the Box - MarketWatch

    If Glass Steagall had not been repealed there would not have been the "interconnected intricacies of the market", that's the point.
    You missed the point. Investment banks invest in banks, various corporations and businesses, and governments. Your "protect the commercial and forget the investment" argument is flawed on its face because of the enormous role played by investment banks in the world economy (without even considering the merger of investment and commercial bankers).

    You were talking about corporate influence of politicians, there has never been a bigger avenue for corporate influence than through the Citizens United ruling. The Democrats just voted to end insider trading even though the GOP tried to stop them.
    You mean the same democrats who each received hundreds of thousands of dollars from campaign contributions from large multi-national corporations and their lobbyists? The same democrats who bought stock in various companies after voting to bail them out or subsidize them? What about Warren Buffet and his hedge fund? Did you care to read into his vested interests on the matter? PLEASE...check out OpenSecrets.org (for some reason, the Center for Responsive Politics' website isn't loading right now, but come back to it).

    That's exactly what it means, it eliminates the influence of corporate funding in election campaigns, so you no longer have politicians being beholden to rich sponsors.
    That's a wonderful idea! Instead of private citizens voluntarily paying for their own candidates, let's have politicians and their cronies decide to spend the public's tax money on themselves.

    Then your stated desire for less corporate influence has no credibility, at least not with liberals.
    Which liberals? The ones taking gifts from corporations in order to vote a certain way or finagle regulations to suit the interests of MNCs?

  2. #322
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    [QUOTE=Catawba;1060230792]"Obama was also correct when he said that last year’s private job growth was the most in six years and that the manufacturing sector experienced job gains not seen since the 20th century."
    FactCheck.org : The State of Obama’s Facts

    First, that did not respond to my comment. Second, it only adds to my argument that the financial regulations had little to do with growth vs. recession. We seem to be coming out of the recession FINALLY and yet our regulatory structure is largely the same as it was in 2008. Wouldn't that run contrary to the logic of regulation saving us from future recessions? In reality, it is the nature of the business cycle and price fixing (in terms of interest rates and inflation) that is causing the bubbles to grow and burst. Since you did a thorough reading of this recession, take a quick glimpse of our previous recessions. Next, examine our economy before the Federal Reserve and government intervention. Do you notice a difference in severity and duration of recessions vs. panics?

    Our economic growth was less than it was under greater financial regulation and higher taxation for the wealthy in the 90s.
    Again, Clinton only slightly raised taxes on the wealthy. With the capital gains and other tax cuts, it turned out to be only a marginal difference in revenue. The great accomplishment during Clinton's presidency was his commitment to cut spending.

    BTW, when the top marginal rate is too high, it doesn't correlate with a higher level of revenue. See Hauser's Law:

    Hauser's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Deregulation and trickle down economics began in i981.
    Again, you didn't respond to my comment. We had a growing economy in the 1990s, but was our Gini index significantly different than it is today?

    Flush??? Our debt increased more under Reagan, than all the presidents before him combined.
    I'm not a fan of Reagan's spending spree either, but in relation to GDP, it wasn't as serious as it is today. Our economy was stable and growing.

    What wasteful regulation did Clinton get rid of??? I agree we need to cut our military spending.
    It was part of his package to streamline regulation, partly by reducing it. Don't you remember the video of Clinton and Gore standing outside in front of tens of thousands of regulatory paperwork affecting businesses that they pledged to eliminate?

  3. #323
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Mensch View Post
    Not really, unless you referring to regulating the federal reserve with more austerity.
    The Fed is what kept us from going into another Great Depression due to deregulation.


    I can selectively read wikipedia too:
    I didn't selectively quote wiki, I quoted the main thrust at the top of the page.

    "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers... In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."
    So what we needed was tighter regulations on Fanny and Freddie and the private banks to not allow loans to subprime borrowers. Good point!

    Lower interest rates encourage borrowing. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[55] This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to combat the perceived risk of deflation.[56]
    Good thing we had the Fed to help soften the blow. Good point!

    A "flood" of funds (capital or liquidity) reached the USA financial markets. Foreign governments supplied funds by purchasing USA Treasury bonds and thus avoided much of the direct impact of the crisis. USA households, on the other hand, used funds borrowed from foreigners to finance consumption or to bid up the prices of housing and financial assets.

    The Fed then raised the Fed funds rate significantly between July 2004 and July 2006.[59] This contributed to an increase in 1-year and 5-year adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) rates, making ARM interest rate resets more expensive for homeowners.[6
    With proper regulation of the subprime loans this would not have been a problem. Good point!



    USA household debt as a percentage of annual disposable personal income was 127% at the end of 2007, versus 77% in 1990.[92]
    In 1981, U.S. private debt was 123% of GDP; by the third quarter of 2008, it was 290%.[93]
    That's not what I'm seeing:


    Is the U.S. Economy in Crisis?

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two U.S. Government sponsored enterprises, owned or guaranteed nearly $5 trillion in mortgage obligations at the time they were placed into conservatorship by the U.S. government in September 2008.[95][96]
    From above:

    "Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[11] The United States Senate issued the Levin–Coburn Report, which found "that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[12]"




    You missed the point. Investment banks invest in banks, various corporations and businesses, and governments. Your "protect the commercial and forget the investment" argument is flawed on its face because of the enormous role played by investment banks in the world economy (without even considering the merger of investment and commercial bankers).
    "Despite what most financial critics would consider to be a “harsh” law, the Glass-Steagall act served its purpose for many years. Under the Act, regulators protected bank depositors from speculation of the stock market and other investment banking activities.

    It also prevented manipulation of finances among the major players of Wallstreet who only managed to earn their dollars not through trading, but through “financialization”. Putting back the act to effect would help diminish fraudulent activity and will give the regulations we seriously need."
    Should the Glass-Steagall Act be brought back? | Your Finances Simplified


    You mean the same democrats who each received hundreds of thousands of dollars from campaign contributions from large multi-national corporations and their lobbyists? The same democrats who bought stock in various companies after voting to bail them out or subsidize them?
    Yeah, they finally did the right thing, even if the GOP wasn't quite prepared to give it up.

    What about Warren Buffet and his hedge fund? Did you care to read into his vested interests on the matter? PLEASE...check out OpenSecrets.org (for some reason, the Center for Responsive Politics' website isn't loading right now, but come back to it).
    Warren Buffet and 400 other uber rich petitioned Congress to raise the tax rates for their income class.



    That's a wonderful idea! Instead of private citizens voluntarily paying for their own candidates, let's have politicians and their cronies decide to spend the public's tax money on themselves.
    You have not read the McCain-Feingold finance reform have you? Each candidate would get an equal amount.


    Which liberals?
    Evidently, the ones that don't have much in common with libertarians, except cutting military spending, despite our earlier optimism that we might be able to work together more. That's a pity.
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-24-12 at 04:30 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #324
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The Fed is what kept us from going into another Great Depression due to deregulation.
    Given that the Fed was the culprit of the Great Depression, it makes it harder to believe they would have prevented this recession. What about the line of easy credit and the distorted interest rates?

    So what we needed was tighter regulations on Fanny and Freddie and the private banks to not allow loans to subprime borrowers. Good point!
    Government regulation is extremely ineffective in virtually every department. Why not ask for total regulation (i.e. nationalization) of the housing market? That way, you would have a 100% guarantee that no subprime loans are made. How well did Sarbanes-Oxley prevent the fraud from this crisis?


    Good thing we had the Fed to help soften the blow. Good point!
    Selective reading. It supposedly help soften the blow of a perceived deflationary period following 9/11. Yet it also led to the easy line of credit that help fuel the housing bubble.

    With proper regulation of the subprime loans this would not have been a problem. Good point!
    If a government can't even control its own enterprises, how do you expect it to control other problems? Don't you think the political pressure on lending institutions to increase loans to risky borrowers coupled with a guarantee of bailout have anything to do with the crisis?

    Yeah, they finally did the right thing, even if the GOP wasn't quite prepared to give it up.
    Sure. 100 years of underhanded colluding and finally they see the light. We'll see what happens. Reminds me of good ol' T.R. and his hypocritical stance on dirty money.

    Warren Buffet and 400 other uber rich petitioned Congress to raise the tax rates for their income class.
    Not to mention Buffet has the ability to donate to the federal treasury but hasn't (or at least hasn't published evidence of it), or that his investment firm owes back taxes, or that he made millions off the bailouts and stimulus.

    You have not read the McCain-Feingold finance reform have you? Each candidate would get an equal amount.
    You misused the term public funding. That implies taxpayer funding. In any event, there is no equality in contributions either now or before CU ruling. Candidates were free to accept funds from as many donors as possible. There was a limit, of course. But that didn't stop corporations, organizations, and wealthy individuals from hiring people to donate money. Regardless, it was against the 1st Amendment to restrict the right of people- including groups of people- from donating to candidates.




    Evidently, the ones that don't have much in common with libertarians, except cutting military spending, despite our earlier optimism that we might be able to work together more. That's a pity.
    Libertarians hold major contempt for any attempt to get businesses and governments working together. In our perfect world, a free market would mean ZERO subsidies, ZERO bailouts, ZERO free loans, ZERO favorable regulatory structures and laws, etc. We have a hand-out system today, and both liberals and conservatives have their hands out asking big business to provide gifts in exchange for favors. Libertarians are against all of that.

  5. #325
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,296

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Yeah, I am a Longworth-look it up.

    but the fact remains, my point is valid.
    Well that explains why you believe in the trickle up theory.

    Doesn't work, never has. There's way too much evidence to the contrary. Let;s not even get started on off shoring money either. No doubt all your family money is working right here at home...The word "history" comes to mind.
    Last edited by Top Cat; 02-24-12 at 11:16 AM.

  6. #326
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    Well that explains why you believe in the trickle up theory.

    Doesn't work, never has. There's way too much evidence to the contrary. Let;s not even get started on off shoring money either. No doubt all your family money is working right here at home...The word "history" comes to mind.
    There are two kinds of history, liberal revisionist history and real history. How did any rich person make you poorer? If you aren't part of that class that you hate then look in the mirror for the blame. Liberals never take responsibility for anything and you are evidence of that.

  7. #327
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,296

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    There are two kinds of history, liberal revisionist history and real history.
    We can stop right here. You just blew all credibility right there. Suggesting that revising history is a liberal exclusive? Really? All you Reagan lovers crack me up. Keep spewing your dream world crap. We are still reeling from his regime.

    Liberals never take responsibility for anything and you are evidence of that.
    So let's see, I call bull**** to trickle down and somehow that leads you to "I never claim responsibility for anything"? Love that pretzel logic. And you wonder why others question your intellect?

  8. #328
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    We can stop right here. You just blew all credibility right there. Suggesting that revising history is a liberal exclusive? Really? All you Reagan lovers crack me up. Keep spewing your dream world crap. We are still reeling from his regime.



    So let's see, I call bull**** to trickle down and somehow that leads you to "I never claim responsibility for anything"? Love that pretzel logic. And you wonder why others question your intellect?
    Then prove the actual numbers wrong or ignore the actual numbers and show what we all know, feelings trump reality.

    Reagan doubled GDP, created 16.8 million jobs, had a growing labor force, increased govt. revenue by 60%, cut the misery index in half, added 1.7 trillion to the debt in 8 years vs. Obama 5.7 trillion in 4. As usual liberals think with their hearts instead of their brain

  9. #329
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,296

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    [QUOTE=Conservative;1060231221]Then prove the actual numbers wrong or ignore the actual numbers and show what we all know, feelings trump reality.]/quote]

    The aftermath of his policies are being felt still. But hey, when one revises history there's no need to concern one's self with such trivial matters now is there? Oh wait, only liberals do that... seriously.


    As usual liberals think with their hearts instead of their brain
    I'm still laughing about your contention that liberals revise history... and you ignoring it right after you made your claim. You can't make this stuff up.

    You righties still brag that Reagan cut spending and shrunk government. He did neither. But of course righties don't call that revising history.

  10. #330
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Warren Buffet: 'Trickle Down' Theory Doesn't Work

    [QUOTE=Top Cat;1060231288]
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Then prove the actual numbers wrong or ignore the actual numbers and show what we all know, feelings trump reality.]/quote]

    The aftermath of his policies are being felt still. But hey, when one revises history there's no need to concern one's self with such trivial matters now is there? Oh wait, only liberals do that... seriously.


    I'm still laughing about your contention that liberals revise history... and you ignoring it right after you made your claim. You can't make this stuff up.

    You righties still brag that Reagan cut spending and shrunk government. He did neither. But of course righties don't call that revising history.
    And you cannot seem to refute the data that I post. The aftermath of what Bush did in 2008? LOL, amazing how problems never are created by Democrats who controlled the Congress and the purse strings then but hell, we apparently had a king then but not now. You continue to show how brainwashed you really are. Instead of getting an education in school you are getting an indoctrination.

Page 33 of 44 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •